washington university talking about the president's use of executive power. we will also hear from coral davenport, environmental correspondent and then ronald neumann, former ambassador, from the department of diplomacy. this is that something that back him up in the hearings last week. that is starting at 7:00 tomorrow morning here on c-span. have a day. -- good day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> "newsmakers" with centered james inhofe of oklahoma followed by testimony from hillary clinton on the benghazi attack. them president obama's second inaugural address. >> our guest on "newsmakers" is senator jim inhofe. as the new congress takes over the spot, we have a lot of questions. let me introduce you to our to reporters. jim michaels is a reporter for "usa today." welcome. >> thank you. the pentagon made an announcement they would open up occupational specialties including confidantes to women. do you plan to try to block all or some of that plan?

>> no. we have a process. i met with the undersecretary yesterday morning. the senate armed services committee can look incrementally as they make these changes. we can either talk them out of it or introduce legislation. if something that we do not know yet what they will come out with and they hear from the service chiefs, we will see what is reasonable. we will use our own judgment. i caution people who are hysterical about this. let's wait and see what they do. we will stop the bad stuff. >> the defense cemetery has said any exceptions will have to get approved by him. the implication is there are going to move fairly dramatically in this direction. do you have any concerns right now about what they have said so far about basically opening up

all of these specialities to women? >> if they do that, they're going to have a fight on their hands. we do have that responsibility. if it means introducing legislation, that is one thing. we can be reasonable with them. the originally talked about 2016 when they would get the recommendation. >> they said there would be a need for legislation. it implied that you did have specific issues that there were parts of this that you do object to. what we would like to know is are there specific part of women and in combat in which you think they should not be serving? >> when they talk about the

infantry officers activity. there are two women who tried to go through that program. they were unable to do so. it is just resembled that they will use their experience in passed to know what women can and cannot do and should and should not do. i have not seen all the specifics. they have not come yet. i left washington just yesterday. they had not shown up yet. we have an opportunity to look at it. it necessary, stop it. >> do you think it is fair to use the example of two particular instances to say because they had not been able to get through the courts that all women should be banned from taking the course? >> of course not. i was told by the marines of the problem getting women through the course. they have not been able to do it so far. i will leave that decision up to

the cheese. i will make sure we do not anything to compare our readiness to combat. >> if i could stay on that combat. you mentioned they may have a fight on their hands. if they go beyond a certain point, where is the red line for you. what they said is the presumption will be all of these specialities are open to women. will this even look at the qualifications and standards for things like that venture and artillery? they may change. where is the line for you? >> there is no red line. i agree with senator mccain. he said the want to make sure they are not put in a position where a woman cannot do something. we do not want to lower the standards to accommodate women. i believe strongly that is the case. i was in the army. i know what a military

occupational specialty is. there are several undehundred of them. i cannot be specific when i have not seen them. >> all like to switch topics and talk to you about the nomination of chuck hagel for defense secretary. you issued a statement saying he wanted to get an opportunity for your former colleague to have an airing, to speak to the public about some of what you would you to be a controversial position. shortly thereafter, within days, he issued another statement said you found him unacceptable. it highlighted the fact you remain friends. what changed so quickly that you rejected the nomination by the president to be defense secretary before he had a hearing? >> the nomination hearing, i had a conversation with him. when i first found out i called

some. i was dumb cookery at the time. it had been quite a while since i have served with him. i have the list right here. i was there not a 2001 when he was one of two senators who voted against extending sanctions against iran, was there in 2007 when he voted against the measure that would have caused the iranian revolutionary guard corps to be a designated terrorist group. did the same thing of one in four centers to did not sign the letter of solidarity. -- senators who did not sign the letter is solidarity. let me tell you what else i have personally. it is zero movements. this concerns me a lot.

one of the many things i disagree with president obama about this that he wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal. he refuses to modernize it. we are going through this thing right now. we are not aware that iran, our intelligence has told us since 2007 and is still telling us today that they are going to have nuclear capability. they will have a delivery system by 2015. we know this is not happening in a vacuum. we have a nuclear situation that is not just russia and the united states. i was in north korea and south korea a week ago. we know what they are doing. when you say we want the zero new, obama has said that. i do not blame him for wanting

to avoid it. it is hard to explain. he is a friend of mine. chuck hagel is a personal friend. this is too important. when you have 20 kids and grandkids, you want to keep america strong and have a defense system that is not light on the progress on nuclear capability. >> i would like to know what you think of his chances of getting confirmation and weather coming out against him could poison the water in your relationship if you become secretary? >> no, i told him i was going to oppose him. we had a nice conversation. it is hard for people to believe this. regardless of what happens, if the end of doing it over my objection, we're still going to be friends. he has a big job to do. i think we'll have a good relationship.

at nothing at all influence that many people. -- i do not think i will influence that many people. >> if i could shift to africa. in the french are on the ground and in mali. the united states has supplied limited aircraft to support them. is it more the united states should and could be doing? >> there a lot of things going on right now. we know the joseph kony situation. we know about somalia and all these problem areas. we do have some people on the ground. my concern with africa, and i was instrumental in getting that under a unifying one command, they do not have the resources necessary to be able to cover their problems.

as they sit tight in the middle east and the terrorism bozell to djibouti and the horn of africa, it is a serious problem. we made a decision after it 9/11 to go down there and help the africans build five african brigades so that when this happened they will be able to take care of their own problems. my answer is i do not think we have the resources that i wish we had in africa. i have felt that way for a long time. >> is there something the united states can do now about the situation in mali to support of the french or unilaterally work against the islamists there that have gotten a foothold/ >> we are doing that right now. we will continue to do it. i hope during this conversation we get into what's happening to the disarming of the military.

it relates to everything you're talking about. >> we will transition to that. it ties into resources. you are facing a contracting military budget. i know you are against it contracting and would like to see increases in defense spending. it does look as though you will be looking at cuts. how do you deal with the question when you're trying to pick it to the pacific, when you're dealing with the war in afghanistan and trying to keep your commitment in europe and built up missile defense and saying we need more resources in africom? >> you dismay my case. we need more resources. it is unconscionable that he comes out with an increase. this is not the democrats or republicans. his budget gave as $5.30

trillion in deficit. the only areas where we are decreasing is in our defense system. that is what needs to change. we need to make our case to the american people. right now they do not know that the only major area of government where he is making reductions is in our defense system. i did not agree with him when he wanted to change the emphasis on the middle east to the far east. that is why i went to the far east last week and looked. we have serious problems. we have changing of our personnel from japan to guam. this is the sign for the president's to be diminishing the punishment. i knew this was coming. i remember his first budget four years ago. i knew what he was going to do. he was going to be starting his

army of america. in may sound and fair but that is what i mean. i went to afghanistan so i can watch what is going on. but remember what happened. he defunded are only fit generation fighter. he did the same thing with airlift capacity. he did away with our future combat system. that is the first time there has been a major change proposed in about 40 years on the ground capability of america. the worst thing he did was do away with the interceptor in poland. i was part of that program. we discovered in 2007 that iran would have the capability of sending over a delivery system. we saw all of our innovators were on the west coast.

the president has cut that number down to 30. and knowing that you have the capability by 2015, that is the most serious thing he has done to our security. that was all in the first budget. now we're looking at the $487 billion projecting out what he has put in place. if we end up a sequestration it will double that. i agree with the secretary of defense and with all the service chiefs when they look at what is happening to obama's defense. it is devastating to our military. we have the problems that are out there. we will have to face it. he articulated the problems we have that are not being addressed because of what happened to our military. >> should we may be addressing

this and whether or not we are doing things and a more intelligent fashion? are there ways we can move our resources more efficiently if the reality is you are not going to get increases? how do we more efficiently use these resources to achieve some of the goals he has spoken about/ you have spoken about/ >> you not learn anything from these hearings. everyone is prepared. i go over there. i talked to the commanders in the field. i talked to the service chiefs. they will confide in me. anytime you're talking about the military, and the commander in chief is president obama. they salute them. with the problems that are over there, and they would tell me, we're going to do everything they can. they claim to me that all the

low hanging fruit is gone. they have done all that they can be easy way in trying to streamline things. we have help them do a lot. i can tell you our committee has done a lot. carl has done a good job chairing the committee. anything else we do right now in terms of not having the capability, that increases our risk. it risked means life is -- risk means lives. i more idea not to cut the money out of the military. i think it has already been done. we are still trying. it is a bipartisan thing. that is what we are doing. >> you mentioned afghanistan earlier. i know you're concerned about the size of the residual force when the united states went down the combat mission.

realistically, what do you predict the white house will set as the number of residuals for us after the 2014? >> hopefully the white house will listen to the chiefs in the fields and all of those who have the background that and make that decision. i disagree with some of our republicans. i have said when they talk between 10 and 12, i do not think that number is adequate. i think we need to have more. if you do not have the adequate number, the ones that are over there will be left in an unprotected situation that i do not feel comfortable with. i think it should be something more than that. i did talk to the chiefs in commanders, they think it should be more, too.

they are influenced in their positions by what the white house tells them. he is the commander in chief. >> the reporting suggests that the number will not be any higher. is that enough to provide the protection you are talking about? provide enablers for the afghan security forces? >> i can give you my opinion. i say no. it is somewhere between 15 and 18. universally they would say it is not adequate. we are going to have people there. we still have people in bosnia

and cozumel. there is not the hostility. we need an adequate force to be able to protect whoever is left behind. >> you talked to commanders in the field. is there a large gap between what the white house wants to provide. >> the user is talking in terms of the 15 or 18. that is an average. this is a pretty scary thought. i was hoping to have the opportunity to get into that detail. there are three ways i think the president is degrading our military.

one in his cuts, one in his delays in putting other things into the military budget. anytime he comes along for his experiments to stop, and people find out the navy has had to pay $26 a gallon for $450,000 a feel you can get for $3 a gallon, at the air force is think $59 a gallon for fuel leaking get for $3 a gallon, -- they can get for $3 a gallon, and these are things that are distorted and cause us to do things that do not of the military. i put together all of this. it comes out to be in bad shape. look at the delays. this president has made massive cuts. when you look at one, it was

$4.4 billion in the nuclear modernizing program. do you remember when they had in the new start treaty? they did not have enough vot es. they said if we would do in modernizing program on our arsenal, we would do its. he put that in writing. he not only did not do if it be cut by $4.4 billion. -- he not only did not do it, and he cut it by 41 $4 billion. he gets by with it but he has seen media on his side and everyone knows it. >> dimension several sign that the president is doing these things. congress was responsible for passing the budget control act. -- you have mentioned several times that the president is doing these things. congress was responsible for passing the budget control act.

march 1 they will kick in. are you aware of any deal or talk behind the scenes that would lead you to believe that this would be averted? >> if this president had not increased the $5.30 trillion and a deficit that did not go to defense, it to be fairly easy to take what he has done and seclude defense from the sequester and still come up with the sequester. there are several people trying to promote that. well you say it is a result of the budget control act, it was a result of the overspending the president has done during the first four years of his administration. >> i will come back to that. the administration walked in. we were in the middle of a collapse of our economy. a lot of this is working in two.

democrats and republicans dispute who is responsible for the dead. >> wait a minute. i cannot let you buy with that. it is true. i do not know how much longer you will say he inherited this. that might have worked for a year but now we're in the fifth year. everyone knows better but they keep saying it. the money i am talking about was in the present budget. i am talking about the first budget. all the cuts that are there to the military, it is the incredible spending increases. the amount of deficit that had given us in his own budget is more than all president in the history of this country going back to george washington combined. nobody seems to care. we have a job to do. the number one job, i often say that may be true but i'm a big

spender in two area. defense and infrastructure. that is what we're supposed to be doing. >> will congress be able to delay? >> jummy the delays we are looking at are even -- to me the delays we are looking at are even as serious as the cuts. the ohio cost summary, the warheads. 76 is the one that outcome of submarines and 78 from the air. these are systems that we have that are being diminished. we have not even talked about that. when i see a delay, i look at the delays. look at the f-35. we have 179 recon out. i think this president continues to delay, that is not a delay,

that is a cat. >> do you have a final question? >> i wanted to come back to women in combat roles. i know the details are not out there yet. the general announcement has been made and has been signed. did you talk about the senate reviewing these as bay, -- t hey come off. do you see some fight ahead as they try to implement this? specifically, do you see any pressure that they will face to relax some of the sanders that they currently have for some of these occupational specialties? os's will behe mpos' unacceptable when we see them. these have to come a technically from the chiefs.

they understand that. they will be looking. the words that were used initially was "we want to make cuts in places -- we want to be able to afford women places in the military where they cannot be right now. those are places where the chiefs have evaluated where they can do it and we do not have to lower the standards. we should not have to lower the standards. getting back to the into a problem have, it has not worked in that particular case. i would say if that comes up from one of the areas that women have been precluded, i may be trying to lead the fight in the senate armed services committee to keep that from happening. we're going to get the opinion of people who are a lot smarter than you or i.

they will be responsible for the training and the service of the women and an in service. >> that is it for our time. thank you for joining us. come see us again when you are in washington. >> i will sure do it. thank you. >> us your perspective. let's start with the chuck hagel nomination. what is your sense of what is happening when you talk about capitol hill? >> is difficult to think that they would not confirm chuck hagel. very few democrats have come out publicly against chuck hagel. there is a very strong undercurrent in the republican party believes you give the president an opportunity to have the person he wants. it is unusual for a person like senator inhofe to take such a

stand appeared that is what i was pressing him on it. he has made statements that the president has a right to be the nominee. he dispensed it agreed to dismiss it before even a hearing. he has strong feelings about it. we will see a play about next thursday. >> you are interested in women in the military announcement. do you get the sense this will be a fight? >> it is interesting. until this time summit of the discussion has been unanimous. this is seen as the next step. they have been pushing this issue for years. but it is still historic to go all the way toward infantry, artillery, and these artillery, and these