forward will be an important part. host: california, retired military, henry, independent line. caller: you could reduce the military by one half of its strength and they would still be too much. i witnessedthat trillions of dollars of the military waste in extending their budget. their allocations, fiscally i am talking about submarines coming in and dumping .heir allocations the u.s. army does the same thing. if they do not expend what they have been allocated, they have to dump it in order to qualify for the next allocation or it will be reduced. generals iranked have witnessed, personally, the waste of expending government

money on their personal use, for to build homes themselves. now, the f-35 question, they have been doing that all along. we have aircraft hidden in the desert that are being literally destroyed because of the cost overrun and the public does not know. we have spent trillions in the there,py outfits trillions in defense to support korea. host: guest: guest: ok, thanks for the call. there is a lot in there --host: ok, thanks for the call. guest: there is a lot in there. host: he mentioned generals, spending, things along that line. guest: the generals are going to

take a one-year pay freeze. setting the messes that they are willing to sacrifice as well. sending the message that they are willing to sacrifice as well. owntop generals have their gulfstream's, their own folks on their planes. a lot of people say -- what, are these rock stars? why are these generals having this kind of support? this will be part of the debate going forward. people sort of chafe at that kind of thing when they see it sometimes, generals flying around in their own planes with troops that might not have the training on the front end. at the end of the day, is that going to save you the big ticket that you need? no, but people do want to see that the people at the pentagon, the generals, are taking some of the brunt of this as well, along

with the people who will be forced out of the army. host: has the dod try to make these types of reforms? the issue. is secretary bob gates tried to make a lot of these reforms when he was in office at the pentagon. he just came out with his memoir. when we talk about reform he was to convincerefit -- congress and get compensation through. it is difficult in this town, as you know better than anyone, to get a mr. congress. the pentagon has constituents in each state. state has the national guard, programs that they want to protect. everyone has a constituency that can lock a lot of these programs from being cut going forward. not myways say --

program. not my national guard. it makes it hard to get this stuff through. currently ane appetite in congress to accept these kinds of changes that secretary hagel wants to see? guest: this is the big question. everyone in congress says that they would understand that everyone needs to tighten their belts, but what you heard from a lot of constituencies yesterday was -- not my program. not my national guard. not my bases. this is where you get to the paralysis. it is difficult to find the constituencies to make this stuff come together. tom, brooksville, florida, hi. caller: good morning. my question is made -- my question is the statement that was made to general mathis last year. he was commanding central command and he said that if you

do not fund of the state department fully, i need to buy more ammunition ultimately. i would like to hear his comment on that. comment would be that i don't have the knowledge on good or bad to reduce the military on retiring, but it will have two effects, globally and continental wise. globally reducing the military means you have to increase diplomacy. that is part of it. i do not disagree with reducing the military, but what are we going to do to increase diplomacy? with true diplomacy we have the possibility of saving lives and dollars. hear that certainly from the pentagon as well. they understand that these programs are meant to drive

diplomatic solutions and that they are a tool. diplomacy is often the endgame here. in afghanistan, to get out of the country, they have tried to negotiate a deal with the taliban and to have a peace deal. diplomacy is pretty essential and i do not think anyone at the pentagon would debate that you need to have a vibrant state department and a vibrant the nomadic effort to make sure that troops are used as little as possible. host: troop use was one issue taken up yesterday, benefits to military was another. secretary hagel address those. we will get what he had to say and get your thoughts as well. [video clip] >> it is not fair, responding to these adjustments in the spending package. fiscal year 2013, we have recommended a one percent raise for basic pay for military personnel, with the exception of general and flag officers, the pay will be frozen for one year.

basic pay raisins beyond this year will be restrained, though raises will continue. we are also recommending a number of changes. we will slow the growth of tax-free housing loans are currently cover one hundred percent of housing expenses until they cover an average number of 95% of housing expenses, with a five percent out-of-pocket contribution. why comparison, the average was late 1990's. we will also no longer reimburse for renters insurance. over three years we will reduce by $1 billion the annual nowidies provided, which total $1.4 billion. we are not shutting down commissary's. all commissaries will still get .ree rent and pay no taxes they will be able to continue to provide good deals to service members and retirees.

enlistedi am an person, what does that mean for me? at the end of the day? nothing. this is probably the most difficult part of the program going forward. they are talking about trying to redress paying benefits, but a lot of the analysis shows that -- thatgoing to be done this will be nearly impossible. no one in a year like this wants to be seen cutting benefits. secretary hagel is saying that we just need to reign things in, we will not cut pay for anyone. we are just going to reduce subsidies for grocery stores on these bases, but you will still be able to go there. budgetse kinds of solutions are really anathema to people in congress.

anything that says that you reduce support for veterans or our troops can be turned into a 32nd advertisement very quickly. this is where secretary gates has the biggest problem, it is very difficult to get these kinds of solutions through. i do not see this happening this year. congress will be putting together a compensation commission next year. i think we will be at least another year before we see any kind of proposals like this get any traction. host: this housing is a big deal? guest: it does help a lot, but they are talking about reducing support from 100% to 90%. was 80%.int it it has gone up over years and they are trying to just bring it back in line a little bit. you give veterans groups saying

that you cannot balance the budget on the backs of the people who are fighting. if you want to reduce the number thehe f 35's that you buy, ships that you buy, but don't do it on the backs of those on the front line. , of "then nissenbaum wall street journal," joining us to talk about the cuts that were announced yesterday by secretary hagel. we want to get your thoughts today, phone lines -- host: for active and retired military -- is retiredon military from leesburg, virginia. good morning. caller: i wanted to talk to the adults in the room. now a gulf war veteran, government contractor who works for the government. i have to tell you i am confused

as to why people are so upset that they are reducing the number of ships losing jobs when we have been totally willing to cut government jobs and hand over defense right and left, serving our country? i do agree with reducing the salaries for officers and increasing -- not reducing, but following the motion of increasing the threat list. the enlisted troops are underpaid. we really need to be supporting them. toould like for people ponder why we are so willing to run to the defense of military jobs when we should be thinking smarter and fighting smarter, which means less troops. we are so willing to cut other government jobs to the point that the rest of the government is going to suffer and heard the employment rate. thank you. guest: certainly that is part of

the broader debate, whether it is the pentagon budget and the overall spending budget there. there will be an effort at the pentagon to reduce the civilian workforce there as well. the civilian workforce at the pentagon has grown, along with the enlisted. there is an effort to reduce that within the pentagon. host: is that contractors? guest: that is actually civilians inside the department. they are trying to cut back as well and i think the caller is talking about the broader picture. how do we look at the pentagon budget in the bigger picture? these are all issues that still need to be worked out in congress. host: pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i have a concern. i was reading a newspaper this morning and i noticed that the is making itnment

possible for individuals to get $1000 apiece for a tax savers if they can find the form for it on the free file software available at the irs. for individuals to say, for retirement, if they earn under 29,000 for a private individual. host: caller, forgive me. [indiscernible] what i am after is how can they afford to give $1000 apiece to individuals for retirement savings when we are deducting from the military? how can the federal government afford to cut our military benefits when we are increasing the percentage of foodstamp increases and deducting it from our men and women who are putting their lives on the line? you hear this a lot.

how are we going to support our troops elsewhere in the government? this is the constant debate. our money?e spending where are our priorities? if we spend money on military troops, does it take away from other things? these are the trade-offs that we have to decide going forward. the budget is facing a lot of constraints right now. there are a lot of cuts and reductions in the military. there is a broader debate going on in congress about how and where we make our priorities as a nation. host: from twitter -- no reward for savings. interesting point. in all of these programs, like it is over budget but

it still continues to go forward . the airplanes are not living up to expectations, but we are continuing to back it. it is a big issue in the military in terms of how much savings. that debateok at over the $800 toilet seat, the $500 wrench or whatever. there is a lot of concern about how money has been spent. we have heard that from a lot of colors this morning. is there a way to squeeze out more efficiency? i do not think that anyone would argue that there are plenty of ways to find the efficiencies that get you where you need to go. , someonen nissenbaum on twitter may the comment this morning, close to 700 bases around the world right now. how does that factor in? a very difficult which moving forward,

ones do we want to close and how do we do this? every time that it happens, it is a big fight. secretary hagel would like to have one of these commissions in 2017, after the next round of elections. he understands that no one wants to be the one to have a base close in their district. i think that this is something that needs to be looked at. if the army is coming down, the size of the personnel is coming down, there are already bases around the country where they are losing their fighting forces. they have become described as zombie towns because there are so few people working on them. but this issue comes straight up to congress, no one wants to close a base in their district. you do not want to be the congressperson who has a base

closing in your district. as much as people would like to see that happen, it will be a couple of years before we see realistic ace closures. next, arlington, virginia, low. caller: my issues -- hello. of quick couple points, defense, it won't happen. was a "washington post" reporter who did a story on it last year who called it a stealth aircraft with the capability to avoid budget cuts. we have more aircraft carriers around the world. one example, i was looking at satellite images of google earth. all of the standard east german like they were running solar energy farms.

they were able to do that after their own defense cuts. but politically it is not going to happen. it makes sense. i would ask your reporter what he thinks happens. i think it makes sense. i have been in the military, in the air force since the cold war . the cold war is over, there are people out there still fighting it. the defense budget is the biggest threat to national security. an interesting, interesting question. the country and the military are obviously in a transition right now. ground wars in afghanistan are obviously coming to an end. the massive operations that we had after 9/11 are now over. now we have to decide what the

military is supposed to be focusing on. right now the military is saying that we need to turn our attention towards asia and china and see what happens there, watch out for potential trouble emerging in places like africa, where al qaeda militants are reestablishing themselves. again, we wind up fighting the last war. we know what happened before. we do not really know what is coming down the road. secretary hagel saying that we need to reduce. that we are trying to create a force that can adapt and attract . it is going to be an ongoing debate. we do not know what happens tomorrow. it could fundamentally change the discussion entirely if we had another major terrorist event in this country. an emerging threat from north iran.

we do not know what is down the pike. we can only prepare for what we think is going to happen, which is what we are trying to do. as far as congress, will you see republicans and democrats fighting against the changes that the secretary of defense wants to make? sides you often see both working together. one of the things the pentagon wants to do is eliminate the a-10 warthog, this one to knows -- blunt nosed plane it is used with troops on the ground. even the air force tells you that they think is the best plane for protecting troops on the ground. secretary hagel says they have got to eliminate them entirely. you find republicans and democrats in congress joining forces saying -- you cannot eliminate that plane, that one is used most and best to protect forces on the ground. you often see democrats and

republicans working together on these. no one wants a base -- echo base closure, no one wanted in their district. base closure, no one wants it in their district. secretary hagel, talking about military cuts overall, here is what he had to say. [video clip] [video clip] are trying to solve our military problems on the backs of our military. if it could be done, it should be done, but it can't be done. if we cut the entire military budget, everything that we vote on annually as a congress, eliminate all of that, we would still be running a deficit of half of one dollar trillion each year. room,e elephant in the the big animal in the room, the gorilla in the room that

everyone is avoiding is a mandatory spending. , we will address that keep digging ourselves further and further in the hole. that is the real problem and we are trying to, like i say, solve it. on the backs of the military. that can't be done. guest: you are going to hear that a lot. we are solving our problems on the back of the military. he is right, discretionary spending is a small piece of this at the end of the day, but in the broader picture there has across themade federal budget. this is a big piece of discretionary spending. i think it is about half of what we spend on discretionary spending. it is a big piece of the pie to look at. we are in a time of change for the military.

this is a time when we can reevaluate put the military should be doing and how much should be spending in this nation's history. active military outside of los angeles, california, good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. i will try to make this fast, i have a lot of ground to cover and i have only one question. across all the military spectrum, there is basically those who are at the lowest pay of the military structure. the generals make 1000% more than what the lowest do. cutting up the middle, because in the marine corps they are already doing that. middle.out the this program is already going on. , giving themg out the incentives to get out.

we areans, again, that starting to flood the economy with newly unemployed people from close bases. communities are going to take the brunt of not having that support, holding out when you have those capabilities. and about operational maintenance? we will continue spending on operations and maintenance, but let me ask you, operations -- do we need to be in every conflict? this way we continue being a strong military presence. there may be no way of working in these wars. guest: that is for secretary

hagel said yesterday. we are not going to be preparing to fight every war. in libya we had a much more limited air operation. country is much more reluctant to fight every war and get local police officers who were sometimes referred to. we are seeing a shift in that. in the marines, people are being given incentives to leave. the front page of "the usa today to go with this, -- today," with -- , certainly, what happens to troops when they leave the service is an important thing. veterans companies are starting

up. there are efforts around the veterans buying jobs and it will certainly be a challenge as the reductions go forward. i think we need to focus more on that. it is certainly a big issue for the first lady, she has made it an issue going forward. does the military help them going forward? guest: they try to help them, but it is the private sector does the significant amount. retired military, prince edward, maryland, hi. is -- i amquestion retired army, i served three tours in iraq and i have been there since the beginning through to the end.

the problem i have had is that they career military has cut back on jobs.sly they have contracted them out to civilian contractors. i have spoken several contractors i have worked closely with. anytime you have a guy who goes around in your work area inerminating, he has been that country for five years and i have a problem with that. then i think contractors will bring those jobs back home. i understand and i get that. but i kind of had inkling in my head that when these conferences

-- iraqis already over, in a sense. but then afghanistan. when these 100,000 contractors come back to the united dates, are they going to have jobs for them? as you are saying, i have seen citizens over in iraq, grandfathers and grandmothers, working in jobs because there are no jobs to benefit their homes. they have got to subsequent their income by putting themselves in harms's way and a country like iraq. contracting out is a big piece of the military as well. what they also call life support services. providing food at these bases, this is done by contractors now, as opposed to being done by the military. there is good reason for that.

it can provide cost savings to do that. based in afghanistan for couple of years. i know the kinds of people he is talking about. you see people coming over because they can make good these basesking on doing contracts, getting the food from point a to point b, serving it, helping to build these bases, providing security. a lot of people over there make good money on defense contractors and then go overseas because that is where the money is. can make a lot more working in afghanistan, where the risks are a lot higher than here. we did not hear any -- anything from anything yesterday secretary hagel about how he plans to deal with contractors. this is another area where you will be hearing a lot about how the money is spent and how they have taken away money from the

soldiers. host: brian this imam --dion nissenbaum, joining us to ta or pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] take you live to the house floor and a couple of votes to get under way. title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1211, a bill to amend section 552 of title 5 united states code, commonly known as the freedom of information act to provide for

greater public access to information and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]