>> here on c-span this morning, "newsmakers" is next with representative mac thornberry from texas. that is followed by a supreme court argument on same-sex marriage. then coverage of the capitol hill gyro copter incident. susan: our guest this morning on "newsmakers" is mac thornberry of texas. this week, as committee chairman, he presided over the review of the 2016 different budget, $612 billion including $9 million on war funding in an 18 hour marathon session. thank you for being with us this week. have you heard wendy bill will go to the floor? rep. thornberry: i think it will

be the weekend. susan: are you expecting these kinds of margins? rep. thornberry: i am hopeful. generally, it comes out with widespread bipartisan support. susan: let me introduce our two reporters who will be asking questions today. megan is of "roll call," and kevin baron is the executive editor of "defense one." kevin, we will start with you. kevin: thank you. i thought we would start big and had small. for me, the main focus is where we are fighting, the middle east. you are now the chair of the armed services committee. your committee has oversight of the military and the wars. do you think that the rest of congress, the leadership adequately focus is on the middle east and the press coming out of the middle east to the united states and the united

states's interest in the region right now? rep. thornberry: adequately, probably not. much more focused than they used to be. i think of is not just the members on the armed services or foreign affairs committee that our focus, i think the american people and most all their representatives in congress have some appreciation for the seriousness of what is happening and are really -- im getting more questions at home in my district about what is happening around the world then i have ever gotten before. i think the american people have more just and therefore there is more focus and congress on it. you get distracted by the day-to-day issues, but there is a lot more interest. kevin: is it something that you worry about or the american people were about? i ask because "defense one" had

a survey in the fall where 70% of the workforce including troops said that they thought congress was not qualified to -- or not enough members of congress were qualified to provide the oversight function to the military. talk about that. it seems like a trust deficit there. rep. thornberry: maybe, except several years ago there was a study that a local think tank here in washington performed that talked about congress being the critical link between the american people and the federal government especially on issues of national security. does congress need to have the same expertise as an intelligence operator operating in afghanistan? no. we come from all sorts of different backgrounds, different

experiences, but our job is to oversee those efforts. being that link in between the american people and the people with more specialized knowledge more technical knowledge, etc. that is our job, providing the oversight. i think it is a fair criticism to say that there are times that congress micromanagers too much. by micromanage, they neglect the broad picture. i think that there is some truth to that. with what is happening all over the world today, so many complex, diverse challenges all at the same time, i think that we are doing better at trying to keep the bigger picture in mind. and to be that link, oversight of the professionals who serve our country, but also to communicate, educate persuade the american people, and just

help explain what is happening. it is hard to make sense of russia china, iran, north korea, cyber, outer space, diseases, not to mention terrorism all swirling around at the same time. kevin: how often do you get to have conversations with leadership or are you in conversations with leadership about these national security issues and armed services issues? rep. thornberry: often. for example, there is a meeting once a week of all the committee chairmen where you can bring up anything you need to bring up. obviously, there are lot more -- a lot more meetings these days, not because we have bills, but because of what is happening in the world. i think there is also better coordination among the various committees intelligent committees, foreign affairs

appropriations, then i have seen in the last 20 years. we are doing a little better. the times demand us to. it is so difficult and complicated. susan: megan. megan: i want to focus on your bill, and specifically on the funding levels in the bill. the measure itself was obviously i would the house budget resolution. it shifts about $30 billion from the base budget to the overseas contingent operations accounts. critics of that have called it a gimmick. you yourself have said it is not an ideal way to fund the department. i'm curious if you think there are any long term affects paying for the military this way, and also if there is any hope for having an actual bipartisan budget deal by the end of the year. rep. thornberry: i always have hope. of course, there are long-term

effects of doing things kind of in a patch it together sort of way. that is what this is. i think it is important to remember that whatever category the funding may be under, when you added together, the house budget meets the president's request within $1 billion. we categorize the funding a little bit, but the net effect is the same level that the president asked for for national defense. i think that is important. really, that is the key issue. more important than what category very funding comes under. is there a downside? yes. partly, it makes a harder for the pentagon to plan for the future. the rest of the story is there is a broader debate that is bigger than the fence about this

t fiscal responsibility, whether you can save money through mandatory spending and what needs to happen to other domestic programs. that is really where the differences need to be ironed out. i still have hope that there can be an agreement. even if you take the entitlement reforms that president obama has proposed in the past, and apply some of the savings to defense and nondefense discretionary programs, i think you can get a huge number of people on both sides of the aisle to support that. the question is if the president wants to do that or if he wants to play chicken and hope that he gets more spending on his domestic programs. i have to say, if we send the president defense bill at exactly the level he asked for is he going to be to that because he wants to increase spending on other programs?

i don't know. megan: we saw this play out on the first appropriations measure that came to the floor yesterday that people are worried that gives defense and advantage. they have an account they can tap into that is not subject to the budget cap. on the domestic side, they do not have that luxury. is that discussed at all? rep. thornberry: yes. it is discussed. it is also discussed that if you remove the cap, that we get back into runaway spending and looming deficits like we had before. i think it is important for perspective to remember that the deficit has come down substantially in the past two years. importantly, a lot of that has, the expense of the defense budget, which has been cut, if you count inflation, about 21%

over the past four years. i understand the arguments of trying to be fair to this that and the other accounts but the first job of the government is to defend the country. vladimir putin and isis, and a variety of other actors, don't really care about these other accounts in the government. they are doing what they are doing and we are sending men and women out to defend the country and trying to deal with these threats, and they deserve to be fully acquits, fully supported fully trained and that is what the defense budget does. just because we met the presence level on the defense doesn't mean that there is a lot of extra money. there are still tough choices to get through this year. it is a dangerous world out there and we need to remember. megan: on those toug choices, there are some significant changes that would made, specifically to the

cost levels at the pentagon proposed. a base closure round, changes to the tri-care system. i am curious clearly congress has the power of the purse, but how do you reconcile rejecting some of those long-term cost-saving initiatives and giving what essentially the pentagon believes is a bill that it can afford with the current austere spending environment? rep. thornberry: currently congress makes different judgment calls than the administration in power on various weapon systems, needs to charge the military, other issues. that is our job under the constitution. sometimes congress probably makes the wrong call. if you look back over history, there is a pretty good track record of having made the right call. as a matter of fact, one of the

first speeches i gave after becoming chairman was harkening back to one of my predecessors, chairman vincent who insisted on putting down some big coal ships ships in the 1930's that ended up being the aircraft carriers that won the battle of midway. whether they are aircraft carriers or the other, sometimes we make different judgments and it turns out ok. we kept the a-10 because our judgment was that if you have a platform -- which we just sent 12 more over to iraq for today's fighting that pulled the plug on that, probably didn't make sense. kevin: a lot of people look at that as disingenuous because we also sent a tweet to still fight in iraq -- f-22's to fight in

iraq. rep. thornberry: it is absolutely true that in a world where threats are changing as fast as they are now, sometimes you end up using platforms in ways or platforms for which they were not designed. we have the question of where we are buying platforms. i guarantee however much we think we know about the future we are wrong. we will use this platforms in different ways and under different circumstances than they were originally intended. for this case, you have troops operating on the ground, the u.s. is helping to provide air support, and airplane that we chose to send over was the one the administration proposed us to counsel. my point is that there are different judgment calls here. history may prove us right or wrong or different ones. it is our job under the constitution to make those independent calls. we are not called to be a rubber

stamp for any administration of any party. i think the system functions best when congress remembers it is an independent branch of government and we have those independent responsibility is under the constitution. the president is commander in chief, but if you look, there are six to eight different provisions under article one that says it is congress's responsibility to provide and maintain armed forces and the rules and regulations for the military and so forth. we have to be serious about those independent responsibilities. susan: megan specifically in our question referenced another round of base closures. could you address that. that is not decision but a decision to have a process. rep. thornberry: the reason there has been resistance is because the last round was in 2005. 10 years later, it has still cost us more money than it has

saved. some people argue, that was a different round, it was really realignment, but it has left a bitter taste in people's mouths. i think under any reckoning another round of base closing costs more than in earlier years. we are 10 years later on that one and it has not yet started saving money, it still costs more. we often hear that between percent excess infrastructure. i have, in the bill, a provision asking the secretary to give us an assessment for the appropriate structure for the world we live in, and inventory of all the bases in the world put the two together, and look at what you might need for a surge capacity, for a little extra margin, and come back to us with your assessment of what areas we have extra infrastructure, extra capacity

in so that we can start from a place of real numbers, not just pulling a number out of the air. we still do not have base closing this year, but we are trying to get better information and analysis upon which to look at our infrastructure needs in the future. susan: we have nine minutes left. kevin: before this question, you said there are 16 provisions for congress to have control of war. the biggest one of all, war powers. where are you on that now? why hasn't congress moved to take up more powers? rep. thornberry: the president sent a proposal. we in our committee, had hearings on it, even though our committee is not the primary one of jurisdiction. we wanted to understand the practical implications for the war fighters if the present proposal had been in effect. the bottom line was -- it was too restrictive, too legalistic

because it would only authorized military action where was not in during offenses, ground combat operations, and the definition of each of those words got very problematic. kevin: does it frustrate you? is this really something -- rep. thornberry: no. one of the eye-opening experience is 40 personally was to be in afghanistan in one of our headquarters while the fighting was going on and see the commander have to consult with his larger for every step of the way, while the bullets were flying. the words we put into law make a big difference in how wars get far and how troops in the field are commanded, and the rest of their lives. this is a big deal. i think where we are is there is not much support for what the president asked for. the next question is can there

be support for a another version of an authorization to use military force against isis? i think we need to try. it is our job under the constitution. in addition to that, i think we have a moral obligation to the men and women we send out on these dangerous missions to have the full cloak of constitutional authority and moral backing of the country and supporting their mission. i think we have a responsibility to try. i have some conversations today -- had some conversations today about some next steps moving forward, and i want to contribute to that debate, even though technically doesn't come out off our committee. megan: what are those next up stucco rep. thornberry: to see -- those next steps? rep. thornberry: to see if there is an authorization of force that could pass in the house and senate.

there are a couple that have been introduced. i think there will be more discussions about that. i cannot tell you all the steps in the legislative process. it is my opinion that we really need to do this, for the reasons that we just talked about. it is our job under the constitution. megan: how do you think it should be drafted? rep. thornberry: i am working on that. part of the question is what do you include? wheat probably do not have time to get into all of this. we still operate under a 2001 authorization of military force that was drafted right after 9/11. does that really fit isis? not to mention al-shabaab or al qaeda. i have my doubts. my preference is to try and clean this up in a way that makes sense. i don't know what the administration's opinion would be or that of might colleagues. we need to have these

conversations. kevin: members don't want to vote on this because they don't want to say they were for the war before election day. will we get a vote this year? rep. thornberry: i don't have an answer. i to get depends on if you can get some consensus around one of the proposals. in addition to the reasons that you mentioned, i think there is a lot of doubt of the president as commander in chief. all of those doubts they get harder to get authorization to send troops into a fight. kevin: that is a charge. do you think that president obama does not want to win the fight against isis? rep. thornberry: i'm sure he does. whether he is willing to do what he needs to do win, i have doubts. the constraints on our troops and iraq -- in iraq cause

questions. again, we have lives at stake here. we are being asked to authorize the risking of those lies for these national purposes. that is part of the reason this is a tough debate and a tough decision for members of the house and senate to make. megan: switching topics of it, on the pentagon's release of the annual sexual assault report today. they indicate that it has decreased from the high levels of to two years ago, but they are still quite high and retaliation raids are two thirds of those who report the crime. congress, and your committee in particular have cut provisions aimed at this problem. what more do you think congress and the white house need to do to address this problem? rep. thornberry: i think you're right. we have passed a number of

provisions and i think the spotlight has really shownen one this problem, which is absolutely in acceptable -- unacceptable. his was part of the debate this week in our committee, we have done so many things in the past two or three years, we have to give them a chance to take affect and begin to work. while we are doing that, we need to stay on top of it and watch the implementation of these things to see if they are having the desired effect, and not let it slip off to the back corner somewhere, but keep the spotlight on this issue. we definitely will be doing that . as we find improvements that need to be made, we will absolutely want to pursue those, but the key is to stay on top of it and make sure what we try to do is having the desired effect

to reduce and eliminate sexual assaults. susan: less questions? kevin: this week there was a letter sent to from about 38 think tanks. part of that was a criticism that the civilian workforce has grown too big in comparison to the size of the troops. can you respond to that? rep. thornberry: i think they are right. we have put provisions in the bill to try and reduce it. a couple of years ago, secretary hagel announced a 20% reduction in headquarters staff. the provision in the bill says we will do what you said, but we will hold you to it. each of the items that were in the letter that you talk ked about where dressed in some way. susan: can you give us a quick read on as carter as defense secretary. how is he doing? rep. thornberry: i think he is

doing well. he comes into it very well qualified, especially for the types of reforms that need to be made. if i have one concern, just to be a little selfish, with all the things happening in the world, he will be distracted to deal with these crises. he has been very good reaching out on both sides of the aisle. i am optimistic about the ability for us in congress and the secretary at the pentagon to work together over the next year and a half. susan: thank you for your time. "newsmakers" is back with megan sculy and kevin baron after our conversation with max mac thornberry. we covered some philosophical questions as well as the defense budget that was passed last

week. let's start with a process for the defense budget. it is a lot of money. $612 billion. he does mention philosophical and other differences with the white house, but what is the process for getting through the senate before he gets to the white house. megan: they have said in the senate that it is a priority. the past two years they have been unable to. the bill has passed for every year for 50 years of this point. the senate itself has not debated the bill in its entirety for two years now. we will see how that shapes up. there will be a lot of disagreement with the white house, both over how the committee has decided to fund the department, and they are both in line with the contingencies on the overseas account, and also contingencies over guantanamo bay.

there are new provisions of the white house is already said they are not in agreement with. susan: with the prison transfers? megan: it has to do a little bit to do with that. this year, it restricts transfers to conflict zones like iraq and yemen. susan: you asked some philosophical questions of the chairman. one of them was -- it was interesting because it had to do with the president's ability to do what is necessary in the conflict in the middle east -- what was your reaction? kevin: any complaint that i hear that the united states is not doing enough to fight terrorism it is all about that people want more military intervention sooner in every conflict. that is usually where boils down to. i think that is the same thing here. he is right to say that congress

can have a difference of opinions with the president. this is a case where i think the ends may be different. for this president, the bar for ill to intervention has been incredibly high since he took office. this has not come down. this is the same president who loves to run strikes, a certain type of using the military and intelligence committee to track down the bad guys. it is not ground troops. it is not providing arms. it is not adding things to make that region worse or getting more involved. it is not just the white house and congress. it is left and right. it is across the spectrum within the national security community. there is a question as to how much the nine states need to be involved in middle east and how much we need to stay out of it

so that enforces those countries to take on these fights for themselves finally, which was supposed to be the hope after iraq and afghanistan. train the forces to do it themselves. the reality is that people are dying every day by the thousands. susan: our time is short. you asked questions about the aumf, the authorization of use of military force, which has gotten congress rather stymied. it was interesting that description -- the description of need to have this because officers are consulting with lawyers while fighting is going on in the field. kevin: it is not new that there are lawyers. every strike goes through the dod before goes the white house. at a much higher level, i think most people on this debate think

about what we talked about at the end of the conversation which is whether congress has the political will to vote yes or no. megan: the other issue with this is trying to figure out what should be in it. you will need 60 votes in the senate to get something through on this. the two chambers may come up with something very different, even though they are both under republican control. even in the republican party there is a lot of friction as to what level of leeway we should give the president in order to win the floor. kevin: this is a conflict that will go on. by the pentagon's prediction perhaps 30 years. this is the global war on terrorism, for a lack of a better term. it is not a singular war. susan: 30 seconds on the just released report on sexual assault in the military and the levels not changing all that much. megan: you will see a lot of

reaction from the hill on that. perhaps it might revive the debate inside the chain of command, outside the chain of command. congress has past hundreds of provisions over the past several years to adjust this problem, but there has not been a lifetime for it to take root. he and other sources say, let's give this some time to see if this can make progress before we take more drastic measures. susan: for critics, will that be sufficient? megan: probably not. those in favor of taking the decision for prosecution out of the chain of command is the crux of one proposal, and believed to be the only way to address this problem. there is a broader issue of change of culture in the military. things like retaliation if you do report these crimes. kevin: