we are always supported. it does not matter if they support me. they support the democratic agenda. they all spoke out beautifully for health care, health care, health care like a jackhammer. omnibus.to the i intend to win the speaker ship with democratic votes. that was your question. support inwhelming my caucus to be speaker of the house and certainly come a we have many, many people in our caucus who could serve in this capacity. i happen to think that at this point i am the best person for that. ofc-span1 have live coverage the results of the wednesday caucus as well as the house rollcall votes per speaker. you can watch live gavel to

gavel coverage of the house on c-span. by aaron mehta of defense news, talking about america's military edge. guest: the report is a mandatedonally report. together,put people take three people. they sit down and talk and give it definitive document about the state of america's military. eric edelman, a former republican under bush, undersecretary of defense for policy, the other cochair was the head of the navy for several years, a democrat. they lead this group and put this report out last week. isot of what is in there

stuff you heard flirting around -- floating around the pentagon. this is a definitive document that will influence the next congress in january. host: from the report you have in your story, the u.s. military could sever high casualties and loss of major capital assets in a sex conflict. in a its next conflict war against china or russia. the u.s. is at risk of being overwhelmed should his military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously. what does the military think about this report? guest: they are kind of of two minds. they think we will get it done no matter what. well, you can cut the budget and people. at the end of the day it might not be ideal, but we will get it done. people say this is a sober look

at the fact based on the personnel we have, the technology we have and where we have been investing to deal with china and russia after a decade of only focusing on the middle east, which is a very different type of fight, they are people that say yes, that is about right. if we had a fight two wars at the same time, we probably could not do it effectively. if the u.s. -- could the u.s. go to war the great power and the and fight the smaller conflicts around the world the west does every day? -- the u.s. does everyday? host: is the u.s. military stagnating, for are the other superpowers getting better? guest: you have heard -- the with the u.s. military has operated since 9/11 has the

focus on this one specific region and a specific fight. that is an antiterrorist fight. those are fairly low intensity in terms of the technology you have. the stuff the u.s. had on 9/11 effectively was so good for that fight. upgraded and changed since then based on tactics. cant of the older airplanes still be used because they can't be shut down. the investments went there because that was the fight of the day. at the time russia was a partner. things have changed in the last several years. russia particularly since crimea in 2014, and china spent the time going we should be thinking about our future. what does the u.s. have now? how can we try to match that? it's a combination. there is the focus down here and the stagnation in terms of technology development.

the other countries said while they are distracted let's investing in technology. hypersonic missiles, a new concern at the pentagon. nuclear capabilities from russia and china. unmanned systems, which we have had a complete locke on. you are seeing these competitors really investing in areas the u.s. has ignored the last couple of decades. host: we want you to join the conversation about america's military readiness to fight two wars at the same time. if you're in the eastern or central times and, call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zone, call (202) 748-8001. and if you are active duty military or retired military, we want to hear you on this report.

you can call in at (202) 748-8002. you can always reach us on social media. we are at twitter at @cspanwj, and on facebook. what was the white house and congressional reactions to this report? guest: the white house has not really reacted much. they have been distracted with other stuff going on. been weagon's responses are aware of the concerns. we agree with some of them and disagree with some of them. the pentagon does knowing to come out and say we cannot win. there is a certain amount of pride and you don't want to tell the enemy to can't win the war. congress' reaction is been interesting. with the new congress there is a lot of politics at play. the democrats taken the house has the possibility of defense spending being cut. timeschiff has said many

if democrats take over, we will look to cut nuclear spending, look to increase oversight of america's activities abroad, and see of defense spending needs to come down. the president himself surprise the pentagon -- surprised the pentagon. the president at a cabinet meeting announced they would have a $700 billion budget. now they are scrambling to basically redo the budget. finding $33 billion to cut. that will come from things like systemsics or high-end that need to be developed for the future fight. that will be cut or delayed under this budget cut. there are a lot of moving parts to this. when congress comes back, especially in february when the budget drops, this will be

something referred to by both sides. democrats met with ticket -- republicansy will say this says it needs more funding to make the strategy work. we need to increase funding. host: does the report from the commission relate the amount of funding and budget cuts to america's military readiness? guest: it does. this goes back to sequestration back in 2012. the way that was implemented was what the pentagon called salami slices. everything took a 5% cut. that meant there was not a strategic thought about how to cut things. readiness was cut where it should not have been cut. modernization had not kicked off. training dropped off. you are seeing the fallout of the effects and we will continue

to see that for the next decade in certain areas, particularly training and readiness. everyone is trying to get back to where they want to be. the issue comes down to the fact they are still heavily involved in the middle east in one specific type of fight. we are trying to get ready for a different kind of fight in the pacific and europe. there needs to be investment. host: larry from indiana. larry is retired military. good morning. caller: hi. i was wondering who made this report. i don't think they know the heart and soul of the american people, about fighting wars. i was a vietnam vet. we have a heart for this country. i am 71 years old but i was still fight for this country today. thank you very much. guest: the report is from 12 experts.

several are retired military and others served in the pentagon. the cochair was chief of naval operations. the report is not questioning the heart and soul of the military or the will of the people to fight. it is more a question of if a fight happens, logistically in terms of materials and moving people back and forth and actually doing the fighting that he happening, are those capabilities there? they are careful to say we can't fix this. if thisy are saying is is going to happen in the next couple of years, the u.s. needs to prepare for it. at this point the conclusion is the pentagon has not done a good enough job in preparing for that, with technology or basic strategy for how to deal with that. host: don from new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning.

-- limit itto just to just russia and china? why not prepare for every country in the entire world? the entire universe? why don't we prepare our army against fighting everything, every possible enemy there could ever be in your imagination? guest: some would say the space force is designed for everyone in the universe. why prepare and talk about countries -- china is a major trading partner. i don't think this is a, hey, let's get ready for war. fundamentally many things china and russia are doing are at odds with america. has claimed territory other countries in asia believe is there's.

-- theirs. there are a lot of potential flashpoints in which the u.s. could find itself. is a building designed to come up with plans and strategies for the worst-case scenarios. probably the best but look at this is this is kind of what this is. host: there was an audit done of the pentagon recently. guest: it failed. it failed in a way that is more complex than that answer. a law was passed that all government agencies have to be audited. the pentagon said we know that is the law but we are complex and you guys don't need audit us. we are fine. the trump administration said that is not really good enough for us. we will actually do an audit. they brought in david norquest to essentially be the ceo of the

pentagon. he did the first audit at homeland security. he had some experience starting on it with a government agency. not quite this big. this is $2.7 trillion in assets. it just concluded a couple of days ago. there were 21 individual audits. you have services, defense agencies. some got two different types of audits. five are given green light's. two were given yellow lights. everyone else got the equivalent of red, but the pentagon expected that. when you talk to david norquest, he says we knew this was going to happen. we are doing this on purpose so we know where the problem areas are and what to go after next year. every year there is an audit. are coming they down, coming down until it is manageable. long as the pentagon

cannot account for trillions of dollars i have no said that the and will support -- will not support another penny for defense." new congress comes in people see a lot of questions about this. we asked norquist and the deputy secretary of defense that question. what do you say to the mix people who say you were asking for billions of dollars and you can't pass an audit? essentially, we sympathize with that. this is a complicated building. we are now doing it and trying to get better and find savings. there are a bunch of different internal reform packages to try to find little pockets of money. at the end of the date the pentagon's funding is tied up. pay.t of it is based in there are certain requirements they can't get rid of.

that veryon top of expensive systems and things get complicated quickly. host: jason from eugene, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. love the program. today you have a really good program. i want to talk about military readiness. there is too much emphasis placed on the military and not enough placed on the states. we need to up our timetable if we are going to make the world safe for democracy. democracy is failing. authoritarian governments are taking advantage of this. we are under attack right now. that is how we need to win the world. we need to start upholding our principles. we need to send our sons and daughters to other countries so they can come back to america and help build our readiness so we are able to win the world's culture on their terms. what i see is if we give

everybody in the world citizenship, and that way everybody is americans. guest: that is an idea. i don't think i disagree with the core concept 30's to be funding for state. if you look at the u.s., there has always been a balance of the military and the political. jim mattis said a couple of times if you get rid of the state department, you have to buy more bullets. he said many times, especially when secretary tillerson was there, the state department has the lead on all these issues. they happily on dealing with the situation in syria, on russia. the military is there to support the state department. the state department needs a big stick to threaten people with and that is the military's role. not everyone sees it that way. era, thest-9/11

military's funding has been a lot bigger than the state department's. there were people in the pentagon who say that is an issue. ceremony forgning the defense authorization act, president trump had this to say about the strength of our military. we willpresident trump: increase the size and strength of our military by adding thousands of new recruits to active duty, reserve and national guard units. including 4000 new active duty soldiers. we will replace aging tanks, aging planes and ships with the most advanced and legal technology ever developed -- lethal technology ever developed. hopefully we will be so strong we never have to use it. host: do expect any legislation from congress and the fine duck session or coming up with a new

congress in january that deals with this? guest: i would not expect much in the lame-duck session. they managed to pass defense spending bills a couple of weeks ago. the coast guard funding is the only thing up in the air because that is under homeland security and there was the fight about the border wall. it seems like there might be a plan a place for that. in terms of the new congress, absolutely. the budget will get dropped around february. then you will have the annual fights over defense spending. with the democrats taking over there are a couple of things to watch. adam smith said nuclear weapons specifically with something president trump is invested in. under the nuclear posture deal they came up earlier this year, the pentagon saying this is our nuclear goals, they said we will make two new nuclear weapons. thinks that is not

only strategically a bad idea but a waste of money. another one that will tie things increaseys he was to lgbtq writes in the military. president trump has put a ban on transgendered service members. smith said that will be a big issue for his committee. you start time is up, and you have senator inhofe who believes social issues should be part of the discussion. you can see some situations were a budget fight pops up in the military's budget is tied up in if transgender service members can serve. host: michael from illinois, retired military. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the report for two reasons. one political and one military.

on the military side the situation is we would exhaust all our active duty people. we would exhaust our reserves thenational guard people in initial conflict with russia or china. theust simply do not have wherewithal to gear up a big draft to start to pump in people into this particular conflict. on the political side you are not even going to get a draft army to fight when you have got this income discrepancy in society. plus, you keep constantly cutting the taxes on the wealthy so who is going to pay for all of this extra military stuff? and they do waste a tremendous amount. i can't see us winning against

russia or china. they have too many people and they are too determined for us to beat them. they should have brought back the draft years ago. they should have never turned the military into a bureaucracy. guest: i think the point about the active-duty numbers is a really good one. it is one of the pentagon is struggling with. you hear about people going for 5, 6, 7 to nine it's and it is causing burnout. it is at all levels. a lot of people are saying i would stay in the military but i have been deployed downrange seven or eight times. it is completely emotionally draining and i need to get out. you can imagine the situation that would develop if there was a bigger war and everyone had to get activated at once to deal with it. it would be very complex and draining. even if they were was successfully completed, whatever that may look like, it would

leave the military fairly depleted and plenty of other issues around the world at the beak up with. host: laura for michigan. caller: good morning. first of all, with regards to your question, i don't think we could win a war against russia. the people are too determined. it was russia that allowed us to win the second world war. 28 million russians were killed. otherwise hitler would probably be in washington. with regards to the armies that we have, something by 26 suicide today. those poor soldier still see their families, are in constant there.t here and it is terrible because i have families that are in the service. back in iraq when the soldiers

them tothey drugged speed them up so they could go -- i can't imagine people being treated that way. let's get back to the united states. let's take care of california. only 3% of that land is governed by california. the rest is federal land. this is people not paying attention of global warming. it is a farce. is -- withink there the fires recently there is a role for the national guard and the military to help out in these situations, which is another example of the type of -- what happens if a wildfire breaks out in california and you need national

guard assistance? that is the fundamental thing we keep coming back to. there is only a finite pool of resources. the u.s. does a lot every day all over the world. some of it is humanitarian missions, fighting fires, fighting isis. all yourve to pour resources into one specific issue, those resources have to stop. host: janet from tacoma, washington. good morning. the war is the saddest thing i ever knew. i was just a young little girl. i could see the family, how they were so sad and cried so hard. these boys that are getting , i know jimmy carter was very peaceful. john kennedy.

he negotiated with cuba to prevent a war. when clinton was president there who killed other people in other countries. clinton went and talked to their president and said i know we were wrong, we apologize. he says we will do anything you want us to. they asked for money and clinton gave it to them because we were wrong and it did not start a war. i think there should be something done. we should do anything possible not to have a war where our boys will get killed and these families can never get over it. it should not have to be. i would like to see china and someday they will understand how to treat people. it has to start with united

states. the killings in the united states are terrible. guest: i don't think there is anybody in the pentagon or the government, or hopefully people aware of the situation that think war is a good thing. being inside the building is ideally the last resort. the u.s. decided our global role since world war ii has been to maintain peace around the world and to spend heavily on the military to have a big stick to try to enforce that peace. viewe whole the pentagon's is if we have to use force, we will, but we don't want to. host: lilly, good morning. caller: i was on your defense news website yesterday. i was writing a letter to my senator, pat toomey. sequestration did not happen by magic. they had this committee in 2011.

they did not take the deadline seriously. they were supposed to come up with budget cuts. instead they went home for thanksgiving. i hope my senator responsible because they just gave up and sequestration came in. they knew it would hurt military readiness. now we are just supposed to forget who was on that supercommittee and how they abandoned their responsibilities. why don't we hold these people accountable? guest: thank you for reading defense news. we appreciate that. it is a really good point. when this committee can together the idea was we will set it up so it is so awful we will never let it happen. we all know it is so bad. -- everyonel agree will agree. and then it happened. people seemed surprised by that on the hill. absolutely. the effects wend

are feeling now in the military you will continue to feel for some time. it was a self-inflicted point by congress. host: john from new jersey. can you get a quick question and for us? caller: and the age of social and economic interconnectedness and usually assured destruction, what is the viability of the idea that china and russia can take care of their own country and they will take over america? what are we scared of? guest: fair question. people say it will never have a war with china because we are too connected. with russia we have seen them take territory from other countries. the u.s. is supporting ukraine a little bit. isrussia decided estonia right across the border and if we just took estonia, that is a nato ally. if

will defend time one. -- taiwan. thes more a question of calculus of various countries, their personal goals and interests, and whether those accidentally trips a wire and the u.s. feels obligated to take part. host: we would like to thank aaron mehta for coming in and c-span's washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, bloomberg news national political correspondent and npr's white house course on it, aisha rasco, discuss the week ahead in congress. and defense budget analysis director todd harrison discusses the pentagon failing its first-ever comprehensive audit. be sure to watch washington

journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> today, the center for strategic and international studies hosts discussions with military leaders on air and missile defense systems. live coverage begins at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. listen to c-span's biweekly podcast. this week, part one of a two-part interview with three residential historians. -- three presidential historians who share historical context for the trump presidency. >> i see that the andrew .ohnson-like president someone who has impeachment swelling around him and is not able to heal a racial divide in the country. animosity between the press and the president as early as john adams.

wasuse he was a person who pushing toward the sedition act 1798. what that does is that it actually tries to prevent criticism of the government and of the president. find c-span's biweekly on the free c-span radio app under the podcast or wherever you go for podcast. interview withs senator bob corker of tennessee, who is retiring at the end of this term. he talks about his tenure in the congress. this is 45 minutes.