plus ho happy memorial day weekend and welcome to "this week in defense news," i'm vago muradian. the uso is known for its moral e-boosting entertainment shows. that's not all. we'll look at some of its other programs. first a defense budget battle is brewing over the obama administration's $525 billion 2013 pentagon spending request. house republicans want to add between $3 and $5 billion to the pentagon's budget to undo some of the nearly $500 billion in defense cuts over the coming decade, called for by the bipartisan budget control act last year. key senate democrats are vowing to back the house cuts. with the threat of sequestration, another

automatic $500 billion in defense cuts due later this year that d.o.d. leaders say will be catastrophic looks ever more likely. here to talk about the budget, defense spending, afghanistan and more is our expert roundtable with gordon adams of the stinson center, lauren thompson of the lexington institute, mckenzie eggland of the american enterprise institute. lady and gentlemen, welcome. mckenzie, i want to start with you. the house and the senate have very, very different views, obviously on about what the defense budget ought to look like. is there anything these two chambers are going to agree on and is the white house going to go along with it? >> that's because they're controlled by different parties. >> shocking. >> the democratic -- the republicans sent the -- send the signal that they want this fight and it doesn't want it to be laid on the election trail that begins in earnest now, not just the presidential candidates to take the blame for sequestration because they think sequestration will take us back at any moment and there will be furloughs, there will

be consolidations, there will be layoffs. this is going to come up on a local and community level between now and november. so you're seeing the republicans lay the foundation to say we want to differentiate ourselves from president obama. at the end of the day they're not going to get a penny more for defense. >> said differently, everything is now driven by the elections. everything is posturing until the first week in november. and consequently, all the big issues of which mckenzie has identified, about a dozen will be left until after the election. >> gordon. >> this is what i call an indonesian shadow play, we'll see it between now and the beginning of november because none of this is real. even if the republicans managed to pass something that was $3 or $5 billion above the administration's request, the bottom line here is that slap on lat year. we're not increasing defense resources significantly here, we're arguing about the constraints imposed by the budget control. >> i think it's much ado about nothing. the reality is the difference between the house and the senate is about 1% of the total defense top line.

so it's not that big of a difference and none of it really matters until we figure out what to do about sequestration. that's a 10% hit. >> and so the likelihood of having any sort of real budget basically by october the 1st is exactly zero, continuing resolution. >> continuing resolution like we had last time. >> so since sequestration is the big hot topic, obviously made a little bit hotter because speaker boehner did say that, you know, we're going to have another oxley to apparently throw down on the critically critically again which -- debt ceiling again which got us into this in the first place. sequestration now an absolute certainty? and, rather, it appears like it's more certain. not only does it appear like it's more certain, some folks would look at this and say it's a good thing. >> no. there's no certainty here at all. i think you have to look at this in a broader context. we're stuck in this dynamic view of defense here and we think defense is what it's about. it's not about defense. it's about a budget deal. and the budget deal is going to have things after the election on the table that you won't believe, including the debt

ceiling, including a continuing resolution, including the threat of sequestration. >> payroll taxes. >> the bush tax cuts. including payroll taxes, including the extension of unemployment benefits, the alternate minimum tax fix, the doctors' fix. there is going to be a huge number of issues on the agenda after the election for the lameduck congress to focus on. they'll either have chaos -- >> and that's what the anxiety is all about, it's the uncertainty, big issues up for grabs, nobody knows what the outcome is. >> it's not about defense. defense is just one piece in this puzzle. >> that's correct. but there's no grand bargain coming in the lameduck and that's where the pentagon is falling into the trap of thinking they're going to save this to the end of the day. the defense budget is hostage to a tax hike and a debt ceiling deal. the two biggest issues. >> that was the whole idea to force everybody into making a deal. >> to think you can change a new debt ceiling agreement by fixing the old one and changing the bill payer is not going to fly. >> mckenzie is right in this sense and that is to say

there's not a grand bargain ever. there's no 10-year deal that's going to emerge in our lifetime. >> swallow with a bitter pill. >> my judgment is there will be something that pushes sequester off to the right. >> i agree. >> this debate really hasn't progressed much since last august when the deal was struck. >> this conversation is virtually identical to the one we've been having for months. that's just great. >> the proposals that have been put forward are partisan on both sides. they aren't compromises, they're not getting closer to compromise in any way. that's what's required, to get some sort of agreement. also, another thing, many of the proposals we're seeing so far, all they actually do is delay sequestration by one year, that's all that we do. there's the old saying that as congress is about to go off a cliff, they just build more land and that's what they're doing here. >> what's the impact on the pentagon, though? >> here's the likely outcome. sequestration in some form is going to happen. we can bank on it, depending on flexibility because that's the

one dpiening feature that everybody universeally hates and it may come out or spread out evenly among the nine years. but the budgets are going to go down quickly. >> let's define what mckenzie means by flexibility here. the way many people work on the hill interpret the law. everything that's cut has to be the same -- >> every program, every project. >> every program, every project and very activity. it's waifl and would be really hard -- waysful and would be really hard to the pentagon. we could do tradeoffs to get efficiency. >> i don't think sequestration is going to happen. i may be an outlier in this group by saying that. i think it's unlikely. what is likely is that moving this agenda to the right each year on defense is that defense will go down significantly more than the $500 billion secretary panetta thinks he's put out over 10 years. that's the bottom line. whether it's fast or slow, it's going down. >> primarily military leaders will tell you that their expectation is that there's

several hundred potentially significant reductions, you know, $300, some suggest, more to come, it's just that they want to do it on their terms and not have it shoved down their throat. >> i think that's what will happen, but it'll only happen in the context of a bigger agreement. >> i want to give todd an opportunity here. >> the other thing too is even if sequestration does happen, it can be reversed by congress >> so it's not an all-or- nothing game here. it could be a temporarily sequestration. >> that's the deal. everybody voted for this deal to 7.imx0 billion, hang another couple hundred billion over your head in order to -- >> right. that's why everybody doesn't like it. normally in a 4kdv doesn't like something, it doesn't happen. i think in the end gordon is probably right, it probably doesn't happen. >> and that deal that was carved last year was really a deal only to accomplish two things, thing one was let's get past this debt ceiling argument, thing two was let's set a cap for '12, let's set a cap for '13, we'll get to it

later >> we're back to the debt ceiling debate. to quote harry reid, we haven't fixed the first one before we're talking about the second one. >> just when you thought it was over. >> it's washington, it's 4kdv own debt being downgraded yet again and the eurozone crisis hitting our economy. if either of those two things had a fiscal shock of some sort here in the u.s., and i would think one of them had, right about the lameduck session this winter, then sequestration stands. >> but there's an irony here. even if we are downgraded, right now you can borrow money at unbelievably low rates if you're the u.s. government and therefore there's not a lot of financial resistance to just continuing. >> we fundamentally stink less, any comparison between us and greece is not really relevant. >> you gotta remember our problem is not the immediate deficit, the problem is the long-term deficit. >> exactly. you get rid of tax cuts and you free up a lot of money in that. next on the roundtable, afghanistan, asia and a little more

i didn't quite know thiwhat to expect.our. i'd seen the images on tv, but until you're in the thick of it... anyway the guys in my unit who'd been here before, told me just ride it out, keep my head down and remember the reason i'm here. and we're paying for it all with my cashrewards card from navy federal. we're earning cash back! bring it. brought it. brung. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

welcome back. i'm going to use my host progressitive and go to mckenzie again. mckendzy, there are a number of folks in town who are conservatives and who are romney advisers. the candidate has repeatedly said he's going to try to reverse defense cuts. there are some folk hoss suggest that it's actually not something that's likely to be reversed. the question is how much further down it goes rather than how much further up it goes and there are polls that said a majority of americans were actually more comfortable with much deeper defense cuts.

is this the only question about whether defense spending goes down? is there a possibility the defense spending goes up or any of this gets reversed? >> governor romney has a goal to shrink the size of the federal government pretty significantly and to stabilize defense budgets so we don't see the dramatic peaks and valleys you see after a major conflict has ended. i think that it would be a long- term goal of the first administration, something he would work to achieve over the full four years, and it would require very difficult political issues to be solved in the entitlement part of the budget first. >> right. >> it's a prerequisite that you may need to do that first. >> i think you can sum it up this way that party control may change, but the budget math remains the same. it's going to be hard to deviate from what's in the cards already. it's not a matter of if the budget is going to come down, it's a matter of how much and how quickly. >> if the defense -- the defense budget was going to go up under obama before sequestration, it was going to go up by a lot, actually.

>> and it's flattened, slightly down. >> here's the bottom line, you would get an increase in the defense budget under either the democrats or the republicans if there's a new threat to require it. in the absence of some sort of compelling threat, the only way defense spending can go up is if we continue to have big deficits or we really slash entitlements. >> the bottom line here is that defense spending is not the number one issue in people's minds right now. if you do any polling at all, it shows you this is number, 8, 9, 10 on a list of 10. they're not really concerned -- >> economy, economy, economy. >> economy, economy, jobs, jobs, health, health, those are the issues on people's minds. >> there's a point where the economy and the budget are exactly the same thing. >> there's not as many places as there used american economy. mckenzie talks about up and down cycles after war. we do have up and down cycles after war. we should have up and down cycles after war. the up and down cycles of the last year is 30% of constant dollars over 10 years in the

defense budget. right now it would be 8% from a fiscal '12 projection over the next 10 years. we're a long way from where i think it's going to go. >> mckenzie. >> i think if there were a romney administration, his business and reform agenda would put further squeeze on the defense budget. there would be a legitimate effort that following in the spirit of the qdr independent panel that you would never go to congress and ask for an additional penny until you've done everything you can internally in the defense budget to free up funds from other priorities and reform business processes. >> and that's obviously a big drive that this administration is actually doing now, to try to squeeze as much money out, and all of us reformers have been calling for in some respects to spend. >> it helps in terms of getting reform in the pentagon. it doesn't work the other way around. >> you were there at a time when that was actually happening. let's go quickly to programs because i do want to get to afghanistan and asia really quickly. joint strike fighter and latorial ships are two of the prominent programs on the firing line, if you will. they were programs criticized,

have very strong supporters as well as the tractors. but everybody has always had the perception that these programs are really going to get through. is that dynamic in jeopardy at all? are these programs vulnerable? >> yeah, i think they are. if you look at the joint strike fighter in particular, i view it this way, it's too big to fail because there just aren't good alternatives to do it. but at the same time it's too big to succeed. there's a lot wrapped into this program and it's going to be a big target no matter what. i think the program muddles there. >> i don't know why you're using future tense, they've taken out of the program out of the last three years. it has been targeted. now they're down to a program where they can't cut any further if they want to have a program. since there's no plan b, they kind of have to stick with it. >> they've moved the money to the future. >> right. >> i have a prediction on the f- 35. the version that gets bought in smaller numbers than currently projected is the air force version. the version that gets bought even though it probably shouldn't be is the marine corps version because the lobbyists are good and want it.

the version that gets killed or math in the last three years. you're going to get the buy significantly. >> where the combat ship is concerned, take a look at the navy aresponse to the criticism, the entire navy has backed that program to the hilt, from the top to the bottom. >> even though you're a lockheed adviser. >> i'm not a navy adviser. and everybody in the navy is supporting that ship. that ship isn't going anywhere. >> let me ask you about afghanistan now. since the last time we met, the president has said that the united states is going to stay until 2024. that's sends a message to america's allies that america isn't going to cut and run after this. however right it may be, that's going to be political tenable. >> i don't think anybody knows what's going to happen in 2024. predictions difficult, especially as what mark twain said about the future.

my view on afghanistan is we'll be out of there in the middle of 2013 except for advisers and we'll save some advisers behind, do some training and quickly that program will not have support in the congress of the united states. >> there is some regrets on both sides of the aisle about the inability to reach an agreement in iraq and have some sort of long-term presence that was small and manageable, not the size of germany, as long as it budgettarily makes sense, i think there would be a push on both sides to make it work. >> this is the first time nato has ever led a mission outside of the north atlantic region and they've been there for over 10 years. that tells you there's something more to the alliance than just the cold war or the red army. >> if there's an enduring presence in afghanistan, i think it's going to be relatively small, keeping a minimum force of troops there is going to run $12 to 15 in the year. that's going hard to justify in the coming years. >> what kind of footprint would

it be? >> extremely small. even though the afghanys are welcoming and the iraqis are not, i think you'll see a small footprint. 5,000, 1500, probably not more than that. up next, what the uso is doing for wounded troops.

since its founding in 1941, the uso, short for united service organizations, has been best known for helping organize shows for deployed deployed troops like the iconic performances by legendary comedian bob hope and supporting traveling servicemembers. today the uso is expanding its business to service family members and careers including caring for wounded warriors, helping the families of fallen

troops and easing the transition to civilian life. joining me is sloan gibson, uso's ceo and president. sir, welcome. >> thank you, vago. great to be here. >> let me start off, what drove you to broaden the scope of the for the last 71 years, to lift the spirits of america's troops and their families. what we do is we constantly assess and evaluate the needs of those families and try to adjust and adapt. so if we think about that mission, we ask who needs us most today, we realize that our deployed troops serving in harm's way, military families enduring the stresses of multiple deployments, wounded troops and their families and families of the fallen, same mission, it's just that the needs have changed. and you'll find all the way back to %e supporting wounded troops and i families back then. 7< to raise $100 million for the two wounded warrior and family care centers that you guys want to build, one in virginia and

one at the walter reed bethesda complex. what are the kind of services that you want to provide for wounded troops and their families? >> one of 0l)kñthe things we've learned is that healing is more than about what happens in an operating room or a physical therapy room. these families and these men and women that have been injured in service to our country need a place to go away from the hospital environment, a place to find a little peace of normalcy, a place that can be a focal point for support from volunteers, from the local community and from other organizations. the opportunity to just to be together and socialize outside of their outpatient barracks room or a place away from, say, the residents' facility for theç families. >> it's a $100 million cost, obviously to do that, it's significantment investment. where are you on the donation train and where can people donate? us about $25 billion to build total.

the rest is to fund an array of programs which we are delivering around the country and arn the world, plus another $25 million to endow those two facilities. we're about $16 or $17 million in to funding primarily for those first two buildings. uso.org is the great place to learn more about the uso and the way viewers can help. >> anyone who's cared úzb$siçf wounded troops or even a sick family member knows how stressful that can be. what are are guys doing in order to train the caregivers and do a better job and also to manage their stress? >> these loved ones that often take time out of their lives to be there as nonmedical attendants for the loved ones, they're oftentimes forgotten, but the stresses on them are compassion fatigue and burnout and depression. so, really, we try to focus they effort on helping to keep them strong so that they can be there. just next week we'll be having our third annual caregivers experts from around the country.

>> that's in san antonio. >> san antonio, texas, supporting that particular xçbr÷ awful lot of á0h3-=ejñ[jv$ with some of those ogbç=nochal and stay strong to be there for their loved one. >> let's talk about veterans out of work. unemployment dropped to about 8.1%, but significantly higher  for veterans. you guys are working with hire heros usa. what do you want to do and how can folks help in that? outcomes we read in the paper for veterans, unemployment and underemployment and 2xand the like, the group that is perhaps at greatest risk to wind up in that future circumstance are those troops that have suffered either visible or invisible wounds. so we focus very intensively on them and their families to make sure that they've got the help to get themselves ready for that n4÷scareer transition. we work with hire heros doing transition workshops. we work with the u.s. chamber of commerce pulling together career opportunity days, very #-

small intimate kinds of events, tailored just for these men and women. and, again, uso.org is a great place to learn more about 3ç

support the troops has become more than a catch phrase over the past decade, it's a call to action for thousands of organizations across the country dedicated to helping wounded veterans. they raise millions of dollars to alleviate the pain and suffering of those physically or mentally injured in war, build homes tailored for those in wheelchairs or facing other physical disabilities, help returning vets find work and much, much more. to thank them for their sacrifice resources are also spent on events for wounded warriors such as speub tickets, pricey steak dinners and other

once-in an-a lifetime experiences. the real challenge of caring for wounded warriors will come decades in the future, long after many americans have turned their attention from iraq and afghanistan. troops need greater compensation for missing limbs, something that becomes increasingly difficult as they age. the nation has a moral obligation to help veterans, especially those injured or wounded in the line of duty. the best way to do that is to start banking today's gen or osity to ensure sustained long- term resources to help them and their loved ones to help meet the challenges they will face over their lifetime. thanks for joining us for "this week in defense news." you can watch this program online at defensenewstv.com or you can e-mail me at vago@defensenewstv.com. i'll see you back here at the same time next week. until then, have a great week.