a pit yens compared to what they're going need to do. but they're trying to shape this as best they can. but it's quite obvious events are overtaking them. they're sweating this. and within a couple of weeks' time, the congress cu cut $20 billion off the request for defense in fiscal 2011. and 2012 will have to completely be rewritten based on that. and there's going to be even more cuts there. so he's probably going to be overtaken by events at some point because his own caucus will have to demand these things. >> how central in where this debate goes? >> it's going to be difficult to have somebody with gates' influence over both democrats and republicans who's considered an independent voice that they listen to. it's going to be great trouble. in fact, that's one of the reasons that they haven't announced anybody right now. who is it that you can go to that will have that kind of sway. when you look at the list of names there isn't anybody that will be like that. it's going it be a political position. they will be stuck with a political job. >> the policy issues included women in combat, gays in the military, and military readiness. let's start with gays in the military. are republicans in the house likely to revisit this issue in eye serious way? >> they're going to revisit it but they're probably going to lose. votes in theve the senate to get it through. it's not likely that they would have -- they don't have override vote either. they have to deal with the president on that, too. i really don't think this is going go anywhere i think it's more political, sort of thing they're doing to rile up their base a little bit. >> the amount of time that will happen with or without. >> and you asked about a new report about women in the military. what's the trajectory for that? >> it's interesting. there does seem to be some momentum building in the senate. senator levin who chairs the committee, hasn't yet said how he feels. he went through a battle in ban of gayse serving in the military. so that was very tough so they may not want to stay on a social issue this year. but there are lawmakers starting to instigate for it, so you may end up seeing it of course, in the house, can you get that through the house? i doubt it. >> the chairman says the story of a funeral he went to when the company commander was the female and essentially said they're in harms way right now. what is the difference between where we are right now and officially allowing women in the military? >> the direct combat units, the ones that go out, kick down doors are in the middle of the fight. and they are not supposed to have women in them. women are in supporting jobs, administrative jobs, slightly behind that front line. for backup purposes, women are in combat today. and it doesn't make a difference it doesn't matter whether this report is approved or not that they're there and their role will only expand. >> so there isn't a need for a policy revision? >> well, i would not say that. there are combat roles where people are required to do enormous -- carry enormous loads and things like that now there's tohnologies coming across help bare loads and things like that so whomever goes into these combat units would have to pass a certain type of physical. would have to do certain types of things. now, there were some very small guys when i went through the army who were able to do the work. would probably be women who would be able to dot work, too. but right now they do convoy protection. they're military police. they do those kinds of functions, and they are in combat. there a difference in pay? >> none. well zone, you do get special pay for combat. >> but all in the zone get it. that's it for our time. in our closing here, he erased concerns about military pay with the debate over the debt ceiling? >> no. >> secretary geithner wrote a letter, said very clearly if the debt ceiling is not raised one of the things of risk, military pay, veterans benefits, retirement pay because if we don't have ability to borrow money, we can't make payments. there's a slush fund. they have some time. it might not be until june that they face it. but if the debt ceiling isn't raised and spending isn't cut, the u.s. has to stop spending money it doesn't have. >> remember what it is currently, like $1.3 trillion. so if you don't have the debt ceiling raised, you may not be able to pay your bills. >> thank you for being here this week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> to be a parent means you're training the people you can't live without to live without you. >> his son's college admissions process. the s.a.t.'s, college rankings, guide books, financial aid forms. andrew ferguson was not prepared for "crazy u." >> nothing like that had to me when i was thinking about college in the mid 1970's. so it was starting to dawn on me that this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out as this dad catches up tonight on c-span's "q&a." you can also download a podcast of "q&a." it's one of our many signature interview programs available online at c-span.org/podcast. >> on wednesday, president obama vowed to reject portions of the house republican budget plan saying the bush era tax cuts for the wealthy would never be extended again during his presidency. he outlined a plan for reducing the federal deficit and national debt. it includes $4 trillion in deficit reductions in 12 years or less. the president spoke at george washington university before an audience that included members of the fiscal commission as well as house budget committee chairman paul ryan who also served on that commission. he's calling for negotiations over long-term debt reductions to begin in may with a plan due in june. this is 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. please. thank you. please have a seat. please have a seat, everyone. it is wonderful to be back at g.w. i want you to know that one of the reasons that i worked so hard with democrats and republicans to keep the government open was so that i could show up here today. i wanted to make sure that all you have had one more excuse to skip class. you're welcome. i want to give a special thanks to steven knapp, the president of g.w. i just saw him. where is he? [applause] there he is. we've got a lot of distinguished guests here. a couple of people i want to acknowledge. first of all, my outstanding president joe biden is here. [applause] our secretary of the treasury, tim geithner is in the house. [applause] jack lu, the director of office management and budget. gene sperling, chair of the national economic council, is here. [applause] members of our bipartisan fiscal commission are here, including the two outstanding chairs, erskine bowles and allen simpson are here. [applause] and we have a number of members of congress here today. i'm grateful for all of you taking the time to attend. what we've been debating here in washington over the last few weeks will affect the lives of the students here and families all across america in potentially profound ways. this debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page. from our first days as the nation, we have put our faith in premarkets and free enterprise as the engine of america's wealth and prosperity. any othercitizens of country, we are rugged individuals. a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government. but there's always been another thread running through our history. a belief that we're all connected. and that there are some things we can only do together as a nation. we believe in the words of the first republican president, abraham lincoln, that true government -- we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. so we built a strong military to keep us secure and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. we've laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. we've supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new industries. each of us has benefited from these investments, and we're a more prosperous country as a result. now, part of this american belief that we're all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. there but for the grace of god go i, we say to ourselves. and so we contribute to programs like medicare and social security, which guarantee us and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work. unemployment insurance which protects us against unexpected job loss. and medicaid which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. we're a better country because of these commitments. i'll go further. we would not be a great country without those commitments. for much of the last century our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by assistance. as a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class for those less fortunate. everybody pays, but the wealthier are born a little more. this is not because we be grudge those who have done well. we rightly celebrate their success. instead, it's a basis reflection of our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more. more over, this belief hasn't hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale. they continue to do better and better with each passing year. now, at certain times, particularly during war or recession, our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. and as most families understand a little credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary. but as far back as the 1980's, america started amassing debt at more alarming levels. and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. they knew that eventually the baby boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like medicare, social security, and possibly medicaid. like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, america has to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation. to meet this challenge our leaders came together three times during the 1990's to reduce our nation's deficit. three times. they forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first president bush, then made by president clinton, by democratic congresses, and by a republican congress. all three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. but they largely protected the middle class, they largely protected the commitment to seniors. they protectedded our key investments in our future. as a result of these bipartisan efforts, america's finances were in great shape by the year 2000. we went from deficit to surplus. america was actually on track to becoming completely debt free. and we were prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers. but after democrats and republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990's, we lost our way in the decade that followed. we increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program. but we didn't pay for any of this new spending. instead we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid for tax cuts. tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country, tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year for the next decade. to give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation's checkbook, consider this. in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefits, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years. but that's not what happened. so by the time i took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a baby boom retirement that is now starting to take place. i took office, our projected deficit annual was more than $1 trillion. on top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that like most recessions led us to temporarily borrow even more. in this case we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. it was absolutely the right thing to do. these steps were expensive and added to our deficits in the short term. so that's how our physical challenge was created. that's how we got here. and now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, democrats and republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990's. we have to live within our means. we have to reduce our deficit. we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. and we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, protects the investments we need to grow, creates jobs, and helps us win the future. now, before i get into how we achieve this goal, some of you, particularly the younger you don'te -- qualify, joe. [laughing] some of you might be wondering, why is this so important? why does this matter to me? well, here's why. even after our economy recoveries, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes throughout this decade and beyond. that means we'll have to keep borrowing more from countries like china. that means more of your tax dollars each year will go towards paying off the interest on all the loans that we keep taking out. by the end of this decade, the interest that we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. think about that. that's the interest. just the interest payments. then as the bash boomers start -- baby berms start to rise in numbers and the health situation rise, the situations will get even worse. by 2025, the amount of tax we will only be enough to finance our health care programs -- medicare and medicaid -- social security, and the interest we owe on our dealt. that's it. every other national priority -- education, transportation, even our national security -- will have to be paid for with borrowed money. now, ultimately all of this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. it will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. we won't be able to afford good schools, new research, or repair roads. all the things that create new jobs and businesses here in america. businesses will be less likely to invest and open shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. and if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our vets that could drive up interest rates for everybody who borrows money, making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage. here's the good news. doesn't have to be our future. that doesn't have to be the country that we leave our children. we can solve this problem. we came together as democrats and republicans to meet this challenge before. we can do it again. but that starts by being honest about what's causing our deficit. you see, most americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract. but like the stuff that it buys. most of us regardless of party affiliation believe we should have a strong military and strong defense. most believe we should invest in medication and medical research. most believe we should protect social security and medicare. and without even looking at a poll, my finally honed political instincts tell me almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes. so because all of this spending is popular with both republicans and democrats alike and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse. you'll hear that phrase a lot. we just need to eliminate waste and abuse. the implication is tackling the deficit issue won't require tough choices. or politicians suggest that we somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire federal budget. so here's the truth. around 2/3 of our budget, 2/3, is spent on medicare, medicaid, social security, and national security. 2/3. programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. what's left after interest on the debt is just 12% for everything else. that's 12% for all of our national priorities. education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, our national parks, food safety, keeping our air and water clean. you name it. all of that accounts for 12% of our budget. now, up until now the debate near washington, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in washington, have focused on that 12%. but cuts to that 12% alone won't solve the problem. so any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to on the table. and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. a serious plan doesn't require to balance our budget overnight. in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we need a phased in approach. but it does require tough decisions and support from our leaders in both parties now. above all, it will require to us choose a vision of the america we want to see five years, 10 years, 20 years down the road. now to their credit, one vision has been presented and championed by republicans in the house of representatives. and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. it's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years and one that addresses the challenge of medicare and medicaid in the years after that. these are both worthy goals. worthy goals for us to achieve. but the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different america than the one we've known. certainly in my lifetime. in fact, i think it would be fundamentally different than what we've known throughout our history. a 70% cut in clean energy. a 25% cut in education. a 30% cut in transportation. cuts in college pell grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. that's the proposal. these aren't the kinds of cuts you make when you're trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. these aren't the kinds of cuts that the fiscal commission proposed. these are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can't afford the america that i believe in and i you believe in. i believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. it's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them. if there are bright, young americans that have the drive and will but not the money to go to college, we can't send them. go to china and you'll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. they're scrambling to figure out how they put more money into education. brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline but on biofuels. and yet we are presented with a vision that says the american people, the united states of america, the greatest nation on earth, can't afford any of this. it's a vision that says america can't afford to keep the pr