>> washington journal continues. we are back with a bipartisan discussion. we have two members of congress. congressman chris ibsen is a republican. i want to read your note terry career. 24 years in the army. retired in 2010. deployed seven times in iraq, kosovo, and haiti. he is also a member of the armed forces did he is the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in congress did he retired 24 years after enlisting. that because i want to

process our discussion with your military career. you're trying to stop president obama from drawing down. let me start with you first. why? guest: it's nice to see you again. privileged to be on here with my colleague and friend. he is doing a fantastic job here in washington. i think we get faulty choices today. we get this choice between an aggressive, bomb every country type of approach or isolationism. i don't think those are consistent with defending the republic. i believe in easter strength. that requires a strong military. when you look at where we are on to have land forces smaller than before world

war ii. we are talking about the 1930's. that will take on a significant risk for the country. the assumptions that were made, they are no longer valid. we saw the rise of the islamic state. sonic north kick korea. when you some that all up, it's important that we send a signal to the world that we will not continue to drawdown. we hope that will lead to allowing us to restore deterrence. we can lead with our diplomacy. what do you want the number to be yet? guest: the number the administration is looking for his 450,000.

i want to echo what my friend from new york said. he is thoughtful and pragmatic. his goal is peace through strength. he is leading with our smart our. understanding that this is an ever-changing world with current threat. we are looking at what the future could be out. i think the concern is right here in we are making these numbers based on arbitrary budget decisions. we understand you have to make choices. when it comes to the ability to react, when the ebola situation military was the u.s. that stepped in. credit colonel gibson on this.

we put in a study. that came out here just recently. that is changing the debate. force to doave the what is necessary. in this discussion, you are either right or you're not. you don't get to be close. i want to show our viewers some of the details. you have bipartisan support. have 25 members right now. the leader of the democrats is right here. i think they are very thoughtful members. see subcommittee chairman, i've had conversations with the full committee and i have talked to speaker about this.

the need for this, not only in terms of deterrence but the impact on servicemen and women and their families. when you look at the rotations that our troops are on, they are back and getting reset to go forward. inare still largely deterrence. if we end up in a major theater troops willof our be the ploy to for the duration. impact, think about the the issue of post-traumatic stress, you compound that with the possibility here. the data-driven here of why we need to stop this drawdown becomes apparent. timesthe new york editorial board had this to say.

people are saying they will make the military stronger. this is what they write. guest: i would not disagree with that. you don't give them a blank check. sequestration played a key role. we are starting to make decisions were national security. an arbitrary number was being paid -- forced on the panic on it. we need to make sure we have enough troops on the ground. you have forces deployed rapidly. they rotated back. many of those soldiers the lloyd

22 months right after that. our military is not broken. it is strong and ready to go. world and asanging the threats emerge, we are predicating this on where we thought we would be. these are all the things to think about. i generally agree. i have been an aggressive reformer. you will see acquisition reform in this year's poll. it's critically important. when i first came to congress, the military reflected the cold war. we have to have a more agile, rapidly deployable force that reflects the information age. we don't underestimate human dimension at all. years as a national

guardsman. that we need to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. the: the army is also reserve and the national guard. ron is in wisconsin. good morning. whyer: i would like to know with all the technical updates that have occurred in the last we are training for our troops to go beyond what we had in world war ii. we have tanks, weapons, we have gps hitting af

window in an office, why isn't this type knowledge he reason enough for drawing troops down? the onlylike advantages of having troop levels higher is the troop rotations, i feel bad about that. that was from wisconsin. guest: i think you're right. technology has reduced the number. we have the smallest air force ever. there are certain things that drown -- ground troops can do. those are not things you can do. the collateral damage from smart weapons and things exacerbates the situation. it brings civilians in. it's labor-intensive.

i think what we are concerned about is what ron is saying. that oura belief technology alone would be able to do this. the enemy has adapted. we can drop or weaponry on them and they are still there. to dort weaponry is going this. i think what colonel gibson is saying is we need to be smart and targeted. a have started a discussion more adaptable force with not necessarily more money. guest: thank you for the call. there is a human dimension to conflict that i think is often missed or not fully appreciated.

i think about 2003. we had leaders that thought iraq would be a cakewalk. as someone who spent for tours in iraq, it was anything but that. it was very difficult. when you look at our national security policy, it's important you see linkages. this will be a personal endeavor. we should have respect for this challenge. humility ineed your terms of what the instrument of force can do for us. libyaed against bobbing and syria. i did not want to arm the syrian rebels. we have to get the right mindset. part of that includes keeping a robust land force that does not

impact ofn the servicemen and women and their families. the lives in virginia beach. caller: i am happy to see the two guests you have. time i was proud to cast my vote for president was for george herbert walker bush. time, i cast my vote with reservation. i always voted republican. by the number of veterans and retirees in the military who are running for various political offices. i would like to know what you more formergetting active-duty retirees and veterans who have seen action in

both houses of congress. we need to replace these career politicians were only there for themselves. will listen to your response here in -- response. isst: what i have found veterans in congress are focused on two things. mission accomplished and serving others. there have been times i've been in the cloak room. say this islleagues maybe too hard. it's not hard. at the end of the day, we have to get our work done. that means we have to listen to each other and state mission

focused. never forget we are serving others. guest: i agree. it became obvious to me that we had commonalities in common stories. i said this is someone i would like to serve with. we don't agree on all the issues. service,eople who know we probably need schoolteachers here. from aonel speaks position of experience. i have talked about the troops. my job is to make sure that they are taken care of. that matters. i would encourage people to get involved. i've spoken at different events on this. i don't care about political ideology.

that's why we're coming together. height of the veteran experience, it was nearly 80%. today, it's in the low teens. -- is not to say that think it's informative. it gives a sense of humility to the enterprise. this initial on knee-jerk reaction to use force. have retired a la terry calling in. we have a fourth line. reducingking about u.s. military forces. texas. go to

good morning. i had a comment. it's depressing to wake up to see two of our about warn talking and people coming back dead or dismembered over a few crazy people. host: i assume he is talking about isis. you believe they are real threat to the united states? guest: i think it's evident when you look at the facts. they have done everything they can to attack us. bill that iassure believe in peace through strength. that is a principle.

i was influenced by ronald reagan when he first ran for office. people thought he was a warmonger. 80's, we did the have peace through strength. 1983 was an interesting year. we lost marines. the culmination of that, reagan pulled greens out. we thought this was the guy. he did not want to get us suck into decades long conflict. his eyes to keep higher than that in terms of peace through strength. this is not about warmongering at all. i would like nothing more for this generation to not see shots fired in anger. you have to have a strong posture. joel is in naples, florida.

good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to ask these gentlemen with a straight face if they would look in the camera and seriously say that we are going to start a ground war with china or russia. do they really feel that we are going to put boots on the ground ? that we will seriously start around war against china or russia. asking thatu because you see that as the only justification for keeping levels the way they are? caller: their justification is isis, china, and russia. that ii would say to you agree with the boots on the ground. there are feet and all of them.

i serve on the v.a. committee. we help author legislation. i take that very seriously. sure we haveking the ability to be a deterrent. i hope that's not the case. i lived in china for many years. i'm trying to understand the relationship with the emerging powers. responsibility is to the security of the nation. we are at a point now were we have the smallest ground force we have had. i do want to underestimate this. this makes friends to us. the u.s. military is equipped do that.

no, we don't go there. when you look at north korea, we can't not be prepared that. it's unforgivable. we are trying to strike that proper balance. no soldier wants to go to war. no soldier wants to see this. our hope is that it's hypothetical and never happens. that we agree we don't want to see a ground war with china. if you want to deter that, you have to have strength. at peace through it can be a very

complex suspect. it comes down to two aspects. if you have will, but no feasibility, you don't have it. the incredible experience of our military today is unmatched in our own history. it's not about that. thee looked at post-traumatic stress in constant rotation. we can have the right sized land force. impact ourng to servicemen and women and their families. is retiredt military. it morning. to this, theding

, i wasy system of the wounded 28 times. we have air support. north of the great wall, estonia. host: do you want to take that one? guest: i think part of what we deal

with are the myths associated with conflict. oftentimes, there is the belief that we can do it surgically or from the air and it has never proven out. there were national leaders that thought iraq was going to be a cakewalk. i think it is important that we one basedpproach on on a careful review of history and the data available. from ahis next one comes retired military independent. gentlemenod morning, and greta. i'm a retired army captain, 1966-1967. please don't thank me for my service unless you are a

corporation or with the military-industrial complex. vietnam was a criminal endeavor, as far as i'm concerned. think iraq was much better. these wars cost lots of money. what brought done the roman empire, what brought down the spanish empire, what brought others was imperialism. these words are not national depends, they are neoimperialism. on our military as the rest of the world combined and most of that rest of the world are our allies. if you insist we must have this insist military force, i that you pay for it.

all of this comes out of the discretionary budget for which we borrow $.40 out of every dollar and have been doing so for at least 15 years or longer. i want you to pay for what you are spending now and make the taxes as much as as what we spent in the last 14-15 years. host: ok, jack. i agree with you. we need to pay for this. we are conflating two things. i think you heard colonel gibson talk about the frustration. it has now been decades. those were policy issues made in the civilian government. american troops to carry out those policies.

not rush intod to these things. i had great reservations with .yria as my constituents did thingsld pay for these including the veterans care after the war. this is an arbitrary decision on the size of the land force. debate and discussion. is whatussion on this is going to be asked in the name of policy. a wonderful system of elections if policy is wrong. we can say there are not going to be natural disasters. we can't control the situation.

let's be prepared, let's make sure we have the deterrence there. it is not an excuse for not preparing those folks who have to carry out the policy. guest: i think we agree. onave even published a book combating neoconservatism. i waive all loyalties -- royalties. i don't make a penny on the book. hill in vote on capitol my first term in the congress on a budget that was roughly based on the simpson bowles approach and would have got us back to the balanced budget. i get that point completely. i think it is important that we get this right.

then put us back on the right footing for the country. host: do you have an army base in your district? guest: i do not. guest: i do not. host: it is not about your constituents? guest: it is about the nation. guest: it is about troops that have been deployed. we are not asking to build the force up. we are asking to keep it at a level that we can do this. has been a significant drawdown and we have become more efficient through technology. i listen to folks on the ground telling us some of these things are labor-intensive. whether it is humanitarian relief or a mission in iraq. thedebate about whether iraq war was right or not is a debate that should be had here. today, there are roughly

about 480,000 troops. from 570,000o go troops down to 450,000 troops. we think that will actually and ultimatelye end up in more war that will cost us this generation, but also money we don't have. guest: we are still drawing down nearly 100,000 with our proposal. we are not asking to build a larger military. host: i want you guys to respond to the senate defense hearing about the army budget with the army chief of staff. say aboutat he had to the idea of reducing the troops down. [video clip] >> the short answer would be, having think that

increased numbers would help out if and only if we had the money to support that. that is really fundamental. reason that this budget has us on a glide path toward $450,000 and 335,000 in the that is the size force balanced with modernization and readiness that we can afford given that topline. etc. the budget agreement, -- is more money were available, that would be great. i do want to caution that numbers are not the only thing. quality matters. when i talk readiness, i'm talking about units that are full up on strengths, are highly trained, are capable of sustaining and executing counterinsurgency operations. , that isis important

important, but that is one of many factors to determine capability in the outcomes of ground combat. guest: i couldn't agree more. we don't want a hollow force. monthst the next 18 taping off howitzer crews and using toilet paper rolls as charges to train. that is no way for a great nation to train. we understand that there is a tale that comes to this. you need to provide the benefits to the troops, you need to provide those things. they are welcoming the numbers.

people will say, they will welcome anything if you give it to them. this is about a well-trained force on the ground to adapt to all situations. guest: we don't want to have a situation might we had in the early 1970's when we had strength, but it was not capable. that in thes with 1950's, as well. we look at this in great detail, in terms of what the number is. we have had a series of hearings that we can document toward the public record, the risk associated with continuing down to levels in the 1930's. at the same time, understanding what that would cost. we have a pretty good understanding. we think we have it managed. margaret, an independent in oklahoma. caller: good morning. uncle was iny

patton's platoon at the battle of the bulge. we have been in every war, including the new ones. i had one son in special forces eight years. years.in a cast 3.5 he was supposed to have a surgery. thank god that the lord healed him and the doctor was astounded. areaid, it looks like you not going to have to have surgery after all. on our troops, everybody yells about the va hospital's. we need a vet card. i know somebody very well that works the emergency room at the hospital. if you aren't illegal or a , theye, you can go in give you a medicaid form and they come in six at a time for every little thing like a sore throat. but a veteran who is not paid well may have a pregnant wife,

maybe a couple of children, and when the gas was higher, he had to go to hundred miles in an old car, pray that they could get their, and then wait 14 hours. i have taken people to the va hospital and who was sitting across from them? if you had been fighting and i'm not politically correct -- if you have been fighting the muslims who swear to kill you and they will do with their cleric tells them to do, you do not want them giving you a shot or caring for you in any way shape or form. they don't speak english. you don't know that the muslim treating that person at the veterans department is wanting to do what other terrorist groups. guest: i've served alongside muslims in our u.s. army who have served honorably. a heartfelt thank you to your family has done what was asked

of them. my main goal is that members of congress have carved up places to make a difference. i also represent the mayo clinic . folks will tell you that the poly trauma center in minneapolis is one of the finest hospitals in the country. have been to one va hospital, you have been to one va hospital. there are problems and they are inexcusable. comewe are talking about these things are all tied together. if it were up to me, you would have one budget that would include the the a -- the v.a. as a nation, we need to understand that the va hospital serves a critical purpose. i think there are chances for reform. i think you need to because she is giving a card. the card in rural parts of

america means there are no doctors or general practitioners and many veterans want to go or they are known. v.a..e work to do in the you give them a card and we wash our hands of it -- the va less of ans far infection rate than the general hospitals. we have to make sure we are providing the best of both worlds. don't think that we are just asking for in strength numbers and not having that. that is a top priority that goes hand-in-hand. once again, peace through strength. nothing would make me happier. are just reviewing history and trying to apply the lessons. i would just add that what we we have tried --

to improve the v.a. and we have been on them. we also did pass the more sweeping v.a. reform in our lifetime and it did provide for access to local doctors. the point was to reduce the backlog that we saw in arizona and other places. than 40 milesre from a v.a. facility or if your appointment with more than 30 days, we sent a choice card and that would give a veteran access to local doctors. the choice was to reduce the backlog, have veterans seen by health care professionals sooner , ensuring the highest quality. there are things -- kinks to that system that we are working out. about veterans health care in a vacuum outside of general health care. we've got to get rid of people

who do not do their job. we have to be able to hire people and retain them into the system to serve our returning veterans. host: is there a way to keep the force at the same level you would like to keep it at while not spending more money? other areas in the pentagon's budget in the army's budget where money is being wasted? --st: we had this commission we did this about a year and a half ago. we asked for a look at that and the answer is yes. canhis year's bill, you expect to see acquisition reform. we are just not as agile as we need to be. we have a series of hearings on that to document how we can do better. you are looking at the private areor and ways that they

able to commercialize and get things to their customers faster. that is going to save us money. we have had a significant reduction in the national investment through national security. we have insisted on let's be smart about this. we want to get the taxpayers the best value. we also want to put ourselves in a posture where we have peace through strength. if you make the wrong decisions, you could end up inviting a challenge. host: people who care about this topic might be interested in your report. guest: the armed services committee have it on their website. this is the commission for the future of the army. this is just one of the reports. also learn more about the efforts for acquisition reform. guest: yes, there are places we can save.

anytime the pentagon wants to save money, they come after benefits for the troops, which we are open to looking at, but my take away is that should be the last place we are looking. i agree with chris on this. we can find this. we are asking them to have a smart force, to take a look at how it deals with actual soldiers on the ground. host: if you go to the house armed services committee website, you can find the report. i want to thank you both for talking to our viewers this morning, coming on together. we don't get that oftthis is th5

minutes.

>> the selective investigative panel will come to order and the chair recognizes herself for five minutes for an opening statement. i want to welcome all of our witnesses who are here today, and i'm going to introduce each of our witnesses in a moment and i look forward to hearing the testimony from each of you on bioethics and fetal tissue. the last decade has produced tremendous change in medical research and therapy. we are in the middle of a biotechnology revolution, certainly in my home state of tennessee, this is evident and even today, we have members of i/o tennessee who are -- bio -tennessee on the hill. each week, an announcement from this industry produces a new therapy, tool or possibility in the search for lifesaving cures of diseases and