immigration with derrick morgan of the heritage foundation. and your money, a $2 billion allocation for the job corps training program, david has been following that for the washington post. that's all tomorrow morning, on c-span's washington journal, 7 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> coming up this morning on c-span, "newsmakers" with buck mckeon. it then president obama announcing his plans are u.s. troops in afghanistan tuesday be

on the conclusion of all combat missions. that is followed by the president commencement address at the military academy. is pleased to" welcome back chairman of the committee,d services buck mckeon pearland lynn introduce our two reporters. donna cassata covers the congress and defense issues for press and jay michaels. welcome. donna, we will start with you. >> the president gave a speech at west point this past week in the possibility of arming and training syrian rebels who have been fighting forces loyal to bashar assad. includedterpoint have a provision that would authorize the pentagon to train and equip vetted rebels.

do you support efforts for the u.s. military to train and equip rebels in syria? >> i think be key there is vet"vetted." i do not know how they're going wedetermine who are people can work with going forward. i think if there is a way to foretell if these people will indeed be strong proponents of human rights and good friends of ours, that will be people that will do the things responsible leaders and nations to, then sure. i think we have the ability to train. we have a good track record of that at being able to train and tell people to defend themselves. we have not had a good track record of deposing leaders and replacing other leaders in their

place. >> jim michaels? >> if i could just follow on that. to find.s. is not going an effective way to support the then what can the united states do to try to mitigate or solve that crisis there? said, weow, like i have not had a good track record in this area in that part of the world since the carter regime that i can recall. i think that we have to be very careful. i do not know if it is incumbent upon us to fix every trouble around the world. i do not know we have the capabilities nor the interest to do that. if it is in our national interest, then i think we should do all we can to help. that goes back further.

talk about how the president's whole foreign policy is and what he has done about sitting in the case of syria redlines and when they cross it ets another, do you have children? children andad know when you tell them something they are not supposed to do, the first thing they do is test you. if they find that you are not resolute in what you tell them, if you have not thought out before hand what you would do once they cross the red line, you just put yourself in jeopardy. it you lose credibility. that is what is happening to us around the world. >> if i could follow up on syria. are you suggesting the u.s. is not have a strong national security interest in trying to do something about the conflict there? magnet forcoming a foreign jihadists all over the

world. wouldn't the united states have some strong national interest in fixing the problem? >> we probably do. some of it is our own making because of what i just said. we have am is now very few options. none of which are very good. it is the least troublesome. it probably would be train those who are vetted. the problem is the vetting. i hope we do a better job than we have in the past. >> before we leave the residence speech, your committee published three papers critical of what the president said and west point. one of the things you said was that the united states cannot be a problem solver for the united

states. where do you differ from the president? close to the president a year ago now that i did not think we should be, he was talking at the time about going into syria. shouldot think we venture into another war. we cannot of rock. -- we came out of a rack. we lost the opportunities that we had -- we came out of iraq. we lost the opportunities that we had gained in the war. i am concerned about afghanistan. we still have upwards of 30,000 troops there. i know we are on a pad to bring them out by the end of the year and things looked to be progressing there, but at the time when he was first talking about going into serious, things were not so rosy. i thought we're cutting a trillion dollars out of our defense. we should not be asking them to

carry out more missions wherever they think they can be helpful around the world. you cannot cut their ability and keep asking them to do more. chairman, the leaders over at the pentagon have been critical of the defense bill that your committee and that the house produced, in particular their argument is that you put parochial interest ahead of readiness, sparing unnecessary military bases and sparing and othernd ship weapons. what is your answer to the pentagon criticism? out moreody has spoken strongly on behalf of readiness than i have over the last year or two. it is not cutting readiness. we cut money out of a limb them think they i do not

would disagree with. the problem is it is not between a good and a bad choice. it is between two bad choices, which is worse. when you cut the amount of money that we have cut out of defense and then looking at situations around the world, we had putin rattling sabers in his part of his world. we have china pushing more and ours in theiends of area, japan, korea. vietnam. have problems, as you brought up, in the whole middle east. if wee taken this time, followed all of their suggestions we will be getting great of an aircraft. aaron cutting our cruisers from 22 down to 11. we would be getting rid of the best aircraft foregrounds base

support. we would be cutting the benefit to the troops. all of this based on a strategy that was just developed budget base. not strategy based. budget based. i think that is the wrong approach. the method that we chose was to try to hold on to as much of our defense capabilities as we could and hopefully next year there will be a change after the have thethat we opportunity to get rid of sequestration into knots trying to solve all of our financial problems on the backs of our military but address some of the more urgent problems of a mandatory spending. the ministrations not even looking at that. administration is not even looking at that. >> the president has announced

his plan to leave and i thousand 800 troops in afghanistan after 9008year -- to leave hundred troops in afghanistan after this year. it is less than the pentagon had recommended. there have been no earlier recommendation about a complete withdrawal in 2016. a couple of questions. is that numbers sufficient to get the job done and do both counterterrorism and robust advising of afghan security forces? the two thousand 16 date signal to the enemy that they can wait out u.s. forces? date signal to the enemy that they can wait out u.s. forces? >> the last time i was in afghanistan was a few weeks ago. the general was really careful

not to use a specific number. he wanted more flexibility. but he was more concerned about was having enough troops to carry out the mission. more important was defining the mission. the mission that those who are left behind to work on will be to train the afghan military and police force to be able to handle their own security. of therned over most fighting to them during the last year. they are doing a good job. they handled all of the elections by themselves with our advisors working in the background. they did the logistics. they did the security. they have grown in their abilities. there are still skills they lack . they do not have the ability to match up all of their needs to where they need them in the field. those are the things that take time to learn.

we will still have a sufficient number of troops to run counterterrorism activities in .he area the thing general dunford was talking about was around 10,000. thousand number he was using. theas more interested in flexibility. or i spoke to secretary hagel, he said this was the number that general dunford was comfortable with. nato will provide about half of that number. it put us up close to 15,000 once it is all said and done. i think that's will be a number that is sufficient to carry out the mission. i am concerned with telling the world when we are going to pull out. we have problems with this. one of the big things we have been fighting against is the taliban has been marking time. they keep telling people "ok,

remember, they are going to be gone and we are going to be here and we will remember those who help them." we have members going there all the time that are checking on things. one of the specific as we have is several of our women members have gone over the last several years on mother's day. they give up their mother's day with their families to be with women over there who are engaged in this fight, the political fight. many women have expressed these members of congress that they know they will be the first ones killed if we pull out precipitously. that is what happened in iraq. al qaeda is now in charge in falluja, places we fought hard to kick them out of. when we left without leaving any

residual force behind, they have now taken back over. we do not want to see that happen in afghanistan. the reason we are in afghanistan is protect ourselves against having a place where al qaeda can train, as they did to attack us on 9/11. i think saying that we are going to pull these troops out, half of them in 2015 and all of them by 16 sends the wrong message. they should be there until and as long as it takes to complete the mission. i think a couple of years is probably going to be sufficient. why should we tell our enemies all of our plans? it doesn't make sense to me. >> donna? >> i just wanted to shift to another subject here. committee on benghazi is going to be starting up its work.

oversight subcommittee conducted an extensive investigation, interviews with leadersam and military and came to a number of conclusions. there was no standdown order. the military did what it could posture.ng its what do you think is the merit of visiting some of the conclusions urd came to? >-- you already came to? >> we were looking at a small portion of the overall operation and because he. benghazi. what happened prior to that time? request for more security that was denied? in was the ambassador even benghazi? they have had a taxpayer. the british had withdrawn.

i saw chairman gaudi recites a number of those questions. i think it is very important that we get to the bottom of it. when our committee had the responsibility of looking at is there were a lot of statements made early on that we could have had an f.a.t. over the consulate in benghazi in an hour. incorrect. we had a force that could have been within a very short time. incorrect. we were able to track down every one of the stories that we heard that affected the military and most of those were incorrect information. we were able to get to the bottom of those things. was the state department doing, what the president was doing, why they came out with misinformation that they put out on all the news shows by

ambassador rice the next day, notgs they knew they were correct, all those things need to be answered correctly. >> you're satisfied with the military response? >> given what the posture of the military was at the time, yes. rotation --n a 4/24 24 rotation. we do not have pilot sitting on with fuel with ammunition to run different missions. we cannot afford to do that. we do not have that situation. we have learned from that experience. we now have a rapid response marines stationed in different places around the world where we do have hot spots that was a lesson we learned. -- hotspots.

that was a lesson we learned. we had means to get into places where we did not have the airlift with the marines. then there was the requirements before they went into tripoli that they had to take their uniforms off and go in civilian dress. some of these things are ludicrous but we learn from those. given the state of our financial situation and how much we haa ve cut that the military, we are in a better situation but we are still limited. we have lots of soft targets around the world we have to be careful of. maybe we should not have even had people there. if we cannot provide security, we ought to pull back. i was talking to one of our ambassadors in a different country that i will not name. he indicated to me that we are in 60 or 70 different places around the world that were

considered unsafe when he went with the state department, that he felt were probably places we should not be putting our people at risk right now. >> seven minutes left. have asked for new leadership at the veterans administration. obviously, that scandal is widening. importantly, what are the problems there that need to be fixed? what are the systemic problems? even if there is due leadership, what was someone have to do to fix that government agency? the word you used "systemic those quote is the problem. -- systemic" is the problem. general eisenhower was a supreme theed commander and won war to end all wars and came home. i do not know if you understand the culture in the military, but he had to be very careful.

if you want to buy a tree and said "that tree is, i do not like the looks of that tree" and walked away, the tree would be gone. then he became president. he walks in the white house and asked for something to happen and bureaucracy bureaucrat said the most you can be years eight years and you cannot get rid of me. i think i will just leave that tree there. it is a different function in hinseki, though he served well for most of his has run into a bureaucracy there that is lead.ly impossible to the president, if he had general shinseki step aside, would at least show he is engaged in

serious rather than just being mad about this. givessed a bill that would the leader of the veterans affairs the ability to fire people that were not doing their jobs or found that they were not doing their job adequately. that is one of the things that needs to happen. we need to look at this whole situation. i have veterans of have to drive hours to get medical help. they drive past lots of doctors and hospitals to get to the v.a. hospital. that is something that could be easily fixed. littled incorporate a come petition into the program. we can give them vouchers. anybody that is worthy of all of those, that has done everything they have been asked to do one of the were in the military, we should keep every promise we have made to them.

we should make it as easy as possible for them to get good health care or all the other benefits they are entitled to. this bureaucracy at the veterans administration has proven itself wholly inadequate. the first thing we should do is change the leadership. show that we are engaged in this. start moving to make fixes immediately. to have aust going quick follow-up. are these problems that might require additional resources? would you be willing to risk for expanding the budget if that is what is needed? >> they have a huge budget. if you listen to what some of these people are paid there, i do not think money is the problem. that has proven to be the case, we should look for more resources. i do not think that is the problem. i think it is more bureaucracy and in treatment -- entrenchment

in all ways of doing things. in my district i mention how this could help them. it used to be better. we had a health facility in the san fernando valley which was closer to many of my constituents. they tore down the hospital and built an outpatient clinic. now they have to drive another .0 miles it does not make sense. we should be able to ring in some new leadership, bring in creativity, maybe everybody that works in veteran administration should be a veteran. start,ght be a place to somebody that understands the veteran's problems and do what ever they have to do to take care of those people. before he came to congress, i was in the retail business. we learned in retail that the customer is always right. v.a.'s customer is the

veterans. whatever it takes to make them satisfy customers a stone everything they have put out for the rest of us, we should do it. >> final question. >> i understand there may be a [indiscernible] heading to normandy next week. is that correct? would you be on that? fromhave been asked leadership to lead a delegation back to normandy. it is the 70th anniversary of d-day, when our troops stormed the beaches at normandy. i have not had the opportunity ever of being there. i have heard it is a very moving, very inspirational place to visit. many of the veterans that will my speed there for the last time. i asked the leadership to lead

the delegation back there. i am honored by that and looking forward to it. benghazi for a second. you mentioned that you are satisfied that the military response would be different for something like that happened today. are there still changes that need to be meat or do you think the military has the flexibility and resources in place should this happen anywhere else in the region? had some go back, we security there. we had military leaders that have offered help but it was denied. say that we are ready to respond within an hour to get there in the middle of a firefight. there are soft targets. i think those should be weighed

very carefully. if an ambassador asks for more security or more help, it should either be granted where they should be pulled out of there if they do not feel it is safe. we should not ask our people to put their lives on the line needlessly. if we cannot protect them, then we should pull them out. >> think you for returning to "newsmakers." we appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. >> let's put this in the broader context of the forthcoming election. it is coloring everything in this town right now. talk ae senate in play, little bit about where the flashpoint are between the house and the senate on the kind of issues we had talked about today. can we talk about the administration and what him i want to get done? benghazi,issue of republicans still see that as a

ve issue. the chairman was talking about this. the military response seems to have been played out. still inthe target are the political realm, how it was described in whether or not the administration was forthcoming inut the terrorist threat the region. i see that as being a live wire. >> you started with a question about spending. not onlytention between the white house and capitol hill but also within the republican party itself. see this on the debate over how much they should be spending on the military? years, he hasr of been frustrated since the tea party waiving 2010. moving --ut outmaneuvering this.

what you see this year in election year, a lot of the parochial interest took precedent as far as budget. certain weapons assistance and programs definitely were spared from the budget act. what we're probably going to see this year, we have gotten the threat from the administration of the veto they have made in previous years. some sense that they might be serious about it this time. it'll be interesting to see what chairman mckeon and senator carl levin do. they are both retiring. this is the last. they often talk about the fact that this is the one bill that congress has done for the d two 52aight years -- for straight years. the one thing that does

strike me is that congress is always parochial about defense spending. this year the air force wanted to retire the a-10 for very valid, stripped o -- strategic reasons. i think there's always that inanimate. i do not know that it will have a tremendous impact going for pure has -- going forward. >> there are some on capitol saying no matter how many resources we put against afghanistan we will not reach a stable democratic society and it is time to cut losses. how focal is that contingent? and fairlyirly vocal

widespread. people are not enthusiastic about the mission. in afghanistan. there is no question about it. it does not get any traction. you're not going to win any votes about that. he also mentioned iraq. that is spiraling more and more into chaos the readers after the united states pulled all of it troops out. left iraq in pretty good shape. the continues to get worse, you might see these issues come forward again. right now there's not a lot of margin in talking about afghanistan or syria. iraqich argument of the example make? very strongake a argument that when the u.s. troops were there in the u.s. was trying to reach an agreement that would allow