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. If the u. S. Is not going to find an effective way to support the modern rebels, then what can the United States do to try to mitigate or solve that crisis there . You know, like i said, we 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. If you 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 he sets another, do you have children . People have had children and 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 . Syria is becoming a magnet for foreign jihadists all over the world. Wouldnt 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. The problem is now we have a 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 . In syria . I think be key there is vetted. I do not know how theyre going to determine who are people we 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. If the u. S. Is not going to find an effective way to support the modern rebels, then what can the United States do to try to mitigate or solve that crisis there . You know, like i said, we 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. If you 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 he sets you just put yourself n 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 . Syria is becoming a magnet for foreign jihadists all over the 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 i told the presid mr. 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 aircraft and ship and other weapons. What is your answer to the pentagon criticism . The president . I told the president close to a year ago now that i did not mr. 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 aircraft and ship and other weapons. What is your answer to the id nobody has spoken out more strongly on behalf of readiness than i have over the last year or two. It is not cutting readiness. We cut money out of onm that i do not think they 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 more into friends of ours in the area, japan, korea. Vietnam. We have problems, as you brought up, in the whole middle east. We have taken this time, if we 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 election that we have the 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 administration is not even looking at that. The president has announced his plan tto leave 9,800 troops in afghanistan after this year. It is less than the pentagon had recommended. Pentagon criticism . Id nobody has spoken out more strongly on behalf of readiness than i have over the last year or two. It is not cutting readiness. We cut money out of onm that i do not think they 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 more into friends of ours in the area, japan, korea. Vietnam. We have problems, as you brought up, in the whole middle east. We have taken this time, if we 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 election that we have the 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 problem 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. They turned over most of the 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 the area. The thing general dunford was talking about was around 10,000. Thousand number he was using. He was more interested in the 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 thats 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 mothers day. They give up their mothers day with their families to be with women over there who are engaged in this fight, the political fight. Many women have expressed concern to 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 doesnt make sense to me. Donna . Had recommended. 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. They turned over most of the 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 the area. The thing general dunford was talking about was around 10,000. Thousand number he was using. He was more interested in the 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 thats will be a number that is sufficient to carry out the 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 mothers day. They give up their mothers day with their families to be with women over there who are engaged in this fight, the political fight. Many women have expressednt to t 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 we were looking at a small portion of the overall operation in benghazi. What happened prior to that time . What about the request for more security that was denied . Why was the ambassador even in 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. What the state department was 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, things they knew they were not correct, all those things need to be answered correctly. Youre satisfied with the military response . Me. Donna . We were looking at a small portion of the overall operation in benghazi. What happened prior to that time . What about the request for more security that was denied . Why was the ambassador even in 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. What the state department was 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, things they knew they were not correct, all those things need to be answered correctly. Youre satisfied with the given what the posture of the military was at the time, yes. We are not on a 7 24 rotation. We do not have pilot sitting on the runway 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 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 have 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. You have asked for new leadership at the Veterans Administration. Obviously, that scandal is widening. More 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 is the problem. General eisenhower was a supreme allied commander and won the 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 general shinseki, though he served well for most of his life, he has run into a bureaucracy there that is probably impossible to lead. 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. We passed a bill that would give 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. We could incorporate a little 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. Military response . Given what the posture of the military was at the time, yes. We are not on a 7 24 rotation. We do not have pilot sitting on the runway 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 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 have 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. You have asked for new leade3 is the problem. General eisenhower was a supreme allied commander and won the 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. Eaucras probably impossible to lead. 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. We passed a bill that would give 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. Ram. 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 admi it does not make sense. We should be able to ring in some new leadership, bring in some creativity, maybe everybody that works in veteran administration should be a veteran. That might be a place to start, somebody that understands the veterans 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. Well, the 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 . I have been asked from leadership to lead a delegation back to normandy. It is the 70th anniversary of dday, 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 be there 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. Just back to 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 . If you go back, we had some security there. We had military leaders that have offered help but it was denied. I cannot 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. Lets put this in the broader context of the forthcoming election. It is coloring everything in this town right now. With the senate in play, talk a 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 . On the issue of benghazi, republicans still see that as a live issue. The chairman was talking about this. The military response seems to have been played out. A lot of the target are still in the political realm, how it was described in whether or not the administration was forthcoming about the terrorist threat in the region. I see that as being a live wire. You started with a question about spending. It is contention not only between the white house and capitol hill but also within the Republican Party itself. Where do you see this on the debate over how much they should be spending on the military . For a number of years, he has been frustrated since the tea party waiving 2010. They are out moving 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 were probably going to see this year, we have gotten the threat from the administration of the veto they have made in previous years. There is some sense that they might be serious about it this time. Itll 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 straight years for 52 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 a10 for very valid, stripped o strategic reasons. I think theres 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 hill who are 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 . It is fairly vocal and fairly widespread. People are not enthusiastic about the mission in afghanistan. There is no question about it. It does not get any traction. Youre 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. The us left iraq in pretty good shape. The continues to get worse, you might see these issues come forward again. Right now theres not a lot of margin in talking about afghanistan or syria. Which argument of the iraq example make . Fixes immediately. It does not make sense. We should be able to ring in some new leadership, bring in some creativity, maybe everybody that works in veteran administration should be a veteran. That might be a place to start, somebody that understands the veterans 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. Well, the 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 . I have been asked from leadership to lead a delegation back to normandy. It is the 70th anniversary of dday, 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 be there 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. Just back to benghazi for a second. You mentioned that you are satisfied that the military response would be different for Something Like that happened oday. 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 needlesslttle bit about where te 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 . On the issue of benghazi, republicans still see that as a live issue. The chairman was talking about this. The military response seems to have been played out. Republican party itself. Where do you see this on the debate over how much they should be spending on the military . For a number of years, he has been frustrated since the tea party waiving 2010. They are out moving outmaneuvering this. What you see this year in election year, a lot of the parochial interest took precedent ang 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 straight years for 52 straight years. The one thing that does strike me is that congress is always parochial about defense spending. This year th we put against afghanistan we will not reach a stable Democratic Society and it is time to cut losses. How focal is that contingent . It is fairly vocal and fairly widespread. People are not enthusiastic about the mission in afghanistan. There is no question about it. It does not get any traction. Youre not going to win any votes about that. Or syria. Which argument of the iraq it has been a loud voice on the hill not only from republicans but democrats calling for this. Echoing your question about systemic issues, the speaker suggested if he sets aside will like it to the core of what is going on . What needs to be done to solve the problem . Example make . It has been a loud voice on the hill not only from republicans but democrats calling for this. Echoing your question about systemic issues, the speaker suggested if he sets a w