. . .

. . .

>> the principles that i have talked about today have guided foreign policy for many decades. we are all proud of the way president obama held firm to these principles and strengthen america standing in the world over the last eight years. i'm confident that you'll find a way to reflect the principles and the party's platform. a platform that will feel not just for our fellow democrats but to all americans, so thank you very much. i'd be happy to answer questions

and i appreciate you letting me skype in while we wait for senate votes. >> thank you so much, senator. we are grateful. >> thank you. [applause] >> i just turned it on. larry corb, senior fellow of american progress, he's also senior adviser to the center for defense information and adjunct professor at georgetown university. prior to that, he served as director of national security studies on the council of foreign relations, also served for director for the center of public policy education and a senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the brookings institution, larry, welcome. >> thank you very much for having me. i really appreciate this opportunity. i'm going to cover two things

today, one, what criteria should be using for military force and how much should with spending on defense. the first thing you need to ask is, the this a war of choice or is it a war of necessity. have we exhausted all of our other options. in my prepared testimony i point out how president eisenhower resisted the calls to military poll in hungry and vietnam so, i think, have to keep that in mind. now, once you make a decision to use military force, then you need to ask yourself a number of questions that will put, i think, most by colin powell when we had the colin powell doctrine. the first is what is the purpose

of it, is it to overthrow a dictator, is it to transform a society? what force will be necessary to do that? is it worth the cost of being able to do that? i don't have to remind this committee about how people told us how little the invasion of iraq was going to cost. when you're going to the id, you should be multilateral if you can. a good textbook example is the first gulf war. we got 250,000 troops from other nations as well contributions, that war cost the u.s. taxpayer nothing because since we provided the forces, people that couldn't do it provide it had money. you should try and find out if you can get international approval for the action. one of the big mistakes the bush administration made is nato offered to go into afghanistan after the attacks of 9/11 because they declared that as an attack on the alliance and we

said, no, no, we can do it without you, eventually we did bring them in. next thing is how will you know when you've won, how will you know when you've accomplished and what happens the day after you achieve the objective? after you get involved, i think you need a couple of other things to keep in mind. one is if it doesn't work and you can't guaranty every intervention will work, do not double down. one of the most interesting things i ever did in government was working for president reagan when it didn't work in lebanon we got out. and we called the strategic redeployment but the fact of the matter is we realized we could not win that civil war. and then finally if you think, in fact, it's necessary to get the american people involved, you ought to put a war surtax, this is what we did toward the end in vietnam. very quickly, i will go through

what happened in iraq, the cost as i point out high. libya, the president said we didn't plan after. now in syria, people are talking about a no-fly zone. well, as general dempsey said, that could cost a billion dollars a month and would involve putting 30,000 people in a setting. ly stop there. >> thank you very much, you have a question? >> i will just be very quick. you talk about american military engagement in world and criteria for action. the american military has been called to do different things. i wanted to get your assessment of the american military's involvement in fighting the ebola virus. it's essentially the address of the ebola virus and the fact that it did not come worse because of the innovative use of the american military, what are

your thoughts on that? >> again, i can remember from my own days, i spent 25 years in the navy, we would do humanitarian things, these did not strol use of force except for self-defense. we were going in to provide -- the military that is terrific logistics and they can do these things so, yes, they ri doty it's important to keep in mind and i mentioned it in my testimony, you've got to fund the other elements of national power adequately so you don't have the military doing everything. our military is used in disaster assistance in great deal and you were someone who were thinking about alliances and about

institutions. we all have heard from mr. trump that nato is useless, that we should get rid of our alliance of japan, we should move out all of our troops and i wondered if you comment on that, it's not that you don't want people to increase defense budgets, it's not that we don't want people to pay their fair share, of course, we do. can you talk about the role of nato play in making the tough decisions. >> it's fortunate keep in mind that the alliances in world war ii were to contain the soviet union, expansionism but now we find that they can adjust to the threats that we have, for example, even as we speak nato is undertaking operation anaconda in which they have thousands of troops deployed

into poland. if he were foolish to come into nato, it means war. europeans need to do more and i think it's important as our last secretaries of defense have told them that they need to do it. but on the other hand, we shouldn't down play what they do accomplish and i think that's important. i used to handle the base structure when i was there. it cost more keeping troops back here and build facilities or hold in japan or germany with nation support is less expensive. >> thank you. cornell. >> thank you very much, very good to hear you. i just raise a question about the morale principles when it comes to american foreign policy. my question would be in your view was the american role in the overthrow of gadhafi a

violation of international law or a violation of natural law and i would say the same thing about the supporting military in honduras or same thing about iraq? what is the role as you can see, i know there's morale dimensions, we are talking about america and having some kind of morale character, american foreign policy. >> whatever else you may think about that that was sanctioned by the u.s. and nato, that gave you the legal basis on which to do it. the real question is as president obama has made it, okay, that was great, now what do we do. we didn't think through enough. that's the important thing, but i do think it's very important, the morale aspect before you use force particularly when it's not a war of necessity and that's why you have to weigh the cost and benefits, that's how you get when you look at the morale things. you know, i was -- when i was young and in vietnam and i got

there, i got there, what are we doing, i just couldn't believe and then, of course, you look at the age in orange and things like that, you know, and even today, you know, people are still suffering from that there and here. >> we are running out of time but a quick question, please. >> yeah, i just want to ask -- thank you very much for testifying. the united states spends, i believe, more on defense spending then the next nine countries combined and i wanted to see what, if you believe that we can responsibly cut spending without impacting families. >> there's no doubt about the fact that you can do that. it's the next seven now because the chinese have stepped up military expenditures, five of whom are allies. yes, we can. the department of defense does not have a resource problem, if

you look and put it in constant dollars, president obama spent more than president bush and more than we spent on average in the cold war. so, yeah, we have a management problem. they need to be able to do things, as i mentioned in my testimony, $500 billion in cost over your weapon's system. one of the things we just did, i tell my boss here a there dollar modernization for weapons, you don't need to do that. there are things that you can do to say within those numbers without impacting military families and it's important to keep in mind because there are things that you need to do to the military compensation system, but that's not the veterans, so every time i get and i talk, you know, about this you know the veterans are taking care of separately. so no, you can -- you can do these things and it needs to be better managed.

i will tell you whoever becomes president needs to make sure that they get a strong deputy secretary of defense. everybody knows who the secretary is, but the deputy like david or charlie duncan from coca-cola, that's when it's run well. >> thank you very much. >> thank you and i definitely know your -- >> i have to get back to work. [laughter] >> cindy wang. i would like to invite cindy wang up. cindy wang from the center of global developments, senior policy, visiting policy fellow there. she works in issues related to development effectiveness. fragile and conflict effective states and strengthening u.s. development policy. recently ms. wang was deputy vice president at the mill enyuim challenge for corporation where she oversaw strategic and implementation of 2 billion-dollar portfolio.

>> thank you. it's an honor to be here. the center for global development does not take institutional positions so i offer the thoughts in my personal capacity. we face challenges in the world today as every generation has. but we also have significant opportunity, as part of integrated strategy, global development is a high return opportunity. less than 1% of the federal budget works. american leadership and collaboration with partners has helped child mortality and extreme poverty in half and we are on the way to an aids-free generation. these investments make us safer and more secure. admiral and former supreme commander of nato, you ensure that we will end up spending more on hard power. development is also about

prosperity here at home. promoting growth opens the door to business opportunities and american jobs. ten of our 15 largest trade partners like south korea were once recip yeents of foreign aid. but perhaps most important of all, turning toward big problems. leading with our head and heart. these are american values. our commitment to these values is fundamental to our leadership in the world today. so development delivers results, advances our interest and is a key pilar of our global leadership. and american leadership with support of allies is more necessary than ever. we have important opportunities to improve health around the world. we need to fight the last mile to end hiv and aids and respond to zika and ebola to reach capacity to stop spread. we have the opportunity not only

to make america the clean-energy superpower but to support other countries pursue development that achieves growth and reduces emissions. latin america presents opportunities to invest in the prosperity of our own hemisphere and help address violences and insecurity specially in central america and we must continue our great work to improve food security and nutrition for millions and to help turn on the light and bring electricity to millions more specially in africa. and across all duo, we must advance gender equality. we cannot fulfill potential if we leave half of the population behind. our work must be compelling evidence of the multiplier of investing in women and girls. seizing these opportunities will help prevent crisis in the future but we must still respond to the crises of today.

we cannot turn away from 60 million people who have been forced to flee their homes, the highest number since world war ii. many are fleeing the very same terrorists that we are fighting. now is the time to do more by welcoming more refugees to america without discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity and providing more support to refugee-hosting countries. and we cannot defeat violent extremism when millions of people see future of continued injustice and lack of opportunity. development programs can help address underlying issues that make communities more vulnerable to violent extremism getting directly to the causes of this problem not only addressing of the symptoms. and we cannot ignore how so many challenges are exacerbated by the plague of corruption. it's not just the panamá papers, the scale of corruption as much as $2.6 trillion a year is

systemic threat that demands a robust response. so to promote inclusive growth and solve-shared problems, we must collaborate closely with full-range of partners and help strengthen them. this includes ensuring that organizations like the united nations are modernized and modernized to 21est century problems. our social entrepreneurs, innovators, we must, of course, use development resources wisely. we need to collect more and better data and use it systemically and we must hold our own institutions and partners accountable for transparency and above all results. as americans we believe that everyone deserves the chance to succeed. that is why we give the most private charities and respond to generously to humanitarian crisis. i believe that this november americans will once again affirm that they believe in engaging the world, building bridges, not walls, not only because it is the right thing to do but the

smart thing as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> wendy, yes? >> hi, cindy. >> hi. >> you mentioned a couple of the reasons why development is important help to fight violent extremism because people have a reason for hope, don't have to choose a way of life dealing with corruption which has a lot of implications for american investment. since a lot of america believes that 40% of gdp goes to foreign assistance when only 1% does, can you explain a little bit more for the record why this is an american's national interest? we, of course, have a large heart, it's part of our value system but it goes way beyond our value system and can you chat about that a little bit? >> sure, absolutely. you picked on some of the most compelling examples that if we

can make, you know, an investment now we can save dollars in the future. i already quoted admiral, if you recently wrote an material just yesterday about how -- that he had been advocating for increased investments by usad addressing some of the fundamental causes of lack of hope and lack of a feeling that there can be justice in the future. so i think that there are multiple challenges -- and i mean, the example ebola which others have spoken about as well is also such a clear example to me if we don't strengthen the local and regional capacity of the health systems that are elsewhere in the world, the threat very rapidly meets us here at home and so those, i think, are two wonderful examples but they do run the gaumut and important to remember that people do think it's 24% of our budget and it is less than

1% and there is -- and it's not that we need to invest more in data and make our case, but it's already a very strong one and we have to get out there and make that case to the american people. >> thank you. i have a quick question then i want to go to bill. a quick question. it's an issue that i want you just to reflect on, if you could . we have to do more for refugees and support them and host countries, you noted that. but they have treasons a transformative effect and not always a good one in the reaction taking place in europe and some of the neighboring countries whose stability is being undermine. president obama has called for an emergency summit this year, what would be the specifics that we could reflect in our platform about the broader responsibility of the world community and us providing leadership to address the many ramifications of the refugee crisis?

>> yeah, i think it's very critical that he's hosting the comment at the un general assembly this year. some of the targets that have been put out first to increase financing, i mean, i think it's pretty clear to address the scale of the crisis, we do need to commit dollars and i also think if one thing that's fundamental is recognizing that the old model people spoke of the opposed world war ii model of humanitarian assistance, no longer holds the vast majority of syrian refugees living in lebanon and jordan are not living in camps and the duration of displacement has extended to a three to five-year window to much, much longer. so i think it's time for a reconceptualization. by the way there are many studies that show that in the long run refugee contribute in

economic growth. invasion that cost brought short-term cost and we cannot be naive. and really get the global community to take on more refugees. >> thank you, bill. >> on occasion we end up with some of the good goals at cross purposes. i'm thinking among other things of the fact that some of our -- some of the efforts of multinational agencies to electrify parts of the world are leading to rapid increases in the use of fossil fuel and obvious odds with our goal set out in paris. can you provide some advice for the languager ideas that might make it easier to make sure that

americans involvement in those multilateral agencies was instead directed toward clean energy? >> yes, great question, when i worked at the millennium challenge corporation we were very involved in power africa. that was something that we looked at closely. i think you indicate that had how can we encourage investment in clean energy, how can we help with technology transfer so that the invasion in america is brought to bear in countries. i think there's solution who have been looking at not in energy per say but in looking at the case of forest, how can we improve agriculture in the way that reduces emissions. i think you have to have innovative solutions overall to address the climate change issue and i think one great way to do that is to start to pay for those results when we see them. >> thank you, thank you very much and now we will turn to -- >> we will invite robert to join

us, executive director. by the way i'm carol. he served in the u.s. house of representatives for five years throughout his tenure in congress mr. wexler outspoken advocate for the unbrakable within the united states and israel and leading proponent for need for just and comprehensive resolution to the arab israeli conflict. thank you for being here. >> thank you. it is a particular honor to appear before this committee, before so many friends and colleagues to discuss certain challenges in the middle east. we must work closely with our strategic partners and allies to achieve success. first, we must defeat isis and not just contain it.

our regional partners must carry a greater burden with military financial and diplomatic contributions. secretary clinton has laid an ambitious 3-point plan to defeat isis. she will dismantle the global network of terror, denying terrorists money, arms and fighters. and she will strengthen our defenses at home. by contrast, donald trump has no plan whatsoever. extremist groups like isis feed off in stability and conflict specially in iraq, to achieve stability baghdad must pursue a more inclusive government and develop for iraqis while rooting out corruption. what's happening in syria is a morale traffesty, at least 250,000 dead in nearly 5 million

refugees taking action is essential for both our security and our values, we must reach a diplomatic solution that provides for new leadership and enables syrians to take on isis tehran's fingerprints are on nearly every place in the middle east. iran may never be to have nuclear weapon. i support the agreement between the p-5 nations in iran because with vigorous enforcement it verify without resorting to war. nuclear deal enables to push back against iran's destabilizing activities in the region. particularly their support for terrorist proxies like

hezbollah. secretary clinton will ensure that nonnuclear sections continue to be implemented particularly to rain in ballistic missile program. achieving our national security objectives requires close collaboration with our allies, first and mother foas, israel. hillary clinton and democrats support israel's right to defend itself. democrats not only have a long standing record of friendship with israel but also an ironclad commitment to israel's security. this has been the case from the moment president truman recognized israel and secretary clinton will continue that commitment. yesterday easter risk attack in tel aviv was another painful reminder of the threat israel

faces from hamas and the importance the united states standing shoulder to shoulder with israel. we must unequivocally support israel's right to defend itself. the obama administration has had unprecedented defense and intelligence cooperation with israel which must continue. we want peace and security in the middle east. we are committed to negotiated two-state solution that guaranty israel's future as a secure and democratic jewish state with recognized borders in jerusalem capital. israelis deserve security free from terror and palestinians deserve to govern themselves in their own and viable state. the best way to achieve peace

and security is for both sides to implement confidence-building measures and avoid unhelpful actions. incitement is dangerous and undermine the negotiated two-state outcome. while some proponents of the boycott move in, may hope that pressuring israel will lead to peace, the truth is outside forces will not resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict. democrats must condemn efforts to isolate and delegitimize israel. of course, no country is above criticism but the deep interest and stake, it would be a terrible we are or to cede and

we must not allow like donald trump's suggest such as bombing countries to takeory oil. americans face a clear choice in this election and the outcome could not be more critical. thank you for your time. [applause] >> questions? >> i have one and he has one. >> a blessing to see you, i appreciate the conversation we had yesterday. >> likewise. >> as you know i have deep disagreements with you, my brother, i think i want to see if we can reach common ground, higher ground. both of us can agree that west bank has exactly the same value as the precious jewish baby in tale vif and so therefore when we talk about evenness at the morale and spiritual level you come out with tradition which we

overlap in that regard. real question is going to be a commitment to security for our jewish brothers and sister in israel can never be predicated on an occupation of precious palestinians. if we are concerned about security, it seems to me, we are going to have to talk seriously about occupation. i don't know whether you would allow the use of that. occupation is real, it's concrete. ..

>> would you argue for the use of the word "occupation" in the platform and, two, how would you respond to those who say for so long the united states has beening so biased toward israeli security and not accented the humanity of pal palestinians. [applause]

and you let me know whether that's fair or or not, because i want to make sure our dialogue is mediated with respect. i respect you, my brother, and i know you respect me. >> sure. i i appreciate the comments. no, i would not support and would, in fact, oppose the use of the word "occupation" for the very reason that it undermines our common objective. your objective and my objective and, more importantly, the objective of secretary clinton, of president obama, of the democratic party is to achieve a negotiated two-state outcome. a negotiated two-state outcome will result on an agreement on borders, and once you have borders, the issue that propels your concern regarding what you refer to as occupation will be resolved. and anything short of a two-state outcome, you will not be happy, you will not achieve your result, i will not achieve

what i seek to achieve, but more importantly, the palestinian people will not seek and receive what they justly deserve, and the israeli people will not achieve what they justly deserve. so we have to consistently keep with behavior that promotes and encourages a two-state outcome. that would be my point of view, and that, more importantly, should be the focus of the democratic platform in addition to its consistent, heart felt support for israel's security. because the foundation of a two to-state outcome is boast -- two-state outcome is both the security of boast both the israelis and palestinians. when we talk about security, often times the focus is on israel. but if there was a lack of security in the west bank, it would be the moderate palestinians who would suffer the most, not the extremists. so the need for security in

israel and the need for the west bank to have its security is designed all around the support of a two-state outcome and the actors that support moderation and the implementation of a palestinian state. >> just three words i want to ask you about. the first is the question of settlements. you mentioned unilateral actions should be avoided. are settlements unilateral actions? secondly, you mentioned that israel has a right to defend itself, but would you agree or disagree that that self-defense has been disproportionate? and thirdly, on the question of occupation, it has been recognized by every u.s. administration that there is an occupation, and there are pieces

of legislation circulating that sort of want to rewrite that notion much to the dismay and concern of people, literally, around the world to sort of define a post-'67 israel which is a self-unilateral action taken by our congress that redefines the borders unilaterally. would you not feel that it is more important to include the word "occupation," which our president, this current president has mentioned and every previous president has mentioned as a way simply of clarifying that to get to two states, an occupation has to end? >> jim, you and i are friends, and we go way back, and i respect your point of view enormously. where i would differ with your conclusion is that, number one,

in terms of our platte form, our position -- platform, our position should be the position of every democratic and republican administration since president johnson. and we shouldn't be any less or any more in terms of how we deal with is settlements, and we should be consistent. but with all due respect to those that focus only on on settlements, you, in effect, undermine the whole equation that's supporting the negotiation of a two-state outcome. settlement is one part of this very problematic story, but so is jerusalem, and so is refugees and so is security and so are borders. so pointing out one where there will be delicate, no doubt, discussions and negotiations -- again, hopefully someday soon -- where parties will have to make compromises, but not at the same time also discuss what's required on refugees -- >> should we leave jerusalem out of the platform?

i think that would fit your notion appropriately. >> no, no. >> we should not negotiate or litigate any of the issues in the platform. i would agree with that. >> well, i would agree that we should not litigate the resolution of the israeli/palestinian conflict in terms of the democratic platform -- >> except for the issues you want to litigate. >> well, no. , no in fairness nobody's suggesting, to my knowledge, that the issue of refugees should be determined in the democratic platform that refugees will not be returning en masse to the state of israel. that's not being, i don't think, to my knowledge be, suggested. the point is the democratic platform is a blueprint for bringing the two sides to a conclusion where our shared objectives are met. you and i, respect friday -- i don't want -- respectfully, i don't want to be presumptuous, but i believe we have the same objective. and that is a creation of a demilitarized mall --

palestinian state with a jewish and democratic state of israel. a jewish majority democratic state of israel. and the borders will be negotiated, settlements will be negotiated as a result. the status of jerusalem will be negotiated, refugees will be negotiated, security will be negotiated. and that's what the democratic platform has effectively said for decades, and that's a what it should continue to say. >> we have a number of hands up, and i'm just trying to be mindful and making sure everybody gets to ask their question. i'm wondering if you all would mind if everyone asks their question and then we is mr. wexler to respond? does that work for people? so i'm just going to come down the row. we have howard, deborah, bonnie are the hands i've seen up, and then wendy and congressman mention we -- wexler, and you cd keep track and we will come back

to you. [laughter] i'm sure you'll be able to. >> look, we're going to be drafting a platform to recommend to the platform committee. this is going to be a subject of debate from now through the st. louis drafting meetings. dr. west makes a very valid point. the palestinian child and the israeli child both should be sacred. do we want -- my friend bob wexler made, i thought, a wonderful case. the issues are resolved. the question of borders, the question of what has happened if we can get the two states for two people. not just so israel can be both a

jewish homeland and a democracy, but so that the palestinian aspirations for self-governance and dignity and the issues that bob referenced can also be met. i could come up with a list. if we want this platform to get into it, of issues of incitement, of the failure of the palestinian authority leadership to say yes, to rewarding the families of people who -- i could go through all of this. i don't want that to be what this platform does. and that's why i think for people who -- if we want the same end result, i think we should, number one, make sure that hillary clinton is the next president of the united states.

to maximize those chances. and secondly, think about our respondent on this platform in a context of what can bring us together and not divide us. and that's -- i don't have a question mark at the end of that sentence, but -- [laughter] >> thank you. >> i guess that it doesn't sit well for me when i hear that we need to go to war to create peace. that just doesn't sit well for me. and that's my, that's my sentiment. my question is, you know, as we sit here and listen to the amount of homelessness and infrastructure, education needs, everything that's happening here in the united states, my concern is now we want to continue war, and that's something that i'm not in support of. i think we need to continue

discussions, negotiations, peace. and i guess my ultimate question would be how much, how much is this going to cost us? we're looking at going back out into war and looking at increasing military. what's that going to cost us, and how many lives is that going to cost us here in the united states while we're in another country fighting? >> [inaudible] >> congressman wexler, or i'm one of your con stitch wents in florida. good -- constituents in florida. good to see you. i do believe in a two-state solution, but i believe that it must happen when there is no fighting, when israel's secure, and it should be negotiated between the palestinians, israelis under the guidance of the united states, and that's it. i agree with you, brother west, that it's very important that, you know, there are lives at stake. these are human beings, you know, on both sides.

and i believe that there should be peace, and once and for all i would like to see peace in my lifetime. thank you. >> thank you. so the last hand was wendy sherman. >> thank you very much. very good to see you, congressman. i think fundamentally what i'd like you to respond to was your testimony was about all of the middle east. and i think going to what deborah parker just asked, if you would sort of reaffirm america's national security interest. that is really what american national security and foreign policy is about. it is about what is in our national security interest. and what you laid out, as i heard you, was dealing with isil , and i couldn't agree more. i don't think the american people want to send lots of troops. i don't think secretary clinton and certainly senator sanders do

not believe in wars of first resort. they believe in war as a last resort. so our national security interest is to do our role to make sure that terrorism is stamped out. as i understand it, and i want to know if this is your point of view, congressman we wexler. it is in our national security interest to promote democracy and peace in the middle easts and where israel is concerned and where the palestinians are concerned, that's a two-state solution. i think the words that sum it up for me the best are ones that secretary clinton used in a speech where she said only a two-state solution can provide independence, sovereignty and dignity. critical, to your point. and provide israelis the secure and recognized borders of a democratic jewish state. and she went on to say israelis deserve security, reck dismission a normal life free

from terror and, separate sentence, equally as strongly palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state in peace and dignity. in my view, that has been really the standard for the democratic party. and our differences are really with the republican party in how we prosecute peace, not war in the middle east. and i wonder if that is your point of view as well. >> thank you. and, mr. wexler, thank you. we would -- we have a lot of witnesses waiting, and we get kicked out of this room literally at 5:00. so we will ask you if you could, please, do your response in three minutes. >> i'll try to do better. >> there's a light right there in front of you that'll help you. >> okay. >> thank you. [laughter] >> with respect to ms. sherman's most recent comments, in terms

of defining national interest in the context of why i am here, the last part of the presentation was about, number one, the necessity of america continuing its global leadership role are. and that global leadership role is, as wendy defined it, to defeat terror in whatever form it comes up where it has an impact on our interests which, unfortunately, what we have learned where there is a void of leadership more often than not it is filled by interests that are adverse to us and our allies. so first and foremost, of course, is defeating isis. not containing isis, but defeating isis. second, of course, is the continuing effort to build or help build a scenario in iraq in

which the iraqi government -- an inclusive iraqi government -- can begin to function in a more full fashion. with respect to syria, a diplomatic resolution along the lines of what secretary kerry is working so diligently to achieve must be the policy. with respect to the israeli/palestinian conflict, yes, secretary clinton's statement, speech at saban was, in my humble estimation, the ultimate statement of american policy and where we should go as a nation and as a party. but if i could respond specifically to some of the points, deborah in particular, that i think is crucial. because they are often misunderstood. you know, whether one agrees with prime minister netanyahu or not, one point he always makes is that israel is our one ally that never, ever has asked and i

can't imagine would have to ask for an american to fight for them. israelis fight for themselves -- >> our money. >> and what they ask for is the commitment of the united states to assist their security. so the whole goal of our relationship with israel, and the whole goal of the implementation of a two-state outcome is to avoid conflict, is to avoid the very types of wars that you're discussing. but god forbid we should ever be in a scenario where american military personnel were asked that in a way to be involved that hasn't yet occurred. that's not the goal. exactly opposite, is the goal. and one other thing if i may. pram marx i believe, in his -- president obama, i believe, in his first weeks in office said

the resolution was in american national security interests. that still remains. but we shouldn't be naive. we could resolve the conflict tomorrow. syria will still be a mess. iraq will still have its problems. libya will still be dysfunctional. so we have of to put it in a proper context. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] our next testimony will come from ray kelly, veterans of foreign wars legislative director. mr. kelly is charged in that position making sure our nation provides veterans with the highest quality care and services possible. formerly national legislative director of amvets, mr. kelly's credentials have been well established. he served six years in the u.s. marine corps, achieved his bachelor of science and

political science at indiana university and served three years in the army reserve where he conducted over 250 combat missions in support of operation iraqi freedom. thank you, mr. kelly. >> thank you. thank you. thanks for the opportunity to testify before you today. while the vfw has a comprehensive list of policy positions, due to time constraints, i will limit my reworks to just three. the vfw is concerned with the human side of diplomacy. it falls on the shoulder of the few who have volunteered to do the dirty work our government asks them to do. and unfortunately, during economically hard times, these same few feel the immediate impact of budget cuts. sequestration and arbitrary budget caps disproportionate9ly hit service members and veterans. to insure they do not exceed their cap, congress and dod have made troop reductions,

below cpi pay raises, asking service members and retirees to pay more for their health care, and the threats of removing other quality of life benefits like on-base childcare and commissaries continue to impact readiness and morale. for veterans, the situation isn't any different. while v.a. is protected through fiscal year '17, it still must live within budget caps. today there are more than 15 legislative needs sitting on capitol hill that will increase the access and quality of health care for veterans, improve the disability claims system, expand access to care for female veterans and provide caregiver benefits to all generations of benefits. and the list goes on and on. my point is, most people believe since v.a. is currently protected from sequestration, veterans are being taken care of. that is not necessarily the case. the vfw calls for the end of sequestration and developing a rational approach to establishing budget limits that

allow congress to budget to need as opposed to caps so v.a. can be fully funded. the vfw opposes the privatization hofstra health care. that does not mean we accept the status quo. the vfw is working with congress to advance several initiatives to improve timeliness and quality of care for vet vans. first, v.a. must be the first touchpoint for all veterans so care can be coordinated and guaranteed. v.a. cannot provide all care to all veterans at all times. that's why we recommend developing a network of non-v.a. providers who are integrated with v.a. so access to care can be provided when veterans need it in a most convenient means possible. the arbitrary 30-day wait times and 4040-mile distance requirements -- 40-mile distance requirements must be removed. very fw is also concerned that

disability claims and appeals process. v.a. has made great strides in reducing the claims backlog, but it comes at the expense to have the appeals process. today more than 450,000 veterans are waiting for answers from v.a. on the status of their appeal. the vfw continues to work with both v.a. and congress to improve the process while the vfw supports current legislation h.r. 5083. there are areas that have not been adequately addressed. thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today, and i look forward to any questions you have. >> thank you very much. [applause] are there any questions? yeah. paul. >> could you comment on the extent to which the -- you talk about ending sequestration and setting budgets on a basis that's really the needs. the needs have been impacted by larger number of veterans coming home from recent conflicts, by

the different geographical decisions that they make when they come home. they don't necessarily move to the same places where v.a. hospitals always were. so you have parts of the country that many more veterans that hospital beds would indicate. if we end sequestration -- which i am totally in favor of -- give us some guidelines for the additional or different resources that the department of veterans affairs needs in order to serve the larger number of people who are entitled to the sport of the american -- the support of the american people. >> sure. currently, the administration's request for just delivery of health care, that's within v.a. and outside non-v.a. care, is a billion and a half dollars more

than what the house appropriations budget calls for. that is a budget cap issuement also the vfw is very interested in v.a. infrastructure, the hospital infrastructure. and v.a. is $60 billion behind. they have a ten-year plan to get themselves out of infrastructure problem. they're $60 billion in the next decade that it would take to get them out of that. i don't think they're going to do that. we recommend that some public/private partnerships, some sharing agreements between the public and priest sector and -- private sector and public and public sector to provide that care to veterans would help a lot. infrastructure needs to be funded as well. probably another billion dollars a year before that's taken care of. >> before i leave you, your willingness to accept the other private partnerships, etc., has to -- doesn't it have to also be subjected to, subordinated to a

principle that you originally stated which is that the v.a. are itself has to be the coordinator of care? >> right. yeah, i agree. so even in a public/private partnership, that could be a v.a. facility. in the other aspect of that which is v.a. being that first touchpoint, in our vision private doctors, non-v.a. doctors would be networked, and they would be integrated with v.a. so v.a. has quality assurance of that health care. and those records come back to v.a., so if there needs to be follow-on care, something else that needs to be seen or some other conditions that need to be taken care of, v.a. will recognize that and be able to help take care of that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other questions? we will now -- [inaudible] thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] i'd like to invite janet redmond up, director of climate policy program. janet redmond is the director of

the climate policy program which provides analysis of the international financial institutions energy investment in carbon finance activities. ms. redmond is currently working with grassroots -- with a grassroots coalition and global campaigns to demand climate justice. ms. redmond? >> thank you very much. very grateful to be here with you all. many have named climate change as the number one threat to u.s. national security. 2016 national security strategy backs this assertion listing it as among the top strategic risks of our interests. there's overwhelming scientific evidence, and we're -- [inaudible] with the long-term sustainability of our economy, our country or our planet. the impacts of climate change are already tearing through our communities, undermining national security by temporarily destabilizing energy, physical

and virtual infrastructure. increasingly extreme weather would have even higher costs in property and lives lost. climate and security is not limited to our borders. the department of homeland security, department of defense and a bipartisan coalition of top national security and foreign policy leaders have warned that global warming will exacerbate governments' ability to meet the needs of their populations, making the world a more unstable, resource-constrained and violent place. the longest drought pushed 1.5 million people to urban certains. it -- centers. it fueled what has become a migration crisis. climate change is an economic, foreign policy and national and global security problem. as the world's largest historical emitter of greenhouse

gas pollution, the united states has a moral imperative to show national leadership in addressing the global security threat from climate change through multilateralism, cooperation and mutual aid. global leadership on climate change begins here at home. the u.s. should push past pledgeses we made to put america on track for a greater -- [inaudible] a commitment should be made for at least 50% of our electricity to come from clean, renewable sources by 2030. this means putting in place measures to keep fossil fuel in the ground like banning mountaintop removal of coal, putting in place a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and a tax on polluters that's responsive to the needs of low income americans. to help accomplish these goals, the democratic party must commit to eliminating welfare to fossil fuel companies and banning their lobbyists thate