many low-wage jobs come with schedules that are unpredictable, that are unstable, that are just inflexible, and these conditions wreak havoc on the parents childcare and ess pay for childcare. it's not a sustainable solution. the agenda details many of thew things we have heard about today which would also address the race and gender pay gap. going to focus mostly on the recommendations around childcare. it is essential we expand access. that requires increasing ending for the major childcare program, the newly reauthorized block grant. it is currently so underfunded it is only serving one in six eligible children.

care for ouro children, they have to be paid more. to pay them more is going to we increase the payment rate. it is also going to require greater investments to strengthening the supply of childcare. this is especially important in light of the requirements in the law. put -- it isal to hard to find. to act would provide funding expand it. one more recommendation, we need investments in early education and state prekindergarten programs. we will send more details.

questions from members of the committee? thank you so much. >> we invite robert up. he is among a group of employees trying to establish the united workers's unit at the mississippi plant. according to the uaw, large numbers of the workforce are temporary employees who work for years earning significantly lower wamgs and benefits. he worked at nissan for two years. we look forward to hearing your remarks. >> good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the platform committee.

we are here to talk about a workplace where there are no unions. the difference between those at the top and those at the bottom is huge. we want to make the economy work for everyone. we need the economy to create good middle class jobs now. a strong economy depends on rights and wages for the majority of workers. the most effective way to create a better live life is to create the rights to support a stronger economy. we need stable and not temporary jobs and not temp jobs. take me for example. i work for nissan and the support all the way to the real axel. i was hired to work at nissan three years ago. when i was hired i was given less pay and benefits than regular employees. this is because nissan didn't put me on the payroll.

instead, they put me on the payroll of the services. they only interviewed me and gave me a paycheck. a year ago i transitioned to a program referred to as the pathways program. i would never-full pay and benefits. i currently earn $12,000 per year less than the nissan pay scale. i am not alone. it is estimated about half the workforce has been hired as temps. some have transitioned, but we have received substandard pay and benefits. nissan is leading the nation in the wrong direction by employing so many temps. nissan lead us not into temp nation. they are not alone and one of the fastest growing in the united states. the temp industry has shifted from large clerical to large industrial.

and is now 42% of the industry. temps are less likely to challenge on anything whether they see dangerous jobs or promotion. unfortunately, we are in the fear of being labeled a trouble maker and deny the opportunity to make a good living and good benefits. they are supporting the union with plant closes and bringing the union. the plant will close and move to mexico. recently they had all 5,000 workers watching anti-union video. which a top manager tells is in best interest to sign the card our and then threatened that if besend the card, there will ramifications. my story is not unusual. i urge the committee to take a strong position. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> thank you so much.

paul? >> you mentioned the antiunion atmosphere. this is a democratic party thing. everyone is familiar with a election.al there is a lot of propaganda on both sides. the situation in a union representation where the employer has captives, in effect, a captive audience. it's not a free and open debate. right? tell us what it is like. >> basically, it is one-sided. they can speak from their side but the uaw cannot. example when they showed the video. that stuff happens all the time throughout the plant.

>> any other questions? thank you so much. thank you very much. [applause] >> for the last testimony in this section, fernando. come forward. thank you. fernando, the principal at the consulting before joining. he was the deputy executive director of the mayor's office of immigrant and multicultural affairs in the city of philadelphia. thank you. afternoon.u and good thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. my name is fernando and i am a proud mexican immigrant and i'm not a rapist or a killer. i am a proud mexican immigrant and a proud democrat that happens to speak with a little bit of an accent.

i am also a small business owner in philadelphia. it is an honor to speak before you on the that they foster opportunities across the nation and the important that immigrants and hispanics are playing in the process. at the national level, hispanics small businesses are growing at twice the rate of the national . philadelphia, from bethlehem to york, the hispanic contribution is growing and growing fast. the region is the second largest hispanic market in the northeast with about 19,000 businesses. that's an extraordinary number. another number that still amazes me every time i hear it is that in philadelphia, 96%, 96% of small businesses open between 2000 and 2013 were opened by immigrants. 96% of small businesses that are located in commercial corridors.

but i would love to report that the future of the minority-owned businesses for young hispanic men and women is better than ever, but we are not there yet. please don't take it the wrong way. we are making progress. this progress is because of sound policies that offer opportunity to people like me. we can do better. today hispanic business owners are still facing important challenges. industry stereotypes and the lack of capital awareness and institutional engagement, language access and cultural norms and others. to betterre education understand the business sector. as democrats, we know that thewe strength of the nation lies in our diversity. ability to tear down walls, not to build them. to give everyone a chance to

create a better life and a better business. i am here to ask you to consider the significance of fostering the small business economy as part of the democratic platform. as a member of the greater chamber of commerce, as a small business owner, i know how it works. i know what it takes. i know the sweat and tears and long hours that many small business owners are putting in to reach their goals and achieve their dreams. i know that entrepreneurial spirit that thrives in the hispanic community, waiting to be released. waiting for a chance to show america who we are. how much we can contribute to keep the economy healthy and competitive. i believe some of the goals, one of the top priorities given these numbers should be to promote diversity and embrace it . make it work at every level from the classroom to the board room and economics to political participation. that's how we maximize our economic prospect and for the future.

i truly believe in that. that is the mission of my business. hispanic american business leaders and entrepreneurs and immigrants across the u.s. are living proof that in this country one person is committed to working hard and can feel powerful and strong. no matter who they are, where they are from our what their last name is. -- or no matter what their last name is. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> we will now and this session and move into our next one. >> i have a brief set of remarks for congressman cummings which i will share with the cochair.

president obama and the democratic arty know there is no greater responsibility than protecting the american people and we understand the indispensable role the united states must continue to play promoting peace and prosperity. >> the next set of speakers will provide recommendations to guide and shape our 2016 platform to show america's role in the world. we provide for the safety and they know what requires security of the american people. and that that requires close collaboration with allies, cultivating partnerships with new friends and centers of influence and strong american leadership. and now for the first witness, we will call the former assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor.

he is currently the professor of ethics at finance at nyu's stern school of business. before that he served in the state department and led with human rights first. thank you. >> it's a pleasure to be here. as you said, i had diverse experience both in academia and government and with the nongovernmental sector. my comments reflect that. first a broad comment. both inside the government and out, i witnessed the power of american global leadership and our ability to make a difference on human rights and democracy. the u.s. has issues to protect -- unique influence to raise these issues and to protect the most vulnerable. now more than ever, we need to redouble the efforts and use the power of the internet which is a new tool. it was almost seven years ago -- 70 years ago that eleanor roosevelt led the effort to adopt the universal declaration

of human rights. we need to continue to lead and to do so is morally right and consistent with who we are as a people and it makes us stronger and safer and more secure. we need to lead also by example. even on the places where it's not so easy to do so. obamas why president banned torture in 2009. this is why he the administration continue to work to close guantanamo. it's a recording device to our enemies. full work to ensure equality for women and girls. that means tackling discrimination. investing more in women's employment, health, education. modine women's rights as a human right is not only the right thing to do, but strategic imperative. we also need to record size -- recognize that gay rights are human rights. fight against efforts

of discrimination. we have to pay attention to human trafficking. 27 million people in the world are victims of human trafficking. this is an affront to our values and a source of criminal organizations and extremist groups. it threatens us all. more broadly, we need to support labor unions and others on the frontlines not only in the fight against trafficking, but forced labor, child labor and other abuses here and elsewhere. two final points. we need to continue to speak out against the persecution of religious minorities whether they are christians in syria who are being attacked by isis and anti-semitism in europe and minorities around the world. our foreign policy must pride tour's efforts to combat

religious persecution -- prioritize efforts to combat religious persecution wherever it occurs. the world faces the greatest humanitarian crisis since world war ii. more than 20 million refugees from syria and elsewhere. we can't do it alone, but we need to be in the lead and that means more syrian refugees and providing support to the u.n. refugee agencies. these are all issues that help to define us as a party and i strongly urge that they feature prominently in the democratic platform. thank you. [applause] thank you for that. i think everyone in the feels upholding human rights is essential. i would like to ask you, since you have traveled the world and moved human rights forward in the private and public sector, what kind of an impact you think esther trumps -- mr. trump's language is having in terms of what he is saying about tolerance and the ability to be a role model around the world. in sois being destructive

many ways. i can get to it in war: 35. -- in 4:35. i think withdrawing from the world is wrong at this moment. we need to engage. when we don't engage, our leadership is missed. it undermined us. it makes us safer and stronger to be a leader. statements, his racist statements, the range of things he said are creating panic in the world. i travel a lot. everywhere i go, people are saying, what is happening? we need to be clear as a party that these issues help define us as a nation and we need to reinforce our engagement and principal commitment as human rights as universal values. >> have you noticed at all what

trend ofbe a worrying foreign governments making it difficult for foreign ngos to operate within their boundaries? do you have advice for us about how we might address that? when i was last in the state department, we began to see this trend, laws on association and restrictions on funding and attacks against human rights and advocates we saw in a range of countries around the world. we sent a memo up to clinton to talk about the head winds. it only intensified in the last three years. i think we need to be clear that the change occurs within societies, but it can't exist if it's strangled and it's not the external support coming from the united states. we need to be creative and we need to be bold and look at the long gain. -- game.

at the end of the day, it needs to be rights groups and women's groups in societies that will navigate change consistent with their society and they need support and they need protection when they get in trouble. they are getting in trouble all the time. i think that ought to be a central feature of the policy going forward. >> i have traveled around the world with certain ngos and seen the devastation caused by human trafficking and i agree. too many women, children, and men are being impacted by this. yet there is nothing we can do to stop it. it's more lucrative than heroin. we tackle auggest situation like that? >> there are things we should be doing.

localngaging with governments where this is happening. that's and not enough by itself but we shouldn't take our eye off the ball. secondly, doing whatever we can to empower unions and activists can be part of the solution within their own societies and third and this is sort of what i am working on at nyu, there is a role for american business and global business to also reinforce the best things that need to be happening. it's not possible in a global supply chain to say this is not our responsibility. they are the beneficiaries. we are all the beneficiaries of cheap products that are the product of people working in inferior conditions. >> thank you. talk for 30 seconds on human rights advocacy.

democracy promotion. to what extent do view them as the same issue or different issues? >> i think they are part of a constellation of issues that are interrelated. i am about to go on a mission to georgia this weekend which is a democracy promotion effort. at the end of the day, when we talk about democracy, the almonds are empowering women. the rule of law. the ability of unions to organize. free expression. all of these are human rights issues. the smart thing is to integrate democracy and human rights as part of an integrated hold. whole. >> now we will go to our next witness. [applause]

to skypek we are ready in senator jean sue heena shahe. n to bethe only woma elected as a governor and senator. noted for her dedication in new hampshire. she has served in the senate since 2009 and is a member of the committee on armed services. and his ranking member of the small business and entrepreneurship committee. thank you, senator. >> it's great to be with you all and thank you for letting me skype in. i appreciate the chairman and members of the platform drafting committee for the invitation to join you in my capacity as a member of the senate foreign relations committee to offer my

thoughts on america's place in the world. our nation is and must remain a beacon of democracy and a friend to those around the world who aspire to bring freedom, security and prosperity. as democrats, we believe in peace through strength. we also believe in strength for peace. this means maintaining strong alliances and putting diplomacy first and resorting to military force only as a last resort. these are important aspects of exceptionalism. principletal underlying foreign policy is our conviction that robust diplomacy must be the primary means of achieving the aims abroad. we also believe leveraging the

america's soft power. the moral authority of our democratic way of life. accordingly, it is important that the democratic platform continues with generous investments and diplomacy and national development. democrats know that america is strongest when we work not just to make it safer, but better. whether it's combatting hiv-aids and helping girls and women gain access to education or supporting fledgling democracies around the world. democrats understand the importance of addressing both short and long-term global challenges. terrorism, nuclear proliferation . climate change. the scourge of governments and ideologies that trample on human and civil rights. i can't emphasize too strongly

the value of american leadership and international institutions and partnerships such as the united nations and nato. these multinational institutions have allowed us to make significant gains in tackling difficult global challenges. gains this we could not have achieved on our own. our platform should continue to recognize the value of alliances, partnerships and the web of international institutions and agreements that allow us to successfully navigate our increasingly interconnected world. our foreign policy should seek to invest in and modernize the se relationships, not integrate or discard them as some have advocated. our global network is inan an indispensable instrument of american power. not only should we be bolstering traditional partnerships,

partnerships like the transatlantic alliance and ties with israel. but also deepening partnerships with countries that are on the front lines in the fight against violent extremism. now is not the time as some in the republican party have advocated to abandon or disband the alliances that are necessary to confront the global challenges of the 21st century. finally, i would like to speak about the of inclusivity and importance tolerance as principals of the democratic party's approach to foreign policy. it is enshrined in the founding documents and in our laws. we believe in the fundamental equality of all people and reject discrimination based on race, creed, nationality and ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation and we support people and nations around the world that share or inspire to

secure these values and ideals. these values and ideals are a powerful source of america's moral authority around the world. in fact, much of the diplomacy consists of helping other countries at their invitation to help build the same protections and underlying values into the laws and codes of their states whether it's fighting for media , or putting in place protections for citizens or building an independent judiciary. inclusivity and tolerance are a feature of our democratic or foreign policy because they are domestic policy. particularly when it comes to immigration. we are a nation of immigrants and refugees and a nation that the disenfranchised and abused. we benefitted from persistence and drive to build better lives

here. albert einstein and kissinger and albright, they all came to this country as refugees and made enormous contributions to the american way of life. our generous and open culture must not change. america is a great nation, but a ecause we are a good nation and a welcoming nation. especially in this this election cycle, we are facing a party whose presumptive nominee for president betrays our values and disdains the partnerships that we built for sustained american leadership. he would make the united states less secure, less prosperous and less respected. and we must not allow this to happen. in summary, i urge the committee when drafting our party's platform to bear in mind the importance of a strong and principaled foreign policy drawing on all elements of our

national power including the power of our values and ideals. we are committed to main taping taining our armed forces and military second to none in the world and we are committed to using force only as a last resort and only when there is a clear path to success. we are also committed to supporting and caring for the our service members, especially our wounded warriors when they return home. the principals i talked about guided the foreign policy for many decades and we are proud of the way president obama held firm to these principles and thened america's standing in the world over the last eight years. i am confident they will find a way to reflect these in the platform that will appeal not just to the fellow democrats, but all americans. thank you very much. i would be happy to answer questions and i appreciate your letting me skype in.

>> thank you so much, senator. we are grateful. [applause] >> i just turned it on. b is senior fellow at the center for american progress and senior adviser to the center for defense information and and adjunct professor at georgetown university. prior to that, we had the council on foreign relations and served as director for the center for public policy education and a senior fellow for foreign policy studies at the brookings institution. larry, welcome. >> thank you very much for having me. i appreciate this opportunity. i'm going to cover two things today. what criteria should we use

before we employ military force and how much should we spend on defense? the most important thing a woman or man who is in the white house has to do as commander in chief is decide when to send americans into battle. the first thing you need to ask is is this a war of choice or necessity. have we exhausted all other options? in my prepared testimony i out how the president resisted the calls of people to employ military force with the e in poland and hungary. you need to keep that in mind. once you make a decision use military force, then you need to ask yourself a number of questions that were put i think most by colin powell when we had the powell doctrine. the first is what the are 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 do it, 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 as contributions. that war cost the u.s. taxpayer nothing because since we provided the forces, people that couldn't do it provided the 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 finally what happens a day after, 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 guarantee 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 it strategic redeployment but the fact of the matter is we realized we could not win that civil war. and then finally if, in fact, you think it's necessary to get the american people involved you -- you oughtut on

to put on a tax since we no longer have a draft. this is what we did toward the end in vietnam. now, very quickly i'll 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 would cost a billion dollars a month. and would involve putting up to 30,000 people in as secretary kerry said. let me stop there. >> your question? >> i'll just be very quick. you talked about the american military's engagement in the world. and criteria for action. the american military has been called to do different things. i wanted to get your assessments 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 become worse is in large measure because of an innovative use of the american military. what are your thoughts on that? >> well, again, i remember from my own days i spent 25 years in

the navy, we would do these humanitarian things but these did not involve the use of force except through self-defense. we were going in to provide -- as a military whatever else you may think has terrific logistics , and they can do these things so, yes, they are. but i do think 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. >> larry, very good to see you. in use of the american military in the way that we've been discussing it, we just talked about when you have a pandemic or you have problems, our military's also used in disaster assistance a great deal. and you are someone who has put in a lot of time thinking about our alliances and about the institutions. we all have heard from mr. trump that nato is useless, that

we should get rid of our alliance with japan, we should move out all of our troops, we should change our posture completely in the world, and i wondered if you'd comment on that. it's not that we don't want people to increase their defense budgets. we do. it's not that we don't want people to pay their fair share, of course we do. and need to do everything we can to make that possible. but can you talk a little bit about the role that alliances and institutions like nato play in these decisions? nato. >> it's important to keep in mind the alliances we started after the end of world war ii were to contain the soviet union, the soviet communist expansionism. now we find 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 on an exercise to send a signal to mr. putin that if he'd be foolish

enough to come into nato, it means war. there's no doubt about the fact that europeans need to do more and i think it's important as our last three secretaries of defense have told them that they need to do it, but on the other hand we shouldn't downplay what they do accomplish. and i think that's important. i used to handle the base structure when i was there. it costs more if you bring those troops back here and have to build the facilities, japan or germany with host nation support, you know, is less expensive. >> thank you very much. so very good to hear you. i just raise a question about the moral 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 natural law and i would say

the same thing about the support of the military coup in honduras or in iraq? but what is the role as you see it of the moral dimensions, i know there are practical dimensions. what is the moral dimensions we're talking about america and having some kind of moral character of american foreign policy. >> whatever you may think about it, it was sanctioned by the u.n. and nato so that gave you the legal basis on which to do it. the real question as president obama has admitted, okay, that's great and now what do we do. that we didn't think through enough, i think that's the important thing. but i do think it's very important the moral 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, you know, when you look at the moral things. you know, i was -- when i was young and i was in vietnam and i got there and i said, what are we doing. i just couldn't believe and

then, of course, you look at the -- you know, agent 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. a quick question. >> yeah. i just want to ask, thanks very much for testifying. the united states spends i believe more on defense spending than the next nine countries combined. and wanted to see what -- if you believe that we can responsibly cut defense spending without harming our troops or our military families. >> there's no doubt about the fact that you can do that. and by the way, it's the next seven now because the chinese have stepped up their military expenditures. five of whom are our allies, so, yes, we can. the department of defense does not have a resource problem. if you look and you put it in constant dollars, president obama spent more than president bush and more than we spent on

average in the cold war. so, yes, they have a management problem. they need to be able to do things. as i mention in my testimony, $500 billion in cost overruns on your weapons systems. one of the things we just did, i told my boss here, you know, a trillion dollar modernization program for nuclear weapons? you don't need to do that. you know, there are things that you can do to stay 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. they are a different budget as you're going to hear and every time i get and i talk about this, no. the veterans are taken care of separately. no you can do these things , and it needs to be better managed. i tell you, whoever becomes president needs to make sure that they get a strong deputy

secretary of defense. everybody knows who the secretary is. the deputy, somebody like david packard or charlie duncan from coca-cola that carter put in, that's when it's run well. >> thank you. >> i got to get back to work. >> i'd like to invite cindy wang up. cindy wang from the center for global development. she's the senior policy -- a visiting policy fellow there. she works on issues related to development effectiveness, fragile and conflict affected states and strengthening u.s. development policy. most recently ms. wang was the deputy vice president for sector operations at the millennium challenge corporation where she oversaw the strategic direction and implementation of a $2 billion portfolio. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here. the center for global development does not take

institutional positions, so i offer these thoughts in my personal capacity. we face challenges in the world today as every generation has. but we also have significant opportunities. as part of an integrated strategy that includes diplomacy and defense, global development is a high-return opportunity. investing in development less than 1% of the federal budget works. american leadership and our collaboration with partners has helped cut 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. the former supreme commander of nato has said without funding diplomacy and development 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 recipients 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 pillar of our global leadership. and american leadership with the support of our 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 diseases like zika and ebola by strengthening local and regional capacity to stop their 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 the root causes of violence and insecurity , especially in central america. and we must continue our great work to improve food security and nutrition for millions and to help turn on the lights and bring electricity to millions more especially in africa. and across all we do we must advance gender equality. we cannot fulfill our collective potential if we leave half the population behind. and our work must be informed by compelling evidence on the multiplier effect of investing in women and girls. seizing these opportunities will help prevent crisis in the future but we must still respond to the crisises of today. we cannot turn away from the more than 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 a 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 the symptoms. and we cannot ignore how so many challenges are exacerbated by the plague of corruption. it's not just the panama papers. the scale of corruption as much as $2.6 trillion a year is a systemic threat that demands a robust response.

so, to promote inclusive growth and solve shared problems we must collaborate closely with our full range of partners and help strengthen them. this includes ensuring that organizations like the united nations are modernized for 21st century problems and it includes doing more with our strengths, our social entrepreneurs and innovators and we must use our development resources wisely. we need to collect more and better data and use it systematically and we must hold our own institutions and partners accountable for transparency and above all results. as americans we believe that everyone deserves a chance to succeed. that is why we give the most to private charities and respond so 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] >> hi. you mentioned a couple of the reasons why development is important, helping to fight violent extremeism because people then have a reason for hope, don't have to choose a violent way of life, dealing with corruption which obviously has a lot of implications for american investment. but since a lot of america believes that 40% of our 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, so could you chat about that a little bit. >> sure, absolutely. and you picked on some of the most compelling examples i think, if we can make an investment now we can save dollars in the future.

and i already quoted the admiral, he recently wrote an article just yesterday about how he had been advocating for increased investment by usaid in niger because they were getting such strong results addressing some of those on the middle causes of lack of hope and the -- some of those fundamental causes of lack of hope and the lack of feeling that there can be justice in the future. so, i think that there are multiple challenges -- the example of ebola which others have spoken about as well is also such a clear example to me of 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 gamut and it is such an important reminder. i saw a recent poll that people do think that it's, you know, 24% of our budget and it is less than 1% and there is -- we do

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. it's not actually 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 are having a transformative effect and not always a good one in the reaction that is taking place in europe and in some of the neighboring countries whose stability are being undermined. 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? >> i think it's very critical that he's hosting the summit at

the u.n. general assembly this year. some of the targets that have been put out first to increase financing. i think it's pretty clear that to address the scale of the crisis, we do need to commit dollars, and i also think one thing that's fundamental is recognizing that the old model, people spoke of the post 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 from a three- to five-year window to much, much longer. so, i think it's time for a reconceptualization almost of the kind of support that is needed in these situations. if you are displaced for 5, 10, 20 years and, you know, you really need the full range of support. which, by the way, there are many compelling economic studies that show in the long run refugees contribute a great deal in terms of economic growth. senator shaheen mentioned the

innovation that is brought but there are short-term costs and we cannot be naive about those. we need to reconceptualize and add more resources and really get the global community to take on more refugees as well. >> thank you, bill? >> on occasion we end up with some of these 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 at obvious odds with our goals set out in paris. can you provide some advice for the committee on language or ideas that might make it easier to make sure that americans' involvement in those multilateral agencies was

instead directed toward clean energy? >> great question. when i worked at the millennium challenge corporation we were very involved in power africa, . that was something looked at very closely and you indicated part of the solution which is how can we in encourage investment in clean energies. and i also think there are really creative solutions. folks at center for global development have been looking at , not at energy per se but looking at the case of forests how can we encourage agriculture in a way that also reduces emissions. so, 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. -- >> well turn to will invite robert wexler to join us. he's the executive director --

oh, by the way, i'm not nara tandem, i'm carol browner. she had to step out. she'll be back. robert wexler is the executive director of the center for middle east peace and economic cooperation. he served in the u.s. house of representatives for five terms. throughout his tenure in congress mr. wexler was an outfolken advocate for the unbreakable bond between the united states and israel and a leading proponent for israel's right for self-defense and the need for a just and comprehensive resolution in 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 out an ambitious three-point plan to defeat isis. she will work with a broad coalition to destroy isis's strongholds in iraq and syria. 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 instability and conflict -- especially in iraq. to achieve stability, baghdad must pursue a more inclusive government and deliver for iraqis while rooting out corruption. what is happening in syria is a moral travesty. at least 250,000 dead and 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 conflict across the middle east. iran supports terrorism and repeatedly calls to destroy israel. iran's human rights record is abysmal. iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. i support the international agreement between the p-5 plus 1 nations in iran because with vigorous enforcement, it verifiably thwarts all of iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb without resorting to dwar. the nuclear deal enables us to more strenuously push back against iran's destabilizing activities in the region. particularly their support for terrorists proxies like hezbollah. secretary clinton will ensure

that nonnuclear sanctions continue to be implemented particularly to rein in iran's illicit ballistic missile program. achieving our national security objectives requires close collaboration with our allies. first and foremost, 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 just 11 minutes after declaring its independence and secretary clinton will continue that commitment. yesterday's terrorist attack in tel aviv was yet another painful reminder of the threats israel faces including from hamas and the importance of the united states standing shoulder to shoulder with israel.

we must unequivocally support israel's right to defend herself and ensure its qualitative military edge including through a new ten-year defense memorandum. 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 a negotiated two-state solution that guarantees israel's future as a secure and democratic jewish state with recognized borders in jerusalem as its capital and provides palestinians with justice, sovereignty and dignity. israelis deserve security and recognition and a normal life free from terror and palestinians need to govern themselves in their own contiguous 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 undermines a negotiated two-state outcome. while some proponents of the boycott divestment and sanctions movement may hope that pressuring israel will lead to peace, the truth is outside forces will not resolve the israeli/palestinian conflict. particularly when anti-semitism is rising throughout the world , democrats must condemn efforts to isolate and delegitimize israel. of course, no country is above criticism. but the delegitimization of israel it must stop immediately. walking away from the middle east is not an option because we have deep national interests at stake. it would be an error, terrible error, to cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security. at the same time we certainly must not allow military adventurism like donald trump suggests such as bombing

countries to take their 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 appreciate the conversation we had yesterday. >> likewise. >> as you know, i have very deep disagreements with you, my brother, but i think i want to see where we can reach common ground, a higher ground. i think both of us can agree that a precious palestinian baby on the west bank has exactly the same value as a precious jewish baby in tel aviv. so when we talk about evenness at the moral and spiritual level, you come out of a judaic tradition, i come out of a christian tradition we overlap

, in that regard, the real question's going to be a commitment to security for in israel can never be predicated on an occupation of precious palestinians if we're concerned about security it seems to me we're going to have to talk seriously about occupation. i don't know whether you would allow the use of that or, you know, "new york times" said we those do we acknowledge contempt? years of 2,000 years, hated, helicopter edaunted, vicious contempt, preoccupation with security. understandable. palestinians, made an image of god like anybody else. wrestled with occupation for 50-some years. demeaned, devalued, dominated, exploited. for too long the democratic party has been beholden to apac that didn't take seriously the humanity of palestinian brothers and sisters. we're at a turning point now

and, of course, it's going to be a slow one on the democratic party but some of us will be working outside the democratic party to make it quicker. we've got to fight anti-semitism, anti-jewish hatred. it goes hand in hand with every christian civilization and islamic civilizations, it's wrong and unjust but that cannot be the excuse in any way downplaying the unbelievable misery that we see in gaza and west bank and other places. the first question would be 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 been so biased toward israeli security and not accent the humanity of palestinians to talk about even handedness is always a version of anti-semitism as opposed to a struggle for justice. you let me know whether that's

fair or not because i want to make sure our dialogue is mediated with respect. i respect you, my brother, i know you respect me, but we just have deep disagreements. >> sure. dr. west, 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 in 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 i will not seek 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 heartfelt support for israel's security. because the foundation of a two-state outcome is both the security of israelis and palestinians. and let's be candid if we could. when we talk about security, oftentimes 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 the 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 itself a 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 platform, our position should be the position of every republican and

democratic administration since president johnson. and we shouldn't be any less or any more in terms of how we deal with settlements and we should be consistent. but with all due respect, for those that focus only on settlements, you in effect undermine the whole equation that supports a negotiated 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 some day soon where parties will have to make compromises, but not at the same time also discuss what's required on refugees, what's required on -- >> should we leave jerusalem out of the platform? i think that would fit your notion appropriately. >> no. >> we should not negotiate or litigate any of the issues in

the platform, i would agree with that. >> i 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. >> no. no, in fairness nobody is 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, suggested. the point is the democratic platform is a blue present forprint for bringing the two sides to a conclusion where our shared objectives are met. you and i respectfully, i don't want to be presumptuous, but we have the same objective.

living side by state in peace and security with a jewish majority democratic state of israel and the borders will be negotiated, settlements will be negotiated as a result, the stat actuals 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 what it should continue to say. >> we have a number of hands up. and i'm just trying to be mindful and making sure that everybody gets to ask their question. i'm wondering if you all would mind that everyone asked their question and then we asked mr. wexler to respond. does that work for people? so i'm going to just come down the row. we have howard, debra, bonnie are the hands i've seen up. and then wendy and then congressman wexler, if you could 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, to rewarding the families of people who go 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 responsibility in this platform in the 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 -- >> thank you. >> i guess 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 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, you know, 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. >> congressman wexler, i'm one of your 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, the 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 is your testimony was about all of the middle east. and i think going to what debra 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, 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 is lot send lots of troop, and hillary clinton and senator sanders do not believe in war as a first

resort, they believe in war as a last resort. and 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 wexler. it is in our national security interest to promote democracy and peace in the middle east 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 her sabon speech where she said only a two-state solution can provide palestinians dignity and security, and provide israelis the securities of a democratic jewish state. she went on to say that israelis deserve security and recognition and a normal life free from terror and, straight 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 will help you. >> ok. >> thank you. >> with respect to ms. sherman's most recent comments, in terms of defining national interests

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. 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 nationals. 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, thoughtnot 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, it was in my opinion the ultimate statement of american policy and where we should go as a nation and a party. but if i could respond specifically to some of the points. debra 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 ever ask for

an american to do their fighting for them. israelis fight for themselves. 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, president obama i believe in his first weeks in office said that resolution of the israeli/palestinian conflict was an american national security interest. that still remains. but we shouldn't be naive. we could resolve the

israeli/palestinian conflict tomorrow and syria will still be a mess and iraq will still have its problems and libya will still be dysfunctional, so we have to put it not a proper context. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> our next -- our next testimony will come from ray kelly, veterans of foreign wars legislative director. mr. kelly is charged in that position of making sure our nation provides veterans with the highest quality care and services possible. formerly national legislative director of amvets his credentials as an advocate for american veterans has been well established. he served six years in the marine corps and achieved his bachelor of political science in indiana university and served three years in the army reserve

where he conducted over 250 combat missions in support of "operateion iraqi freedom." >> thank you, mr. kelly. >> thank you. thank you. thank you 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 them to three. the vfw is concerned with the human side of foreign policy, it falls on the shoulder of the few 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 disproportionately hit service members and veterans. to ensure they do not exceed their budget caps congress and dod have made immediate cuts to troop reductions and below cpi pay raises and 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 child care and come -- commisaries continue to impact reddy readiness and morale. while va is protected from sequestration through fiscal year 2017 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 and improve the disability claims system and expand access to care for female veterans and provide caregiver benefits to all generations of benefits and the list goes on and on. most believe since va is protected from sequestration veterans are being taken care of. that is not necessarily the case. the vfw calls for the end of se sequestration and establish

budget limits that allow congress to budget to need as opposed to caps so va can be fully funded. we oppose the privatization of va health care, that does not mean we accept the status quo. the vfw is working with va and congress to advance several initiatives to improve timeliness and quality of care for veterans. first, va must be the first touch point for all veterans so their care can be coordinated and guarantee guaranteed. we realize that va cannot provide all care to all veterans at all times. that's why we recommend developing a network of non-va providers who are integradeted so access to care can be provided when veterans need it and most convenient means possible. the arbitrary 30-day wait times and 40-mile distant requirement must be removed. decisions on when and where a veteran receives their health care should be determined between the health care provider and that veteran. vfw is also concerned that the disability claims and appeals

process, va has made great strides in reducing the claims backlog but it comes at thence expense of the appeals process. today more than 450,000 veterans are waiting for the status of their appeal. the vfw is working with the congress to improve the process. bill 5083vfw supports 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. >> can you comment on the extent to which the -- you talk about ending sequestration and setting budgets on a basis that's related to the needs. the needs have been impacted by the 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 va hospitals always were, so you have parts of the country with many more veterans than hospital beds would indicate. if we end sequestration, which i totally am 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 support of the american people. >> sure. currently the administration's request for just delivery of health care, that's within va and outside non-va care, is a billion and a half dollars more than what the house appropriations budget calls for.

that is a budget cap issue. also the vfw is interested in the va infrastructure and the hospital infrastructure. and va is $60 billion behind. they have a 10-year plan to get themselves out of the infrastructure problem. they're $60 billion in the next decade it would take to get them out of that. i don't think that they'll do that. we recommend some public/private partnerships some sharing agreements between the public and private sector to provide that care to veterans would help a lot. but infrastructure needs to be funded as well. probably about another billion dollars more a year until that's taken care of. >> before i leave you, you're willingness to accept other private partnerships, et cetera, has to -- doesn't it have to also be subjected to --

subordinated to principles that you originally stated which is that the va itself has to be the coordinator of care? >> yeah. i agree. even in a public/private partnership that could be a va facility. in the other aspect of that which is va being that first touch point. in our vision private doctors, non-va doctors would be networked and they would be integrated with va so va has quality assurance of that health care. and those records come back to va 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, va recognizes that and can help take care of that. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i'd like to invite janet redmond up. janet redmond from the institute of policy studies and 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 and carbon finance activities. as a founding participant in the global climate justice now network, ms. redmond is working with a glass-roots campaign in global campaigns to demand climate justice. ms. redmond? >> thank you very much. i'm 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 interest. there is overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. we're coming to terms with the fact that burning fossil fuels is no longer compatible with the long-term sustainability of our economy, our country or our planet. the impacts of climate change are already tearing through our communities and undermining national security by temporarily destabilizing energy and physical and virtual infrastructure.

increasingly extreme weather would have even higher costs in property and lives lost. but climate and security is not limited to our borders. the cement of homeland security, the department of defense and the bipartisan coalition of top national security and foreign policy leaders have warned that global warming will exacerbate existing problems like poverty and social tensions and the government's ability to meet their needs. the longest and most severe drought in modern syrian record keeping preceded the spring 2011 unrest pushing people to urban centers. it has become a long, bloody conflict. and climate change is not simply an environment problem. it's an economic, foreign policy and national and global security problem. as the world's largest historical emitter of greenhouse gas pollution and the world's

wealthiest nation the united states has a moral imperative and self-interest to show international leadership in addressing the global security threat of climate change. global leadership on climate change begins here at home. the u.s. should push past goals we made in the paris summit to help put america on track for greater reductions. a commitment should be that 50% of our electricity come from clean renewable sources by 2030. this means putting in place measures to keep fossil fuel in the ground like banning arctic and offshore drilling and banning mountaintop removal of coal, and putting in place a moratorium of all gas and oil exploration on public lands. and a progressive tax. to help accomplish these goals the democratic party must commit to eliminate corporate welfare to fossil fuel companies and banning their lobbyists to give them undue influence on climate and energy policy. the u.s. must step up its

international climate finance commitment and identify sources of new innovative money and redirecting a portion of the bloated defense budget to programs that combat climate chagne rejecting the transpacific partnership and other free trade agreements that put climate protections at risk for the benefit of trade over climate security. in conclusion, security risks posed by climate change the u.s. and global populations are real, eminent, and potentially catastrophic. the most critical responses are nonmilitary. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and clean energy, and economies in emerging countries. thank you so much. >> thank you.

[applause] >> thank you for that testimony. and i recommend to the committee to read the full written testimony, because it is concise and powerful. thank you for your work. just a couple of questions. as you said, the u.s., along with many other nations in paris, committed to the target of holding temperature increases well below two degrees centigrade, and what some observers called the most important diplomatic gathering since the end of the second world war. trump has said that he would immediately abrogate that agreement. and given your sense of american leadership and credibility, what do you think an effort like that would do to the world's attempts to deal with climate change? and secondly, given the fact that we touched 1.5 degrees in

february, could you describe for the committee your sense of how urgent this problem is, and really whether even the timeline laid out in paris is sufficient to help us meet the targets that we addressed? >> those questions come together, and the assertion that we would reasonably pullout of one of the only negotiated treaties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a sure that the world's population survives one of the greatest crisis we greatlyng is, i think, irresponsible. it is confusing the way donald trump climate. the is moving to protect his own properties in coastal areas, against the effects of climate change, it is unclear whether his position would be -- but i think you think about the paris

timeline and there is a lot more we can do. the united states needs to do more. we have made a promise of reducing emissions by 28% by the year 2025. we need to go beyond that, reducing by 30% by the year 2020. it does not mean we abandon that treaty, that packe with other act with other nations. we are more responsible than any other country on earth for the responsible crisis we find ourselves in now. we can move faster on the timeline, and we can keep the subsidies to the oil and gas industry both at home and abroad, we do take that money and spend it on clean energy, research and development, and deployment here and at home. >> thank you, and thank you for joining us today, and for

calling us to the attention the climate change is a national, global security issue. i think that is incredibly important. well, firstioned, of all you mentioned mr. trump. and i agree, it can feel confusing that he is alleging climate change impacts as an argument for why he needs to build a wall. but he has protected his golf course, revealingly referring to climate change as a health. i think he is the foremost climate denier, at this point in time. and we should be very clear about that. two questions, one on the paris agreement. as you know, and i think the committee probably knows, we need a certain number of countries to sign it. and we are making progress. i think this will be done by the

end of the year. are you optimistic, that is my first question, that that will happen? and the second question is that president obama's clean power plan, which is obviously caught up in some litigation right now, what would you do following on implementation of the clean power? when we think about a domestic agenda for reducing, and i certainly agree for the need of renewables, but if we look at where the law is today, the clean air act that mr. president has used to achieve measurable reductions, what would you do after power plants to continue that effort? >> thank you. i am optimistic that we will reach the signatories in the coverage of global emissions that well kick the paris agreement into action. i think before that happens, and we need to do that, and we are on track to do that, but we need to make sure we are not waiting

for anyone else. but itn historic ruling, is great to do for our own economy, workers, population to keep ourselves safe. i am excited about the clean power plan because it lays out both a very clear formula for how states can reduce greenhouse gases, but allowing flexibility, which the states have asked for. i think there is something we can push states to do now in the clean power plan. be anample, there should increased support for energy efficiency measures, and renewable energy as well, utility scaling and energy. right now, i think there is a problematic thing to that plan, which would incentivize a lot of natural gass. . it makes it harder then to move to the evolution we need. i think having even greater economic incentive, tax incentives, programs that have been around for five years like

solar, but it is much longer term. and the kinds of public space and land that the fossil fuel companies exploit would be part of that. -- i was very good about not asking questions about things and not know anything about. [laughter] can i ask one more? >> we did have a few overall, but sure. the u.s. past, government has been very aggressive in promoting fracking abroad. given what we now know in the last year or two about methane emissions, the you think that is appropriate to continue? and what do you think about leading by example on that issue at home? >> that is a great point. i mean, that has been one of the problems, the question about powering africa, very well

intentioned foreign aid and assistance programming, that is designed for people to have access to energy, the kinds of economic that put people out of poverty. but we are focusing now a lot of that on natural gas. and like i said, that has a built in infrastructure that takes the space, the economic space and the money, that could be spent on other things. so, we can lead by example at home. we need to really -- we have not lookingood judger of at what is clean and green energy. and being honest about emissions, and clinging to that reality in place. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> we will now bring up matt

from the foundation of middle east peace, where he serves as president of the foundation. he was previously a policy administrator at the center for american peace, focusing on national security. he was director of the middle east program. welcome, matt. matt: thank you. good afternoon. and i thank you for the opportunity to share these issues on real importance in foreign policy. but before i would begin, i would like to acknowledge the tragic and horrific acts in tel aviv, that took the lives of four victims, and i send solidarity to their families. i look forward to the day when this conflict is ended, and people in palestine and israel lived together. we have long been close partners built on stree strategic democratic ideals.

for decades, the israeli-palestinian conflict has been one mysterious interests -- serious interests. democrats and republicans have seen this is a key security goal in the middle east. there is no question we should friend.ill be israel's but at the same time we must recognize that israel's continued occupation of territory and the restrictions on the most basic civil liberties of the palestinian people run contrary to the values. we must reject the idea we had this advice values in order to stand with our allies. the conflict is also a continuing source of regional resentment that hinders the relationships in the region, creating deep resentment from which extremmist draw freely. pay a013 interview, "i military security price because

the americans are seen as biased in the support of israel." a final peace agreement must be agreed to by israelis and palestinians themselves, but the united states can and must do more to help create conditions under which such negotiations can succeed. this must be done with commitment to legitimate security concerns, but not the unalienable right to an economically viable state. israel and palestine should reflect the values of democracy, justice, and freedom. a two-state solution is the way to support these values, to support the continued existence of israel and the rights of the palestinian people and their own. in the absence of that solution however, and in a continuing occupation, palestinians have rights under international law that must be recognized and protected. i will conclude your by noting that this conflict is one of the

most emotionally fraught in u.s. politics. it also touches on the deeply held religious and ethical views of millions of americans, including myself. it involves the legitimate historical claims and security of two in the same land. by of these was offered president obama in may of 2015, "the right science is upon and fight for in the u.s. compelled me to stand up for israel and look out the rights of the jewish people, and the rights of the jewish people than compel me to think about a palestinian child in ramallah that feels trapped without opportunity." as president obama noted, these are the same shared values that compel us to speak justice for palestinians. these are the justice ideas that should be reflected in the democratic party platform, and the democracy, justice, and freedom should inform not only

america's engagement with palestine, but with the region and the world. thank you. >> thank you. are there any questions for matt? no? yeah? >> i would just like you to reflect on the ironies, that right's obsession with trump's right-wing, xenophobia, narcissistic, neofascist -- and trump, like riel, every society has enough votes. xenophones. we call theobe. s. them, butnt to call

not just in israel but on foreign policy, it strikes me as something that we as a people have to come to terms with. i will put it another way. palestiniane were a occupation of precious jewish brothers and sisters, would we be responding the same way? and myself, believing very deeply and what jane austen calls constancy, moral consistency, that i want to have moral outrage in both of those cases. and it just strikes me that this is something we have to wrestle with. it will take a little while i think. but wrestling both in the party and society. matt: thank you dr. west. a very important point. the troubling trends we are seeing israel, they are not isolated to israel. we see them across the world, around the region, in our own country. i would just say, a way of thinking that often guides my

work, a comment i heard from an israeli colleague who was very close to a negotiation, who said about the u.s. we are not after the u.s. to make peace for us. we are asking the u.s. to help both of us make peace, to do it. and i think that is a really helpful guide for how we should design policy. >> wendy? wendy: thank you for your testimony. and thank you for your strong support of a two-state solution. i think we had an earlier discussion here, and i think that is a place where we are all in agreement, that it needs to be a two-state solution that provides security to a democratic jewish state of israel, and also ensures that tate has security and dignity. and getting there, as you imply, is really something to be negotiated by israel and the

palestinians, with the united states playing the role we have traditionally played because it is in our national security interest to do so. and i think, you know, to dr. everything that we do in the world, as the u.s., should be international security interest, and values are certainly part of our identity and national security interest. and it is why people have worked over multiple to, administrations, to get to a two-state solution. and to get to peace. >> we now have in motion $1 trillion to activate our arsenal. barbara mcewen said last october that we are looking, and wondering how the heck we are going to pay for it? thanking our stars we will not

be here to answer that question. the next president will be there. she will have the responsibility of answering that question, of coming up with the solution. i had the privilege is this monday night of being in san plowshares,t governor jerry brown came and spoke with passion and eloquence about nuclear weapons, which i agree with. about the insanity of our policy, which i agree with. , therewas michelle floo is no way she said that we will be able to pay for the weapons we now have under order. policy will ber by definition a very consequential one. we have to go back to the first principle she said. do we still need the triad? do we still have to have them, just because russia has 5000 weapons, do we have to have 5000 weapons? china seems to get along vertically fine with only 200 weapons to deter us.

port?still need an icbm should we cancel the new nuclear cruise missile, the first in the pipeline? these are the kinds of questions the next administration will have to answer. i do not expect the platform to take positions on all of these, but it would be incumbent upon us to open the door to these kinds of questions, to raise these kinds of questions, and when we are doing so, we can look to our congressional leaders with passed legislation and spoken eloquently about this, most specifically an act called the smarter approach to nuclear expenditure act, introduced senator jeffrey merkel, bernie sanders, and al franken, how we can trim the nuclear force, not disarm, but trim. and in so doing, save $100 billion in 10 years. if we do not do this, this

nuclear access will rob our warriors. to fight the world we are fighting today. i encourage the platform committee to express concern about the nuclear budget, and to at least open the door to a fresh look at what we need, and why we need it. >> thank you very much. [applause] appreciate the beginning remarks about the iran nuclear deal. thatt wanted to recognize that is an issue still litigated in the national debate. and that we have a nominee of the republican party who continues to say it is a bad deal, a terrible deal for american sovereignty. so i would just love to get your specific thoughts on how the iranian nuclear deal has continued to be helpful, and why it is so important, and an

important issue in the general election as well. >> the iran nuclear agreement addressed all of the concerns we had with the program. the best solution was to eliminate every ounce of uranium in that country, every risk of the nuclear complex. we could not get that deal. so we had to restructure the program, down to the lowest possible level. and in so doing, we effectively uraniumhe everythingipping out. they ripped the court out of the reactor, drilling a hole and filling it with concrete. we have blocked the pathway to a nuclear weapon, by imposing and getting their radiance to agree to -- the iranians to agree to, what we negotiate. if a republican president had negotiated that deal, they would have named the airport after him. [laughter] it is politics, not strategy

that motivates the opposition to that deal. >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] bill carter? there you are. senior fellow, council director, and society programming for new american security. his research focuses on veterans and military personnel. in readiness issues and civil military relations. he began his career as an army officer, serving several years in the military police and civil affairs officer. after retiring from the army, he

became increasingly involved in veterans and national security policy issues. he joined the obama campaign as a national veterans director and political engagement with the veterans and military community. thanks, mr. carter? mr. carter: thank you congressman cummings. it is an honor to appear before you. coming to speak to you about national security. we have a sacred commitment to provide for the nation's common datese, and this back to the founding of the republic, enabled by defense strategy, not sequestration. a cutting-edge innovation technology agenda, smart and effective strategy, and the best all volunteer force in the world, supported by our nation, and putting our service members, veterans, and their families. secretary clinton, our next president, has said the

president has a sacred responsible the to send troops into battle only if we must, and only with a clear and well thought out strategy. she is right. the democratic solution for a strong and sustained military, acting judiciously in the world and consistently with our values, is the american way. agree,also noting, and i that it would be a serious mistake to someone to another costly ground war in the middle east, a place where many served, including me, and a place where we still have many men and women deployed. people and nations must secure their own communities. we must support them, but we cannot support for them in iraq and afghanistan. nonetheless, our military must be the best trained and equipped in the world, centigrade to provide for the defense and arrange of scenario, from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency, to high-end combat operation. we have the finest military in the world, but we cannot take excellence for granted.

we must invest in our military, and continuously sharpen its edge. it was also invest in the defense department, reforming it and making it more agile, efficient, and effective. we must protect whistleblowers and empower inspectors general, giving them tools they need to ensure that our pentagon spends our taxpayer dollars in the best way. and finally, we must also look after those who serve us in uniform and their families. we cannot just think of defense as strategy, it is people, too. and we have a sacred commitment to these people, that begins the moment they enlist and continues for the rest of their lives. not just in the defense department, but in the department of veterans affairs, with timely access to health care, benefits like the post-9/11 bill, and disability compensation to make sure that we serve men and women and their

families, as well as they have served us. members of the committee, it is a pleasure to represent these issues to you. i stand ready to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much for your testimony. will have a that we very, very strong commitment in regards to our veterans. i have to say that everybody salutes them when they go off to war, and then when they come back, they are not treated with should be treated. and we can do better and be better. so i want to thank you, very much. questions? >> first of all, thank you for your service. and i think all the veterans for their service, and the families for their support of veterans, because i know even among diplomats, it is the families that really suffer as much as the veterans for what people have to go through. trumpe heard from mr.

that nobody has a better friend than he to the veteran community. that, you know, we all know the saga of the fundraiser. you know, it is not clear to me that he is ever really been a supporter in the past. and i think he has the notion that he can somehow say this is a high priority, it will get done. trust me, it will get done. but you are presenting testimony about the complexity of getting this done, and the skills it takes to get this done. i would wonder if you could speak to that a little bit. >> thank you ambassador sherman for the question. i think the danger that candidate trump presents, three dimensions at least. one, the unwillingness to accept candid military invites and engage in civil dialogue with our military leaders. abouteflects a naivete both the process and the substance of national security.

i think second is a disregard for the hard work and substance of national security, and the issues that my colleagues discussed recently, these are hard issues and they cannot be addressed simply with bumper stickers. and i think third is the respect for the community, that we see absent in his statements, treating veterans as props to be trotted out on stage, as opposed to a community that is deserving of support. these are the reasons why i had extreme concern about mr. trump and his candidacy, and i think there is only one party and one candidate who has the judgment and to permit to be commander-in-chief -- judgment and temperament to be commander-in-chief. >> all the remarks that have been made, i thank you for your service. i am the daughter of a veteran, 25 years lieutenant colonel in the army. i also served on the

subcommittee of veterans affairs, so we have tried to wrap our hands around what we need to do to make sure we honor our veterans, once they return. you mentioned the clear, well thought out reggie when we send our troops -- strategy when we send our troops in harms way. how do you see congress, some of us believe we have a duty to our veterans and our country, a constitutional responsibility to pass authorization to not use military force, not using old authorizations to, you know, put troops in harms way. the public needs to understand the cost and consequences. i would like you to comment on what you think about the congressional responsibility, as well as with regard to waste, fraud, abuse, you know, the pentagon has still not been audited. democrats have been leading this for years now, with republicans on board, to try to get the pentagon audited.

it is a requirement that the audit, we have billions of dollars are being wasted, which can be used to support our veterans, health care, support costs, yet we can i get an audit on the pentagon. can you comment on the subsidy of this response ability -- necessity of this responsibility? >> i don't know if this is a signal that we need to leave. the light suddenly came on. [laughter] maybe it is because we have to leave. [laughter] >> it is a terrific question. on the issue, the constitution allocates war powers to all branches of government, including congress. and i believe very strongly that each branch as a role to play with the authorization of military force or otherwise. but congress' de authorization act. timely passage of a budget. appropriate policy guidance for leaders of the defense

department and leaders of the military to execute. the absence of this timely, efficient process hurts our national security. there is little stability and predictability in resource allocation across the department. the department operated more years than not on a continuing resolution that has an impact on procurement, on spending. it creates more inefficiency when they don't pass these bills timely and efficiently. i believe uamf is important but the responsibility doesn't stop there. with respect to an audit there is clearly more we can do to run the defense department like a business in a way that's appropriate and legible and audible for the taxpayer and to make sure every dollar we spend is going to the national security interest and we don't have waste, fraud and abuse. there is a role for auditability. >> dr. west.