solve the problem. it's going to be a political and diplomatic solution, and the counter narrative is so important. we do not have -- we've not been developing a counter narrative message to the isis propaganda. it is a war of ideology at the end of the day. it cannot be won by drone strikes alone. we have failed miserably in this, and i task the department of homeland security to make it a priority and focus, and the state department, and you can't deal with just the united states flag. you have to do it through community leaders, religious leaders, and win the war of ideas. ms. mitchell: how you win the war of ideas? i've covered the state department and watched democratic and republican administrations, secretaries of state, of all descriptions unable to use our public diplomacy in a truly effective way against this kind of propaganda.

isis is so much more adept at social media than anything we have able unable to do -- then able to do. rep. mccaul: we have a new generation of terrorists that are very effective on the internet that have radicalized enough people to recruit 40,000 jihadists into iraq and syria, the largest convergence in history. now they do the external operations, same with northern africa. we have to counter that message. some private companies, google, facebook, they are stepping up to the plate to counter the message. i think the united states government could do a more effective job leveraging the local communities. at the end of the day, these are sunni arab communities, they need to step up to the plate and protect their own backyard and protect their own religion. it's important to understand the legislation coming out of the judiciary committee as well, when the just

announced a policy of not examining publicly available social media, that is important to do. because it can give you leads includes to the background of a person applying to come to the united states. tashfeen malik had already been radicalized before she applied for a visa. she went through three interviews, it was never determined that she was this kind of a threat to the united states. if they had done the background checks like social media, or incking with the madrasahs middle eastern countries where she was educated, they might have a more informed body of information to determine whether or not she should have been admitted to the united states. ms. mitchell: i want to ask you about cyber security. we've seen complete failure throughout the governments of protecting even government sites, opm, which initially touted knowledge the extent of that hack. we've seen the hack of the state

department by, we believe russia, china has also been involved. how does it feel with hacking i state actors? we passed a bill that helps with information sharing and malicious codes. the consequences and potential damage are far graver and more of a threat, i think in many ways. ofn you look at in terms civil theft of ip to espionage for china, china stole 20 million security clearances from the united states government with absolutely no consequence to it. this is administration did not respond to that kind of attack. we have to have a better proportional response when they attack us like that. and then the cyber warfare pieces what keeps me up at night. is the ability to shut things down, whether it be power grids, financial institutions, cause

utter chaos in the nation, economic damage, but physical in terms of what can be done offensively, but we need to do a better job on the defense to protect this nation. do need totte: we provide more resources to military and intelligence organizations, and law enforcement to be able to combat cyber crimes of all types. from identity theft up to cyber warfare. we also need to recognize that encryption technology is a good thing. it causes problems for us, but when it is done well and done right, is the most effective stop and hacking into government agencies come into retail businesses, into banks, into all the different types of ways that we have seen people made vulnerable due to various types of cyber attacks. encryption is a good thing, and we should be working to make sure that it is stronger and stronger, while working with law enforcement and intelligence organizations to make sure that they have tools to try and

address that. that is why the judiciary committee and the energy and commerce committee work together to create a working group on this very subject, to come up with proposals based upon our work with intelligence and law enforcement organizations with technology companies, with civil liberties organizations to make sure we find the appropriate way to advance the technology. we are not going to stop it, and we don't want the bad guys to have access to it, but we have hindered our own use of it. at the same time, find ways to make it possible for law enforcement. rep. goodlatte: i think one of the greatest challenges to federal law enforcement now is -- encryption is a positive thing for us. the terrorists that have learned how to exploit it. ms. mitchell: the end-to-end decryption. look at thete: paris attacks, brussels, i don't to see it happening in the united states. communicate iney

darkness now, and we can't see what they are saying. disrupt that plot. we know individuals in syria are talking to individuals in united states, as i speak, and we cannot see what they are saying. this is one of the biggest to deal i think we need with this issue as well. because god for bid and active shooter attack occurs, and they are using end-to-end, which they will. we need to fix this problem, but it's very highly complex, as bob knows. it's one of the greatest challenges we have. please at a higher self, stand and give your name and affiliation, and we will direct questions, not comments and speeches. we want to get to as many view as possible. we have microphones.

>> i'm with the naval postgraduate school. i'm struck by a number of things, the incredible complexity and interdependency , number ofs today things one needs to know. i think democracy is very hard .o do if we go into iraq and decimate -- withhe leadership understand these countries. what does the u.s. have to offer ?hese countries i've a friend who was doing a csi s program here in the fall, and there were 17 people, he said americans don't understand why people become terrorists. he said he don't recognize that these are young men with no opportunity, they have no

purpose in life, they are offered $2000 a month, a gun and a truck, and a reason. he said you can deal with that. none of this has easy answers, and if you have easy answers, please share them with all of us. we don't have: easy answers, but we can't simply ignore the reality that exists. offerst thing we have to is the example. i've read pretty widely about how societies that are dominated that has a culture very close in a relationship between the governments and the , that is in the united states, different, because we have a constitution that protects religious freedom in ways that is something that respected in these countries. nonetheless, i believe that making people aware around the is a very freedom

precious thing, and worth having will eventually win the day, even in some of these most difficult countries, like countries in the middle east. in the meantime, we have to deal with this terrorist threat. we cannot simply say go ahead and do whatever you are doing over there. it doesn't affect us over here. we learned that lesson. rep. mccaul: it's an important question. i just came back from the region, and there are many hotspots. an offensedeal with only, taking up a threats so they cannot attack the homeland. we all understand that, ramping up our military. but the political and diplomatic resolutions like in iraq, it broke down, it imploded, that's how isis -- the formation of isis began. now we are seeing it in the sinai, tunisia, libya. but there are conditions on the ground that help promote terrorism, and that's with a counter narrative and the war of ideas, the war of ideology -- we have to do a much better job of

this. i don't think we're doing as good of a job as we could. ed royce talk about foreign affairs and some economic assistance packages and we're looking at. combination, it's not just all about drone strikes. >> jane harman. congresswoman jane harman, former member from california. -- ms. mitchell: jane harman. congresswoman jane harman, former member from california. ranking on intelligence. ms. harman: thank you. i was elected with you, rob, and i worked very closely with you, mike, on the homeland committee. my question is this. a republican agenda is a good thing to have in an election year and there are lots of things in this agenda that i strongly agree with. if a democrat is elected president, will you work with her to enact parts of this agenda and hopefully as compromise occurs, try to put the country first because all of us are going to be victims of terror attacks, not just people in one party.

mr. mccaul: terrorists don't check our party affiliation. they don't care if we're republican and democrat. it will be the house g.o.p. blueprint, but as i mentioned at the outset, i hope this is a document for all americans because i think these principles are correct. and it is a better way forward. and so obviously we're going to work with whoever the president is on trying to advance this agenda. mr. goodlatte: and many of these items are in here that we've already been working on in a bipartisan way in the congress. there have been some things that have been very positive, signed into law by the current president. the answer is congress has the responsibility to the american people to work with whoever the chief executive is. i will say that i hope it is somebody other than the lady that you're referring to because the track record of the current president working with us to not take his pen and his cell phone and bypass the congress but actually work with the congress has not been good. and we're looking for leadership

that says i want to work with the congress and i want to get things done and that includes foreign policy and actual defense issues that it's important that we have a coordinated effort to represent the united states before the rest of the world. ms. harman: well, i strongly agree and hopefully we have that. mr. mccaul: my concern, as well, i think not to be too partisan but i think the administration and mrs. clinton and the foreign policy, she's the architect of much of this after the arab spring and it has created -- my concern from the homeland standpoint is so many terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens that they can operate out of to attack americans in the homeland, that's one of my biggest concerns. we want to change that course. ms. mitchell: there is a question back there. thank you, jane. >> thank you. i'm richard downey from consulting. great comments.

thank you very much. chairman mccaul, you opened your remarks by saying that we need to secure the border. there are a lot of people who say that the border is more secure today than it has ever been. my question is, what is the criteria that will let us know that we have a secure border? donald trump is going to build a wall. is it zero migrants coming across, is it a percentage, is it zero flow of drugs, is it some percentage? what's the criteria to let us know when we have a secured border? mr. mccaul: it's when we can gain operational control. you can define that. we're catching less than half what's coming in. bob and i are concerned, what's coming in we don't know about? we know we're apprehending people from countries of interest that concern us. we're apprehending them. how many have gotten in this country? that's one of the biggest concerns. i believe, and i have a bill

that got out of our committee is a multilaird approach to basically create a barrier to prevent illegal aliens but also potential terrorists from coming into the united states that involved not just fencing, although fencing is important and infrastructure, but also technology and aviation assets and manpower to respond. one important program we passed was the department of defense transferring excess surplus property from afghanistan to the southwest border so we have that visibility. right now we can't see 100% what's happening on the ground. if you can't see what's happening, it's very difficult to respond to it. so i think the answer is, when we achieve operational control. we're far from that right now. mr. goodlatte: and i agree with all of that. the other piece of it, you have to have the will to enforce the law. and when you have policies now where border patrol agents and i.c.e. agents are on a very frequent basis complaining about

instruction fathers their superiors to not turn people away, to not detain people, to let people in even without documentation, that part of people being admitted in the country not because they evaded but tex but said, here i am, i want in, and the administration finding more and more reasons to let them in as opposed to turn them away and not enforce the law once they overstayed their presence in the country is an equally important component of that. the 9/11 hijackers and the san bernardino killing all took place with people who were at least initially lawfully present in the united states. mr. mccaul: bob and i worked on the u.s. exit program that deals with visa overstays. 40%, as bob mentioned the hijackers, it's the political will that's missing. we can get this done. it's achievable, but we just don't have the political will to do it.

>> thank you very much. barbara from the atlantic council. i look forward to reading your report. how are you going to muster the financial resources to pay for the barrier, the additional personnel, also the additional visa people that would be required to do a better job of vetting? is that specified in this document? what would you take from in order to pay for this? thank you. mr. mccaul: we don't specify what it comes from where but it's all about what is your priority. i think bob and i agree. this should be a priory for the nation because the number one principle in the constitution is providing for a common defense, whether it be our military hitting isis overseas or protect bad people, bad things from coming in. we didn't talk about the drug cartels and the damage they do. in my bill we looked at potentially the o.c.o. funding.

there's emergency funding. it's an emergency situation to potentially pay for that. where there's a will there's a way. the problem is the will's not there. mr. goodlatte: yeah. when you express that will in a way that says to people in central america and other places, if you come to the united states you are not going to be admitted under the terms they are now being told they are being admitted. there are savings to be achieved by not having people make that long dangerous journey across mexico to show on our borders because they were expected a promise and paid money to coyotes who are part of the organized crime syndicates in mexico. we are creating this problem by sending the wrong message about what will happen when you arrive at the u.s. border. >> william hauser, armed forces

and society. you, gentlemen, are students of history. how can you support a candidate whose movement may four years from now come back to threaten our democracy? [laughter] mr. goodlatte: that's a very general statement. i look for more specifics. for example, i am very encouraged by the list of supreme court nominees that the candidate that you refer to, mr. trump, has put forward as potential replacements for justice antonin scalia. his death was a tremendous loss in terms of my standpoint for someone that respects the constitution, the rule of law. i believe those are 10 potential nominees who reflect that. i'm couraged by a candidate who says he wants a vice-presidential nominee who

understands the legislative process so that he, meaning mr. trump, can work better with the congress. something that would be a vast improvement over the current circumstance that we find. these are things that you have to look to to determine who would make the best president of the united states, and i agree with mike. you also have to look at the track record of the person who was our secretary of state and i think a lot of the problems that we have now exacerbated during her leadership or lack of leadership in working in the obama administration. so this is going to be a great presidential debate. i look forward to hearing more, but i like what i've been hearing lately from that candidate about who he would want to see involved in positions of leadership in our government. mr. mccaul: bill, if i could answer that, too. i think it's important that our nominee has good advisors and good advice on this particular issue which is the most important issue facing the nation, i believe.

so good foreign policy advisors, good national security advisors. i've had discussions with mayor giuliani about trying to get advisors. you know, reagan wasn't his strength but he made it his strength because he surrounded himself with good people and good advisors. and one i think exercise by producing this report is not only to educate our own members moving forward but to advise and support the nominee. ms. mitchell: chairman goodlatte, do you have any concerns in a separate way from the 11 potential supreme court justices that he might nominate, when he talks about a federal judge and says affirmatively he does not think that a federal judge can be unbiased because of his ethnicity, does that raise concerns about the judge and his respect for the separation of powers? mr. goodlatte: i think we have a long tradition in our country

and in our party of respecting people's rights under our constitution. and i hope that our candidate does surround himself with the type of people that mike described that will encourage him to look at it from that advantage point. there's no doubt we have a very outspoken candidate and we'll have, i'm sure, a lot more to hear from him. i'm looking for lots of different ideas from him that will cause me to believe that he'll surround himself with good people and that -- ms. mitchell: and listen to him? mr. goodlatte: and listen to him and follow their advice and exercise good leadership. ms. mitchell: more questions. yes, sir. >> i'm mark with the electronic privacy information center. and i want to thank you for raising the opium data breach and, mr. goodlatte, for your leadership.

it seems part of the cybersecurity threat facing the united states is not only the vulnerability of government agencies and u.s. business but actually the personal data of u.s. consumers and u.s. citizens that's being stored by these large organizations. and americans seem to reflect a common concern that a lot of the data about them is not receiving adequate protection. so my question is simply this. to what extent do you think data protection should be an issue in this election season? mr. goodlatte: well, i very much believe it should be and is an issue in this election, and i think that's driven primarily not by government, not by business but by individuals who understand that the way their information is stored and the value of information that is intangible, that is stored in the cloud and other ways has changed dramatically over the

last 20 or 30 years and therefore their expectations with regard to what protections should be provided for that information has changed as well and i think the congress and the administration need to reflect and respect that change of attitude. understanding all the while that mike mccaul's concerns and my concerns about national security and about keeping people safe from people who would abuse this technology is important. it is also important to understand that the technology itself can be used in a positive way to advance and protect people's lives. that's why we passed unanimously 419-0 the reform legislation just recently that's now over in the senate. i hope the senate acts upon it because that is an enhancement of the protection of people's privacy that i think they want and expect. mr. mccaul: i will say in the cybersecurity bill we passed, we met very closely with the privacy advocates.

that was very important to me that we protect personally identifying information. as we try to share these malicious codes to protect not only the federal government and the o.p.m. breach was really an assault on the country, an act of espionage by china, but also protect the private sector, critical infrastructure by getting these codes to be able to lock the door so that networks can't be penetrated and intruded by criminals, espionage and nation state actors. ms. mitchell: that concludes our time with this first panel, but i want to thank chairman mccaul and goodlatte for participating and we have a lot more to come. thank you for starting the conversation. mr. mccaul: thanks for having us. mr. goodlatte: thank you, andrea. ms. mitchell: and while we change places here, our next speaker is house majority

leader, kevin mccarthy. leader mccarthy was first elected to congress in 2006, representing california's 23rd district. after serving as majority whip, leader mccarthy was elected as majority leader in 2014. following the paris terrorist attacks in november last year, leader mccarthy had a task force on counterterrorism to address critical security gaps here and abroad as far as tackling the foreign fighter flow to iraq and syria. he stays in regular contact with our allies around the globe and has been very involved in creating this better way agenda. so please join me in welcoming majority leader kevin mccarthy to the podium. mr. mccarthy: thank you for coming out today. this is part of speaker ryan's plan of changing the house. the house becomes the house of ideas, provokes debate and lays out an agenda. you know, a lot has changed in

the last few years. there was a time not so long ago when america stood with its allies and against its enemies and when america's strength and engagement led to peace and prosperity, not just here but around the world. but under the current administration's direction, mark -- america took a step back from the world and had allowed others like isis, russia and china to fill the void. history has shown us time and again that the world can only be a safer place when america leads. and we need america's leadership again. we need american leadership in the middle east to stop the rising tide of terrorism in the region that threatens our allies and has already spilled over into america and european soil. but it's not just sunni sponsored terrorism. iran's destabilizing regional and global activities has only increased since the signing of the iran deal. the iranian government has proven what we always knew --

they had no intention of changing their ways. we need american leadership in europe to support our alliance structures and to ensure that our allies are holding up their end of the bargain. then we can present a unified and hardened front against russian expansion that has increased tensions to the heights we have not seen since the cold war. we need an american leadership in asia to defend freedom of navigation and to stop the shift in the balance of power that would threaten our allies and interests in the region. china's illegal land, reclamation and north korea's rapid military advancement pose strategic threats to the region. what our task force on national security has done is outline a different path than the one that president obama has led us down the past seven years. it's a path that recognizes america can only be safe if we proactively engage abroad rather than hide behind our oceans and leave the most challenging

problems for others to deal with. it is a path that demands we invest, invest in our unmatched military capabilities. that means cyberdefense, our active duty and reserve forces and our veterans so that every part of our defenses have the resources that it needs. unfortunately, america has lost significant standing on the world stage in the most recent years. and that respect can only be regained with the strong investment, firm resolve and proper leadership. the house deliberating through this task force on national security has shown what it will take to keep america safe and regain our standing in the world. we have the resources and the will. the question we bring before the american people, will we make the right choices? i want to thank the task force, the chairman and all the members within congress who participated. this is the question of what

america and the world will look like in the future. the world is safer when america leads. thank you. [applause] ms. mitchell: before we reset the stage, i want to thank leader mccarthy. we have the chairman of the house veterans' affairs committee, jeff miller of florida. chairman miller, thank you. and the chairman of house intelligence, devin nunes of california.

the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, ed royce, also of california. finally, the house foreign services committee chairman, mac thornberry, of texas. are onthese chairman this task force of national security. we are going to have a discussion about how to advance our interests abroad, renewing national security tools. start with north korea, to take an easy subject. it was confirmed this week that north korea restarted production tool, showing they plan to proceed with their nuclear program in defiance of sanctions.tional chairman royce, what is the best way to try to deter north korea, aside from trying to rely on our

efforts with the chinese? it does not seem to have slowed this young leader down at all? rep. royce: and i am not so sure that the chinese are that serious about slowing down. i think there is only one thing we have tried in the past that has worked, and that was -- think back to 2006, 2007. when that was tried, we shut down the missile production line. it is the one point in time when things were really desperate in north korea. our treasury department did that because they were counterfeiting hundred dollar bills. the state department convinced the administration to lift the sanctions at that time. i passed legislation in december, signed by the president, that set up a sanctions effort on north korea to do exactly what we did then,

exactly what was successful. at this point in time, we have also pushed that through at the united nations, we had an initiative that cuts off the that northd currency korea needs, both to pay its military and to carry out its missile program and its nuclear program. what we have to do is stick with that policy. we need tough enforcement on that policy, and a new chapter is that it is now impossible for financial institutions, anywhere that deal with north korean currency, to be part of the international banking system or do bank with the united states. it was a tough decision for them to make their they will cut off now their work with hard currency in north korea. i believe that that is the way to get them to the table. ms. mitchell: chairman nuñez, what about our intelligence efforts in that regard. is this one of the harsh targets

we have, and how are we continuously surprised by what kim jong-un is doing. not think thedo folks in the intelligence community were ever surprised. i felt for a long time that the administration downplayed the new leader of north korea and misjudged how he would act. if you look at what they are doing, this is similar he hader that they have had for many behaviorow -- similar that they have had for decades now. there are probably 5 million people or more living like animals there. i have been on the border of fore on the be south korean side, and i have never seen anything like it. , not aes, not a weed stick, anything. i do not think we are surprised. as chairman race said, it is going -- as chairman royce said,

it will take the chinese working with the administration to get anything done. ms. mitchell: how concerned should we be about the south china sea? the fleet was denied port access .nd hong kong it seems that this is escalating carmen not de-escalating, when at a time when you have secretary kerry others in beijing this week. rep. thornberry: it is escalating, and we should be very concerned. they are clearly building military bases out in the ocean, the south china sea, and part of their objectives is to control shipping lanes and the push us that they have

essentially dominance in that .egion on a broader point, which is connected to the north korea question you were asking, the world is watching what happens. so they see the russians take provocative action, not just in crimea and ukraine, but in buzzing our ships. press reports today are that the chinese did a similar thing with one of our airplanes. seethe world watches, they how we respond, if we do, and that informs the chinese and north koreans and iranians and others with a can get away with. described itntly as a probing action. and i think you see these aggressors all around the world testing us, which is part of the reasons one of the fundamentals of this proposal that we are putting out today is military strength and leadership,

engagement in the world, not trying to lead from behind, but being strong. and that is essential. it does not automatically solve all these issues, but it is essential. and if we do not do that, you will see the chinese of be more aggressive, as well as north korea, iran, and others. ms. mitchell: i want to ask about donald trump's suggestions that we get out of alliances like nato, that we leave south korea and japan on their own, that we do not work in concert with our allies. how does that sit with the agenda you lay out today? well, i cannot: comment on his worldview or anybody else's. the agenda we have laid out talks about the importance of alliances. as frustrating as a can be to work with allies, and we encourage our european allies to tomore to contribute more

our joint defense efforts, but whether you are talking about the pacific, the middle east, africa, or europe, alliances are essential. but we have got to be a good ally. as you heard the speaker say at the beginning, there are more questions than ever about how reliable we are as an ally. we have got to turn that around, because we will not attract countries have doubts about us. ms. mitchell: chairman miller, i think you have been advising the oninee in some regard national security issues. what do you see as the prospect if he becomes commander-in-chief, president trump? rep. miller: a strong commander in chief. as it relates to nato, the truth is our nato partners are going to have to pay more, their fair share. and that is what mr. trump has been talking about. much of the gdp that some of our allies have been spending have been on programs other than what

is required as a nato partner. so i do not see anything wrong with asking them to step up and do what they are supposed to do. the united states always does and does more. but as my colleagues have said, part of the problem that exists today certainly is one of trust with our allies. we have allies that will say, we don't know if we can trust the current administration. and then the vacuum it has created where countries like an probe and will continue to until we finally pushed back and say enough is enough. that has not happened yet, so they will keep doing it. ms. mitchell: let me ask about syria and the ongoing civil war. we have seen an explosion of not only migration, but of casualties, civilian casualties. we have seen the challenges of trying to stand up any kind of resistance force. thinkan nunes, what you

the possibility is, based on what you know? you have more information than all of us in the audience. what is the possibility of reaching a diplomatic solution with russia, as engaged as it is? that is the policy secretary kerry has been trying to engage in with the allies. rep. nunes: it is almost a fool's errand to believe in this truly quickly. the russians are on the offensive. they have very few rules of engagement, so they are killing people, most likely into the thousands. just yesterday, there was even aleppo, and they look like and discriminant inacks -- and they look like discriminate attacks. if we continue with the rules of engagement's we have now in syria and iraq and we continue to downplay isis and al qaeda, that leads to bad

decision-making. so you're asking me, you know, what do we promote as a republican party? look, let's identify the problem. to try to say that isis or al qaeda is only in syria, that is not a policy. include iraq, that is not a grand strategy review have to look at north africa, which quite frankly is where a lot of this problem began in the first place, because a lot of the weapons and fighters originally came, transferred after libya collapsed, began to transfer across into syria, joint the groups, and then started the civil war. actually goan to after isis and al qaeda and hopefully fix the problem in syria have to be all-encompassing, and that is what you need, a fresh set of eyes and fresh leadership. ms. mitchell: when we look at

what is happening in iraq right now, you have an attempt to go back and try to take back fallujah. concerns that mosul should ,eally be the first priority but your domestically pressured to do for lucia -- to do fallujah first, increasing role of iranian-backed militias here at what is the possibility that iran will in having more enfluence in iraq than even w after the blood and sacrifice we have made there? rep. royce: this goes to the original blunder on the part of the administration. buteeded a tilt toward iran toward the people of iran. it is a point in time when the election was stolen, and people in iran were crying out for u.s. engagement. the polling shows that two-thirds of the people want a western-democracy without a theocracy. instead, the administration made the decision to engage with the

ayatollah, made the decisions go forward and negotiate. it empowered, enabled that revolutionary regime in many ways. it has bought into this idea now that they cannot offend the iranian regime. in a wholen this slew of decision-making, you know, giving them access to the dollar, the attempt to do that, heavywater subsidies, and so forth are but you also see policy decisions of allowing iran to exert ever more influence in baghdad. when we pulled out the u.s. presence in baghdad, the iranians moved in in terms of their influence. ms. mitchell: does that go to the previous administration and support for maliki? cracking down on discrimination against sunni leaders?

congresse: and we in pushed on that issue. but the situation you have today is one in which iran is dictating terms. --o when i moved legislation so when i moved legislation, or tried to, to on the kurds, we azidis,o on the usy the christians, no, no, no is the retort from baghdad. you have to go through us, meaning the influence of the she ias. so instead of being on that 650-mile front in which the kurds are battling isis, instead, you see a situation where it is the shia militias coming in from iran, where the influence in the decision-making is empowering fighters from iran to go into fallujah.

can you imagine the situation where you bring shia into a where you allow the tribal leaders to be pushed out that want to do the fighting and take their villages out? no. dissolution should have been to make sure christians, kurds, sunni tribes could have those weapons from the united states to take villages back. it is the movement of shia militias into those areas that is compounding all of these problems. that goes to the deference we are getting the iranian regime in all of this in order not to offend. we are walking on eggshells. that makes it impossible for us to have a grand strategy to eliminate isis. ms. mitchell: chairman thornberry, looking north africa and what congressman nunes referred to as the growth there

of some of these terror groups. how expansive can our military be in this area, libya and other areas, and how do you reconcile the, what some have called, neo-isolationist groups within the republican coalition who want less engagement, not more engagement? there are, in the republican party, two ways of thinking about how engaged we should be. should we be helping libya right now to prevent it from becoming a totally failed state? rep. thornberry: i think actually what you see is a lot of frustration at military engagement with our hands tied. and just going back to some of the questions you are asking about iraq and syria in the past, our engagements have had severe constraints about them, which have made them less effective than they might have

otherwise been. i am talking about iraq, as well. certainly, the red line in syria , limitations on where we can drop bombs, limitations on where our people could go. pastrns out, over the several months, the administration has been loosening those re-strengths -- restraints so much. the administration has been loosening those restraints somewhat. but there have been years of trying to force this a narrative, that we do not have to be serious about it and there is a lot of roo frustration. i do not think it is just republicans. of engagements that are halfhearted or have these constraints. having said that, you remove all able tonts, are wwe resolve libya tomorrow? of course not.

but i believe our military folks , who have gotten very good at working with others trying to build up indigenous forces to push back against these terrorists is a way forward to it but the other one gets back to what we were talking about a while ago. there are other people, other countries willing to be engaged, but they are not going to do it on their own. they have to see u.s. leadership. that is why the central thrust of this document is strengthen engagement. ms. mitchell: let me ask all of you about trade and the transpacific partnership. we have heard from both presumptive nominees criticisms of these trade deals. how would you leaders in the house approach these trade deals, actually, in contrast to what we are hearing from both nominees? rep. royce: one of the things

that the american people may not be aware of is beijing has an initiative underway for trade agreements to sort of supplant u.s. influence throughout that region. those trade deals, andrea, are based on a concept of free trade but with no standards, no rules. what the united states needs is free trade agreements with high standards, with rules that protect intellectual property, and we have discussed this in the document. this is what is in the interest of u.s. jobs, but it is also in the interest of u.s. national security. you, when you have a situation where europe is coming to us and saying, we are willing to give you market access, but we need some set standards so that the predatory actions being individualijing, no

european state can stand up against that. but if you are all together in agreement with very high standards, this can reassert, basically, the rule of law. we need agreements also that ensure that, on these disputes, that they go to arbitration so that we are not locked into some legal system, let's say, overseas and southeast asia. but all of this requires an understanding that this is not happening in a vacuum, that beijing is on the market to selling something that tries to supplant across the entire pacific rim the influence of the ideals which we have advanced and which have created the engagement with allies that, innkly, share our concepts, most cases, our democratic ideals with a very different competing agenda. that is what we need to articulate. ms. mitchell: anybody else want

to comment on trade? >> i have worked on tpp for a long time. the administration dragged their feet. they finally got engaged on getting it moving forward. as it stands right now, it cannot pass the congress because there are not the votes. so the deal is going to have to be changed, but i agree with royce's thing. either way as the allies right the roles of trade, or you let bad regimes do that. as a congress, we have to work with whoever the next president is to make sure this tpp gets done and is a better deal for the american people at the same time. and when you look at a country like china, which steals hundreds of billions of dollars of intellectual property from the united states, we have got to stop china from doing

that, and again, we're all free traders, all for fair trade, but you do not want to be trading with somebody that steals your intellectual property from you, as well. ms. mitchell: before questions from our members, i want to talk and the wayir putin you for see in the future dealing with mr. putin. trump has phrased him as a strong leader. going forward with ukraine and his increasing role in the middle east in the past year with the air strikes that took place in september right after his meeting with the president, just wondering if we could go down the row and talk about how we deal with russia. rep. thornberry: on a tactical level, i think there is huge

bipartisan support in both houses of congress to provide ukraine to bee to able to defend itself. and it is a prime example of what i was mentioning earlier. it is not just the weapons, but even the training we are providing. ukraine is restricted for fear of aggravating him? laterow, i think that is frustration. for my part, the key with dealing with putin and russia is we have to do so from military strength. this is just a baseline. you can negotiate here or there, can have sanctions, do this or that, but he is also watching and listening to the status of our military. lots of things are in trouble in russia, but their military modernization, including their nuclear modernization, is advancing at a pace far beyond

ours. so military strength is the key baseline from which we can deal with. rep. royce: and more backbone, rather than backing down. i took a delegation of eight members to eastern, russian-speaking, ukraine and there,o communities different minority groups, and the message from everyone is that, look, we can catch the russian agents they come in here here at the russians are little different than ours. we cannot stop the russian armory. point, theynberry's say, why would you sell as the antitank weapons so at least we can stop the armor? you see citizens throwing sand, taking up positions. they are on the front and asking is for the ability to defend themselves. our relationship with russia is

partly a policy failure of this administration. going back to the restart with about it,en you think at that time, the administration made the decision to pull out of eastern europe, the very antimissile defense system, the intercept system that we were in the czech republic in case there was ever a launch towards europe or the united states, in exchange for doing that, pugin sensed weakness, and on and on it went -- putin sense weakness, and on and on it went. they witnessed in the pushback. what we have seen as the take away, not just for russians, why aren't we broadcasting into russia in the same way that russia uses our key intelligence? why do we not have an effective policy today? , and as aislation

--sequence, why aren't we with what reagan did in eastern social wired we using media, television, radio to tell the russian people the truth. we know that was effective in the past, but if they only hear one side of the story and we're not pushing back, you end up where we are today. there is a big take away. rep. nunes: i would add quickly than not being able to plans and putin's intentions has been the largest intelligence failure since 9/11. you know, you asks the question about trump and being willing to talk to putin. look, every president has tried to meet and work with putin, so this is really not a change. ms. mitchell: but i was referring to the praise on him. rep. nunes: i am not sure the

other presidents have not praised and reset and telling vladimir that they will meet after elections. let's be honest here. putin is notorce, going to come to the table. so you're going to have to do both. you have to have force. you are going to have to be willing to do influence, like what we have talked about in ukraine and other places, and then you might be in a position where you can actually deal with putin. way for this to be fixed is for us to actually be able to talk to one of the world's nuclear powers. but it is just not going to happen right now while he thinks we are weak and not willing to do anything. rep. miller: i agree with what my colleagues have said. butkey phrase is trust verify, and that is what we have to do. ms. mitchell: we want to bring

our members into this again. just raise your hands. yes, sir? identify yourself. with -- [indiscernible] thank you foryce, everything you have done on behalf of freedom of agenda in the middle east. would you be open to options that have been considered in the past of working with our arab allies in the region to provide syrian rebels modified man pads that could potentially take down these russian gunships and these were planes that are dropping bombs on syria on a regular basis and causing chaos that isis needs? rep. royce: if we were to do that, let me say that we would want to put timers on those that would scuttle the ability to use those after a certain period of time. we have that capability. but we also have the capability

of sitting down with turkey and that neighboring states have probed the idea of a safe zone for the civilian population across the north, and as you know, the jordanians have urged this across the south, provide , at leastere we can allow the civilians to be fed, to get medical care, and so forth. the fact that we are so determined not to make a decision -- look, avoiding the decision is a decision in and of itself. that has been part of the problem since the outset. you sell people on the streets of damascus that first day, and cnn was covering as they were marching peacefully it was all the automatic weapons fire open up from the regime, and you knew that it was going to be a problem. but there was effort to just put it off. do not engage. there was no -- the red lines,

right through the red lines. as a consequence, now when you have arab states and you have turkey and you have others in the region that are urging you forward with the idea of the humanitarian gesture of trying to put up this area of protection, at least we should be engaged in leading on that front, leading from behind is not working in terms of stability in the region. it has got to be reversed. right back there. hello, mark dickinson with the department of defense, speaking in my capacity as a councilmember today. in the document the came out this morning, there was a paragraph regarding the u.s. agency for international development, and it noted that usaid must keep pace with

innovation, that programs in the workforce of" have failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing development landscape." i do not completely disagree, but my concern is that it points directly at the executive branch, and i am more concerned about congress being able to provide the authority needed to build upon those successes at usaid. for chairman royce and chairman thornberry, what do you have in mind for increasing the flex ability of usaid to build upon their successful programs and also recruit and retain the type of talent needed for this 21st century development approach? is. royce: yeah, i think it a question you have asks. i have had an opportunity overseas to see where usaid has had the ability to be successful. i have watched, for example, when they have that flex ability , the capability of working with some of the ngo's that maybe

came out of central asia where you have doctors in the united states and business people here who have been successful, they want to put their money back. they want to help with teaching colleges are help set up schools for young women and so forth. and with a little bit of partnering with usaid, this can be a force multiplier in terms of offsetting what is coming out those areas. again, you need to build that we arelity in, so that dealing with those that really know those villages. the americans that are originally from those areas that are now investing their knowledge of their contributions in it, but with a little partnering with usaid. and that kind of an effort, you're much more effective than going through the government, for example. these are the types of things we have in mind. thinkhornberry: i do not we have had a secretary of defense testify in front of our committee in recent years who

has not emphasized the having a state department and a.i.d. becoming more effective. i do think one of the most important things that we could do that are in this document, the sections that specifically talk about updating, modernizing our aid programs, the state department and its diplomacy. we talked about, for example, the millennium challenge account and how providing incentives for aid for countries to move in our direction can be a useful thing. it has not been done very well in recent years. you know, we talk a lot about updating the military for the 21st century. certainly, the state department need it just as month.

-- just as much. i noticed this morning that admirals recommended allowing counterterrorism partnership nunds be spent by a.i.d. i those situations where the military judges that it would help protect our people. that sort of flexibility across agency where it helps accomplish an agreed-upon objective is absolutely something i think we should pursue. that is kind of a small tactical example, but we need to look at that. ms. mitchell: yes, over here, the side of the room. >> thank you for the thoughtful discussion and for your leadership. there have been suggestions that , and the fight against terrorism, we should resort to and therding and worse killing of family members of terrorism suspects. as you know, chairman thornberry is part of the defense authorization measure last year,

congress on a strong bipartisan basis test and the amendment by chairman mccain to prohibit waterboarding on the recommendation of military leaders, said justin are all portray's. as a result, the cia director in that he would refuse order to conduct waterboarding. advise whoever the next president is going to be to abide by the law and military leaders and refrain from waterboarding? would advisery: i the next commander juvenile people who serve in the military to abide by the law, and i do not believe the military will carry out an order that goes contrary to the law. i would also advise the next commander-in-chief and all people in the military to quit talk about it. quit saying what we are not going to interrogations or military activities or whatever, we have gone overboard in ruling

out all sorts of options which only civil fight the enemy's calculations. so i am not for putting a bunch of things into law that we are not going to do. , and ir leaving them think that is more effective. yes?itchell: a microphone to the center aisle. from the stateh department. thank you for the time. you talk a little bit about the united nations in your vision statement, and you talk a little bit about what you do not see as the appropriate role of the united nations. i was curious, what rolled he you see the you and playing, specifically in areas like he's keeping? how do you think through issues related to allowing other countries under two -- onto the

security council, and who do you like to see is the next secretary-general of the u.n.? if not a name, character trait. thank you. rep. royce: i think the key is to have the united nations operate in a way, with respect to peacekeeping, that we have from otherbutions members of the united nations. the united states ends -- the united states is carried a very heavy load in all of this. at the end of the day, we have veto power that we can exercise at the united nations. but i think there is an expert tuition on the part of the american public that others are -- i to carry their share think there is an expectation on the part of the american public that others are going to carry their share. we had the prime minister of india here yesterday. india makes a contribution in

terms of peacekeeping. we are urging all the member states, step up your effort. you can do more. the united states has provided an umbrella to protect the world throughout the cold war, today it is going to be necessary for lead the war on terrorism against isis and affiliated groups. so we have certain expectations. that expectation is that other states are going to step up and sharetheir fair role and here in terms of peacekeeping. politics within the united nations, i will pass on the question, but thank you. >> jim flannery.

first, let me say that i agree with my former colleague jane harman that there are some interesting a productive ideas here, and i appreciate the conversation we have had today. but i know these ideas are going to cost a lot of money, and i know we had a huge national , andit, huge debt problem the military even acknowledges that this debt problem is a national security issue. i am just curious, how do we propose to really pay for this? where are the resources coming from? and are we going to have a thoughtful debate with the american public about just paying for the kind of leadership that you all envision, that many of us support globally? rep. nunes: the quick answer is, yes, there is a plan. an earlier proposal in the week

was to fix the poverty programs. this is about national security. you are right up the $19 trillion, going to $21 trillion for the debt. so you will see us unveil ways to fix health care and also ways to fix the tax code so that you can grow the economy. the bottom line is that we are not going to get out of this mess we're in ms we get above for percent growth. -- unless we get above 4% rose, and we have to do that for several years in a row. that is what our policies are driving as to do. going forward, the speakers talking about six different areas, because our debt is driven by lack of growth because of a bed tax code, and entitlement programs, like medicare and medicaid and social security, that are not on stable ground right now, so those all have to be fixed. the sooner we get to them, the better. ms. mitchell: i think we have just started the conversation,

which is really good, because we have to leave it there. all of these chairmen have very busy congressional schedules. i want to thank the speaker and later mccarthy and, of course, congress and goodlatte and mccaul and congressmen here, chairman thornberry, nunes, and royce, and of course, ed as well. thank you. thank you to the council. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you have been watching a number of republican leaders of the council on foreign relations on thursday on a number of different national security issues that the gop was

unveiling as part of their foreign-policy for the coming year and for the next president. we will showtes, you also from this week, the democratic national committee's platform hearings ahead of their convention next month, where they don't with foreign policy and human rights. before that, we are going to take your calls, your chance to weigh in on what you think the top foreign-policy issue is facing the next president, whoever that may bp are the numbers are on your screen. hear whatuld like to you think the biggest foreign-policy challenges are for the next president, be that russia, nuclear proliferation, isis, the refugee crisis, whatever it may be. the presidential candidates, the presumptive nominees of each

party, donald trump and hillary clinton, were in california ahead of the primary there recently and both made comments about foreign-policy that we will take your calls in a moment. first, we are going to see a few moments from their speeches. first, hillary clinton mentioning foreign laws the san diego. and then donald trump in redding, california. [video clip] : as a candidate for president, there is nothing i take more seriously than our national security. i have offered clear strategies for how to the feet isis, strengthen our alliances, and make sure iran never gets a nuclear weapon. and i am going to keep america's security of the heart of my campaign. [applause] ms. clinton: because, as you know so well, americans are not just electing a president in

november. we are choosing our next commander-in-chief, the person we count on to decide questions of war and peace, life and death. host: these are remarks from the democratic presidential candidate, present of nominee hillary clinton, and san diego on foreign-policy. donald trump also had a speech in california. he talked about foreign-policy, specifically reiterating his opposition to the iraq war. we will show that to you and then go to your phone calls. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [video clip] overpaid -- mr. trump: he is overpaid could go into the war, fight like hell, lose thousands of lives, spent $2 trillion to we got nothing. we gave iraq to iran.

i have been against it. with that being said, we are going to build our military so powerful, so strong, nobody is going to mess with us. our military is depleted. host: donald trump in redding, california, recently to we're going to watch part of the platform hearings from this week talking about for policy in human rights. minutes,ext 10 or 15 your phone calls on what you think the top foreign-policy issues are for the next president. there are the numbers on your screen. you can call as are you can leaveus @cspan or you can a post on our facebook page. first is mariy ann. caller: my opinion was -- i really was not going to do this, and he insisted i get on. personally, i am a woman first appeared i think women should

stay out of politics. religion should stay out, and so should women. i am sorry. donald trump is the one i have voting for, of course. getting back to the foreign-policy thing going on in the country, i worked for the navy and defense at one time, and every thing was top secret. everything was top secret. no hillary, she goes on and gives out secrets, everything. i don't care if she says she did not know. everything in the military is classified. i agree with donald trump. on thatanother guy was i agreed with, too, because you should not tell anybody what you're doing it we should not tell anybody what we are doing. that is a secret. they know what we are doing. knowould never let anybody what our -- there is an old saying about that. host: thank you for your call.

ralph now in brooklyn, new york, on the independents line. what do you think are the foreign-policy issues the next president will face? caller: russia aggression, china aggression. china attempting to take over the earth and the universe. and what we're doing with our space technology. nasa has been funded to protect us. -- have china inserting asserting they can shoot down satellites. and russia spending more money than the united states -- [indiscernible] china and russia. china is investing money in nigeria. nigeria will be in space in 2020. china's aggression is to take bases alla and have over africa, as well.

countries have a prime minister, and there is the future of a country like syria and so forth, you know, to help build the country's future involvement and future vision. right? a lot of european countries are cabinet, so foreign we need to add another cabinet for the united states, foreign minister. host: thank you for your call. carlo, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been waiting patiently. first, i care about this country more than i can tell you. it hurts me to see how the democratic party and their own

vision has been destroying this country and making us very, very weak. i used to be a democrat and used to vote democrat. i would never do that for the rest of my existence. i am a veteran, and i see that the reality is that we needed to deal from strength. host: when you talk about weakness, are you talking about military or economic weakness? caller: both. it starts economic and then goes into military. it is all intertwined. if we are weak at home, we are weak abroad to it we have shown weakness or lack of strength, and our enemies have seen how weak we are. they're capitalizing on everything we have done. we're hurting ourselves from within. there is a lack of understanding from the american public about what the truth is. the media are not reporting the truth, because they are all biased to the liberal progressive agenda, which i do

not have a problem with everyone's agenda, but in this day and age, we need to look at our liabilities and correct them, eradicate them, rise above them, and change what has not worked. it is obvious. great policy -- speak softly and carry a big stick. mr. trump is not a politician. like theis life business. this country is a business and has to be run like a business. it is for the american people, for the american people. s do have acian conscience, but too many are being sold out by special interests. more people have to be aware that politicians have their own agenda. host: thanks for the call to it we will hear from the democrats here in a few minutes to part of

the dnc platform hearings ahead of their convention when they talk about foreign-policy issues on thursday. that is coming up in just a few minutes. diana is joining us from california on the democrats lin e. caller: hello. host: what do you thing on the for policy side of things -- what is the biggest issue you think the next president will have to face? caller: as a veteran's daughter -- my father died when i was fare, so i believe that, by , it would be american soil first. so any organization that is affecting americans on american soil would and should be attacked back first. then, of course, the major other powers like north korea and anywhere else in the other regions across the oceans. people who are

attacking americans directly here should be our priority, and then we go from there. let everyone else take their turn. remember, you get more with honey. you attract the bees with honey. host: thanks for calling. jesper is on the line from santa ana, california, a republican caller. what is your take? caller: yes, i think we should not let russia and china push us around, and when those planes buzz our navy ships, we should shoot them down. i think too many congressmen and senators are afraid to stand up against king obama and his radical, brainless ideas. ,ost: from real clear politics a talk focusing on asia,

specifically north korea, as the next president's asian challenge , suggesting that that is where most of the foreign-policy issues or challenges will come from for the next president. i would like to hear from you. what do you think a top foreign-policy issue is for the next president, whether it be a republican or democrat? germantown, maryland, charles on the independents line. caller: i have been a u.s. citizen for 30 years. politically, i am more a conservative. i realized2000's, that the administration was not telling the country the truth about destruction. i wanted somebody clean to come to power. everybody -- [indiscernible] saying i want this person to become president.

over the last eight years, he has pretty much squandered everything away. he wants hillary to have a lot of experience to carry on. from thee gentlemaen committees talk about this situation, which prompted me to call. i am not the person watching this often. when i heard about the same zone, it isvfe such a great idea to help these people. of course, obama wants them to come to the united states. will accepthillary five times more immigrants. why? they just want open borders, that kind of policy. they wanted votes for their futures.

so to turn this country into a socialist, you know, communist idea, that kind of country in the future, having these immigrants come here. equalize the world economy, making $15 an hour here, everybody from top-down. trump will have an open mind working with putin. and have a reality show -- [indiscernible] thank you. host: thanks. this article referencing that exact issue. the wall street journal talking about the reporting on the council on foreign relations event that you just saw here on c-span. house gop plan differs from donald trump on foreign policy. one notable departure is the lawmakers' hard-line on vladimir putin, whom trump has praised.

time for one or two more calls. maria in lansing, michigan, line for democrats. caller: hello. the american people, they should educate themselves about the issues and about the security, the economy, the social security , the health care, all those things that come together. we have twong is , usedates -- one of them talking about people, about judges. we do not need division. we need, as americans, to get together and look around how we going to build america better. we are better together.

any donaldainst trump. mrs. hillary clinton, she should be the woman as the president of the united states. not because it she is a woman. she is qualified. host: thanks for your time for one more call. billie jean in cleveland, mississippi, republican line. you get the last word on the top foreign-policy issue you have for the next president. caller: i think it will be china because i grew up during world war ii, and at that time it was japan. that is when they hit us, when japan hit us. in fact, they were having a meeting at the white house at the time when they bombed pearl harbor. and everything was made in japan then, and now everything is made in china. so i think that will be the for policy, but god help america, because the elite and the

republican party, and i am a republican, i am so ashamed of them. donald trump has gotten the have his little thing, running a business and being a billionaire am a so i say our best hope is donald trump. thank you. host: thanks for your call. a couple live campaign events coming up on monday. hillary clinton will be in .leveland the democratic presidential candidate will be live on c-span2 at 12:30 p.m. eastern time, and rode to the white house coverage continues with a donald trump event, as well, at the college in manchester, new hampshire, also on c-span2. that is monday at 2:30 eastern time. as promised, part of the 2016 democratic national committee platform hearings held this

week, the mid-atlantic hearings held in washington, d.c., and for the convention next month, this part of the platform hearing on foreign-policy issues and human rights. >> i will say a brief set of remarks. president obama and the democratic party know there is no greater responsibility than protecting the american people. we also understand the indefensible role that the u.s. must continue to play in promoting international peas and prosperity. >> the next set of speakers will provide recommendations to help guide and shape our 2016 platform to show america's role in the world. they know that we provide for the safety and security of the american people and that requires close collaboration with allies, cultivating partnerships with new friends

and centers of influence, and strong american leadership within international institutions. for our first witness, we will sner, democracy,na human rights, and labor. he is currently a professor of ethics and finance, professor of the business and society at the nyu stern school of business. before that, he served in the state department, and he led for many years human rights first. thank you, michael. : thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i have had diverse experience with academia, government, and the nongovernmental sector. a broad comment, both inside the government and out, i've witnessed the power of american global leadership and our ability to make a difference on human rights and democracy issues.

the united states has unique influence now more than ever, need to redouble the efforts in use the power of the internet, a new tool. , thes almost 70 years ago effort to adopt universal declaration of human rights and we need to continue to lead. to do so is morally right, consistent with us as a people. we need to lead by example and even on the places where it's not easy to do so. this is what president obama banned torture in 2009 and continues to work to close guantánamo, a recruiting device to her enemies. we must work to ensure opportunities for women's and , this means tackling discrimination, marginalization, investing more in women's

employment, health, education. promoting women's rights is a strategic imperative. thelso need to recognize gay rights are human rights. we need also to pay attention to the issue of human trafficking. 27 million people in the world are victims of trafficking. this is affront to our values and source of funds for criminal organizations and extremist groups. it threatens and's -- threatens us all. two final point, we need to continue to speak out against the persecution of religious

minorities, whether they are ofistians in syria, acts anti-semitism in europe, or other abuses of religious minorities. our foreign policy must prioritize efforts to combat wherever persecution it occurs and the world today humanitarianatest crisis since world war ii. when 20 million refugees. we cannot do this alone but we need to be in the lead and that means accepting more syrian refugees and providing support. these are issues we can finance as a party. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i think everyone in the democratic party feels upholding human rights is essential so i

would like to ask you, since you have traveled the world and worked to move human rights forward both in the private sector and public sector, what kind of an impact do you think mr. trumps language is having in terms of the things he is saying about tolerance and our ability to be a role model? >> he's being destructive and so many ways. tendency toward isolating us and withdrawing from the world moment.ly wrong at this we need to engage. when we don't engage, it undermines us to mess to clean. his racist statements, the range of things he has said are creating panic in the world. everywhere i go, people are saying what is happening from --

to this country? that these are issues that help define us as a -- on and >> have you noticed or are worried about what seems to me a worrying trend of foreign governments making it difficult to operate within their boundaries and do you have any advice for how we might address that? >> when i was in the state department, we began to see this trend, restriction on foreign funding, attacks against them in rights advocates. we saw it in a range of countries around the world. i sent a memo to secretary clinton talking about the

headwinds. at the end of the day, its rights groups that will navigate change consistent with their society but they need support, protection when they get into trouble. central feature of our policy going forward. clicks i have traveled around the world and have seized some of the devastation caused by human trafficking. too many women, children, men

are being impacted by this and there's nothing we can really do to stop it. it is more lucrative than heroin. how do you suggest we tackle a situation like that? >> are a couple things we can and should we doing. we should be engaging with local governments where this is happening. by itself.enough every government should be protecting some people. we should be doing whatever we can to empower local unions and activists and this is what i'm more enough. there is a role for american business and global business to reinforce the things that need to be happening. for a bigossible company to say this is not our responsibility.

we are the beneficiaries of cheap products off in the products of people being enslaved or working in inferior conditions. >> talk on human rights advocacy and promotion and democracy promotion in to what extent do you view them as the same issue or different. be a part of a constellation of issues interrelated. i'm about to go on a diminished -- on a mission to georgia this week. when we talk about democracy, the elements of it are , rule of law,en free press, the ability of unions to organize.

those are human rights issues. integrate.hing is to >> thank you for your testimony. witness.o to our next ready to skype in offender jeanne shaheen. -- senator jeanne shaheen. woman in u.s.y history to be elected governor and senator. she has been committed to serving the citizens of new hampshire and is known for her common sense leadership, hard .ork, dedication she has served in the senate since 2009 and is a member of the senate committee on armed services.

>> i appreciate the chairman for the invitation to join you. our nation is in most remain in the can of democracy and a friend to those around the world who aspire to freedom and prosperity. we believe in peace through strength and strength through peace. this means maintaining strong alliances and resorting to military force only as a last resort. these are important aspects and an indispensable global tool.

principle is our diplomacy to robust thing the primary means of achieving our nations a. we believe leveraging america, the moral authority of our democratic way of life, the influence of our economy, and the magnetism of our cultural achievement. democrats know america is when we know only make the world safer, but make it better. democrats understand the

importance of short and long-term global challenges. proliferationlear . i cannot emphasize too strongly the value of american leadership and international institutions .nd partnership these multinational institutions have allowed us to make significant gains in tackling difficult global challenges, games we could not of achieved on her own. our platform continues to recognize the value of alliances .

our foreign policy should seek to modernize these relationships , not disintegrate or discard them. is global network of allies an indispensable instrument of american power. not only should we be bolstering traditional partnership, partnership like the butsatlantic alliance deepening partnerships with countries that are on the frontlines of fighting these agreements. as some ofthe time the republican party have advocated to abandon or disband the alliances necessary to confront the global challenges of the 21st century. finally, i would like to speak about the importance of inclusivity and tolerance. it is enshrined in our nation's

founding documents and in our law. these values and ideas are a powerful songs of america's moral authority around the world.

particularly when it comes to immigration. we are a nation of immigrants and refugees come a nation that has welcomed the disenfranchised, the abused, and the most one herbal people to our shores. are generous and open culture cannot change. sadly in this election cycle, we are facing a republican party whose presumptive nominee stainsd our values and international partnerships we have built through sustained american leadership.

we are committed to maintaining our armed forces for the military night of 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 all proud of the way the president has held firm to these principles and strengthened in the world.ding

i'm confident you will find a way to reflect these principles in our party's platform, a platform that will feel not just for our fellow democrats but all americans. thank you. i would be happy to answer .uestions

>> he served as director of national security studies at the council on foreign relations and also served as director for the center of public policy education and a senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the brookings institution. winky. i'm been a cover two things today. what criteria issue you before we employ military force and how much we should be spending on fx. the most important thing, a woman or man in the white house to sendo is decide when americans into battle. the first thing you need to ask ?s is this a war of choice have we exhausted all our other options. i pointed out how president eisenhower resisted the call for people to employ military force. you i think have to keep that in

mind. once you make a decision to use military force, then you need to ask ourselves a number of -- the firstt will is what is the purpose of it is .o overthrow is it worth the cost of being able to do that? i don't have to remind this committee how people told us how little the invasion of iraq was going to cost. it should be multilateral. is we textbook example got 250,000 troops from other nations and contributions. that war cost the u.s. taxpayer nothing since we provided the forces.

find out ifry to you can get international approval. a big mistake the bush administration made was nato offered to go to afghanistan because they declared that as an attack on the alliance and we said we can do it without you. eventually, we did bring them in. next, how will you know when you have one -- won? and what happens after you achieve the objective? one is if it doesn't work and , do notot guarantee double down. one of the most interesting things i ever did in government was working for president reagan , when it didn't work and lebanon, we got out. we realized we could not win

that civil war. think it is necessary to get the american people involved, you ought to put on more taxes. this is what we did toward the end in vietnam. quickly i will go through what .appened in iraq the president said we didn't plan after. in syria, people are talking about a no-fly zone. general dempsey said that would cost $1 billion a month. >> he talked about the american military engagement in the world. the criteria for action. the american military has been

called to do different things. i wanted to get your assessment of the american military involvement in fighting the ebola virus. essentially the address of the ebola buyers and the fact it got worse is in large measure because of an innovative use of the american military. what are your thoughts? >> i spent 25 years in the navy. we would do these humanitarian things. these did not involve the use of force because of self-defense. military has terrific logistics and they can do these things. important to is keep in mind you have got to fund the other elements of national power adequately so you don't have the military doing everything. >> good to see you.

our military is used in disaster assistance a great deal. thinkingomeone who was a lot about our alliance is institution. we all have heard from mr. trump that nato is useless, that we should get rid of our alliance with japan, that we should move .ut our troops i wonder if you would 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. so 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