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. Its 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, dont 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 Americans National interest. We, of course, have a large heart. Its 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 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 dont 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 its, 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 its 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. Its not actually a quick question. Its 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 its very critical that hes 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 its pretty clear that to address the scale of the crisis, we do need to commit dollars, and i also think one thing thats 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 fiveyear window to much, much longer. So, i think its 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 shortterm 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 crosspurposes. Im 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. We will invite Robert Wexler to join us. Hes the executive director oh, by the way, im not nara tandem, im carol browner. She had to step out. Shell 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 israels right for selfdefense 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 threepoint plan to defeat isis. She will work with a Broad Coalition to destroy isiss 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. Tehrans fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the middle east. Iran supports terrorism and repeatedly calls to destroy israel. Irans human rights record is abysmal. Iran must never be allowed to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. I support the International Agreement between the p5 plus 1 nations in iran because with vigorous enforcement, it verifiably thwarts all of irans pathways to a nuclear bomb without resorting to dwar. The nuclear deal enables us to more strenuously push back against irans 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 irans illicit Ballistic Missile program. Achieving our National Security objectives requires close collaboration with our allies. First and foremost, israel. Hillary clinton and democrats support israels right to defend itself. Democrats not only have a longstanding record of friendship with israel, but also an ironclad commitment to israels 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. Yesterdays 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 israels right to defend herself and ensure its qualitative military edge including through a new tenyear 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 twostate solution that guarantees israels 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 confidencebuilding measures and avoid unhelpful actions. Incitement is dangerous and undermines a negotiated twostate 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 antisemitism 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 questions going to be a commitment to security for precious jewish brothers and sisters in israel can never be predicated on an occupation of presses palestinians. If were concerned about security it seems to me were going to have to talk seriously about occupation. I dont know whether you would allow the use of that or, you know, New York Times said we how do we acknowledge those hundres of years of contempt . 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 50some years. Demeaned, devalued, dominated, exploited. For too long the Democratic Party has been beholden to apac that didnt take seriously the humanity of palestinian brothers and sisters. Were at a turning point now and, of course, its 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. Weve got to fight antisemitism, antijewish hatred. It goes hand in hand with every christian civilization and islamic civilizations, its 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 antisemitism as opposed to a struggle for justice. You let me know whether thats 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 twostate outcome. A negotiated twostate 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 twostate 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 twostate 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 israels security. Because the foundation of a twostate outcome is both the security of israelis and palestinians. And lets 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 twostate 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 selfdefense 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 post67 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 shouldnt 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 twostate 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 whats required on refugees, whats 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. Thats not being, i dont 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 dont 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 thats what the democratic platform has effectively said for decades and thats what it should continue to say. We have a number of hands up. And im just trying to be mindful and making sure that everybody gets to ask their question. Im 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 im going to just come down the row. We have howard, debra, bonnie are the hands ive seen up. And then wendy and then congressman wexler, if you could keep track and we will come back to you. [laughter] im sure youll be able to. Look, were 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 selfgovernance 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 dont want that to be what this platform does. And thats 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 thats i dont have a question mark at the end of that sentence but thank you. I guess it doesnt sit well for me when i hear that we need to go to war to create peace. That just doesnt sit well for me. And thats my sentiment. My question is, you know, as we sit here and listen to the amount of homelessness and infrastructure, education needs, everything thats happening here in the United States, my concern is now we want to continue war and thats something that im 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 . Were looking at going back out into war and looking at increasing military. Whats that going to cost us . And how many lives is that going to cost us here in the United States while were in another country fighting. Congressman wexler, im one of your constituents in florida. Good to see you. I do believe in a twostate solution, but i believe that it must happen when there is no fighting, when israels secure and it should be negotiated between the palestinians, the israelis under the guidance of the United States and thats it. I agree with you, brother west, that its 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 id 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 americas 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 couldnt agree more. I dont 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, thats a twostate 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 twostate 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. Ill try to do better. Theres a light right there in front of you that will help you. Ok. Thank you. With respect to ms. Shermans 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 clintons 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 cant 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 twostate outcome is to avoid conflict, is to avoid the very types of wars that youre 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 hasnt yet occurred. Thats 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 shouldnt 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 onbase 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. Thats why we recommend developing a network of nonva providers who are integradeted so access to care can be provided when veterans need it and most convenient means possible. The arbitrary 30day wait times and 40mile 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. While the vfw supports bill 5083 there are areas that have not been adequately addressed. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today and i look forward to any questions you have. Thank you very much. [applause] are there any questions . Yeah . Paul. Can you comment on the extent to which the you talk about ending sequestration and setting budgets on a basis thats 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 dont 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 administrations request for just delivery of health care, thats within va and outside nonva 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 10year plan to get themselves out of the infrastructure problem. Theyre 60 billion in the next decade it would take to get them out of that. I dont think that theyll 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 thats taken care of. Before i leave you, youre willingness to accept other private partnerships, et cetera, has to doesnt 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, nonva 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 followon 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. Id 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 glassroots campaign in global campaigns to demand climate justice. Ms. Redmond . Thank you very much. Im 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. Were coming to terms with the fact that burning fossil fuels is no longer compatible with the longterm 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 governments 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. Its an economic, Foreign Policy and national and Global Security problem. As the Worlds Largest historical emitter of Greenhouse Gas pollution and the worlds wealthiest nation the United States has a moral imperative and selfinterest 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 Change. The u. S. Must show leadership by honoring its commitment to helping developing countries reduce Carbon Pollution and build their capacity to adapt to Climate Change. This in part means 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. Mr. 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 worlds 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 worlds population survives one of the greatest crisis we are facing is, i think, greatly 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 pact 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. And you mentioned, well, first 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 obamas 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. It is an historic ruling, but it 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. For example, there should be an 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 gas. 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. Would you 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. In the past, the u. S. 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 been a good judger of looking 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 duss 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. Mr. Duss 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 strategic democratic ideals. For decades, the israelipalestinian conflict has been one of serious interests. Democrats and republicans have seen this is a key security goal in the middle east. There is no question we should be and will be israels friend. But at the same time we must recognize that israels continued occupation of territory and the restrictions on the most basic Civil Liberties of the Palestinian People run contrary to the values. The 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 extremist draw freely. As general james mattis put it . Put it in a 2013 interview, i pay a 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 twostate 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 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. One of these was offered by 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 americas engagement with israel and palestine, but with the region and the world. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for matt . No . Yeah . Dr. West i would just like you to reflect on the ironies, that strike me, the rights obsession with trumps rightwing, xenophobia, narcissistic, neofascist and trump, like lifees in israeli lieberman, ariel, every society , has xenophobes. Why is it we can focus on them here and call them rightly into question . And we seem to be reluctant to call them xenophobia and other voices but 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. That if there were a palestinian occupation of precious jewish brothers and sisters, would we be responding the same way . As opposed to an Israeli Occupation of palestinian brothers and sisters . 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. Mr. Duss thank you, dr. West. That is 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 that the United States we are not asking 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 twostate 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 twostate solution that provides security to a democratic jewish state of israel, and also ensures that the palestinian state 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. Wests point, everything that we do in the world, as the u. S. , should be interNational Security should be in our National Security interest. And values are certainly part of our identity and National Security interest. And it is why people have worked so hard to try to, over multiple administrations, to get to a twostate solution. And to get to peace. We now have in motion 1 trillion to activate our arsenal and modernize it. Barbara mcewen said last october we are looking at that big bow wave 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 francisco, at plowshares, governor jerry brown came and spoke with passion and eloquence about the immorality of Nuclear Weapons, which i agree with, but the insanity of our nuclear posture, which i agree with. Said, there is no way that we will be able to pay for the weapons we now have under order. The next Nuclear Policy will be 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 perfectly fine with only 200 weapons to deter us. Do we still need an icbm port . 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 by senators jeffrey merkel, Bernie Sanders, and al sensibleoutlining a point about how we can trim the nuclear force, not unilaterally 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 of the weapons they need to fight the threat we fight in the world 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] i appreciate the beginning remarks about the iran nuclear deal. I just wanted to recognize that 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 the concerns we and our allies 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 block the uranium pathway, they have ripped out 2 3 of their centrifuges. We have blocked the plutonium pathway. They have ripped the core out of their plutonium reactor and filled it. Great. We have locked a covert pathway to a Nuclear Weapon by getting iranians to agreeing to the most stringent regime ever negotiated. 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. [applause] thank you. Phil carter . There you are. Senior fellow, council director, of the military veterans and Society Program at the center for new American Security has researched issues 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 active and reserve components of the military police and Civil Affairs officer. After retiring from the army, he became increasingly involved in veterans and National Security policy issues. In 2008, 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. As someone who has wore our nations uniform. We have a sacred commitment to provide for the nations common defense, and this dates back to the founding of the republic, the foundation is a Strong Military enabled by defense strategy, not sequestration. A cuttingedge Innovation Technology agenda, smart and effective strategy, and the best all volunteer force in the world, supported by our nation, including our servicemembers 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. She is also noting, and i agree, that it would be a serious mistake to stumble 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 substitute for them in iraq and afghanistan. Nonetheless, our military must be the best trained and equipped in the world, standing ready to provide for the defense and various scenario, from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency, to highend 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. We must also invest in our Defense Department reforming it , and making it more agile, efficient, and effective. We must root out waste, fraud, and abuse. 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 and hardware 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. It continues not just in the Defense Department, but in the department of Veterans Affairs, with timely access to health care, benefits like the post9 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. I am hopeful that we will have a 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 the way they should be treated. And we can do better and be better. So i want to thank you, very much. Questions . Mrs. Sherman first of all, thank you for your service. And i thank 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. We have heard from mr. Trump 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. Mr. Carter 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 advice and engage in civil dialogue with our military leaders. That reflects a naivete about 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 is qualified and has the judgment and temperament to be commanderinchief. Rep. Lee 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 strategy when we send our troops in harms way. I am wondering if you can comment, how you see congress role. 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. As ours troops do. I would like you to comment on what you think about the congressional responsibility, as well as with regard to waste, fraud, and abuse. 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 pentagon the audited we have , billions of dollars are being wasted, which can be used to support our veterans, health care, support costs, yet we can not get an audit on the pentagon. Can you comment on how you see this audit responsibility . Rep. Cummings i dont know if this is a signal that we need to leave. The light suddenly came on. [laughter] it was the congresswomans question, i believe. [laughter] mr. Carter 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 has a role to play with the authorization of military force or otherwise. But congress roles does not stop there. It continues with passes in of a National Defense authorization act. Timely passage of a buzz at. Appropriate policy guidance for the Defense Department and leaders to execute. Yhe absence of this timely, efficient process hurts our National Security. There is little stability and predictability in resource allocation across the department. Yhr department has operated more years than not on a continuing resolution. That is impact on procurement and spending. It creates more inefficiency when congress doesnt timely and efficiently pass these bills. Yes, i believe it is important, but the responsibility does not stop there. With respect to an audit, there is more we can do to run the Defense Department like a business. To run it in a way that is appropriate and legible and auditable for the taxpayer. And to make sure that every dollar we spend is going to the National Security interest. There is a role of vulnerability. Rep. Cummings dr. West . Dr. West i just want to salute you. Andrew public work in in your public work and as well in civilian clothes. I heard you were committed to protecting whistleblowers. I was wondering what your definition was. I was wondering if it was edward snowden, my dear brother, sister, chelsea manning. 2 outside of the country. Would you define them as whistleblowers, or would you define them in a different way . Did i put you on the spot too much . That is a penetrating question. Dr. West i appreciate your reflections. I would find those that come forward consistent with the statutes for protection over slowing activity to the appropriate authorities, with the appropriate clearances to adjudicate those matters. Its my understanding that the government has the donated mr. Snowden, and before him, private manning, to be not whistleblowers. To be, in one case, someone who is accused and convicted of violating the code of military justice, and in another, someone violating federal law. I believe those individuals had a pathway through their chains of command to report wrongdoing. If they saw wrongdoing, they should have taken it. If they took that and reported it to the authorities, they should have been protected, as we should protect whistleblowers through channels. Dr. West thank you very much. [applause] rep. Cummings our last witness. Thank you very much. President ata center for American Progress he served as assistant secretary of defense in Southeast Asia at the pentagon, where he advised Senior Leadership on all policy matters pertaining to development and implementation of the best strategy and plans for the region until november 2011. He was a deputy special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the u. S. Department of state. Welcome. Thank you mr. Chair and cochairs. Thank you all of you for inviting me to testify at the end of a very long time. Very long day. I have been asked to talk about the nature of American Leadership. I suppose being last of the day is appropriate. As you have said, im the Vice President of National Security at the center for American Progress. I just want to start by noting the Democratic Party platforms have long featured strong, progressive, forwardlooking visions for americas role in the world. That kind of efficient will be critical for our nations security ahead. We face an unparalleled diversity of threats and challenges that have been touched on by witnesses throughout the day. Almost none of them can be handled like any one nation acting alone. This is why i think principle American Leadership is key to our future security and prosperity. When america leads well, the world becomes safer and more secure. When we turn inward, it is quite the opposite. Principled leadership starts with honest appraisals of the threats we face rooted in fax, not fear. Principal leaderships required building coalitions, maintaining results, deterred conflict, and encouraging a path to sexual engagement factual engagement when crisis invariably strikes. This finds its home in the Democratic Party for several reasons. Democratic party uses war is a less result, never as a first choice. And uses force to protect americans, but see that unilateralism and preventative war are failures of leadership. Second, democrats recognize the importance of partners. We are better off with partners then we are going it alone. And that we stand with our friends and allies. Finally, democrats understand that diplomacy, development, and economic statecraft are critical to stopping crises. And we fight for greater investment in the nonmilitary tools of our National Power in order to make us more safe. Principald leadership like this is what the next president will need to deal with the challenges we face. I want to give a couple of examples. To defeat radical jihadist terrorism, including isis and al qaeda, we need to steadily help countries like iraq and syria and other nations take back territory from extremists. Territory from which they can launch attacks not only in the local area, but far away in europe or the u. S. , disrupting the flow of foreign fighters is also important. We have to go after the communications, their finances, their ability to travel. We have to toughen up our defenses at home. But this is not just a military problem. We have to recognize the ideology of hate that has terrorism was nurtured over years by investment in education made by those who had these kinds of beliefs. We need to start thinking about how we invest in a different kind of education, and help other countries do so. We need to think about weakened the states that need help to forge a path to stability, send off threats from bulletins, and find Viable Solutions that can heal divisions in their society, especially by reducing corruption and sectarian politics. We cannot do it for them, but we can help them work at it. To counter Nuclear Proliferation, we need to bring nations together, as the Obama Administration did to impose sanctions and crocheted a deal and negotiate a deal. And if enforced, will delay ir ans Nuclear Ambitions for ayesr. That kind of deterrence can apply to other serious threats like north korea. Or handle chinas rise, we need a combination of resolve and engagement. We need to welcome chinas larger role on stage, but we need to stand by countries should they be subjected to coercion or bowling or the seizure of territories. Truth applies to our engagement with russia. Ukraine,o stand by which has been the victim of aggression and the loss of its territory through the use of force in contravention of all International Norms and law. That means we may need to continue to support longterm economic sanctions, perhaps for an indefinite period. We need to encourage others to have resolved in this area. It does not mean we cannot do anything with russia. But we should be clear about what is acceptable and what is not and what we will stand for. A last example, to protect our industries and identities from cyber attacks, we have to work with other nations and the private sector to share threat information and cooperate on investigation and prosecution. We cannot protect ourselves alone. I think i am well over my time. [laughter] i wanted to touch on the contrast with republicans, but perhaps we can do that in the question and answer. Rep. Cummings thank you very much. How would you contrast what you said with what the republican position might be . [laughter] it verynk i contrasted starkly. The contrast with republicans right now couldnt be more stark. Republicans have nominated a candidate that thinks Nuclear Proliferation might be ok. Republicans have nominated a candidate who thinks maybe we should pull out of alliances like nato. Or maybe it is ok to target the families of terrorists. To say that the whole of the Republican Party doesnt support that kind of years, and its just that they have a outlier, that does them a great the service. That is not what we are talking about here. What would you advise us on n. E u. S. Paying dues at the u. And pulling out of institutions like unesco . When palestinians joined unesco, we, by operation of law, had to pull out. I felt like i wasnt us at our best. There are few institutions like us stepping away from multilateral institutions. Should the democratic platform reflects some commitment to multilateralism and the u. S. Playing a leadership role in International Organizations . Absolutely we need to focus on multilateralism. You cannot lead if you are not ask the table. Are not at the table. Withdrawing in protest is often a satisfying thing to do in the near term, but at the end of the day, we only lead when we show up. You mentioned the situation in ukraine. The problem is broader than that, isnt it . There is georgia, moldova, and there is the land. And there is real insecurity. And there is poland. I want you to broaden out the discussion about europe, and the challenges we face visavis russia and as i mentioned with an earlier witness, the problems of refugees changing the Political Landscape in europe in a threatening way. I know that is a lot. But i feel that our platform needs to reflect how we engage europe visavis russia, and the challenges we face there. Weather is expansion of nato further, and how we deal with the issue of this radicalization process taking place on many fronts, partly as a result of this backlash to refugees coming into europe. This refugee crisis is the kind of crisis tests us in a profound level. Interfere,reacted to it Sparks Division reacted to in fear, it Sparks Division and populism in many countries. It is really only going to be something that enables Greater Unity if we rise to it with an openness and embracing of those that are in desperate straits. The Democratic Party is positioned to articulate america longstanding commitments to that kind of basic humanitarianism, not just because its good for those people, but because its ultimately good for our i nterests. I think this will be the biggest challenge the european project has faced in the last 70 years. I do not know where it will come out. I know that the United States should be on the side of a unified europe that welcomes the victims of violence and seeks to stop the root causes of what is driving them from their homes. On russia, i think its quite simple. There is a pattern. It is not a new pattern. It goes back to georgia and involves moldova, it involves ukraine. And in ukraine it was the most extreme example we have seen to date. The question now is, can russias behavior be channeled and shaped through study resolve from the rest of the world . And the rest of the world might not include everybody, but it will include us and our european allies. I hope that the bite of sanctions, the opportunity to reengage and reshape the kind of relationship we will have with russia will lead to a different kind of decision down the road. In the meantime, i think it is important to know we are going to be there with our friends and decide that its ok to retroactively accept this kind of violation of sovereignty. Which, after all, is i wanted to ask a simple question, because these issues get kind of confusing about unilateral actions. What is your standard around military engagement . What do you think is the right way for the military to ever use force, ever . And of the candidates, im not familiar with the president ial , but i know the democratic side has called for unilateral action with allies, boots on the ground anywhere. Just looking to get your thoughts on those issues. Tap am glad we dont democratic candidate calling for unilateral action and boots on the ground everywhere. I think that is a hallmark of the prudent, responsible use of our power. Is athink there distinction between a largescale invasion and helping our country manage its own Regional Security challenge. I do think putting special forces on the ground to help iraq retake territory from isis is an appropriate use of American Military power. I do not believe that you can ,ver have a simple litmus test because most of the situations that threaten americans are complex and rapidly evolving, and we sincerely all hope that we have chosen leaders who will decide wisely when they are faced with what are going to be often impossible, certainly difficult, choices. I think it requires that we comply law of conflict, law of war, that we stick to our principles, that we have identified what a threat is and what the military tool can do with that threat, and that our civilian leaders are taking the advice of our military leaders. If americans are really threatened, it is appropriate to use all the tools at our disposal to protect americans. And if our allies and friends are threatened or are suffering a domestic catastrophe, i think it is appropriate for us to figure out means of Security Assistance to help them secure their own countries. You have a question . Im sorry, i did not see you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for that testimony, which was the right way to end the day. Stimulating and all kinds of ways. You did a good job. You talkingsted in about all the overdetermined causes of crisis in syria. It struck me that one you did not get to was the Academic Studies in the last few years demonstrating the greatest route to hit the crescent in thousands of years was maybe a deep underlying factor. In a larger sense, what it meant new wonder is, Climate Change is arguably, maybe not even arguably, the greatest global problem we have ever faced, but it is not a problem that is easily fit into our kind of. Ational security thinking set in some place in between domestic policy and Foreign Policy. Do you think that is changing postparis . Do you think there are ways we lens through it a which we understand Foreign Policy Going Forward . Thank you for that question. In the five minute version of my testimony, that was definitely in there. The fact is, the United States military has long recognized that Climate Change is going to be one of the largest drivers of stability and pop of instability and conflict, and therefore one of the largest threats to National Security. The Intelligence Council has long recognized the same thing. In congruence with the scientific community, our National Security professionals see that this is a fundamental challenge. I believe the tide is turning to will startt which we talking about the security implications of Climate Change the same way we talk about the security implications of vladimir putin. I think that will be an important change, something this party can highlight in this platform in ways that will advance the debate significantly. Thank you. You very much. And thank you for your testimony. We really appreciate it. [applause] we want to thank all the witnesses that were here today. We want to thank Debbie Wasserman schultz for doing such the entire, and staff, i want to thank you. In the meantime, we are going to be meeting on february 17 in phoenix. Thingshave any concerns, that may have come up, documents you may need, andy roseman is the person you want to be in touch with. He is very excited to hear from you. [laughter] rep. Cummings again, i want to thank all of our members of our committee for your time, for your efforts. As i said when we first met, this was a very important time in our countries history our countrys history. We are so blessed to have this opportunity to be able to have a part of shaping a roadmap not only for the next generation, the next election, but for the next generation, and for generations yet unborn. I will see you all in phoenix. Byebye now. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] on newsmakers, Xavier Becerra talks about the role of hispanics in this years elections, the impact of the california primary, and legislative issues in the house, including the republican plan to combat poverty. He also talks about a running mate for Hillary Clinton. Host should sen. Sanders the Vice President pick . He hascerra i think earned the opportunity to be considered. As i have said before, that is a decision totally left to the person who earned our nomination. Secretary clinton has earned the right to make that selection. I have total faith that she is going to make a really good selection. I have confidence that her decisions are going to be great for america, and one of the most important ones she will make will come early with her selection of Vice President. Host what should the role be of sen. Sanders forward in the ofdiac and going b senator sanders Going Forward in the primary . Rep. Becerra he has awoken many folks. He has made young people believe. He has given democrats an opportunity to bring into our party many different bases. Thank him for all he has done, but i dont want to say he has done, because he still has a lot to do. He has inspired people that are beginning to distance themselves and the electoral process and from government. And our government needs to have people wanting to be involved. Greta think back to when this all started. Do you think at that point you would have ever said, Bernie Sanders has a big role to play in the Democratic Party . Rep. Becerra no, no. And you know what . This is america. Thats the beauty of america. Who would also have said that the Republican Party would become the party of trump . You never know. Withncer newsmakers california congressman Xavier Becerra, sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Now a discussion on the consumerp federation Protection Bureaus new rules concerning payday loansayd. Loans. Days payday from todays washington journal, this is 40 minutes. ,hiladelphia is nick bourke smaller loans project director at few charitable trusts. W terrible trusts. He is joining us to talk about sew regulations for payday loan in an effort to end the debt traps. ,thank you for joining us. Guest glad to be here. Host tell us about these rules that were put out to address the socalled payday loans. Loans are small loans, usually a few hundred dollars, theyre usually do back in full on the borrowers next payday. People usually take them out to get help paying some bills like mortgages or rent or utilities. With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is doing is announcing the first ever federal regulation of this market. One of the adjusting things about it is there is no federal regulation of these loans right now, only subject to state law to moment. And they are putting our regulations that all lenders will have to follow, whether its Payday Loan Stores that is a state license entity, or whether it is a bank or credit union or online lender. For the first time, they are going to be uniform regulations governing how these high cost small dollar loans work. Host you mentioned that these loans are high cost. Tell us a little bit more about how these socalled payday loans work. Why are they on the specific subject of these new rules . Guest we conventional payday loan is on average, 375. Its high cost, the way they are typically advertised is there will be a fee of about 15 per 100 for two weeks. This equates to about a 400 annual Percentage Rate or a pr. Full in is due back in about two weeks, its called a payday loan because the payday lender has this very unusual leverage over the borrower. They have direct access into the borrowers Checking Account. They have a post dated check or electronic access. Whenever the borrower next get paid, the payday lenders essentially standing they are first in line, and can grab the money out of the borrowers Checking Account in order to ensure that they get repaid. The trick here, the real harm is that when the loan comes due, it usually takes four to 30 is due when you include the fees. 430 is due when you include the fee is. Thats 36 of the biweekly twoweek paycheck. You have a situation where somebody who is having trouble paying bills goes to a payday lender to get a 300 or 400 loan to get help paying bills, and it helps them a little bit to pay their bills, then two weeks later, the full loan plus a big fee comes due, it takes more than one third of their paycheck, and unsurprisingly, that blows up most peoples budgets. Because the payday lenders standing first in line, they always get repaid. Now the borrower cant pay their mortgage or rent or other bills, so they dont get another payday loan right away. ,nd that is the Business Model people borrow the loan over and over again, paycheck to paycheck , on average about half of the year. They end up spending more than 500 to receive just 375 in credit. Thats the problem there try to tackle. Rules regarding payday loans would do several things. It requires lenders to assess the borrowers ability to repay a loan, and puts off repeated debit attempts by lenders. It meant is a cooling off it afteres a cooling off three consecutive payday loans, and it makes her heart is for lenders to roll over these loans. Please apply only to payday loans or other types of loans as well . Any lender apply to making a socalled covered loan, a very shortterm loan that lasts less than 45 days, or the loan is longer term, like an installment loan that might last several months, it applies to any lender making the loan it 36 ,n all in a pr above and where the lender has access to the borrowers Checking Account with the ability to the vehicle the borrower already owns. The title loan. Where the letter holds the title to a vehicle. Hasne making a covered loan to follow these rules. And that includes banks and Credit Unions and others. The good news in all of this is were finally going to have more of a level playing field, and there actually is an opportunity for banks and Credit Unions to enter into this market, and they have a lot of advantages, not least of which is that all payday loan borrowers are already a customer of a bank or credit union, because you have to have a Checking Account in order to get a payday loan. Eb makeslly, if the cf adjustments, theyre going to get into the space and make loans that cost at least six times less than what payday loans will cost Going Forward. That could end up saving millions of dollars. Host were talking with nick pew terrible trusts. Charitable trust. About payday loans, what to bring our viewers into this conversation. We have special lines for this discussion. If you use or have used a payday loan, even call call 202 7488000. Ll others, call 202 7488001 in this discussion about high interestse payday loans. You talked a little bit about the people who use these payday loans. Can you talk a little about the impact that it can have on them was they take out a loan like this . Guest its important to remember the situation the most people find themselves in when they go to get a payday loan. There are a lot of reasons why people get payday loans. The one that shows up most clearly in conversation with borrowers and research on this issue is that people who get a payday loan are living paycheck to paycheck. On average, they are making about 30,000 a year, which is 15 an hour. They are making income, but they are living paycheck to paycheck. You dont have a lot of savings. Maybe they already maxed out their credit card and they need a little bit of help paying a bill. The going gets a payday loan, and what borrowers tell us in with the Research Shows is that the loan can offer a little bit of relief when they get it, because they have an urgent need, the need to pay their rent. Two weeks later, as one borrower explained, she said it was a sweet and sour experience. It was sweet when i got the cash, but then two weeks later, when the loan blew up my budget, and it wasnt able to pay my other bills and i had to go borrow another loan to make ends meet, it was a sour experience. The solution is rather simple. Credit can be made available for folks in that situation, and it can help them. But only if it is structured in a certain way. Basically, that means the loan has to become an installment loan the last five or six months for a loan of a few hundred dollars. And takes no more than a small percentage of their paycheck, about 5 is with the research would indicate. Host how large is this payday loan industry . Guest payday loans are currently available in 36 states. If you add auto title loans, goes up to 39 states. Uset 12 Million People payday loans, little over 2 million use auto title loans. Altogether, these folks are spending about 12 billion on payday and auto loans. Host were talking a nick andke about payday loans recent federal regulations proposed to govern them. Were going to go to our collars. David is calling in from orlando, david, you have used or use payday loans. You wrong with nick bourke. You are on with nick bourke. Caller i worked in the business. They are not telling you the whole story. Original payday loan was because people took out too many at one time. Five,ould take out for and then try to pay them back. Up withida cleaned that a central database. That way you only take out one loan at a time. You can take out more loans and leave him back. Are high ontes paper, but a 500 loan is only 50. A 300. The bottom line is, its a doable thing to pay it back. Who is going to give them alone for their a loan for their rent . Ok, david. Lets give you a chance to respond about those points about these loans. The callerest mentioned the database, and there are some states like florida that instituted a database to try and limit how many times people borrow the loan. Its an attempt to try and limit the harm it. But generally speaking, Safe Products dont need to be rationed by the government. Another state, colorado actually figured out how to just make the loans safe. They turn to loans into sixmonth installment loans, back in 2010 when they reformed their law. Payday loanid a needs to be a sixmonth installment loan up to 500, takes a small percentage of a persons paycheck. And now, about six years later, access to credit and colorado is widely available and people are expressing much better outcomes. They are spending 42 less to get the same credit, the report being much more satisfied and having a much easier time with the product. Defaults are down. A lot better outcomes. The solution here is that we can make access to credit, and a lot of people can benefit from having small amounts of credit. But it has to be structured in a way that gives people a chance to pay it off and get back on their feet in a reasonable amount of time it. Host were talking to nick bourke from Pew Charitable trusts. How does the use of payday loans correlate to the availability of other types of credit, big credit cards or bank loans . Was the correlation what is the correlation . Guest contrary to conventional wisdom, most people who use payday loans are conventional Consumer Finance consumers. Who uses aoses a payday loan has a Checking Account, so these are bank people that have a relationship with a bank or credit union. Research isn the that most people who use payday loans also have a credit card. Is usually maxed out, which is why they can use it anymore to do whatever it is they are trying to do. 41 of payday loan borrowers own a home, so theres usually a mortgage. A lot of them have student loan debt. Are very conventional kinds of folks who have maxed out most of their other Credit Opportunities and are looking for little bit of help to pay bills. Another thing i will mention is that a surprising percentage of households in this country are what we would call income volatile, meaning their income goes up or down by more than 25 compared to their average income from monthtomonth. A lot of the reason why that happens is there are folks who are hourly wage earners working in a factory will retail, maybe a restaurant, and their schedules are not protectable. Their schedules change a lot. So their income is always changing from monthtomonth. Why peoplexplains find themselves with a gap of a few hundred dollars youre there, where they need a little help paying their bills. It also explains why the conventional payday loan doesnt help them, and in fact, harms them. When alone comes due in a short amount of time and takes more than one third of the next paycheck, it just becomes another burden. That means their way down on their income, leave an even bigger gap in two weeks. A little bit of credit can help them, but only if they stretch it out. Host joe is calling in from lewis, colorado. Joe, you are on with nick bourke. Caller i am 65 years old, and when i see wrong here is first of all hello . Host you are on, joe. Old, andm 65 years what i see wrong here is this gentlemans idea of helping these people would loans is completely the wrong way down the road. Here is the problem. We dont people we dont teach people how to budget, we dont teach them how to do mathematical equations so they can even figure out their Checking Account. We need to go back to teaching the new generation on how to budget, and on their wants and needs. He wants to propose a way for them to be able to keep getting their wants, lets get their needs taken care of by teaching them how to budget their money. What we are proposing here is a lifetime of servitude to these loans. We need to teach people mathematics. Nick aets give it chance to respond. Is this a matter of poor budgeting . That is a vertically legitimate sentiment that i just heard, and i agree with it. We need to do a better job in this country getting People Better educated in terms of how to manage their finances, but from a financially stronger generally. Number ofsurprising people in this country who you would call financially fragile. Have trouble with it budgets, they have fluctuating income, they dont have savings. Theres a big problem with that in this country. Peopleow, there are using payday loans to the tune of 12 billion in fees. We have a real and specific opportunity to save those people billions of dollars, if this new federal regulation gets into the right place. It is not there right now. If this federal regulation is improved before its finalized, banks and Credit Unions where all of these people already have relationships, we will be a help them close their shortterm gap, save a ton of money compared to paleo loans a day loans. Because they are extending their relationship with their financial institutions, that is the way we can really help people who are in this problem, not the young people who was to have a chance to maybe get into a different situation, the people who are in a bad situation right now, this is how we can get them help that they need so they can have a better future. At the federal level, we have a big opportunity to do that. And we are missing a right now. Missing it right now. Host we are talking to nick bourke with the Pew Charitable trusts. He is working on regulation of the credit card industry. You believe that these regulations fall short. Exactly what else would you like to see the agency do . Guest it is pretty simple. What we have here is a harmful and dangerous product, and they are not going to take it off of the market. They dont have the authority to regulate Interest Rates. Payday loans are here to stay. Are becoming installment loans that people pay off over months, as the net effect of what this relation will do. What they need to add to the rule is clear product safety standards, to define in federal regulation what a state installment wrong installment loan looks like. Limit Monthly Payments to affordable percent of a persons income, 5 , and make sure people have a reasonable amount of time to repay the loan. Too short and it blows up their budget. Too long, and it puts people in a cycle where they pay too much money and have bad outcomes. Six months is the right time. When the payment is 5 of a persons paycheck, make the loan last no longer than six months. This is exactly the kind of thing that would not only protect consumers, but would give banks and Credit Unions the type of guidance, clear guidance that they need in order to get into this space and serve the customers that they already have with a new type of lowcost small loan. Host up next, we have guy, calling in from maryland. You are on with nick bourke. Caller how are you doing . Can you hear me . Host we hear you, youre on. Go ahead. My problem is not so much of the payday loan people arent being i guess you can say findp for people who themselves in the situation, but are takingy advantage of a person when they are already down on their luck. That is the part that we really need to be careful about. Because if the Interest Rate is so high, then even though im getting what i need today, if it is going to put me in a worse predicament tomorrow, i havent gained anything. Im losing more than i think that i am. Bourke, do you have a reaction to that call . Pew, we have done a lot of surveys and looked at the data. That sentiment is reflected everywhere in this industry. In this whole market. Lenders are giving people a product that very predictably is a burden. Is too much for them to handle when it comes due in full after two weeks. If you look at the way the payday lenders make their revenue and become profitable, they are not profitable on a borrower until the borrower has had to renew and rebar without loan for somewhere between four and eight times. The paydayus that lender the very start of the relationship of the borrower, they know theyre not good to be profitable unless they find a way to get that person to renew or rebar the loan four to eight times. Fair businesst a model, not the way the market should work in this country. And that is why the cfp b is try to do something. Pam up next we have calling in from ohio. You have used a payday loan. You were on with nick bourke. Caller hello, that. Back to ohio, i lived in florida for 33 years. The first loan i ever took doubt was a title loan, and took out was a title loan, and i did lose my car. In fact, it was a friend of mine that ran the title loan, and i said how does it work . I tell you what i can give you on your car, you make Monthly Payments, and in three months, i own your car. And thats pretty much exactly what happened. Of course, it broke our friendship, i didnt have a car, and maybe three years later, 2006, i was out of work for about three weeks. I went and got a 500 payday loan to pay my rent. I hear people talking about i think it was you that said they get you to come in for an five times and renew your loan. I got that the only way i got out of it was