I just want to salute you and your public work in uniform, military uniform as well as civilian clothes. I heard you say you were committed to protecting whistleblowers. I was wondering what your definition was. Im thinking of edward snowden. My dear brothers and sisters, chelsea manning, my dear brother jeffrey sterling. Two in jail, one outside of the country. Would you define them as whistleblowers or in a different way . Dr. West i put you on the spot too much. Very penetrating question. I appreciate your reflections. I would define whistleblowers as those individuals who come forward consistent with the statutes for the appropriate authorities with the appropriate clearances to adjudicate. Its my understanding that our government has designated mr. Snowden and before him, private manning to be not whistleblowers. To be in one case someone accused of violating the military justice and someone accused of violating federal law. I believe there is a pathway through the chain of command or the bureaucracies to report wrongdoing. If they saw wrongdoing they should have taken it. If they reported it to the appropriate authorities they should have been protected as we protect whistleblowers who report wrongdoing through channels. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you, sir. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, our last witness is vikram singh. Thank you very much, mr. Singh, Vice President for the National Security and International Policy at American Progress previously he served as the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for Southeast Asia at the pentagon where he advised Senior Leadership on all policy matters pertaining to development and Defense Strategies and plans for the region until november 2011. Mr. Singh was a deputy special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the u. S. Department of state. Welcome. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you to the cochairs and all of you for inviting me to testify here at the end of a long day. I have been asked to talk about the nature of leadership coming first in the day or last in the day is appropriate. As you said im the Vice President at the center of American Progress. I 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 vision will be critical for our nations security in the years ahead. We face an unparalleled diversity of threats and challenges touched on by witnesses throughout the day today. Almost none of them can be handled by any one nation acting alone. This is why i think principled American Leadership is key to the future security and prosperity. When america leads well the world becomes safer and more secure. When we turn inward it is the opposite. Principled leadership starts with honest appraisal of the threats we face rooted in fact not fear. Principled leadership requires building coalitions, deterring conflict and encouraging a path to engagement when crisis strikes. This kind of leadership finds its political home in the modern Democratic Party for several reasons. First democratic leadership use war as a last resort, never a first choice. Democrats will always use force if needed to protect americans but see that unilateralism and preventive war are failures of leadership. Second democrats recognize the importance of partners. We are better off with partners than going it alone. We stand with our friends and allies. Finally democrats understand diplomacy, development and economic state craft are critical to stopping crises. We fight for greater investment in the nonmilitary tools of the National Power in order to make us more safe. Principled 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, syria and other nations take back territory from extremists. Territory from which they can launch attacks not only in the local area but far afield in europe or the United States. Disrupting the flow of foreign fighters is important. We have to go after the communications, finance, ability to travel and we have to toughen up our defenses at home. This is not just a military problem. We need to recognize the ideology of hate thats created jihadi terrorism was nurtured over years by investments in education made by those who had these kinds of beliefs. We need to start thinking about how to invest in a different type and help others do so. We need global help to forge a path for stability, fend off threats for militants and find viable Political Solutions to heal divisions in the society by reducing sectarian politics. We cannot do it for them. We can help them work at it. To counter nuclear proriff litigation, another example. We need to bring nations together as the Obama Administration managed to do to impose sanctions and negotiate a deal that brought an end to irans Current Nuclear ambitions. If enforced will delay them for years or perhaps permanently. That tough approach backed by military power and deterrents can apply to other threats like north korea. Or to handle chinas rise. We need a combination of resolve and engagement. We need to welcome chinas larger role on the world stage. Should they be subjected to coercion or bullying or the seizure of territory thats been disputed between parties. A similar truth applies to our engagement with russia. We need to stand by ukraine which has been the victim of aggression and the loss of its territory through the use of force in contravention of international law. We may need to continue to support longterm economic sanctions. Perhaps for an indefinite period. We need to encourage others to have resolve in this area. It doesnt mean we cannot do anything with russia. We should be clear about whats acceptable and what is not and what we stand for. Last example to protect our government 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 im well over my time. Yes. I wanted to touch on the contrast with republicans. Perhaps we can do that in the questions. Thank you very much. How would you contrast what you said with what the republican position might be. [laughter] i think i can contrast it very starkly. The contrast with republicans right now couldnt be more stark. Republicans nominated a candidate who thinks Nuclear Proliferation might be ok. Republicans have nominated a candidate who thinks maybe we should pull out of alliances like nato or maybe its ok to target the families of terrorists. To say the bulk of the Republican Party doesnt support those views and it is because they have an outlier as a candidate is a great disservice. Thats not what we are talking about here. What do you advise us on the u. S. Paying dues to the u. N. Pulling out of institutions like unesco. A few years ago when palestinians joined unesco, we by operation of law had to pull out. I felt that wasnt us at our best. There are a few institutions, examples like us stepping away from multilateral institutions. Should the democratic platform reflect some commitment to multilateralism and the u. S. Playing a leadership role. Representative ellison, we need to focus on multilateralism at the table. You cannot lead if you are not at the table. Simply withdrawing in protest is often a satisfying in the near term. Perhaps politically expedient. At the end of the day we leave we only lead when we show up. You mentioned the situation in ukraine. The problem is actually broader than that, isnt it . There is georgia, muldova and poland. There is real insecurity. I want you to broaden out the discussion about europe and the challenges we face in europe visavis russia and as mentioned juan earlier witness the problem of refugees now changing the Political Landscape in europe in a very threatening way. Could you discuss i know thats a lot. I feel that our platform needs to reflect how we ebb gauge europe visavis russia and the challenges we face there whether it is expansion of nato further or and how we deal with the issue of this radicalization process thats taking place on many fronts. Partly as a result of the backlash to refugees coming into europe. This refugee crisis is the kind of crisis that tests us at a very profound level. When it is reacted to in fear it Sparks Division and the kind of rise of right wing populism we are seeing in many countries. It is really only going to be something that enables Greater Unity if we rise to it with basically an openness and an embracing of people that are in desperate desperate straits. I think the party can articulate the long standing commitment to that basic humanitarianism, not just because its good for the people. But it is ultimately good for our interests. I think this is going to be the biggest challenge the european project has faced in the last 70 years. I dont know where it will come out but the United States should be on the side of a unified europe that seeks to stop the root causes of the violence thats driving them from their homes. On russia, its simple. There is a pattern. It is not a new pattern. It goes back to georgia, muldova, ukraine. In ukraine it was the most extreme example we have seen to date. The question now is can russian behavior be channelled and shaped through steady resolve from the rest of the world. The rest of the world may not include everybody. It will include us and our european allies. I hope the bite of sanctions, the opportunity to reengage and reshape the kind of relationship we are going to have with russia will lead to a different kind of decision down the road. In the meantime, it is very important to know that we are going to be there with our friends and that we are going to not decide that it is ok to retroactively accept this kind of violation of sovereignty which is, after all, fundamental principles and local stability. Our final question. Did you have a question . Yes. Im sorry. I wanted to ask a very simple question. I think these issues get very confusing about unilateralism. Unilateral actions. What is the standard around military engagement . What do you think is the right way for the military to ever use force ever . And then of the candidates, i am not familiar with a president ial candidate at the moment on the democratic side who has called for unilateral action without allies, who is calling for boots on the ground anywhere. I would love to get your thoughts on those two issues. I think im glad we dont have a democratic candidate calling for unilateral action and boots on the ground everywhere. I think thats the hallmark of the pru denlt use of our power, the responsible use of our power. I do think there is a distinction between a large scale invasion and invasion in helping a country manage our Regional Security challenge. I think putting for example 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 ever have just a simple litmus test. Most of the situations that threaten americans are complex and rapidly evolving and we hope we have chosen leader who will decide wisely. It requires that we always comply with the law of conflict, the law of war. That we stick 2 our principles. That we have identified what a threat is and what the military tool can do with that threat. And that our leaders, civilian leaders are taking the advice of our military leaders. But if americans are really threatened it is appropriate to use all of the tools at our disposal to protect americans. If our allies and friends are threatened or are suffering a domestic catastrophe, it is appropriate for us to figure out means of Security Assistance to help them secure their own countries. Did you have a question . Im sorry. I didnt see you. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for that testimony which was the right way to end the day. Nuanced, interesting, stimulating in all kinds of ways. You did a good job. I was quite interested. You were talking about some of the almost overdetermined causes of the crisis in syria. It struck me that one you didnt get to was this spate of Academic Studies in the last few years demonstrating the greatest drought to hit the fertile crescent in thousands of years may be a deep underlying factor. I guess in the larger sense what it made me wonder, Climate Change is arguably maybe not arguably the greatest Global Program we have ever faced. It is not a problem thats easily fit into our kind of National Security thinking in any of the National Security establishments. Its been set in some place betwixt and between. Do you think thats changing post paris . Do you think it really is are there ways to help make it a lens through which we understand Foreign PolicyGoing Forward . Thank you for that question. In the fiveminute version of the 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 instability and conflict and one of the largest threats to american National Security. The National Intelligence council has long recognized the same thing. So in congruence with the Scientific Community of the world, our National Security professionals see that this is a fundamental challenge. I believe the tide is turning to the point at which well Start 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 a very important change. It is something this party can highlight in this platform in ways that will advance the debate significantly. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank you for your testimony. We really appreciate it. [applause] want to thank all the witnesses who appeared today. Want to thank chairman Debbie Wassermanschultz for doing a great job and the entire staff. Thank you. In the meantime, you know, we are going to be meeting on february 17 and 18 in phoenix. If you have any concerns, things that may have come up. Documents you may need. Andy grossman is the person you want to be in touch with. Hes very excited to hear from you. Again, i want to thank the all of our members of the committee for your time and for your efforts. As i said, when we first met, this is a very important time in our countrys history. A very important time for our country. We are so blessed to have this opportunity to be able to be part of a road map not only for the next election but for the next generation and for generations yet unborn. I will see you in phoenix. Byebye now. [applause] cspans washington journal is live every day. The first hour of the program to the life and legacy of mohammed ali. The, with the release of Bipartisan Policy Commission on Retirement Security earlier this week, the cochairs of that commission, former senator kent conrad of north dakota and former Deputy Commissioner for the Social SecurityAdministration James lockhart talked about the commissions findings and the obstacles to workers Financial Security and waste to enhance and secure retirement and personal savings. The show to watch cspans washington journal beginning live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern friday morning, join the discussion. Friday, a Memorial Service for boxer and civil rights ali, who diedmad at age 74. Eulogies include bill clinton and bryant gumbel. You can see that on our website, cspan. Org. Madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the United States. [cheers and applause] the u. S. House is debating a bill dealing with puerto rico 72 billion debt. Now, covering the debate. Give us the current state of puerto ricos financial stability. What is congresss oversight role in that . It is not good. There is not enough to pay the debt the island has incurred. Todayuts us where we are with congress. Congress has a constitutional obligation to monitor the territories, including puerto rico. In the situation the house is trying to advance legislation that would allow puerto rico to restructure some of that debt and establish an outside board to oversee the islands finances similar to what we saw in washington, d. C. Back in the mid1990s. That headline on your piece said the households for strong showings on her bills. What are some of those details in that legislation that are drawing bipartisan support . Bill islot of ways the kind of an essential compromise. There are two main planks, the control board is to the finance is brought back on track by an outside body, and the debt restructuring which was the central piece who insisted that the early go has to be