CD 1 Candidates offer perspectives at first-ever Peace Forum
"H.G. Wells pointed out that if we don't end war, war will end us."
An ad-hoc coalition of Rhode Island peace groups held an in-person Peace Advocates’ Candidate Forum on Monday, 7 August at the Weaver Library in East Providence. The room was packed with attendees.
Six of the Democratic candidates for Congress accepted the invitation to attend the forum, including Walter Berbrick, Stephanie Beauté, Ana Quesada, Don Carlson, John Goncalves, and Spencer Dickinson.
These candidates were asked a series of foreign policy questions on diverse subjects such as Ukraine, United States security, our role in the world, military spending, the United Nations Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and more. Candidates received the list of questions in advance to help them prepare for the forum.
At the forum, questions were assigned randomly, and not all candidates were asked all the questions, but at any time a candidate could answer a question they were not assigned by playing one of three yellow cards. The yellow cards could also be used to generate extra time to answer other questions.
The forum was designed to raise foreign policy and budget issues of high importance with which Rhode Island’s newest national politician will need to contend. Organizers wanted candidates to show what new approaches they have to offer.
“In light of our two US Senators’ support for the current astronomical US military budget increase, we would like to know our next Congressperson’s thoughts on this important issue,” said Nancy Hood, one of the organizers of the Peace Advocates’ Forum.
The groups organizing the forum included: East Bay Citizens for Peace, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team, No Endless War or Excessive Militarism, Providence FCNL Advocacy Team, Rhode Island Anti-War Committee, and Pax Christi Rhode Island.
See my other Congressional District One race interviews here:
See my other articles on the Congressional District One race interviews here:
CD1 candidate Allen Waters declines public forum invitation due to his anti-trans bigotry
Sabina Matos breaks silence on nomination signature collection scandal
Full coverage: Democratic Women's Caucus holds CD 1 candidate forum
Local addiction, recovery, and harm reduction organizations host RI-CD1 candidate forum
CD 1 Candidates answer questions at the first-ever Peace Forum
Jonathan Daly-LaBelle: Good Evening. I'm a member of Rhode Island's vibrant peace community. I'd like to welcome all of you to this evening's Peace Advocates' Candidate Forum.
Many peace organizations were involved in putting this forum together. We are hopeful that this will be an educational and entertaining event and will raise awareness of these many challenging issues of our time. We are hopeful the dialogue this evening will be built upon in the weeks and months ahead.
Steve Ahlquist: We're going to start with opening statements from the candidates.
Walter Berbrick: It is great to see so many familiar faces, but I know you didn't come out here to see us. You came out because you believe in what this country and this community could be. Despite 70% of our nation's wealth is held by 10% of Americans, you believe that we can have an economy that works for working people, despite how polarizing and petty our politics are today. You still believe that we can unite a divided nation and a divided Congress around a common purpose, and despite this being the hottest year on record, you believe that we can save our planet. Those are the same beliefs that compelled me to resign from 15 years of federal service to continue serving and fighting for you in Congress.
Ana Quesada: I'm a state senator for district two in Providence. That's the Reservoir Triangle, West End, South Side, and Silver Lake neighborhoods. I'm part of the Judiciary and Education Committees in the Senate. Since I've been in the Senate, I passed many pieces of legislation for working families in Rhode Island, like raising the minimum wage, the doula bill, and many others. I'm here tonight because I want people to know I love Rhode Island. I'm running for Congress because I love this country. I came to this country in 1982 when I was 17 years old and I am somebody who worked in factories most of my life. When I moved to Rhode Island, I started as a welfare mom because there was no job at that time. After that, I became a social worker. I'm very impressed with the work and the opportunity this country gave to me.
Don Carlson: I was born here in Rhode Island, grew up here in Rhode Island, and went to public schools all 12 years here. Got a great education which prepared me to go to a great college and get a great scholarship, which put me on a whole different trajectory. I'm appreciative of the education that I got and I believe that's the key to success in life. Every young person growing up in Rhode Island should go as far and as fast as they can go by getting a great education. That's my first commitment. I've also had a long career. I've done a lot of things. I've worked in the House of Representatives, which is the job work we're interviewing for tonight. I was the legislative director and chief counsel for Joseph Kennedy for his first two terms of Congress and then chief of the transition for Jim Hymes when he got elected to Congress. I've had a long history and a lot of sustainable businesses, which I hope I'll have a chance to talk about tonight. Mostly I hope we can talk about peace. Everybody in this room is committed to the principle of peace, candidates and spectators alike. For a lot of us, it's grounded in our faith. I hope we can explore that topic tonight.
Spencer Dickinson: My credentials are very simple. I served 12 years in the Rhode Island legislature, eight of them as a resident of the first district and four of them as a deputy majority leader. I know what goes on behind closed doors and sometimes it's not a pretty picture and often it's spending money on things that if we didn't spend it on what we're spending it on, we could spend it on what we should be spending it on. That's a simple concept. I want to point out that my friend Jonathan Daley-LaBelle, who introduced this forum, got me elected into the state legislature 12 years ago. He may not have been glad he did, but he acknowledges and takes credit for it. My friends William Smith talked me into building the first solar-heated house, which we did to make a point. The point was, and I'll try to keep it simple, we didn't want to build [a] nuclear power plant, and we wanted to show people alternatives. Not to mention that he was thankfully aware of climate change, even then, many years ago.
John Goncalves: I'm a two-term city councilman representing the east side and downtown in the City of Providence. I'm running for Congress to put people first. In our country, we see politics put before people and the reason I'm in this fight is because what I stand for isn't theoretical. I grew up in poverty to a single-parent mother on the east side of Providence. I was lucky enough to get a good education from Vartan Gregorian, Providence Public Schools from K through eight, and it was then-Congressman Cicilline who helped me get into middle school. The rest is history. I went to Brown for undergrad and grad school and I've been serving in my community ever since. As a teacher, I teach my kids about peace and that's something that we're going to talk about tonight so thrilled to have that discussion.
Stephanie Beauté: I didn't get to be born here in beautiful Rhode Island, but I did stay here. I was born in Brooklyn. When my parents separated, two years afterward my mom decided to move to Rhode Island. I've been here since the seventh grade and I have not left since then. I went to Gilbert Stuart Middle School, and Hope High School, and got a scholarship with the talent development program at URI to be able to afford college. I'm the first person in my family to go to college and since then others have followed. My sister's a pediatrician, she would argue she's the smarter Beauté.
I'm running for Congress because I am good at fixing things. In college, I was part of Jumpstart, teaching kids how to read so that they were prepared for kindergarten. I was an AmeriCorps member, and I am proud of that community service. After that, I became a social worker for folks with developmental disabilities. I did that for some time. I got my master's and I've been in tech ever since. All the boring, nerdy stuff, that's what I do. We look at fixing things - the intermediate then the first year, five years, and 10 years out. We should have someone that's more solutions based.
Steve Ahlquist: The first four questions are in the form of pledges, the idea being that you either support the pledge or not.
Pledge A: As a result of the debt ceiling negotiations between the President and the House Republicans, the 2024 budget allocates a 28 billion dollar increase to the Pentagon, while decreasing the domestic portion of the discretionary budget by 63 billion dollars. This includes reduced spending on veterans’ programs. The outcome is a record-high military budget of 886 billion dollars or almost 56% of the discretionary budget and cuts in programs for the most needy. [Info from National Priorities Project]
I pledge that if elected, I will support Reps. Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan’s PEOPLE OVER PENTAGON ACT or other measures to reduce the military budget by $100 billion.
Stephanie Beauté: My answer to that is yes.
John Goncalves: Going to do something a little unorthodox, but my answer to that question is hell, yes.
Spencer Dickinson: I don't think that people running for office should commit themselves to issues that they're not fully familiar with. Having served 12 years as a legislator, I know that you've got to listen to the testimony before you make a decision.
Don Carlson: I've had 40 years to think about this one, so I'm a yes.
Ana Quesada: Yes.
Walter Berbrick: This actually might come as a surprise for folks, but having spent the last 20 years working on this very issue, I agree. I'm going to say yes.
Steve Ahlquist: Pledge B: The 2010 Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court allows corporations to fund political campaigns. Some feel that this ruling has dramatically shifted political power in the US toward corporations, including wealthy military contractors that profit from wars.
I pledge to not take any contributions from military “defense” weapons manufacturing corporate executives, employees, or affiliated PACs, and reject support from the same industry Super PACs.
Walter Berbrick: Yes.
Ana Quesada: Yes.
Don Carlson: Yes, concerning PACs No, concerning individual citizens who have First Amendment rights to participate.
Spencer Dickinson: It's probably the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made, causing us a lot of trouble. But again, I'm going to follow my example of this, not the right time to be making that type of pledge.
John Goncalves: Yes, we need to end Citizens United and we also need to stop the massive spending from some of these defense contractors in our political process. It's why our campaign doesn't accept any corporate PAC money or any fossil fuel money.
Stephanie Beauté: I will follow the rules and just say, yes.
Steve Ahlquist: Pledge C: Through malfunctions, mistakes, and miscommunication over the past seventy years there have been 15 or more times when nuclear war nearly broke out. Perhaps the most promising response to this danger is the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now in effect as international law in 68 nations, but which the US has not yet joined. If the US signs this treaty, encourages other nuclear-armed nations to join it, and agrees to ratify it when they do, the US might become a world leader in dismantling the nuclear threat. Some members of Congress have signed the ICAN Parliamentary Pledge, a pledge to work toward US acceptance of this treaty, so we are asking: Would you sign this pledge as well?
Stephanie Beauté: Yes.
John Goncalves: Yes.
Spencer Dickinson: This will surprise you. No. But find out why...
Don Carlson: I read through the whole treaty and the pledge this morning and my answer is no.
Ana Quesada: Yes.
Walter Berbrick: The truth is, we are one wrong decision away and a miscalculation away from nuclear conflict. My answer is yes.
Steve Ahlquist: Pledge D: Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” For Congress to reclaim its Constitutional responsibility to debate the pros and cons before sending US soldiers to war.
I pledge that if elected I will vote for repeal of the 1957, 1991, 2001, and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs).
Walter Berbrick: Yes to 1957, 1991, and 2002 repeal. We need to replace 2001 because it's outdated.
Ana Quesada: Yes.
Don Carlson: A definite yes.
Spencer Dickinson: I am strongly with the spirit of this. But again, the devil is in the details and we need to know what they are. By the way, I have to work in some facts as I go along because I couldn't talk fast enough to get it in the opening statement. I have many relatives who are Quakers. I served in the army, and so did my two sons. These are complicated issues. We have to know what we're talking about.
John Goncalves: Yes.
Stephanie Beauté: I've read it and I say yes.
Steve Ahlquist: Now for the longer form questions.
What do you think are the greatest security threats facing Americans today, and does our military budget help address them? Please explain.
Stephanie Beauté: The biggest threat currently facing our nation is cyber risk and cybersecurity. People can infiltrate the social media you're receiving, create propaganda, and create instability among our communities. It is a big threat and we do not know who is doing that. We saw that, two presidential elections ago, Russia was infiltrating our social media and pushing propaganda to cause Hillary Clinton to lose the election. That creates instability. When you think of all the things we do online, the way that we shop, the way that we build, and the way that we interact with each other, people can use that information to take your bank account information, pair that with machine learning and AI to sound like me, and you think that you donated to your daughter or to someone that you care about. That creates a dangerous precedent that our military budget doesn't have the funds to address.
John Goncalves: There are several threats. Mass surveillance is a major threat in our country and globally. But I would like to pivot. We focus a lot of our attention on China, Russia, and the aggression that we're experiencing internationally, but the domestic terrorism from within is something that we need to address. Our democracy is under assault, especially from MAGA and extremist Republicans who are more intent on undermining our quality of life and human rights, and we need to fight back. That's something we need to focus on because a lot of threats are from within. If we don't address those issues wholeheartedly, we may cease to exist as a nation. We all care deeply about democracy.
Ana Quesada: I agree with Stephanie. Cybersecurity is the biggest one, and I don't think the United States or the Army can fix that problem. But another thing is climate change. Climate change is a big one because if we don't fix that problem, we are not going to be having anything. What we leave to our children in the future if we don't fix climate change? I was looking at the news today and something happened in Alaska. It surprised me and that is affecting everybody. We have to work very closely with our nation to fix climate change for us to be able to save our world and to have our country for our children and grandchildren.
Walter Berbrick: Climate change is an existential threat to our national security. But in the long term, I believe the single greatest threat to the United States and our interest abroad is the Chinese Communist Party and the strengthening relationship between China and Russia on the political front, militarily and economically. Right now, the most urgent and dangerous threat to Americans is Russia's war in Ukraine. There's a very real possibility that this war could escalate both in terms of its intensity but also beyond the scope of Ukraine. So those are the three biggest threats that I see, which is why, as your representative in Congress, I'm going to make it a point to make sure that all representatives, both Democrat and Republican, on both sides of the aisle, understand the severity and scope of the Russia problem set and also bring folks to a consensus on a long-term strategy to deal with the Russian Federation.
Steve Ahlquist: At the breakup of the Soviet Union, the US pledged not to extend NATO eastward, as has now happened. Some US diplomats (including Jack Matlock, former US Ambassador to Russia) see this as a provocation although not an excuse for the Russian invasion. As a Congressperson, what do you think should be the role of the US in the Ukraine war right now?
Walter Berbrick: Time after time, throughout our history, each generation has stepped up and answered the call to defend democracy and preserve peace, and it's our turn, right now. As a country, I believe we have a fundamental obligation to support the people of Ukraine, and number one, it starts with making sure that Ukrainian sovereignty and its territorial integrity are restored. Not what it was two years ago or even in 2014, but what it was in 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Number two, it's making sure that we integrate Ukraine into the NATO and European Union family, both economically and security. That doesn't mean right this second, but being strategic and smart about gradually doing that. And number three, it's making sure that Ukrainian people have the training, the resources, and the capability to defend themselves and defeat Russian attacks.
Ana Quesada: As somebody who came from Latin America, I have seen the United States intervene in many issues in Latin America for years. What happened in the nineties in Panama, and what happened in the sixties in the Dominican Republic? I can mention many other countries. The United States was even sometimes making sure that certain politicians were getting power in different countries. The United States has to continue supporting Ukraine. Seeing the news every day, seeing what's going on with the elderly, youth, and children being killed - they're fighting to be free and we are the leading country for freedom. We need to support them. They're fighting for the same rights the United States fought for. We fight to be free, to be able to have our own country and to make our own decisions.
Don Carlson: I agree with the first two speakers. we need to stand by the Ukrainian people. They're fighting for their freedom as well as our freedom. They're on the front lines right now doing that. it's appropriate that we're supporting them, both with humanitarian aid and with the equipment they need to fight the good fight. They're standing up for our freedoms and we should support them.
That said, I do think that the expansion of NATO, close to the Russian border, is a provocative act. One of the things we should remember is that had we admitted Ukraine into NATO five or six years ago, we would be at war with Russia right now because they invaded. it's an important thing to think about. It's important to think about things we can do to ease tensions with Russia as opposed to accelerating tensions with Russia. Getting closer and closer to their border, by having more and more countries join NATO, is a provocation. That said, NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive alliance. it's perhaps unreasonable for the Russians to feel provoked, but they do feel provoked. it's important to ease tensions and limit the extension of NATO closer to the Russian border.
Spencer Dickinson: The question is very well worded. I remember feeling strongly, when the Soviet Union broke up, that expanding NATO was a very serious mistake, and that's proved to be true. It did not make NATO any stronger. It did not add to our security. On the other hand, we are where we are. I don't think we can allow this to happen. We can't let Putin do what he's doing and overcome Ukraine, make it part of a new Soviet Union, as he wants to do.
I mentioned I was in the army. I mentioned I had Quaker relatives, but I also want to tell you that what brought me into politics was George McGovern. Some of you are so young, you have no idea what I'm talking about, but I worked for George McGovern in several places, three states, and I was a McGovern delegate and I knew why. And if anybody wants to know, we can talk about it sometimes.
Steve Ahlquist: The United States of America is the world's largest arms exporter, accounting for 40% of global arms sales during 2018-22 (SIPRI Arms Transfer Database, March 2023). Very often these sales are to governments in the Middle East, Central America, Africa, and Asia that are among the worst human rights abusers in the world. Please share some of your thoughts on these concerns, and what do you see as Congress’ role in addressing these concerns, if any?
Don Carlson: Reading this question and preparing for the debate tonight, I felt ashamed that the United States is the world's biggest arms supporter, arms provider, and arms manufacturer. That's not something we want our country to be. We want our country to be strong and vital, but we also want it to be an instrument towards peace in the world. I don't think that we should be supporting this kind of arms production. Maybe it helps our GDP, but I don't think we need that kind of help. it's a good idea for us to move away from that and for Congress to play a role in preventing the sale of arms to foreign countries. Unless it advances the strategic or economic imperatives of the United States, we shouldn't be in that business. There are lots of other businesses in the world, awesome ways to make money in the world, we don't need to do this.
Spencer Dickinson: I agree with the spirit of what we're talking about here. We need to not base our economy on arms, but it's a lot more complicated than that. If I may loop back, one of the things that made me step into this race was not just teacher and state employee pensions, which you're going to hear about a lot because there's something we can do. I care about it and I know about it. I've studied history a little bit and I understand the two rules of history. Every major conflict is resolved by war. Go back 2000 years and take notes. Every weapon system is used. That tells me something. It could be in two years, it could be in two months, it could be in 200 years. We're going to blow ourselves off this planet and we're not approaching the problem correctly today because if we were, we would've settled it in the last 50 years. I give a lot of credit to Oppenheimer for doing what he gets credit for, which is a world without a war, but we need to go beyond that.
John Goncalves: My fourth graders fundamentally understand this: kindness and peace. I teach a developmentally appropriate lesson on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has to do with a story during the Japanese internment camps. It's a story called Sylvia & Aki. I want a future for my kids where we don't have nuclear weapons. That's what we should be striving for. I might not have to remind you of the fact that the anti-war movement, although it was a long time ago, you were around for it. It is still alive and well.
Our military-industrial complex is exactly what's wrong with this country. And I'll go out on a whim and say that because I want peace in this world. I want the kids that I teach to have peace in this world as well.
Stephanie Beauté: I'm going to tie in some of the language that was used prior, but unless we're in the arms business for the strategic and imperative business of the United States, the arms business is one of the things that caused the conflict with Afghanistan. We were there to strategically support, we provided them with training and we had a clutch of communities that turned into what we now call the Taliban. Those are the same people who were trained by United States military personnel, who now use those weapons for their guerilla tactics to hurt not only their communities but also the American soldiers who were trying to keep and maintain peace. The United States' position has always been that weapons have been profitable and war has been profitable because that's how they have sales. The instability in a lot of nations, especially a lot of African nations, has been the result of that. The only way we change that is by changing the way that we look at our relationships. Instead of it being a business it should be a partnership to keep the peace.
Steve Ahlquist: The United States is leading the global arms race, including the fabrication of a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines and other types of enhanced nuclear weapons. What are your thoughts on whether this escalation will make us in Rhode Island and across the country more safe or less safe?
John Goncalves: It is not going to make us safe. Weapons of war and weapons of destruction aren't going to make us safe. We are going to annihilate ourselves if we don't take this very seriously. I'm tired of the fact that the top five military contractors are getting these big contracts and we don't have real auditing at the Pentagon. The fact that we had a $28 billion increase in our military budget is problematic. We are spending massive amounts of money on potentially annihilating ourselves. I am going to say, every single day of the week, we need to be investing in jobs and education, not war and annihilation.
Spencer Dickinson: I take a different view. I don't know the details of how much we're spending on nuclear submarines. I don't know what we're spending on nuclear carriers. There are only two countries that can make them. We have 10, and France has one. They're electric speedboats. If we didn't have them, we'd be in deep trouble. That's a serious problem. Is that an excuse for profiteering from arms and weapons? No, and we have to address the issue, but I am glad that we have the F 35 and F 22. I'm glad that my cousin is working on arms for those planes. I'm glad that prevents things from happening that we wouldn't want to have happen. I am very glad that I was born in this country in 1943 instead of in Europe. There are a lot of people who suffered. There are a lot of people in China who suffered from our friends, the Japanese occupying them. We can't let that happen. This is a very serious problem. There's an old expression, maybe I'll end with it. Those who don't respect their army will soon find themselves respecting someone else's. There's a different way to deal with these problems.
Don Carlson: I went to my first disarmament conference in 1983, ironically at West Point, which was an interesting place to go to a disarmament conference. It was a great learning experience and I went back and dug out my notes in preparation for tonight. One of the first things you learn when you study these issues is that submarines are different. The nice thing about submarines, and believe it or not, there is a nice thing about them, is that they can't be taken out in the first strike. If you wanted to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons, the last ones to go should be the submarines because they're not first-strike weapons. After all, they're so well hidden beneath the surface of the sea. I don't agree with the submarine part of it, even though I'm a vigorous advocate for nuclear disarmament in general.
Steve Ahlquist: The United States currently has 750 military bases in more than 80 countries. Do you think that the US military should be in a position to dominate the world indefinitely? What might the benefits be of seeing the US as part of a multipolar world instead?
Walter Berbrick: We're already in a multipolar world. Every day we see authoritarian governments like China and Russia redefining and undermining the international order that we have spent the last 75 years plus defending, alongside our allies and partners. A big reason why we've been so successful is because we have our forces forward deployed.
A couple of things: One, it allows us to deter potential conflict. Two, it allows us to rapidly respond to natural disasters and things like that. It also allows us to reassure our allies that we've got their back when they need us most. I know many Rhode Islanders are frustrated when we see a skyrocketing military budget while the cost and the quality of life continue to decrease. As the world changes, as the global security environment changes, we need to take a very hard look at our global force posture and make sure that we can reduce it smartly.
Don Carlson: I wrote a piece one time on the no-first-use of nuclear weapons. For a long time, and still, the United States has a policy, that we have not renounced, of being the first ones to use nuclear weapons if there's ever an attack in Europe. That's a concerning issue, right? That's a big issue for me because Germany doesn't need our troops there to defend itself. They're a trip wire. They're there so that we have a reason to use nukes first in Europe. That's a bad decision. On a selective basis, we should pull back our troops from those forward-deployed bases where we don't need them. We have the technology to project firepower, to project force all around the world with our ships, planes, and so forth. We don't need to have bases in other countries, except in specific areas where it's important for the defense of that country, security of that country, and they want us there. We should selectively pull those bases back. And boy, that's a great way to pull back that hundred billion that we all pledged to do before without giving any specifics about it. That's my specifics.
Stephanie Beauté: This one is a bit of a conflict for me. I was talking to one of my relatives. He went to West Point, he served on several military bases in foreign places and we were talking about this question and his experience with it. There is value to being abroad and overseas and building relationships because a lot of times, when we hear military bases - and that was honestly my assumption that they're preparing for a war or they're there for stability issues - but his time there has been building relationships and doing diplomacy with the community. And for them, it's the first time that they've seen a white person ever in their life in Southeast Asia, in these remote locations. When they see America, they are interacting with soldiers that are putting their best face forward. On the other hand, when soldiers went to Haiti after the earthquake to bring stability and help there, there was the issue with soldiers doing fecal waste. That caused a cholera outbreak and created more problems. I'm a bit on the fence. I know that didn't answer the question and didn't solve the problem, but I wanted to showcase both sides of the issue.
Steve Ahlquist: How do the military tensions in which our country and other countries are involved relate to the international cooperation needed to solve the climate crisis?
Stephanie Beauté: I don't think that the military will help resolve any of our climate crises because a lot of the nations that we're trying to invest in are poor. The investments we're looking for, especially when we're relying on gadgets like an iPhone, you produce cobalt for where? Angola. You have people mining and causing wars and instability because that is wealth. If I told everyone to give up their iPhones for peace, you won't get a consensus on that. When you talk about folks who are, for example, in the Caribbean, who use coal to fire up because they can't afford to have stability and electricity in their spaces, they have to cut down trees to be able to eat. How will you be able to convince someone that I can't cut down trees to boil water, but only one hour of electricity a day? I don't think that that resolves anything, especially with military tensions. I want us to be pragmatic and honest about what we're asking people to do.
Spencer Dickinson: I remember a couple of years ago when some military people, speaking with authority, said that they respected the climate crisis and they were among the first people in major roles to do that. I appreciated that. They were telling us the truth. It's a little more complicated in my mind and I appreciate you letting me look back occasionally. These issues are very complicated. Any one of these questions is worth at least an hour or two or more from us here, and we would all learn from each other if we did that. I want to reiterate the fact that I believe nuclear war or the use of nuclear weapons is probably far more serious than any other threat that we face. It may not happen in our lifetime, but it probably will happen, and I don't like probably. I have some ideas on how we can resolve it and why this is probably the best time in history to do it. I'd be happy to discuss that.
These issues are very complicated. We have vast power. I would not be the one to throw that power away. We should just make sure we're using it responsibly. This is the role of Congress, not to grandstand, not to do showbiz, which I'm afraid is what happens a lot, but to care. If you elect me, there are some people I'm going to talk to and we're going to not let up on the issue of resolving the nuclear threat.
Ana Quesada: I don't think the military can help solve climate change. If we ask Puerto Ricans how that island was being destroyed because the army used it many times for military testing. You can see the destruction there after that happened. Then I don't think the army or the military can fix climate change. They make it worse. When you see what happened in many countries, they are worse after the military leaves. This is an issue because countries, especially the United States, go there to test [weapons] and you can see the destruction and how bad the climate is in those countries/
Walter Berbrick: The question is, how do military tensions impact a country's ability to cooperate on our climate crisis? Let me tell you a real, practical story. I spent a year working at the State Department under Secretary John Kerry under President Obama during the United States chairmanship of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is one of the only forums that allows the United States and Russia to cooperate on issues related to climate change. As a result of Russia's war in Ukraine, we no longer have any way to cooperate with Russia on climate change issues. The question is about how tensions and confrontation between countries impact climate change. There's a direct correlation. We must understand that correlation but also have a plan to address it.
Don Carlson: Here's one where we can tie some questions together. I would like the first impression of people who experienced the United States not to be a soldier with a gun. I'd rather have it be an engineer with a solar panel. I would rather use the money we spend on a military base developing alternatives to coal-fired plants and alternatives to people burning coal and cutting down the Amazon and cutting down forests and instead deploying renewable energy around the world. I am part of a company that developed an app for your phone that makes every qualified electrician in India and Africa a solar engineer. It designs a system for and ships the parts right to you so you can install a solar system, to equip 15 million more solar engineers in the developing world. That's the face of the United States that we should show to the world.
Stephanie Beauté: That sounds well and all with an app, but when you're thinking about people who live in Egypt who don't have wifi access, with spotty networks, they're not interested in your solar panels, they're interested in rice, they're interested in grain, they're interested in stability, and to be able to have a roof over their heads. Having more military presence, especially with someone wearing the uniform of the military, doesn't invite warmth. It only triggers the type of chaos that they've experienced in their countries. I have many friends who fled from Liberia in the middle of a civil war and they have seen the grossest of trauma, but they have also seen how the United States has played a part in those traumas, [for example], mining for diamonds. That itself is a war. Presenting solar panels and showing them to engineers will not bring the change that we would like to see because of the relationships that we've had in the past. The way that we do that is by walking away and starting diplomacy with conversations, not enforcement.
Steve Ahlquist: As you may know, the government has some programs to support peace-building abroad, to keep conflicts from growing into bigger wars. The Institute for Economics and Peace has estimated that every dollar invested in preventing violence can save up to $16 in responding to violence. But the most recent House budget zeroes or drastically cuts funding for 3 important peace-building programs, at a time when violence is on the rise worldwide, even though funding these 3 programs adequately would cost less than just one F-35B fighter jet. Would you support increasing funding to at least: Atrocities Prevention $25 million (up from just $5 million), Complex Crises Fund $66 million (up from $60 million), Reconciliation Programs $40 million (up from $25 million)? What other suggestions would you make to promote peace-building?
John Goncalves: This is a no-brainer. I support every single one of those programs. But I want to mention something that is an undertone of something that some of my colleagues on this stage have mentioned, which is, you can hold the military accountable but also support the military. I want to be clear. I support our intelligence community. I support the military for keeping us safe. This requires nuance, but we need to invest in our veterans, who did so much for this country in the past to keep us safe. That's why I support the Veterans COLA [Cost of Living Adjustment], to support our veterans who have put their lives on the line and have done so much for us in previous eras.
Peace is the answer. We have seen the irreparable and despicable harms of war. To aspire to a world where we don't have war is an okay place to be. I want to remind everybody that 820 lobbyists in Congress are fighting to have more military spending. That's one for every single member of Congress and more. We have to fight back against that. We have to make sure that we keep our world safe, secure, and peaceful. I want to affirm the work that our military community does and I want to affirm all these critical programs.
Spencer Dickinson: These issues are getting a little more complicated. I'm sure we can't come back for 20 or 30 hours because they're worth talking about. I would like to just make an analogy that I don't think has been brought up in any of these questions. As a person building and helping other builders build solar-heated houses that saved millions of gallons of fuel over the years and still are working, most of them, I know what it's like to sit in a room with a couple of guys in suits like mine, listening in and trying to figure out what I'm about to say and why I'm so dangerous and who are they working for? When you find out it's either the electric company or somebody that makes oil, but there's more to it than that because technology takes us a long way.
When I hear somebody saying on the radio that battery cars won't work, I remember an interesting fact. There's a pyramid on top of the Washington Monument and it's made of aluminum because aluminum was more valuable than gold when the Washington Monument was built. My storm door is made out of aluminum. That's technology. A smart engineer figured out how to extract Aluminum. The same kinds of answers will address the battery issue and some of the other issues. China's building 14 coal-powered electric plants a day because they have to catch up with us. What can we do? What can we tell them? What we can tell them is we've got technology that is going to make that unnecessary. Maybe we don't know what it is, but that kind of cooperation is important. In the meantime, the job of Congress is to understand the issues and channel the energies of this incredibly rich country. We've got so much going for us.
Ana Quesada: I would support all those programs. I remember a student said to me that the biggest thing that he can have in his life was a pen. The reason he wanted a pen is because a pen give can sign peace treaties. So many times we talk about creating peace around the world. It's so hard because people don't like to communicate. We communicate the better we hear. When people get together, or all these big leaders get together, they don't want to talk to each other. They don't have a way to communicate with anybody. They just want what they want and how they want it.
The United States needs to play a bigger role to be able to go back to being the leading country of democracy and peace in the world. How we do that is by learning how to communicate with each other, how to work better with each other, and how to respect other people. Because sometimes when you don't give respect, you're not going to be able to do what you want to do in your life. The United States played a huge role since they started promoting peace around the world and not by making so many wealthy.
Don Carlson: This is chump change for Congress. This isn't billions of dollars. This is millions. This is a tiny amount of money to spend to invest in peace when we think of the cost and the devastation that is war. This is an easy question to answer because, of course, we want to negotiate. We want to create diplomatic options. We want to send in our best and brightest minds to figure this out. But also, military spending creates jobs. Let's be real about that. In Rhode Island, $7.6 billion came into our economy last year through military spending right here in the state. And they're good jobs. The issue is that we need to create forms of alternative employment to supplant those jobs. We need to shift that spending to fighting climate change instead of fighting wars. People want those solar panels because what those solar panels represent, in other places around the world, is that we are a light in the darkness, refrigeration to keep your food safe, and communication with the outside world.
It's not a solar panel, you're buying. You're buying electricity. And that's why we need to deploy resources around the world that will create great-paying union jobs for Americans and for people around the world.
Steve Ahlquist: Representative Betty McCollum (Democrat, Michigan) has introduced the Children and Families Act (H.R. 3103), which would curtail United States military funding to Israel that pays for the military detention of Palestinian children, the demolition of Palestinian homes, or the annexation of Palestinian land. As a Representative, would you support Rep. McCollum’s bill?
Walter Berbrick: I would support this bill because United States taxpayer dollars should never be used to demolish the homes of anyone or annex anyone's land, or detain children. This gets back to the human rights question that was raised earlier, right? There's a central role for Congress to make sure that we hold our executive branch accountable and make sure that our foreign arms sales, and are done in a way that keeps these countries accountable, whether we're talking about Egypt or Turkey or others. Congress has a role here and Congress needs to enhance its oversight capabilities to make sure that this doesn't happen.
Don Carlson: Israel is the best imaginable ally we could have in a tough part of the world, a part of the world that's characterized by repression, suppression of women's rights, and all kinds of historical wrongs. Israel is a great ally and a great friend, and we should not be messing around with the restrictions that we put on our aid to Israel. We depend on Israel for intelligence, technology transfer, and for all kinds of benefits to this country. We have a beautiful and strong relationship with a democratic nation. Let's remember all those protests recently. Nobody got shot at, nobody got put in jail, and nobody got pepper sprayed. That was a Democratic demonstration. Even though we disagree very strongly with what the current Israeli government is doing, we also elected a bonehead president not too long ago. We have to keep that in mind. Nobody cut off alliances with us or tried to mess with our relationships. When France erupts in chaos, we don't threaten to move out of NATO. I don't think we should abandon Israel or any form of restrictions on Israeli aid in a context where they are our best ally. If we could invent an ally, we could not make that a better one than Israel in that part of the world.
Stephanie Beauté: I think it's hypocritical to offer solar panels to starving countries, but not speak to a nation that's [delivering] some severe abuses to their neighbors. It's contradictory and it doesn't show a sense of awareness of what the plight is. To be quite honest, any type of aid that is provided to any country should have legislation tying that aid to how that country is going to use that money. We wouldn't want Ukraine to take that money to hurt other nations, right? It's not saying that we're not going to support Israel. If you are truly an ally and want to be a role model of human rights, we should expect that people who use our money represent us well. It's painful to sit back and be mute about that. If you are a true person and you have a true friendship with anyone, whether it's a sibling or a colleague, you would be honest with them about what they're doing. We need to be honest with Israel and say, to maintain that relationship and to be able to save face here, you need to do the right thing.
Steve Ahlquist: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. It sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages and inspired the adoption of over 70 human rights treaties worldwide.
Should the United States and United Nations better promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the United States and other countries? If so, how?
John Goncalves: Absolutely. This is a no-brainer. There's a difference between what we say and what we profess. We're talking about hypocrisy here. The United States has a lot of work to do in this regard. I think back to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. That was something that we pledged to in 2021. But the enforcement and the follow-through is the other critical piece. If we say these are our values, if we say peace is our value, then we need to deliver on that. We need to make sure as legislators, as members of Congress, that we hold our government accountable. We must hold the executive branch accountable, and that's exactly what I would do should I be elected to Congress. This is about accountability. This is about also putting our money where our mouth is and peace is always the way to go.
Spencer Dickinson: The United Nations is a great opportunity for this country, which is a little more enlightened than many other countries, to advance some of these human values. We're doing that and we should continue to do that. Wherever you are as an elected official anywhere, ride herd on your civil servants and diplomats, because they need your guidance. These issues are important.
If I can loop back to the Israel question, I don't like the question because it sounds like somebody is trying to start a problem and be divisive to maybe get some headlines. That's a lot of what goes on in politics and we need to get away from that and solve real problems. This'll shock you, but I'm going to say it anyway. I crossed the Israeli border from Lebanon at night with two Israeli soldiers carrying some submachine guns in the backseat of a Ford. My friend's mother was blown up by a landmine at a similar location. If somebody wants to call me up later and buy me a coffee, I'll tell you how that happened. We need to help Israel. One of the candidates here said that Israel's a friend that maybe needs our guidance or advice. Let's not ignore our responsibility to do that. There is a solution. I see a diplomatic solution. I'd like an opportunity in Congress to promote it.
Walter Berbrick: I spent the last two decades serving our country and bringing together leaders from across our government, our military, our inter-agency, our intelligence community, members of Congress, as well as our allies and partners to keep Americans safe from authoritarian governments and the threat of climate change. If we want to promote the United States declaration, it starts at home because the greatest threat isn't from abroad, it's from within. It's from right-wing extremists who are ripping away the very freedoms, values, and democracy that I've spent the last two decades defending. We've got to get our own house in order, and if we want to promote these rights, then we got to lead by example.
Steve Ahlquist: Personally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most important documents ever written, in my opinion.
China and India have the world’s largest populations and as such, they are important participants in the international political scene. Do you see the United States as primarily in conflict with these two nations, or do you see us having important economic, cultural, scientific, and security collaboration with them?
Walter Berbrick: Concerning China, there are, because of the issues that we have, military accusations of espionage and surveillance and disagreements over trade and tariffs that have prevented us from cooperating across so many issues. These economic, cultural, and educational programs provide a pathway to peace, which is one of the reasons why, when I came back from the State Department, I created and led the first program of its kind that brings together world leaders to study and come to a consensus on real solutions to prevent conflict. We published a book last fall and it is the consensus of over 45 senior leaders from across the world. That's exactly what the job of Congress is, right? You don't need legislative experience, you need to understand how to build bridges and reach consensus. That's how we collaborate.
Ana Quesada: China and the United States are not right now in the best relationship possible but we can use cultural and many other collaborations to work with them. China is growing and the United States needs to learn how to work with them. But at the same time, no longer allowing them to continue to grow the way they are. One of the things that China does is be friendly with a lot of Latin American countries, giving them a lot of money. It's a way for them to get into those countries and something the United States is not doing anymore. We have to be more careful with China. We need to be preventing how China is growing in the last few decades. There are a lot of ways for the United States to improve its relationship with China and India. We can reach out culturally and collaborate with them in different ways.
John Goncalves: When we think about the strategic and cooperative partnership for peace, that hasn't gone very well in terms of China and India's relationship with each other. But there's a historic opportunity here. We should be collaborating with these countries as much as humanly possible to address one of the greatest existential crises in our entire world, the climate crisis because if we don't have a planet to live on, we don't have a planet to live on. We have to work in collaboration. There's a lot of innovation and ingenuity among all of these countries, and I'm not going to be naive and pretend that the geopolitical issues that we have with these countries aren't real. But we could channel our energy to the innovation that we need to solve our climate crisis and find common ground to advance economic, cultural, scientific, and security collaboration with these nations.
Steve Ahlquist: Should the federal government’s agencies, including intelligence services such as the NSA, be increasing their surveillance of US citizens? Do you believe we need more thorough use of information from surveillance through the Internet and other technologies, or do you think we would be better off if surveillance was reduced? How would your policies in office reflect that?
Stephanie Beauté: I'm glad this question came to me. One of the key differentiators between me and all the other candidates is my experience in cyber risk, cybersecurity, machine learning, and AI, and how that's been growing and spiraling - how to control it, because while there are some benefits, in the wrong hands it can be used in an adversarial way. I don't think we need to increase our surveillance of United States citizens, but if we're being honest, we're forfeiting that information already. You're doing it on your Facebook, you're doing it on TikTok, you're doing it on your Instagram, you're posting where you are, what your kids are doing, what you ate. How do we make sure that the government isn't using that information to now harm us? If we have a protest about climate and we have a president that doesn't agree with that, I want to make sure that someone doesn't show up at my mom's house to arrest her. So having someone who understands technology in Congress is a value that cannot be expressed.
Don Carlson: I agree. We should reduce surveillance on United States citizens. I teach in a university and I'm always surprised at how readily my students and the rising generation give up their privacy and information in exchange for convenience or safety, even if it's just new free music. It is amazing how quickly they'll give it up. Who knew that Big Brother would come this way? We always imagined Big Brother being a forced takeover and a seizure of our privacy instead of us readily giving it up, yet we give up our privacy every day.
A lot of my students will tell me, when I confront them about this, that it's too late. Game over. We've already sacrificed all our privacy in the way my colleague just said. It's an interesting dynamic and an interesting question. I like the old saying that those who would sacrifice freedom for safety will get neither because you can't give up your freedom in a meaningful way and get safety because you'll give up both. I would advocate for a lot less surveillance on United States citizens and return to an era where we had some zone of privacy in our lives.
Ana Quesada: I cannot agree more with him. We don't feel safe in our houses anymore. There are too many cameras on the street and everywhere. It's good and it's bad at the same time when they are used in the wrong way. It's not good for the public because what is private anymore? Who feels private? Who feels secure in their room or your car or with your phone? Anybody can see you through your TV. You cannot leave your computer on. I saw that a kid was sleeping in his bed and people could watch what he was doing in his room from another country.
Our children don't feel they have any security. Alexa can hear you every time you speak in your home. “Alexa do this, Alexa do that.” They know the products you like, then send you information. They know what kind of perfume you use, anything that you use in your house.
[Spencer Dickinson takes out a dollar bill.]
Spencer Dickinson: Take a good look at this because it's going away. I don't think it should. It's a big mistake. That's the kind of thing that Congress ought to guide on. I want to show you something else.
[Spencer Dickinson takes out his cell phone.]
Spencer Dickinson: Maybe you have one too. Mine has tape on the front. So does Mark Zuckerberg. What does he know? What I know is that somebody can listen to me anytime they want. They can watch me while I'm sleeping. It has 180-degree visuals. Set it down like this with the tape cover facing the table, and they can see pretty much what happens in your room. This is a problem. It's going to get worse.
Why do they need this information? When I was a kid, there was a Chinese revolution, a communist revolution. And my dad said, "China is killing a million people. If that were happening in this country, I'd be one of them." He worked for the government. I resolved at that point, maybe, not to get that kind of a job because I didn't want that to happen. People are collecting information and I will tell you this is bad. I can't prove it, but there's a file folder in China for you if you're on their list. If they kill a million Americans, they can run this country. And if they do run this country, they're going to need to kill a million Americans. This is the information they're going to use.
John Goncalves: Artificial intelligence is something that we need to address in our country. We have a pretty robust platform on this very issue at the local level. I'll tell you a relevant story. We have these Flock Safety cameras, for example, that could collect your information continuously. The civil liberty violations there are concerning. To your point, Big Brother is watching. If we don't address this issue wholeheartedly, but also make sure that there are checks and balances, this is going to be a significant issue for our history.
Steve Ahlquist: There is growing interest in creating more green jobs. Many suggest, including prominent thinkers Stephanie Savell of the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute, and Miriam Pemberton, of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., funding can come at least in part by reducing military spending. If you agree with this concept, please share some of your thoughts about this economic conversion. If you don't, why not?
Spencer Dickinson: If you'd asked me this question many years ago as I was getting out of the army, I would say it's pretty obvious we spent too much money on the Army. But that may not be the whole story. The thing is, these questions are subtle, they're complicated, and what we need is people to understand the issues and do the arithmetic. Not like the kind of arithmetic that's done on the finance committee in the state of Rhode Island, which I'm all too familiar with. We've got to understand these issues. We've got to look into them. I can't answer this question one way or the other. In principle, we're probably wasting money on a lot of things in the military.
I want to loop back to the fact that I'm not satisfied with the job that Congress is doing to protect me from my cell phone. It's a serious problem. It's going to get worse. Congress is not doing its job on a lot of levels and that's because the voters are not requiring congresspersons to focus on these issues. If I can summarize, personal privacy and electronics are super important and going in the wrong direction very fast -way past 1984.
Walter Berbrick: We almost ending where we started and that's on the first question on the pledge. I would have not only voted against the NDAA, which, by the way, I probably would have been one of two veterans in Congress to do that. I would also support an amendment that reduces the military budget by 10%, a hundred million dollars. We spend a billion dollars on one ship alone. If we didn't build it, we can solve the housing prices right here in Rhode Island. I'm going to be a strong advocate for making sure our military spends smarter, not bigger.
Steve Ahlquist: What are your thoughts about the recent US decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine? Would you favor the US ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions that prohibits the use of these child-killing weapons?
John Goncalves: This is a very good question. As I reflected on this, I had a person reach out to me about this very issue. It's sickening that we have done that. I trust President Biden and I trust that he's trying to keep us safe. But simultaneously, as I've reflected on this, I don't know if it was the right thing to do.
Stephanie Beauté: It was completely wrong to do so regardless of whatever intelligence they had, mainly because of the damage it leaves for years to come. Even after the war, When people start to rebuild, someone ends up in a territory that had this type of bomb. It's a damaging thing to witness the atrocities that will follow. It was irresponsible on our part and we need to be honest with ourselves when we say that we want to promote peace. This is a form of human rights violation because we're leaving another nation with a financial burden to clean that up. How are we going to cover that cost, or abandon them with this type of technology? This has happened many times in US history. We did them a disservice in my opinion.
Steve Ahlquist: What do you see as the greatest areas of danger where we might get into a world war in the next 10-20 years, and how would you suggest de-escalating conflicts to avoid such a world war?
Don Carlson: The greatest danger of World War lies in climate change. I agree with several of my colleagues on this end who said that the greatest danger we face in the world, the greatest threat to our security, is climate change. In this context, what we're going to wind up seeing is mass starvation, mass poverty, mass flooding, and mass devastation from storms as a result of climate change. That will cause a lot of displaced people and a lot of people roaming the earth as refugees. That's an unstable situation and it's the kind of situation that leads to war, maybe even global war as the dispossessed peoples of the South, Latin America, Africa, India, and the developing world, see the rich nations of the world adapting to climate change in ways that they can't. And they will see us as being the people who perpetrated climate change because we developed first and industrialized and created a lot of carbon emissions into the air that could create a world war situation. That's the greatest danger. The way to get around it is to proactively go out and try to mitigate and remediate climate change around the world, not just in our country. Help people develop forms of energy and lifestyles that create prosperity and also allow them to do it in a way that's renewable and sustainable.
Ana Quesada: I cannot agree more with him. Climate change is one of the worst things that we face and the United States needs to take the lead against it. We need to work on climate change because we want to leave a clean environment to our children and grandchildren. If we don't do something, we are not going to have anything. We have to work faster. We have to do something. And it's not just big corporations. We need to do recycling much better. We need to teach our children. It's everybody's responsibility. It's not just the big companies. If everybody makes does their part at home and we can work together, then we are going to be able to overcome climate change.
[Closing statements]
Walter Berbrick: We are at a critical inflection point in our nation's history. We have an economy that doesn't work for working families. Women across our country have lost their fundamental right to choose. Our kids are getting gunned down. Our planet is in peril. This election provides us the people of Rhode Island with a once in a generation opportunity to change that, to channel our fear and frustration into a better future. I resigned from 15 years of federal service without a paycheck or political connections because I fundamentally believe I must continue serving and fighting for you. I'm going to do that the only way I know how, by listening and learning from you, by working hard for you, by being honest with you and serving you, whether you voted for me or not. It would be my greatest honor to earn your vote on September 5th and to represent you and your families in Washington.
Stephanie Beauté: I'm running for Congress because it needs some fresh ideas and we need some new perspective. We need fresh blood, someone who can not just look at reactive solutions, but be proactive about how we are going to put our best foot forward in this nation. America has had the awesome privilege of wanting to be a helper to a lot of mothers, sisters, friends, and allies, and also supporting those who have been in the biggest civil crises of our generation several times. It would be a privilege for me to work for you. I'm not going to say fight for you because we've done a lot of fighting. We need people who are interested in working across the aisle to come up with solutions to make sure that our government is respecting our privacy. That way that does not get used against us, depending on which president we have, and make sure that students have a quality education so they can be competitive, and make sure that our environment is there for my daughter so she'll grow up and grow old here.
John Goncalves: Thank you all for being here. I just want to thank my fellow candidates for also being here. It's a shame that more of the candidates aren't here because this was a very important discussion. I'm here because I want to put people first. As I mentioned, I'm a two-term city councilman. We got important things done at the local level. I've been the lead sponsor on dozens of pieces of legislation and I've served my community on the east side and downtown in the City of Providence.
When we think about the challenges that face our society, so many people are struggling. People are worried about the cost of living, they're worried about housing, they're worried about rights, and they're worried about our climate crisis. We need bold leadership in Washington that's going to put people first. We have a path to victory in this election. We have a lot of support far and wide in the community. It's because we are staying true to our values. I know that peace is an important component of that. Peace shouldn't be radical. I want to end with this point. H.G. Wells pointed out that if we don't end war, war will end us.
Spencer Dickinson: I want to remind you of some things I should have said at the outset. I've had the same girlfriend for 50 years, my wife, Avery. I've got four kids, I've got nine grandchildren. I'm extremely lucky. I have everything. I've worked very hard. I've learned in the legislature that many politicians are not helping you. A lot of people that I know say, well, they get elected and then they don't do anything. And all they do is talk about some plan, but they don't do it. That's what I see happening in Congress today. I promise you I'll change it.
I won't lie to you. There will not be any Inflation Reduction Act, which is probably a good thing, an environmental act, but it's not an inflation reduction act. I won't do that. I'm tired of hearing it done that way. And there may only be 435 congresspersons, but I'll be there reminding them all, "Don't call it something that it's not. Tell the truth to your constituents." One of the reasons I'm running is because we have to retain and sustain the Democratic Party and its core values.
Don Carlson: A couple of years ago, the Dean of Yale Law School decided that she wanted to create a leadership program to teach the rising generation of young people at Yale Law School how to be great leaders in the future, train them for their last job instead of their first job when they get out. She recruited me to build that program, to design and launch that program because that's what I do. Leadership. That's what we need in this country right now. We need strong leadership to guide us in the right direction, to guide us towards being a united nation as opposed to a polarized nation. You have a choice as voters. You can send somebody to Washington who will drive further division and further polarization in this country - will pull us apart and focus on our differences when someone could have focused on our strengths and what brings us together.
There's a lot more that unites us than that divides us. I get confused about some of these issues sometimes too. I like to put leadership and democracy into practice. That's why I'm an EMT and a first responder in Jamestown. But it's also something that I get confused by. One thing that never fails me is to go to the Prayer of San Francis and say, "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace." It settles my mind and helps to point me in the right direction. It's never failed me once. It was how I prepared for this debate today.
Ana Quesada: I'm running for Congress because I believe in Rhode Island. I'm running for Congress because we need a woman of color in Congress once and for all. I'm running for Congress because we need somebody who is experienced, somebody who is a regular Rhode Island, who is not connected, who is not rich, who came to this country with nothing. I'm able to provide a life for my children and I will do the same for yours. I went to the factory floor, to the Senate floor, from the welfare office to state office, because I don't give up. I worked hard for everything I have.
Steve Ahlquist: At this point, I'll invite Nancy Hood to come up and give our closing words.
Nancy Hood: On behalf of all the Rhode Island peace groups who worked hard to put this together, I want to thank our candidates for coming tonight and for sharing such thoughtful and respectful comments. I'm hoping that you do get together for a coffee because this conversation needs to be continued because this forum was one of a kind and about very complex and serious issues that we need to be facing. We need to be talking about this as if our lives depend on it.
As the forum got underway, Walter Berbrick released his answers to all the forum questions as a press release:
All Walter Berbrick’s Answers to Peace Forum Questions
Tonight, the Walter Berbrick for Congress campaign released full responses to the questions posed at the Peace Forum. The forum, moderated by Steve Ahlquist, provided an opportunity for Berbrick to articulate his perspective on pressing security and international cooperation issues.
Walter Berbrick, Veteran, Naval War College educator, and national security expert stated, "The United States is one bad decision away from war and further international conflict. It is essential Rhode Island voters have the opportunity to know where the candidates stand on every issue, especially on tough decisions where it is a matter of life and death for our servicemen and women and the safety of our communities across the nation."
Pledge A) As a result of the debt ceiling negotiations between the President and the House Republicans, the 2024 budget allocates a 28 billion dollar increase to the Pentagon, while decreasing the domestic portion of the discretionary budget by 63 billion dollars. This includes reduced spending on veterans’ programs. The outcome is a record-high military budget of 886 billion dollars or almost 56% of the discretionary budget and cuts in programs for the most needy.
I would not only vote against the bill, but I support an amendment to reduce the size of the Pentagon by at least 10 percent so we can invest in housing, education, clean energy, and global health—things that will actually decide whether we remain the strongest democracy in the world and outcompete the Chinese Communist Party. So I am a ‘No’ on the NDAA and will continue to advocate for a military that spends smarter, not bigger.
Pledge B) The 2010 Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court allows corporations to fund political campaigns. Some feel that this ruling has dramatically shifted political power in the US toward corporations, including wealthy military contractors that profit from wars.
No. We need to return power to the people once and for all. This goes for the defense sector and any industry, organization, or person, including father-in-laws who create Super PACs for their son.
Pledge C) Through malfunctions, mistakes, and miscommunication over the past seventy years there have been 15 or more times when nuclear war nearly broke out. Perhaps the most promising response to this danger is the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now in effect as international law in 68 nations, but which the US has not yet joined. If the US signs this treaty, encourages other nuclear-armed nations to join it, and agrees to ratify it when they do, the US might become a world leader in dismantling the nuclear threat. Some members of Congress have signed the ICAN Parliamentary Pledge, a pledge to work toward US acceptance of this treaty, so we are asking: would you sign this pledge as well?
Humanity is just one wrong decision and miscalculation away from global nuclear war. We must annihilate nuclear weapons before they annihilate us. Yes.
Pledge D) Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” In order for Congress to reclaim its Constitutional responsibility to debate the pros and cons before sending US soldiers to war.
I'm in favor of repealing the 1957, and 1991 AUMFs would be primarily about housekeeping, the 2002 AUMF should be repealed entirely, as it has outlived its purpose, and the 2001 AUMF should be revised and updated, given the changing nature of the terrorism challenge and the fact that a small percentage of the Congress that voted for the AUMF actually remains. More important than the AUMFs, Congress must increase its oversight capabilities of warfare and uses of force following authorization.
1. What do you think are the greatest security threats facing Americans today, and does our military budget help address them? Please explain.
Climate change is an existential threat to our national security. In the long term, the most significant threat to US interests is the Chinese communist party—and the growing relationship between China and Russia. Right now, the most urgent and dangerous threat facing Americans today is Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. We are one wrong decision away from sending our sons and daughters to fight another preventable war. Not only does the NDAA encourage the Pentagon to spend more, instead of spending smarter, but it also overlooks America’s most urgent national security imperative: providing Ukraine the material it needs to defeat Russia. Congress must rise above day-to-day politics and chart a long-term strategy to deal with the Russian Federation. That’s why as your representative, I'll be laser-focused on getting our leaders smarter on the severity and scope of the Russia problem and creating bipartisan solutions that 70% of Congress can get behind, regardless of who’s in the White House.
2. The United States is leading the global arms race, including the fabrication of a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines and other types of enhanced nuclear weapons. What are your thoughts on whether this escalation will make us in Rhode Island and across the country more safe or less safe?
The answer is complex and depends on several factors. Proponents argue that a modernized nuclear deterrent discourages potential nuclear-armed adversaries from attacking us here at home. On the other hand, critics raise concerns about the risk of escalation, accidents, and potential arms races. I think both are true. That’s why I spent the last four years bringing world leaders together to reach a consensus on 30 international principles to prevent conflict resulting from climate change. So striking the right balance between deterrence and disarmament has always been hard, but critical to preserving peace. That’s why transparency, diplomacy, and robust arms control efforts are so critical. But what makes us most safe is a world without nuclear weapons. That's why in Congress, I will push for a new bold, bipartisan plan to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2035.
3. The US currently has 750 military bases in more than 80 countries. Do you think that the US military should be in a position to dominate the world indefinitely? What might the benefits be of seeing the US as part of a multipolar world instead?
We’re in a multipolar world now and we have authoritarian governments like China and Russia that are working every day to undermine the international order that we’ve spent the last 75 years defending with our Allies. Posturing American forces forward is a big reason why we’ve been able to preserve peace this long. It’s allowed us to deter adversaries, control escalation, and reassure allies that we’ve got their back when they need it most. I know so many Rhode Islanders are tired of fighting in forever wars and seeing a military budget that skyrockets as working families struggle to put food on the table— I know I am. But this desire alone doesn't translate to sound strategy. As the global security environment changes, we must constantly examine our overseas-basing arrangements.
4. How do the military tensions in which our country and other countries are involved relate to the international cooperation needed to solve the climate crisis?
The US and China are the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters and beneficiaries of working together to tackle our climate crises. Trade disputes, military tensions, and accusations of spying are certainly making it harder to cooperate. Working for Secretary John Kerry at the State Department, I was part of a team that brought together world leaders to develop new international agreements to reduce methane emissions, limit coal use, curb deforestation, and help poor countries address climate change. These are very urgent and practical areas of cooperation with both China and Russia today. Because of Ukraine, western Arctic nations are not working with Russia bilaterally or multilaterally through the Arctic Council. As a result, Russia is turning to China and India. This pivot comes at a time when the Arctic is melting at 4 times the rate as anywhere else in the world.
5. China and India have the world’s largest populations and as such, they are important participants in the international political scene. Do you see the US as primarily in conflict with these two nations, or do you see us having important economic, cultural, scientific, and security collaboration with them?
I’ve worked with leaders from both China and India on conflict prevention measures and climate change. Collaborating with countries in the economic, cultural, scientific, and education creates pathways to peace. That’s why when I returned from the Naval war college after serving at the state department I created and led the first-of-its-kind program that brings together world leaders, both academic leaders and government leaders to break down barriers to build trust to enhance dialogue in order to create practical measures to prevent conflict. Our work over the last four years resulted in consensus on 30 principles of security to prevent conflict as a result of climate change. This effort was done with a nice forward to being inclusive and including folks like Russia, realizing that education programs in what’s called track, one and a half track to programs and the government provide countries and people an opportunity to build trust and break down barriers and move the needle forward. But unfortunately, his policy restricted that from happening.
6. The United States of America is the world's largest arms exporter, accounting for 40% of global arms sales during the period of 2018-22 (SIPRI Arms Transfer Database, March 2023). Very often these sales are to governments in the Middle East, Central America, Africa, and Asia that are among the worst human rights abusers in the world. Please share some of your thoughts on these concerns, and what do you see as Congress’ role in addressing these concerns, if any?
The United States must hold nations accountable for human rights violations. And Congress must step up and play a more active role to hold the executive branch accountable—regardless of who’s in office. On just three occasions this administration notified Congress of major weapons sales to notoriously abusive governments. That’s why as your representative in Congress, I will work across the aisle to pressure the administration to ensure that U.S. sales are not rewarding or encouraging bad behavior, or that arms are not used to further human rights abuses. Congress can do some of this itself by, for example, inserting human rights conditions on the entirety of the security assistance that often funds these sales, as it has done for a small portion of the $1.3 billion in military aid that Egypt receives annually. Congress should also insist that the administration conditions these sales on concrete, verifiable improvements in human rights.
7. Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN) has introduced the Children and Families Act (H.R. 3103), which would curtail US military funding to Israel that pays for the military detention of Palestinian children, the demolition of Palestinian homes, or the annexation of Palestinian land. As a Representative, would you support Rep. McCollum’s bill?
I would support this bill. US taxpayer dollars should not be used to support the military detention of Palestinian children, demolishing their homes, or annexing Palestinian land. But the other issue at play is the urgent and significant threat Iran poses to Israel and Palestine. As a naval intelligence officer supporting counter-terrorism in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I know firsthand how important Allies like Israel are in maintaining peace in the Middle East.
8. As you may know, the government has some programs to support peace-building abroad, to keep conflicts from growing into bigger wars. The Institute for Economics and Peace has estimated that every dollar invested in preventing violence can save up to $16 in responding to violence. But the most recent House budget zeroes or drastically cuts funding for 3 important peace-building programs, at a time when violence is on the rise worldwide, even though funding these 3 programs adequately would cost less than just one F-35B fighter jet. Would you support increasing funding to at least: Atrocities Prevention $25 million (up from just $5 million), Complex Crises Fund $66 million (up from $60 million), Reconciliation Programs $40 million (up from $25 million)? What other suggestions would you make to promote peace-building?
Yes. Because preventing wars is just as important as winning them. It’s also much cheaper to prevent wars than fighting forever wars. The war in Ukraine, the global food crisis, climate shocks, and the COVID-19 pandemic have caused global instability. If we’re serious about preventing conflict and instability around the world, then for every dollar spent on winning wars, an equal dollar should be spent on preventing them. Sustainable economic development, education, climate adaptation, good governance, and the protection of human rights. These are the foundations of peace-building. It’s why at the State Department, my team worked to support mental wellness, mitigate public health risks and reduce black carbon output and promoted new public-private partnerships for developing renewable energy technology. These are areas we need to be investing in.
9. At the breakup of the Soviet Union, the US pledged not to extend NATO eastward, as has now happened. Some US diplomats (including Jack Matlock, former US Ambassador to Russia) see this as a provocation although not an excuse for the Russian invasion. As a Congressperson, what do you think should be the role of the US in the Ukraine war right now?
Each generation has answered the call to defend democracy and preserve peace. That’s why I took an oath to defend our constitution and why I'm in this race. It’s our turn. Providing Ukraine with the material it needs to defeat Russia is critical not only to the future of Ukraine but the future of Europe. It also sends an important signal to China regarding Taiwan. Practically this means ensuring Ukraine wins this war and reestablishes full control over its internationally recognized 1991 border. Second, we must ensure Ukraine is fully anchored in NATO and the EU. Finally, working alongside our Allies, we should provide Ukraine with all necessary arms, training, equipment, and intelligence to deter or defeat Russian aggression; and for Ukraine to take essential steps to expedite its integration into the alliance and its command structures.
10. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. It sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages and inspired the adoption of over 70 human rights treaties worldwide. Should the United States and United Nations better promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the US and other countries? If so, how?
I’ve spent my entire career protecting our rights and democracy from authoritarian governments and climate change. Today democracy is under attack abroad from authoritarian governments from within from right-wing extremists who are ripping a way to the very freedoms and values that I spent the last two decades defending his intelligence officer as a career, civil servant women. Women have lost the right to choose. Our kids are getting gunned down, and our planet is in peril. That’s why at the state department I worked hard to bring leaders together to promote sustainable economic development, education, climate adaptation, good governance, and the protection of human rights.
11. Should the federal government’s agencies, including armed forces such as the NSA, be increasing their surveillance of US citizens? Do you believe we need more thorough use of information from surveillance through the Internet and other technologies, or do you think we would be better off if surveillance was reduced? How would your policies in office reflect that?
Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act does not allow the NSA to target American citizens, only targeted collections on foreign nationals living here in the US suspected of cashing hard to the US or our allies. I joined our intelligence community after 9/11 to keep Americans safe from violent extremism. That’s why I was so disgusted to see Trump attack the IC and place his trust more in Putin more than the thousands of dedicated intelligence professionals who might’ve had the opportunity to serve and work with over the last 15 years to keep Americans safe from Terrace attacks on our soil. A big reason why we’ve been so successful is because of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. In Congress, serving as a member of the House intelligence community, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm going to hold the IC accountable, be more transparent with the public, strengthen oversight, and make sure the rights of Maefcoans citizens aren’t violated—while at the same time producing our classified information, our skype s and methods.