have a job if not when she's 15, even 14 or 13 with a sub minimum wage, so we need to take this report and think who is going to sign it into law on the presidential level, on the congressional level. who's going to support this office day a local level? we need to be marketing it to the presidential candidates, to congressional candidates come to state and local candidates. the only way our reforms are going to result in economic growth is if they're signed into law. we need to make a big focus on that. not just for ourselves but for daphne and her cohorts. >> thank you. i loved having her up here. our sixth handled as. commissioner, let me ask you, beyond our elected officials doing what they need to be doing, the courts also get involved in these issues as well. the supreme court took up the case what made him willing to do with pregnancy discrimination

act a year or so ago. tell us how that impacted all and what that means for every one here. >> sure. the pregnancy discrimination act is a part of title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. congress passed the pregnancy discrimination act in 1973 after a supreme court ruling, and last year, about a year and half of those a case before the supreme court, young versus ups, and in that case peggy young had been working for ups. she had a normal pregnancy. so there was, she had no reticular medical issues with her pregnancy -- particular. her doctor recommended that she can later in the pregnancy, not live more than 20 pounds. 20 pounds. which if you're a driver for ups, you can imagine that might

be a problem. she asked for an accommodation for light duty, gps said we don't give accommodations for people who have anything other than an on the job injury. so this is your only option is to not work, and you can come back after your pregnancy but that's your only option. so she sued under the pregnancy discrimination act, and some language in particular under the pda. either case went up to the supreme court. part of the issue was not on the factual record, ups actually, it was shown that they actually were providing some light duty and accommodations to people maybe beyond just what it said were only injured on the job. so that was a problem for ups. the long and short of the supreme court ruling was that a

look at the language of the pregnancy discrimination act, that the supreme court essentially created a higher standard and kind of a new rule that if you are a company and you're not going to provide light duty or an accommodation to a woman who is pregnant you have a higher burden to demonstrate why you're not providing that to that woman. if you're providing it to other people in the company. that really fulfilled some of the language and intent of the pregnancy discrimination act. not the exact ruling that the practical effect of the supreme court decision is that it has now come if you ask any management attorney in the country, they are advising their clients, employers, that they should be providing accommodation for pregnant women. let me just say that the case at the went up to the supreme

court, there were many family rights groups that were supporters of peggy young, because they felt like that it's much better for women to be able, if they choose, to continue to work. that's exactly what peggy young wanted. and she wasn't asking for special treatment in any way. she was just asking to be able to have an accommodation during the latter term of her pregnancy. and again they actually were providing some accommodations for others in their workplaces. so that's been the practical effect of the supreme court decision. for a number of years prior to the young versus ups case, there have been various bills introduced in congress that would either in some fashion amend the law to make it more explicit that employers need to provide accommodations at work for pregnant women.

and some of that has now been overtaken by the young v. ups case, and a hypertechnical way though. if congress were to pass a law to make it more explicit, that accommodation are necessary for pregnant women, they could still do that. they're sort of, there's a couple of bills in congress i know that ifw report makes a recommendation that would follow a couple of bills in congress that would make sure they're sort of no gap left from the ruling in the young v. ups case. they're still a bit of a gap arguing. practical effect is people are being advised to provide accommodations but there's a bit of a gap in the law and legislation in congress would actually shore up that gap and would not be some onerous burden on employers because they already being advised to do so in light of the supreme court ruling.

>> let's go to the opposite spectrum from babies being born to economy. the good news is that women and men, all under control living longer. haggis is where not financially stable. many men and women and this is a problem, many times women because they have worked their entire careers because they spent time taking care family. let's talk about the retirement aspect and reforms we need is a. >> the issue of retirement has come into this sort of sweet of workplace issues because women tend to take more time out of the workplace. they are in effect penalized both by the system that we have in place, social security, which is not to bore everybody with all of the specifics but if a woman works for many years and then her husband passes away, it's almost as if she didn't pay into the system. she's really penalized for working and she doesn't see that money. we all know that if he died

before you reach retirement age, that money does not get passed on to your children or to a charity or some other outfit. it is taken back by the government. to all lots of ways in which we can tweak the existing social security system to better assist people but also because women to take more time out of the workplace they are often left with fewer savings and men. one recommendation that we make in the report is that this period of catch-up contributions. currently this is for older americans, and we say why should that be if it only takes three years out of the workplace then she is in a position to contribute, we want to encourage that personal savings. we want to encourage that personal responsibility. currently in an economy act one we have where people are out of work, that is a wonderful thing if someone gets a job and then is able to think back payment to their social security. we want to be able to encourage about retirement savings.

we talked about reducing capital gains taxes and talk about some of the general reforms of social security. there's really only a few ways to make this program solvent which most of us in the room know you either need to raise the age or reduce benefits, or some combination thereof. we are inclined to move towards a bit more means testing and allow individuals to save more freely. one thing that is discussed in the report i think it really sort of hit some is because of our demographic shift and because it's going to take come with going to have fewer younger workers supporting a larger aging population, and what do we think about the fact, older individual may be receiving $1200 a month, perhaps right now there are four workers helping support that individual and so that's a lot of money, $300 per worker. but what about 10 years from now

when it goes deputy workers? said that each worker is responsible for $600 of that individuals we can check. when you start to think about in those terms is easy to understand why people don't have the resources to say for themselves for retirement let alone child care and other expensive we talk about in the report. i think it's important we do a combination of reforming social security in a substantive way and in allowing people to save more freely for themselves. >> we have to think how many workers daphne is going to be supportesupportive when she geto the workforce in her early 20s. we don't want her to be responsive for supporting a small number of workers. we need to reform the system. >> i think it's a good time to be talking about this. on the campaign trail, yesterday we are hearing calls again and again for increased salsa star to benefits. it's a little bit like being behind on your mortgage payments but talk of adding a new wing to your house or a new swimming. we need to be think about how we get back on track. i think the nice thing about the

report is we talk about commonsense ways to do that and i could be hope for. that will secure social security as opposed to putting it on sort of an explosion path which it is on right now. >> one of the first recommendation in the report that sabrina mitchell which i thought was a terrific idea which is to lower the age by which people can make catch-up contributions. to protect both where we started which is the wage gap issue and all issue, women will over their lifetimes have less earnings than men, and more women will end up in poverty than men, that is a significant issue. and so anyways to incentivize people to be able to save for their retirement at younger ages. and the other thing i like about it is wedded to the gig economy. it's on the individual and they are not constrained to get the opportunity at a much younger age to not be penalized and save for their retirement and to be

able to take advantage of those economic opportunities where they find opportunities available to earn income. >> and also for older people, and uber driver who i wrote with a couple of weeks ago said he just retired as an electrician. when he was an electrician he spent most of his time driving around we thought i would just be and uber driver now. driving without the electrician work. they gig economy provides opportunities for older people, to. >> i want to open this up to questions. if you're sitting at one of the desks you can just punch the right side of the microphone box and when the red light comes on it means you are on and you can ask a question. if you're not sitting at a desk raise your hand and will bring a wireless microphone to you. we will ask everybody to please taken and what your affiliation might be. >> my name is dominic. how's everybody doing?

i'm from prince george's county by the way. born and raised in d.c., all that good stuff. got three questions. so this goes for any of you guys. should there be women's unions separately from regular unions? will it help get results from congress if we created these? basically i'm saying this because we have unions, but obviously they are not doing enough for the american people, much less the women. this is sensitive to me because i have a single mother and a sister at home. should we have women's unions? that's my first question. should we have women's only unions speak with we will start with one question each to make sure everybody gets the questions in. diana, do you want to take that? >> yes. well, americans have the right to join any union that they want and i think that we should stick with the system.

the question is why not unions doing more for single moms? i think that's what we need to look out, and pressure on these organization. if you look at their expenses, which you can get from the forms filed with the labor department you can see how much they're spending on political contributions, on golf trips, on tennis trips, on fancy hotels. you can look at the bosses salary. people need to be talking to the union leadership and saying no, our members need more support why is it that multi-employer pension plans offer radically underfunded? that the central state teamsters plan is only about 37% of the funds that it needs, when the central states teamster plan for the vice president and the president and the treasure of the organization are 100% funded? these are the questions we need to be asking. those are the fundamental problems. if we have a women's union and to continue the way that some of

these unions are continuing, it's not going to help your mom. and i wish your mom the very, very best. >> yes, hello. i would be a presidential management felt the next few months. i will be working in the federal government. i thank you all for coming and although i am pro-government and everything, policies only do so much and it's been a work in progress and will continue to be a work in progress. my concern is changing the hearts and minds of people. if everyone who brings a case of the issues not being paid equally, i think in most cases that should be labeled as a fat woman and she will become that woman and other places. so people not not be as willing to work with her in the future or those kinds of stereotypes. so i think that talks to the fear that some women have in presenting these cases. because you don't want to be that woman.

but if you don't has been if you just have some insight, how would you i guess recommend that we move forward to change the hearts and minds so some of these policies can be effective? >> i'm happy to address that. couple things. first of all the retaliation, whether someone files a based on pay or some other type complaint of discrimination of discrimination, is the highest charge that we see at the eoc. it's a very real. anyone who's ever gone to work at any workplace, knows that that's the case. as to issues related to equal pay in particular, the eeoc come we only see about 3% of our charges a year are related to equal pay claims. there's a whole host of reasons for that but one of them is what you touch on.

part of what i think will make women feel more empowered to discuss pay is a discussion that is going on. and the fact, that's what i said at the beginning of lot of what is being discussed now, a lot of the ideas being suggested at the state level, some of them are good ideas, some of them are probably a little extreme, but the fact that there's such engagement on the issue i think in and of itself is one part of legislation is one part, the overall social discussion, the inability of that to take place via social media now, the difference between now and 10 years ago is tremendous. and that would make a difference. the more people are engaged on it, and also and again i commend sabrina and her group, the more

that center-right conservatives think he women are engaged on it as well, i think makes a big contribution. contribution. >> i would just add i think it's fascinating. suddenly feeling old, when i came to washington i can tell you that a graduate from an liberal arts college an at all i was told is if you can write, you're set for life. the reality is, i was a good writer but a, so the job at a think tank. think tanks don't a lot of money. when i was given an offer they said we will pay you $22,900. and i jumped for joy. i realized, i would never my mom was with me and no one said, why did you ask for 23? no one even thought of it that goes about like that's great. you've got this awesome job opportunity. i remember asking my brother who grew up in exact same environment as it did com, we ae encouraged to do the same things. i said, peter, did you negotiate

salaries? he said yeah, of course. like what is wrong with you? and i thought i don't know. i was in my little suit i got so excited and i was like great, i can't pay the bills at all with 22000 a year but i will just take this job. i think the conversation now is so different. we are talking to young women about what you want to major in? .. and ignore the role economic opportunity and a growing economy plays in all this come you cannot negotiate if the

economy is not growing. you have job opportunities, you are not in position to get the weight gain, benefit gain, workplace situation gains you want to see so the most powerful way to change your situation is when you can exit, say i am moving on to a company that values my skills more highly. our priority is saying every policy proposed has to enable and further the project of growing the economy and creating more opportunities that work so men and women are better positioned to negotiate and equip them in universities with the skill set they need to have that negotiation conversation and really acquire the position they want to acquire. >> we will come here and over here to your mike. >> we can bring the mic over, no problem. thank you. >> my name is jeanette gray and

i am the president and ceo of an award-winning retail store and i'm very encouraged and excited to be here because many of the things that i hope are in the report are things that are important to me as well being a woman and i'm encouraged seeing a woman here with a young baby trying to balance the things that we as women have to balance, what do i do with my baby? that is another topic. i wanted to address a couple bullet points the report does address on entrepreneurship and karen was inspiring on that point but also in terms of empowerment and equal opportunity and narrowing the gap and things have changed, narrowing the gap, i can speak to that in regards to being not only a woman but being a

minority woman in an industry where unfortunately it is not very well represented when it comes to that. and opportunity in that regard to how we can close the gap and women in the workforce trying to reach upper echelon, and narrow the gap in regards to we need to provide more opportunity, we need to let people know it is not just a certain face in the workforce and retail, there are women of all opportunities and all color in the workforce and can we put forbes magazine on the list? can we put people who when i look in that industry, it is not

well represented and we are women that are there in that field, i am hoping the report does open the gap to that. for your wife, opening up a whole food cooking section. if you can test the cookies that would be great. [applause] >> i would be happy to test the cookies if you want. >> let's go back. >> i'm former political opposition researcher and consulting is how i can survive but i learned with a divorce, obama care premium 773 but, out-of-pocket 16,000 a year, probably getting a full-time job would be better but i have a mother with alzheimer's and all these things come down. i can make more money as a consultant, but healthcare, right now, moderate voters will

decide this election, they do not trust hillary but they want to make sure if they have preexisting conditions they can have health insurance and when you said the exit plan, i know what i am worth, i'm worth more as a consultant, we need to figure out a way to everyone to have access for healthcare but people that work should not get better care but you should get what you pay for some people not working living off the system, there needs to be some tweaking going on. what is your opinion about women in the workforce that can succeeded people don't understand what their true value is. i heard assistance, what do you think you are with? $9, they are worth $15 because i want to keep you and then they get an offer of $25 an hour and they quit. it is interesting to see so many women not understand their worth. thank you. you can answer that question about healthcare. >> the takeover of healthcare by

obamacare and the government has been a tragedy for many many people including consultants and people who want to buy healthcare on the single market because it has gotten more expensive. what was mandated was a very broad set of benefits. it is practically impossible to buy a plan that just has catastrophic healthcare and low deductible the way it was possible before. now the government mandated every plan has to have mental health coverage, drug abuse coverage, maternity care even if you are not pregnant, pediatric dental care even if you don't have children and it shouldn't be like that. i hope the next president will alter this by either repealing obamacare or simply by saying any insurance company can offer any plan that is approved by the state so an insurance company can offer a bare-bones plan like they used to be with catastrophic health plans with

low deductibles. as far as preexisting conditions, several proposals, if you are in the system you get to stay in the system so if you have a preexisting condition and your insured you get to move to the next insurance company no questions asked. there being proposals by the ethics and public policy ctr. grace marie turner of the galen institute, you can look at those for ideas but it is important the next president alter the situation we're in right now. >> hadley heath manning who is sitting in the front row is our healthcare policy expert. i encourage you to connect with her. back here. >> and stone, entrepreneur and activist and today i am here as one of the founders of natural women's history museum. i bring that up because the

young lady, so gratifying to hear her say how we change hearts and minds recognizing legislation alone will never give women equality. one reason we are pushing for this, we have a commission studying to hopefully get us a site on the mall. a report after the election, republicans and democrats doing that, is because knowing our full history is key for both men and women when men and women know the full history and contribution of women all throughout civilization, throughout the years they would be shocked at the part women played in building society far beyond what we know now. that will be key, something we are pushing for so coming soon, google americans history, see what is going on. second point, two a quick points to make. as you look at the candidates take a close look unequal pay and look at who has practiced

equal pay. i will say more about this this afternoon but look at the track record of each of the people running as to what they have actually done in terms of equal pay, look beyond the words. very interesting, might surprise you. third, negotiation should be taught, but the interesting thing is i have taught negotiation for 30 years, seminars all over the world in fact i had to change the way i taught women versus men, women were offended by the pools of game and negotiation, could we go in there and lay our hearts on the table? yes you can do that and you will get screwed and get less than what you want and i would have to apologize and say listen, i am here to teach you how to do it. don't be offended. understand these are the rules of the game. if you choose not to play by them understand you will get less than what you want. that is your choice. that is what we have to

overcome, getting beyond this we should be able to deal fairly. that is not the way negotiation is. understand the pools of negotiation and have them entirely on is key to helping women advance. anyway i guess i will end there. in half of the jobs created in the country by 2018 are projected to be created by women-owned businesses. [applause] >> i want to get one more question and then get a chance for final comments for the panel, way back in the very back here. >> hazel edwards, professor at catholic university in washington dc, i teach in the school of architecture and planning where close to half of our students are women but i want to go back to the comments and questions and getting through the report, i noticed

you generalized largely the information you have contained in the report and i wonder if there is anywhere you are partitioning the data and looking specifically at how these issues impact women of color because i expect and i know from my own experience as an african-american woman and my colleagues who are latino and asian and other women of color that the issues are very different for us than they are for other women. are you looking at how women's issues, these policy issues are impacting women of color? >> i can respond very briefly that we have had a few requests for this. i spoke with the reporter recently working on this, we are currently considering a couple different versions of the

report, one for millennial's and another that may be focused specifically on women of color. that broadly, the other panelists would agree we believe these are universal policies that should help all americans but i recognize the challenges and if there is a way to reconfigure the support to resonate better with the communities we are interested in that. >> very interesting book by a former congressional budget office director called race and gender in the labor market which looks at the differences in wage gap between people of color and women and i highly recommend that also as a resource. >> as we wrap up there was so much in the report we couldn't get to all of it. there is something we didn't touch a bond that we think would be important to share with c-span. i want to give you the opportunity to do that and begin

with you. >> it sort of reminds me of a central theme for us, this idea of gender differences and men and women have different preferences and interest and aptitude. that is something we should celebrate and applaud rather than constantly keep up with one another. a few years ago i looked at students at mit to see what they are majoring in. i was really interested, in architecture, they are underrepresented in areas like computer science and reinforced this idea of gender difference, we have smart women, in equal circumstances two things. we have done a lot of research into what women want in the

workplace. there are divisions between mothers and non-mothers between conservatives and progressives and different needs. the report is to encourage a certain flexibility and if government steps back and allow work pay and what we are earning. different kinds of lives that we each see fit. >> commissioner? >> i add what i said at the beginning, the extent that it has long been a lament of mine, those more center-right are not as engaged on these issues and the fact that i wf, offering up

ideas and if things happen in the public policy world ultimately, one would hope, there would be some form of compromise but to the extent different ideas are offered, that is only healthy for the debate. >> a couple comments, we didn't talk about licensing or recommendations around that issue but that is an issue that needs to get government license, an issue that impacts communities more heavily and other communities, that is an issue of bipartisan support and it is egregious and a chance for us to take down barriers to allow people to get their foot on the first run of the latter. there are conversations like that and speak to these concerns

very well. >> one of the most important elections of our lives, we had 2% growth in 2008. and is not getting more opportunities, not enabling us, and look at the candidates and acknowledge that hillary clinton said even though she is a woman she wants to raise taxes to further slow economic growth, and lower taxes and lower regulation which improves economic growth and make women's lives and employment opportunities better and we are at an important stage and need to be looking not just of these terrific recommendations in the report but also how we get them implemented and how we get them implemented is vital for the next four to eight years.

>> thank you for putting together this report and thank you for participating, we will take a 15 minute break and be back shortly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the independent women form taking a break in their annual policy conference, 15 minutes or so with more discussions on the economy talking about political leadership, women voters and a little bit about college campus culture coming up later. live coverage continuing in 15 minutes on c-span2. while we wait, we show you remarks from the earliest part of this conference from karen merrick, the ceo of pocket

mentor. the expense of mixing business and family life and female entrepreneurship. >> how many people here in our audience have seen the musical called hamilton? anyone seen it? are you listening to the soundtrack? do you have the t-shirt that says i am addicted to the soundtrack? i was fortunate enough because my husband six months ago got a ticket to a matinee, i recently saw hamilton and can't get it out of my mind, my head, it is inspiring, uplifting, get the soundtrack, the tickets when you can, but the reason i love the story is it is an american story. alexander hamilton was born in the caribbean, he became an orphan, got his first big job at the age of 14, worked as a clerk and became invaluable and worked his way up, came to america

because he wanted to be a new man, got an education, worked his way up and out, he became a vital part of that extraordinary community of founding fathers and mothers. another reason the story resonates with me and i know it resonates with all of us, i left home at 17 to get a job, our close-knit family was torn apart because of my parents divorce was my parents are good hard-working people from the working-class and they were not going to be able to support me and put me through college because of the divorce so i got a job as a receptionist. i worked my way up in the administration profession, became executive secretary to the partner in jobs of an accounting firm but my dream was to go to college. i was scared, lacks confidence, didn't know how to put myself through school.

finally at the age of 25 at ucla i took a chance, quit my day job, got a job at ucla placement and career planning, i worked 25 hours a week, did an accelerated program and graduated in three years. on graduation day, i thought if i can do this i can do anything but i also thought i could have done this before. why did i doubt myself, here were opportunities to do that. i had moved here to the washington dc area and started my first business. within a year or so i met my husband and a year or so after that started a company in our basement. the one charlotte just mentioned. like most entrepreneurs, the maxed out credit cards, used up all our savings and went to friends and family to get investment in our company, we also got investment from a number of investors and with

that money, to about 10 people, we have shipping products, customers, one thing we didn't have was financing adventure funds. we got rejected by every major fund across this country, new york, silicon valley, no one to invest. and multiple dollars in the bank account, thought we would have to close the doors when a venture fund from northern virginia placed a bet, invested $2 million in our company. we were able to grow our product line, we hire developers and customer service in marketing, our product got better and better, we were getting a lot of media attention. within a few years we took our company public on the nasdaq. it was the most successful software ipo in history. only in america, only in

america. that year we took it public my husband and i set aside 10% of our equity to start a foundation to help nonprofits that help low income families get education. my husband and i from hard-working families, we wanted to help other people. by that time we had one son who was 21/2 years old growing from a publicly traded company was a lot of hard work. i knew that my son wanted more time with me and i wanted more time with him. i could not figure out how to make that happen. i made one of the hardest decisions i ever had to make. i left the company i cofounded, $200 million a year, $250 million a year to 1100 families,

pioneering technology, business-to-business e-commerce possible. we have the patent. i had to leave the company because i needed flexibly, control, so i became president and chairman, the foundation we named after the company and involved our employees helping us to make grants. i loved the work and the flexibility. i am going to pause my story because there have been many chapters since then but the reason i told you my story, we as women share similar stories. our details may be different but we all want the same thing.

and we want to step out and use those to make a significant impact. we need to do that. at every stage of our career. whether we want to start a company, and opportunity and financing. if we take time out and spend time with the family we need flexibility and more control. we might take time out to help an aging parent. and they are hard enough on our own, we have internal obstacles to overcome, lack of confidence, external family backgrounds, the economy. and it is awfully hard for us to have flexibility that we need. president obama made history, the first administration in

history, to pass 80,000 new rules. it has a net three different years. some policies are well-intentioned but they backfire. makes it harder for us to have freedom to choose the flex ability that we need. fortunately we have the independent forum that came out with this amazing report, working women, moderate agenda for improving women's lives. i want everyone to go to the website. and social media, somebody can call it up. working report for women. working for women reports.com, share that on your social media, a wonderful agenda, independent women's forum is fighting for

us. waiting for these changes in the regulatory system, there are opportunities, glimmers of hope in the economy being unleashed by entrepreneurs, we as women need to recognize and seize these opportunities and provide flexibility and freedom of choice and review a couple developments today so you can see how these helping unique situations. 29% of businesses in the united states are run by women. $1.4 trillion of revenue. women have 9% of venture funding, and women are 20% likely to generate revenue.

and 35% greater return for investment then formed by men and we get 90% of venture funding. and we have heard that. this is where you submit an idea to invest in your it or company. not every idea gets funded. after the technology companies founded by women get funding on kick starter. across all industries 37% of businesses founded by women get funded on kick starter. 32% of men get funded. entrepreneurs are creating a way for women to get access to

capital. women angel funds have always assisted but now they are bigger and better, by women entrepreneurs, for women entrepreneurs and i am a member of one, just last week i was on a panel judging pitches for women entrepreneurs and the woman who wins it gets a big check and access to network. that is just one way. there is another major development called the economy. the gig economy, you can have any professional work. you can get a short-term job. name your price, what you are willing to work on, when you are willing to work on it.

you can be a ceo or cfo, bookkeeper and accountant, you can be a writer, a publisher, project manager, nurse, you can do anything and get work in this economy. if you are a small business owner like i am, you don't have to stack up before you are ready. >> in half an hour we will have a speed networking event so all you lovely ladies, network can really form a coalition and connection. to talk more about this, the state policy network, coalition manager for the state policy network and highlights work of the think tank and coordinates coalition efforts at the national level and also manages to be affiliate and associate membership and is a member of the advanced policy team working on emerging issues in the state.

prior to fb and she worked at the manhattan institute in the field of communication marketing and outreach. she holds a bachelors degree in the area of politics and economics. to talk a little more about the policy network as well as instructions for the speed networking events is sarah ferreira. [applause] >> thank you. here we go. thank you, everyone. so excited you are here today at speed networking. some of us are flexing our speed network muscles by talking to each other so it means you value connecting with each other. before we jump into the rules of speed networking i want to talk about what fbn is and what it does. all of us in this room on the right or the left can experience the gridlock at the federal

level has been frustrated by it in the past and one of the things if not the thing the state policy network is excited about is we see real change happening at the state level. and that mirrors what we will do today. the connections we are going to make, the idea we going to share, what we do with think tanks across the country on a daily basis and the way we do that is providing training and resourcing so they can be competitive in the world of ideas. whether we are helping with the development strategy, policy strategies or fundraising strategies we are there to build that up. and it works. this past year alone we have seen great success stories improving lives of men and women when it comes to economic development or a host of things,

all within the network of 65 state think tank and more. i'm excited to be with you in this room. you can feel the weight of everybody's collective cool in this room. we are awesome women here to champion more freedom and we are excited to do that with you at the state level. in order to do that we need to get to know each other so without further ado, it is kind of like social media but in real life and without all the awkwardness of the dating. i am going to ask you to fill all the chairs that are attached to the table is much as possible. maybe ten chairs open so if you're next to a chair that is open can you raise your hand and please fill these chairs. will be are actually going to

do. [inaudible] >> thanks, guys. >> thank you. >> for those, for those of you who are here, if you could please stand in front of somebody sitting down. stand in front.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the goal is to try to have equal -- thank you. so we haven't started yet. if i could get everyone to hold on one second. the official networking has not begun yet. okay. i'm told that works and it does.

we need to get equal -- >> partner up. >> you are sitting and there is nobody in front of you. >> try to connect. turnaround. okay. do you have anything? >> a partner? if you don't -- okay. timing? what we are going to do ladies and gentlemen is half eight rounds of three minutes to make a new best friend each time. at 3 minutes i will say switch, you will hear me say switch,

that means please move counterclockwise. counterclockwise. >> the next person over. >> the best speed networking happens when you truly move even if you made a new best friend. on your mark, get set, network. [inaudible conversations] >> as you heard, breaking into networking at the independent women's forum. this be difficult for us to cover so we will move on from here to the next panel discussion scheduled for 12:30 eastern. we will have it live, comments from sabrina schaefer, executive director of the independent women's forum. as we leave this we show you comments from former us diplomat michelle, among the panelists,

israel and palestinians in the west bank and gaza. she referenced in the report of the situation by the center for a new american security which was the host of this event. >> i run the middle east program, and another report, two state solutions, the whole purpose of this, an excellent panel here that i introduced to go through the discussion. fundamentally, the purpose of this report is coming to the conclusion during last round of negotiation, never agreed to a permanent status agreement unless security requirements are met. palestinians never agree to a

situation in a permanent occupation. how do you balance these two different challenges and try to find a secure system that meets both sides's needs. we tried to deal with public study on security arrangements. the final answer, take it or leave it, the reason we call this advancing the dialogue, part of the discussion of the report. this is a set of ideas that fuel the conversation. a number of reasons we decided to do this now which why would you do this now? how difficult the situation is between israelis and palestinians and what seems to be a moment when negotiations and palestinians seem so far

away. there are a few other reasons. one is somebody who worked on the last negotiations, secretary carry, the first thing in those negotiations was go outside and examine all the work that had been done prior, the camp david negotiations in 2000 all the way through 2013 and so much with an externally that made it easier for the negotiators to wrap their heads around what it might be. this contributes to that and continues to push the ball lower when there is no negotiation. also is important to do this because many things we were recommending for the future you can work back from and see what we should be doing on the security front and get ready for that moment. this helps, israelis and security, training palestinians in the west bank as we speak,

see what it looks like and from it derive something for today. it was important to communicate with the israeli public in particular and demonstrate security is possible, there is a solution to something comprehensive and rigorous and technical, this is how you do this. this is an important message to send to everyone but especially the israeli public which is so sensitive about this particularly in the aftermath of withdrawal from gaza and what happened after that. if israel were to be a player from the west bank you would end up a situation similar to what you have in gaza. a couple things about overall principles that guide security proposals we are making and turn it over to our discussion. the first is the idea behind the security system is to build multilayered security system

including better relations with the arab states in the aftermath of an agreement. and the future palestinian state. is real retains the capacity to defend itself by itself, palestinians will not agree to that but is real has taken unilateral action in the past like syria, lebanon and elsewhere in the united states taking action unilaterally on occasion in places like pakistan where they feel national interests are thick but the key is to build the system so the need for that action is absolutely limited because if that becomes the default the whole agreement breaks down and it won't work. two key principles we face, you can read all six in the first stage of the report if you don't want to go to 70 pages but one is a lot of things will be done

early that can minimize israeli visibility and remove the feeling of occupation -- that can be done early and quickly and then exchange there are core fundamental things israelis need that contain a lot more. there is a trade-off between what can be done quickly and easily, what is going to take a lot longer. very important for both sides, israelis need to know they will not redeploy from the west bank and have it become gaza if conditions aren't right. palestinians have to censor part, palestinians need to know there is a clear timetable for withdrawal and what we designed is a condition dependent performance-based area -- what it means is israelis and palestinians and americans are detailed fashion and agree on

security criteria that will be necessary before and israeli force hand over responsibility in a particular area with the palestinians and once that has been negotiated there is a process by which palestinians are trained for that capacity and the process made on whether the criteria has or has not been met or remediation process includes target timetables and if they meet the criteria they agreed to, they get the timetable and the certain criteria they agreed to our illegal. the core of the study, i have spoken far too long, engaging the panel in this discussion, i will do that, introduce someone as we go through and argue, and clearly known as serious

security and israelis dealing with this issue. the honorable cheryl, major general shani, and doing this today. and into the details of the discussion. why do this study? why especially now at a difficult time do you think this is still possible, and working on something like especially interesting to hear from you about this given you know you were the commander of central command and ran the west bank, a former military advisor to the prime minister, and also led to forces in gaza, from that

perspective, why now? why this? >> good morning. thank you for introducing me. they cannot allow not doing everything to explore the way to achieve peace with our palestinian neighbors and actually lead us to a much broader peace with our neighbors so this is something that is the duty of anyone who cares for the fate of israel in the future of the next generation of the region so that is the reason. there are so many controversial issues between us and the palestinians, the security issue is the most delicate one, a condition in order to move forward, you have to solve

security issues. in this research we actually explain violent security situation exists but not without taking risk. in order to move forward. and strong and powerful enough country that can and should take risks to achieve peace. i have quite a significant experience in this area of the palestinian issue. the technology is complicated, how complicated it is when came to command the city of have bron in 96-97 so it was just after the withdrawal from gaza and

93-94 after evacuating the palestinians in the west bank and everything was stuck and i was the one on the run that shaped together, and working directly with them and they did visit a lot and asked questions and how to do this at the end of the day and constructed a special, special agreement, we deployed from have bron in the end of 96 and the responsibility for 85% of the city, complicated structure of security arrangement. it was an example of how things can work if there is a good way, since then four years later.

and because of the perception and attitude, dealing with peace and charity at the same time, i am sure you all know the story, the outcomes were terrible for both sides. palestinians and israelis were killed, mexicans, the economy was devastated. there were big losers. it took five years to suppress this wave of terrorism and when i took office of central command command it was a month before the coup in gaza, just won the election in 2006. in 2007 a month after i entered

office in the central command. thomas extended far talk from gaza shooting people, humiliating them and the morning version and i talked to my men. there is an opportunity to start something new and i can tell you since then we started to cooperate with i call them the new palestinians but the palestinians i met in 2007 were different from the palestinians i met in 96-97. they learned the lesson of the second intifada the security organization committed to fight terrorism even though doing so, a lot of reasons, reasons to be

unhappy in the way we treat them and what they need to do and that is the answer of a unique time in the middle east right now and the light of the window and do something about. >> that is a very powerful message especially the realization of the aftermath of the hamas coup in gaza. a special envoy to the isis fight, international coalition fighting isis, you lead men in the anbar province, we know from the conversations we had when you worked on this issue this is something you care deeply about and spend so much time on, the question is why spend so much on the issue that is not as important as other issues you

dealt with in recent years? >> the most important thing. it was raised in a family where the history of the jewish people and their future was very important to us from the earliest moments, the stories of my mother and father, the jewish people were raised up as an important focus who we are as americans. is real as the jewish state is important to them. if i am committed to something that supports the jewish people and ultimately long-term strategic viability of israel which is what i believe in is at stake here. to participate and be a part of the process that can bring about a two state solution where his real security is guaranteed but can create sovereign and independent palestine for the

arab people and in partnership that their security is enhanced in the partnership, there is no bad time to be fully committed to this and left the government in november as the president's special envoy to fight isil and last conversation with john kerry. walking out the building, come off the bench the rest of my life where you need to for this. this is important. this relationship, israel with the palestinians, israelis with the palestinians is often at the heart of so many of the issues that we find in the region and by creating an environment where we protect the strategic viability of israel and creating an environment where palestinians believe their

interests have been served by the relationship, paid to a number of entities in the region that use this as a crutch and as an excuse not to move forward with pisa relationships with israel. iran in the future thought to champion falsely champion values and rights of palestinians and by working hard for this two state outcome where israel's security is guaranteed and palestinians have sovereign independent viable state and as security partner, i think we can solve or begin the process of solving many problems in the middle east. >> thank you. powerful statement about the long history of your commitment which personally during these efforts, i will turn to you, you

had experience at the pentagon working on these issues especially is undersecretary of defense for policy where you dealt the most sensitive policy issues you had to with these, and the relationship is unique, like nothing else, from the pentagon side, talk about your experiences, how this issue ran into the other things you dealt with at the pentagon or less so and generally speaking the experiences you had in the us israel coalition relationship. >> thank you for coming today, we are excited to see you. the us commitment to the state of israel and the security of israel is a historic one and one that has been carried through administration to administration, one of the few

areas of our foreign policy that receive consistent solid bipartisan support. the pillar of american foreign policy for good reason. within that the defense relationship between the us and israel is unique and it is a pillar of the relationship. i think both sides do their best to insulate the defense relationship in our cooperation from the ups hands-downs in the political sphere where we have agreement on this, disagreement on that and so forth. having had the opportunity to work on this unique defense relationship the real governing principle is the notion of maintaining his real's qualitative military edge and to reference something, to ensure that is real has the ability to defend itself by itself and people often think about this

thing that you take, and the truth is dynamic, the environment in which israel exists is dynamic, we have seen dramatic changes in the region, we have seen all kinds of threats and opportunities emerge in and around the state of israel. so has to be constantly reevaluated. and supported in that dynamic environment. what drew me to this project was this notion, if you assume the ironclad us commitment to israel, to israel security, in future administrations a, i believe that is the case. how would you ensure the state of israel security and ability to defend by itself and the

context of status agreement. it is fascinating and does go to the greatest concern israelis have about the agreement. can you reassure me a two state solution is secured? we create a lot of potential once negotiations resume for making real progress. the israeli population of the palestinian people for the long-term. >> we spent much time on the broader defense relationship. i think -- going back to you we will start diving in to specific

details of reports from different proposals that are out there and start with internal security because internal security is the most important thing. israelis need to know, the first argument you hear, the idea of leaving the west bank, the west bank will become gaza. the west bank, hamas will take over right away, palestinians can't secure themselves. is real has to be there forever. what kind of system can you build that you think can prevent that outcome? how do you think about that and ensure that is real knows that is not going to happen but the palestinians don't feel like there is the i df in a large point. ..

a. >> that's where it stops because of the great cooperation we have today. let's imagine you had a more comprehensive peace with more countries in the region. it immediately enhances israel's security. let's go one step back which is a controversial issue. if you ask most israelis, they will tell you that they would probably group for the idea stays in jordan. we know the ideas will stay forever in jordan, many will claim that they will never

accept it and there are claims that occupation has never ended. so in this paper we built a system to include the jordan valley that will be able to sport an effective counterterrorism internally by getting a very strong palestinian force that cannot pose any threat to the state of israel, but can be very effective internally supported by the u.s., supported by others, supported by israel, joint system of intelligence gathering and sharing of information. and capabilities that will

enable israelis, palestinians, monitor by the u.s. to prevent terrorism in the region. now, i think that if you want to go, if you want me to elaborate on it were more later on this speed is let's do jordan valley of the later. >> i think as a said before, the palestinians have proved that when they want to fight terrorism, they can do it that's what is happening in the last years. when we pass responsibility to the cities and palestinians have a very high level of motivation, they prevented a lot of terrorism. that's what's happening today on the ground. cooperation between us and palestinians at a level that has enabled us to transfer even the

most sensitive intelligence in order for them to take actions, and that's what they do. so i keep all this together, coordination systems that we already have on the ground and that will be developed in peace time. all this can create a good solution for the internal security. one issue that we have to talk about is gaza. how do you solve a problem with the gaza? this is something that gaza will have to meet certain conditions in order to be part of this issue? at the end of the day, gaza will have a solution. today it's a part of the problem. to be a part of the solution, not in initial phase.

something i think the report addresses. >> i'm going to continue to follow on this particular point, maybe ghaith or john kirtley on this, one of the things the report really gets into is the idea that taking a small force, small counterterrorism force trains into a level equivalent to that of his wanting of a major american city, to having to be an elite counterterrorism force, still not capable necessarily threatening israel, but can really do the job internally and any system that goes from the initial point of the action all the way through the court system, all the way through the holding facilities to make sure that we don't, basic of the palestinians have this unique capacity that they don't have today. so maybe actually john, i can turn to you to talk a little bit about that and you're just

about, that also on building for not in how you get there and how you train them as well. >> it's a really important point. it's about the security of the border but it's also the security inside, within the potential future state of palestine. i think the approach we took when i led the process was to look very hard at a trilateral process in a regime of cooperation where we would see and intelligence fusion capacity, where all three parties participated, which would hand off the developing intelligence to an operational entity, which would be emphasizing a palestinian counterterrorism capability, a swat entity of some form or another.

i don't want to go through all the details but didn't go to the process of building the intelligence and the target package launching on the nation. and then as we typically see come of the objective with detainees, that goes to your point about having not just the capacity to run a tactical operation, but to the capacity to run the judicial process that follows them to hold people accountable. and then the capacity to detain them in a credible way in the detention process that doesn't enhances the inherent increase of excuse and that we see in detention processes. it's not an uncomplicated process but it's also not one that has few unknowns, too many negatives that there, but we can foresee from one into another from the development of intelligence until the person is incarcerator did we can see the process. we can see the juncture of the operational force with the process of the judiciary. we can see the function of the

juncture of the end of the judicial process with the process of incarceration which would also include advance of the palestinians some aspect of deradicalization. a lot of effort into the. it wasn't just a casual process. the other aspect of it is virtually all that we did was a conference of approach. it wasn't as sometimes is portrayed in the media at high-technology approach or a single dimension to the approach. integrator technology, infrastructure, training, unit organization and integrated relationships in a very comprehensive way to achieve synergy that gave us the outcome that we chose. i will make a couple of points. my conversation with senior israeli officials and my palestinian counterparts who were frankly very forthcoming the entire time i worked with him on being a partner in this process, i told them that this process is a dynamic process and that the plan that would be

produced, if the israeli side and the palestinian side were to come together and be able without our help to find an outcome that they were seeking with respect to the sovereign state of palestine and a secure israel, there probably would not be the need for an american plan. the chances are until chastity belt and a willingness to take risk is embraced by both sides, we are going to get some work to about this point. the plan is intended to bridge the point. to create a long-term relationship with the united states and israeli partners and palestinian partners, a training command, a multinational print command and a number of states have demonstrated real interest in helping to train palestinians. to create this environment in which over a period of time in partnership with israelis and palestinians we bridge the differences to give both sides the confidence necessary to take

the risks to come together on their own. that's very important. what can be done today, and i know part of the plan or part of the study is being released talks about that. it's not in the study but i will tell you in conjunction work with -- with the work that i did we commission every detailed assessment of palestinian security force. the idea supported the process, and the seven secret chiefs participate in a. several months long it our intention was to look at the institutional changes necessary for the palestinian ministry of interior because it's not a military force. it's a law enforcement entity in the security entity. what organizational changes might be needed to improve the capacity of the various palestinian security entities, and then what functional changes would be necessary? in conversation with senior israeli leadership, there are

things that came out of that study that can be done today that improve organizational capacity to be even more efficient, to better support the organizations in the field the ministry of interior, to improve medical support to improve career training, to put access to schools, all of those things can be done today and could not, this is important, do not increase the risk of israel. in fact, it increases the capacity of the palestinians to be better security partners which in the end increases the security of israel. we can move up to date on that even if there's no political challenge, or no political conversation occurring. that was well documented we didn't release of the report because at that particular moment we saw the problems emerging in gaza. we were not sure where this is going to go. what we did what from the subject of the report to be taken apart in pieces of wood used inadvertently. but there is good work that could be done. >> thank you, john.

michelle, i will turn back to you. we've had this discussion. one of the things israelis will say, skeptics will say, what gadi and john have laid out, incredibly detailed rigorous plan, but what skeptics will say is, look, the americans trained forces in iraq. they trained forces in afghanistan. you left. those forces fell apart. how do we know we're just i could have a repeat of that. why put all this emphasis in training palestinian security forces when you just don't know and you really can't trust them? >> if you look more closely at the american record, our record training sort of elite counterterrorism unit is actually much more positive, mainly for a couple of reasons. one is they tend to be the best forces available. you get the best human capital to work with and so forth but it's also true we almost always

sustain a relationship and we continue working with them. so even a place like iraq and afghanistan were some aspects of the force have underperformed, those elite units have stayed very professional and very effective and continue to serve very well. again, i think the key lessons for me our you have to sustain a relationship over time, not just for training but to avoid the politicization of the force. what happened in iraq that caused whole divisions to fall apart was not a lack of training or equipping. what happened was the senior leadership, prime minister malik at the time, took the most coveted division commanders, took them out of the force and put his political cronies in. depoliticized the leadership of the force and then you had units that would no longer fight and die for someone who did it as a

political act was completely incompetent. when you stay with a force, when you stay engaged as we be making a long-term commitment to partnering with israel and the future palestinian state, as john describe it, a guarantor of this, we would be partnering long-term to ensure that this force had not only the training, equipment it needed, but also that continued relationship, mentorship to ensure that it doesn't become a letter sized or derailed in some way. or if that is happening we are able to see it and to raise that as a political issue at the political level. i think the track record is actually better than it looks and i think it's clear enough that we can learn some lessons that very much apply to ensuring that we can be successful in this case. >> so that's obviously one that will still be a continued conversation and a challenging

one. if any future proposal. so much of it, as john said, is dependent on people, not just technology at our ability. is one of the reasons the cover of the report is a picture of israeli security forces and palestinian security forces. at the end of the day extra upgrades and facilities and infrastructure are important but the single most important thing is human capital, people and a political environment that makes it work. i want to turn to the issue of the jordan valley and the border. this time i'd like to start maybe with john to talk about the details of i do think about the border security system as a whole and some of the work we did during those discussions previously, and it's also in the report. >> well, ilan comp wouldn't have enough time this afternoon for me to lay out the level of detail everyone needs to be.

but i will tell you, tell those who have read of the reporting in the media on the assessment of our plan, personal anybody who is reporting in the media has never seen our plan. that's the first thing. they really don't know. i will tell you, i would say that there are very few of my counterparts in any of the countries involved who have actually traveled all 93 kilometers of the jordan river, from the dead sea to where it passes out of what will become a palestinian state. and looked at every meter of the ground to ensure that we could control the ground in one way or the other. it's a comprehensive approach. first and foremost it is a time phased approach with the israeli presence over time will reposition still to be relevant to dispute of israel, and

overtime would diminish in a time phased approach, milestones that would be agreed with respect to the standards to be achieved by the palestinians for israeli forces to depart. so that's the first thing. that process is over years, it's not just a month, it's over years. i won't talk about the number of years we were talking about but i will tell you that we were coming towards the center in the conversation. it's a matter years but it's more than that. it's the training commands that we established down to the details of the individual subunits of the training command that would work closely with the various of the palestinian entities to build the capacity to the standards that we talked about to work in close with their american trainers come advisors over a long period come a decade, over long period of time to ensure both there's a continual professional uplift and to be present in the event of crisis. and give it a partnership with our israeli partners so that

over time as israel repositions initially in the jordan river valley and along the jordan river and repositions back into israeli borders, that the kind of residual force along with the river still provides the level of security. and conjecture without very detailed their your plan. very detailed their your plan with multiple layers in that very plan. and a sensor system which provides the capacity to look in all directions. to ensure that we can see era threats so we can see moving threats on the ground and then, of course, as a doctor having joint board of ordination centers, one in jordan, one in palestine jointly manned by all four parties involved so that we have a common visualization on the great walls of those operations centers so that it is

in initial comment in palestine, in jordan and probably seen in an american command center somewhere. we all have the same visualization. all of this together constitutes the competence of approach, which is time phased with milestones that are standards, standards based, supported by technology but very importantly a highly well-trained palestinian force, were the overtime with american assistance and israeli assistance, if that were to come forth, to be the replacement force on the ground. but against all of that is to be negotiated, but the details exist today and could be of limited relatively quickly. >> one follow-up question. compared to what sits on the border today, do you see this as a significant upgrade in terms of -- >> there's no question. that is something sing along that border today but the process in the and with the infrastructure that would be built, the barrier fences, the patrol roads, the basic

garrisons for patrolling units come israeli units and then eventually palestinian and american units, that's entirely new infrastructure. a sensor system would be mostly new but also of high quality proven centers that we've used in a lot of places where it's worked out well. there is no comparison with what will be produced versus what's on the ground today. to include the border coordination centers. those are really important. it will create habits of cooperation between palestinians who will lead the center at some point in the new palestinian state with their jordanian counterparts across the river, with the same come with americans from jordanians, palestinians and israelis with all of them that will create habits of cooperation which provide for strategic viability and security. >> gadi, i would like to invite you to follow-up on this, two questions. one is come in addition comments on the over all system that john

is describing? i know you've spent a lot of time there and thought carefully about these questions. and also to follow up, despite all of these different systems, there is still the question about okay, who is in the long-term, is that force sitting on the river, you know? the report offers a number of different options but ultimately comes down and says american force is probably the most politically digestible option can talk about small numbers of americans that deal with this can either on their own or together with the palestinian force. that's a major issue and a major concerns amid even start to get into that spirit as a toad at the beginning most israelis would like to see the idea but i think it's impossible to do it

and to achieve a real peace agreement with the palestinians. by the way, we have the same dilemma. when we left the gaza strip, a quarter which is between the border between gaza and egypt, after a short corridor, 12 kilometers, very short. but still a lot of problems. i commanded the division of gaza at the height of the conflict with the palestinians, with hamas in 2003-2004. hamas was producing rockets, ieds, everything. it's true that after, it's true after disengagement from gaza, and while the egyptians didn't pay enough attention to that border, hamas could bring

ammunition and send people to train in syria and iran, and they picked up their capabilities. it's true, but still if i look at situation today as opposed to the situation in 2004, and i was in gaza, it could've been much worse had we stayed in the corridor. much worse than it is today. that's why -- cannot be suspect if somebody doesn't stand military issues or strategy. he decided to leave. by the way, he was the one who decided to hold elections in jerusalem because those elections, hamas won. when i asked him, prime minister, aren't you afraid? he said okay. unit, we can handle it.

gaza is a problem, but gaza will be a problem and the future of the solution. that's a use huge see. going back to the jordan river. same thing. we have a very committed jordanian force on the eastern side. i hope that you'll have an american force. israel has the best expense with international force. that's the way of thinking. but if you really look carefully into it, take the example of lebanon, for example. 1701 brought the lebanese military and militia into lebanon. is it better or worse but we are enjoying the longest time of quiet in lebanon. hamas has been deterred. hezbollah has deterred. i think the plan general allen

did is a very comprehensive plan but at the end of the day it's not a matter of equipment or technology. it's a matter of commitment. i think if the commitment is there we can do it. at the end of the day, we have to leave the palestinians with the feeling that their sovereignty is there, otherwise, so i think an american force is, you know, the american conduct and commitment is very appreciated by the israelis. that's what i think the american force can be a very good solution. a small, capable american force working side-by-side with the jordanians. we portray a unique zone of about a mile and half from each side of the river that

jordanians, u.s. forces, earlier -- and the palestinians are sharing everything on the zone, system of border crossing and i think as thinking can lead to a good solution. we have a good example, assign it is a good example to the american commitment. it was not designed for similar missions. it was designed much weaker with equipment and a mandate that they were given. so now they found able to deal with the threats inside a. but that's not how you want an american force to defend american force would be in the jordan valley. this is something that can be addressed. i know the current government doesn't like it but we don't do

this, we didn't do this plan for the current government. we do for the state of israel. i think that's the way it should be. >> gadi, one follow-up. you know, comment/question. really the focus with the jordan river. i think it's important you talked about a to columbus of on each side. that keeps it is the route 90, keeps it very invisible to the palestinians which is critical. there's a lot of arguments for any to hold the entire jordan river valley which is much more invasive. but really has a lot more to do with conventional military threats such as an invasion from the east, right? which seems a lot less likely at this point, but what do you say to people who say you need to making the entire jordan river valley, strategically? >> the convention of threats,

first, doesn't exist now your candidate evolve -- can it evolve into future quest yes. but with the structures as we talked about with jordanian commitment, within an american commitment, security of jordan, things will look totally different. that's going to talk about the multilayer system, that's the idea. layers of security, layers of commitment, layers the partnerships. that's the way to do it. i think the conventional threat, something that can be dealt. at the end of the d israel is a sovereign country, and if we will see that something is threatening the existence of a state of israel, we will act. you can see what's happening in lebanon today.

is the idf operating when we need to operate in lebanon or in series of? we do. it's never respected, international forces never restricted israel from operating when there was a real need to do it. i think that's the answer, i hope to answer your question. >> that absolutely interested. michelle, this is the proposal. no, we should go hear about from the american perspective as well, this idea that we're talking about the report recommends a lease 800 troops who would do this borders hud nation, also do part of the trade, the attorney can also be done internationally with a lot of other forces, are already there and committed to training. and implementation and monitoring most of which would be done by americans. what do you think, do you think

that u.s.-israeli relationship is fine of two withstand the challenge? is a something the israelis worry about? is there a commitment in congress or the american public for this in terms of the u.s. willingness to to point these types of forces and peacekeeping types of forces because if you look at history, when presidents have gone to the american people and made a compelling strategic case for why u.s. forces need to be deployed forward, whether it was germany during, and central europe during the cold war, or south korea at the termination, the uncertain termination of that conflict, or the balkans to keep the peace as the conflict died down and secure the future of the states of former yugoslavia, i think when that

case has been made the american people have shown themselves quite willing to support that. if you imagine the context that we are talking about, the context is, if we achieve this, we collectively have achieved this historic agreement that is going to secure the state of israel long-term, ensure its international recognition legitimacy peace with its neighbors, we are ending occupation, creating a viable palestinian state. i mean, in that context to ask for a small american commitment to ensure that is successful, i mean, i think this is not a hard strategic case for an american president to make to the american people, as a small investment with disproportionately positive impacts on the future of the region. >> well said. >> i would be ready to make that case.

>> i'm going to ask one final question but i thought about i just want to throw to either gadi or john penton we will open it up for questions. one other issue that tends to pop up a fair amount in dialogue today, concerns about either coddling, not the border can we talk about the border with jordan. we haven't talked about the border between the new palestinian state and israel. i think people look at the tunneling threat and also, for example, areas around the airport and how you deal with those types of challenges or even with rockets and fired things in gaza. maybe just throw that out there as an issue that's important to address that we tackle in the report to get your perspective and how you answer those questions, and then we'll open it up for questions. >> i will defer to my hero, gadi, in a moment. we took those very seriously. we watched what was unfolding

during the gaza conflict at the time we were doing the negotiations and some of the horrific activity that occurred in what became known as the subterranean warfare. and, in fact, israel today probably leads the world in doctrinal thinking about the implications of subterranean warfare and out ultimately to face the threat and to deal with it. but also we look at it as well. that would be an important part of the conversation, part of the negotiations would be the conversation with the three parties or the multiple parties on how we secure the subterranean speed we will leave this to go live to the independent women's forum annual policy conference. optics expect to hear from sabrina schaeffer, and then about 15 minutes it will be a discussion on the impact of the untimely death of associate supreme court justice antonin scalia. how his death is affecting the green card. >> we had a productive morning.

we took a deeper dive into our new report working for women to appreciate getting a lot of your feedback during the speed networking session. menacing how you to sign in the lobby, it is the bolton version of working for winter. called it a conservative commonsense commitment. we would love your signature to show your support for this project and for the work we are doing to advance women's economic opportunities with outgoing government. as many of you know over the past five years than five has been encouraging conservatives to engage in more and more effectively with women. we've urged our allies and partners on the right to take gender differences more seriously. we've urged them to talk to them about the issues that matter to them. with a message that's going to resonate. we realize these changes are going to take time to fight our best efforts. it will not happen overnight. they may not happen this year

but i think things are moving in the right direction. i am very happy to be able to say today that the highest ranking gop women in the house leadership, cathy mcmorris rodgers, has signed on to are working for been agenda. that is a huge step forward. it shows we are building support at the federal level and she will be able to help us gain support at the state level as well. sometimes it does seem that for every big step forward that we take two steps backward. republicans managed to -- but i think that many people feel as though conservatives have been set back this election season with women which is frustrating to many of us who have spent years focus on advancing a policy agenda and messages that will resonate and be appealing to women. our goal is to make sure that more women value limited government and liberty come as a this is a frustration. despite the ups and downs i know

we're in this for the long term and we look around the room i know that we are making a difference. the reason i for comfort about it, i don't just see ifw friends or supporters. but is he a roomful of other women leaders and other women's organizations from around the country are working to impact the conversation with us, whether it's at the universities or in their neighborhoods are into professional fields are at the state capitals. many of your prolific writers and reporters, others have been built impressive social networks. some are offering important candidate and media training. we know many of you are creating new environments for women are interested in a conservative brand of feminism where they can come together with other like-minded women. for all o of his work on everybody. ought to be applauded. [applause] right on cue. some people, we have donors here

today who've asked me if they're going competition during women's groups on the right? and i say no. i am thrilled there' there has n this proliferation of women's groups on the right. because many more women today understand that we wrote a few years back that liberty is not a war and women. it means there is a marketplace for ideas and messages, it is very exciting at a book is for sale in the lobby last night just in case. ifw, however is thrilled to continue to be the consistent thought leader on the right focus on substantive policy for women and their families, extensive broadcast outreach and serious academic great research. this is our contribution to the conservative in his movement and we know our product as many of you already rely on, and we hope many more of you will visit a ifw website and think of us as a resource as you go back to your communities and try to reach women with a limited government.

so while we're on the topic of persuasion since we're in an election year, i wanted to talk a few myths about women voters and what this all means. i know that our candidates both at the state level, at the federal level who are hoping to convince women to come onto their side of the fans. i was listening to a show on npr morning edition. i am a conservative who listens regulate to npr, but my favorite segment comes about once a week or so, "the hidden brain" and he reports on an interesting social science research of the day. he recently talked about some political such research out of canada, if you want to persuade people you should frame your points using your opponent moral framework. are often when candidates are speaking to use passionate arguments a resident with a framework of their existing base. so republicans are talk about

isis will speak passionately about patriotism. democrats are talk about income inequality will talk passionately about fairness is the problem is speaking passionately to those already agree with us simply reinforces support among our existing supporters. it doesn't do much to broaden our coalition. so that's why this research emphasized if you want to persuade you supporters yet to start by using their moral framework rather than your own. that's something easier said than done. i was thrilled to just because this is exactly what ifw tries to do everyday. our own social science research has written from this and again we are social science nerds that ifw but that's what we do. a few years ago we conducted a randomized controlled trial on the issue pay equity which we talked about this morning, and became a with two critical findings. the first was a very large majority of women, 74%, think discrimination in the workplace

is somewhat of a problem. and it showed as responders perception of fairness as equal outcomes has posted equal opportunities was the single best predictor of their support for progressive law like a paycheck fairness act. this research made his request any conversation about the wage gap has to start by using progressive moral framework or put simply have to start on their playing field. we have to begin by acknowledging their archive actors and that enforcement discrimination exist. the second point is more important that's, it is not enough for us in this room we may say it will opportunity is all that matters. but if are trying to persuade women to oppose a mass of law like a paycheck fairness act would've devastating economic consequences for men and women, do we need to speak to them in terms of what they want what does equal outcome. if that's the case that we need to emphasize we can't set women back by passing laws that would create barriers to entry, reduce

the flexibility limit their ability to advance in the workplace. there's one thing this new research may have overlooked and it's another thing we take seriously at ifw, that is speaking passionately is forgiven from speaking at an emotional personal level. of the research was conducted on paid leave mandates, another issue we talked about this morning and will continue to talk about this afternoon, is that when you frame an issue in personal terms, we are tremendously effective at persuading women to oppose one size fits all big government mandates. we learned when we talk to women in a sympathetic tone that recognizes their experiences and explains how paid leave mandates would make it too expensive for and put to keep them on, support for these types of regulations drop precipitously. were able to turn a balance of sport into a balance of opposition. even more effective than when respondents learn these mandates would hurt the very people they are meant to help, the poor get

this is true among progressive women as well. when we use their moral framework, we are having a more meaningful conversation and we are more persuasive and that is what i think most of us today would like to see. it's about self-satisfaction, preaching to the choir. if we want to persuade new supporters as i think all of us do want to continue doing, we need to speak to the personal emotional level on their terms keeping their moral framework in mind, not our own. i think i will help us industry whether we are in the business of generating policy like we are at ifw activating grassroots coming digital social media work reading social networks. without i want to think that he will again for coming to women lead and will get on with our conversation about the future of the supreme court. thank you so much. [applause]