providing that information. >> could i just ask a quick follow-up? i take so much is said and i took from the policy that the general impetus is to try and manage the litigation and would avoid the disclosure of the technology, if possible. >> i think you try to protect what technology you have so the bad guys can't then use it against you, as much as you can. but at the same time we are in a legal process where you have to be able to, sixth amendment right. we applied with the fourth amendment. you've got to work through that as well. >> thanks. >> i notice one of the strategies you had on your first slide was a coast guard arctic strategy. with opening up a new shipping lane, russia asserted itself in that area can you just touch upon what the strategy entails and what your involvement is?

>> that's george has a lot of different elements to it including things are making sure that we recapitalize what we have, adequate fleet of poor icebreakers that can operate in the area. the coast guard has three icebreakers, to have the icebreakers, one of which works, one of which doesn't work, it's been an operable for a while but we also have one medium icebreaker, i do believe the studies indicate that there is a need for three heavy and three mediums. we are going to the process and the president has stated he wants the coast guard have more icebreakers. we are going to the process of how to do that are criminalized and when he did it rather quickly because of i first greater was the applicant sophisticates rather old. of the arctic countries have a lot more icebreakers than that. obviously, rush i think is the

most. they are up 40 plus. they have more arctic coastline than the u.s. does but canada has more than us. finland has more than us. we are limited in the number of icebreakers and we need to work on that and it's one of the things are spent a lot of time with our procurement dollars on is how to do that. the other areas, maritime domain awareness in the arctic is a challenging thing because of high latitudes, because of the different communications work differently in those high latitudes. we don't have a lot of resources up there. those are the two main areas, is making sure we can assert sovereignty over, the part of the arctic that are either the u.s. exclusive economic zone of use continental shelf, while at the same time making sure that the arctic, which the areas that are high seas can remain open for everybody. a lot of resources in the arctic, not only resources on

the seabed, potential for oil, for deposits as well as fisheries. and has fisheries in other places around the world oceans start to diminish, we expect to see more vessels and more countries looking for fishing, fishing in the arctic as the ice received and that again, we need to have more assets to operate in that environment. right now there's a cruise ship, the crystal serenity, editing a transit from alaska to the northwest passage which is over basically above canada, through canada, going to come out on the other side. start in the pacific and going to be led through the northwest passage. it's about a 30 day cruise. the first like that, 1000 passengers are pretty significant, looking at what would happen if that chris turned into a search and rescue case, how would we respond to that? goes all the types of issues we're looking at in our arctic

strategy you saw is meant to force us to look at. thanks for that question. >> it's too late for me to apply for a job at dhs, but as i listen to this great band that reminds me how material the department is become and how great it is. if i did want to apply i suppose i could go to the website and look up and find the information about how to become a dhs attorney. i know each of you have a different lifetime routes that you are right at this great destination you are at now. is there something you could share with the audience, joe, and panel, about applying to be a dhs attorney within one of the components? >> we have a number of different ways you can look for job opportunities with us. certainly through the main dhs website to get to our general counsel office page. we post vacancies of their as well as i know some of the components have their own

websites with a post, we post on u.s.a. jobs as well as a number of different forums. there's a lot of different avenues to contact us but one of the benefits of our office is it to very large office which gives opportunity for people who want to move and change throughout their career as well as have an office that large means we were truly do have openings. go to coast guard.com. you will find a way to do that. we are hiring. none of you look too old for that. >> thank you again very much for having us uninsured folks afterwards would be happy to talk to you if we see you in the

hallway. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this conference taking a short break return and about 15 minutes and they will continue with a discussion look at the role of the military and homeland security. we have this related story from ththe hill that is running toda. united states chief information officer today boosted his push for congress to approve $3 billion in loans to modernize government technology. that proposal cruelly under debate would provide $3.1 billion of loans for agency to update technology. that money would be repaid to the cost savings of using the more efficient technologies.

we will be back with live coverage of the discussion when it happens. now members of congress talking about what they're reading this summer. >> booktv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they're reading this summer. >> first of all thanks to c-span for all you do on this front. it's very important the service you give to the country. my folks are watching this. my kids will get a kick out of this. i got a very extensive reading list coming up number for the summer but for the next year. i thought it would start off with recommendation for folks, prayer for people under pressure by jonathan aiken written by a former member of the english parliament. i think he knows little bit of pressure and i thought i could learn something from you. second new one, troublesome young men by lynne olson has to

do with the rise of a small band of conservatives in the parliament during the churchill period, and kind of motivated by, i'm a member of the house freedom caucus. we have 40 or 50 great folks that are trying to get the country back on straight. solve all the fiscal problems. just can't represent the people more closely can do what the people want to do. i think this book will give me a little motivation the next one, the taliban to give it away but it's called on civilization. he briefed me on foreign policy one day and just an amazing mind on foreign policy. i've learned so much i want to read some of his books. so the subtitle is urban geopolitics in a time of chaos. and so maybe at first blush an unlikely source of grounding for international policy but his

thesis is some of the uncertainty and instability and chaos we are seeing around the globe, which we are clearly seeing, is driven by the urban-rural split in the country. and just kind of with the growth of the urban cities, although that more detachment from the jeffersonian yeoman farmer and love of country patriotism nationalism in the positive sense. and maybe we need a bigger dose of history. i haven't finished the book. i started reading about and a little of it. next one, the desire of nations was highly recommend giving on political theology. obviously, that is probably the issue of our day with isis in the debate over our constitution, the role of the judeo-christian tradition, how does islam fit into this conversation.

and so it trace traipses this is about. i think most of you probably know, islam, the jewish tradition in christianity, we all just have a nice cover stations around aristotle. the conversation is possible but it requires unity of thought. so aristotle is one nice place to be. this plan others, private entity coming up. i think we need to urge some of our brothers and sisters over in hotspots that reformation might not be a bad idea to enlightenment would certainly be a good idea. so those are probably some of the things i'm reading about in that boat. next one or contemporary extortion by peter schweitzer. it's been aroun around a while. i read it a few years back but i'm going to give it another look. what are the politics broken? and went back and seems to think there is this left wing right wing war going on between the parties, factions and the right-wingers and left-wingers to i talk to bernie sanders at a white house christmas party and he shared my view that's not the

case, that most of the case has to do with maybe the medal and doling out $4 trillion to the insiders and cronies appear in d.c. that i think is a strong explanation for the want of politics is broken. i think he pursues that pretty well. money correlated with elections, correlated with committee assignments, correlated with everything, voting record commit center. the next one is a shameless plug, it's called american underdog by a congressman named david brad, available june 28. i am plugging my own stuff. it's wide-ranging. i had a friend help me put together but i said in previous books of the together, lecture notes over 20 years without the economics and ethics at randolph macon.

basic thesis iran on the republican creek in virginia, basically american themes, but since then i went a little 30,000 put up in the air and the three pillars that have made our civilization the greatest i think, the greatest country on earth, three pillars that hold of the foundation, they include not surprisingly the judeo-christian tradition. i went to princeton seminary before i get economics in madison. went to college of new jersey, roughly the princeton seminary. instead hebrew for kicks when he was done. the judeo-christian tradition leads to the second, the rule of law. and then we did in 1776 also, by divine intervention or not, you can make up your own mind, but adam smith the founder of free economics. across the pond in england, scotland doing economics and ethics as well. he was the chair of moral

philosophy. a lot of great thinkers weaving together, religion, philosophy, political philosophy. in the past not so many doing it today. that's why these books in for my reading list. next one was given to me by a 4-star general a few weeks ago, combat ready by thomas hansen, by all accounts our military, army, navy, air force, weakest level since post-world war ii in terms of troops, ships, planes, et cetera. so it's an analysis of combat readiness. i recommend that would highly based on what i heard. next one, how god became king. new testament scholar of note. again political theology, political philosophy. how god became king and not necessarily what you might think at first blush. maybe kind of david and goliath malcolm gladwell explanation,

that the king in this case is a humble king. next one by a sociologist, the triumph of christianity, again not a boastful triumph but a triumph a look at the country who have civil liberties, strong civilize, political rights, women in the workforce, all sorts of christianity, the reformation of the enlightened again. basic things i want to explore more deeply so i'm want the readers in the field. than a whopper, kind of a three-inch biography george washington. i will try to make my way through called sacred fire, was given to me as a gift about a year ago after it entered office and i'm going to do my best on that plan. and washington is just kind of one of those amazing figures when you read about him and what others say about him. all men and women loved him and respected him a so there's something to this guy that is

extra particular, extra significant. the more i read about him the more i see that. but can never get enough of seeing what resonates with such an important founder, and some argue the founder, the indispensable man, the went to all the others looked up in loved and respected. and so it's good to take notes on people like that. and so that is a hefty reading list. and again i think c-span for letting me the opportunity to share a few books that i'm going to take a cat and my constituents to go around talking about this stuff at our meetings around the 10 counties. most people get stimulated by this kind of intellectual exchange. i sure do. so thank you c-span for all you do, and happy reading. thank you. >> otd wants to know what you are reading this summer. tweet us your answer @booktv or post on our facebook page,

facebook.com/booktv. >> booktv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they are reading this summer. >> i have a variety of things on my summer reading list. it's hard to say but the last will be because i'm kind of a spontaneous book reader. i will start reading a book and usual at a couple going at one time and then i will run across an article or some reference to the book and say i've got to take a look at that one. it's a journey come it's never quite as i move forward. as far as my plans for the summer, one thing that have going, effectively a book right now that i have not read since i was in college, actually back when i was studying in college. i read a book called zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance which i was drawn to because i'm a passion motorcyclist. i plan to do a whole lot of the faq or at least as much as they can the summer but the book isn't really about motorcycles.

it's a philosophical book and i've always thought philosophy. i have a masters in philosophy and that's an intellectual interest of mine. i remember being taken by the book back in the late 1970s. i thought it's time to pick it up and read it again to i'm starting to read it right now, about a man's journey with his son across the country but then gets in depth in relation with technology and much broader discussion about some of the big issues, pressing philosophical issues in the late 70s that are just as relevant today. i'm reading it because i'm going to do a cross michigan motorcycle ride as part of my activities this summer to get in connection with folks. i've got a harley davidson. i'm going to be doing town hall meeting, meet with local journalists and some of our more world counties in michigan. i'm going to be at coffee shops and do a little townhall meetings. people can join me for part of the right if they would like as we go from town to town.

i thought it was time to pick that book up and read it again. another book i'm reading right now is by the eminent biologist, mr. wilson, edward wilson and his social concourse of the earth which talks about human journey and our development over the years and how individual selection and group selection with a form who we are, and talks about how societies are really constructed and restaurant as a result of some of these evolutionary avenues we have taken as the species. i'm looking forward to reading the continuation of his social conquests but. then we'll see what the rest of the summer league i'm sure there will be other topics that are going to pop up that are going to keep me reading. >> booktv wants to know what you're reading this summer.

tweet us your answer @booktv or post on our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. >> and we are live once again for a series of panels on the nation's security. up next, a panel on the role of the military and homeland security. this is live coverage on c-span2, which should get underway here in just a moment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are going to get started here. thank you for joining us for this 11:30 a.m. have on the role of military and homeland defense. i am pleased to introduce professor will banks. is the moderator for this discussion and he is the interim dean, director for the institute

for national security and counterterrorism and a professor at the execution of a city college of law. so we look forward to hearing from him and his panel members. before we go through introductions for the rest of the panel i would like to show you a little flyer for this book that professor will banks has cowritten. the soldiers on the homefront. there are flyers out there. if you get a chance, please pick up a copy of this book. this is extraordinary. you will be riveted and you'll really enjoy this book. i just wanted to put in a little plug for that. >> holly gets 20% of all sales. thank you, and welcome to this panel. this should be a lot of fun. atop the is timely and really urgent in many respects.

it's the role of the military and homeland defense. you all know that if crisis requires american troops to deploy on our soil, we depend on a legal framework for those operations to carry forward. and everyone in this room knows the importance of a sound, effective, comprehensive legal framework to govern the use of american troops on domestic soil. indeed, such a framework exists but it is evolving. it's changed quite a lot even since the 9/11 attacks, even though that 15 year period is a small segment of our history. the pace has quickened tremendously over this period of years. we have the a team here on the panel to engage on the subject with you today. very brief and i'm going to introduce them, make a few introductory comments and then spin out of snare and turn it loose but we're going to save

some time for questions and discussion with you. so first let me introduce the panel. john gereski is a senior attorney with the office of general counsel at dhs in the operation and enforcement division. john's portfolio includes domestic and foreign disaster assistance, air and ground to make them the dhs joint task forces, the dod and national guard issues. he's principle strategic and operational plans the attorney for the headquarters. second, lieutenant commander tim cronin to my immediate left is currently a signed as the advanced operational law fellow at the u.s. army center for law and military operations in charlottesville. in the capacity he manages and teaches the domestic operations portfolio. third, jeff greene is now the director of government affairs for north america and senior

policy counsel. before joining, jeff was senior counsel with the same homeland security and governmental affairs committee. jeff also worked on house committee on homeland security and was counsel to the senate hurricane katrina investigation. batting cleanup, my colleague and friend paul rosenzweig who is the founder of redbridge consulting and homeland security consulting company. is also senior advisor to the chertoff group your impulse former life, one of his, he was deputy assistant secretary for policy at dhs, and there's other titles. so here are the things we hope to touch on in the next hour with you. first, what other drivers? would've been the main drivers in the developing of homeland defense, particularly in the years since 9/11? second, what's the rules and say? we could talk for hours, perhaps

days about the rules and which all to sleep very probably not we will try to summarize in a very succinct. then beyond the rule set, how does it was the work? inside the question i suppose that's how it really works is what are the hard parts? where does the rubber meets the road? where are the tension points? there are some and they are really quite apparent. and then finally thinking particularly about the law, how do old chestnut principles in our law like the posse comitatus act and the interaction act like a? and finally are there circumstances do we might imagine where the military might actually be in charge in a domestic operation? you will see the premise that you all know is that the military service in support of soviet leadership.

that's our default position. bear with me for a moment and imagine its next january or the election has occurred. depression is about to be inaugurated, in several u.s. cities have been hit by isis iss inspired terrorist attacks. using conventional weapons and truck bombs, jihadists have killed dozens of people, injured many more. intelligence and police say that they've thwarted other attacks and they detained a number of suspects, but many others remain at large. americans everywhere are on edge. now imagine that news bulletins begin to appear reporting power blackouts on the west coast, terrorists have blown up transformers and power lines, and they mounted a cyber attack on the electric grid. as the blackout rolls eastward, major elements of the nations infrastructure, including the internet, public water supplies

in the banking system begin to fail. widespread panic ensues. this is not a far-fetched scenario. many experts believe it's not a matter of whether but when. so the point of departure for us now is how would the united states government respond with the military be involved? and if so, how? john, let's start with you. >> my name is john gereski to just look at the background to tell you different prisons i look at these issues through. i was a national guardsman and returned from the connecticut national guard after 20 years. i perform 10 years of active duty service before i joined the guard. i was also out at the united states northern command, norad, going to stand up northcom immediately after the 9/11. i kind of look at the perspective in the prism of homeland defense and where does it work through those different

entities. i would tell you the first experience i had personally with regard to support to civil authorities and insurrection act came at a very young age and it was during the riots. of course, i'm old but i'm not that old. my dad was old enough. my dad was a career guardsmen. he was a captain of a company in new haven, connecticut, and he was responsible for going out and being in charge of one of the companies that responded to the riots in new haven, connecticut. what i remember of that event was that when i woke up the next morning, it was a cool jeep sitting in my front yard that i was able to climb through. so all of you who are out there, don't tell me about the home to work stuff. i got it. i just was too young at that point to really explain what it was to my father. my mother would tell you that she was incredibly worried, that one, my dad brought home his side arm and she didn't like guns and house and so she had to find a way to hide it through a

series of boxes inside boxes inside a closet. even though none of us would see it. also she's worried about the health of my father. what was going to happen to the national guardsman that were in that particular area trying to keep the protests, you know, still to be protest but to be able to keep everybody safe in that situation where my father is a different and more interesting situation because he is commander of the company that actually came from new haven. so he was worried about his soldiers that were working with him on those different lines, and he was worried about the people that were maybe on the other side of the line who may want to harm soldiers were also from new haven, connecticut. so when we think of the support of military forces to perform domestic operations in the united states, i would say it's a very, it's an important decision and it's a difficult

position. it's a difficult decision with regard to the governor's perspective as far as his tenth amendment authorities, as forces general policing authorities, with regard to his ability to command and control his national guard. so there is that piece that's available. they also have within dod, dod is one to perform the missions that the secretary of defense by the president advises him, or advises them to perform. so you have that as well. my third position of a pocket or specifically has to do with homeland security and the second of homeland security and the authorities and what the the homeland, secretary of homeland security would do in this day and age to try to be able to look at the. but i was at national guard bureau, national guard bureau is a title x organization. it's a federal organization. it provides, it is the kind of communication between the state

national guards with the signature of the army, secretary the air force and the secretary of defense. there is no command and control relationship. so they can't tell the guard. cannot tell the states what to do. but they can provide money for funding, et cetera. they can provide standards to which they need to drink you in order to be able to maintain their federal status. so one of the questions that came up during 9/11 when i was there was the issue of what can we do in order to perfect after 9/11 to protect the airports? the issue that came up was the national guard would perform that mission of providing support and security within the airports. so in order to be allowed back, one of the questions and issues we looked at was does posit, thomas apply? they can be used in support of or as an arm of law enforcement.

lieutenant commander cody and put it into the of the more specific. the question is do the national guard fall within the prism, and the answer would be no. statutorily the car doesn't fall within the because it is under the command and control of the governor, state entity, not a federal entity and put the ball in that situation. second question became if the feds are going to pay for them to do that operation, does that now cross the divide to make them susceptible to posse comitatus? again the answer was no. i'm bringing this point up to identify that it is a capability be able to bring force and help and assistance in various situations and they're called the national guard. the national guard would not be subject to the rules of possibility honest and it is the method that is available. so then from there i go to the united states nor, come again after 2011. excuse me, after, yeah, 2001. and i'm working there in 2004

and we are just before opting for operational container -- ability. explained the fact that dod and the feds understand that there is a distinction between what is homeland defense and what a civil support the commission was quite certain. it said the first part of the missions that conduct operations to deter, prevent and defend threats and aggression in the united states territories and it is within the assigned area of responsibility your classic homeland defense mission statement. the second mission which was separated by a; set as directed by the president or the secretary of defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management and operations. survey by understanding and then is going the fact that when dod forces are going to be used in homeland, the conducting a homeland defense mission. that was one piece and one set of analysis that you would use

to address the authorities come what address you rules for use of force, that would address what the capability you would be able to use. you would look at one set of options in outside and then on the other side if you're performing what they called defense support of defense authorities, that you had to have a request, which had to be ordered and directed by depression or the secretary to be able to perform that mission. and you were serving in support of sibling agencies, entities, governors, et cetera. that's kind of the premise to kind of look out, the federal side of what was happening. again, northcom but the other thing is when you go, when i went to the tiny northern command it was again early. most of the folks and most of the commanders that were coming to work with title x forces only and had only done operations that were overseas tech the fact of the matter is that conducting operations in the homeland are very, very difficult.

they are different. you don't use the same authorities. your ability of what you can do and how you can do it is much different from what you're doing in a war theater versus which are able to do in homeland. you have to go through and train and explain the understanding of these commands and for the soldiers and airmen and marines in coasties over coast guard members that were there, you have to be able to explain so that they can make that distinction and make the logical jump between what am i doing in theater of war in what am i able to do in homeland. does an analysis. i would suggest that that point during the stand up of the united states northern command, dod has a rate and instruction but everything to obligate into the correct way to tie your shoelaces am a the correct way to change a lightbulb. there are plenty of instructions. the instructions area are conducting operations in homeland was fairly small. it was basically what the army had put together as they are added duty.

so there really wasn't a doctrine that was after for people to be able to follow. i would suggest that changed a great deal since been. now have fast response framework, the various supporting functions. we have different things in different responsibilities that are able to explain where different people are supposed to fit in. we are two different organizations that can. what is the strategic awareness of the federal fit in, where does the states again, what is the state and local state in? with that capability and with that type of doctrine i think the use of federal forces and some of the concerns about using federal forces in homeland should be diminished just a bit. and then find as i go into my last point. so i workout department of homeland security. so i would say the secretary is responsible for coordinating the federal preparedness activities and operations within the united states to respond to and recover

from terrorist attacks from major disasters, and other emergencies. so that's the general requirement in general authority. there are great and terrific assets that we have at the department of homeland security that would be able to address, gifford many of the different folks talk about an already earlier today and yesterday as well. capabilities that we can bring if you will to the terrorist fight. whether it's the folks over at nppd, whether it's the folks at tsa, our transportation security administration. there are great authorities that could be used in order to be able, for the secretary used in these requirements. in addition because you have a situation where there are multiple federal organizations that will have responsibilities, the sector also has a hspd-5 responsibility is is possible to serve as the focal point for crisis and emergency planning and as a printable federal officer for domestic incident management. doesn't mean he's in charge of

everything that happens. it doesn't mean that he has the ability to tell different agencies and departments what to do or how to do it. but it says he tried to coordinate all of this incredible capability that's been built since 9/11 and try to make sure it's focused, identify with our cats come with are seems, what do we need to do collectively connotes make our response more for a more complete? that's what is responsible is in what he would exercise those authorities. that's all i have for start. >> tim, what does dod have to do with his? this? >> i think is professor banks mention an excerpt, there's this historical awareness of the deity participating in domestic operations. we see that weariness reflected in both law and policy. identity from the schoolhouse perspective that military commanders are cognizant of that weariness. there's a tension between that weariness and the undeniable fact that within the united states, dod possesses a huge amount of capability that could

be brought to bear on a situation like this. intelligence capacity, robust, you know, amounts of personnel in every single state, logistical capabilities, communication systems and a fine-tuned chain of command. the role of a military attorney innocent of such as one professor banks make is how do we navigate that tension between that historical awareness and then that raw capability that dignity can bring to bear. i'm going to want to have a dod would approach this. in terms of navigating, the one thing you should take away, and tandi think even in terms of ths scenario, the default rule is that the dod is going to put a supporting role does the authorities and the department of homeland security. typically dod is not going to play any role generally in less state resources have been expended in the state governor is looking for a.

i think the dod is going to play generally, play a default rule. that's how this is a design. that's how we teach and that's a military commanders are thinking about it. i say generally because the military still has the lead in matters of homeland defense. what i say homeland defense i mean that if the united states has suffered an armed attack such that article 51 of the u.n. charter would permit actions of self-defense, dod has the lead role in that situation. the president as commander-in-chief the alone will probably make that decision of when and where and in how to respond to an armed attack. if we look at this scenario in terms of is this an armed attack on is this homeland defense, i don't really know. you know, again, way above my pay grade but i think the difficult questions on those facts specific situations.

.. the dod is going to look at this type of situation in a very authority driven way. what is needed from the dod in the support role, what authorities do we possess and what are the legal restrictions

that guide argues of that authority? i think the big restrictions, if we start with those, i, i think there will be three. the first is the basic principle of federalism, at what point is the dod on the police power and second is the prevention of the military by statute and criminal violation to prevent the military from executing laws of the united states if you test about whether they have been violated, they come down to if they are prescriptive of regulatory authority in areas they're not supposed supposed to. third, any domestic operations are going to be guided by

constitutional principles. any time a dod force steps off the base to support civilian authorization they think fourth amendment and general principles that are reasonable. i think those are the three general areas of restrictions that attorneys and commanders are going to think about anytime we use the authorities. the first and biggest and probably probably most likely kind that military will use domestically are after a declaration. in baton rouge right now the stafford act declaration occurs when a state governor calls the president and that call is the most important thing and says, mr. president, or mrs. president , we have expended our state resources and we are overwhelmed by the situation and we need your help. at that point the president can declare an emergency or natural disaster and then we can follow suit. we saw that in katrina, may be

most related to this when they were deployed to louisiana after katrina had hit. the interesting thing there is in the stafford act response, members of the military still have to enforce law. we are members of the 82nd airborne walking walking down streets of new orleans but they are still guided by the pca. what happens if one of those soldiers who are actually action oriented individual see looting or a crime happening, do they respond? the answer is no, it's a criminal violation but how does the military teach that to that young action oriented soldier that's used to taking action? i think the second major, we talk statutorily is the insurrection act that allows the president to deploy federal forces in the case of a

widespread insurrection. we sought used in 1992 with the los angeles riots when the marines were deployed to help keep the peace. that is an exception to the pca and raises questions and brings out that tension and wariness. are we comfortable as a populace allowing the military to do that and in this scenario with the president ever rely on that act in response? i think generally, even if the president were to rely on it it will still be in a support role to dhs. it will still be the appointment of federal forces that will come after the coordination and that whole government approach. the last two authorities have been delegated down to the military commander. these are the most difficult to

teach because there is no real clear boundary on where they live. the military commanders have an emergency response authority. this is supposed to be used only in the most extraordinary of circumstances and only when it's absolutely impossible for them to call the president and ask for assistance. that is only to be utilized when military intervention is needed to prevent wide spread destruction and widespread disturbances. this brings up the situation depending on where it happened. is there possibility this happens near some type of military base or a military commander who might believe that action is required. does that military commander have time to go to the president for approval or does he take action under that authority? i think those are the big three. there's also an immediate response authority which is

another type of response that is only allowed after a military response. support from a military commander and that commander can't get approval from his chain of command in exceptional circumstances that commander might be able to respond. i think those are the big four authorities that this situation suggest. i think it would be very fact specific as to when and where those authorities might be relied upon to use the dod inside the united states. i think the default position and most likely the scenario is that the dod will play the support role that it trained in its doctrine speaks to and that is used for fulfilling in

coordination with the department of homeland security. >> can i ask a point of clarification, i think the audience would be generally familiar with the possible exception of the last two, the urgency response and immediate response. what is the source of those authorities? >> so. >> the dod regulations. >> correct, i think the emergency authority, i'm not sure, it's not statutorily based or based on the power of the president and cmdr. in chief to ensure the sovereignty and maintain the peace. >> that's my understanding as well. that authority as we know is implicit, not out there in text and it's a little more open. >> yes or.

>> thank you. jeff there are portions of the scenario that i set out that had to do with cyber. do they present different challenges for the question of a potential dod d role? >> absolutely. i will start by excluding the response into two pieces. the scenario that was put out has significant physical traditional disaster elements of it and there you have the stafford response, whether it's in providing basic food, water, shelter, whatever, i put that in a separate box because i think whether that is caused by a cyber event or otherwise doesn't matter. i think the fact that it's a cyber nature isn't going to impact that. we think there will be a break is in responding to understanding what happened, how, why, why and who does it. i think the general public and a lot of politicians are going to expect that the military is being very capable and heavily

involved. the question is would law on policy allow that. it puts it in a little different of a box because it's shrouded in secrecy. if you look at what the authorities are right now, just this past few weeks ago the president issued cyber incident coordination and talks about three different extremes in terms to cyber events. direct response, intelligence support and related activity. you break that down in terms of where the military realistically is going to be playing, they also talk about who has the lead there. the response is fdi and the national cyber investigative joint task force. pretty much from a law enforcement aspect. intel support, dni has the lead so there you might have involvement from cyber command and nsa obviously but there

you're getting into a different element of what is traditionally thought of as disaster type support. if the military is involved in trying to figure out what happened, step back and think about how the cyber attack is likely to unfold. this puts it into a little different box. were not talking about where you have a group or groups claiming responsibility. you will have forensic evidence and be able to track back who it was. airstrike, you contract that back to who it was. a cyber event may not even be a cyber event. it may not be clear if it's a cyber event if they did it well it probably won't be clear. the work prepping for that will have gone back a long time but that's the hard part, figuring out what happened. the other part is jumping off point for the actual final trigger of the attack and where that's when you come from. most likely it's not going to be

coming from a server sitting in an enemy nation that we can directly trackback. that's extraordinarily unlikely. if they do it smartly it will be a computer in the u.s. that triggers an event on systems. in the u.s. it could be at company or an individual or your kids computer where they downloaded some extension and little do they know their computer is now about being controlled overseas. the forensic piece of this will involve law enforcement elements we have to mask any catastrophic event and very few people are going to want to step back and care about who it is that's going to do this. they will assume that it will be done i'm talking about individuals and politicians up to the highest level and that's where you get problems. the law on policy in a cyber context is not developed at because you have these questions.

let's wrap this up but cut forward and say whoever is involved, it starts with a company's computer, computer, kids computer or your personal computer, you need to get a lot of data off that computer in order to do the forensic work that is necessary. now you're implicating privacy fourth amendment issues, constitutional issues and a military civilian area that ours a whole new layer to the onion. if you taking the data of a computer, you're probably taking customer and identifiable information. the next layer of the onion is will that be secure when the president gets it. i don't think i'm alone in this room that i had a letter from opm telling me my data wasn't all that secure. it has to go into how you're going to handle getting the government into the situation

after the fact. there's a lot of tough questions here. the pieces are very different. we like to think that what we do is different but so much of this is still happening behind closed doors and makes it hard to develop the law. it will transition to more traditional event and having the two pieces of it separated. the military response will make it even more complicated. >> before we move on, let me ask you to compare a scenario like this one with hurricane katrina. you spent a lot of time after the fact looking at the katrina response from your perspective as a staffer.

how is that different? it's a natural disaster. were more than a decade down the road in terms of our progress. >> the progress that we have made is extraordinary in the years since katrina. the coronation level is much better and that is the response piece of it. the response will be the same when you have a physical result. the hard part is how are you investigating it? people will expect if there's a major cyber attack and who knows if it's over, first, stop, second fix it, third it, third go get the people who did it. you have a massive conflicting activities and it's on the domestic side but you're bringing in title x, title 50 and a lot more titles.

the scenario that's on the floor , you'll recall, it blends together traditional, physical assault ongoing terrorist attack, unresolved, the perpetrators still out there, americans are in peril with this cyber scenario that appears to be self blended with the power stations and the like. what do you make of all of this? >> first, thank you for inviting me. i really do appreciate it. let me start my timer so i don't go too long. i don't appreciate being reminded of the opm breach and the fact that my fingerprints are now in china. it's very disturbing. to answer your question, the way i would approach this is to offer a hypothesis which is much of the law on policy that we

have for both sides of the house, the physical and the domestic, especially the role of military is not well enough developed to actually give us good answers. what i mean by that is that we tend to rely on laws for the actions of the military in an environment where, in in the terrorist context, that has changed. i wanted to ask tim, what if he is patrolling anything since the terrorist incident and how does he risk this action oriented young soldier, how does does he tell that it's not looters versus potential g hottie activity? that's a dutchman that most people can't make with 25 minutes to assess, much less our

corporal lead patrol in the city. the same is true in the cyber domain. what i think this reflects that a bigger level is that the nature of homeland defense is actually changing before our very eyes. the nature of homeland security is changing before our very eyes in ways that are different from just ten years ago in the immediate 911. in the immediate aftermath, our security thought was that it's overseas and frankly the military's contribution was was probably going into afghanistan and iraq and trying to cut the source before got here. today the homeland security threat has morphed. it has domestic sized in two ways that we really have to do come to understand the the first

that much of the threat is now homegrown countering violent extremism here and it's being radicalized by committee case and means that we can't control because of first amendment concerns and the second aspect of it is the one jeff talked about which is the cyber place that allows standoff attacks from places we can't attach to. what does that mean for me? one part of my answer to you is that i think it means we need to expand homeland defense in ways that prevent and deter pieces of the mission that john was talking about in ways that we haven't conceptualized before. i'll give you an example. we are in the middle of a debate in the united states about what the military, the nsa should do when it discovers vulnerabilities. should it save them or use them

up against the chinese or the russians or should tell the american public so that are companies like mozilla and google and apple can fix those vulnerabilities and make us inherently safer but deter cyber attacks down the road in the next month and making that task harder. today the white house has a vulnerability equity process which is shrouded in classified it obscurity. it has been discussed publicly in some blogs by the white house and i imagine, though i don't know because i'm not on the inside anymore, but there might be a classified executive orders or directions that give more substance to the problem and things that need to be weighed. there's no law governing that

and there's no law that mandates disclosure or mandates confidentiality. there is plenty of laws that authorize plenty of those. you can find the disclosure and confidentiality. all of the decision-making power is happening under pre-existing authorities. when i talked my class' we talk about pouring old wine into new bottles. what we choose to board in is fundamentally a choice. that's an example of support to civilian authorities that predates the attack that has yet to be definitively determined and that falls out from the changing nature of the cyber domestic which now has that cyber component. all give you another example from the cyber realm though i can give you some -- which is,

one of the questions is when and how does the president authorize cyber command to go burnout the attackers? when can they go after them fullbore with whatever cyber tools we have and more particularly to again address one of the points jeff addressed, what's the degree of certainty of the attribution that we required? were all lawyers here so we know the differences between reasonable suspicion and probable cause and clear and convincing evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. we talk about how they are mathematically, 90% certainty versus 30% certainty. we have a comprehensive sense of that and it's very realistic. prove beyond a reasonable doubt means so much more from reasonable suspicion. what is the standard of proof that the president must employ

and before he will authorize action by the military. again, the authority is there. if they feel they have identified a group or community of actors as the source, he is fully authorized to push the button on the cyber response. what's the degree of certainty in an uncertain world? that too is uncertain. let me throughout one more chestnut in the cyber realm. does the president have the authority to nationalize the network for the defense of the nation? we are under cyber assault. can he say to the telecom people out there, verizon, sprint, let me on your system. we are going to put the nsa there and we are going to take

it over for now. it's the same new wine old bottle. communications act of 1934, section four, section 706 gives the president authority over the old telecom systems to take control of it during an emergency. does that apply here? let's assume that we agreed this is an emergency which probably, given how bad it is, i can justify, does the president have the ability to use a law that predated the internet by 50 years to essentially take control of the network? last i read from the homeland 30 testifying before congress there are some who might say that's a bit of a stretch and what at least advocate for updating the

law and changing the definition to include telecom network activity. my broad answer to you is that our laws have not caught up with changing reality of what homeland defense is today. there's not a lack of law or lack of policy. there is a lack of connection between the two and at least in the cyber round, often for very good reasons, i'm not doubting that there is a value to keeping confidential some of our network intrusion techniques or how the self funded simulator works or what we can do in response. i'm not doubting that but at the same time there is a particular deficit in democratic accountability and transparency in this round and particularly

the legislative branch for not having gotten off the sidelines enough. that is my answer. >> thank you. >> can i? >> please please do. >> i would just like to caution against this idea that capability renders authority. we talked a little bit about, we talked about the deal d having all these capabilities and maybe there should be a expansion. simply because capability is resident within a particular department does not mean that it would render it, and in this case dod, that it should be a charge and it should be there

for a homeland defense type mission. i think these types of missions could be done under civil authorities and there's no reason to necessarily open the bandwidth. i think there's a ban within the united states and the governor's about how far are we willing to open the bandwidth of what is a defense operation in the homeland. if you look at it through different areas of law, within the air you have a lot more ability to render homeland defense when we are protecting against type of intruders. on the maritime, i think we have an equal ability to render homeland defense depending on where it is and where our law enforcement sounds are and where the action is conducted. i think within the land and on the lamp border it's more restrictive in its application. i just counsel against it. i don't know that it's a way to

fix the problem to open the aperture of what's homeland defense. if other departments can pick up those two handle them under a law enforcement area. >> that leads me to ask you and tim, a related question, taking off from paul's observations. is it new law that we need or is it a matter of phasing the authorities and plans that we have? there sometimes in the literature a prophecy to disconnect between homeland security. they made reference in the beginning to the appropriate wariness of dod to be involved in domestic roles and missions

because of the historic tradition in the united states that civilians take care of affairs inside the united states is there a place where defense and homeland security means that we can talk about in an unclassified form? are there plans that take into account that a response may morph from homeland security to homeland defense? >> i don't see necessarily in today's world an area where there would be a definitive homeland defense only on mission. there are circumstances in ways that we have all evolved especially since 911 and katrina where every different federal department in the agency has an enormous amount of authority and capability that has built. i think it collectively creates

this whole government that really is greater than its individuals individual parts. with regard to if we should look at other statute or means on the mission, that's possible. last i looked there a 15 or 16 different statutory requirements where they could provide support to department of justice or hhs in the event of some type of disease that was running rampant throughout the country and if there was a neater requirement to be able to put different people in different enclosures. there are several different authorities and i think there's a need to be able to address that. do i think we are looking at different perspective or spectrum so to speak with regard to cyber? i do, but i also think there are

capabilities that are out there that could be shared with civilian authorities to take those measures as opposed to just make them dod requirement. >> i agree, i think we don't say that the dod plays a supporting role to civilian authorities merely because that's the way it's always been pretty think it's because the combatant commander and the highest level of our government say and have fiercely considered the risk to our country and that's the most important appropriate way to handle this type of situation. i think i would agree. >> i'm going to defend my premise a little. twenty-five years ago, the distinct the distinct line between law enforcement and military was perfectly sensible and could be defended and there were almost no edge cases during

disaster response or incident response, certainly not enough to make it worthwhile to fight about. i do not see that anymore. i think it's now a spectrum. there are clearly incidents in which is 99.9% law enforcement and others where it is a military thing but the reality of terrorism in the physical world and in the cyber round is that there is a whole gray area here and that the line drawing that we have done in the past, which serves a valuable function is now also a significant barrier to effective response. a perfect example is ppd 41. it's a traditional response which says the responses going

to be a law enforcement response and they will have a civilian response, et cetera. we are going to bring in od and i to bring us intel on what is happening. the reality of cyber that i know is that the most effective response to cyber is counter fire, it's back at the original source. it's not firewalls and defenses, it's something and the greatest capability that we have right now are the fbi and lead response for protective agencies. it decides whether we like it or not in our military capabilities the idea that that document doesn't even mention, there is no mention, i understand there is some discussion of adding a

dod functionality and roll and that would be good i think there is not a reflection of our traditional limitation that's an announcement to the world that if it's the iranians behind this group that we don't have a formal mechanism in place for telling admiral rogers, go get him please, stop that. it was reported in the press about a year ago that the banks are national banks were under systematic and they went running to the military they did not have the capability. [inaudible]

we are not authorized. maybe that's the right answer from a policy and.but from the bank can i give a real-world example of the difference when you make a decision, you figure out ahead of time during katrina the evacuation was very good. the special needs evacuation was horrible. part of it was confusion at dhs, can we get the military to assist, three weeks after katrina we saw what happened on television. hurricane rita was approaching houston and the military was heavily involved there was no legal change between katrina and rita but in that time. there has been a political decision of finding a way to do

this whether the law is there or not. as they try to bring that forward, if there was some type of cyber attack that took down part of the grid and if there was a discussion while was unfolding, can we bring in the military to help and the answer was we weren't sure. three weeks later there's major public disruption then the decision was made that we are going to try and stop it. i could ask questions until 5:00 o'clock this afternoon but were down to one or two minutes. if you have a brief question i know the last things between you and lunch may be a factor in

your question. >> you say there's a capability and its growing but from our specific perspective i worked there for five and half years. the army did not bear much focus on the structure even with the national guard and capabilities with designing it to be able to deal with these problems. on some level it's the involvement, how do we ensure had a week make sure the issues are being accounted for. >> so i think there is a discussion or at least there was a discussion about what capabilities are in the reserve component and what their

availability would be for disaster response to. i think there was legislation that was passed that made available for a reserve component to not be able to called forward to respond to some type of event a requirement that was identified by the secretary in order to respond to something that came from the stafford act as a requirement. you do see that structure. i do think a lot of the support structure that we would use during hurricanes and to respond to, if you will, will, right of event type of things or recovery events and response events, i think those are greatly within the reserve in the national guard component. i also know that when general grass was preparing for different testimony and when i knew him out from north calm, he certainly had wanted to but

they're also careful to identify those components are still reserve component of a fighting force. you can't take all of the infantry aspects, the artillery assets and put them all and leave them in the active component. they need to be able to spread those issues out. there's going to be a balance that you have to have. i'll tell you one thing that i saw as well, there has to be a careful issue that civilian organizations don't have an over reliance on what dod can bring. dod can brings whatever has what at the time. we did an exercise with things blowing up in nuclear explosions, etc. and there were people that were there that were part of the exercise who were upset because they couldn't get their helicopters because they

had asked for them when in fact the helicopters were being used for dod type missions to provide support response etc. the responses weren't there. we found that when we were having these types of exercises there was reliance on a capability that might not be there during an actual event. you have to be able to balance out what that guard capability is or what that reserve capability is and will it actually be perceived as doing something else that might not actually be there. there is a conversation going on in a review of those types of issues. >> thank you john. please join me in thinking these four gentlemen for a very enlightening discussion. [applause] >> thank you very much for this great panel. one reminder, a book that that i think is just a tremendous must buy book is soldiers on the home front.

if you don't have this from bill banks and his co-author, we can get this to you if you want to find out more information about where to obtain this book but it's really worth the price of admission. we need to move to the next room for a quick lunch and learn panel. if you could make your moves to the next room to get your box lunch and come back here around 1:00 o'clock to get started back. thank you very much. >> now on c-span two, we take you live to the arab center in washington d.c. where a palestinian member is talking about israeli laws and government and the impact on palestinian cities and arab

members. it got underway about 15 minutes ago. we join it live now in progress. >> if they knew what that time. [inaudible] the good things is that this is a democracy. the rule of the majority. it is presented as the whole of democracy. this is a continuous attack on freedom of speech and to democratic. [inaudible] putting daily head of speech incitement, continuous

incitement by the prime minister himself against his own. [inaudible] you remember sometimes he used the droves are coming to the election to work. this has helped him achieving this majority. don't think this is something that was. [inaudible] it has had a concrete impact on the election result. what happened since the last government was established, you can see that this government are

ruling and he continues with what he started as one anchor, how to manage that conflict. he knows and everybody knows, i suggest that everybody knows that that when he spoke about the state solution that he was lying and he was lying on purpose as part of his conflict management policy. okay, i will throw obama from my shoulders for a few years. but for not one second he really believed in that or did anything, even the smallest up toward progress in that direction. on the contrary. everything he did as prime minister was against any

potential feasible possibility to create two states in palestine. what he believes, and unfortunately, it's true, he proved that he can manage the conflict and all recent developments in that region of the world help him. syria, egypt,. [inaudible] the islamic phobia in the west, he feels this is perhaps the ultimate strategic situation he could ever dream about. so why change?

he can continue managing the conflict thinking again and again of the example of being a democracy and achieving a government worthwhile and managing the conflict is a good example for him and that he would succeed to do the same but another anchor and cornerstone was added to his politics. you know what, with recent, observation. [inaudible] this anchor is that he wants to perpetuate his government, his governing, his reign for the longest time possible.

he is really obsessed with that and i will give you only one example. all the economists in israel, all of them, including the minister can sit are the two-year budget is very bad. they decide on two years budget is bahrain. israel did that twice and now he is bringing to the commission, when we are going back in the october, 2,172,018 budget. [inaudible]

everybody tells him this is wrong. he insists, good example to show you how much it means that all of us will have. [inaudible] until the end of 2019 because according to israeli and law, he will finish the term of this government. it will be the election year so he doesn't have to pass a budget he will continue for one more term on the previous budget. another example. it really makes him balance of how you or all of us are

behaving as prime minister. [inaudible] it's protecting civil society which cares for human occupation [inaudible] all the world was against him. this war didn't relate to the expulsion but this law, it has some relation with europe and it's being funded by foreign government and foreign organizations, all of this knows this is fascist. okay everybody talking. [inaudible] john kerry came to the middle east. one of the reason was to speak

about this law. nothing. why? he preferred his government over this pr that he used to make and give it some importance. he wanted. [inaudible] israel has been trained or mistreated by the world to think that everything can be done and they will escape with it. what. [inaudible] if there are 50 years occupying

putting 1.8 million palestinians in the largest prison in the world. who is punishing them? who is asking them, who is holding them accountable? why should he be thinking that europe or the state will be angry on him because of this law? >> he just does it again. this law actually has had more time because in the beginning it talks about having the representatives coming. [inaudible] it was too much.

it took a few weeks until they brought another draft of the law that took out all of this. the restriction over such ngos remain. there was a program. [inaudible] it was open and the prime minister declared. [inaudible] he tells to me we are also to

see, and this is very important, again to try to think this is a society and we are seeing that it's continuously going to the right and more fanatic and more extreme. as i said, this will continue all the time that israel is not paying any price for its occupation or its denial out of their body or denial of international or international community they.

[inaudible] every time with the decline print i was just discussing and trying to remember that many times they are trying to inactivate associate member or nonmember state, something like that, but they have an agreement with the eu. it's a huge benefit. they are in agreement. [inaudible] shall respect human rights of society.

the basic period. [inaudible] inactivate this flaw. not just that, they give them pricing. [inaudible] it forces israel to grant that the money will not go for. [inaudible] what happened over the years which was conceived to be right

liberal it became right-wing, religious they compete with. [inaudible]

have been confiscated. we are prevented from building and decent housing. our education system, all our

infrastructure is really appropriate to slums in the large cities of latin america and new york. still, as the minority, collectively, we should all participate in the political game and we shall. [inaudible] in the parliament, at least to bring our voice, at least to have the freedom to defend our interest, in the highest level possible. what is happening rapidly with these laws is that we are

feeling the margins are getting narrower every day that we might find ourselves in a position to say, i should, more than once in my speech, guys, you are changing, we might decide not to play it anymore. this is not a game that we want to participate in, at at least to be able to stand here and speak. even this you are taking from us i want you to take my word seriously that we might reach in a very, very short time the recognition in israeli politics.

[inaudible] for sure we don't want to be. we are now accused by many fractions in our society. [inaudible] you are actually giving the israelis the best proof to save the world. you are participating. [inaudible] in comparison between this and trying to bring abilities to our people in our society, being members, all the time this was by far overriding this fear of

behaving but now, i think we are getting close to the point where collectively, again such a decision would be taken unanimously. i think the conditions are underground in pushing us to where the decision to say to them, okay, this is your democracy, not ours, this is your jewish state, not ours. i hope, sincerely hope that we leverage that and that we will continue participating in political participation gets

better for us. i hope so, but i don't feel feel this is the case. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. now we move to the question-and-answer session. if you would like to make a quick comment or ask a question, raise your hands and i will acknowledge you and wait just for a few seconds for the staff to get you you the microphone and then we will proceed with the question-and-answer period :

about 60% of the territory to the future supposedly features date. so the strategy is the israel controls the full resources of 1948 and squeezing the population with any. we see a dramatic decrease in population growth you just the highest growth in the world. not it is probably come it is decreasing dramatically. so these were the strategy is very clear. control and squeeze both in 1948 and in 67. then without result, nobody to talk to. we have very small i think minorities basically following the native indians in the u.s. so that someone had. the question to you is what is the strategic thinking on the palestinian side, both 1948 and in 67?

given that this is really the strategy. the other part of the question is, is this really the strategic thinking of is to withdraw from the israeli politics completely, and to what extent it is unanimous? we know the islamic movement has, parts of it, the northern part has declared -- they walked out of it for a long time now. so this is now becoming more and more common and to what extent? thank you. >> go ahead. >> i agree with you that the israeli politics, the jewish state practices, included, including not only the west bank but also in 48. it's of course we are facing now a sample of ethnic cleansing in

the south. now as i'm talking to you there is a village next to it. everyday can be destroyed, demolished and throw away. the people with no alternative housing solutions. while, and make this case not just -- apartheid, classical apartheid. they are taking out arabs, those two religions, and this tribe was brought to this area 60 years ago by the israelis. they confiscated their original land and brought i me to this piece of land in concentration policy that time. i thought okay, this is now yours. now 60 years after their taking them out and building at the same spot the new settlement for

jews the event supreme court judge robin stein it was religious but not as right wing, but if you are building in this spot a new settlement, for few neighborhoods, make a solution for them. even they couldn't understand the sense of this policy of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. now you do you see the pictures, they start construction work for the new jewish citizens, but seemingly because of pressure, the explosive, they didn't demolished yet original village. so what did, they built walls, separating between the construction, and again it's amazing picture for apartheid.

this policy is not in west bank. this is not even in jerusalem. this is against us. that being said, ethnic cleansing didn't succeed. from 67 up to now in the occupied territories, i mean, there is no numbers of palestinians. if we want, i hate to speak democracy but they impose a new -- we had to talk numbers. it inside israel we are not 90%, 20%, all demographics, you know, tried to make picture even, vis-à-vis the israeli demography as being radical, or they put it, in 2040, arabs and all will be 50% of the population.

they combined us together, as you know, and then treated jewish zionist mental. in the galilee, despite the israeli not just policy but huge investments. they wanted -- 55% of the caliphate population are arabs. and the most important part of the galilee which is, what's called the district, 67% are arabs. i know that they see it as, they see us as enemies up to know. israel treats zionist establishment as enemies. so you have your 67% of his district full of matter citizens

but rather full of your enemies. so every time they start new plan bringing jews, sometimes the colonial, start deceiving itself. they bring and build new settlements in the galilee. you know what? against the national planning system, master plan, master plan wanted no more, new settlements inside israel. but rather, those who exist, the jews to come to the settlements already been galilee. jews started receiving the system by having twice those benefits. when they came first to the galilee they enjoyed cheap land.

they have lots of incentives to calm, to move. now they're moving to the upper, the next mountain. there again have cheaper land and cheaper loans for housing and all that. but real change in demography, that didn't happen. and i think this is good. why shall you be so much obsessed? when you see the labour party supposed to be the peace, you know, partners of the alice daniels, the only argument they use toward creating two-state solution or grading policies come is demography. not the human law, not just palestinians. i can't put a steady strategy.

i can stay in my land and this is what we are doing. i can stick to my right. i can develop my community and my second and third generation to be proud palestinians, to have their identity strengthen. this is not taken for granted. our identity and our language and knowing our history is daily, yes. >> we have two hands on the side, halfway down the table. the young lady first please. please state your name and your affiliation. >> rachel, reporter with "congressional quarterly." the obama administration is close to concluding a new tender bilateral security assistance agreement with israel. we are expecting a to increase by at least a couple hundred million a year. what impact will the cementing of that aid have on the lack of

pressure netanyahu feels to be a peace deal, recognizing that while the assistance is defense-related, it's fungible in that it will require the israeli government to spend money in other areas in defense that, not because it has this money? >> i wrote that exactly but couldn't speak on my nose. now conducting understates negotiation, tough negotiation over the next few years. what does the u.s. and obama are doing in order to make any change in the israeli policy. i do want to speak even in punishment or paying price. you are now, you're now in the middle of the beginning of a new deal. how you are practicing your own interest, because if two-state solution is defined by the way

and by the u.n. as international interest in u.s. interest, not because you love palestinians and you want to great for them, but because of your own interest as, what you're doing in this deal, this negotiation in order to protect u.s. interests. nothing, and i will continue, the deal will be signed, the contract will be signed in israel will not be held accountable of anything. even to ask israel to stop not to evacuate, but to stop building in the supplement will not be a condition or a requirement. so why not really make any or taken seriously and international pressure on him? >> okay.

go ahead. >> air of america. we can identify with you in your statement about lieberman because with the guy in the trinity that is running for president that's very similar to lieberman. but my question is, you are talking about after the obama legacy. how does the presidential election, what do you think is the future as result of the two people who are by for president as source of the establishment of palestinian state in the future? how do you feel the election is going to affect that? >> perhaps -- long time ago result of the american election do not have any impact on us. and perhaps this time the difference between the two candidates, not vis-à-vis the palestinian issue, no, but vis-à-vis internal issu,