discuss their different constitutional systems. then a discussion about women's rights and peacemaking and the center for american progress releases a report on education and global competitiveness. >> from the american bar association's annual meeting. a comparison of the constitutional legal systems of the united states, canada, and israel. the panel includes a former canadian justice minister, judges sitting on the canadian and israeli supreme courts and u.s. supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. my name is michael trace, and welcome to our panel today. on comparative constitutional law. north america and the middle east. to all of you, welcome on this

very auspicious day when we have an august pane of supreme court justice, members of parliament, former attorney general and professors of law. our format today will be that we'll give each of our panelists an opportunity if they wish to say a few words and make a few observations, and then we have encouraged them to enter act with one another in a conversational style, posing questions and back and forth, and then we will take questions and answer back and forth with the audience as well. we're working on a schedule to finish at 3:30, and i think that will all work out fine. many of the programs we have attended here at this 2012aba annual meeting have been dealing with the question of the rule of law, especially in these times win the rule of law is in direct contravention of the rule of power as we have been hearing on the news, even as recently as today. i think it's very appropriate

that we take a look at constitutional law as it is in the north american continence and also in israel, and see what these folks here today have to say about what lessons can be learned and how we can apply what we have to help the other countries in the emerging middle east achieve their goals as well. this panel is the kind of panel that doesn't need an introduction. as trite as those words are, they really don't need such an introduction but i would like to mention each one by name, and of course, first of all, we're very honored to have associate justice of the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg with us today, and next friday will mark the 19th year since you have been appointed to the court. so congratulations on achieving that milestone. [applause] >> to justice ginsburg's left,

have the justice of the israeli supreme court. justice ubran is one of 15 justices in the israeli supreme court. the only member of the court who is an israeli arab, israeli christian, and he has many observations to make for us today, as he has done in chicago this year, and we look forward to hearing from him. he was appointed to the bench in the year 2003, but it was in the springtime, i think, when you went to the bench so i call upon you before i call upon justice morris fish who ascended to the bench as the associate justice of the canadian supreme court in that sameee, 2003, but in august. and justice fish, i have to say i was struck in your buying agraph that you started out by naming who your parents are, and i think that's very significant. that told me and all of us a lot about what kind of justice you

are as well and we're very pleased to have you here today. [applause] >> another person who is not only well known to us here in chicago but worldwide is professor basunni, an interacknowledge law expert, especially in the area of criminal law. if you combine the books he has personally authored, which are in the 20s, and add to that the books he has edited, we come up with some astounding number in excess of i think almost 75 different books in the legal profession. we owe a great deal to you. welcome. >> thank you. [applause] >> and of course we have with us today the great honor of having irwin coppler. a member of the canadian parliament and also been the attorney general and minister of justice in canada. he has appeared in many courts

and is well-norway in north america and israel and elsewhere. and i'm sure he will have many observations to make for us today. one of the reasons we attend the aba program is of course to get our compulsory legal education credits taken care of. but i've gone to this convention for 23 years and it's an inspiring exercise when you get out of the office and there are no more billable hours for those who are commercial lawyers and you hear the kind of things that are going on because of the rule of law, because of our profession. yesterday we saw magnificent program below nuremberg, and saw a form of justice jake -- jackson and it made one proud as a lawyer to hear justice jackson articulate the standards that are so important to us. and it's the same kind of

feeling i get when i hear justice jubran. about ten minutes and i'll signal you. >> thank you, michael. good evening for everybody. i try to give you a short overview of the judicial and constitutional of the state of israel. we do not have a israeli constitution until now and it is because of historical reasons and not the time to talk about it today. but the parliament, the kinneset decided to enact laws which are superior to regular laws. in 1992, a constitutional revolution took place in israel when the kinneset inducted law

on human dignity and the other is occupational vocationings and those two laws, there was -- the supreme court has the right to overturn those acted by the parliament if they are in the conflict with the basic laws, and in a landmark decision of the supreme court in israel in 1995, a panel of nine judges, the court decide it has the right to have judicial review and overturn laws enacted by the parliament. the first time this decision was given. and until now we do have about 11 basic laws and we are waiting for enacting of two more basic laws. one is human rights basic laws, and the ice social rights basic laws. once the kinnesset enact those

laws and govern with those other 11, this will be the constitution of the state of israel. the human rights are, of course, protected by the supreme court. the judicial israel is independent. it is independent both person and material. personal by the way of appointing judgessed. it's a very unique system in our country, where judges are appointed by a recommendation of the committee of nine members. two members of the israeli cabinet, one of them is a minister of justice. two members of the israeli association. this year we expect the members of the israeli bar involved in the appoint of judges in israel. i hope maybe some day in your country you will be more involved. two members of the kinesset, the parliament, and three justices

of the supreme court, including the supreme justice, the president of the supreme court. this is a nine-member committee. and five out of the nine are not politicians and this is according to us the right way to select judges, not by politicians. five which are the justices of the supreme court and the two members of the israeli bar association, and the majority is nonpoliticians. and material -- the judicial independence and judges are subject only to the law, not any person or any institute. judicially, we have the principle of separation of powers. the government and the kinnesset mayber vaccine -- and because we do not have a constitution and

in order to protect democracy and protect human rights, there should be a judicial review of the supreme court over ruling of the authority of the government and the kinesset, and i think this is the right way to serve the public to give the feeling to the public in israel that somebody is listening to them, and protecting them from the measures taken by the government, by the kinesset. i can say that the supreme court in israel is one of the most busiest courts in the world, because if we compare the number of cases to the supreme court in the u.s. or canada or great britain, all those countries are between 80 and 100 cases every year. we do have about 10,000 cases every year.

i'm sure that it's unbelievable but it's a matter of fact. it is because we do not have a court of appeals between the district support the supreme court. we have 8,000 cases every year. 4,000 criminal cases and 4,000 civil cases. another reason of this huge number of cases is that in the supreme court opens its door to everyone claiming regulation of human rights by one of the branches of government. and he may apply directly to supreme court, and not applying to the lower courts. he has from this 2,000 cases every year when citizens come forward, asking for assistance and help against the government leak the kinesset. this is a unique system, but at the same time it is good for us to give the feeling to every

citizen in the country that somebody is listening to him. he just deliver the paper, pay the fees and will have his day in court. and when somebody comes to the court and appear before the court, at the end of the day he goes home and tells his friend, you know, today, i appealed before three judges of the supreme court, and they asked me questions, and you know, it's a good feeling to the citizen that he may come the supreme court '. two unique things that we have in our system. we have in our system religious

tribunals. it's the only place in the world it exists. we have the court for the jewish community, the sharia court for the muslim community, and we have ten religious court for the christian communities. we have roman catholic, for the greek catholic, the greek orthodox, the modernized catholics, baptists, lutheran, et cetera, et cetera. every community has the right to have its own court, and there is short story about the catholic community, the first in israel. and one day one of the parties appealed the ruling of the local

tribunal in israel the court of appeal in beirut and because he cannot cross the border, the court had the session without the parties and gave the ruling back to the parties, and they wanted to review this ruling in the office which is part of the minister of justice in israel. and the other side claimed you can't do that because this ruling was given by a court located in a country that dot not have diplomatic relations with israel. this issue was brought to the supreme court because there's no jurisdiction -- this is very small -- they should come to the supreme court. this is very small short story about very, very sensitive, and to conclude i want to tell you about very important development

that took place last april when the minister of justice delivered to the kinesset a preliminary draft of law -- basic law of legislation, which brought -- the first one declared that the kinesset has the right to create a constitution. the second one is that the kinesset abducting the -- adopted the ruling of the supreme court that basic law is superior to other law. and the procedure of enacting basic law is by four-round voting and the fourth round should be 65 members of the parliament, of the kinesset to enact basic law. the fourth one is -- it was

given overturning jurisdiction of the laws of the kinesset is to be given to the supreme court and the panel of nine judges. not like the situation today where every court in the country may declare a law which is unconstitutional. and the fifth section, which is the most controversial, is the override section. the first time in israel that this project is to the kinesset. may pass a law which was declared by the supreme court as unconstitutional. the kinesset may pass this law in the majority of 65 members of parliament. for five years, and this term may be extended to unlimited periods of five years.

this is a very important development. as i mentioned, we should wait and to know whether it will be a law or not. thank you. >> thank you, justice. one of the questions that we wanted to pose was the sources of law that your court relies upon. i know i've heard you speak about calling upon sharia law, jewish law and so on. can you comment on that? >> the source of the sharia law should be -- used to be the ultimate law because the ultimate law is concept of 400 years. then we have had the british mandate for 30 years. then until the 1980s when a judge -- used to go to the common law while in the 1980s the kinesset enacted the law that in these cases, going back to the common law, you should go to the principles of freedom,

equity, and of the israel heritage. it's very interesting, you know. in my rulings, i usually cite many times from the israel heritage as from the koran and the new testament. it's something i do very often, you know. and it's not a problem to me as a christian to decide from the old testament with the israeli heritage. my problem is a computer department at the university. when a judge faces -- they may send a question to this department, and my problem is instead of receiving one answer, i receive 20 answers. and i have to choose the best of them. i think it's -- we use the organize argument, many cite

from the -- i cite from the koran, and they say, oh, this is a christian judge quoting with our book. you should compromise. when i citing from the koran, this is an arab judge, it's good for us to go to settle our problems. >> thank you very much. >> may i ask two questions that -- a very interesting talk. one is something new to me, the recent laws of the kinesset -- if the only court which is competent to override a law made by the knesset is the supreme court, the difference in the united states, the constitution is the highest law for every

court in the land, from the first instance to the top. and now how will it work when no other court has competence to measure an ordinary law, an executive action, against the basic laws. >> as i mentioned this is judgment. i hope it will not pass in the parliament. if have a feeling. it will pass to this. we will try to find solutions. it's better for us as a society that the supreme court will be above all. and we should wait to see what will do the parliament. >> i have one other question. and it stems from something that a former chief justice of the supreme court of israel said. who said in the united states you have had your 9/11. we in israel have had our 9/11

and 9/12, and so forth. in the country that is constantly in need of security concerns, you said that the israeli supreme court is independent. how have you resisted the pressure to give into security needs and to uphold basic liberties? >> that's a good question, and it's a difficult question. you know, the state exists until now unfortunately in the state of israel as defined by the law, and we as judges usually face many national security cases brought before us. the basic thing that it is -- while dealing with these cases,

it's not only we should keep in mind the measure of security concentration. it's one of the consideration, the national security, because the court decided more than one time that even in the national security cases, they should -- the government should not be over the law. the law should be for all of us. and one of the considerations should be the measure of security. and many case, for example, when the palestinians are coming to our courts asking for help, want them to come to israel for work, something to get health treatment, sometimes to come to visit their relatives. then they will not be given this special permission and we look all the circumstances, including

the national security reasons, and the relevant -- try to find a compromise with the government to give them this permission to come to israel in spite of the fact there are national security reasons. as i mentioned it's not only this reason. we should take in mind other considerations. >> thank you both for that. justice ginsburg? >> to take a concrete case, the ticking bomb case, was a really splendid judgment of a supreme court of israel. the question was, if the police suspect someone they have arrested of having information about where and when a ticking bomb will go off, can they use, to put it bluntly, torture to

distract that information? the answer of the israeli supreme court was torture never. how do you implement that decision? how can we see it to that it is enforced by the security forces? >> actually, we don't have more than our pencil and the paper. we can't followed up what's happening on the ground but the police or by the government. if somebody comes to our court in a specific case concerning this issue, then we have the right to check what's happened in this specific case. generally we can't follow up our rulings. we don't have this power, unfortunately. >> thank you very much. justice fish, canada has a

legislative override provision, does it? >> yes, we do, and that's one of the two constitutional innovations, i think, in the charter. the other being a generalized limitation clause, and i can explain that in a minute. we have our override, called -- generally known as the notwithstanding clause. the federal parliament, or the provincial legislature, can in one of its laws in any one of its laws, provide that the law will operate notwithstanding that it is found to be in conflict with the charter of rights and freedoms. the override is -- can last for five years, and be renewed after five years.

that may be seen by some as bad news; by others it's good news. the fact of the matter is that the legislative override has practically never been invoked by any government in canada. the federal government has never invoked the notwithstanding close. seven of the ten provinces have never attempted to invoke the override. saskatchewan in a case in 1984-86, you in the, involving back-to-work legislation, had inserted an override clause, but that was unnecessary because the statute was found in any event not to violate the constitution. alberta on one occasion inserted an override in relation to the definition of marriage in 2000. alberta wanted to provide that the common law definition, persons of opposite sex, can

alone form a valid marriage. but it was determined that the provinces have no jurisdiction over marriage. it's a federal matter. so, that override was of no consequence either. quebec beck, on the other hand, has invoked the override on a number of occasions. initially immediately after the charter. the legislature of quebec -- the period was lapsed in 1987 and not renewed. there have been four other occasion where quebec has invoked an override. the only one that attracted any attention related to the court' ruling in case -- that held that

it was unconstitutional to prohibit any language but french in outdoor commercial advertising. so the response was an override. in short, we're blessed. it has very seldom has the notwithstanding clause been invoked. i mentioned another constitutional innovation and that is generalized limitation clause, which is section 1 of the charter. section 1 provides the charter guarantees all the rights and freedoms set out therein, only to limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society. so the way that clause operates is at follows. if a particular state of law is found to be contrary to our

charter, the government can still, under section 1, justify the derogation from a charter principle, the burden would fall to the government essentially the government would have to show first of all that there is a rational link between a pressing state need or security issue or social issue, and -- put it differently. first, there was a pressing need. second, there's a rational link between the progression need and the derogation. and, third, that the derogation is proportional in relation to the effect. it operates on human rights, charter protected rights and freedoms. those two innovations, i think, are important reasons why the canadian constitutional model

has had a general appeal in other countries across the world. it provides a middle road. a middle road between those countries where there is no generalized limitation, as in the united states, or maybe specific limitations that evolved over time but not a general limitation. and the european model, which has limitations in respect each right. so, that's one of the attractions, and perhaps i can say a word or two later do you want me to now? there are three -- first, let me preface -- before i give you the reasons, what i am giving you reasons to sustain. i think it is true that the canadian constitutional model has been found to be an

attractive model in the last 20 years across the world. i think that justice ginsburg mentioned nat one of her talks abroad. and reasons, i think, are three-fold. there are generalized reasons and particular reasons. the particular reasons relating to the attraction of the canadian model in a particular national context, and i won't deal with them now but generally speaking there are three reasons. the first is the accessibility of -- well, the second -- i would -- the first is the modernity. unlike the bill of rights, the united states bill of rights, enacted in 1791, and the declaration of human rights, 1789, the canadian charter

speaks with a current voice and in a current environment, and i think that is one important reason for its appeal as an operative model. the bill of rights, the declaration of human rights, the magna carta continued to be important inspirational sources for new bills of rights and new charters, but as an operative model the modernity of the canadian charter is an important factor. second, the canadian charter is accessible. internationally, english is doubtless the language of today. that doesn't explain why it is more accessible in some other english language countries but it does add an element, making the canadian mod al palatable

one. it is also accessible from on point of view, in the current era. that is, because of technology today. the world has immediate access to all the decisions of the supreme court of canada. i think as well that canada has a credibility in the international community. canada, i'm told, belongs to more international organizations than any other country in the world. like a good canadian and a good guest, i'll give you four. the fourth reason is that canada has worked hard at exporting its constitutional law. so there are many programs sponsored by the government involving exchanges, bringing foreign constitutionmakers to

canada, and sending canadian surist, judges, lawyers, to developing countries, and the countries are developing in terms of their identity and history and countries developing from a newly constitutional point of view, from a new framework. hence, i think the current appeal that has been noticed internationally. >> i think we should make sure that everyone notes of the charter of rights in freedoms is 1982. that's why it's such a modern document. before that there was no judicial review for constitutionality in canada. >> there was -- judicial -- the judicial review -- i'm glad you asked that question. it touches one of my favorite subjects and that is that

constitutional litigation in canada prior to 1982 involved almost exclusively the division of powers between the federal parliament and the provinces, and the aspect which i find quixotic and delightful, is that most of the major cases have to do with alcohol. so i've written that alcohol had a startling influence on the canadian constitution. almost as much influence as it had on canada's first prime minister, sir john a. mcdonald, who in a debate with an opponent meant named brown, was accused over being a drunk, and he said he had a feeling from the crowd's reaction that the country preferred sir john

a. drunk to georgetown -- george brown sober. the case read like a liquor board document. canadian pacific, the canada temperance federation. consolidated disstillers, a wholly -- a whole list of them. prior to 1982, we -- i would not say that we had no constitutional review -- >> for human rights. >> well, there were cases, few and far between, ron carelli, would be one, which was a case involving a restaurateur who was a jehovah's witnesses and systematically provided bail for witnesses who were being arrested by the provincial police in quebec. the response of the

then-attorney general and prime minister was to cancel carellis liquor permit in order to render him incapable of providing bail. the attorney general succeeded in the mission, but was then personally sued, and i'm not sure whether that would qualify as judicial review in the sense in which it is used here, but it certainly resulted in an equally effective and happy ending. the attorney general and prime minister found personally libel, and i think it's fair to say that had a constitutional dimension that i would include in judicial review. >> may i ask about one

competence that your court has that the u.s. supreme court declined, the very first supreme court. that is, you can give advisory opinions, and i spouse the most famous one was the secession of quebec. s is that one of a kind or is that invoked fairly often. >> in the almost ten years, i've been there only one in the same-sex marriage case by the then-minister of justice, who should answer for that impudence, what we did in that case to the attorney general's chagrin, publicly expressed, was that the government put three

questions to us having to do with whether the federal or provincial parliaments have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, which solemnization was federal or provincial. it's clearly provincial. and one related to whether anyone could be compelled to perform a marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. for example, could a minister of religion who was opposed to same-sex marriage be compelled to perform a marriage? and the answer to that last was, no. the answer to the first, as i mention earlier, was that it's federal. the government also asked us, justice ginsburg, a fourth question, and that whether the command law definition was constitutional or not. and the court declined to answer that question. and it declined to answer that

question for reasons that are set out in the judgment. i should tell you that irwin and i were at a session in cambridge at about that time, where he asked me to explain why. i was taken aback. my response then, and my response now, the answer is in the judgment. >> may i ask you how many times in the last 30 years you called to use power to overturn law of the canadian parliament? >> i don't want to hear myself say too frequently to mention but that would give you an entirely wrong impression. i would say not terribly often, but it's not uncommon. so, i would think in the -- some

years, not at all; some years, once or twice. generally, though, it isn't the law but a particular provision of the law that is found not to be justifiable under the limitations clause. so it's not something that happens frequently. we have developed a notion of constitutional dialogue between the supreme court and the parliament of canada, where we take care not to reform late or restructure laws when we find them to be contrary to the charter. but, rather to leave it to parliament -- parliament is better equipped than we for modified law by reading in or reading out. we do it but very rarely.

parliament has the staff and process to hold public hearings to understand what alternatives to the legislation which we find unconstitutional, ought to be adopted, and so we have called that dialogue. we say, sorry, and go back to the drawing board. it happens. it doesn't happen all that often. >> can you give your opinion, before the law was passed by the parliament. >> only privately. but as justice ginsburg mentioned, it happens, not often, we will be asked our opinion of a proposed statute, but that does not happen often. as i mentioned. unlike the french courts. we cannot -- we are not asked in advance. there is a mechanism --

>> only one constitutionality. >> yes. that's absolutely correct, and i thank you for taking me up on that. >> it's not really a court. >> i think the court -- i think that the -- in the last couple of years, someone will correct me if i'm wrong -- you will correct me if i'm wrong -- and it will be a privilege to be corrected by you rather than by my colleagues who think it an opportunity they find it difficult to resist. as of a few years can, i think, entertain the question and make it -- that's not the preliminary opinion. you're perfectly right. i stand corrected. >> just one footnote to what you said. i think that the canadian supreme court nowdays is cited more than the u.s. supreme court

by constitutional courts abroad but i think we have to give great detroit a great surist injurist to kellson who was responsible for the constitution of 1920 and for the institution of their constitutional court which game the model for the post world war ii constitutional courts in europe. he was a great jurist and the united states was a beneficiary len he had to flee his own country. >> before we leave the bench, i wanted to pose a question. in some community there's an aversion to citing law that has other origin than that particular jurisdiction, whether it's citing to court decisions

from other countries or some religious law. what would you say is the situation, as in canada. how often are you citing to the laws of other nations? >> well, we do not share the aversion of some justices in some courts. however, personally, although i do tend to cite other courts, i always do so, i hope, with care. judges have to be very careful in applying the laws of another jurisdiction which have a different background, a different rationale, a different enforcement apparatus, and so on. so, the short, yes, we do cite foreign sources. we're not averse to doing that. and we're young enough to learn from our elders. >> thank you very much. >> the time to ask the relationship between the u.s.

supreme court and international law. >> international law is, of course, part of our law but that was said by the great chief justice john marshal and it must be applied unless a statute is in conflict with it. we have to make a sharp distinction between international law, which is part of our law, we are a nation, world of nations. and foreign law. that is, the laws -- a decision of the supreme court of israel, by the supreme court of canada, they are not the law of the united states but we can look to their attempts to wrestle with problems that we face, too. not in any sense binding as

precedent but for the per swayssive argument on the -- per -- persuasive argument. there's an article containing comments written by chief -- by justices, starting with chief justice hughes, of their views on the utility of references to comparative law, and i think you can count a majority of the current supreme court members who are not averse to looking beyond our borders. >> if you permit me, on the subject of looking to what other courts decide, americans are not onlylett litigious but have

wonderful courts at the federal and state level. and so we can have a criminal law issue -- or a constitutional issue. case of patrick is a good for example. a few years ago, where the issue was a person who puts out their garbage insuring that case happened to contain drug paraphernalia -- gives up, regular length wishes an expectation of privacy. that issue came up in canada for the first time in that case, and i had a law clerk look at the american experience and there were 42 cases. so it's not with a view to considering those precedents at all, but to looking at how the court wrestled with similar problems. the expectation of privacy is a fundamental barometer in the u.s. and canada, and so from that point of view, it's often

helpful to look elsewhere. even for domestic law. >> thank you very much. professor, perhaps you can give us your observations after having heard the justices. >> thank you very much. every legal system in the world is derived from what a famous french jurist referred to as the family of legal systems. we have multiple family of legal systems which have evolved in the course of time and have inspired different national legal systems. consequently there is a historical continuity for the most part between the origin in the legal system from which the national system came from and how it has evolved.

justice referred to the applicability of different religious law sources to different religious communities, and this is called the melat system under the turk ottoman empire, and the -- in turn, the melat system has its origin in 637, when the second caliph of islam came to jerusalem and declare that all religious communities would administer their own religious sites and own communities, and in fact it was on that occasion that the law passed by the romans in

70a.d. on the expulsion of the jews war rescinded and jews started to return to jerusalem. so you see an historic continuity newt from 637 to the contemporary application of it and without really, if you will, concern or discomfort by an israeli society, which is predominantly jewish, and israeli supreme court of saying, you know what, if you're armenian you can apply armenian law to your matters of personal real estate and it doesn't take anything away from the predominantly jewish character of the rest of the nation. and so in a sense, you can see, if you will, in that aspect of legal history a total acceptance of diversity and a total acceptance of the coexistence of

diversity in a broader framework. on the other hand, we do find that there is an extraordinary commonality in which many legal systems, including international law, refer to as general principles, and here i come back to canada. i had the privilege of being selected by the minister of justice to be the chief legal expert for the canada government in a case called sympka. this was the only case in canada in 1987 where the canadian government applied the law -- i believe 1983 -- which allowed the canadian government to prosecute a person who had committed, among others, crimes

against humanity, during world war ii. and the big question was, was this a retroactive law which violated the chart center and the drafters of the law were very astute and called it retrospective but not retroactive and said, well in order to find it applicable, you must find that the crime in question was a crime under international law at the time it was committed. that it was a crime in canada as well. and so i find myself with the task of trying to prove that crimes against humanity existed before nuremberg because mr. finta in 1944, deported 6,217 jews from the district of segid, in the infamous trains to auschwitz and other slave labor camps. well, the charter of the imt was

not established, so i resorted to general principles, and i went to the number of countries in the world that existed then there are -- there were 74 -- and i look at their criminal codes. where the specifics listed in article 60 of the mit charter on crimes against humanity contained in those criminal laws? and sure enough, every one of these laws contained the crime of murder, manslaughter, deportation, and so on. and so i prepared the huge chart with an expert opinion from each country showing that as a general principle of law it existed everywhere, and therefore, it could be positive law without being positive in the sense of being written, and

that, of course, was consummate with the command law which was not necessarily written law. so, again, you can look at the idea of general principles of law as inspiring an understanding of what certain moral and social values in a given society mean, not only by reference to the local community terms but in reference to its global terms if you accept the fact of wanting to be part of a global society. now, my most extraordinary experience in my almost 48 years teaching, was in 1965. the american bar association's past president established an

organization called world peace for law, and they had their first convention in 1965 in washington, dc. it was a big reception. i'd been teaching for a year. met the chief justice of the supreme court of colorado, who was particularly impressed with the fact that i spoke six languages. the next day, live speakers throughout all of the washington hilton, professor, would you urgently report to the desk. i went running, quite troubled and surprised. to find charlie rhine, and said is it true you speak six languages? i said,ey. he said, tell me what are they, i said arabic and french italian. that's good enough, comp with me. and he drags me on and we took an escalator like here, went to the basement, and here was a huge room with 56 chief justices

and justice of supreme court of the world, with the late chief justice earl warren in the middle. to his right was the chief justice of the supreme court of saudi arabia, who had never said that he didn't speak english, and he didn't. across from him was the chief justice of the supreme court of france, who would never admit to not speaking english. [laughter] >> and next to him was the chief justice of the supreme court of italy, who was never asked if he spoke english. and so i was introduced very briefly, asked to draw a chair behind and between the chief justice and the saudi justice and i acted as an interpreter. well, this developed a personal friendship, and i had the great honor of being an aide or assistant to chief justiceway for the next five years, traveled with him to major

conferences of justices of supreme courts. and at these meetings, as i know some of these meetings still continue at yale and other venues -- there was a very open exchange of -- as a little bit what we were seeing here, how do you deal with the expectation of privacy? is the garbage unanimous your done -- garbage can in your country part of it or isn't? in a number of years thereafter, if you look at decisions of courts very wide apart, constitutional court of south africa, house of lords, canadian supreme court, others, you can see references to decisions by the united states supreme court. you could see references to courts of other countries. you could see citations to authors of other countries.

you will forgive me if i say that but i think -- i'm among the few who have the honor to have been cited six times by the israeli supreme court. now, for somebody who is of arab origin and a muslim, i take that as being quite a badge of pride. it also demonstrates the intellectual openness of the court. ...

now, this is very important because the international covenant on political riots has 167 state parties, where is the international covenant of economic social alliance has 160 countries. the convention, the rights on a 193 countries. racial discrimination is 175. the discrimination against women is 187. you start comparing the tax with

the contents of these international conventions. and you no longer see a correlation. is the almost exact fixed it from the cabinets into the national constitution. now implicit in that is a process of harmonization of constitutions, which in turn is the process that the interpretation at the national level in fact on the national level. the contingent is there is a process of harmonization through the importation of international human rights, international constitution that seeps in through national law, seeps into the application or the ports itself unnecessarily if you will

invite comparisons and borrowing from one to the other. >> and how many other countries is their constitutional guarantees of human rights, aspirational rather than law to be applied? >> that is a very subjective judgment because when you look at the texts themselves, the tax do not make a very sharp distinction in that respect. it's when you look at the application on it that you start seeing the distinction between. >> i did have one question about the diversity, recognition to

control matter for a family of thought. but one of the sizable population of people who are not affiliated with a particular phase. i think that in modern time there are more of those seen in ancient days. >> yes, they would be subject to the conflict approach. there'd be subject to whatever national access, assuming the national laws has been farsighted enough to devise an alternative system to those who do not want to be bound by the religious system or the religious community. >> the interesting thing here, how do phase out in islam.

>> e-mail, you have an exclusive exclusive -- you have the parallel inheritance case, when both of the partners can go. and we have also a parallel eviction in the tradition of poverty and cat does, far between. but in this case, the first call , it is the absurd side for the position will be the religious one.

and they have the right to tears the religious without the convention of the law. and in spite of that, it was in specific civil cases, the court should give a quality to women according to the civil law, which is not given according to religion. in the supreme court case more to women. >> only a man can give it a voice and a women receive it.

>> yes, this is a situation and i can see that things will be changing. according to jewish law, the man should give the divorce to -- if there is a problem, we have a specific case. i think 40 years ago. in one case, the husband refused to get the divorce and you once said in jail for 30 years until he says yes, you know. last night and when he died, his wife insisted to attend the sooner i'll. she would testify because she said i want to see hugh under the ground. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> welcome were several references to one of canada's most appreciated while the mistress of justice and attorney

general. maybe you know what they are referring to. joubran, can you give us a little bit? >> this is a comparative constitutional moment. this is a 30th anniversary of the canadian chart, which is how to transplant and make a revolutionary impact not only a modest, but on a diet. it's the 20th anniversary of the israeli basic laws on human rights, known in israel as the constitutional revolution, which drew upon our charter of rights and freedoms. i hope he won't drawn us for the override because that is where the impetus came for that. it is the 50th anniversary of the south african constitution, which in turn is strong in the canadian charter. i was there recently appeared in south africa we had a discussion on the canadian and south african bill of rights. and i noted when i was overseas

at the time, you never hear about canada when you are overseas. but this time i did in the reference to some name with justice ginsburg was quoted at that time in cairo when asked about the united states constitution serving as a model indicated that she thought the south african constitution can be in rights and freedoms might serve us better models for constitution making in part because some of the justice mentioned regarding maternity and the like. the person that rice is and why is the charter of rights transformative and revolutionary? taken away from a comparative context, just in terms of canada, one has to appreciate that if you look at canadian troops chartered bought come up rechartered by sandlot and i'm really oversimplifying, but for purposes of time, there are two things that i think emerge.

first is a history of social discrimination particularly against people send in fact benefactress even institutionalized as law. are referring to discrimination against aboriginal people, women disabled and the like. the second thing was that legal history of discrimination. and in fact, there was an absence of any constitutional right to a quality, and absence of any constitutional protection against discrimination and absence of any constitutional remedies. in fact, and this links up with lois mentioned committee look at the 115 years of -- don't worry, we'll take a tour come from 1867 to 1982, you will see there is a preoccupation with the division of power between the federal government, otherwise known as the power process or leave her as journalism come unconverted

limitations and the exercise of power, whether federal or provincial, otherwise known as civil liberties. so whenever a civil liberties issue came before the court, the question was which of the two jurisdictions, federal or provincial has authority over the subject that are quite but i think the former chief justice of the supreme court put it best when he said that the real question is, what should the two levels of government have the power to work the injustice and not have the injustice itself could be prevented. i do want to suggest there were no protections. their predictions of common law, principles on expression. there were statutory exceptions, but there were no come as i said, constitutional rights and remedies. all of that change with the advent of the canadian charter. indeed on the 10th anniversary of the charter, former chief

justice of the supreme court, antonio lemaire spoken rather firms with a revolutionary act comparable to the discovery of the metric system and the discoveries of pastor in science. now, even allowing for rhetorical ucs invited judge, he was not wrong in terms of its revolutionary impact. another justice at the supreme court in power terms set five years after the charter was enacted at the supreme court of canada has stretched the course of liberty more in five years than the supreme court of the united states had done in 200 years, i can't allowing for search and enthusiasm in the rhetoric. there was some reference here to certain precedents. for example, constitutionalizing affirmative-action in our

charter or constitutionalizing the equal rights amendment and gender equality. let me conclude by just making reference to what i've written about elsewhere. and that is the canadian charter of rights and freedoms is a revolution in five acts. and i will give one-liners almost on each of the acts by way of conclusion. that may suggest why in a recent article in the new york university of journal and long canada was referred to as a constitutional superpower in comparative terms. the first is the actual act of adoption of the charter was transformative and that we miss her being a parliamentary democracy to be in a constitutional democracy. the judiciary and the attribute arbiters of legal federalism, which they still are to be a guarantors of human rights, not because he served up our come about because parliament gave them that power.

individuals and groups that a panoply of rights and remedies, which were hitherto inconceivable and nonjusticiable charters. so that's the first act. the second act was the revolutionary dimension of the involvement of civil society. the charter of rights they have is not the charter of rights proposed the government. the charter of rights that was kind formed as a result of representation and submissions made in what was called the year of the constitution, 81 to 82 were hundreds of individuals and groups came before a joint house-senate committee on the constitution and literally transformed every provision of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms, including the section one, to which justice fish referred and i make reference to specific provisions from other jurisdictions come international, human rights and the like that became part of our charter. the third revolutionary act had

to do with the international law to canadian constitution and charter law. in two respects. one, our charter of rights was drafted with international covenants in subsections drawn from those international companies. and influenced by the global human rights movement, which led a former chief justice dickson to say they should look in international law as having a relevant and persuasive application and being a relevant authority and application for freedom. international law and merges. just to contrast empirically. we had only one case in the history of canadian constitutional law or international law was cited before the charter.

the application in its first volumes cited 40 cases. in the second edition of his book cited 400 cases. by the time there were simply too many cases. there is the revolutionary component. for further judgments that principles by the courts themselves to the same-sex marriage. it is instructive here to note that there were unanimous decisions from nine provinces in the territories regarding same-sex legislation as to affirm in its constitutionality. it was giving the advisory about how same-sex marriage legislation not only comport added with the charter of

rights, but would otherwise be absent be a breach of the charter of rights and freedoms. the important thing to realize is in pre-charter like you wouldn't have even had standing to breathe the issue before the court, but allowed the issues become justiciable before the court and i have almost every court on provincial jurisdictions unanimously affirming constitutionality of same-sex legislation. the final part of the revolution has to do with the role of the minister of justice and attorney general. i had an occasion is my first job to serve as to the then minister of justice from 1968 to 72. i think the transformation wrought by the charter in the role of the minister of justice and attorney general. simply put i can conclude number one the responsibility of the minister of attorney general that every prospective law or

regulation coming for it to any department or a the to see. it is called the good housekeeping constitution approval. second, if any extradition with regard to ensure that they comports with the charter. so the wrongful conviction, he can, minister of justice and determination set of characters of justice and rob of conviction , the charter has dropped a dramatic transformation on that whole case. finally an amount of criminal prosecutions, we ensure every criminal prosecution, the prosecution comports with the charter. that means making full disclosure. at this time you are a minister had three positions. one minister of justice, to

attorney general and these are two separate positions in the united states. and attorney general amnon minister of justice. and also the chief prosecutor. i felt that this was a little overreaching and so happily we were able to outsource at least the role of the chief prosecutor by the time i turned in. it can cause a certain conflict in the grounds of the minister of justice is a sitting member of the government and bound by cabinet solidarity on a particular issue. on the other hand, in role as attorney general, he or she has to get independent constitutional advice. it may not always follow the advice, so you have a situation where the government and cabinet announces the decision, which could be embarrassing to the minister of justice if he or she is getting contrary

constitutional advice and otherwise capacity as attorney general. >> thank you, justice ginsburg before the questions out? >> i think we should have not too much time last. i was the whatever time we might have to the audience. >> well, we can't have a question that the story from politics or any pending decisions before course, but there is a microphone over there if anyone is interested in posing the question. i think we want -- i think c-span would like you to use a microphone. >> my name is sammy atoll coming from beirut, lebanon, the other

side of the plan. i have two questions. you mentioned about the case of a speaker, present team and appeal in lebanon. in this case was not in israel because there is no relations. in my view that we have a bad of matter nights in israel envious except good that the relevant of israel. and he can give to approve that the case is appealing.

they can appeal to the vatican. do you see that there is an impeachment to make an appeal to the appeal court in lebanon? >> well, maybe i was misunderstood because according to the israeli, all religious are enforced and the execution for the state of israel. it is not done like that, with the supreme court rejected the case. it was respect it in israel enforced by the minister of justice. it was responsible for the enforcement of the state of

israel. >> so my second question. >> i know -- [inaudible] and now we have a new one coming to my city -- [inaudible] >> i know that. >> my second question. you mentioned we have around 100,000 files -- >> 10,000. 10,000. >> so what does the number being quite >> 10,000, we are all doing well. we are working very hard. sometimes seven in the morning until 9:00 every day of the week. but we feel well, we don't

complain. >> but she said and panels. >> sometimes in a very important case says there's a right for the president to enlarge the number at two judges. but usually we set with authority judges only. >> if you have to set with all 15 of you in every case, you cannot handle 10,000. >> well, we have reached our time, justice ginsburg, one more time if you'd like to have anything at all. >> perhaps picking up on a comment on something in egypt. i refilled the u.s. constitution that was way ahead of its time. remember the founding fathers were natural right thinkers and that's why they didn't put into the constitution itself what came four years later in the bill of rights. they thought people at rights by virtue of existing and there was

a fear about writing down those rice. but we have come to think about rights differently nowadays. and i get the south african constitution at the model in this respect. article number one is human rights. so the human rights not at the end of the bill of rights, but the very fewest article and you could see the structure of government it says to uphold and implement those rice. purdue is certainly not intended to distract, distract and anyway from the u.s. constitution, which i carry around in my pocket wherever i examined the world. >> thank you very much. thank you offered being here and to our panelists.

[applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> they thought the president was not going to be a strong defender of american values and american is supposed. human rights, democracy, free trade and the free enterprise. those words of apology and statements have emboldened those who find us as a weekend enemy. >> later in the book, the real romney, "boston globe" investigator michael crane-ish blue billick, michigan truth his years at bain capital. part of our booktv weekend on

c-span 2. >> author and human rights activists, kati marton is joined by 2011 peace prize winner, said seven and a dina powell come in the global head of corporate engagement from goldman sachs. posted by the hamptons institute and the roosevelt institute, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> the executive to her and tracey marshall who puts together the production of these wonderful weekend programs. i am alan chesler, senior fellow at the roosevelt institute, part organization in this enterprise and we are now having the dirt under programming. i guess we are becoming in east hampton institution. i want to thank our underwriters. [applause] are the sponsors, but our family and the tub group and if local agent and then many of you and

others who are not here on this gorgeous day, who has been faithful underwriters and sponsors and fellows of the program for three years. i want to think specifically who i gather us in the audience, donald molin of goldman sachs to help secure a wonderful speaker, dina powell and my good friend, abby disney who made the wonderful movie, pray that doubles back to how, about -- [applause] -- leymah gbowee in the situation in liberia, which you will hear about and it helped introduce me to leymah and bring her here today. just a rigorous about the roosevelt institute. we're up on time partner of the roosevelt museum in hyde park. the mission over the last many years has been to a source as roosevelt legacy come it's fabulous exhibitions that they are. we have a new extraordinary park opening up on roosevelt island,

the president of which a member of our board is here today and we hope you all come out to see this exquisite monument to roosevelt, which will open october 18th and is the only work in new york after of the great architect louis khan. it's been 40 years in development since the early 70s and is really exquisite. some of you that on the east and the art e-mail on the southern tip of roosevelt island. in recent years, the roosevelt institute has decided to create freedom centers of wedge i am fortunate to be a senior fellow that is creating a robust conversation across this country , specifically in economics, created a deal for the 21st century.

an extraordinary campus network in 200 campuses across the country. we are now expanding our reach and specifically to begin a human rights legacy. so today, our program helps launch a program called women rising that the roosevelt institute, which is about the very conversation you are fortunate to hear. the ways in which investment than women are agents of democracy or formalizing of women's work is bringing in securing peace and prosperity in so many countries in the world. it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce my dear friend, kati marton coming to see bush and best-selling author but also a longtime human rights activist who will in turn introduced the panel.

kati come as you know are many of you know is an extraordinary memoir of growing up in hungry after world war ii and the experience of her parents, enemies of the people. it is a book you can't put down. her new book come about to come out in the two weeks as the story of her marriage and the loss of ambassador richard holbrooke. i just one of those previews and it is another must read you blog build a put down. i hope you all go buy it. unfortunately, it is not in the body because the publication date is two weeks. hence i know you all enjoy reading it. it is a special occasion for me to have this conversation because eleanor roosevelt really has is the founder of the human rights movement.

went to the united nations is america's representative to the human rights commission, wrote and in that conversation, and made specific reference to the rights of women and the need to secure the rights of women long before there was really the robust conversation, even in the united states we now have. it was eleanor roosevelt understood that human rights must begin in small places close to home without the been there, they have no meaning anywhere. she encouraged people all over the world to engage in a conversation about advancing the rights of women long before it was fashionable. but we are going to your about how that conversation is going and how it is changing the world in this wonderful program this morning. so kati and leymah and dean, please come to the stage. i hope you enjoy this as much as i know i'm going to.

thank you so much. [applause] >> good morning. good morning, friends and neighbors in thank you all for coming out in choosing mass over the beach and a tennis court. i'm not sure i would rate the same choice, but it's wonderful to see so many of you and we promise, leymah, dina and i will make it worth your while. as someone said, we have two extraordinary women who are walking the walk. not just talking the talk of women rising. our subject today is women ascended, women rising in peacemaking and prosperity. i would like us to have more than kind of it that adding conversation here. i would like us to explore

whether that is indeed the case. our women rising in a meaningful way? certainly these two women are. but when the average american female worker is still making 18% last than her male counterpart, we still have a ways to go and i think the fact that a recent cover story in "atlantic monthly," asking, can women have it all, written by one of the highest powered remain in the obama administration, anne-marie slaughter, concludes that no, women cannot have it all. she ended up returning to tend the home fires, leaving an extremely important position. so whether that us to engage in that. but i would like to start with leymah, who is one of those transformative figures in our world. it isn't that exaggeration to size that without firing a shot,

she brought about dramatic change in her war-torn country of liberia, which was one of the most ruthless warlords in africa and that hussein sent being, charles taylor recently condemned the prison sentence and much of that is your doing. [applause] and of course we are here to find out how exactly you did that and how it is that as a result of your organizing grass-roots organizing of the women of liberia you have now brought the first woman head of state in africa, atlantis early johnson and what can you share the nobel peace prize this year. so we are extraordinary pleased for you. [applause]

i am frankly in on a few. i stayed up all night reading it. when you finish reading paris, a love story, the new book, i recommend this. [laughter] so you've got that order. on a serious note, you're wrong trajectory really runs parallel to library as. that is to say that she did not have a great start in life. >> no. >> and yet you pretty much thought about it hit a wall and found strength not only to transform yourself, but from the women of liberia. where did you find the strength and where did you find the kurds to face these men, armed and absolutely dangerous? where did you find that strange in that courage? >> let me say thank you to

everyone here for making this a success, my being here. this is a real small group compared to just coming back from new orleans but 33,000 people in the superdome from all over the u.s. so this is really a good conversation compared to 16, 18 years old. [laughter] be met we hope. but you know when the war started, my parents weren't rich. we were comfortable in a sense that we were date. in my book we talk about the community. i grew up being an urban mixture of ethnic groups and different things. so being sheltered all my life and then all of a sudden one

day, everything collapsed and i carried a lot of anger. i was very, very angry for many years, angry at god, angry for many different reasons. and when i started having my children, the anger wasn't going away, the pain was a going away. one of the things i say to young people when i'm working with them, what can you see, mandela,.or king had in common? and they look at me like nothing because you can't be comparing hitler with mandela and martin luther king. i said they do have one trait in common. that trait is anger. they were all very angry at a particular situation. the difference between this group of people is the rate they decided to do with their anger. and i say that is what i did as a person, really thinking

through the 17 to 31. it hasn't done anything for this community. let's try something else. there is nothing like grabbing a bunch of angry african women and saying let's do something for peace. that is exactly what they did because we all shared similar pain, the group of women that came together. there's not a single one of us that hasn't seen a child go to bed hungry. some of us had been beat, abuse, we all had their lives turned upside down. so we just decided, let's use our pain and just put it out there to confront these cowards but i really i'm leashing the terror. that is what we did and most times people said that was an act of being a hero. that was an act of being fed up and an act of

>> one of the most appalling things that charles taylor did of course was to your children from you and to turn them into what he called small soldiers. and you spend a great deal of time talking about how important it is not to shun these trials fulcher's. by the way, spent a year at the united nations working on this issue. it's one of the trickiest abolishes because these children are robbed of their childhood and turned into cold-blooded killers. how do you bring them back? that is such an important part of your mission because these are your children. >> it is a catch-22 situation like you said because these are young people who have killed their mothers, variant isn't done all the difficult things. i remember when i started working and went to meet with them, the abused me for one hour and they really abuse me in the

next day the abused me for 59 minutes and the following day, 58. and when they realized i wasn't going away kind of the abuse that. but what i realized was says they do all these things, it is a switch. and you'll see that that 18-year-old boy become the 8-year-old that he was when was giving the tracks and the gun. and he said child. he is trapped in the body of that 8-year-old, even though he has become a man and a killing machine. when i started working with them, i told myself, i can't deal with these children are these young men at 18. we have to go back to eight years old. and that's how i dealt with them. what you do with your 8-year-old child, reassuring them that just being there for them and transformation for me came when one of them looked for me for a

week and he couldn't find. frantically looking for me because he had something to say. when he finally found me come you said i looked for you and look for you and i could find you. that's the only way. he was high strung out on drugs. when we sat down to talk, it was like reassuring my 8-year-old. and this is the 16-year-old boy, really just reaching out at that level, reaching out at that compassionate level. and when you say that in a society like liberia, people think you're crazy. how can you be compassionate to people who kill? and then you ask yourself, think about your 8-year-old giving drugs, into whatever. >> a spring deana into the conversation because the net is doing astonishing things as head

of goldman sachs foundation to nurture and foster when men and bring them into bigger ship rolled through her 10,000 women projects. how exactly are you doing now? i see of course an intersection between what the two of you do because it is by now it sure was some that societies do not empower their women, cannot progress beyond certain limited dealings. and so, you two are really comrades in arms. >> that's an honor for me for sure. >> thank you, first of all. it's such an honor to be with shoe extraordinary theaters, kati and leymah. when leymah spoke last year, literally there were people hanging outside the auditorium trying to get in. the work that she has done this so humbly and. as one of the reasons i wanted

my two daughters to come. they are heroes along with sybase children and it was an honor backstage to introduce them all. i can't think of a greater role model for my young daughters and see the work which you have time to change a country, that changed the world. you're awfully kind to mention 10,000 women. i want to thank allen and don mullen, my colleague at goldman sachs here today. one of the greatest things about this program is how invested everyone at goldman sachs is from our ceo, blade blanks stand to so many of my colleagues all around the world. we started this effort more than four years ago to literally reach 10,000 women around the world of business and management education, mentors and networking and links to capital. it emerged because i goldman sachs we had two pieces of research that actually showed that if you empower women economically, it gdp growth,

growth developed and developed economy. what is so interesting about the work they leymah as in the work are trying to do this if you really want more peaceful and prosperous solutions, the very best investment is investing in women, especially e-mail entrepreneurs who grow their businesses to create jobs. we are now working in 22 countries. 6000 women have graduated, including in monrovia, where leymah as a member of the women entre nous astaire, who when we started there really was no economic program for women at all and now they are literally growing their businesses. at goldman minister were everything. that might not surprise you. the international center for research is the first independent analysis of the program and found that 80% of the graduates are increasing revenues. 60% creating new jobs. a very important, but not surprising piece of data as nine

out of 10 are mentoring at least one other woman. now kati said to me, don't eat too many numbers. i had to set the stage because they think it's important we are so focused on results. but the real power of the stories that the women themselves. one of the women we work within liberia has a very committed very difficult time throughout the war. it was really remarkable she could barely read and write, but she got into the program. she actually now has a gas company where she is providing corn oil and is hiring 25 women. the stories are so powerful. i know you wanted me to share a couple. >> one of the things i love about your narrative is that you turned the stories, women stories into resources trying at the highest reaches of

policymaking. i love your crown of thorns kind of therapy, group therapy. explain how that works because i frankly think we could use some of that, all of us. so how was that -- how does that pass when his strength, the thing you develop code crowded horn? >> one of the things we do what we bring women back together to do the work that they do, i was talking to my daughter last night trying to get them to hope methinks here because i think sometimes i get to travel -- >> that is their job as children. >> sometimes we have to put a lot of thinking to what i say. so we've are simply having a chat, but the way we do our thing with the win and when start working is to bring them into the stage. the fact that we recognize is

that you just exist. no one has ever taught you or has ever help to reaffirm or affirm what woman headaches. you know, so when they go into the room, we do something called being a woman. and the first time you work with these women you say why it is being implemented, there is nothing about themselves. it's the mother, wife comic caregiver. so everything is outside of themselves. and then you ask them ask a woman identified what are your problems. they will all say children's, husband, nothing about themselves. and then you say, the idea of this session is to really get them to come to realize that around all of these things,

yourself is important. you know, so we've realized that his women talk about their crown, the crowns are associated when you go home and sat down and think about your life of the things that we value. what are those things that are the crown in your life? do you realize we actually do this in hope than to really come to understand themselves. one of the other things we do in the room, which i think is fine is dry yourselves and really just halas what a sad feature of your body that you like? and the first thing you get is what? because none of these women -- we dress up and we get in the street and people admire our things, but what i find as you never get your kids because the kid is not part of the culture. you look good, mommy.

a year has been says you're very pretty. so we've been looking at spending time looking at yourselves saying wow, you did a good job with me. so by the time we do that is called a catwalk. so we try themselves positively. at the end of that one day, the ones that are very quiet, they are always chatty, chatty, chatty. they come to good facer they find themselves. so these young people, my daughters about women raise or today, the implications for global peace and security, the one thing that struck me was sad is it that we are rising now, or is it that there is a way of being created that we are contributing? we come back to 10,000 women. and liberia, all my life i

sonogram under, my ent, my own mother work. like our womanhood, no one said that was too any real contribution. so it is not like he did anything we've done anything. when they are sitting and drinking fine wine and the europeans are to cease. this is at the end of high school. so the roles of these women minimize what is happening. it is this new awareness that you're actually contributing. so the 10,000 women is put into perspective. they say you know, i never really countered much what is amounting. i need to shut up? >> no. i wish we had all day to hear

you. dina, this notion of women's work being respected and whether it is in the home or outside the home, this week we have the news of higher to 37-year-old woman to be a ceo. the big news about that was also share the same day announced she was pregnant. and you know, there is still this kind of notes and -- built-in friction between those two pieces of ourselves, the mother and the provider. we want to be posed, but we are still torn, right? immuno, one part is generally getting short strapped. i does -- and you read about this very powerfully, that you had to give up another for quite a while in order to find the leader in you.

and how painful that was. what i love about your book among other things is it has human -- how she menubar. we and our country tend to like our icons to be perfect and you embrace -- >> my flaws. >> cannot comment as the 10,000 women as tab to view without built-in conflict for most of us though? >> may be described it by telling you a story about our program in kabul, afghanistan, one of my favorite stories. i should say have the privilege of working with ambassador holbrooke, worked at the american university in afghanistan. he was so dedicated to making sure women are central to the peace process because he understood strategically if they were. >> you learned all that for me.

>> there is always a woman behind a van like that. >> but what we learned in afghanistan, if you can imagine one of the most challenging places to economically empower women for many years been the taliban actually restricted growth from going to school and certainly there were no universities that expected win in. we were now at the university of women in afghanistan. we worked for 300 entrepreneurs. but one just struck a chord with us. there is a woman we work with, ranking a d. he was a company called kandahar treasures. she still goes to the most conservative provinces throughout the country. and women who cannot leave their homes gave her handicrafts commit beautiful scarves, jewelry, she sells them and returns the proceeds to these women. and a couple of years ago, when she first started working with us, she told us a story about a

woman, which is really considered the most difficult province in afghanistan still. she returned money one day to a woman as a mayor who had literally never her home. in the wind grabbed her hand and said we do not, i have to tell you a story. my husband never respected me. i has been barely ever looked me in the eye. but ever since i started working with you in making a little bit of income, he suddenly talks to me. he even asks my opinion on this now. and just the other day, and a dismissive way, he did say, you know, i think all of these girls schools popping up are terrible, because we have three young daughters, i suppose i should ask your opinion on whether or not we should put them in school. and when she told the story, did she say yes, yes, please send my daughters to school? she said no, she was much smarter. she said i had had never borne u.s. senate because it that you

have to care for these three girls. you have to provide them a dowry. but if they go to school, they'll learn a school. like me they will make money and take care of you in your old age. and the husband looked at her for a moment and then said, you are right. we will force them to go to school. [laughter] and sure enough, all these years, those three little girls are still in school. this woman who will never read or write ruby for homecoming user moment of power so wisely as she got that moment in power by ian economically independent. and that is i think where this intersection of an estimate and if you care about global peace, national security policy with a global recession if you care about economic growth if women are the best investment. >> leymah, you of course emphasize to read your book that women are the experts in peacebuilding. explain that.

>> well, our gift is knowledge. two brothers live in a compound. their wives and their daughters are in the compound, but before the fight, do these women have observed a buildup to the site and attention and know everything. and there is this big fight that destroys everything in that compound, including these women and some men outside the compound come to make peace and decide the women and daughters should sit outside. think about it for a moment. who knows the beginning of those prices? who knows those men better than anyone to say if you tackle peace from his this week, you're going to get to peace?

if you tackle this issue from this perspective this week, you're going to get that. no one but those women because they've been there. take it to the national level. i give your typical example. when we started disarmament in the communities, the disarmament was like the other side at east hampton. and you have mother is coming to us from this side of the block to melbourne to when new this voice because their community or atrocities and say my son and we have guns here and we watch you to help us take the guns from them. we've got to do this kind of disarmament with these boys and were standing there. and because in a lot of our communities it is the mothers who are the ones these boys

really would race back because others are most often not around. if we are around, we no care for these boys. these women understand the frustration. they understand why they want to get involved. and then you've got to see in building peace, and making peace picking out this misinformation or person who i saw the information out of the thing. that is the first big thing. the second part is when we stop building peace as women, it is not about herself this interest. i'll give you another story. ..

>> we are the greatest. we are the ones who suffer the brunt fred we are the ones. when your husband is a fighter

and goes out there and loses his life come you have the burden of children to bear. you are the mother who loses a son or a daughter and you have to nourish that child without saying a single word to anyone. when it comes to this coming community but all of those things behind you and say that i am moving ahead. again, peace in your community means peace in your life. >> human values. [applause] >> you don't have a particularly high opinion of the u.n. >> you know, my mother told me they are doing the things over and over and it is affecting a different result. that is the u.n. [applause] [laughter] >> the example of your transformative role there, can that work elsewhere?

you are now working from ghana, or you have moved back to that area. but are you attempting to transport -- transfer -- >> one of the things that the u.n. makes is a mistake as they have a one size fits all initiative. and i think that every conflict is unique. every conflict has different perspective. when it comes to building in different countries, people have to decide for themselves that this is the way it's going to go. what we can offer, what i do and communities and try to listen to them, two years ago we were in como and sitting with those women. i left that room and the others who went with me -- >> let me just say that abby

disney produced a fantastic documentary. and if you haven't seen it -- [inaudible question] >> she is right there. thank you for good work. i recommend it for all of you. >> i was saying to her that it will be difficult for us to see the women come together. because what we see in como is that the conflict is still -- we are the ones. it is still about which political group and which ethnic group wins. in liberia, we came to that place where it was to hell with the religion. to hell with our ethnic groups. we are together based on one common theme. and that is our humanity as

women. in different areas, people can come to that place where we understand that laws are not fought because of political ideology. if people put together this and find peace. >> i think it went institutions come together. when you have the government saying that this is a national security priority. corporations like goldman sachs. four years ago, it was the single investment empowering women. so many corporations are saying we really need to be a part of this if we care for it and i think institutions like the u.n., you were saying earlier have little in women rising.

i think it could go either way and we are at the tipping point. that is why it is so critical to have leaders in the private sector and government saying that we all have to come together. >> now we have ahead of state. your head of state. a woman. is she governing differently than a man would? >> i think she is doing her best. [inaudible] >> one thing she could do is [inaudible] the thing that every clinton is doing. i just like to say that. girls that are doing something, there is now this real movement of women saying that i want to do this and i want to do the best. a level person who has just come here, -- joyce had just taken

over as president since the vice president died. not that we are part of the form in africa -- but joined this out right. she is an activist president. so you get all kinds of things from her. first thing she said, i don't think i will be coming to the eu summit if i have to sit at a table with the likes of bashar al-assad. i don't like him and i don't want to engage. she was not at the eu summit. by the time she became president, she overturned laws from the previous president. even though she is a collections in two years, to hell with it. so be it. [inaudible] [applause] >> i am just curious, how did

you personally feel watching charles taylor sitting at the dock and be sentenced by the highest court in the world. the day of his sentencing, i couldn't get dressed. i am holding this piece and sitting in front of the television. and i am asked to continue to read and read and read. the only thought that kept going through my mind is how hard he had fallen. he is just sitting there and sitting there. >> they don't look so big when they are at the dock. >> then we step outside, and this is something that many people haven't heard. when they see what is going on, when there is a verdict -- a final verdict that is coming

down, the sun had a rainbow around it, and everyone was amazed that the bbc satellite through this is the first time in my life that i have seen something like that. it means traditionally, a big chief has fallen. i said no, it's all right. his conviction will not bring us to war anymore. but it was a mixed feeling for me, because again, as an activist from i never am satisfied until justice is served. what is going to happen to those amputees? that was my question. what conviction has done for africa is to show bashar al-assad, all of those who mess around with their people, that your day in court is due.

either you die now or when you live, that is what the conviction has done to the world. the other thing we need to do is stop thinking. how to put millions of dollars into prosecuting these people. the people who suffer the most will never know true justice until there is some form of justice to let them live their lives better. our friends in the audience have questions were so we will go to that. but first, i would like to return to where i started. it is not yet a perfect world for women. the great conversation that was sparked by the atlantic cover story about women having it all, i think it brought back a

subject which i thought that we had already had. but obviously, it is still -- it is still relevant. and women are still having to make choices. do you feel that? do you feel that in your experience, but there is a compromise to be made? in other words, that we can't have it all? >> i will answer a couple of ways. first, my perspective of working with so many women around the world. one of the most interesting things about this whole issue is how in our country, a partisan, secretary clinton's leadership has been extraordinary. secretary rice's leadership. >> you work for secretary condoleezza rice? >> yes, i had the privilege of working for her and traveling in many countries after 9/11. it was clear that when she sat at the table, just like secretary clinton does now, and said that i will not even discuss any national security

issues you care about until you tell me what you are doing for women and girls in your country. that is so powerful. to use that power in that role is extraordinary. but remember, in many ways, this whole dialogue began when secretary clinton, so many years ago, more than 17 years ago, went to china. in made that declared that statement that women's writes our human rights. and it set off such a fire that you may remember. all these years later, not only did that statement resonate and create enormous change, but last year when she went to the summit when all the countries got it again, she said i know what i said so many years ago when i have something new to say which is women are central. forget just about the right thing to do or how we should help women around the world. but if we want to have an impact in this global recession, there has to be central change the

economy. i think the ball is moving. and i think that it is so different now. this is not the right thing to do. this is the smart thing to do. as bob zoellick always says, it's smart economics that invest in women. >> on a more human and personal level -- can anybody have it all? >> i'm not sure how to have it all. >> i think that women do a little better -- i will say one other thing. what is interesting about the debate is how many men are saying this is the right thing to do, whether it is -- >> how you feel on this issue? you certainly didn't have it all at once. >> i think we can have it all. that is my optimistic mind. i definitely think that we can have it all. and i think we are having it all. the problems that we have now are just another part of the world recognizing that having it all doesn't mean that we are

going to have everything coming is it everybody else's life is going to be better. [applause] it is not about -- when you have these women leaders like president from liberia and hillary clinton and all these people -- what else do they want? you want to say to them come you have given us to us. this is just a benefit of it. don't you see changes, you know, in more meaningful ways in the lives of girls in the lives of boys? in the lives of people in general. things that are important. >> i want to ask about this sort of thing. what i think is different is that i don't think it's for one woman to do fine. i think that what women do is give each other encouragement. you don't say what one path is

correct or one isn't. >> i don't think that men have it all, either. those men who spend their lives in the office are missing a great deal, too. >> you also want to ask yourself when you talk about having it all, what are you talking about? if you ask me, i will tell you that i have it all. and they say to you live in africa and have all of the problems in africa. and i say yes, at least i have a space where i am able to stand up and addressed some of those problems and also have this space where i am able to care. having it all is based on defining it. defining what is all. all to one person could mean a company from a group of people, having economic security in some countries. other security and other countries. what is having an all? i am saying that everyone, including men can have it all. it is an understanding that we are all unique and we all have unique skills. just allow us to culture those skills.

then operate at 50% of their brains come until women come into the space. >> on that note, we would love to hear your questions. if you have questions, but let's make them real questions, not speeches. i think we have 20 minutes. we have mike barrett and please, whoever is closest to the microphone. >> speaking up about scaling up the golden model. it has been so effective. you mentioned the international research for women has done an analysis of the impact. the 10,000 women will not change the world -- we can change the world one woman at the time, so many problems are embedded in such issues as class and race and economics and economic

division in the world. more in the south particularly. >> we have reached 10,000 over five years. at the end of next year, we'll have reached women in 43 countries. you said 10,000 women won't change the world. i would not be so sure. each of those women, as leymah gbowee were telling me earlier, support 100 or 200 or 300 people. not just the employees that they are hiring, but their families. their communities. the ripple effect, which is why we believe this is the best investment by goldman sachs. it is the multiplier effect of those women. we have been thinking and talking to her our partners. we work with more than 75 academic and non-profit partners. we are thinking about how we can get to many more thousands of women in more countries with very innovative models. i think the win in 10,000 women has been a success is because it's not just education. it is bringing education mentors from goldman sachs and local partners and capitols together

to help us. the reason we are in liberia is an interesting story. one of the things we will look at to scale. the overseas private investment corporation approached us. they had made a big announcement to create a 30 million-dollar lending facility. president johnson sterling insisted that every one of those dollars go to a woman on business. this is right after her election. there were barely any women entrepreneurs. so many women were not at the levels that could even be building of this. they called us and said if he will bring 10,000 women to liberia, we will give first and my status to every one of the graduates to get capital. today, 50% of the women graduates have access to that capital. it is going extremely well, and we just started a dialogue with the new president to open onto other countries as well. certainly the people are so committed to this and we would

love ideas grid in fact, and how to reach more women and we are starting the process now. >> any other questions? >> i would like to ask about communications. the majority of the united states, and you want to communicate in the world. you have you -- you have facebook and twitter and other social networking around the world. how did you reach out when you are starting? spirit that is such a good question. word of mouth. >> we have a committee of 25 women that we call [inaudible name]. in our committee, we have a chair and a cochair for community outreach. fund-raising and different

things. going to the market and going to the churches, we targeted areas that have more women. when we started protesting in the rural community, someone came down, and saw us. they would come and ask questions and go back into the community. something good is happening and we need to have protesting for peace. someone in those communities without any consulting with us they would not speak to the press or do anything formal until we came and kind of blast

them. by the time we started with one group, when we ended up, 2.5 years later, we were at 15 groups operating from nine counties. over 10,000 members. >> a brilliant stroke was a white t-shirt. >> yes. >> that all of your women wore white t-shirts and white headscarves, so that it was like a blaze of white that even charles taylor couldn't miss in his motorcade passing by. all of these women in white. it is good marketing. >> yes? >> i have eight daughter who is a journalist with reuters and she just spent a week to cover the problem of the muslim migration of the country. because she is young, she was

instantly invited to two weddings and started talking to all of the women there. and the women were traditionally kidnapped. some of them are multiple wives because of the moslem issue there. i talked to all of these people and i said i don't think a solution will come unless some organization comes in red i want to know how you get in touch into a country like that. >> let me just say one thing, and i want to really debunk the myth of these people. if you even try to think [inaudible] , you have mr. mark. the things about organizing our internal things. i made mention about my como experience. in liberia, since the end of the

war, you go to different communities and the challenges are enormous. i spent the last two weeks with women activists in different communities with some of the worst challenges. >> teenage pregnancy, and these women, when i got in the room -- the first question was how did you get them together to act on these things? and it was so sad. it was said that they did not learn anything. the other thing was the one question, when you are inviting women to a gathering, were you inviting them for? and they say oh, we've are just inviting them. let me tell you something. you have to find something that every woman sees as active in the community to mobilize them

around that issue. maybe your daughter saw the kidnapping of those women in that part of the world is a problem, until those women do it for themselves can see it as a problem, even if you have 10 conferences in the u.s. and 2000 more conferences, they will look at you like you're nuts. >> so it has to come from within. >> it has to come internally. don't know what i would be wasting my time. the only way that i would go into any state, if i was invited by those women and they said we need you, let's get together and talk about issues of peace were mobilizing. like the woman in liberia are

doing now. we need you this week and we want to see how we can all be together and i keep saying to them, if you are leading the way, we are not going to come with them at them and tell them that we know at all. what kills me, and every time i get so upset when a group of people comes to a country to teach these women -- are you kidding me? do you know my culture? you can't teach me. what you can do is to comment and share experiences. and i can speak with you when you can speak with me, and together, we can make the world better. [applause]

>> the fact that so many well instituted organizations -- is totally disrespect all. i think that our guiding principle of 10,000 women is how we can go and learn from extraordinary women. and these local partners and local institutions to do something together in partnership. it is the reason we are working in pakistan now. because there are so few female entrepreneurs and so many women came forward during secretary clinton's visit and requested that the program go there. we have a different model there. we actually see that it is amazing. -- >> the nobel peace prize, has empowered you? hasn't made you more than international mediator organizer? are your services more were greatly in demand? are you willing to engage.

>> i wish they could give me a little bit more respect. [laughter] [applause] >> i know the feeling. >> i went and visited my friends and my daughter and niece and said that you have to come to my school and i said, okay, my sister lives nearby. i said this is my daughters school. let's just put on jeans and t-shirts, because again, i am still a local girl. and i said we should put on something more nice. well anyway, she won, and that is how we ran. [talking over each other] >> we got to the school and

there were cameras. and i said why is the press here? and then my daughter says [inaudible] >> [inaudible] that shows you how much respect they have for me. i was just saying to her and her colleagues, there is one thing i have come to learn. very early on. people want you to come to their defense to brighten it. it is like a very ornamental christmas tree. you were doing nothing but to brighten it. i have rejected that. i will not go to any thing where i know that i'm not going to make any impact and people are

not interested in what i have to say. that is clear-cut. immediately afterwards, we identify issues that i have worked on that are dear to my heart and will continue to work on end deal with the issues that get me to continue to work on. working on issues for women, reproductive health, issues that we need to continue to talk about. and girls leadership. those three things, you give me go anywhere to talk about. so you get all kinds of demands to go to different places. i am very selective about the places that i go to. you have all of these things globally that would invite you to be a member of. can you come and be on the board of this and that -- we said no many times. along with the president, on the

high-level panel on reproductive health and women's rights between now and 2015. that is a long time to be talking about family planning. but i think it is something that is very important. one of the things kati marton, that i say, and i say to this group -- and you can take it and use it as a quote. what the nobel prize has done for me as a person is given me a local girl a global platform to advance the issues of rights of women and girls. >> that is wonderful and so inspiring. [applause] >> one more question. [talking over each other] >> we have the microphone there and then we will come to you. >> this is a question for leymah gbowee. i don't know if this is a silly question. but i admire the courage and the

tenacity and obvious wisdom that you have brought to your experiences in their own country. you know, you have overcome such dramatic injustice and violence. i wonder if you have any thoughts for us women in the united states, who have been raised with wes of the dramatic challenges and have the illusion of equal opportunity. do you have anything, you know, trades or practices become successful, that you would maybe, in your wisdom, advise us -- maybe not just cracking the feeling, but shattering it, like you had in liberia. >> against first used to be afraid to speak about u.s.

issues. now that the government of america decided to give me something, i don't know if you've heard of it, people would extraordinary abilities. [talking over each other] >> this last trip, my son also got lost in the airport in chicago. because i kept going back and forth, i think they thought i had something planted somewhere, so they took me into the holding room. i was so mad. but anyway, when it comes to the united states and women and what they can do, one of the things that i have seen over the many years that i have been coming back and forth, the first time that i came here was in early 2000. no one, the people i engage with, would not distinguish between liberia and libya. honestly. or when you say i am from

liberia, they say nigeria? or libya? those kinds of things. >> even politicians can do so much. >> overtime, what i have seen is -- and i think that 9/11, which was bad, but in a very good way, that suffices for the kind of hunger for people who are privileged in this country to want to know what is happening in the underprivileged world. there is a huge -- there's there is that kind of thing. that is one. one of the things that i would wish to see, because like you said, it was an illusion. that quality exists in this country. you are too polite. you know, when you have issues, women's issues, and you should be angry. i see people angry in their living rooms. they never take it outside. you have resources.

if dina powell invites a tv crew to it make a statement to her friends about something that was going wrong with the wishes of women's rights, then the media would pay attention. i think i am on tv, right? please don't hate me, those of you watching. but sometimes i feel that with all of the resources at your disposal, you are a little bit too laid back when it comes to women's rights issues. and i think some of the things that we read into, in 2008, gloria steinem came to ghana to one of our conferences. those african women wanted to beat her up. >> gloria steinem, oh, because for them, she represented one of those people who opened up the

stage for some very difficult conversations and women's rights issues. >> for all of us. >> what we see now is like you all have put it in the fridge. it is on ice. you know? a lot of things will be happening, not just with women in this country, but globally. sometimes i say to myself, maybe you know it, or maybe you don't know it. but you can change the world for women out there if you were just a little bit more assertive. [applause] >> good answer. [applause] >> okay. the fact that there is still an 18% income disparity tells you that what you said is absolutely true. >> i want to ask on a more personal level in terms of having it all, how you each came to terms with motherhood and activism, and what choices were involved with that.

>> someone once said to me, would you have done it any differently as a mother. growing up, my kids sitting there, [inaudible] [applause] [inaudible] >> geneva had just her daughter. janine had to take care of all my kids. so geneva is the one who died, and when i ever stop running it around, we would both write a book on the great years of our kids. because you know, when this

person -- she taught them very well. so when people say your kids are well behaved, i cannot take credit. it happened before my sister died. someone asked me, if you could do your life differently, would you do differently? and i said no, i would not. and the audience went, -- you know, like you are a cruel mother. but for me, motherhood is making this work, a peaceful place. so that these girls and dina powell's girls don't have to worry about such insecurities. [applause] >> that there was never any question on my list of priorities. my children were on top.

yes, i admit that i made compromises professionally. life is a correspondent was not suitable to motherhood. and i tried my hand at writing books. but now i am just about to publish might eighth book. and i have two very good kids. my name, and my life is not perhaps as i dreamed in my 20s -- that i would be the next barbara walters. [talking over each other] i think that we all make bargains with ourselves. so i really don't buy into the superwoman thing. because i think that we all make compromises along the way. >> i am so lucky to talk to

today, and as kathy said, there is nothing more precious to me in the world and those two little girls. along the way, there were the tough days of needing to be two places at one time. somehow they would know that or something. because i remember one kate met one of the graduates at goldman, one of the 10,000 women graduates from nigeria, it was a day after she had been to school and she met her. and she said to me afterwards, wow, i can't believe that we can help her. and i remember thinking, on our tough days, we all have to worry about being our daughters role models. we are all our daughters were models. >> after a while, i think -- my daughter told me -- she was very quiet in an evil way, she has an opinion. abby will be looking at you and laughing at you in her head because she had some analysis of

you. but she you told me when she was growing up, mom, i would never want to be shipbuilder. i want to stay home for my children. i read somewhere, and that said i'm doing something for god. it's a do what you can and god will help you do what you can -- he will help you do what it you can't. i held onto that. [applause] >> thank you so much, dina powell and leymah gbowee. thank you ladies and gentlemen for joining us. >> gavel to gavel coverage of the convention entebbe, florida. live on c-span.

coming up, the center for american progress releases a report on education and global competitiveness. the american bar association hosted a discussion with supreme court justices from the u.s. canada and israel. later, a discussion with leymah gbowee about women's rights and peacemaking. >> leaders of national latino organizations will hold a news conference tomorrow morning to present public policy recommendations. in advance of the republican and democratic conventions. we will have live coverage from the national press club here on c-span2, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> i am not in the habit of breaking their promises to my country. neither is governor sarah palin. when we tell you that we are going to change washington and stop leaving our country's

problems for some unlucky generation to fix, you can count on it. [applause] >> and we have a record of doing just that. the strength and experience and judgment of backbone to keep our word to you. >> you have stood up, one by one and said enough to politics. you understand that in the selection this election from the greatest risk we can take is to try the same politics with the same players and expect a different result. you have shown what history teaches us. in a defining moment like this one, the change we need doesn't come from washington. the change comes to washington. >> c-span has her every minute of every major party conventions since 1984. our countdown to the convention continues with less than a week to go into our live gavel to

gavel coverage of the republican and democratic national convention. live on c-span. c-span radio, and streamed online at c-span.org. starting next wednesday, chris christie. the keynote address. in former governor jeb bush. democratic convention speakers include san antonio made mayor delivering the keynote address, and former president bill clinton. >> the center for american progress released a report today on education and global competitiveness. contrasting the u.s. with china and india. it states that china will have 200 million college graduates by 2030. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. my name is neera tanden.

we are very excited about today's events in today's report. i wanted to have a special introduction to the group but we are working with over the last year. which is a new organization that is really dedicated to ensuring that we are tackling those issues that really ensure that our next generation will be successful. i can think of no better topic than today's. today, the center for american progress and the next generation is releasing a joint report entitled competition that really matters. which details china and india and other countries and investing in their young people, to ensure that they are competitive.

ensuring that we are competitive in the decades to come. we have a lot of issues about competitiveness in our country and want to do to make our economy competitive for the future. there have been a lot of resources dedicated to that work. we took on the subject because we recognize that other countries were not just looking at competitiveness today. but they are looking at competitiveness for the next several decades. they have real strategies that they developed shootout. in the center of the strategies is looking at the resources. the area in which they can affect human resources the most is always for the education of the children. not only children in public schools and public education, but in later years as well. when we think about competitiveness and economic growth, we should recognize that other countries have expansive view of that and that takes

human resources and education as well. that is at the heart of what this reporter is talking about. both china and india have increasing investments in young people. in school and pre-k, and what policies are for their families. i would say that both parties have to ensure that their stewardship of the growth. that is what i want both parties to do, look at the issues of human resources. we need to look up the heat that our policies will take on the next several decades. i want to say a few words about the authors of this report.

we are very excited about it. it has been a long-term effort. believe me, getting data from china and india is not such an easy task. i really want to thank adam hershel and ann o'leary. it is my task now to introduce matt james. he has worked on a whole range of issues that are really critical to economic competitive topics. from education to health care, and he's an expert on so many of these issues. also, the franklin center looked at what is at stake in his work. children and their needs. it is my great honor to introduce matt james. [applause] good morning, everyone.

this is a great day for us. a big day for the center of the next generation. this is a release of our first big report. let me first of all thank neera tanden for her work in the early days when the senate for the next generation was operating in my family room. they were constant colleagues who helped me think through the issues about how to set up the center and how to get started. and we cannot be could not be here without their advice or counsel. we also like to thank adam hirsch and donna cooper. this was not an easy report to put together. it is very tough. the quality of the work is absolutely fantastic and we are proud to be releasing it today. i would like to also thank my colleague, ann o'leary. she was on the first hires at the center for the next generation. i said to my wife, i think i just hired the smartest person i ever worked with. and i have worked with a lot of smart people.

she has been a terrific colleague and friend. let me just quickly talk about what the center is about. it is a partnership between me, tom stier, who was a businessman in california, and also his brother, jim stier, a children's advocate who started a number of organizations. we came together to try to make a new organization that will be focused on the primary issues that will effect the next generation of young americans. our first program areas are sustainability and children and families issues. and we offer you both here and on a national basis, and also in her home state of california. the way to think about it is a strategic beauticians organization, which will be bringing these issues with the centers for american progress. and also instituting some of the

very best policy and research material. let me also thank to the bipartisan polling research and bob carpenter, a consultant. their work on running together a fascinating survey. it is clear from the survey that americans want their political leaders to be focusing on education and global competitiveness. they've actually won governors to spend a lot of time thinking about this. clearly this will within the next set of elections, they are hoping will be a strong focus on. we are here today to focus on what we think is the nation's greatest asset. our young people. what the future holds for them in the face of intense challenges from china, india and elsewhere. those countries are aggressively scanning opportunities for young people. to the degree that they will have millions of more people competing for the best jobs in a

global economy in two years. were we going to do about it? how can we maintain the competitiveness of the united states? our report from the competition that really matters, but sees things into perspective. the key findings. china and india have embarked on a vicious program. the challenges and well-paying jobs of the marketplace. by 2030, china will have 200 million college graduates. one of the entire u.s. workforce. by 2020, india will be graduating four times as many college graduates as the united states. part of this disparity is obvious we related to human capacity of china and india. each with populations four times greater than the united states. but it is more than just the numbers of people. china and india are investing in their future, more than ever before and while the united states is fighting to keep up. frankly, we are doing a poor job in this country of educating and

training all of our young children who want to compete for the great jobs that will be coming in the global economy. the united states cannot afford to squander the talents of young people if we hope to compete. it is one of the united states doesn't perform as well as students in other developed countries and standardized test. out of 34 developed countries, we are 14th in reading, we are 25th in math. what is less well-known is that if you compare reading scores of students only from our wealthiest schools, from our wealthiest schools -- they would outperform students from all 34 countries measured. but students from our poorest schools would rank 33rd, trailing only mexico. if you look at mathematics, all of our students from wealthy and poor schools are basically emulating my academic record, which was mediocre. what exactly are china and india doing to prepare more of their young people graduate from college and thrive in the workforce? three things. first, they start early.

by 2020, china will provide 70% of children with three years of preschool. india plans to increase the number of children entering school ready to learn from 26% to 60% by 2018. while the united states, half of our children received note early childhood education and we lacked a national strategy to increase enrollment. they educate their young people for the jobs of the future. especially in the critical needs of science, technology, engineering and math. china has already graduated over 1 million college graduates a year. in the areas of science, technology, and mathematics. while the united states graduates fewer than half that number. what we are doing now is clearly not enough, and imagine what will happen in the years, to come if investments in our children continue to decline. thirdly, they ensure that students are taught by highly effective teachers. china is improving the quality even as the number they are training slows.

the number with bachelors degrees has increased 66% in just eight years, with almost two thirds of primary school teachers having an advanced degree. our teaching corps is filled with degreed professionals. but it is not attracting the best and brightest on average. in the united states on average, high school students who choose to enter undergraduate programs for education have sat scores in the bottom third of all students tested. this stands in sharp contrast to nations with impressive student results. which successfully pervert teachers from the top high school graduates. here to make a commitment our competitors are making, we need strong political leadership to move forward. and the will to make education a national priority again, which we have done in the past. for today, at least, luckily we don't have to look very far to find political leadership and commitment to improving education. i am honored now to turn this over to jack markell, governor

of delaware. governor markell is a national leader in school reform. he is a chair of the national governors association. and he is the cochair of the common core standards initiative. he led delaware's efforts to when the race to the top competition. it is a pleasure to have you here today, governor jack markell. [applause] >> thank you, it is great to be here. i want to thank matt and neera tanden and chennai. i believe this is the defining issue of the day and this is really just a terrific, terrific rapport. businesses have more choices than ever about where they are born to look for candidates for jobs. there are 3 billion people in the world looking for jobs. and there are 1.2 billion jobs available. so we are truly in the global war for jobs, which means we are in a global war. the jobs are going to go where

the talent is. the numbers show in this report are absolutely stunning in terms of the investments in the results in india and china, and they are not the only two. so this report outlines the need for comprehensive national strategy. in the absence of such a movement, we have some incredible work underway in our state that i would like to show you today. there are several efforts underway in delaware. they began to address the competitiveness of jobs. it really starts with the recognition, if we sleep on my part, that what we have been doing in the last several years is the academic equivalent of having our kids learn to play basketball by shooting at an 8-foot basket. you can get very good shooting at an 8-foot basket. when you get into the game and you are competing against players who have been shooting a regulation basket, which is

tempe. every state is required under federal law to administer a state standardized tests. these tests don't have anything to each other from one state to do next. they don't have to measure the same things or use the same measurement scale. so what we end up with, is that every kid is about average. the result of these state tests, when you compare them to the nation's report card for the international report card, the results tend to be high. if you tell a kid that they are proficient based on a test that is administered only within their borders, but then they have to go compete for college and jobs and people who are not within the borders, you are not being very honest with them. i believe that a dose of honesty is in order. one of the very first things that we did in our state, shortly after he took office is we we've raised the bar. and we literally said to parents and teachers and students across the state, that even though kids

don't know anything less than they knew before, fewer of them will be judged to be proficient. that is not a very popular message to deliver. but again, we thought it was one that was important and one that we thought was honest. number one, we are raising expectations for students with higher standards and with a world-class cricketer. we are also providing high-quality early childhood opportunities, especially to the high-speed students. we are striving to transform the education profession with more meaningful evaluations and professional development, and we are using data in a whole new way. i want to touch on each of these. let me start out raising expectations. when it comes to raising the bar for all students, beyond raising the bar what needs of what needs to be profession, we also focused on the adoption of common core. and we thought that that was a necessary first step. i had the privilege of starting with the former republican georgia governor.

the standards are fewer, higher, and clearer and make it easier for states to share resources. in delaware we are focused on making sure that all educators understand how instructions should change with common core. developing systems and accountabilities to make sure that those shifts are underway. it was difficult enough to get all the states to sign on, but as with most things, it is difficult when you get to the implementation part. by now, we are heavy-duty into the implementation mode, and across the country, we are learning what it is really going to take to make common core real. we are also raising the bar to students by expanding our world in which opportunities. i'm particularly excited about this initiative. over the next five years, we are opening up schools and our in our state. these will be schools within schools are students spent half of the day learning in a

different language. we are starting with 340 kindergartner students across our state. half of them doing chinese and half of them doing spanish. not only will they be learning those languages in their class, but science and social studies and math in that target language. frankly, there was a fair bit of pushback at first. this really matters as an education issue and an economic issue. ..