the essentialist line and i agree it is absolutely fair. and i did just take a slightly different tack and i think that one of the things raised by this paper is that a lot of our choices around come eventually around super advanced robots will essentially be questions of politics. ..

i would say that, i would agree with ian. public to push back a little on the slippery slope trajectory of skirting the essentialist line. but also to say that i think the politics around it can be articulated in particular ways that would also make for me would have appreciable differences with the motivations and the reasons and the justifications for taking a decision not to invest a i with this kind of responsibility and authority. >> we could also add one other thing, before we opened things up. is maybe if i come in trying to think of ways to civil by the approach to the kind of claim we are making in a way that might be useful, there is always risks

with the simplification. people will look at a policy debate going right now in universities is the idea of using these robot grading systems, these automated systems are grading college students essays which are of course important, particularly for universities that like the business model of the mooc because how to take revenge of the lsu can get the grading done? so when that debate was going on i was very interested in sort of a brief response that jonathan made about that. is point in essence was that, it doesn't matter whether the robot can perform more consistently than human beings, less biased, more coherent outcomes. that ultimately bought a lot of

robots to grade student essays misses the underlying point of what writing is because writing is something a human being does for an audience. all of these things nested the proposition of what writing is. that it doesn't matter how functional successful the robot greater is. i think ours is an attempt to make a jurist prudential argument that speaks to those the same underlying sort of intuitions. >> i'm just going to pretty take a couple -- i actually think this is an interesting point in which to take up the invitation by jack to talk about the recent controversy in canada over the avoiding, the court held that the appointment of the justice which occurred last october was void because it is not consistent with the ordinary act, the supreme court act that prescribes a supreme court judges can be avoided.

the issue was there's a special reservist three seats for judges from québec which has a civil law tradition. it has always, supreme court was first enacted in 1875, has always been considered to have a special representation from that tradition. and historically the judges were either from québec court or current members of the bar. being a member of the federal court of canada was neither and this was a departure and past precedent. there was a very interesting debate over whether it was right that the québec provision in the supreme court act should be read in that way so that someone who clearly had been part of the québec community is no longer living in québec, no longer, did not seem to be under the tactical umbrella of the provision could be kept off the court. there were many arguments that it was unfair and they were narrowing the pool. this was making certain kinds of casting aspersions on certain

kinds of québec jurists. ultimate the spring corporate dramatically held that the appointment was, in fact, void. the difference from the jrr scenario is that the point was challenged very soon and so he had never participated any cases. and, in fact, rather dramatically the supreme court issued a relief saying he would not be allowed into building. he would not have access to his chambers and they would not be talking to him and tel to his, t of a quasi-banishment. so it made the decision in terms of there were no actual cases that we need to be dealt with. the way i think it's interesting here is the issue was not about qualifications per se. it wasn't about whether he was a qualified jurist, a member of the community but it was taking a hard line about a particular statutory provision that did draw a bright line that some people would regard as not very sensible.

but that you need the bright line in order to constrain the appointment process in a way that was predictable and would not lead to people with no connection to québec but who had, say, the current bar membership being seen as appropriate representing québec on the supreme court. we have a hard line that can cause, proceed to cause unfairness to a particular individual, the court said ultimately this is not about this individual. this is about maintaining a routine and predictable route for appointments for these seats, which fulfill a particular purpose. >> okay. michael had asked me to face a little more this way. so, my name is ryan. i'm a law professor at the university of washington, and so i just so greatly enjoyed this paper and also greatly enjoyed

your comments, jack. a couple different things that i noticed about the paper. jrr is a robot but jrr is a very specific robot, right? jrr is a robot but jrr is a very specific robot, right? the fact that made by a corporation which explicit couple of things essentially but he's made by a corporation and the point of the matter is that he is the common lisp for a particular period of time in a particular community. but that is contingent. so he could have been born initially. he could've been a person up into the remote before he went on the court and they replaced by a exact replicate. all of these things are contingent and that the margins we can re-examine various filters. i wonder what you thought about and iterative approach like the. the second thing, i thought sort of missing, i just love the discussion that was there about hart and about dworkin but i

thought the player who was missing in my mind was full or. so in my view, for, i think a lot of the work -- this is my view and share by others although i haven't a very deep on it, it, especially as a dworkin lays it out in natural law revisited, it flows from, right, you nihcm a couple different aspects of fuller which is a non-agile aspects of law but the other one is really law in quest of itself. even though it's not quite as developed as dworkin's notion of justification, it is so much more deeply normative and more steeped in something normative, that i wonder whether if you were to sort of apply a forward thinking, i don't mean it done but by the work of ron fuller

then with dworkin. dworkin him her please -- argues can do some of his work and you can gather them and supply them. but what you're getting at is maybe you can do what fuller wants to do, which is -- so i just think sort of looking at law in quest of itself and try and use that as a potential lens might be fruitful. i'm wondering what everybody is thinking about that. >> before respond, if we believe the mic, right, can i make sure i understood the first question or set of comments he wanted us to respond to. i understood your points about the idea that jrr's specificity is contingent. but then you sort of through in this comment on that iterative approach. i just want to make sure i was clear on what you meant by that. >> in action -- imagine the way we decide whether or not, this is bombing to jack's color of

everything. if what matters is the fact that jrr is a member of the relevant community, right, is it sufficient for, what we have in robotics generally i think is an opportunity to exquisitely manipulate certain aspects, right, that we can do with people. for instance, robots are used to diagnose and treat autism in part because you can like figure out what the child is responding to by modulating particular things. you can do with a person. you get hold a person's voice steady and change the keys and change the distance. exquisitely the robot has become quite useful for autism. similarly here you can manipulate so you can ask whether it's enough for the person to have come at the beginning of their life, or at harvard or right before the court and you can ask questions

about what matters here, is it memory? the nature of identity? if there's an exact robot replicate, then is that enough? in other words, somebody with a number of the relevant community and they got steeped in and they were copied exactly by silicon. so for me it's the potential to exquisitely manipulate the robot here, that lends some, and i wonder what he thought about maybe doing some of those mutilations and then applying your same task. >> so on that point, ryan, which i think is the really important set of points, and begin one which played us and one which we thought about a lot. one of the things i've come to learn from this project, you look to all the great thought experiments had been successful in philosophy and economics and all those things and you see how hard it is to build a successful thought experiment. but i think one of the things what's happened with us was that

we were sort of, on the one hand wanting thought experiment have sufficient realism, but we imagine at the edge of the robot coming into being the corporate research and development experiment, et cetera, et cetera. one of the realities of research and development in robotics is, i suppose it could be otherwise, it's contingent, but is we don't raise every robot from birth, right? robots come in to being for particularly use of that particular time and they don't have the normal human span of life. and that part of the hypothetical i think maybe, maybe work to our advantage a little bit in that i think it would be even harder to answer tax questions about welcome why can't we say the robot had prescriptive training if it had been born, if it'd been raise a child at all of this.

i think in the sense one might say the fact that we chose to go with it type of realism on our robot came into being, stacks the deck in our favor or place your advantage but it is interesting we thought about ways to cast the hypothetical in that way. but i do think to the extent we're living with the hypothetical that we did, that the fact that this robot isn't diluted into thinking it's human, didn't have a child, all of these kinds of things does make it hard for us to understand it to be in any sense a member of the community, let alone a full member of the community. >> i'll speak to the second point, ryan. thank you very much. so i realize that, you know, we could be regarded as having

sneakily inserted particular branches of legal 30 to support our through. we think there is a theory. we have this opening very helpfully provided by some steam who is one of the few people we could find that actually address the issue of legal reasoning and ai and mentioned the work in which as i tried, as we tried to figure in the paper we thought that was a nice contrast between those two. and when you thinking of our robot judge, and i was jotting down my notes one of the first words i jotted down was hercules. so that's what it's been so we thought dworkin would be an interesting model. we've said i think in the paper that we're not in a position in the paper to view all of the work and analytical jurisprudence to justify our selections work, you know, 10 years later would come up with an answer. that being said, absolutely.

like i think there are other scholars and theorists that would be very helpful to us, and i mean, i love ron fuller. we just didn't have a chance to get him in this draft but that something i would look at. >> before jack, i don't know if what is it anything in response to brian's question about fuller and its value, because i don't have that much to say other than this is something i will now, we'll go back to you and think very, very carefully about. but yes, this is reiterating trenches point, but hercules -- carissima sport. dworkin searches jumped out at us because it's the closest thing you get to like this is hercules is not a robot, but it shares a lot of the same features that we could imagine of the robot. so that was one of the reasons why dworkin found its place for sure. in terms of, just one more point

sent carissima brought it up about cast sunstein. for us what we hope was part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people are commenting in the field and sunstein as a good example of that have been so focused on the question of functional capacity. and the debate so far is always a question of will we ever get there, like at the end of yesterday's panel the question was how far or close are we to those kinds of things that it's a useful christian to think about whether a person is ever going to be on the table. but won't want to do in this paper was not sort of say that the discussion and on discussion because the robots aren't there yet. that wasn't our central interest in sort of talking but where are we at. we wanted to assume, let's say we get there and then we sort of ask does that mean it's a slamdunk in a way that turing

seems to suggest it is? and we say no. >> i quite frankly don't care whether you use hart, fuller, dworkin or anyone. i don't think that's what the paper is about. when i read your paper, what i think your paper is about is a deep question. the key question is, under what circumstances can we say to an entity has sympathy for others, is part, understands their lot as, with another slot. understands himself to be part of a community. it's a question of reciprocity. we've underlined all of your objections, i think, even though jurisprudence. i think your talk about questions of and mutual recognition. that's the reason why i thought that your hypothetical was a real problem, because you structured a hypothetical in such a way that it looks like you have conditions of reciprocity. that's also why i talked about

the history of record because rhetoric is about these qualities. the infield the ethos or pay those, and not just logos but ethos and pathos are important to read it. so you constructed this entry which has these things as i want to say what's my other step? one thing, one toggle i would turn off to go to ryan questions is does he understand himself to be human? does he understand himself to be a part of a community? if he doesn't and no, i don't want to invest them with the because that's when he's a trickster. he's very skilled at convincing people of things and making it appear that there and own interests when, in fact, he is not going to understand himself to be part of the committee. from the passover seder, there's the wise and and the wicked son. the wise son asks what are these institutions and these rules that we have made for ourselves

to what is the wicked since the? the wicked sense of what is meaning of this to you. in the text says by syndicating exquisite of comics good in itself he denies the fundamental proposition and, therefore, dashing in the same way that's important for your robot is it a robot is asking the same question as the wise son. what does it mean to us? what's the right role for us? if we start by some that he wasn't saying what does this mean to you, you who are not me, i'm merely trying to trick you artist what you. then, of course, i would want to invest them with authority. >> there's an interesting irony in one of the main reasons we made the choice for jrr cannot believe -- site, cannot -- sorry, to believe, do not believe it was a robot was precisely to avoid anything in this scenario that would discount jrr as a judge because there was any level of perception of him getting to be there. >> that raised a really

interesting -- this is part of your paper. if you believe you're a member of the community, if you believe these people to call your children actually all your children and will be affected by the decisions you make, if you believe your fellow citizens will be harmed or benefit about what you do and you understand that to be something that you care about, what more do you want? >> this is great stuff but as conference chair again to point out we have about 15 minutes and a very healthy, anxious and keio. >> neil richards, washington university law school. i don't know whether unhealthy or anxious, or both. but i have two small points and that the question. one, i would call him just as robot because that's just better. on jack's point, the privy council does receive appeal from 27 territories, some commonwealth, some overseas entities. but the question, the paper and

the discussion reminded me of ken anderson's point yesterday and his sort of cognitive buffer that he puts into not think about fully advanced humanoid robots because there are so many pressing problems right now, and i loved the thought experiment. but i wonder about whether we should think about fully human robots, like just as robots or jrr, and when the supreme court justices into the american model are the right vehicle to examine the question. you think about the course role for itself. it's that the law is not fully determinate and there are unsettled questions, circuit splits, division of authority, and consistent legal rule and after exercise high political judgment, that you and jack have been talking about for the last hour. but that's a very different set

of questions than most legal questions. so many legal questions are much more determined. even at the micro level i take many of us would accept regardless of her position on your question, many of us would accept that for like an automated traffic detection system, this was your paper two years ago, you could have an automated system for a robot, whatever you want to called it, to resolve those questions. and then at the intermediate level questions of doctrine weather is an answer where you can plug in facts into a legal test and out comes an answer, 100 times to the blackbox but what about those questions? the question would be, at what point do we get into the sort of epistemic moral doubt of justice robots? how far would you be willing to accept automated or algorithmic decision-making with the now be in a human system? >> you basically asked by questions ar were also jump in d

add one quick thing. sorry, woodrow at stanford university, school of law. also adding to that i thought about -- so you talk about judging with a capital j. i wonder about things like arbitration. would you be willing to take it to arbitration? so i which is tacked that on and would love your thoughts on th that. >> just starting off. so, we tried to be clear in our second section which was called other possible worlds, at recognizing what's so fun about this example is it jumps straight to the top. but the reality of how these things are going to go as elizabeth grossman pointed out quite clear yesterday. we 100% agree with her, that ai and the law where the goal is to develop ai applications, at least in some way manifest themselves in legal practice, will be small increments, iterative and built up.

and so, you know, we already have systems in place where ai is being used to divide property in matrimonial disputes, you know. and those kinds of things. we decided that one way of looking at the lens of what is, what are the sort of social invitations of seeding or delegating these incremental steps to the machine, what is the significance of that? one would think about it would be instead of just asking particular questions about each system as it arises and whether that delegation would be permissible or well informed, if instead would ask the big question. we recognize from the outset this project isn't meant to be directly applicable or comment specifically on some of those kinds of things.

but i think it's practically indisputable that those things are starting to happen, and that we are seeing those kinds of things. and i don't think any other considerations that we are making in our paper seek to speak against those things necessary. but it is interesting to ask the question, if we go it is incrementally what will that say with some asked for jrr question 30 years from now when we have all of our ai embedded in the law. >> very briefly, i think in terms of that kind of process or entity being available for something like arbitration, like something where, for the most part you can see it as a private contracting of a particular dispute resolution mechanism. it doesn't raise the same kinds of really societal systemic commitment issues that in our sense of capital j. judging.

>> i'm david post romme temple law school. sorry, i've been waiting patiently to ask my question. i have a very simple question. it may really be one of ignorance, but central it seems to me to this discussion in this question and i think jack is saying it is central to this discussion that question of whether jr, the robot, believes that it is human, understand itself to be human. i think someone said considers itself to be human. i'm having a very difficult time sort of getting my head around that concept. i really am. and as i say, it may be complete ignorance. i don't understand how you would know or what it means to say that the robot believes itself. i don't understand belief in this context. and i agree -- it does seem to be really critical to whether i

trust it. justice brandeis, i get the. he believes himself to be part of this tradition. i know what that means a lease. i don't know what it means in this concept spent i think to throw hard line on some of the points we are mentioned we would also be inclined to say that that question, or that statement is nonsense. that's what philosophy begins when language goes on holiday. we are not speaking sensibly in that sense as liechtenstein my to put it. but i guess for practical purposes one way of translating that with a getting into the in colonel space of the robot, which is we're not trying to do, is simply that we want to construct the example in such a way that the robot didn't proceed through the operations of daily life understanding, or coming from the perspective of other, like not being part of the committee. if you start think consciously, not consciously, it becomes,

this becomes a sticking point. >> am i right, jack, you on the other hand, think that you ask that question to answer -- no. unavoidable. so why aren't you fighting with each other now? the two of you. >> jack would say it's because we are canadian. >> for those who haven't a chance to read the paper, the actual sentence, it was programmed to think it was hum human. >> as was justice brandeis. [laughter] >> susan calvin, robo psychologist in the real flesh. i love this paper, and i think that this will be decided by many other areas such as psychology, and this is great for robot corporations that are building robots. so i just made some notes year. number one, i want to offer jrr

free therapy. the first thing we would do is see the movie bicentennial man. i know he's read the book but it's very important to see the movie as well. also your some questions i had. so u.s. robots and mechanical men in my eyes own jrr regardless of their intent. and this relationship, owner, is like parent-child to me. we have a responsibility to technology regardless of our intent. instead of turning test in the future, which is subjective, it would even today would, other people might think it has been passed by various ai or robotic technology. i would like to suggest that we use for the future more of a hierarchy where self-actualization has to be one of the variables of ai. and i think through all of this

also, what it's like to be human will change in fact all of us, in addition to jrr, it's not just he that is a robot. what -- i may have an earl implant. i may have 80% of my body parts might be artificial so i don't think jrr will be a robot by himself and i don't think that all the other humans are going to be just human. and lastly, i wanted to know if his wife new that she couldn't have -- he couldn't have children, and if it was, i mean, obviously i was curious about his organ, but if he couldn't have children, i mean maybe by anne's paper yesterday, you know, why not?

>> we were deliberately vague about that. and we don't come we don't know. >> part of the art of that narrative was meant to leave things open as to even whether she knew, that the robot succeed in pulling his wife are not and were not left with any of those details. it happens to be an interesting coincidence that the real john roberts and his wife adopted children. it has a flavor to. no question about that especially those over at the short story evidence from irobot. very reminiscent of stephen byerly in that respect. you had a string of things but the one that stuck in my mind to sort of address was the question of what would we know say about the corporate entity that owned the robot? i think that raises some very interesting questions, particularly one could imagine different hypotheticals where

they decided for whatever reason that they wanted to decommission the robot while jrr was still on the court, or if they step in during the emergency and said dnr, or maybe more controversy if they came in afterwards and we can in a the robot and jrr came and said, i believe i'm still a justice of the supreme court of the united states and what would ensue? a lot of these things were intentionally left open to promote thought answer that one can't commune, norm would one try to offer answers to each of those kinds of things. >> hi. this is kind of snarky but i can't help but ask it. i'm holly glaser, gis specialist. that's napping with computers. in answer to you, are you part of the community that you judge? what do you think about the

rules about forbidding abortion for women would seem to be entirely passed by me and? should we bother to obey them? are they legal? >> you realize at this point i was thinking that you don't have to be a member of the community to be a judge. that's the point about the privy council spent i missed that. >> but your point is that as a normative matter we should try to make sure people who hold the power of life and death over us share something with us, and sympathize with us and this and understand our concerns, right? >> no. i think that they should have to obey the laws that they make. i mean, that's the easiest thing to make sure that they will make oppressive laws. >> well, but i take the case of, ofcompetition just it is a situation in which you argue the laws are oppressive and the reason they are oppressive is the men on the court don't sympathize with the women who are affected. >> not that they sympathize.

that they will never be in jeopardy of having to face of that law. >> most judges will never be in jeopardy of the same problems that criminal defendants are in. so do you think no judge could ever sit in a criminal defendant's case? >> no. i think the decisions about women's bodies ought to be left to women who have to face the consequences. no man will ever get an abortion until robots that can give birth and our men are created. >> i think that's a good point but it does have the effect of roe v. wade couldn't have been decided because their no world women on the court at that time. >> how many people are still waiting to ask questions? one. this will be our last question before the break. >> i want to provoke some thought about the idea of bias and objectivity speak to people who you are. >> kevin bankston. it seems that in certain ways a robot judge would be particularly bottle and particularly in volatile to

bias. in particular, seems that one of your key criteria for whether jrr would be a good judge is a management and human committee, yet it seems that could actually be a great feature of a judge rather than above. second there's the question of what about the biases of the people who programmed jrr? are those more or less relevant than say the biases that were programmed into human jr by his human parents? third and finally, i thought it was worth noting the potential biases injected by someone who hacks jrr, unlike a human judge, like a human judge actually, this judge could be corrupted. we deal with that with human judge it by giving them lifetime tenure. how might we address the threat of a judge being hacked? because to me i'm much less concerned about a robot judge each human is that i am --

>> i think it happened last week. [laughter] >> i'm much more concerned about it actually getting hacked. anyway, curious about your thoughts on potential bias or lack of bias when it comes to robot judges. >> sure. well, one of the things you will notice about our paper which is the review asked this question, we didn't address the idea that jrr was any more or less biased than any human being. and i think that we would both take the same light as jack, which is to say jrr, any programs to the extent that there's any programming with biases, lives in a very strange hypothetical that we have imagined, is the different than anybody else who was a classmate at harvard law school. so those who didn't, those didn't enter the thought experiment in any way, quite intentionally, ma because we

felt there was enough to address there. i think, for example, when you drove us down to the level of small incremental ai and the law type applications, we would be very concerned about those questions, about programming. so in other words, i don't discount the bias questions here, but one of the things that i know carissima and i discussed quite a bit and people who ended totally would've heard about this paper would say is, it's interesting what we think there's probably a lot of people who think that this is not such a controversial thing. that judges of the u.s. supreme court seem quite robotic in any event, and judging really is a means of masking bias through technique anyways. writing written decisions. so those kinds of things weren't first and foremost amongst the problems that we addressed. the hacking issue of course is a really interesting issue and it's a different kind of

argument one might have, most likely against. judges, is that racism is our security type issues that there are vulnerabilities inherent in the robot that are inherent in humans, that would be a different kind altogether but one that i think if we're getting to the level of asking questions about whether, for example, we might have a system whether it's an arbitration system, we want to ask all of those questions that you're asking, absolutely spent we acknowledge that we don't address the degree to which he has a unique individualized experience, right, from his interactions over a number of decades. we just don't know how that is impacting on him and it has been impacted on him in some ways, just in a way that human judge is the product of a realm of common you know, in depth experience and interaction. >> for those of you are worried

about the supreme court related to your question, i just want to assure you all that the current supreme court is sworn to uphold the law equally between the rich and the very, very rich alike. [laughter] >> and on that happy note please join me in thanking the panel for the discussion. we are going to try to stick to our schedule, which means that your break shrank by about two minutes. we're going to come back at 10:00 sharp. see you then. thank you. >> c-span conversation on facebook it is about the supreme court as they wrap up their term. we're asking you your opinion of the court. karen says my opinion

-- under secretary for education mike ted mitchell be talking about federal and state officials can work together to improve schools. he would be speak at a meeting of the education commission of the state of another live for you coming up at 12:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. treasury secretary jack lew meet with president obama later this afternoon. he previewed yesterday the upcoming u.s.-china strategic economic dialogue in beijing and priorities for business relations between the u.s. and china. he also talks about cybersecurity concerns with china and the russia ukraine crisis. again this is from yesterday's meeting o of the u.s.-china business council and the use of chamber of commerce. >> good morning.

my name is erin ennis and i'm vice president of the china business tells. on half of our companies, i'm pleased to welcome you to the smartest program with treasury secretary jack lew. the u.s.-china business council has to represent american companies doing business with china for over 40 years there during that time the economic tide between our two nations has become stronger and are now at the center of the most important bilateral relationship the united states will have his century. despite these guys, american companies doing business in china face a nude of challenges. at the top of the list of the issues that are important to american companies, better market access to reach more of china's expanding economy and a level playing field with chinese companies. government-to-government dialogue is a critical component to addressing those issues. the u.s.-china strategic and economic dialogue established by the obama administration six years ago has been an effective

tool in advancing the economic and commercial agenda and helping make progress on the problem areas. the u.s.-china business council appreciates secretary lew and the treasury department's leadership in managing relations between the world's two largest economies. as an example of the valley of the strategic and economic dialogue, us just let me an important breakthrough when china agreed to use the u.s. approach to negotiation on a bilateral investment treaty. such a treaty would open up more sectors to american companies and provide equal treatment to them in china's market to u.s.-china business council believes a bilateral investment treaty can provide new momentum to u.s.-china relations and to china's own economic reform efforts. as a result we believe those negotiations should be accurate for both governments and are pleased to see them making progress. we look forward to hearing from secretary lew about what his priorities would be for this year's u.s.-china economic

discussions. the format of today's event will be a moderated conversation followed by a few questions from the audience. moderating the event will be "the wall street journal"'s current economics editor for the newspaper. at the conclusion of the discussion and questions and answers, please remain in your seats and we will allow the secretary to leave the event. these join me in welcoming secretary lew. [applause] >> secretary lew, there are quite a few issues on the global landscape at the moment that you're dealing with. we, of course, will start with all of the issues you're going to be facing at the s&ed. what has changed since last having a year ago? >> let me start by thanking you and his china business council and erin for open -- hosting hog this event has been.

it's a more to us as we approach one of these s&ed to have a conversation at home and communicate what it is our objectives are and how we see it. obviously, it's been a year full of a number of events that affect the u.s.-china relationship to either develop and economics side, last year we did have an important breakthrough with the agreement that china may to change its approach to the bit, investment treaty. we've also seen some rockier things. it's not a straight line that only goes to progress but we have to keep reminding each other how we can continue to make progress. but i think one of the important things is not withstanding other issues that come up between our countries, it is in both of our interests to maintain the economic discussion and to keep a strong track as two leading economies in the world, the two largest economies in the world into a responsibly that each of us has oath to own a gun and the global economy and to think we approach it that way and they

approach it that way. i'm optimistic that we are going to be up to make some progress again this year. i don't believe you ever finish the job but keep pushing at it. if i look at the issues that have been the major issues that we've engaged on over the last year, i have to say it's a mixed report. on the opening of markets and things like the shanghai free trade zone and the bit. we did see an agreement in principle to go from what is what's considered a presumptively closed markets are presumptively open market. except that china proceed to list almost everything of any value to say that it would be closed. so it is not just a conceptual move to go to an open market, you actually have to have the open market. and that means that it has to be in goods and services and has to become the american companies can't invest.

look at the exchange rate. a big issue from our perspective. since 2010 we have made progress working on this issue in inflation adjusted terms. r&d has appreciated 14% 2010. but it still needs to appreciate more. it is undervalued and that is something that hurts chinese consumers. it reduces their purchasing power. one of the things that's so important in terms of china's economy is increasing consumer demand. but fundamentally not fair in terms of training practices which is why we press on it so hard. i think they made some moves in the right direction. they widen their trading bands. in recent weeks they have raised the target we. we seem to take two steps forward and at least part of a step back, and we need to keep making progress getting to the market determined exchange rate but if we continue to make

progress on open markets and the exchange rate move, that would be very important to the u.s. economy, to u.s. businesses ability to compete on a level playing field. and, frankly, it's in china's interest but if you look at china's core economic plan, their third plenum, the issues i just described are central to what they've adopted as their stated program. so that's why i'm optimistic we will continue to make progress. >> if you fast for 10 days to the end of the s&ed, what are the three oh for specific outcomes you expect? >> i'm always reluctant the week before to say what the outcomes will be. i think we are working on the areas i described at the number of others, literally 60 issues were working on. our experience with the s&ed is an awful lot of progress is made in the last week, 10 days. i apologize to my team that will have to be working over the july 4 weekend in china in preparation for the meetings.

>> you mentioned bilateral investment treaty, big breakthrough last year. what elements do you expect to be included in that discussion this year? >> i think it's not realistic to think that there's going to be a concluded, in a couple of weeks. this is a very long process but we have to remain engaged. i think that on both the b.i.t. and the shanghai free trade zone, what we have continually encouraged our chinese counterpart is that you need to focus on actually opening markets and demonstrate that. i think that if there's any move in that direction, either shanghai free trade zone for the b.i.t., it becomes a basis than to moves -- to move forward in the details of the b.i.t. negotiation. i think it's been a slow process. i think it started out with almost everything being put on the closed list.

now as things are taken off the closed list we're finding yesterday a list has cannot, but on first glance it doesn't appear to be areas of major interest for u.s. market access. so it seems to be items that give you a number of things that are open but not a lot of business activity. we focus on financial services. we focus on assets in general for u.s. goods and services, and that's something we will continue on. always as we engage on economic issues with china in the background are the intellectual property issues. because while there's an enormous desire on the part of u.s. firms to invest in china, i think that there's a concern, both the use companies and others have that if the international -- intellectual property rules are not followed, that the investment becomes a very short-term benefit and then there's a loss of trade secrets

and other things that are extraordinarily high value but i think the chinese is focused on this. they've taken a number of enforcement actions but what we have seen is kind of same continuous effort that just makes it the rules of the road. i think if you summarize what we're describing, what we are looking for is to bring the u.s.-china relationship and china's business practices to replace where it meets the standard that we expect when others do business with us. >> there's a lot of push and pull in this relationship. can you take us into the s&ed for the uninitiated, what does the gathering look like? there's a year of work going into. what is the final discussion like? things happening in the last week to 10 days. >> first, the notion that it's a strategic and economic dialogue is something that, it began as

an economic dialogue, strategic and economic dialogue. by making it both a created to track. so we meet alternately with the entire group, separating by track. i think the detail work is mostly done when we go off into meetings with our economic counterparts, and secretary of state and his team into meetings with the foreign policy and defense counterpart. i think both are important and, obviously, relate to each other. there's also a back and forth between formal meetings and informal meetings. one of the important things about the s&ed rhythm is that people get to know each other. there is relationships developed between ministers, counterparts, between staff. and it gives you the ability not just to do business at the s&ed is in heaven ongoing working relationship.

and i think if you're looking at two countries as large and significant as the united states and china with the kind of defining characteristics of the world economy coming out anyways of our relationship, that's very important. it's very important there be the ability to raise differences in a respectful way, to press on areas where you can make progress. and it's obvious a good thing the s&ed have actual deliverables and achieve outcomes. i don't think it's just the outcomes that are of value. i think our ability to do business through the whole year is very much molded by the engagement at the s&ed spent market access is a concern a just about every company in this room. the companies your meeting with come one of the concerns is equal treatment of companies when they're over there on the licensing frontier can be made enough progress on this? what are you looking to do this

type of? >> the market access issues army. the art ownership issues where you own a piece of chinese company or can you come and do business as a foreign company. this question of how you do business. them through the many approvals the chinese process, and i can't say that's a one week issued. we have certain bureaucratic issues that i spent sometime explain but they're not aimed at china but it's just the nature of the american system and they say a little b.i.t. of that to us. but in reality in an economy that some a state-owned enterprises and has governmental rules that were designed to close the economy, that we are not in equal that position. our system is visibly open after system startup basically closed. so getting into the position where the u.s. and other foreign companies can do business, get the approvals that they need to

compete on a level playing field, that's central to what these discussions are about. the issue get rather technical rather quickly, but the principle is really a fundamental one. >> and the big concern is cybersecurity and there's been a number of recent allegations by the u.s. government regarding chinese government and chinese officials. what do you expect to come out of those discussions? is there some discussion about whether to restart one of these cyber frameworks? >> i think it's important that a cyber discussion has developed as part of the s&ed. that happened last year. we certain hope that continues. i think the issues of cybersecurity are extraordinarily important. there is a fundamental difference that we do not view it as an acceptable practice for governmental entities to participate in the process of securing trade secrets for the

economic benefit of firms in the country. we've made that clear in a general way. we've made clear in the rough specifically added don't think there's any question about the source of difference between them. we need to engage, continue to engage and i believe that there will be ongoing discussions. i think it's important that we separate the issues out, that you do not tie everything together. that's one of the ants dashing advantages of the s&ed. you have a session we talk about climate issues. extraordinarily important issue for the world to meet the copenhagen standards and be critical for china to make progress. i think from a chinese perspective for china to have a are where parents are willing to let children, china will have to make progress. we engage on those issues and where we have series discussion but to get economic issues like access, level playing field,

issues like climate change and then the set a strategic issues. cyber kind of cuts across because of the core it is both security issue, strategic issue but if it becomes a means of acquiring intellectual property or trade secrets, it becomes an economic issue. it is an important topic. >> what's the consequence if there is any further progress on this in the near-term? >> i think we continue to drive forward with the discussion. we have i think made clear how unacceptable we believe it is for those practices to go on. it is just a difference between how we do business. we just don't engage in activity like that and cannot condone it. >> is there anything specific you and if you don't find any engagement on this? >> i'm not going to kind of comment on all the remedies we had to they're not all in the

hands but there's obviously, the government taking some action result that shows we take this very strictly. >> how quickly do you think china should be moving to rein in credit in dealing with this issue right now? >> fundamentally what china needs to do is have market determined interest rates, market determined allocation of capital, and some of the pressures of the economy come from the artificial way that resources have been allocated. i think there's been a lot of attention on the real estate sector and concerns about bolton excess supply and possibility of a bubble. i think that china understands that they have demanded this internally. they have an awful lot of tools to do that. i don't think that it is something that looks like it

will present any kind of global threat to financial stability because were not looking at a great deal of leverage over interconnectedness with other economies and other financial systems. it's clear something that china has to focus on but i do believe china has the capacity to manage. >> we were talking earlier about currency issues. a few years ago come to seem like there was at the top of the agenda when you are engaging with the chinese, and as certainly one of the issues you discuss but it's not as high a. how has that concern changed? >> i'm not sure they feel that way. >> how are you presenting issues in speed and i present it as a threshold issue. that it's an issue where it is fundamental to the trust between the united states and china, between the american people and china. and it's not just a political issue. obviously, there's a lot of political attention on the exchange rate, but the concern

that exchange rate is being used in a way that hasn't adverse impact on american businesses and american workers is something that we have to raise whenever we engage. now, i understand that a market determined exchange rate goes up and down. it's not directional. it responds to market forces, but when you see evidence of intervention and that evidence is pretty clear when you see foreign reserves climbing, even while trade balances are going down, it means that there's intervention to the first thing you can do is have transparent policies where you indicate what your interventions are, how you're doing it and why you're doing it and the imf has protocol for the. we strongly encourage i'm not engagement to the chinese to do that. i think that if there are concerns as they had earlier this year, that the one way

movement of the r&d was creating a magnet for the carry trade, and it was creating risk. .. where have you seen the most improvement from china over the last few years in the engagement and where have you seen the least? >> i think we go through these

issues over and over again and, in the know, you have to sometimes look to see where the progress is. at the first stage of the discussion is accepting that there is a challenge that needs to be addressed. so i think if you look at the questions of market access and if you look at the questions of having market determined interest rates and allocation of capital, the questions of having the market determined exchange rate when i look at the third one i see all of the concerns we have reflected in this. there's been a great deal of progress at the conceptual level to accept we have a common goal for this to move in the right direction. where i tend to be frustrated as the pace of the change. and i'm very understanding of the fact that change is hard and large structural change in the government and economy that is

hard. but when i look at the challenges here, it certainly seems to me and from our perspective as a government that time is of the essence because you ask me about the housing situation i think for the next few years i could be pretty comfortable china has the resources to manage things like that. but if they like five or ten years down the road come if they don't get to a place where the reforms that are being discussed now are being implemented in a serious way it becomes much more challenging to be as confident that they will have the tools to deal with it. why do i care? is important to the u.s. and the global economy. and if so i think that we have made a lot of progress conceptually and we now need to have the group understanding how hard that is into this potentially disruptive.

there's been a lot of discussion about how fast will china grow. they continue to have the ability to maintain the short-term growth rate at a level that meets the needs they have in terms of job creation and the broad economy. if it becomes a reason to delay the implementation reforms, i think it hurts the medium long-term prospects and that's how we have engaged with them andan andi think the advantage e issues is i don't believe i'm raising issues that they haven't themselves raised as concerns they have about their economy. and i believe that the analysis that we are bringing him in terms oin in termsof the broad e market are important things for us to be raising. >> are there in number of other issues on the global landscape that will come up in discussions with china over the last 24 $24e situations between russia and

ukraine has deteriorated. has the threshold been reached for further sanctions and what would they look like? >> we have made it clear that the goal is for russia to change its actions to stop supporting separatists and to help reach a diplomatic resolution. some are going in the right direction and wrong direction. we never set a specific line with the target is but we have made it very clear that we are prepared to take the next steps if we need to own sanctions and i believe the europeans have made that clear as well. i don't think the goal is the tight sanctions. the goal is for russia to change its actions, and we are going to continue to try to achieve that end of the moment comes we need to take additional steps, we are prepared to do so.

the goal is to have an outcome of the negotiated revolution in ukraine where the ukrainian people get to control their own destiny. >> are you at all concerned the europeans have missed today and referred a lot of good discussion on sanctioned? they don't seem to be united on this front. >> i think that they have made it clear that they support our view of what russia has been doing is unacceptable and they need to take additional action they well and they've made it clear that they are ready to reconvene whenever they need to take additional decisions. so, i think that there is a very fluid discussion that goes on each and every day and i think that everyone has -- there is no secret about what the goal is. it's not to be in conflict. the goal is to get a resolution when russia steps back. and i think that is what our goal is and what the european leaders go is and if we need to take additional steps, we will

russia is aware the next steps could undermine the economic conditions. they are barely in a positive territory now. the combination of political instability and economic impact based on sanctioned has taken a very modest growth rate and brought it close to zero. additional sanctions could easily put russia into a recession. that's not an easy decision for the government to make. our expectation is that russia would like to avoid that and our hope and our goal is to have very a negotiated settlement because it enough question about our resolve. if we need to take additional steps, we will. >> the iraq situation also seems to be deteriorating in the last few weeks. but, just focusing on the economic issues, how much of a concern, what do you think they are having on the u.s. economy and global economy right now?

>> we haven't right now seems that the second supply disruptions, and obviously there's some fluctuation in the oil prices that are based on many factors including the situation but not exclusively the situation in iraq. we have conversations with other oil producers on a regular basis and i believe the world energy markets will be able to deal with the situation as it goes forward. i don't think it is in the interest of the parties in iraq for there to be a severe disruption in supply that there is in the world right now to deal with whatever we need to deal with. >> are you expecting anything from china on this front? i'm sure the conversation will get there and we discussed these issues when i was there a few weeks ago and i'm sure we will

continue to. i think it is kind of notable that china tries to not get involved directly in ukraine and russia's situation but they make it clear challenging the sovereignty of the country is not something that they can embrace. and they are aware of our sanctions regimes as we go forward. >> we are seeking questions first in the front of the room and then in the back if you can bring the microphone right up here. please identify yourself. >> i think the cameraman don't want me to stand up. the question is do you agree with the widespread consensus that the bilateral relationship

is in the strategic rivalry. there has been kind of dispute lost in the last few months and too much negative talks and not enough good things being talked about. after the indictment of the officers. thank you. >> i think if you look at the u.s. china relationship it covers a broad range of issues and it's one where in the spirit of sunny lands, we have to be able to engage each other frankly and directly on issues that are challenging and work through those while we make progress on issues we see the common interest of outlining more easily. it is a forum where we can do both. we can raise the issues that are going to be quite challenging and we can also make progress on other issues where we can

demonstrate the strength of the relationship in areas like economic matters. i think it's very important for the united states and china to maintain the open discussions that we have and obviously we are not shy about praising our differences and they are not shy about praising their differences. and i think it is a very useful engagement. we are not going to avoid talking about the subjects on either side. >> question up here. >> i want to ask a question about an issue that is very completion of information technology agreement. the good news is everybody is about ready to close the finish line and the bad news is the

chinese have insufficient levels. just wondering if this is going to come up next week. it's been kind of a tough road for us because china has been dragging its feet and will be one of the biggest beneficiaries. >> where are you from? >> iti. >> it's an important issue that i raised with china and subsequently there have been negotiations going on between our trade representatives and ministries with responsibility particularly of commerce. i think that it is an area that more work will go on even in the next week and it is an important issue to resolve. at the most senior level i saw an interest in making progress on it and it's one of the reasons i continue to raise it with my counterparts on a regular basis and what will be on the agenda when we meet in

beijing. >> next question in the back. >> i want to get back to the site where the issue is affecting the conversations going forward. at any point in the last few weeks has there been an effort in the united states or china to continue putting the talks on hold because if the issue and the indictments that played out and if you don't see progress on that could be in jeopardy going forward? >> i have seen no signs on either side of any interest other than it having a successful sned and that would have been our mutual interest and it is the reason we are getting together next week in china.

obviously our concern on the cyber issue is very deep. we have raised it at a general level. the prosecutions raised a very specific level and it is an issue that we are going to have to continue to deal with. but i think that the engagement at the sned level has all of the work that has been going on and continues and again tha invadinl see continued engagement. >> inside u.s. trade i was wondering there are a lot of things that have happened in the past year as you have discussed some issues have gotten worse. u.s. companies have concerns about china's anti-monopoly law. and it was wondering if there is anything on the agenda this year that were not on the agenda last

year. >> i would have to go back and look at the agenda to answer that question. most of the issues don't get resolved in a way where you don't come back and revisit them because they are complicated issues where there's follow-through involved even when there is a commitment. so i think there is structurally a lot of similarities in the topics we talk about. but if we continue to make progress in each area where many of these areas that is the purpose of the engagement. i don't think you get to say we are done with major topics of interest and concerns. the measure is that we are making progress. we are opening up markets. and it's a huge market. one doesn't go from no access to total access. and to include the access is of enormous value to american businesses. so i think we have to take a nuanced view of what's progress means. and we certainly see value in making progress in important

increments each time that we get together. >> this one back here and in the middle. >> secretary with reuters. you mentioned the implementation of the chinese economic reform agenda a but at the same time yu do appreciate the scope. could you describe how this affects the way that you approach your interactions with the way you plan to approach her interactions with the chinese counterparts at these meetings, how you waste your frustration and whether you express understandingunderstanding thats is going to take some time. >> what i say in private and public tends to be very much the same thing. so i think you can count on my

making the point that it's important to recognize that making progress doesn't mean taking the entirety of everything and the third having it instantaneously implemented. there are many moving pieces and policies to be implemented. it's important that progress be made in key areas and that it gets started quickly. they understand that our concern and there is a different sense of time in the way tha and the e approached his issues. i've heard from my chinese counterparts that the important thing is the direction that you're headed if you're going in the right direction you will get to your destination and if you're going the wrong destination you never get there. i've expressed in the american concern if you've seen your not moving towards the destination having stated the goal starts to become something that is less and less significant. you have to be moving towards

it. >> they have as i said legitimate concerns about managing change in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary social and political people by one can't avoid the change without looking five or ten years ahead of a very unattractive economic picture and that's the kind of case i make in public and private. >> can we get a microphone right down the middle. >> my question is about the talk. how well should the u.s. government responded to the request for the national security reviews in the investment in the u.s.? because now the investment is very much subjected to that

review. >> if you look at the facts it doesn't support that. the investment is growing dramatically much faster than the american investment in china. i think if you look at the applications that are made and the number of items approved it outnumbers the very few items that are not approved and if you look at the substance, the issues that arise are truly national security issues and its only national security issues that are the basis for objecting to the chinese investment in the united states. our philosophy has been missing since the founding of the united states. we welcome the foreign direct investment as one of the ways we don't the economy and how it continues to grow. we welcome other investment in the united states. there is a legitimate concern that is if a transaction creates national security issues, that

is the one exception. and it is a very small share of transactions that gets caught in that. and i know it feels bigger thann a two-hour counterparts. if you look at the numbers the numbers don't support that. do you have any questions appear ouphere or in the back? we have one back there. >> dug with politico. i want to ask about an op-ed that i read earlier this month at the institute for international economics. he suggested in sned that the u.s. invited china to join the tpp negotiations. i don't think that he was in the meeting but to make some sort of arrangement to provide the server status so that once the initial deal is complete the negotiations on bringing china

and could come out i guess. will there be an announcement like that? >> if you look at tpp you have to go back to where we started in 2009. our goal in launching the tpp was to raise the quality of the trade agreements and have high standards that would make it attractive for as many economies who are willing to live by those high standards to come into the tpp. we start with all the major countries in the region and the few that we are willing to start at the very beginning and now we have a broad base of interest and engagement in the tpp negotiations. i've been very interested to watch the view evolve. it was never meant to be any kind of a divisive step between the united states and china. it was meant to be a model of

the trade agreement in europe to raise the bar and have high quality standards. we welcome any country that is willing to live by the high quality to come in because the goal was to have opened and free trade. i do think we have to continue and complete the tpp and that is what we are doing in the negotiations and i've been interested to see the view in china evolved from what does this mean in terms of a threat to should we want to participate. it is a conversation that could become serious. >> secretary, one final question to close. this is a relationship marked by incremental progress in a number of companies tend to be frustrated by the pace of progress. what do you discuss when you're meeting about the pace of the progress and what is your goal

for the peace of the progress in the relationship? >> most of the compan the compat with recognize the value because they see the enormous size of the chinese economy and its markets. so, if we make meaningful strides that open the sector to investment or the u.s. business is being actively engaged, they well i think take advantage of that and grow their businesses organically. the narrow questions where companiecompanies faced either s or disapproval is or the ways in the chinese system are much more transactional. and we have raised issues like that on a regular basis and with some success not complete success but some success and i think the companies that have come to us with concerns have realized that we are very much interested in hoping though that the macro policy level and more specifically on matters of kind

of individual concerns. and any one of the virtues of the sned is that it doesn't just take place at the kind of theoretical level. it gets right down on the ground to the practical details in terms of implementing policy but also kind of raising the plaintiff for action to be resolved. >> okay. secretary thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. if everyone could remain in their seats until the secretary has a chance to exit. and thank you for coming. the u.s. china strategic economic dialogue is next week in beijing. and the treasury secretary meeting with th the president ad vice president this afternoon at

the white house. on c-span2 we are live in washington at the education commission of the states meeting. you're going to hear shortly from education undersecretary ted mitchell. he will be talking about education policy and in particular how the state and federal government can work together to improve schools across the country. we are getting word that this was scheduled to start at 12:15 and it looks like it may start a bit later than that of 12:45 eastern. we will keep you posted. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] here at the meeting of the education commission of the states we are going to hear from undersecretary tom mitchell talking about partnership and cooperation between the federal government and states. we understand his comments won't did under way for another 20 minutes or so. so, what we will do is take you over to an event at brookings earlier this week. president michelle spoke about democracy and stability in the country. we will show you as much as we

can until the education events gets underway. again about 12:45 eastern. [applause] good afternoon everyone. and welcome to brookings. i am the acting vice president and director of the foreign-policy program here and on behalf of john thornton and l address by the president of the republic of chile.

we are very honored that she was able to take time out of her busy schedules here in washington including her meeting with president obama at the white house earlier today. for the foreign-policy program , alan and james international leaders for them. i also want to extend a warm welcome to the president's high level delegation from santiago including many ministers, members of the congress and private sector leaders. we are especially happy to welcome back to brookings the foreign minister who back in 1977 spent a year with us as a visiting fellow of finishing his phd. the president is no stranger to our halls either. she joined us in 2009 for a talk from this podium on how latin america was coping with the global financial crisis. and washington is the familiar

ground as well from her early days as a junior high school student in bethesda and her studies at the inter-american defense college to her many visits as the minister of defense, minister of health and president from 2006 to 2010. president bachelet joins us today after running over 62% of the vote in the national election last december with a majority of the seats in congress held by her coalition, president bachelet has moved quickly to enact an ambitious agenda of reforms most notably in the areas of education, taxes and constitution and electoral design. this agenda reflects chile's remarkable success as a leader in both economic and political terms and it's determination to continue moving forward on the

path of social and democratic progress. president bachelet also interest the office at an important moment for latin america. which in addition to dominating the world's competition so far, is facing its own challenges as it pursues the more equitable development, greater integration of a sustainable energy and democratic stability. i can think of no other leader in the modern latin america more prepared to take on these challenges than president bachelet whose remarkable career as a medical doctor and an imprisoned political activist, global leader in the fight for gender equality as the head of the men and women and now a two-term president is makes us proud of the promise of democracy to deliver real results.

we look forward to your remarks and we will have time for a discussion moderated by the director of the latin american initiative and including questions in the audience. if you are following us on twitter, please use the hash tag #bachelet. welcome, president bachelet. [applause] thank you for those kind remarks and for being there with us and watching at the football game suffering as we suffer. thank you for that. i wanted to say what the with te chairman of the board working at the institution acting vice president and director of the foreign-policy over the brookings institution, director of latin american initiatives at the brookings institution,

secretary general of the excellency, ministers, senators and congressmen and members of the delegation, distinguished ambassadors and the diplomatic corps, officers in the u.s. government, professors and members of the academia, ladies and gentlemen and friends, because i see a lot of good friends here. ..

in recent decade chile has embarked on a successful path of democratic changes. we have significantly reduced poverty and have also strengthened the country's stability, economic, political, and social. we are international recognize as a country with good practices, clear rules, and working, and i would say sound institutions. this is giving us a solid anchor in the fluctuations -- fluctuations of the globalized world. in other words, ours is a steadfast stability, ours is a steady growth. and the basis for this has been a student of our domestic, social, political and economic relations. above all our government is based on identifying and addressing those issues which will lead to a more equal society and dynamic development. today the challenge facing chile is the elimination of any quality. dealing with this will enable us to achieve inclusive and

sustainable development and to be counted among the most modern develop democracy. and we take up this challenge not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it is the most intelligent and reliable way of the banking on our future with economic dynamism, political stability, and social cohesion. this challenge requires us to do with three central aspects, tackling inequality understood as disparity of opportunity, lack of access or discrimination, and injustice among citizens. second, encouraging harmonious, sustainable, and inclusive growth. and third, h. even greater civic participation in decisions affecting all chileans. in other words, we're talking about rewriting but rather about consolidating our history of development and democracy, making improvements and changes where shortcomings still exists.

and it's not only my idea or that of the people who voted for me. it is a national consensus built up over years. although there are legitimate differences regarding the best ways of achieving the transformations, and this is what we have launched, a broad national debate, nobody in chile denies the need for change because as in most nations of the planet society itself has changed a great deal in recent years. citizens have become more active, more critical, better informed and more depending. if i would say also more challenging. many voices in a multitude of languages are calling for societies not to forget in their institutional dealings, in their economic management, and in the design of their public policies what should be the focus of any social contract, the people. although from the government you point this demand represents a challenge, it is an interesting and important one. the challenge of ensuring that

people are more involved in decision-making on matters that affect them so that the government policies are translated into quality of life, social cohesion, and democracy. for us this means reappraising collective life and public interest, promoting dialogue with a civic sense, and a respect for differences. the challenge of eliminating inequalities has an ethical component since it refers to a good life for all. but it also has an economic component. that's why we're saying it's right thing to do but it's also the smart thing to do because we know that we need dynamic and sustained economic growth in order to tackle inequality, eradicate poverty, create opportunities for development and generate revenue for the application of social welfare policies. and so it is in both senses that chile has decided to assume and expand the undeniable progress made by the country since the

return of democracy, recognizing today's new challenges and focusing on governance through growth and stability of democracy. around 2020 chile will have achieved per capita income similar to that of the developed economies. but we shall not be a truly developed country if we continue to be one of the oecd countries with the highest income inequality. and it is inequality affects our social cohesion and our prospect for economic development. this is why we must tackle it decisively and at the same time opt for inclusion and growth. like most chileans i'm convinced that the biggest risk to the stability and progress of chile is not making the changes that we need to make. because any quality undermines one of the most important foundations, both of the economy and of democracy, trust. trust in the market, trusting institution and stability, trust in social relations.

and trust is a precious asset which today chile has to decide to enhance, reducing inequality and fostering operation between the state, the citizenry and the market. and this is the underlying meaning of the reforms. and we are optimistic because is the best with the building a better country for all. we have a strong foundation on which to build. in recent years chile's economic growth has been positive and unemployment has declined. this allowed important progress to be made in the expansion of social rights and opportunities for people. this reflects the global financial scenario, good copper prices in recent years, and our monetary and fiscal response to the financial crisis. these conditions are cyclical and difficult to replicate. when the factors underlying the dynamism of our economy disappear growth prospects will receive. chile is currently experiencing a period of low growth a low its

gdp potential and we must respond to the challenge which is represents. chile's growth for 2014 is estimated at just over 3%. starting in 2015 our goal is to resume the steady path of growth and in the second half of our administration for chile's growth to be about 5%, at its potential gdp level. we have set ourselves ambitious goals but we are taking a realistic approach to these economic conditions facing us. we need to generate more economic growth not growth of any kind. we need growth that is socially legitimate and inclusive, environmental sustainable, and democratically oriented. for these we need to broaden the basis of our development by means of structural reforms. chilean society, the citizens and our economy indicate that now is the time to undertake such reforms. what are the changes that we are

proposing and that are already on their way? one, structural reform of education, focusing on quality public education and inclusion. two, simulation of economic growth and productivity, innovation and competitiveness. and this involves also tackling the challenges facing us regarding energy. three, tax reform providing ongoing resources for the state and read distributing more quickly -- redistricting more equitably of common develop and. it was also his back to the path of fiscal responsibly which is essential if the state is to honor its commitments to the medium and long-term. four, a new constitution, and up-to-date one a lot more scope for democracy, participation and guarantees for people in all their diversity. i should like to refer briefly to all these topics. firstly, education which fosters equity, productivity and democracy.

i'm not going to say anything that i went a nobel prize are, but knowledge is essential in order to achieve ongoing prosperity in all these areas. to generate this knowledge countries must make education the focus of their development strategy. this is what countries have done. those countries who have achieved development such as finland or japan, singapore, or the united kingdom. chile needs somebody demands far-reaching change to improve the quality, scope and coverage of education on all levels. you will undoubtedly recall hearing the news three years ago that thousands of students in santiago issued a structural demand, the right to free and quality education. that was a time with a lot of young people were in the street all over the world, but something that i was here working for the u.n. and everybody will ask me in any meeting, how could you explain this because we understand it and country who are doing bad in the economy but you are doing well in the economy.

how do you explain the doing well in the economy and still people are demonstrating massively in the street? i have to tell that the demand that those students were posing was echoed throughout the society, and just to ensure all children and young people are given not only basic education but also appropriate standards of quality over and above what a family can pay. and chile has, admittedly when a country so, i would say proud of what we've been able to build, coming from a dictatorship to build a sustainable, mature democracy with good economic performance, well people believe now it's our time. we really deserve to have quality education for all. chile has an important task here. today we are the oecd countries rate as being most depend on private funding for its high education, exactly 85.4%. in korea, japan, and the united

kingdom their reliance on family contributions is considerable but much less than in chile. more stake investment in education is therefore crucial for a society ending at equitable and sustainable development. i know this is also a discussion here in the united states about education and the debt that the students are having right now. chile most remedy the shortcomings of the existing system and provide guarantees of the principles underlying our right to education. that is integration, universality, and quality. so this is why we have initiated a structural reform which is already underway. and the proposals concern for his aspects, improving of public education, and and discriminatory selection of students, and into profit-making by establishing receiving public funds, and and into copayment that parents and institution with mixed financing. in other words, we want families

not to have to pay for their children's education and the establishment receiving state funding. second, creation of two new state universities. they will be created into regions of the country where there is no public university. and a third, institution building and improved coverage of preschool education. in addition we are guaranteeing access to college for the most volatile students through a special program of access to higher education. we are improving technical education throughout chile under the auspices of regional universities and with education products reflecting the economic and productive characteristics of each territory. what is our goal? our goal is to guarantee that all students in chile without exception can obtain quality education free of charge your what we really want is not to lose any of those talents, passages, that our people have and that are not the shaded

according to the income of the family. so we need everyone to have the opportunity of a good education and thank you contribute to the crunchies development. private providers of education may continue to participate if they meet quality standards, manner of forms of discrimination, and assume the responsibility of the obligations incumbent of a public service. of course the state must play the leading role in both the delivery and regulation of education. this will produce better informed citizens, promote social mobility, equity and inclusion, and allow chile's growth to depend not only on its natural resources but also on the knowledge of its people. and this brings me to another focus of my government, development of production and competitiveness. we know that productivity increases slowly in chile. and we also know that innovation is the main trigger of long-term growth. we must therefore add more knowledge, more complexity, and

more innovation to our economy, and also involve those who are not participated today or are participating below their potential. we must also diversify our production matrix. in addition to the exportation of our natural resources, and particularly copper, other production sectors must contribute relatively more to the generation of wealth and economic growth. in order for this to happen manpower training is essential. accordingly we've set in motion initiatives to expand the coverage, the contribution connectivity, and the relevance of training for work. through specialized and targeted plans we're making a special effort to generate suitable incentives to increase the participation of women and young people in the world of work. in chile these two groups at the lowest rates of participation in the labor market, 54.6% for women and 37.1% for young people.

these figures are respectively 7.7 and 10.3 percentage points below the oecd average. in addition to investment in human capital we shall increase investment in science, technology, and innovation, offer incentives for the application to the solution of the country's problem -- >> you can see all of the president's speech in our video library c-span.org or we will take you live now to the education for the education commission of the stupid filter from undersecretary of state of education rather ted mitchell talking about cooperation between the state and federal governments on education issues. live coverage here on c-span2. >> i was telling someone at the table my problem now is there have been so many good ideas that i want to bring them all home and my staff, dries my staff crazy because let's do this, this and this. but my superintendent is nodding. but in any event, i do want to

take a minute to thank our corporate partners. they've helped make this national form a complete success. so we need to the ge foundation, lumina foundation and usaid funds. please give them a big hand. [applause] and now it's my great pleasure to introduce ted mitchell, the undersecretary of education. the undersecretary overseas policies, programs and activities related to postsecondary education, adult career and technical education, federal student aid, five white house initiatives, and the center for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. can't believe he is made time for us. that's a lot. but please join me in welcoming undersecretary mitchell. [applause] >> thank you, governor. and thanks not only for what

sounds like a great conference, a critic and to petition. so pleased to be. but thanks for the great work you are doing at home. you are a champion for high quality education for all the kids in your state and we are the beneficiaries of that. it is terrific to be here today to talk with you, and as i look out a letter late in the room there are a handful of very, very dear friends and it's great to be back doing this work with you, with you in d.c. before i start, just a moment of personal privilege to tell those of you i do know a little bit about what i do this work and what got me into it. i'm a hearty teacher gushing speaking of which, are any of the state teachers of the year still around. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you, thank you, thank you. you are what it's all about. the rest of us just exist to try to make your work better and

easier. so thank you. thank you for what you do. and i want to talk about teachers and teacher education a little bit so i'm a teacher at heart and i think for all of us who spent time in the classroom, why we do what we do often comes back to us years later. so i got a letter from a former student of mine a few years ago, and it started out the way so many of those letters do, which is i'm not sure you remember me, but. and you always do, don't you? you always remember, and so the students and images and the stories come back. this is a young woman who had been a student of mine when i was teaching education policy courses and she was a great student, went off to be a student and then a high school principal in rural area of vermont. the occasion for her letter was a tragedy though. there had been a campus tragedy and the young man had died. she wrote to me and she said, you know, on reflection i don't

think that i could have gotten through that experience and understood the dynamics, the collocated dynamics between the school, the committee, the press, the media without the things that we learned in your class. but as a result i've gotten through it, the school has gotten through it and the community has gotten through it. thank you for what you taught me. so it's not about me but about the power of education. that story i think is what we are all here for their kids because we believe in the power of education to transform individualize, and for educators to transform the lives of their schools and their communities, and ultimately the nation as a whole. i think that's what brings us together, and it certainly is what drives my work. so my message to you is a simple one, and i'll start and end with it, and that is that none of us

can do that transformative work alone, whether it's school, state, district or the federal government. we have to find ways to work together. to make the education system work. and especially to make it work to change the trajectory for young people who weren't dealt a hand of high cards, the most vulnerable children and youth in our communities. in his fifth state of union address president obama laid out a clear vision, that every child in america must have a chance to succeed. he said, and i quote, opportunity is who we are. the defining project of our generation must be to restore the promise of opportunity. and equity and opportunity are the core of that, and they our core american values. everyone in this country, regardless of income, home language, zip code, ginger,

second identity, race or disability deserves the chance to learn and achieve. and today as never before our collective comfort and our national security rests on the quality that all, not just a few, but that all of our job people have. and there is the issue more central to promoting stability, prosperity, and mobility than preserving the american promise, the root promise that through education children can succeed, achieve, and move into the middle class. i believe strongly that history will judge our generation by our success or our failure to reach and realize that vision of their chances through education. and right now we have significant work to do, because where we live and work, where you live and work, the color of your skin, how much money your

parents make and how much education they received are all factors that matter too much. and that's our shared challenge, is to defeat those vectors, and the bad news is that it's just getting harder. because not so long ago a high school diploma and the skills it represented were enough to secure a decent wage and a foothold in the middle class. but we all know that that's changed, and it's changed forever. those low-skilled overpaid -- well-paid jobs are gone and they're not coming back to in today's knowledge-based global economy, jobs will go to the best educated workers and workforce. just a generation ago this nation was first in the world in college completion rates among young adults. today we have fallen to 12th place. as secretary duncan put it recently, quote, whether you care most about the possibles of young girl in detroit or about the long-term health of our nation's economy, the conclusion

is the same. we cannot be 12th in the world in college completion and still be a country we want to be. we are not the country want to be when 9% of students, only 9%, from low income families can expect to earn a bachelor's degree and not when 35% of students in one of our best educated states, massachusetts, still need remediation before they can begin to college work. so now more than ever before post secondary education, whether for years computers, technical or trade training, is the ticket to opportunity to the middle class. and they are the best investment that any individual can make in the future and i would argue that they're the best investment that any nation can make in its future. that's why president obama has made the goal of regaining our global lead in college completion. america's educational north star. and we've made progress.

the administration has worked hard to alter the landscape for the better. every form agenda aims to create world-class pre-k through 20 education system, to boost student outcomes through higher standards and better assessment, to recruit and retain more highly effective teachers, especially in high need schools, and to dramatically reduce the dropout level at all levels, dropout rate at all level. the agenda is also focus on making college more accessible and affordable, and ramping up quality in post secondary certificate degrees for all students. we can celebrate. i think is you know just this year for the first time the nation's on time high school graduation rate reached a high of 80% since 2012. that's a great testament to the hard work of our nation's teachers, school leaders, students and their families.

college enrollment and college completion are also on the rise. and i think the best there is those rates are being led by african-american and latino students. so obese achievements drive our 2015 priorities. and i want to name five for you. corporate restore the next year are, first, increasing equity and opportunity for all students. second, making quality preschool available for every four year old in the nation. third, strengthening our support for teachers and school leaders. four, making schools safer