all the warning signals for israel, so the experience of an iranian american single man -- single man trying to get through ben-gurion airport in the 21st century is a reminder to everyone that, despite the way globalization has brought us closer and has diminished the boundaries that separate us as nations, ethnicities, people, cultures, despite all of that, all you've got to do is spend a few minutes trying to get through ben-gurion on airport to remember that those decisions, those things that separate us are still very much alive. >> is selling author and professor -- bestselling author and professor reza aslan will take your calls and tweets live for three hours sunday at noon eastern on booktv's "indepth."

part of a three-day holiday weekend of nonfiction books and authors. booktv, television for serious readers. >> you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital with c-span radio audio now. call to hear congressional coverage, public affairs forums, and today's "washington journal" program. listen for a recap every day on "washington today." c-span radio on audio now. call 202-626-8888. long-distance or phone charges might apply. >> next, a group of women judges discussed the challenges of maintaining their independence in a judicial system that is increasingly subjected to partisan issues. speakers include one of the florida judges involved in the 2000 bush v. gore case and an

iowa judge who lost her job due to a ruling on same-sex marriage. this wass co-hosted by the -- this was cohosted by the national constitution center and the national association of women judges. it's an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the national constitution center. i'm jeffrey rosen, the president of this wonderful institution, the national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis and to fulfill that inspiring goal, we have a series of programs we call ourselves america's town hall and we bring together the best voices from all sides of the spectrum to debate the constitutional issues in the center of american life. in the next few weeks we have a series of programs that i hope you'll join us for, including on june 20, david boies and ted olson will come to discuss their new book about marriage equality. on june 26, we'll have a wonderful debate with our

partners at intelligence2 about the constitutionality of restrictions on campaign finance reform. on june 16, we'll have discussion of the cell phone case that's the supreme court is about to decide and talk about the future of the fourth amendment with the two advocates who argued the cell phone cases before the court here at the constitution center. it's a wonderful series of events coming up, and i hope you'll join us both here at the center, online and on our website. i'm especially thrilled, ladies and gentlemen, to introduce today's program presented in partnership with the national association of women judges. this is a program near and dear to my heart. my friend, justice pariente and i, more than a year ago at g.w. law school, where i teach and where you graduated from, talked about how wonderful it would be to bring together women judges who are defending the idea of nonpartisanship and the rule of law, to talk about their concrete experiences with

judicial elections, with the challenges of merit retention systems and to give you, the people, a direct insight into the real threats to judicial independence that are faced by judges today. you'll have an opportunity to learn more about the national association of women judges and about their inspiring goal. like ours, it is to be nonpartisan and to encourage votes for judges based on character, integrity, fairness, and a willingness to decide cases based on the law. we are also delighted to recognize mark robinson of the american board of trial advocates, who's a partner for today's program. please turn off your cell phones and prepare for a really engaging discussion. and now, let me introduce our esteemed and extremely impressive panelists. former chief justice of the iowa supreme court. she currently practices law in des moines, iowa, focuses on appellate case consulting litigation.

she was appointed to the iowa supreme court in 1993 by the governor and selected by her peers to serve as chief justice in 2006. her term on the court expired on december 31, 2010. and you will hear her striking story about the reaction to a decision that she issued in iowa and the consequences that it had in iowa. justice barbara has been a justice of the florida supreme court since 1997 and served as chief justice from 2004 to 2006. she's been involved in her time with the court with several notable cases, including the bush v. gore case from 2000, the michael schiavo case from 2004 and fascinating cases we've discussed involving dogsmiths and searches and seizures. you've had sobering reactions to your decisions as well and we'll learn about them. finally, i'm absolutely honored

to welcome to the national constitution center judge anna blackburne-rigsby, who is the president of the national association of women judges. she was nominated by president george w. bush to the district of columbia court of appeals in 2006. she chairs the district of columbia's court standing committee on fairness and access. she's a commission ore the district's access to justice commission. and before her appointment she was nominated by president bill clinton to serve as an associate judge in the superior court of the district of columbia. this is quite a remarkable panel and i'd like you to join me in welcoming them to the national constitution center. [applause] judge, we're going to begin with you. you had an extraordinary experience in iowa. you issued an opinion in a case involving iowa's defense of marriage act.

tell us about that case and your decision. >> well, our court had an appeal from 12 same-sex couples, 12 individuals, six same-sex couples, who had been denied a marriage license in iowa, based on iowa's version of the defense against marriage act. they challenged the constitutionality of that statute under the iowa constitution's equal protection clause. our court issued a unanimous decision that the statute did in fact violate the equality rights of these individuals. >> and describe the reaction to that decision. >> well, the case was controversial even before we issued our opinion. there was a lot of social commentary, a lot of public discussion of whether same-sex marriage should be allowed or not. and there were demonstrations outside of the judicial branch building when we heard oral arguments on the case. so we knew that our decision would be controversial.

and when we issued the decision, of course, it was very controversial. and there were a lot of groups who were opposed to our decision, primarily on religious grounds. >> some of those groups took out tv ads and we have videos of some of those ads now. >> right. the actual -- i think the opposition reached its crescendo when three members of our court happened to be on the retention ballot. in other words, we were up for retention. voters were asked to vote, yes, retain these judges, no, do not retain these judges, in the 2010 general election. and what you're about to see were ads that were created to campaign against our retention. >> let us see the ads.

>> after the judges on iowa's supreme court become political, ignoring the will of voters and opposing same-sex marriage on iowa, liberal, out-of-control judges ignoring our traditional values and legislating from the bench.

imposing their own values on iowa. the opinion you serve as voters to redefine marriage, what will they do to other long-established iowa traditions and rights? three of these judges are now on the november ballot. send them a message. vote no to retain these supreme court justices. >> judge, i'm going to ask you in a moment what your reaction was. but first, let me ask, what was the result? did you keep your seat? >> we did not keep our seat. none of us were retained. only the second ad actually was on tv. the first video that you saw is, i think, about a two-minute video that was circulated within the religious community in iowa, which was kind of used as a grass-roots structure to organize no-vote on the retention ballot. >> and do you think that the ad was responsible for your defeat? >> i'm sure it contributed. [laughter]

you know, i don't know what single action they took resulted in our nonretention. but public opinion at the time, based on polling done by the "des moines register," showed that the majority of iowans opposed same-sex marriage. so, they had a receptive audience in terms of whether people agreed with the decision or not, just on social grounds. >> how did you feel when you saw the ad? >> honestly, i -- the first ad i never saw until afterwards. i just didn't really want to watch them. i didn't even watch tv during that period of time, i'll admit. >> now, on the one hand, it is factually correct. it said that court ignored the will of the legislature and the people. but on the other hand, was that

an appropriate ad to run on television? >> i think citizens can vote for or against a judge for any reason they want, including because they disagree with an opinion. that's certainly how our democracy works. but i also think it's important for citizens to know when they are exercising their vote in that way, that there are consequences to voting judges out of office because they have issued an opinion that is contrary to public opinion. >> what are the consequences? >> well, it clearly sends a message to judges that in the future, they should hesitate to issue an opinion that may be correct under the law, that may be a decision, a result, that the law demands and yet, is unpopular. they're telling those judges to check the opinion polls on the issue and follow those, rather than following the law. and that's a very dangerous message to be sending.

it was exactly the message intended by those who opposed our retention. they said on their website, we intend to send a message across iowa and across the country that judges ignore the will of the people at their peril. and so it was a message of intimidation, and certainly the fact that we weren't retained, that voters bought into that, sent a message to judges by citizens. we want you to follow what we think the law ought to be, rather than what the law is. >> do you think that message has changed the way judges are deciding cases now? >> well, i think we're naive to think that it doesn't have an impact on judges, whether it's consciously thinking, gosh, if i make this decision i'm going to make this group mad or business big will come after me or whether it's subconscious in the back of their mind that they don't even realize is there. sure it has an impact, but it's not measurable. judges are human. i don't think as a citizen it's comfortable with them having to worry about whether they're going to keep their job.

it shouldn't be about the judge keeping his or her job, it should be about enforcing the constitutional rights that we value. >> what was unusual about your case? have there been previous examples where all three judges were voted out because of unpopular decisions? >> we never had a retention election that was controversial. in fact, i had two prior retention elections. this was my third. i think it was my first retention election when somebody came into my office the day after the election and asked me, well, how much of the vote did you get? and i had forgotten that i was on the ballot. that's how much they were just, you know, they were just not controversial. >> and remind the audience, the merit selection and retention system is a nonpartisan system, where you're selected because of your abilities and stellar credentials, not because of your politics. >> a nonpartisan commission composed of lay persons and law-educated persons, licensed attorneys, interview applicants,

and based on the applicant's professional qualifications, their integrity and character, choose the three most highly qualified individuals. and those names are then sent to an appointing authority in iowa, it's the governor. and the governor has 30 days to appoint the person -- appoint a new judge from among those three nominees. the intent is to take politics out of the appointment process. and then the retention election is a way to involve voters and give them an opportunity to remove judges. you know, mistakes can be made, and notwithstanding the merit-based commission system, if a judge proves unfit or becomes unfit, then they can be removed through the retention ballot. >> we'll talk more with all your colleagues about what has changed. but i want to know, what was unusual about this case? was it the nature of the topic,

the marriage equality, or the internet? why did it happen in iowa? >> well, i think it happened in iowa because of the issue. and i really think all the money that poured into iowa came in because it was a startling decision in the heartland. it was startling because it was unanimous. and the individuals who oppose same-sex marriage felt we have to stop this now. and the only way we're going to do it is to intimidate other judges in other states, so they won't do what the iowa supreme court did, and by removing us from office, that was the message they intended to send. obviously, you can see from the videos that the internet, youtube, media, all that made it easier for them to sell their message. >> now, many other courts have considered the same-sex marriage question since iowa, and it's my understanding that every court to consider the issue has in fact since the supreme court's decision last year ruled in

favor of marriage equality. did this campaign successfully intimidate other judges, or did they have selection systems that made them immune to those sort of pressures? >> i think most of the decisions that you're referring to are in federal courts, where they don't have to worry about whether they're going to be retained because they have lifetime appointments. >> so there really is a difference between the federal and state systems when it comes to judicial independence. >> i think the fact that federal judges do not think there will be retaliation against them for making a decision that's correct under the law, yet unpopular, certainly gives them some freedom to make those decisions without having to worry about their own career. and, yes, that's probably a significant difference. >> what is the solution to the experience that you underwent? what is a better s. appointing state court judges -- system in appointing state court judges? >> i think before one discusses what is the best system for

choosing judges or retaining judges, citizens need to ask themselves what kind of court they want. do they want a court that makes decisions under the law, that upholds the rule of law, or do they want a decision -- a court that makes decisions based on who's the most popular, who has the most money, who shouts the loudest? and so once you make that decision, whether you want a court that makes political decisions or makes judicial decisions based on the rule of law, then i think you look to a system that minimizes the opportunity for politics to get into the system. and i certainly think that a retention election, where it's a simple yorne vote versus running against -- yes or no vote, versus running against someone, minimizing the opportunity for politics to get into the system. but no system is immune from politics. there is no perfect system that can guard against politics coming into judicial selection and retention.

the only way that's going to stay out is for voters to demand that the systems remain nonpolitical. >> are voters likely to demand that? >> well, we're trying to educate them on the impact of their votes. the voters in iowa were sending a message to judges, we want you to behave like politicians. we want you to test the winds and go with public opinion. we don't care that it's correct under the law. or another big component, of course, in iowa was that we violated god's will by ruling the way we did. so the message there is, i guess, that i should have checked the bible or checked with my -- the priest in my church to ask how i should vote, rather than checking the iowa constitution and our long years of case law, which were in fact consistent with our decision. >> and you've warned, in fact, that voters should not turn

judges into theologians in robes or politicians in robes. >> i don't think they should. that's the voter's choice. they can turn judges into theologians in robes and politicians in robes. >> you now have the opportunity to speak and write about the importance of judicial independence. what do you tell voters when you're trying to persuade them not to turn judges into politicians in robes? >> well, i think that the rule of law is what distinguishes our democracy from other forms of government. and we have to be willing to uphold the rule of law, even when it upholds the rights of others, others whom we may disagree with. if the law doesn't protect everybody, if the law depends on who's standing in front of the judge, then we don't have neutral decision-making, we don't have fair and impartial judges, and we cannot say we are a society governed by the rule of law. >> well said, judge. thank you very much for that.

[applause] we will return to these important questions in just a moment. i want to turn to you. you are no stranger to controversy. you were on the panels that decided bush v. gore and the terry schiavo case. but it was a 2012 case involving an amendment to the affordable care act that your court rejected and got a lot of heat. what was the amendment, and what did you hold? >> first of all, i must say that 2010, with what happened in iowa, was a bellwether year. and as you all may recall, the health care -- affordable health care act, obamacare, had passed. and there was a lot of controversy about it. in our state we have a way of amending the state constitution by legislative initiative or state

initiative. -- or citizens initiative. there had been an initiative to put on the ballot that would have voters say yes or no, we are for obamacare or against it. and that's their prerogative. the only issue that the florida supreme court deals with is whether the ballot summary is misleading. and in this case, the ballot summary had talked about that if you voted for this amendment, which was against obamacare, you would eliminate waiting times for doctor's visits, that was essentially it. when it came before us, each side -- they both conceded it was misleading, but they wanted us to rewrite the ballot summary. the majority of us, five of us, said we didn't have that power. the irony was by 2012 a new amendment had been proposed

which had already been approved. but what happened was, my view is right after the iowa election and emboldened by that, we had immediate signs that there were three justices that were up for merit retention, myself and two of my colleagues, and that they were going -- these groups, partisan groups, special interest groups, were going to run a campaign to take us out of office. and just like justice ternus, i had been on the court since 1998. i had gone through two prior merit retention elections, and as a supreme court justice, one as an appellate judge. i had been a lawyer -- well, i'm now 41 years out of c.w. so although we know each other, weren't contemporaries, although i would have loved to be. the retention -- i know pennsylvania is not a retention

state. the idea, as justice ternus said, was you are on the ballot, not that you did something wrong. it's not a recall. you're just on the ballot every six years, and the best we could tell is a check to see, as justice ternus said, if the judge has violated ethical standards or integrity or is not hardworking or is being political is a chance for the voters. the problem is that there's a low level of knowledge about why the judges are even on the ballot. because, again, in our federal system, what did the founding fathers do? to avoid judges being beholden to the will of the king, the will of those in power. so our election was not really about a single decision. it was about 16 years of just saying we had ruled in ways that were against the mainstream,

against popular opinion and that type of situation. so we didn't have a hot button issue. but nevertheless, we had a very vigorous campaign to oppose the justices. we made a decision different than iowa, seeing what happened, is that the justices were not going to just let this happen. so we had ways to organize getting judges trying to educate the voters on what was at stake. and that continued over really a junior period. >> well, let's see the ad, which, as you said, raised several issues. >> this is a compilation of what ran. >> like a mixed tape of judicial attack ads. let's take a look.

>> we will try again for the volume. >> one more was a criminal case. >> on a day such as this, in a parking lot like this one, jean, 38 years old, was the victim of two horrendous attacks. barbara pariente threw out the conviction, citing a never before realized legal technicality. they wanted to give this unrepentant killer another chance. >> imagine a world without judicial -- where power is in the people and not -- >> where the rule of law still matters and the constitution still means what it's always meant, not what some judge thinks it should be. >> imagine a world in which florida didn't have to compete

with california, new york and massachusetts to have some of the most activist judges in america. >> no more justices playing politics. >> where they stand for freedom. >> it's our last hope. [indiscernible] tell them to stop judicial activism. >> america needs health care reform. but with the new health care

law, it gives washington more control over our health care. that's why many cases have voted against it. not florida. our own supreme court denied our right to choose for ourselves. shouldn't our courts protect our right to choose? you be the judge. get the facts and sign the petition. >> that's the last one. >> ok, wow. >> and what you see, and i think this is important for the viewers, is you hear some of the same buzzwords being used, judicial activism, legislating from the bench, being against property rights or different rights, the right to vote. and so these are these buzzwords that are meant to affect citizens that somehow courts are acting in their own self-interest and against the

interests of americans, of our citizens. and the last ad was paid for by americans for prosperity, which is the koch brother group. and others ran on the internet. and that has been a very successful tool, the social media. you asked about what's changed. you asked about what's changed. 16 years ago social media was virtually nonexistent. social media is a very powerful tool now to get to constituencies that have that ability to get their message out. >> so describe the affect of these ads. the ads say people should call you and oppose political activism. how many people called you? >> we learned that we didn't really want calls to our offices, but we ended up, in florida, not only having

different groups opposing us, but by october, the republican party of florida had come out against us using a decision -- the first decision was called nixon vs. florida and it had to do with an issue of rights of -- constitutional rights to representation. but it had been a 2003 decision. we were now in 2012. so what we had was dredging up a case -- we didn't let somebody out of prison. the issue was they were going to get a new trial. and that was used as if -- you know, because this issue of being soft on crime, again as another theme, as opposed to protecting constitutional rights. in the end -- and i say the republican party. it would be just as bad if it was the democratic party, coming out in a nonpartisan state for or against judges.

that was the whole reason in our state that judges became nonpartisan. but what i believe what happened is with our ability to organize and get our message out to the citizens, we were overwhelmingly retained. in other words, our percentages were excellent, i believe, and it was excellent across all party lines that citizens properly informed did not want to transform the courts into a power-grab for one governor or one side or the other. they recognized separation of powers, checks and balances, everything the national constitution center wants to emphasize, they appreciated the judges cannot be intimidated in making a decision that is right on the facts and the law, but may be wrong on the political or popularity poll of the day. >> this is the most exciting and

inspiring constitutional news i've heard this week. so tell us, how precisely were you able to launch a campaign in favor of political independence? >> we've heard a lot about campaign finance and campaign reform. it is a particularly problematic issue for the judiciary, because judges are not there to raise money. we are prohibited from raising money, at least in the state of florida, and i think in other merit-retention states. so committees have to form to assist you. those are going to be lawyers, lawyers that may appear before you. that's why we're so pleased to have the american board of trial advocates, which is a bipartisan, nonpartisan organization of lawyers understanding the threat. it's not about being for business, against business, for consumers, against consumers, it's about judges who, when everyone comes into the courtroom, that they are going to get a judge who will look at the facts, look at the law and

not look at who the litigants are and decide that case. so it was, i believe, a triumph for fair and i am partial courts. but as judge blackburne-rigsby will tell you, we're seeing this crop up across the country. >> how does it work? what are the mechanics -- do you do social media ads about the importance of this? >> well, in states like florida, if they were to run a state-wide ad for a week, it would cost $1 million. we didn't have anything close to that. also, we were prohibited from actually the three of us, the justices who were being attacked, we couldn't do ads together because of our own canons. so we did use effectively going to editorial boards. we did use the social media. we had facebook. i was very upset when my

facebook page came up and i didn't get a lot of likes, because i found out that actually in the social media world you have to actually drive people to those sites, and that costs money. we did have independent groups that did run ads for us. but i really don't know the mechanics of it. because under campaign laws, you can't coordinate with third-party groups. the idea of campaigning -- and i know there are states that have wonderful judges. but the idea for judges campaigning, it's really contrary to what we are about. just like justice ternus said, she didn't want to see those ads running against us. you know, it's not like we're in an ivory tower, but we want to be insulated from what you see on tv, what the public opinion poll is of the day, because public opinion changes. i'll bet if justice ternus had that decision today, the public

opinion could be different. you can't make a decision -- brown v. board of education would never have been decided if it was based on popular opinion, certainly not in the south. >> you've been part of some of the most controversial cases in your state court. has something changed? is the polarization worse or does your inspiring counterbalancing help? >> it's going to take all of us. there are over 300 million americans. in florida we have 16 million floridians. we can't do it alone. what's unique about what we're doing as judges and former judges speaking out about it, because it's one thing for lawyers speak out. no offense, law professors. >> i'm on leave right now, sabbatical, so -- >> but to understand -- i mean, i grew up at a time, i believed in the constitution and constitutional rights.

and to believe that you can make a decision that was fair based on the constitution, protecting not the rights of the majority, because you look at james madison, he said, no, the judicial branch exists to protect the rights of the minority. not minorities, but someone who may have unpopular views on speech. flag burning, a terribly offensive subject. and so if judges feel that they have to put their finger up to the wind to make this decision, as justice ternus said, it has a terribly intimidating effect. right after our election there was a pension case, and we ruled -- the majority ruled that the pension law that had been passed by the legislature was constitutional. that did not make teachers happy or unions. so next thing we see, well, the unions are saying, who are those people? we're going to vote against them next time. so that's not a good thing.

so i guess the answer is, we've got to keep on -- we've got to continue the conversation and realize that if we want to celebrate the rule of law and what's great about our country, we've got to protect our judges from politics. >> that deserves a round of applause as well. [applause] just one more question before i turn to judge blackburne-rigsby. when we met i saw you at a public panel and you were asked the obvious question -- wasn't your court being political in bush v. gore? and you had quite a powerful response to that. >> yes, i did. what i said was the message from our court was, every vote should count. we weren't dictating a particular result, and that we had many opportunities, during the six weeks of litigation, to come up with a decision. because there was only 600 votes that separated bush from gore, to come up with decisions that

would have given the election to gore. how would we come up with it if we were saying there should be a statewide recount where votes undeniably had been recountsed where we felt there should be. so the majority of us felt that we were vindicating the best tradition that every vote counts. so, no, i to this day will defend what our court did as being consistent with the precedent of the court and of the states who make sure that elections are conducted fairly. and i think at that point we were discussing whether it was the supreme court attacked politically or our court. that's what's not good, for someone to say, well, we like your decision because we wanted gore. we didn't like your decision because we wanted bush. that wasn't what was at stake. so i would defend very much what

the florida supreme court did in 2000. >> great, thank you so much for all that. judge blackburn-rigsby, you are the president of the national association of women judges, and thank you, first of all, for your leadership of this wonderful organization. >> thank you. >> a round of applause for that, sure. [applause] i think all of us are persuaded by the crucial function you serve. so the experience of these two justices is not unique. across the country from kansas to north carolina, washington, texas and most recently oklahoma, there have been a series of high-profile attacks on judges. describe some of those attacks. tell us about what's going on in oklahoma, for example. >> well, i first have to say that the fact that we're having this discussion here at the national constitution center is so important and that we have so many people here engaged in this conversation with us, because one of the issues of concern and

one of the reasons why the national association of women judges cares about this issue so deeply is that the independence of our judiciary, the fact that we have fair open courts that are supposed to dispense justice and ensure access to justice for all is a cornerstone of our democracy. the design was that we would have three independent branches of government that had specific and important functions. and when we begin to overly politicize the judicial branch, which traditionally was the branch that was supposed to be one that had the -- more ability to make decisions based on case-by-case determinations of the law and the facts, when you blur those lines with the legislative branch, where the legislature is elected by popular support of the constituents and they have a

constituency to report to, you begin to blur the roles and the functions. one of the examples you've heard about, iowa and florida. recently in the news we heard about oklahoma, where their high court voted to stay initially execution there until they could get a little more information about the lethal injection manufacturer, because there were some concerns. and there was a public outcry and threats to impeach those justices who voted to stay the execution. the decision was changed or reversed or modified, and the execution went forward. and many of you heard the stories of the excruciating nature of the particular execution because the lethal injection was flawed in some way. and we think about our eighth amendment that we should not

have cruel and unusual punishment. and the manner in which the execution was carried out, i think, met, unfortunately, that standard. but that's just one example. there are examples in other parts of the country, and i think where the national association of women judges comes in, we are an organization of women judges at all levels of the judiciary, and we have male judges, colleagues who are members, members of the bar, who are in all 50 states. trial, appellate, administrative, military judges, indian tribunal judges. the important thing is, a lot of people just don't know a lot about the judiciary and what judges do every day. until one of our loved ones, family members, friends, has to go into a courthouse and that is a part of the problem.

and i think what justice ternus and justice pariente have talked about and what justices and lawyers in the community need to do is talk like this. so a judges project is a civic education program of the national association of women judges, to do just that. we go into communities all across the country and talk about why fair and i am partial courts are important to you, not just important to the judge. and judicial independence, an independent and fair judiciary, it's not about the judge, it is about the community, it's about the people and about our democracy. and so we've collaborated with many organizations, like the national constitution center, local civic groups. it's a nonpartisan, nonpolitical effort, just to talk about what you should look for in a judge. you know, when you go into a courthouse with your elderly parent and you have a will, probate dispute, you should

expect the judge will look at the facts of your case and not that a judge has a preconceived notion or agenda about how this kind of case or this kind of litigant should be treated. and sometimes when you have these money'd influences from outside the jurisdiction coming in that signal to a judge, if you don't do this, in this way, you better watch out, i think that that affects the rule of law. i don't know, i just will share a story. justice pariente and i participated in a global judicial conference involving women judges from all over the world. 500 different countries. and i tell you that they, in many ways, look to our system, where the judiciary is fair and independent, or conceived of to be that way, because there are pressures that come to bear in

other systems. and i just hope that americans continue to value our democracy and the way that the judicial branch -- the role that we serve. it doesn't mean that judges are above criticism, because there are mechanisms for judges to be reviewed and disciplined if they act in an unethical or illegal way. but the -- to attack a particular decision outside of the court or appellate process, i think raises some of the concerns that we've talked about here. >> how are these impeachment efforts succeeding? in the federal system there's a precedence dating back to the failed impeachment of justice chase that you can't impeach federal judges for their opinions, but only for criminal or high misconduct. are some state court judges being impeached because of the substance of their decision? >> i haven't heard of actual impeachments being carried out

recently. we had the threat in oklahoma. but you're right to look at the language and our constitution -- and we're at the constitution center. there were very limited circumstances under which a federal judge could be impeached for a particular decision. i think certain high crimes and misdemeanors and other extraordinary acts that cut against the moral character, adherence to the law or adherence to the code of judicial conduct. not for deciding this way or that way in a particular case that came before the court. that's why we have appellate rights for parties to appeal decisions that they disagree with. that's why we have a high supreme court, to ultimately resolve differences like that. we have a process. and i'll tell you, in the district of columbia we have an

extremely busy trial court. thousands of people walk through the doors of the courthouse every day that look like every one of us. and what amazes me and what gives me hope and why i love doing what i do is that they expect that the system will work. everybody's not happy and sometimes no one's happy when they leave. but they do expect the system to work. and all we have to do is look at the media around the globe in parts of the world that are in extreme conflict, where there's no expectation that they can go to a courthouse and get a resolution that will be fair and impartial through a process that they have confidence in. and what we're talking about are attacks on the bedrock principles of our democracy that the judicial branch should be fair and impartial and independent. >> in the few minutes we have left, i'd like all of your ideas about what reforms can take

place to insurance judicial independence. judge blackburne-rigsby, is the national association of women judges focused on the role of money in these campaigns? we've heard about the funding for these attack ads and the supreme court has upheld restrictions on funding of judicial elections to avoid corruption. is that an issue? >> well, the national association of women judges have taken a broader approach. we view our role as one to educate the community, civic education about, the role of judges, the role of the courts and how the process works, because there are different ways that judges are selected. some that you've heard of here. some are appointed. but whatever ways the judges are elected in your local jurisdictions, we need the community to understand that and to care and to understand why it matters to each individual person. and so our informed voters

project, ivp.nawj.org, we have a fantastic website with tools really engaging, not written like our judicial decisions. they're written in very understandable common parlance so that high school students, college students, civic groups can go to the website and download materials about what a retention election is, what qualities are important for a judge to be fair, to be educate beside the law, to be impartial, to be neutral. and those materials are available to the public. we partnered with civic groups and bar associations. we have over 25 different partners with us in a grass-roots effort to make our courts more open and accessible and understandable so that people understand the true jewel that our judicial system and our

system of government offers. i used to have civics class and many of you in the audience may remember in elementary and middle school we had civics class. and my son's in boy scouts. they learn these things and we have to make people understand why they're important. when you're standing in front of a court with your loved one, no matter what kind of dispute it is, as justice ternus and justice pariente have said, what do you want the judge to be thinking? what is the paper going to say tomorrow if i do this? or do you want them focused on the facts and the law and really bringing an open and fair mind to the resolution of your case? >> i would say just on the issue of campaign finance, the u.s. supreme court decisions were in the context of the legislative and executive branch. i know that justice o'connor, who is a supporter -- a great

supporter of civics education, has come out saying she's very concerned about the state of campaign and big money coming -- the corrupting effect. we must, i think, look at -- and i'd encourage a broader conversation about how judicial races are financed, as well as public financing and the studies that show certain troubling facts. i think that must be addressed. as citizens look at what is happening in their state, they ought to be informed about the process by which judges are selected and see if that process encourages politics or discourages it. and if it discourages it, then it should remain. they should look at legislative attempts to change the way judges are selected, which is happening in many states. our judicial nominating commission is not as nonpartisan as it was 15 years ago.

i think that is -- that's a mistake. but we can't sit here and say, well, if you're from a partisan state where, like in texas, judges are elected still as democrats and republicans, we're not going to say today, well, we think that system is going to encourage politics. i would let the citizens and voters think, well, if you're running as a democrat or republican, doesn't that sound political? the only thing i would love to do, because i know we started a little late, but it's also live stream, if we can show the justice o'connor video. do we have time for that? >> we certainly have time. it's a great video. i want to give justice ternus the last word and then we will watch this wonderful video, which has been nominated for an emmy. justice, you've heard this, you've heard our discussion.

we talked about three different methods of judicial election, the merit selection and retention, partisan election and judge rigby's system of a term of years with nomination -- with the advice and consents of the house and senate. what other reforms would you suggest could help avoid a kind of threats to judicial independence that you've experienced? >> well, i think the voters, the citizens, have to decide, as i said earlier, what kind of court they want, and then look at the selection system they have in their state and ask themselves, does this selection process promote the kind of court that i want or not? but even beyond the kind of system that you have, because any system can be politicized. and i think systems can be unpoliticized. i think citizens today have to do what americans did here in philadelphia 250 years ago. i don't have the math right in front of me.

but, you know, we need to understand that we have to have as much of a commitment to democracy and the rule of law as our founding fathers did, or we will lose it. and so i think the main message that i would like to convey to you and that i hope that you would convey to people in the coffee shop and over the thanksgiving dinner table with your relatives, is that democracy has to be protected. and we have to commit ourselves to a fair and impartial jure year, or we will lose it -- judiciary, or we will lose it, and that is what is happening now if we don't do something about it. [applause] >> each of you is just knocking it out of the park. this is really inspiring. and we are about to hear this great video, nominated for an emmy, featuring our wonderful

board member and the leader of civics education and the defense of judicial independence in america, justice sandra day o'connor. >> who is a member of the national association of women judges. >> forgive me. >> and has done this in conjunction with our informed voters fair judges project. >> thank you. let's listen to the video. >> life isn't always fair. but all of us want to be treated with fairness. it seems we were born that way. before we can read or write, we know what fair feels like. >> we know what that feels like. we've heard people say, that's not fair. the first lesson we learn at home and at school is how to be fair. everyone gets a turn. don't cut in line.

share what you have. it seems so simple. even though we all want fairness, we don't always agree on what's fair and what isn't. fairness is treating others the way you want them to treat you and knowing they will treat you the same way. it's playing by the rules, even when you don't win, because the same rules apply to everyone. life may not be fair, but the rules you live by must be. >> in america, fairness is the foundation of our lives. but you won't find the word fair or fairness anywhere in our bill of rights and constitution. there's a reason why you won't. our founding fathers and mothers defined what was fair in every situation, that they created one branch of government, a branch

whose one and only job is to decide what's fair is the judicial branch, our nation's courts and judges, judges who don't represent one group, judges who don't make decisions based on their personal opinion. impartial judges free from pressure and influence of special interest groups. judges don't bend the rules. judges who don't bend to pressure. judges stand for one thing and only one thing, fairness. nobody ever went to a game and watched the referee, but it can't be a fair conflict without one. it is making hard and fair calls and fairness has never been a popularity contest, and doing

what's right -- throughout america, americans look to the court for fairness. they hope the judge will handle their case with an even hand. they believe that all of us are entitled to the same laws, guaranteed by fair and impartial judges. in our courts, all men are created equal. we believe firmly in the integrity of our courts. that is the living and working reality. these are words from "to kill a mockingbird." i have seen that reality. i've worked alongside judges and justices dedicated to defending the integrity of our courts,

even-handed judges committed to doing justice for all, impartial judges who stand outside of jusf politics. free from the influence of because whenests, the judge does what is right, when a judge decides each case, arictly on their merits, when judge takes every case and every willn the same, our courts always be fair and free. courts are fair with an infirmed code -- informed code.

[applause] gentlemen, there are many inspiring moments at the national constitution center, but i can't think of one more than the league of women judges, dedicated to this idea for nonpartisan justice. this is a superbly stimulating discussion, you have a role to play in this conversation, you can make a difference about the conversations about the importance of judicial independence and you can make the difference between fair and judicial systems, so i hope that you will all go out and remember this great message and spread at -- join mese in thanking these distinguished guests.

>> members of congress will return to washington this coming week after the fourth of july recess. the senate returns monday to vote on a judicial nomination and whether or not to have more avril land for hunting and fishing. members will work on a suspension bills, establishing security provisions for the homeland security department, you can always watch the house live on c-span, and the senate live on c-span two. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you at congressional

hearings and briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a service of u.s. private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable industry 25 -- 35 years ago. in hd and like this on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> chilean president michelle inher let -- bachalet was washington, and had previously served as president from 2006-2010. she was at the white house during a visit, when they talked about chilean relations and other issues related to trade and energy policy. they spoke solely before -- shortly before their closed-door meeting. >> i want to welcome back to the oval office, president bachelet.

she is my second favorite michelle. much least to see her again. we have the opportunity to work together, my first came into office, and since that time she has been busy doing excellent work at the united nations, anticularly around women, issue that the united states has been very supportive of, we are very proud of the work that she did there. she is now back in office and this gives us an opportunity to strengthen further the outstanding relationship between the united states and chile. say first of all, congratulations to the chilean national football team for an outstanding job at the world cup. i know that this is a tough loss but also shows the incredible skill of the chilean team.

this is as well as they have ever done against the brazilian team on their home turf. coming up, we have a tough match as well. i want to wish the u.s. team a lot of luck in the game to come. the basis for the strong bilateral relationship -- is the fact that we have a free trade agreement, that has definitely expanded, commerce in both countries and has created jobs in both countries, we have excellent cooperation when it issues, a wide range of energy and education, people to people relations. chile has been a model of democracy in latin america, it

has been able to consistently transition from centerleft governments to center-right governments, but always respectful of the democratic traditions, obvious it is traditions were hard-won, and she knows as well as anybody, how difficult it was to bring about democracy and now the fact that chile -- across the political spectrum fights for the democratic process. for the entire hemisphere. today we will have the opportunity to discuss how to deepen those relationships even further. i know that education is an issue that is at the top of her agenda, this is something on top of my agenda at the united states, for us to strengthen student exchanges, and prepared mechanisms and ideas for how we can build the skills of young

people in both countries, something that we will spend some time on. and how we can transition to a clean energy economy -- we will be announcing some collaborations including the facilitation of the construction of a major solar plant to help meet their energy needs. we will talk about regional issues. we have seen great progress and democratization through the region in part because of chilean leadership, but there are other problems we have to address as well as issues of security, in areas like central america and the caribbean. and i'll be very interested in hearing her views. we will discuss international issues.

with their seat on the united nations security council, they can serve as a leader on a wide range of issues from peacekeeping to conflict resolution, two important things like climate change and we have great confidence that in that role they will continue to be a positive force for good around the world. i want to say thank you for not only the friendship with president bachelet, but more importantly our friendship with the chilean people. her predecessor, he and i had a great relationship, she and i have a great relationship and it goes beyond any particular party. i am confident that my replacement after i am gone will have an excellent relationship because this is based on common values and a strong respect in both countries for the value of

the u.s.-chilean relationship. >> thank you, president obama. thisurse, we're looking to in many different areas. chile and the united states have it -- had a very strong and mature relationship for many years, and we want to enhance any different areas -- it will be an opportunity to discuss regional and international issues. at the security council. we will be able to increase the operations in areas such as you mentioned, education and science and technology, and

we are to have -- not only the we also have the massachusetts program and are working very strongly as we continue and we are interested in -- this year we are commemorating 10 years of the free trade agreement from the and the united states is our most important investor. and of course we also have the possibility of having the chamber of commerce and others because we want to make our relations political and economical and social -- stronger every day. i am happy to be here with you again. >> thank you.

>> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. the president spoke at the brookings institute the same day as the meeting with president obama, where she talked more about her country's domestic and foreign affairs. this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to brookings.

, the acting vice president of the foreign-policy program and here on behalf of john thorton, who was with us here today, the cochair of the brookings institution board of trustees, i am delighted to welcome all of you here, to brookings this afternoon, for a special address by the president of the republic of chile. we are very honored she was able to take time out of her busy schedule in washington including herb -- meeting with president obama at the white house earlier today, with the international leaders forum. i want to extend a warm welcome to her high-level delegation from santiago, including many ministers and members of the congress and private sector leaders. we are especially happy to

welcome back to brookings prime minister monos who spent a year with is finishing up his phd. the president joined us in 2009 4 talk from this podium about how latin america was coping with the financial crisis. and this is familiar ground as well from her early days as a junior high school student in bethesda and her studies at the american defense college, to her many visits as the chilean minister of defense, minister of health and president from 2006-2010. she joins us today as she enters her second tour as president of the republic after winning over 62% of the vote in the chilean national elections last december, with the majority of

seats held by her coalition, she has moved quickly to enact an ambitious agenda of reforms, most notably in the areas of education, taxes and constitutional and electoral design. this agenda reflects the remarkable success of chile as a leader in economic and political terms, and the determination to continue moving forward on the path to social and democratic progress. chelet angers office at an important moment for latin america. in addition to dominating world cup competition, it is facing its own challenges as it pursues more equitable development with greater integration, sustainable energy and democratic stability. i can think of no other leader in modern latin america more prepared to take on these

challenges then president bachelet, whose remarkable career as an exiled political activist and a global leader in the fight for gender equality, and empowerment as the head of you in women, and now a two-term president makes us all proud of the promise of democracy to deliver real results. remarks,orward to your we will then have time for theussion not -- held by president of our latin american initiative, and questions from the audience. if you are following us on twitter, please use the #bachelet. thank you for joining us, prime minister. >> thank you for those kind remarks, and in particular thank you for being there with us,

watching the football game, suffering as we suffer. thank you for that. the board of the brookings institution -- and the acting and the director of the latin american initiative, -- the secretary-general and his excellency -- ministers and senators and congressmen of the delegation, distinguished ambassadors, officers and representatives of the u.s. government, professors and members of academia, and i see a lot of good friends here. i started this to give a little wethe latin american touch, usually start this with a mention of all the important

people. it is always a pleasure to return to the united states, which was my home for several years. where learned important lessons and made close friendships. brookings and those who we areored this meeting, optimistic that we have initiated changes for the future of the country and continent, that this is a worthwhile task. have embarked on a successful path of democratic changes. poverty, anded have also strengthened the country's economic and political stability. we are internationally recognized as a country with clear rules and they working constitution. given us a solid anchor in the foundations of the globalized world. --s is a steadfast ability

and the basis has been the domestic and social and political and economic relation. above all, our government is issues thatntifying will lead to a more equal society and dynamic development. inequality -- will allow us to be counted among the highest level of democracy and we take up this challenge not only because it is but thet thing to do, most reliable way of banking on our future. what political stability and social cohesion. requires us to deal with three central aspects, attacking inequality, lack of access or discrimination and

injustice among citizens. is harmonious and sustainable growth and achieving greater participation in the words, wend in other are not talking about rioting but rather consolidating our history and making improvements and changes where shortcomings still exist. this is not only my idea for the people who voted for me, this is a national consensus still up for review. a difference in achieving these -- finding the best ways of achieving this and we have a broad national debate, no one denies the need for change. society itself has changed a great deal over the years, citizens have become more active and critical and informed, and often more challenging.

many voices in a multitude of languages are calling for society not to forget in their dealings with economic the sign of the public policies and watch be the focus of any social contract, the people. and also from the government viewpoint these demands represent a challenge. important,esting and the challenge of ensuring that people are more involved in decision-making for matters that pertain to them so this translates into quality-of-life and democracy. re-uprisingmeans connected life and public interest, promoting dialogue with a civic sense and the respect for differences. the challenge of illuminating inequality has an ethical but also has an economic component. that is why we are saying it is

the right thing to do but also the smart thing to do because we need dynamic and sustained economic growth in order to tackle inequality and eradicate poverty. for therate revenue social welfare policies. and so it is in both senses that we have decided to extend the undeniable progress made by the country since the return of democracy. recognizing today's new challenges and focusing on government growth and the stability of democracy. around 2020 we will have income similar to that of the developed economy. though we shall not be a truly developed come -- country if we continue to be one of the countries with the highest income inequality. our socialfects cohesion and prospects for economic development. this is why we must tackle it

and opt for crucial in growth. ame most chileans i convinced the biggest risk is not making the changes we need to make because inequality undermines one of the most important issues for the economy and democracy. trust in the markets and institutional instability, trust in social relations. and trust is a precious asset that we have to decide -- when it comes to reducing inequality between the state and the citizenry and this is the underlying meaning of the reforms. we're optimistic because this is the best way of building a better country for all. we have a strong foundation in which to build. economic growth has been positive and unemployment has declined. this allows important process -- progress to be made for local rights and opportunities for

people and reflects the global financial scenario. -- good copper prices in recent years and our fiscal response to the financial crisis. these conditions are cyclical and difficult to replicate. when we -- when the underlying economy disappears growth prospects will receive. betweenn slow growth the growth ofand july 4, 2014 is estimated at just over three percent. resume a steady path of growth and in the second half of our administration, for growth to be about five percent at this potential gdp level. we have set ourselves ambitious goals but take an ambitious approach to these economic

conditions facing us. we need to generate more when he growth -- growth that is socially legitimate and inclusive, and sustainable and democratically oriented. for this to grow on the basis of our development by means of structural reform, the citizenry and the economy indicates that now it is the time to undertake such reforms. what are the changes we are proposing -- that are already underway. one of them the structural education focusing on equality, and public education and 2 is the stimulation of economic growth, innovation and competitiveness, and this obviously involves all sorts of challenges facing us in regards to energy. reform, redistributing wealth more equitably, and it must also lead us back to the

cup -- path of fiscal responsibility which is essential if the state is to honor its commitments in the medium and long-term. constitution that allows more scope for democracy, participation and i would like to refer briefly to this topic. equityon which fosters and democracy. i will not say anything to win a nobel prize here, but knowledge is essential for ongoing prosperity and countries must make education the focus of their development strategy. this is what countries have done, those countries who have achieved development like singapore or japan or the united kingdom. chilean needs far-reaching change to ensure the full recovery. you will undoubtedly recall hearing this three years ago,

that thousands of students in rightego demanded their to free and quality education. there was a time a lot of young people were affected all over the world and i was here working for the u.n. and everyone was asking me, how can you explain this? we understand that we are doing bad in the economy but you are doing well. how do you explain doing well in the economy? when people are demonstrating massively in the speech. -- industry. this is what was echoed throughout the society, and going forward all people -- all children and young people are given basic education and standards of quality and i have to tell you, when a country is so proud of what we have been able to build, coming from a dictatorship to build a sustained and mature democracy,

with good economic performance, reallybelieve that -- we deserve to have quality education. only countrythe ranked as being most dependent from private funding for higher education. 85.4%. in korea and japan and the united kingdom, the reliance on family contributions is considerable but much less than in chile. education is therefore crucial for society aiming at sustainable development. i know there is a social discussion in the united states about education and the debt of the students and how this is happening right now. chilean must remedy the shortcomings of the system to provide guarantees of the principles underlying the right to education that is

integration, universality and quality. this is why we initiated the structural reforms, already underway and the proposal for concerns and various aspects of approving of public education and ending the discriminatory selection of students, and in profit-making with public funds and the ending to copayments, and in other words we want families not to have to pay for their children's education establishments, receiving state funding. the second creation of 2 state universities being created into withns of the country's -- a public university and institution building and improved coverage for education. in addition we guarantee access to college for the most vulnerable students through a special program access with higher education.

and we are improving education throughout chile, with education reflecting the economic characteristics of each territory. our goal is to guarantee that without exception people of chile can find quality education free of charge. we have all those talents and capacities that people have -- but not according to the income of the family, and we need everyone to have the opportunity of a good education and to contribute to the country's economic development. can participate if they meet quality standards, and assume the responsibility of the implications of public service. the state must take the leading role in the delivery of education, this would produce very informed citizens from all social mobility and allow them

to depend not only on their natural resources but also the knowledge -- and this takes me to another focus of my government, the development of production and competition. we know that productivity increases slowly, and we know that innovation is the main trigger of long-term growth. therefore add to our knowledge more complexity and andvation to the economy, for those who are not displaying today, or below their potential. we almost must diversify the production matrix. in addition to natural resources, other sectors must contribute more to the generation of wealth and economic growth. happen, for this to further training is essential. you have the motion initiative to expand the coverage and the

relevance of training for work. through specialized and targeted plans we are making efforts to create incentives to increase the per dissipation of women and young people in the world of work. in chile these two groups have the lowest rates of education in the labor market. these figures are 7.7 and 10.3% below the average. in addition to investment we will increase science and technology and innovation, offering incentives as we implement a strategy that takes into account the conditions, strengths and needs of the country, based on research and innovation in which public and private leadership is essential.

we have announced 2 powerful programs they go to the heart of economic activity. endeding the agenda for -- energy. we focus on the development strategy for diversification, the inclusion of more people in economic markets, new sectors in the basket of exports, support for small and medium-sized enterprises and the creation of quality infrastructure. this includes a series of measures which will be very useful to us. for example, this agenda envisions a network of business development, which will provide comprehensive advice to help improve the business model -- and i know that you have small business development, which is the inspiration, but now -- they

are going to copy it. we just signed with the government, so don't worry. as i said, this is a small business development and we are already cooperating in connection with this target. i am not going to describe the whole agenda. is lengthy and available to the public, but i do want to add that we will also have a system of clusters to support our economy, and the expansion and strengthening of the sectors already consolidated. we will sections support the public good and the investment projects with a focus on high potential for growth and job creation. however, while setting new productivity targets, we are aware that chile faces considerable energy challenges.

chile exports 60% of primary energy. we are susceptible to price instability in the international markets and supplies. we must find a new transmission project in order to find a new dependency. this has not been happening in recent years and this means we have not incorporated the energy that we can get, for a reliable supply in the short and medium term. we are aware of the need to encourage projects to reduce the energy deficit and we have said we will strongly support all initiatives that comply and are a good fit in the region. in this area the state and the private sector must work together. this is a key point because one of the obstacles to growth is the lack of social support for those projects. there are important challenges here, to strengthen the structure and to work to recognize the interests of local

communities, for the energy projects -- this means work at an early stage following clear rules to ensure the development and that this is feasible in the long-term. we are working on development to have that, to decide which projects can be located and where. we want to see all stakeholders together to define the area of development so that we can get some agreements from this. however, we also face the challenge in improving competition in the energy market and encouraging new players enter the market. we hope to be able to show the experience of the united states for which we have most to learn about nonconventional industries, and i want to stress that it is urgent for chile to ensure reliable and efficient

energy development at competitive prices, but the same time to use our renewable resources in a sustainable and nonpolluting manner. this is the meaning of our energy agenda, ensuring that the country will have a diversified reduce and we aim to energy prices and ensure greater competition and efficiency and diversification in the energy market. that 45% of the between 2014pacity and 2025 comes from nonconventional energy resources, and is will account for 20% of chile's energy in one decade. -- efficientergy energy should be state policy, our goal is to reduce consumption by 20% by 2025.

we're talking about 20,000 gigawatts per year. energy policy act of 2005 attaches great importance to efficiency. it is the goal of this agenda to give certainty and to increase credibility and reassure communities that we are bringing clarity into the role for investors. i know that this is an extensive program of change, however the point is that chileans are serving the growth and democracy governments that we have built with considerable efforts. consequently our fiscal policy will continue to be guided by structural balance, because of the commitments of the ongoing expenditure, of building from ongoing revenue. this reason, in view of the need to undertake the structural reform of education and other

essential welfare retirement -- requirements, we will implement a reform that will give the state the rest -- this is a revenue on a sustainable basis, with three percent of gdp. in addition to providing ongoing revenue, the goal of the reform is to increase income distribution. we have a sad paradox between the income of the region and the household -- this is not reviewed after payment of taxes and this is a problem we must solve. under this reform going through congress, those with the highest income must make the greatest effort to contribute to public revenue. and this is a well-designed incentive to be reduced -- introduced gradually. some have described this reform as anti-growth. when development -- developed countries see income similar to chile today, most of them have

transferred higher issues, with a system that helps to redistribute income. they develop as they create higher taxes and produced a higher standard of living. we have room for improvement with taxation. 8.4%10 our tax burden was and the average was 20.6% for these countries, which had a per capita gdp is similar to that of chile. there is no reason we cannot follow the same path. the tax reforms i describe my -- youase everyone, don't have to, but i know. it is essential if we are to tackle the inequality, it should be noted that the effect of the higher taxation on public training and human capital will

be more than offset by the short-term effects on investment, moreover, the income tax increase will have little to no effect on investment. we are an active player in international financial markets -- and a low level risk. thanks to our macro-economic policies -- we have a low risk at the local level, and the economy with the lowest risk in latin america. we have no reason to fear that an earmark in human capital will affect our economic development costs. one of the only factors and this is far from being the most important one. the most important factors for investment are social cohesion and political stability. second, equality and the ability of public institutions and third, the accessibility and completeness of markets including financial markets.

fourth is infrastructure and fifth is appropriate economic situations. this is an important area where we are meeting our challenges. i do is to say that tax reforms have four goals, the first is to increase the tax burden for ongoing expenditures and revenue. in other -- other social policies and fiscal accounts. the second is to improve income distribution and equity -- to encourage savings and investment, and forth to the limitation of tax evasion and tax loopholes. benow that tax reform will of interest to you. projects --estment

and this legislation was adopted in 19 74, in a very different political and social and economic context, when the chilean international procedural is at a very low level. the lack of democracy and the lack of reliability meant that change was needed to get foreigners to invest. with new cut -- with new governments and economic freedom, we no longer need to make foreign investors look favorably in supporting our country. we wish to continue this mechanism without affecting foreign investment and i would like to share some pictures with you. i broughte nice if some pictures but i did not bring some pictures.

july has a trade agreement with 61 countries. this accounts for 63% of the world's population and 85% -- and chile ranks fourth out of 144 economies in the world bank business index. should like to say that in 2013, our country was among the first 20 economies with direct investment, ranking 18th according to the united nations council on trade and development. i don't know if that change but to have newned focuses, and we're looking at latin america and the caribbean, and a very important option. latin america is our natural space and there we are trying to reach out to the world. we must respect a different path to development.

differences are not obstacles for convergences. tobelieve that we can help build bridges of understanding over and above the approach and as i have noted, on so many this is possible to the world and this vision claims the perception of the pacific alliance, the project that does not oppose immigration teams. a few days ago in mexico i reaffirmed our commitment -- and similarly we have promoted dialogue between the countries without watering down the alliance or its rate of projects -- progress. attention to latin america and our economic and cultural relations with our partners in europe and the asia-pacific and particularly north america.

we are characterized by the showing ourturity, supported values and interests. we believe in strength and the rule of law, and defense -- defend the rights of individuals -- and believe in the importance of free trade and investment and we work together to create multilateral trade systems based on clear, predictable transparency. july in the united states must move forward in our relationship with new dimensions and areas of understanding to emerge focused energy andon and education among other things. dear friends, at the outset of this i spoke of the importance of trust in assuring a country's development. this trust also depends on the continued enhancement and

expansion of democratic rights -- and this is why i have advocated a new constitution. our existing constitution exists and 1980 and was adopted conditions no one would describe as democratic area despite the numerous amendments of the past decade, it still has a sort of deficit origin. in addition it contains a look toward majorities allowing minorities to side with majorities. this is one of the basic tenets of any modern state, not allowing a few to hold back with a nation wants. in addition it makes it difficult for the country to democratically resolve its differences. this is an essential for trust in the state, and trust in politics.

and it is essential to a healthy society in which entrepreneurship flourishes an opportunity and stability for its actions -- while we have been laying the foundation for a new constitution which is necessary in a lengthy process participation, we have not remained idle. discussion, weof have the knowledge -- and it starts with the next presidential election, chileans living abroad will be able to vote. thewe can vote for legislation for a bicameral legislation system for the time between minorities and majorities, replacing it with the proportional system providing for high levels of competition, especially for smaller parties, and trying to introduce more gender balance in our parliament. we are very far away from that

but we are adopting this course because we are convinced that democracy is the key to a more but which can guarantee age person the appropriate standards of respect and well-being. and the institutional mechanism for resolving differences. it is in this place of respect and trust that collective rights can evolve, with the usual expectations and initiatives with society -- and the transformations i have described will require time and gradual introduction so that they can mature with dialogue and democratic participation, and can be anchored durably in our society and institutions. so they can enjoy the sound economy, and institutions. many of them will not be on the government terms of office

because we are thinking about development in the long-term. we know that economic responsibility -- this is the only way to create lasting and equitable well-being for citizens. solsticends -- at the that occurred last week the indigenous cultures celebrated the new year, as is the case many places. it is the beginning of a new cycle of collective work, the organizational commitment looking forward -- and this is a task on which in this news cycle we have embarked as a society. and like the seasons it represents not disruption, but the wisdom to recognize the task -- and we will so a seed of social capital, which is the basis of all sustainable development. i have a great task on which we have embarked -- will last for

several calendars, but it will be a harbinger of spring, and that is the reason for our and our work. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for joining us here at brookings, it is wonderful to have you with us. now, ana few minutes opportunity for some discussions, and i would like to take the moderators privilege, to lead off with the first question. i would like to turn back to some of the foreign-policy questions, in your speech.

chile is once again serving on the un security council. at this time of driving social insecurity with asia and the middle east -- i wonder if you could talk to us about how you envision your role playing out on the security council? we see ourselves as we have weays seen ourselves, respect multilateral institutions, as a peaceful way of solving problems when it is possible. but these are not the kinds of things that security council's have to deal with. that thell be ensuring principal values that we are to defend and then share with the united states will be the ones that we will discuss from case to case, they will be a more important issue.

we were talking with president obama about this. things we need to discuss much more are ways of dealing with role ins, what is the the peacekeeping operation -- it is important to see what else we have to do. my opinion, having worked in the i really push a lot on chile, i would say very active participation on peacekeeping but after being in many countries -- and visiting peacekeeping operation sites i think that we need to make a stronger assessment, and see what else we can do because i am not sure that we are winning the battle. >> thank you, president.

i think that we have time to take a few questions from the audience. if you could please speaking to the microphone. and if you would identify yourself by institutional affiliation. while we wait for our collective thoughts i wonder if you could talk more about it -- your government's thoughts, on the transitional partnership. elaboratef you could on what direction do you see chill a going in the negotiations going forward? this all started from before windchill a was part of it, with singapore and new zealand. ways -- allat the

the economies, it has been very hard to focus on the asia-pacific area. we were inviting many other nations to be part of this. former name,he such a way has been part of this very strongly. when we are talking about this -- we need to see that those reforms have to be better than what we have today because we already have the free trade agreement, so what we are negotiating, if i may say or analyzing, what would it mean in which terms and how can we ensure -- we really want a free trade agreement, with the highest standards of the quality

levels and standards but we need to support the goal and have those numbers respecting the national interests. i will not go into the technicalities. there are issues we need to discuss further. so we hope that we can be able to get to a good solution for everyone, because we believe a veryis really could be important perspective on trade, and on economic relations. >> richard? >> richard feinberg, brookings, and university of california san diego. thank you for your very inspiring and persuasive remarks. you spoke of chile as a bridge among countries.

in the western hemisphere, 2 problem's are the polarization in venezuela, and the issue of change in cuba. i wonder if you could indicate what role chile met clay as a bridge in those two ongoing -- may play as a bridge in those two ongoing problems? we have been doing things about that. during myve done inauguration day, foreign affairs had a meeting with the these goalse that are good but not sufficient so instead of having a big public statement we thought it would be better to put people in action, so we've brought a coalition of foreign ministers to venezuela

and i would say that this was the first because for time government and opposition got together, and they talked and had dialogue. they had some progress made. it is probably a little bit slow. this is a very polarized society. we had talked for temporary a situation in and we cannot afford to get into this probability. to see the evolution -- the

venezuelans have to show their intelligence and what we need to perform part of this process. to support the process of dialogue and hope for a peaceful process.to this we are very active in the case and now the government has started the negotiations. we will continue looking efforts for all of the that he is making to bring peace to columbia, and in the case of building bridges and we have not yet had the -- we're looking forward to the process of supporting whatever is needed. we will be there.

>> we would like to take a question, this has turned out to be a very popular event and i want to give them a chance to ask questions as well. i had a question here, regarding -- we have a question here, regarding the indigenous communities of chile, and what are the policies in your government that you foresee in terms of their role in chile, and this question, i understand is one of the issues -- >> talking about the indigenous people of chile? the important thing is i heard the question. so i can answer this. the thing is that -- we have said that, let me see. we are trying to forge a new

path, a new pact with the indigenous community, it does we do have the historic political test, if i may say. we have the whole agenda of different things, from ensuring quality participation, but also, economic development and so on. so they canasures be integrated. for the diversity of their own culture. we have many different indigenous groups. north, to the south. the other groups. it is very important that we have