moment of conversation. >> that is healthy to have that conversation. >> to have people look at that and say, where is our priority. -- ? do we want to find the money? we did not have that conversation. do we have to stop -- we have to stop coddling the rich. we have to stop saying we need the tax cuts for the rich and we need to have that voice saying, in 2010, 93 -- you all saw this, 93% of the income gains went to the top 1%. you have $80 on average. it is bad.

>> bob mcintyre will remember, fred harris ran for president in 1976 on the slogan, take rich off welfare. >> what might just said is a good call to the outrage that should stop the crowd here. let's give a round of applause to the panel. i'd think this has been an amazing conversation. [applause] and then what i would like to do is have questions from the audience. if you are watching at home and it is not some other day than today, you can tweet questions in to this address, and i will try to be the medium for those questions. if you are here physically, just raise your hand. john will call on you and don will be viewed the mike. i have been waiting all day to say this.

wait for the mike, we are on c- span. -- microphone, we are on c-span. we have about a half hour left, so if you have a very long and extensive statement to say about tax policy, you may want to cement that the for the record -- submit that for the record, but in the meantime, let's go on. >> philosophy, through a man named louis kelso, had developed a concept called by neary theory of economics. and the plan for moving beyond the keynesian model, and the marxist model. he challenged both. neither of whom thought individuals owning the means of production was an important goal.

yet, i see behind us ada education fund. you have two of the heroes, walter reuther, who worked for some years ago, and senator hubert humphrey, both of whom congratulated kelso and supported the idea is of democratizing the ownership. the problem i have with listening is there is no discussion at all about the system, and it assumes the tax system, as a whole, is a good system. we will tinker with it in terms of what we do. i think that is an unfortunate thing. there is a plan that i would like to call to the attention of -- >> i want you to tell people where they can find that plan on the web. >> cesj.org.

>> cesj.org. i appreciate your good insight here, and i'm going to go to bob mcintyre here. should we scrap the entire damn tax system? is the system itself a crisis? do we have a friend that we should work in and we cannot work in? >> well, we have to have a tax system. >> i think so. i do not know if ron paul is in agreement. >> he has not only repudiated the 20th-century, he has done so for the 18th century. we put people on mount rushmore because they were taxed heroes. george washington for putting together the constitutional convention that gave us the power to tax. abraham lincoln, who instituted the first income-tax. teddy roosevelt, because in a petulant moment, he ran for president as a third-party candidate, split the republican vote, and got the 16th amendment

adopted. it out liar was jefferson, who was a bit of a coupon taxes, but he did get louisiana. there are a lot of people that would like to go back to the 19th century and all of our taxes be sales taxes. that is the scientology movement tax program. oddly enough, called the fair tax. it must be an acronym for something. they have the flat tax, like dick armey, who wants to exempt rich people from taxes and only tax the middle class. louis kelso was an interesting character. he tried to get work around a shipping company. people have talked about doing that with tax programs. we have that now, call the employee stock ownership plans, which has turned into a shelter for rich capitalists. any well-intentioned loophole ends up as a tax shelter for the

rich capitalists. it is always a problem. >> that is what my mother, who spent her life as a tax preparer, always said. it is always a bunch of new loopholes. in the back row. >> question about capital gains. there has been a lot of discussion about the ordinary rates and capital gains. conservatives will argue that capital gains faces are not indexed for inflation. two questions on that. extreme for raising capital gains tax rates, which were also index, calculated the national game, and secondly, how much of an impact would that have any way? does anyone have any idea what the dollar-weighted average -- you know, gains that are over a year? >> wants to grab a piece of capital gains? bob? >> it has been talked about, especially when inflation was

high. the problems are these. no. 1, if you index gains and do not index debt, people have a tax shelter. you can make money by losing money because of the tax code. no. 2, realizing tap -- capital gains is a voluntary thing. most people who have a lot of them do not realize a lot of them. we already have an exemption for three-quarters of capital gains. any kind of break for the quarter that we do get, seems to me, unnecessary. >> to build on that, bob makes the point, it is an optional tax. what a lot of people do not know, also, if one buys stock at $10, ibm stock, as a young

person, and then you grow old and it goes to $100, it makes a huge game, if you die without selling it, the capital gain is completely forbidden. so you have will be people making tremendous amounts of income from that over their lifetime and borrow against it. that money is never taxed. >> or if you give it to charity, as many do. >> you are now going to have perfect fairness in the system. if you think you are getting money from interest and dividends, there is also an insurance premium there. i would want to maintain some sort of separation if we raise the marginal rate. i would not tax capital gains at that rate. raising it to 20% or something, i do not think we have to any special indexing for that. >> just a quick word on putting dollar amounts of capital gains reform.

there is definitely an interesting debate coit on a bad behavior responses and what would happen if you change the rate at which we tax capital income. there is a great congressional research service report by jane gravell. she goes into great detail on some of the research that has been done on behavioral responses and why the joint committee on taxation may be able -- be global in their estimates of how much we would get. -- be low-balling their estimates of how much they would get. >> cbo says that taxes are progressively effective. federal, over $250,000 is about 20% on average. then you have state and local which is another 6%.

34% of all income over $250,000 goes to the federal government or local government. i know from the tax foundation that the average taxation is 20%. so the system is effectively progressive. cbo has stated that. they have shown that in various reports. a lasting, there are indirect costs for regulations, tax issues by compliance, and excessive legal system costs, which according to the cost of government, is 22% universal. those are progressively incurred, too. wealthier people are in the courts dealing with the tax system, regulatory more. so it is probably like 26% for that. add that to the 34, 60% of all the income, average over to her to thousand dollars, is in government-related costs.

>> thank you. do you want to unpack that? >> 28% design sounds plausible of what people pay above $250,000. i would be happy with 40%, but ok. the compliance costs, i think they're being overcharged for their accountants. >> they are avoidance costs. people do it because they are trying to lower their taxes. >> when we to do that is to get rid of the loopholes. >> if you look at our tax system, it is mildly progressive the way it is, if you look at combined taxes. income, on the other hand, is not much of the progressive. it is extremely skewed towards the wealthy. we have a class of people who can afford to pay a lot more -- never mind fairness. >> people often get confused on

that. the statement about 20% was of the income over $250,000. we have some hard working decorator that makes $250,000.10 dollar, they pay 20% on that $1. that is important. when we talk about the estate tax, i know there were a lot of people out there wondering that they would end up with $1,000,100. they pay the tax on $100. lots of confusion on that. >> we have eight twitter feed coming in. >> somebody actually send in three questions. i will quickly run by them, you can choose which one you want to answer. andrew nose and occupier. he wants to know what occupy can do to shed more light on any angle of the tax justice question that has not gotten the attention it deserves?

the next question is is there any concern about the small revenue increase apparently that about roe would generate? thirdly, how possible are fairer taxes when money runs the electrical system, as he says? >> i will take that. you have spent time talking with folks with occupy, building these coalitions, connecting people. it strikes me that occupy wall street, which is now much more than that, it is a national movement that is in many places. but at the core of it, it is a discussion about the inequality of wealth. is it beginning to get focused now on how we might address that inequality and how we might use tax policy? >> i would always go back to what i said before in terms of the opportunity for us to seize the moment, focusing less on wall street in and of itself. the question that the person

asked, i think there is a way there needs to be a popular -- we all need to be mobilizing about this and talking about this for legislation or a the house to move in washington. there needs to be popular support. i think there is a way that occupy can continue the conversation and keep people mobilized around it. i do not know if occupy is the place that solution should be talked about. it should be talked about everywhere, -- >> it is not a suggestion that occupy should come up with solutions, but as a movement, raising these issues, as bob said, you might want the president to get more focused on these issues. >> just talking about occupy, responding to that question, a key role is key to the conversation going and mobilizing people. i can talk about my own trajectory of learned about taxes. five years ago, i was in a

different place. the popular education that is going on, people are beginning to think about government differently, beginning to think about disparity and how that is impacting people. people looking at their community and tie that to a letter analysis. that is what will allow my generation to have a different perspective on the work that bob has been doing for a long time. >> i think occupy, together with warren buffett coming out and saying stop coddling the rich, those two together, the pressure from the bottom and somebody at the top saying i should take -- pay more taxes, that combination makes it possible for obama in the middle to say we should have the boss and roll. i would say that is the camel's nose. -- buffett rule. it is a tiny sliver of everything we are talking about. we are talking of the bush tax cuts, capital gains, estate

taxes. but i think it starts the conversation of should we be taxing the wealthy more? >> i want to talk about one thing that was mentioned that i thought was important. you talk about where you live. we have focused so much of this discussion of tax policy on washington and congress, the federal level. but an awful lot of tax policy plays out at the local and state levels. it can also be very unfair. we have had great discussions about the legislative exchange council and the center of democracy on its various projects, focusing attention on how this national group develops model state policies on a lot of tax issues. is it important -- and keeping your eye on the broad prize, rather than thinking this is just a d.c. debate? >> getting back to what the gentleman was talking about, it is true the federal tax code is

somewhat progressive, although less so than it used to be. but state taxes are very regressive. they fall much harder -- and bob does great work on this. they fall much harder on lower income people. lower income people pay the heaviest share of sales taxes of their income and much higher share than what people do. estate taxes hit poor and moderate income people much harder than federal taxes to, compared with higher income. >> one of the things on estate taxes -- financial speculation taxes -- i am stealing one from the imf. they did a good paper on financial transaction. it did not say that was the best thing to do, but they said the financial sector is under text, and recommended a financial activity tax, which is to garment's could do. financial taxes are exempted. you are taxed undershirts, clothes, food, but you go to the bank, that is not taxed.

why not? it is a great thing to do. i also discovered, talk into a wall street attorney, you can tax mortgage transfers. they could tax the transfers of mortgages issued against property in that state, whether they are traded in new york, switzerland, or wherever it might be. >> it also might slow down all of the gaming there, mr. housing bubble. >> we have a question in the back. >> could you stand up so that we can see you? >> i am with a anti-party organization. one of the -- part of the tax code that folks to not always realize when it comes to fairness is the tax credits for low-income working families. earned income tax credits, child credits. the center of budget tells us that they do more than any other to lift americans above

the poverty line. can you talk about how you see that playing out with the year on -- year and battles, how to protect those small but important pieces of our progressive tax code, especially for low-income families? >> chuck? >> people should understand, bob, in many ways, it is the great seer of the discussion here. >> this is a huge year for low income tax credits. if you think about it, president obama made improvements in the child tax credit. if you look at the ryan budget, it would eliminate that, and at the same time, he is a pro -- he is proposing this tax cut for people making over a million dollars. right now, for a kid, for a

woman working full time, if the rise but it would go into effect, she would lose $1,500. if you are making $17,000 a year, you have at stake $1,500. that family, and millions of others like that could take a huge hit. the stake for working families, the welfare success stories that people like to point to, very high stakes in the tax debate this year. will for another question from twitter. >> i will use my authority as the ultimate moderator to say that we can probably just take one more question after this. richard phillips wants to know how exactly companies dodge taxes, and who are the worst offenders? >> i am not letting bob off that one. bob mcintyre. >> they dodged taxes by reporting less income than they

make to the interest -- internal revenue service. they do that in a variety of ways. sometimes they move their profits to a tax haven in a warm, caribbean place. sometimes congress passes a law that they can report less than they make. by taking write-offs for expenses they do not have. sometimes it gives them a credit against their taxes for research they do not do. that is how they pay less. the reason, in this report we put out a while ago, that some pay more and some others nothing, there are more loophole that they can use. some of them have not paid taxes for 10 years even though they reported tens of billions in profits. >> do we need more auditors? >> we need fewer loopholes, which meet -- means we need a better congress. >> then you have campaign finance reform --

>> no, we just need a better congress. >> one thing that has become increasingly important. private equity, when something is taken over by private equity, they tend to borrow large amounts of money against the company. then they pay interest payments. that is all tax-deductible. typically, a company in private equity pays much less in taxes than if you have the same company as a public company. that is one reason why public companies are paying less. >> two quick questions. i know we are winding down. we have some that there. thank you. >> brian roberts, on the ada fund board. one of the big expenditures is, obviously, education. public education. one of the big inequities, of course, is proper taxes is what

funds schools. -- property taxes is what funds to schools. i would like to hear about different options for k-12. you also have states that are strapped. higher education at the public level is also suffering in the same way. >> terrific. thank you. i am going to have my microphone master scramble up this way and we are going to get one last question and then we will take most of the questions -- both of the questions. a round of applause for dan's work on the microphone here. could you stand up? >> mr. latham said that there were a number of individuals that were in favor of raising the estate tax. i wonder if there is any consensus about what they want a number to be? are they thinking about some other number? >> i am going to parts of these

up bigger we have a few minutes. you have been a wonderful audience. great questions. our twitter fans, great questions as well. we asked a few minutes ago about state and local taxes. property tax is something, by and large, run at state level. but are there ways, as we talk about a federal policy debate, that we can begin to address education funding? should we? and what is the most equitable way to make sure that our schools are funded adequately? does somebody have a notion on this? bob is smiling slightly. >> is an interesting question. some states on the more of their education through taxes other than property taxes. they're generally known as southern states. not spend much in education. that is possibly an advantage to the property tax. people see it as going to their

kids or their neighbors' kids, and they're willing to pay it. it is certainly not the world's most progressive tax, the most regressive either, but this kind of ownership people have over it the schools seems to be a factor in increasing education spending. >> some states to try to move the money from wealthier districts to poorer areas, -- >> some states get away with it. va does it. hardly any complaining. i do not know how we do it. >> the mason-dixon line is the rappahannock river. >> it keeps moving south. >> the estate tax. mike, where are you going with that? >> most people want to see the exemption of about $1 million more than they have. i literally found this to be true. when we started this work in

2000, actually, there was a repeal of the estate tax that had passed both houses and then clinton veto the repeal. then bush made it sort of the engine of his tax cuts in 2001. we turned it into the caboose, and have kept it there, with a lot of pressure. there are a lot of groups out there, 78 organizations, citing a letter -- signing a letter. we are working within mcdermott legislation, and jim mcdermott from washington, suggesting $1 million per person, $2 million per couple. fighting that is quite a lot of money. people on the coasts, in california and on the east coast, some of the big cities where property valley gets to $1 million pretty quickly, feel like that is too low. certainly, we do not need to be $5 million, $3.5 million per

person, $7 million per couple. and what is the right? is it going to be as low as 35% now or go back to a 45% rate and then have it graduated above that? and then hopefully indexed for inflation, which is a key thing. this is how we got into this mess. we still have a gradual estate tax that a lot of people paid. then as wealth went up, that did not change at all. now it just kicks in immediately at 45%. i would like to see it go lower and start more gradually. that is perhaps a dream. >> thank you. just to wrap up, i want to go around the panel and give people a last moment to give us a bill, proposal, idea, that they ought to think should be in the mix of our system.

>> can i read a story instead? we launched a tumblr blog where there are wealthy people in the 1% that say they are standing with the 99%. it is amazing. people wrote pictures of themselves with a sign. one is from -- i would just read it. i made millions studding the map of mortgages and bonds and helping bankers pass the chartered financial analysts exam. it is not fair that i have retired incumbered after working with that instruments welcome to work as nurses, teachers, soldiers, etc. are worried about paying for their future, healthcare, and children's educations. they are the backbone of this country and allow me to succeed. i'm willing to pay more in taxes so that everyone can afford to secure future, like i do. i am the one%, i stand with the 99%, which equals 100% of

america. tax me. [applause] this is a blog started by young people, but people all over the country have signed on. one more brief piece from a younger man. i made more than i need after a couple of years of hard work. now i am giving back, but i cannot do it on my own. i need government help to reduce to be my wealth. tax me. the message i wanted to leave everybody with is, this is a moment. people on this panel know a lot more than me about the political moment and the opportunities, but this is -- people are talking about a movement moment. there are people who are waking up and listening to the message that occupy has popularized in different ways. there are people who will back this legislation, moving forward. >> where can people find what you were just reading online? >> westandwiththe99percent.org.

>> i would ask people in the audience and policy makers, when they hear tax reform, keep two things in mind. first, the country has huge budget deficits in the future and will make some gut wrenching choices. it is more about the revenue than it is about the reform. . the very large budget deficit is because the folks on wall street where running up a huge

bubble and wrecked the economy perry we have an obligation to give back to them. and we should give back a nice speculation tax. >>dean baker, mike lapham, >> we are not investing as a country. the 02 fair economy.org/open letter. >> rohrabacher -- >> i think you have to get rid of the preferential rates. from capital gains. that has contributed to any quality in the last 15 years. we have to get rates equalized on that income. >> our friend bob mcintyre -- >> just google citizens for tax

justice. i must have said what ever you are thinking. [laughter] >> we have had a terrific panel. we have covered more turf today, more important tariff then all sessions of congress. i want to leave you with a quote from 111 years ago --"the people have been promised equal unjust taxation for years and have borne repeated disappointments and delays in the fulfilment of those promises with great fortitude but their patience is not limit less." thank you so much for joining us. >> let's hear it for the green team. [applause] >> i just want to thank everyone for coming out and i want to direct your attention to the back of your program. this as an event sponsored by her sister organization, americans for democratic action. it is a rally happening on tax

day. if you like to come out and express the idea that paying taxes is patriotic and that real tax reform involves making sure everyone pays their fair share, we invite you to join you can go to stop the pledge.org viewer watching at home. if you want to learn more about adaedfund.org. keep your eyes on the tax issue. it will be a hot one. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the tax filing deadline is next tuesday, april 17. the senate will have its procedural vote on the so-called buffett rule which would set a 30% tax for the wealthiest americans. president obama again today talked about that and suggested that ronald reagan would have backed the plan saying that if it will help convince folks in congress to make the right choice, we could call at the reagan rule instead of the bop rules. he spoke at the executive office building earlier this morning.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states. [applause] >> thank you. it is wonderful to see you, especially you. [laughter] oh, man, i know - having to listen to a speech. [baby crying] it is wonderful to see you. lately we have been talking about the fundamental choice that we face as a country. we can settle for an economy where a shrinking number of people do very, very well and everybody else is struggling to get by or we can build an economy where we are rewarding hard work and responsibility, an

economy where everybody has a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. the people who have joined me here today are extremely successful. they have created jobs and opportunities for thousands of americans. they are rightly proud of their success. veil of the country that made their success possible and most importantly, they want to make sure the next generation, people coming up behind them, have the same opportunities they had. they understand that for some time now, when compared to the middle class, they have not been passed to do their fair share. they are here because they believe there is something deeply wrong and irresponsible about that. at a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1% of people in this country has climbed to levels we have not seen since the 1920's,

these same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. in fact, one in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hard- working middle-class households. while many millionaires to pay their fair share, some take advantage of loopholes, shelters, that let them get away with paying no income taxes whatsoever. that is all perfectly legal under the system that we currently have. you have heard that my friend warren buffett pays a lower tax rate and his secretary. because he is the one who has been pointing that out and saying we should fix it. executives who are with me today agree with him. they agree with warren buffett that this should be fixed. they have brought some of their own assistance to prove that same point. it is just plain wrong that middle-class americans pay a higher share of their income in

taxes than some millionaires and billionaires. it is not that these folks are excited about the idea of paying more taxes. i have yet to meet people who just love taxes. nobody loves paying taxes. in a perfect world, nobody would have to pay taxes. we would have no deficits to pay down. school and bridges and roads and national defence and caring for our veterans would happen magically. we would all have the money we need to make investments in the things that help us grow. investments that have always been essential to the private sector success as well, not just important to the people directly benefit from these programs but historically, those investment we have made in infrastructure, education,

science, technology, transportation -- that is part of what has made us an economic superpower and it would be nice not to have to pay for them. this is the real world that we live. we have real choices and real consequences. we've got a significant deficit that will have to be closed. right now, we have significant needs it want to continue to grow this economy and compete in this 21st century hyper- competitive technologically- integrated economy. that means we cannot afford to keep spending more money on tax cuts for wealthy americans who don't need them and were not even asking for them. it is time we did something about it. i want to emphasize that this is not simply an issue of read- distributing wealth. that is what you hear from those who object to a tax plan that is

fair. this is not just about fairness. this is about growth. this is also about being able to make the investments we need to succeed and it is about we, as a country, being willing to pay for those investments and closing our deficits. that is what this is about. next week, members of congress will have a chance to vote on what we call the buffettt rule. if you make more than $1 million per year, not if you have $1 million, but if you make more than $1 million per year, you should peg at least same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families. if, on the other hand, you make less than $250,000 per year like 90% of american families, your taxes should not go up. that is all there is to it. that is pretty sensible. most americans agree with me.

so do most millionaires. one survey found that 2/3 of millionaires support this idea and said to nearly half of all republicans across america. we just need some of the republican politicians here in washington to get on board with where the country is. i know that some prefer to run around using the same reflexes and false claims about wanting to raise people's taxes but they won't tell you the truth. i have cut taxes for middle- class families each year i have been in office. i have cut taxes for small business owners not once or twice but 17 times. for most of the folks in this room, taxes are lower than they have been or as low as they have been in 50 years. there are others who say this is just a gimmick. taxing millionaires and billionaires and imposing the warren buffett will not do enough to close the deficit. well, i agree.

that is not all we have to do to close the deficit. the notion that does not solve the entire problem does not mean we should not do it at all. there are enough excuses for inaction in washington are we certainly don't need more excuses. the warren buffett rule is something that will get us moving in the right direction towards fairness, economic growth, it will help us close our deficit, and is more specific than anything the other side has proposed so far. if republicans in congress were truly concerned with deficits and debt, i am assuming that would not just a proposed to spend an additional $4.60 trillion on lower tax rates including an average tax cut of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in america. they want to go in the opposite direction. they want to double down on some of the inequities that already exist in the tax code. if we are going to keep giving

somebody like me were some of the people in this room, tax breaks that we don't need and we cannot afford, then one of two things happens -- either you got to borrow more money to pay down a deeper deficit or you've got to demand deeper sacrifices from the middle class and you've got to cut investments that help us grow as economies. you've got to tell seniors to pay little bit more for their medicare. you've got to tell the college students will have to trot -- charging higher interest rates under student loans. you will have to tell that working family that is scraping by the table have to do more because the wealthiest of americans are doing less. that is not right. the middle class has seen enough of this over last few decades. we should not let that happen. we will not stop investing in the things that create real and

lasting growth in this country just so folks like me can get an additional tax cut. we will not stop building first- class schools and making sure they've got science labs in them. we will not fail to make investments in basic science and research that could cure diseases that harm people or create the new technology that ends up creating and jobs in industries that we have not seen before. in america, prosperity is not just trickled down from a wealthy few. prosperity is always -- has always been built in the bottom up, from the part of the middle class out word. it is time for congress to stand up for the middle class and make our tax is fairer by passing this warren buffett rule. i am not the first president to call for this idea that everybody has to do their fair

share. one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. he gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates and his secretary and wanted to come to washington and tell congress what was wrong. so does president give another speech where he said it was crazy "that certain tax loopholes make it crazy for millionaires to pay nothing while the bus driver was paying 10% of his salary." that wild eyed socialist tax writing class warrior was ronald reagan. he thought that in america, the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so. i know that position might disqualify him from the republican primary these days - [laughter] but what ronald reagan was calling for them is the same thing we are calling for now, a

return to basic fairness and responsibility. everybody doing their part. if it will help convince folks in congress to make the right choice, we could call up the reagan rule instead of the buffett rule. the choice is clear -- as though this kind of and i'm asking every american that agrees with me to call your member of congress and write them an e- mail or tweet them and tell them to stop giving tax breaks to the wealthiest americans who don't meet them and are not asking for them and tell them to start asking everybody to do their fair share and play by the same rules so that every american who was willing to work hard has a chance at similar success said that we are making the investments that help this economy grow so that we are able to bring down our deficit in a fair and balanced and sensible way. tell them to pass the buffett rule.

i will keep making this case across the country because i believe this rule, is consistent with those principles and those values, helps make us this remarkable place where everybody has the opportunity. each of us is only here because somebody somewhere felt responsibility not only for themselves but also for their community and for their country. they felt a responsibility to us, to future generations, and now it is our turn to be similarly responsible. it is our turn to preserve the american dream for future generations. i want to thank those of you who are here with me today and thank everyone in the audience and want to appeal to the american people -- let's make sure we keep the pressure on congress to do the right thing. thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the u.s. senate returns from monday from their recess and will take a break procedural vote in the afternoon of legislation by senator sheldon white house related to the buffet rule with coverage of the senate of course and our companion network, cspan 2. coming up later today on c-span 2 at 6: 30 p.m. eastern, ruth bader ginsberg, sonia sotomayor, and elena kagan will pay tribute to sandra day o'connor at the newseum washington bridge she is celebrating the 30th anniversary of her appointment to the supreme court, the first woman appointed to the supreme court and we will have live coverage at 6:30 on c-span 2.

on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the coverage of the indiana senate debate between richard lugar and challenger state treasurer richard murdock live on c-span at 7:00 eastern. secretary of state hillary clinton traveled to the naval academy in annapolis, maryland yesterday to talk about u.s. strategy in asia-pacific region and she spoke at an annual foreign affairs conference bringing together students from the u.s. and other foreign countries. this year's conference was titled "eclipse of the west." it examines america's relations with china. this is just over one hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, please rise.

>> please be seated. good evening, brigade, and distinguished guests and welcome to those george ennis for the 52nd annual may be academy conference. it is my honor to introduce our speaker, the hon. hillary rodham clinton, 67 united states secretary of state for secretary clinton's service has been nothing less than extraordinary. she has contributed nearly four decades of public service as an advocate, attorney, first lady, and united states senator prior to being appointed secretary of state. the secretary of state is the president's chief foreign affairs advisers. she carries out the president's foreign policies through the state department and the foreign service of the united states. please help me in giving a warm

welcome to secretary clinton. [applause] >> thank you very much. thanks for that warm introduction, zach. thank you, jordan, who will be helping to moderate the questions at the end of my remarks. vice admiral miller and capt. clark, thank you for the very warm welcome in that you have given me. i also want to recognize longtime friend, the governor of the great state of maryland, martin o'malley and i understand that we have delegates from the naval academy foreign affairs conference from schools literally around the world including some fulbright scholars. let me welcome all of you as

well. i just hope they don't make you climb herndon before you leave the academy. [laughter] ms. shipman , to protecting this time away from your studies. - mid-shipmen, thank you for taking the time away from your studies. [laughter] you will take just any excuse. [laughter] i'm sure you would rather be sleeping. [laughter] [applause] youngsters, well, you are still just glad you are not plebes. [laughter] and second class, you would rather, i'm sure, be catching up on some homework. [laughter] and firstees, you are already

dreaming of throwing your cover in the air and putting all of this in your rearview mirror. [cheers and applause] >> to one and all, it is such an honor for me to be here this evening. i am fortunate to know and work with quite a few graduates of this academy and to call many of them my friends including the former chairman of the joint chiefs, retired admiral mike mullen and admiral harry harris, class of 1978, who travels the world with me and is here with me tonight. as i was signing the guest book, i know you've recently heard from my former colleague, senator john mccain, who by his own admission, was nowhere near the top of his class but that did not stop him from becoming a genuine american hero and a

great colleague and traveling companion during my years in the senate. i received a note, and email, from another graduate i know, just in the last day who had heard that i would be coming here to the academy. he wanted me to understand how this academy prepares you, not just for a military service, but for citizenship and life. carlos came to annapolis after fleeing cuba as a child with his parents who both worked two jobs to make a new life in america. the naval training he received helped him eventually become the first commanding officer of a guided missile destroyer and his study of strategy and diplomacy landed him a job as a

white house fellow. that is not all. he used what he learned in, yes, electrical engineering classis, and i know how much you all of those -- to start his own small business that now employs 50 people. the academy's emphasis on integrity and character lead this first generation american to get involved in his own community and even to make a run for local office. in his e-mail to me, he said "my life would not be what it is today if it were not for the united states naval academy. annapolis taught me to always strive in my own small way to make a positive difference in the lives of others because it is the right thing to do." that is not only a wonderful

sentiment for an individual's life but also for our country and our country's future. you see, we need you to become leaders who can use every tool and every bit of training to make contributions across a wide range of disciplines. the challenges of the 21st century are blurring the lines between defense, diplomacy, and development -- the three d's of foreign policy. we need officers who can fight wars, negotiate agreements, and provide emergency relief all at once. call it the smart power navy. that is what annapolis is preparing you for and that is what your country is counting on. as we consider this future, let us also remember our past.

this is the forestall lecture, named for the first ever secretary of defense, james forrestal. he helped create the modern military and reorganize the government for the cold war. throughout his career, he championed the the navy as a pillar of america's global leadership. that was not always a popular position. after world war two, many americans would have been happy if we just retreated behind our borders. secretary forrestal was part of an extraordinary generation of leaders who realized that interest were inextricably linked to the future of people everywhere. in the 1946, he noted in his

diary that the soviets believed that the post-war world should be shaped by a handful of great powers acting alone. the american point of view, he wrote, is that all nations, professing a desire for peace and democracy, should participate. in the years that followed, the united states and its partners constructive a new international order, and architecture of institutions, norms and alliances that delivered peace and prosperity across what was then called the free world. we saw old rivals like france and germany feeling secure enough to reconcile and stop their cycle of conflict. we watched as increasing

integration raised standards of living, as fundamental freedoms became enshrined in international law and as democracy took root and tried. -- and thrived. no tertullian empire today threatens the world but new actors -- no totalitarian empire is today threaten the world a new actors have risen. emerging regions, especially the asia-pacific, are becoming t -- key drivers of global politics and economics. as a result, the post-war architecture is in need of some renovation. still, amidst all this change, two constants remained -- first, a just, open, and sustainable and international order is still required to

promote global peace and prosperity. second, while the geometry of global power may have changed, american leadership is as essential as ever. i have said that the 21st century will be america's specific century just like in previous centuries have been. previous centuries have been. and today, i want to describe briefly the diplomatic, economic, and military investments the united states is making in a strong network of institutions and partnerships across the asia-pacific. this vast region from the indian ocean from the western shores of the americas is home to half the world's population. several of our most trusted allies, emerging economic powers like china, india, and

indonesia, and the world's most dynamic trade and energy routes. surging u.s. exports to the region are helping drive our economic recovery here at home, and future growth depends on reaching further into asia's growing consumer base and expand middle-class. indeed, the shape of the global economy, the advance of democracy and human rights, and our hopes for a 21st century less bloody than the 20th century, all hinge on a large degree, to what happens in the asia-pacific. take a look at this month's had nine. it shows the challenges and opportunities that the region presents. -- had a line. as we meet here tonight, north korea is readying a long-range

missile launch that will violate u.s. security council resolutions and put its neighbors and the region at risk. this new threat comes only weeks after north korea agreed to a moratorium on nuclear and missile testing. the speed of the turnaround raises questions about john chiang's series this in saying it desires to improve relations with us and its neighbors. this launch will give credence to the view that north korean leaders see improved relations with the outside world as a threat to the existence of their system. recent history strongly suggests additional provocations' may follow. so we are working around the clock with south korea and japan, to strengthen our alliances and sharpen our

deterrent. as president obama said in seoul last month after visiting the demilitarized zone, the commitment to the people of the republic of south korea is unshakable. we will also work with crescenta and china. they both share a strong interest in the stability of the korean peninsula. and we'll join in sending a message to the north koreans that true security will only come from living up to commitments and obligations, first and foremost, to their own people. yet, at the same time, burma offers a meaningful opportunity for economic and political progress. for decades, that southeast asian nation has been locked behind an authoritarian curtain while many other countries in the region made successful

transitions to vibrant democracies and open markets. for the united states, supporting these transitions has been one of our defining efforts in asia pacific, from south korea to the philippines, to thailand, and indonesia. in fact, i've often frustrated that people forget how hard it was for those four countries to make their transition. they went through all kinds of military dictatorships, coups, and instability. we have to continue to have the patience and persistence to nurture the flickers of progress that i saw when i visited burma, the first visit by a secretary state in 50 years. of course it is still too early to say how this story will end, but just nine days ago, the long

imprisoned nobel peace prize winner aung sang su kyi was elected into parliament. a quick glance at burma and north korea shows we have a deep stake in how that history plays out. so from our first days in office, the obama administration began directing foreign policy to account for the asia- pacific's growing importance. i grew up with tradition and made my first overseas trip there as secretary. president obama has traveled to the western pacific four times. we stepped up our commitment to countries and institutions in what i call forward-deployed diplomacy. we are not turning away from our old friends or interests in other parts of the world. our relationship could european

and nato allies who are, after all, our partners of first resort, remained indispensable for our work around the globe. and we need to deepen our engagement in the asia-pacific region, in coordination with them. so just as we are not losing old friends, we are not seeking new enemies. today's china is not the soviet union. we are not on the brink of a new cold war in asia. just look at the ever expanding trade between our economies, the connections between our people, the ongoing consultations between our governments. in less than 35 years, we have gone from being two nations with hardly any ties to speak up, to being poorly, inescapably interdependent. inat requires adjustments an thinking and adjustments on both sides.

geopolitics today cannot afford to be a zero sum game. a thriving china is good for america, and a thriving america is good for china, so long as we both thrive in a way that contributes to the regional and global good. let me go one step further. we will only succeed in building a peaceful, prosperous asia pacific, if we succeed in building an effective u.s.-china relationship. so our aim is to build a mature and affected institutions that can mobilize common action, and settle disputes peacefully. to work towards rules and norms that help manage relations between peoples markets -- peoples, markets, and nations, and establish security arrangements that provide security and build trust. i am well aware that some in

asia fear that a robust american presence and our talk of architecture, and institutions, and norms, it is really a code for protecting western prerogatives and denying rising powers their fair share of influence. the argument goes that we are tired -- trying to draw them into a rigorous system that favors us. well, that is just not the case. we agree that regional and international architecture cannot remain static. rules and institutions designed for an earlier age may not be suited for today. so we need to work together to adapt and update them, and even to create new institutions where necessary. but there are principles that are universal and that must be defended.

fundamental freedoms and human dignity. it an open, free, and transparent, and fair economic system. the peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for the territorial integrity of states. these are norms that benefit everyone and that help all people and nations with and trade in peace. the international system, based on these principles, helped fuel, not foil, the rise of china and other emerging powers, such as india and indonesia. those nations have benefited from the security provides, the markets it opened, and the trust it fosters. and as a consequence, they have a real stake in the success of that system, and as their power grows and their ability to contribute increases, the

world's expectations of them will rise as well. but some of today's emerging powers in asia and elsewhere act as selective stakeholders, picking and choosing when to participate constructively and when to stand apart from the international system. and while that may suit their interest in the short term, it will ultimately render the system that has helped them get to where they are today and workable, and that would end up impoverishing everyone. history shows us a strong regional architecture can bring to bear incentives for corp. and his intensive for provocation and problematic behavior. but this kind of architecture did not just spring up on its own. just as nato and other aspects of the post-world war ii

architecture happened. it takes consistent effort, strong partnerships, and crucially, american leadership. that is at the core of our strategy in the asia-pacific. all of our actions, diplomatic, economic, and military, are designed to advance this goal. let me offer three examples of how it works. first, president obama attended something called the east asia summit this past november. east asia summit is a gathering of heads of state of the nations in the region that grapple with the biggest challenges and pursue a comprehensive solutions, whether on non- proliferation, disaster response, or maritime security. but no u.s. president had ever attended before, and president obama's decision to participate capped three years of intensive

engagement with institutions like the association of southeast asian nations and the asia-pacific economic cooperation, and reflected our support for the east asia summit as the region's premiere forum to discuss in political and security issues. having institutions like this can make a difference. take the south china sea. it connects many of the region's nations, some of whom have competing claims of its waters and the islands. half the world's merchant tonnage flows through the south china sea, so the stakes for maritime security and freedom of navigation bar very high. the united states has no territorial claims there and we do not take sides in territorial disputes, but we have always been a sea-faring nation, and we have an abiding interest in protecting the seas, and

respecting international law, and promoting the peace for resolution of disputes that cries out of navigation. trying to settle complex disputes like this bilaterally, one on one, was a recipe for confusion, and even potentially confrontation. there were too many overlapping claims and interests, and the concerns of some countries were being elevated, while others were being diminished. but when president obama joined his fellow leaders at the east asia summit, they were able to support a region-wide efforts to protect unfettered access to the south china sea, work toward developing a code of conduct, and respect a legitimate interests of all claimants to insure disputes were settled through a consensual process based on established principles of international law. it was a reminder that, for certain issues, there is no substitute for putting the relevant players in the same room and giving them a chance to

begin to exchange ideas and work towards sorting out problems. in cases like this one, smaller countries that can be sure their voices are heard, and larger countries, which have a significant stake in a broader regional security and stability, can pursue solutions to these complex challenges. that is what an effective architecture permits. here is a second example which demonstrates how strong rules and norms that are in people's lives. as part of that same trip last november, the president build momentum for a new far reaching trade agreement called the trans-pacific partnership, that we are negotiating with eight other countries in asia pacific region. this agreement is not just about eliminating barriers to trade, although that is crucial for boosting u.s. exports and creating jobs here at home. it is also about agreeing on the

rules of the road for an integrated pacific economy that is open, free, transparent, and fair. it will put in place strong protection for workers, the environment, intellectual property and innovation, all key american values, and it will cover emerging issues such as the connectivity of the regional supply chains, the competitive impact of state-owned enterprises, and create trade opportunities for more small and medium-sized businesses. these kinds of rules help level the playing field for all countries and companies, and when the competition is fair, and the rules are transparently known, and there are systems to enforce them, american businesses can out-compete and out-innovate anyone in the world. of course, the rules only work if they are known and enforced,

which is why this administration continues to bring suits against violators of trade norms, and to speak up against abuses. and on the subject of norms and rules, let me add, the united states is increasingly concerned about the growing threat to our economic and national security posed by cyber intrusions. particularly, the theft of intellectual property and classified materials via cyber means. because the united states and china are two of the largest global cyber actors, establishing clear an acceptable practices in cyberspace is critical. and i was delighted to hear from admiral miller that the naval academy is introducing a cyber course that will begin to not only educate you about the are

paternities and challenges in cyberspace, but help prepare you for what will certainly be an essential function of our defense. now, we will kinney to be very candid about this and clear eyed in addressing the harms and risks that have evolved over the past few years. at the state department, we are attacked countless times every single day. actually, our defenses are not breach, but sometimes people, for whatever reason, the side they want to dump national security material into the public domain, so we have to figure out how to deal with the human factor while we build up our technical expertise. my third example will be familiar to many of you because it deals with how strong alliances and partnerships, especially our military cooperations, with military's around the world, save lives,

builds trust, and advances our interest. for decades, the united states military and our enduring and alliances with japan, south korea, australia, japan, as the philippines, and thailand, have underwritten security in the asia-pacific. every day, the navy has some 50 ships, hundreds of aircraft, tens of thousands of sailors and marines in the pacific at any given time, and the navy's role is growing, as evidenced by president obama's new defensive strategic guidance. each year, u.s. navy ships and sailors and marines participate in more than 170 bilateral and multilateral exercises, and conduct more than 250 port visits in the region. when of my favorite visits was of the uss mccain to vietnam.

this allows us to respond more quickly and efficiently when we need to work together with partners, such as responding to natural disasters. one of the most environmentally volatile areas of the world. i hope you know and are proud of the navy's efforts after the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis in japan last year. the fleet had developed a close partnership with the japan maritime self-defense force over many decades, so we were able to work hand in hand, deliver food and medical supplies, conducting search and rescue missions, and evacuating the injured, and so much more. after the operation was over, i have the chance to visit with the crew of the destroyer, the u.s. as fitzgerald, when we were both in manila, and they told me how all of that preparation and partnership had paid off. to maximize our ability to participate in these kind of

efforts all over the asia- pacific, and to be an increasingly diverse set of security challenges, the united states is moving to a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture in the region. we are sending marines to australia for joint training, the first six month rotation of the plan to arrive in darwin last week. we are deploying state of the art ships to singapore. we are modernizing our basing arrangements with allies in northeast asia. we are also working hard to reduce the risk of this calculation or miscues between the american and chinese military, and to try to forge a durable military to military relationship. our navy has already worked together to combat piracy off the horn of africa, but we can, should, and we must do more together. we also hope to strengthen the

newly established strategic security dialogue which brings american and chinese military and civilian leaders to the table to discuss sensitive issues, like maritime security and cybersecurity. here is the bottom line, which i think is worked remembering as you prepare for your future is in the navy and marine corps. extraordinary service and sacrifice of america's men and women in uniform makes a difference in the lives of people all over the world. in this region, it made a difference in the lives of those people in the japanese community rescued from the floodwaters, or to the singaporean sea captain protected from pirates, or the korean family shielded from aggression. when it comes to insuring stability and security in the

asia-pacific and beyond, there is simply no substitute for american power. only the united states has the global reach, the resources, and the resolve to deter aggression, rally coalitions, and project stability into diverse and dynamic areas of the danger, threat, and opportunity. now, this is not 1912, when friction between a decline in britain and a rise in germany set the stage for global con -- conflict. it is 2012, and a strong america is welcoming new powers into an international system designed to prevent global conflict. we have come through a long decade of war, terrorism, and recession, and these continue to be difficult days for many of our fellow americans, but

america still has the world's largest economy with the most productive workers, the best universities, the most innovative companies. our military is the finest in the history of the world, far outclassing any rivals. there is no other nation that boasts a global network of alliances and partnerships, that can project force on every continent and in every ocean, and just as importantly, no other nation can bring disparate countries and people together around common goals. i see it when i travel across asia and the world. american leadership is respected and required. yes, this is because of our military and our material might, but it is more about our values, and our commitment to fairness, justice, freedom, and democracy. our record be not be perfect,

but the united states consistently, over history, seeks to advance not just our own good, but the greater good. and this is part of what makes american leadership so exceptional. there is no real precedent in history for the role we play or the responsibility we have shouldered, and there is no alternative, but our global leadership is not a birthright. it has been earned by each successive generation staying true to our values and living up to the best traditions of our nation. in the years ahead, it will be up to you and your classmates to carry this important work for part. one of the enduring memories of my own childhood is listening to my father talked about his service in the navy during world war ii. he was a chief petty officer responsible for training thousands of new recruits at

great lakes naval station outside chicago. before they shipped out to sea, mostly to the pacific theater. he never forgot how it felt to watch those young men get loaded onto troop trains heading for the west coast. knowing that many would never return home. he never lost his sense of duty or his belief in our exceptional country. after he died, i received letters and photographs from so many of the sailors that he had trained, and had served with him. even all those years later, they shared a deep and abiding faith in our nation and the work we must do in the world. one day soon, you, too, will leave this place and board ships, submarines, and aircraft bound for distant seas. some of you will sail the

atlantic, renewing old bonds and defending old friends. others will have to the pacific to face the challenges of a new time. wherever you go, you will represent the pride and power of this great nation we cherish. and you will embody our hope for a freer, more peaceful and prosperous world. but before you head out into that world, i think you need to make some more memories here at home. so with the approval of the superintendent and the commandment, i am pleased to grant an uncharged overnight for leave at an uncharged weekend for upper-class midshipmen. [applause] thank you, thank you, for

service to our country. good luck, and godspeed. [applause] >> thank you, secretary clinton. we are going to open up the floor for a few questions. the closest microphone will be to my left and right for the delegates. secretary? >> great. ok. jordan, where should we start? right back there. straight ahead. >> madam secretary, as the

situation stands, russia is provide support for the a sod -- while other middle eastern countries are indirectly supporting syrian resistance. we're also trying to improve our relationships with the putin government. how can we best balanced these competing interests? >> those the kinds of questions i spend a lot of time every day thinking about. i appreciate your thinking about it as well. let me say a few words about syria. you are right assad regime is being supported, primarily by iran and russia, as well as iranian proxy, like hezbollah. it is a terrible, of violent situation which your all reading about, or seeing on the screen,

and it has been our effort to try to reach international consensus that has so far been prevented in the security council because, primarily of russia, but also china joining russia to veto or block any action that might have the support of the united nations. kofi annan, the joint special envoy of the united nations and the arab league, reported to the security council today, today,assad's commitment to abide by the plan that was presented, he has failed to do so, and in fact, the violence is even increasing. there were two quite dangerous

incidents where syrian military forces fired across borders into turkey and lebanon within the last 48 hours. so, i will be meeting tomorrow with the foreign ministers of the so-called g * countries -- g8 countries, including russia, and we will have another go at trying to persuade the russians that the situation is deteriorating, and the likelihood of regional conflict the thank in syria doctor challenge in syria is so much more complex than what was faced in libya in part because of the outside support that the syrian regime is receiving

makes it up. the eric snow league for the first time ever called for intervention in libya and has not been able to achieve that level of consensus because of competing concerns. so we will be working to try to reach some kind of agreement within the security council. part of the difficulty is the change in leadership that is occurring in russia. vladimir putin will assume the presidency very soon, but he is not president yes. it appears that medvedev will be prime minister. he is putting together a government, but it is not put together yet. so the russians have a long-term relationship with the assad family.

they sell a lot of arms, continuing to do so, to the assad regime. they use a port in syria that has been made available to them for a number of years. so there are a lot of deep connections between russia that go beyond whoever the leader is and syria. so i think there will be a very rough couple of days in trying to determine whether we go to the security council seeking action, knowing that russia is still not on board but continuing to require them to have to either veto or abstain and see what we can try to bring about, because we are not going to give up. we are going to keep pushing for both humanitarian and strategic reasons. i spoke late last night with

the foreign minister of turkey, and the turks are up upset with the barrage of fire coming across their border, with them setting forests along the border on fire to flush out opposition fighters. people were killed in turkish territory. this situation is only getting more dangerous. the russians have consistently said they want to avoid a civil war and a regional conflict, but their refusal to join with us in some kind of cructive action is keeping assad in power, well-armed, able to ignore the demands of his own people, of his region and the world. so we are going to keep pushing as pardon as we can until we get some action that can

provide at the very minimum humanitarian access and keep pushing a political transition. there is no satisfying immediate answer, but that is part of what diplomacy is. you get up every day and keep going at it. it is oftentimes quite frustrating, but there isn't seem to be any other path but that one to follow right now. >> thank you very much, ma'am. [applause] >> midshipman second class blackman. secretary clinton, in my french class we discussed the conflict in congo. as part of your african tour you visited congo. could you expand on your experience in this region as well as provide us with insight on where you see the united states future involvement in

providing humanitarian aid to these areas rocked by genocide. what role can we as young americans have in putting an end to this violence. >> well, thank you for asking about africa and specifically about congo. you know, probably the two worst conflicts over the last 20 years in terms of loss of life were in the conflict between sudan and what is now known as south sudan, which unfortunately seems to be heating up again, and the conflict in the eastern congo. i was in goma in 2009, which is in the center of the ongoing atrocities committed by marauding militias and

undisciplined soldiers, members of either the congress leases -- congress lease arms or armies of neighboring countries. many people have been killed in the last 20 years. it was both a gut-wrenching experience to go to the refugee camps, the hospitals, where survivors, particularly women and children who have been brutally assaulted, are cared for, and it was exhilarating because so many of the people i met with were looking to the future dispute what horrors they had personally experienced. the level of violence seems to have receded to some extent. part of the reason for that is that the lord's resistance

army, which was one of the marauding bands, has moved out of the congo. you asked what we could do. well, the president ordered 100 special forces to work with militaries in the region, primarily the ugandan military, to go off joseph koni, whom you have heard about, but who for to years has been killing, raping, kidding and abusing women and children amongs others. so the military is working its role. in addition, we have many programs from our international astance, the agency for international development, us

aid, non-governmental agencies and the faith community. so americans are active in the region, but what we have tried to do is to work towards a resolution that would take away the incentives for, number one, the exploitation of the natural resources which fuels a lot of the violence because there is a lot of money to be made subtracting all those minerals you find in your cell phone and lap tops. we have passed legislation to require our companies and hopefully to get to that international standard where all companies will have to be transparent about the business that they do in the eastern congo to try to shut down the rogue illegal mining operations, which fuel and fund a lot of the militias, to work with the neighboring countries to try to end their using

eastern congo as a proxy battle first round. after the genocide in rwanda, a lot of the militias fled into the congo. the are wanted -- rwanda government chased them. they had all kind of grievances kens koni and others. so it became a caldhon of violence. we are working on a governmental and non-governmental level, on the civilian side and the military side. but it still is a dangerous place. it really goes to show how a poorly governed country is unable to protect its own people, to run an economy, to

try to offer legitimate paths to better futures for people. so we are trying to build up the government and the institutions. i will end with this one story. when i was in one city, i learned that the way that the congolese military, which was notorious for having all these rogue commanders and soldiers who would rape, and pillage and steal and never been disciplined. they paid them by giving a big load of cash, like a pickup truck filled with cash, which was then either driven or put to a plane or even carried by occur euros courier's. a lot of the soldiers weren't

paid for years, and they turned to illegal activities to feed themselves and their families. we said wait a minute. we saw more and more people with cell phones. why don't we try to bring mobile banking to the democratic republic of congo like we did to afghanistan and get the corruption out of the hands of the military leadership, who were basically stealing from their own men and try to get it into bank accounts or the hands of the soldiers to build up some sense of reliability, discipline and loyalty. these are things that you don't think about until you actually get into a place and start analyzing why is this not working? there is a lot the united states is trying to do in all of these areas. but i thank you for raising it, because the bloodiest, most horrible conflicts that are still being waged in the world

today are in africa, and they don't get the attention they need. i am glad we have a new africom that is trying to work with governments trying to bring about peaceful resolution to conflict. thanks. [applause] >> ma'am there, is a famous picture of you in the situation room with the president and others on the night of osama bin laden's death. what was going through your mind at that moment? >> it is funny you should raise this. well, i was a senator from new york when we were attacked, and

one of my goals as a senator and then as secretary of state was to do everything i could to try to bring bin laden to justice. when i went to pakistan for the first time as secretary of state back in 2009, he said i can't believe there isn't anybody in the pakistani government who doesn't know where bin laden is. that caused a lot bit of a ruckus. but i believed that somebody had to have known where he was. so when we got the leads about where we thought he was, and we got this very small group process to try to work through all of the contingencies and problems that one would face in trying to launch an attack either by air, missile or assault, i just kept thinking about all of the people that i

had represented and helped as a senator during the years of my time as the represent any of -- representative of new york. i was very committed to doing everything we could to make the right decision about how to advise the president. it was an intense, thorough process that we went through. obviously the number of people involved was small but represented the department of defense, both civilian and military leadership, the c.i.a. and the intelligence community, the state department, the white house, and we did our very best to try to give the president

our honest assessment. ultimately it was his decision, which i fully supported, because i believed that we had to take the risk, and it was a risk, that that large house there was the haven for bin laden. so the decision was made, and i won't say anything that is not already in the public record, so some of you have probably already seen what i am about to say. our special forces, who were given the responsibility had a lot more experience because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, because of the many missions that they have had to run over all these years. i remember one of the special forces leaders saying look,

this may sound really exotic and scary to you all, speaking in the situation room, but we have probably done something similar to this. helicopter in, take the target, look for who you are after and then get out of there, we have been probably done it now a thousand times. but we still went through all of the thinking about ok, what if something goes wrong with the helicopters like we tragically saw when we tried to rescue hostages in iran. what if, what if, what if, and everybody was very honest in expressing all of their concerns. so eventually the president makes the decision. looked for a moonless night. there was concern.

but the decision was made. so when we gathered that sunday , it was a pretty intense, tense, stressful time, because the people who were actually doing it on the ground were thousands of miles away. we did have good communications . in the white house there is a large situation room in the whole protected sort of secret area in the basement, and there are smaller rooms. we were in one of the smaller rooms when the attack began, and we were able to have some communication. so we were, in real time, aware of what was happening. i'm not sure anybody breathed for 35 or 37 minutes. and for me, the worst part was

when one of the hacketts -- helicopter the. if you remember looking at the drawings of the compound. there was a yard and a wall. as the helicopter went in, the fail got stuck, and it was not flyable. that had been planned for, but it was still somewhat wore some -- worrisome that this had occurred, and it took time to get the next reserve helicopter in. but i think you could tell from the -- i wasn't even aware people were taken pictures. the white house photographer obviously was. you were so concentrating on what you could see and hear. we could see or hear nothing when they went into the house.

there was no communication or feedback coming. so it was during that time period i think everybody was particularly focused on trying just keep calm, keep prepared as to what would happen. then we got the word that they thought they had killed bin laden. think about what they had to do. it was imperative we take the body. the decision had to be made to blow up the disabled helicopter, which didn't completely work because of the way it was positioned. the seals had to take the women and children out of the house to get them away from the site of where the disabled helicopter was. we didn't want any collateral damage. all of this is happening. the bodies going out, the women

and children are coming in. the reserve helicopter is on its way, but it is not there yet. there was a lot of breath-holding. and then finally all the helicopters were up, out and on their way back to afghanistan. then we had to wait to make sure that the body really was bin laden. you had visual identification, but you needed d.n.a. there was the immediate d.n.a., and then you wanted to be absolutely sure. so the second d.n.a. test would take longer. but i think finally everybody was comfortable with concluding that yes, he was there. we did get him. they were sure of it. that is when the president went out. i was saying to admiral miller, and i think something happened similar to this at the academy. some of us went to the oval office and then walked with the

the president into the east room, where he addressed the nation. the admiral was there, i remember. so the president mays -- made his televised add. leon pinetta was there. we were walking out of the white house, and we got closer to the door of the area, we heard this roar. we didn't know what it was. we heard these incredible cheers, shutouts, and all of these students from around the area, mostly from g.w., which is near the white house and elsewhere, had just spontaneously come to the gates of the white house. many of them, like many of you,

were children when we were attacked, and this had been a part of your consciousness for as long as you could remember. so listening to those cheers, feeling the relief that came from knowing that it was a job very well done, and for me personally, having the sense that for many of those who lost their loved ones, who had been grief usly injured during that attack, could in a way they hadn't been able to before think about the future. i was very, very pleased. thank you all. [applause] >> secretary clinton, on behalf of the brigade and the naval academy foreign affairs conference and delegates, we

would like to thank you tonight. we spoke about tradition in herndon. we have another tradition here. it is what we present our four star lecturers with. [applause] >> the irony behind the jogging suit is that you may not jog in it, but you may wear it. on behalf of the naval academy, thank you again. >> oh, that's great. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

>> brigade and guests, please remain standing for the playing of "navy blue and gold." ♪ ♪

>> beat army! >> please remain standing for the departure of the official party.

>> thank you very much. please exit the same way you came in. >> a look at our live coverage coming up this evening on the c-span ned works. at 6:30, supreme court justices pay tribute to former justice sandra day o'connor. the former successities is celebrating the 30th anniversary of her appointment to the supreme court, the first woman appointed to the court. we will have that on use at 6:30. on c-span at 7:00 eastern, coverage of the indiana debate between lugar and mourdock, that is life at 7:00 p.m. >> this year's student cam competition asked students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's third prize winner

selected the 19th mend. >> the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied on account of sex. >> the courageous women marched, they fasted, and they were arrested. >> congress sheff power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. >> police, batons, hit them all over their bodies, including their heads. they changed america. >> the 19th amendment to the ups constitution was ratified on august 18, 1920. the amendment was the cull makes of the women's suffrage movement which was fought at

state and national levels to achieve the vote. >> i am a citizen of this country and culture, and the only way i participate fully is by voting. i feel it is my right and also my responsibility to vote. >> susan b. anthony and elizabeth katie stamp ton drafted the amendment and introduced it in 1878. it was 41 years later when congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification. a year later it was ratified by the regulated number of states, with tennessee's ratification being the final vote needed to add the amendment to the constitution. >> the 19th amendment was ratified with tennessee. tennessee was on the spot and became the perfect 36th and

gave women the right to vote. >> the 1834 seneca falls convention is traditionally considered the beginning of the women's rights movement. s.u.v. rajon was not the focus, and it's advancement was minimal in decades preceding the civil war. 1865 to 18 7, women's rights leader spoke in favor for inclusion of universal suffrage as a civil right, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. these amendments did nothing to promote women's suffrage. >> for too long, women in moat countries, my mother didn't have the right to vote where he same from. it is only here information a democracy like this, we have to treat this as a great honor.

>> continued settlement of the western frontier along with the establishment of territorial constitutions allowed the issue to be raised continually at the state level. exciting state legislatures began to consider suffrage bills, and several even had voter referendum, but they were not successful. efforts continued through congressional testimony, petitioning and lobbying. >> the equalities that we as americans enjoy today are the result of those great courageous americans that fought for our liberties. >> the 19th amendment's text was written by susan b. anthony with the assistance of elizabeth stanton. it was first introduced in the

senate as the anthony amendment by the senator from california. he had try to implement women's suffrage bills under our bills. but he didn't formally introduce it until 1878. stanton and other women testified before the senate in support of the amendment. the proposal sat in a committee until it was considered by the full senate and rejected by a 16-34 vote in 187. not until 1914 was the constitutional amendment again considered by the senate, where it was again rejected. >> so i think it is very important that women have this ability to choose what it is they think is important for themselves and not have it thrust upon them. >> another proposal was brought before the house on january 10, 1918. during the previous evening, president wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the house to pass the amendment. it was passed by the required

2/3 of the house, with only one vote to spare. the vote was then carried into the senate. wilson again made an appeal, but on september 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. on february 10, 1919 it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote. >> didn't give women the right of vote and a lot of other problems, and it took a lot of efforts, civil rights, women's rights and human rights to bring us to where we are getting today. >> there was consider desire among politicians of both parties to have the proposal made part of the cushion before the 1920 general elections. the president called a special session of congress so the proposal would be brought before the house begin. >> in 1919 it passed the house. on june 4, 1919 it was brought before the senate. after a long discussion, it was

passed with 56 ayes and 25 nays. within a few days, illinois, wisconsin and michigan ratified the amendments, layer legislatures being in success. other states followed sued until the amendment had been ratified by 35 of the necessary 36 state ledge slasmse. tennessee narrowly approved the amendment with 50 of the 99 members of the tennessee house of representatives voting yes. this provided the final ratification necessary to enact the amendment. >> when we become a force, a big voting block, people are going to listen to you, and i think even employers are going to listen to you in a different

way. they see women in a different way after they have gotten the vote. >> if my entire family didn't vote, i wouldn't have the same understanding of voting like i do now. >> finally in 1920, the 1th amendment gave women the right to vote. it took more than seven deck eights -- decades of civil disobedience to get the change they sought. >> two to student cam.org to see the winning documentaries. >> at this hour the associated press and several news organizations are reporting that the florida special prosecutor will file charges in the trayvon martin shooting. an announcement is expected in florida at 6:00 p.m. according to news reports this afternoon. earlier today, attorney general eric holder promised a thorough and independent review of the trayvon martin shooting. he spoke before the national

action network in washington. he said the justice department is looking into the scene in filet but withheld details about the investigation. he is fold by others discussing the issue of race in the criminal justice system. >> good morning, everyone. we are excited about beginning our convention and being here in our nation's capital. the attorney general is here. but first let me bring the founder and president of the national action network. there are no words that can really say enough about what dr. al sharpton has done in

building a movement for social justice across the united states. not only does he serve in that capacity as president and founder of the network, many of you now enjoy him every evening on politics nation on msnbc. let's give a rousing welcome to really the hardest working man in social justice, the reverend dr. al sharpton. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. certainly we are very happy to all of you that have come. some are still coming from the breakfast meetings, but we adjusted the schedule because we are honored to open our convention a man that heads the

criminal justice system for this country. let me say in introducing attorney general holder we have since his becoming attorney general worked with him and the justice department not only in our interest in civil rights cases, but in the case of violence in our communities, and gang violence. we are equally committed as a civil rights organization, to dealing with civil rights and with violence, and with gang violence and young people. we have found an open door to those discussions and partnerships under his heading, that department, since they have been in office. we have enjoyed his being with us last year, as were other cabinet members and the president. erica ford and others who work

in our anti-violence efforts are here. erica, stand up wherever you are. [applause] she said some of the young people who work around the country, took pictures with the attorney general, and they have that with great pride in their headquarters showing they can meet with the attorney general. clearly we want a spirit in our community where we look up to people that do the right thing rather than glorify those that do the wrong thing. i am honored to bring to you the attorney general of the united states, the first speaker at our convention this year, and a native new yorker for those of you unfortunate enough to be born other plays s. attorney general eric holder. [applause] >> thank you.

>> well, good morning. >> good morning. >> and new york is ins house, folks. let's get more specific. queens, new york is in the house. let's go mets. oh, come on now. there can't be any mets haters here now. thank you very much, research al. i appreciate your kind words. i am especially grateful for your prayers and for your partnership, your friendship, and also for your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve and the promises that we must fill. it is a privilege to join with you, research richardson and executive director mallory and so many leaders, officials, activists and concerned citizens in kicking off the national action network's 14th

convention. i am honored to be included in that gathering and to bring greetings from a friend of mine, president obama. [applause] each april this convention provides what i think is an important opportunity not only to observe the anniversary of dr. king's tragic death and reflect upon the lessons of his life, but also to consider where we are as a nation, to examine our values and priorities and take stock of the progress and respond -- responsibility for the work before us. it is clear that dr. king's spirit lives on. his enduring contributions have allowed me to stand as our nation's first african-american attorney general and to serve alongside our first african-american president. [applause]

the dream that he shared on the national mall that now includes a memorial in his honor has inspired countless acts of compassion and collaboration, including the creation of the national action in the work more than two decades ago. since then this organization's leaders, members and supporters have been on the front lines of our nation's fight to ensure, security, opportunity and justice for all. today this work goes all in your demands to those in power and aspirations for those in need. it goes on to civil rates to ensure voting rights, ploim opportunity, to strengthen our criminal justice system, to achieve fairness in our immigration and sentencing policies and to combat violence and crime, especially among our young people. on each of these fronts, you all are carrying on and carrying forward the work of a

leader who i believe does stand as america's greatest drum major for justice. a man of action and faith whose example continues to guide us and whose words still have the power to comfort and teach us, especially in moments of difficulty and consequence. dr. king was no stranger to such moments. throughout his life and most family usly on the eve of his death as he delivered the legendary mountain top speech that would be his final sermon on, reverend king thought about when he would choose to be alive. this went through the ages, whether at olympus, rosme, lincoln's signing of the emancipation proclamation, or roosevelt. dr. king asked himself what era he would experience and help

shape. his own he decided. happiness comes from embracing the blessings and burdens of destinies and the opportunities that come in times of living in unprecedented and heartbreaking challenge. only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. well today, once again, it is dark enough. despite the extraordinary progress that has marked the last four decades and transformed our entire society, the unfortunate fact is that in 2012 our nation's long struggle to overcome injustice, to eliminate disparities, to bridge long-standing divisions, and to eradicate violence has not yet ended. while we have not yet reached the promised land, i believe that today once more we can see the stars. we can see them in the courage and commitment of ordinary people nationwide, all ages, racing and backgrounds, who

refuse to allow fear and frustration to divide the american people, who continue to fight for the safety and civil rights of all, and who in recent weeks, in the wage of a tragedy we are struggling to understand, have called not just for answers and for justice, but also for civility and unity and a national discourse that is productive and respectful and worthy of our forebearers and children. this is critical. it must be consistently elevated and advanced, and not just in times of crisis. after all, our nation will be defined and its future will be determined by the support we provide and the doors that we open for our young people. by the steps that we take not only to keep them safe and to seek justice on their behalf, but also to stamp out the root causes of violence, discrimination, disparity and division. these efforts could not be more

important or more urgent. as you will discuss this week, that is especially true in african-american communities. just consider the fact that even though overall national crime rates are at historic lows, today the leading cause of young black men ages 16-24 is homicide. how can our nation risk losing so many of tomorrow's leaders, teachers, artists, scientists, attorneys and pastors? the of course -- the answer of course is we can. many of you are rightly concerned about the shooting death of 17 trayvon martin, a young man whose future has been lost to the ages. three weeks ago the department of justice launched an investigation into this incident, which remains open at this time and revents me from talking in detail about this matter. however, i can tell you that in

recent weeks justice department officials, including the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division and the united states attorney for the middle district of florida, robert o'neal have met with the community and the local authorities. the f.b.i. is astipping -- assisting local lawson officials. they are continuing to meet with leaders and area lawson officers to help alleviate tensions. we are communicating closely with local, state and federal officials. in all of these decisions we are listening carefully to concerns. the department will conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence. although i cannot share where our efforts will lead us from here, i can assure you that we

will examine the facts and the law. if we find evidence of a potential federal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action. and at every step the facts and the law will guide us forward. i also can make you another promise, that at every level of today's justice department, preventing and combatting youth violence and vaketization is and will continue to be a top priority. as the nation's attorney general and the father of three teenagers, i am determined to make the progress our young people need and deserve. i am proud that under this administration, the justice department has made an historic commitment to protecting the safety and potential of all of our children. in fact, for the first time in history, the department is directing significance resources for the express purpose of reducing childhood exposure to violence and raising awareness of its ramifications.

through the department's landmark defending childhood initiative, which i launched in 2007, we are working alongside key stakeholders to implement strategies for reducing violence. we are advancing scientific inquiry on its causes and characteristics and exploring ways to counters it negative impacts. >> we are making advancements in youth mentoring programs. and we are working with the department of education as well as state, local, community leaders and stakeholders to dismantle the school to prison pipeline and to ensure -- [applause] >> and to ensure that your schools are gateways to opportunity and not entry points to our criminal justice system. beyond these efforts, we are working in a range of other innovative ways to ensure fairness and expand opportunity

from successful advocating from the unfair and unjust sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine sentencing, to launching a new initiative. i am proud of the steps we have taken to restore and reinvigorate the civil rights division and to ensure in our mill bases, work places, housing and lending markets, schools, places of worship, in your immigrant communities and voting booths, the rights of all americans are protected. [applause] over the last three years, the civil rights division has filed more criminal civil rights cases than ever before, including record numbers of police misconduct, hate crimes and human trafficking cases. as our filings and setments make clear, the civil rights division is working to combat continuing racial segregation

in schools and discriminatory practices in our housing and lending markets. last year the division's fair lending unit settled or filed a record number of cases, including a $335 million fair lending setment, which is the largest in history, to hold lending institutions accountable for the disparities in lending to african-americans. in recent moves. we have taken steps to ensure the integrity, independence and trains appearance of aggressive enforcements of the voting rights act. as we have signaled through our recent actions in south carolina, in florida and in texas, we will continue to oppose discriminatory practices while also vigorously defending section five of the voting

rights act against challenges to its constitutionality. let me very clear. this administration will do whatever is necessary to ensure the continued viability of the voting rights act our nation's most important civil rights statute. [applause] >> as dr. king so often pointed out, in this great country, the ability of all eligible citizens to participate in and have a voice in the work of government is not a privilege. it is a right. >> that's right. [applause] >> and protecting the right to vote, ensuring meaningful act afternoon combatting discrimination is viewed not only as a legal issue but a moral imperative. this means we must support policies aimed at modernizing our voting system, ensuring that all eligible citizens have

access to complete and accurate information about where and when they can cast their ballot and punishing fraudulent practices, and a thought truthful dialogue on where to focus efforts. we might gun by acknowledging -- begin by acknowledges that voter fraud is rare, a point groups have acknowledged. and the different studies by organization frs the brennan center to the republican national lawyers' association have affirmed. despite its rarity, any instance of voter fraud is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the department of justice. there is no dispute on this issue, and there is no reason we should allow it to distract us from our collective responsibility to ensure that our democracy is strong, fair and inclusive as possible.

let me be clear once again. whatever reason night be advanced, this department of justice will oppose any effort, any earth to disenfranchises american citizens. but achieving this goal cannot be the work of government alone. we will continue to need your help, your expertise, your dedication and your partnership. while i am optimistic about the path that we are on and the place that we will arrive, i cannot pretend that the road ahead will be an easy one. many obstacles lie before us, and there are dark skies overhead. but if history is any guide, and i believe that it is, positive change is frequently the consequence of unfavorable, not favorable circumstance. progress is oftentimes the product of darkness, not the light. remember, it was social frustration and moral obligation that property an end to slavery and segregation,

that secured voting rights for women and civil rights for all, that provided health care for our seniors and our poor, and guaranteed decent wages for our workers. it was economic turmoil that brought us the progressive era and the new deal. and it was a civil war that inspired the correction of our constitution and the reconstruction of our union. today, despite current challenges, we must find ways to renew the sacred bonds of citizenship, and we must reaffirm the principles that have kept the great american experiment in motion. that doesn't mean that on every issue we will always agree. in this country there will continue to be competing visions about how our government should move forward, and there must always be room for discussion, for debate and for improvement. that is what the democratic process is all about, creating space for the thoughtful exchange of alds and creating opportunities to advance the progress that we hold dear.

that is our charge, and this is our moment. so let us seize the chance before us. [applause] let us rise to the challenges of our time. and in the spirit of dr. king, let us signal to the world that in america today, the pursuit of a more perfect union lives on. the march toward the promised land goes on. and the belief that -- not merely that we shall overcome, but come together as a nation continues to push us forward. may god continue to bless our journey, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> attorney general holder. [applause]

>> all right, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to get started. this is our first panel of the day. for those of you who can't look at the nametags, i will introduce them, but we have quite a panel of attorneys here for this panel this morning. my name again is michael hardy, i am general counsel to the national action network. of course it is indeed an honor and privilege that i have to,

as we say, moderate this panel, but i will simply be introducing the panelists. each of them will make a brief statement, probably no more than five minutes, because we are a little tight on time of course. but the reason why we want to do is that is we want to leave some time that may be afforded to us for you to have an opportunity to at least ask a question or two of this very distinguished and very practiced panel. the topic that we threw out to the panelists is the state of criminal justice in america. of course that is a mouthful, but again, we have practitioners here who intersect with the criminal justice system every day. and certainly within their remarks they will be able to focus on a piece of that. we know we all strive for

equality under the law. whether we are talking about trayvon martin, or in neighbors defending stop and terrific, or public officials that have been accused of some misdeed or another. it is a challenge. many have seen the criticism that america incarcerates pretty much more than any other industrial nation. another is the issues we choose to charge people with in our criminal justice system. at the end of the day it is the challenges that individuals face when confronted with the criminal justice system. we hope to touch on some of that this morning. again, i want to thank and give a big hand initially to everybody on the panel, and then i will take the time to introduce. [applause] all right. well, i will go in the order that they are sitting from my left. to my immediate left is needer

wells, jr. he is a partner. in 2010, the law journal named mr. wells one of the decade's most influential attorneys. i am sure many of you have seen his work, watched him as he has defended some of the most high profile people across this country and some friends in times of ned. we appreciate ted wells being with us this morning, thank you. [applause] next to ted is laura w. murphy. she is the director of the washington legislative office of the american civil liberties union. what can be said where this nation would be without the aclu, and thank you for joining us this morning. [applause] next to attorney murphy is e.

christie cunningham. she is a professor of law at howard university. she is currently on leave. she has been an author of many articles, including racing cause of action, oh, -- say that? there you go. the rise of identity politics. give her a hand.dr. charles ogl. he is the director of the -- many of you may recognize him as

one of the mentors for the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] billy martin is a long time practitioner. he has represented people like monica lewinsky. we're thrilled to have you with us today also. finally, we have glenn martin. the fortune society interacts with many of the individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system. once again, let's give all of our panelists a big hand.

[applause] >> in no particular order, but because of time constraints, i ee to start. opaltrea >> good morning, everybody. it is such a pleasure being in this great city once again into here are attorney-general talk about some of the issues he is concerned about. i have to run shortly and i will be back tomorrow as well for the conference. but wanted to say a few words. in 1978, i graduated from harvard law school and i had a long position with my mother. i said, mom, i'm not coming back to california. she frowned upon that and said okay. i said, i am going to go to washington, d.c. she said, that is a long way from home.

i said, i will be a public defender. she said, great, it is a good thing that you are protecting the public from all of these murders. i have to say that, as much success as we have as lawyers defending people, it amazes me that, from 19 '70s to the 21st century, we have quadrupled the number of people who are in our prisons, more than any other place in the world. it makes me even more disappointed that the one voice all of us have heard is not here today. some of you may or may not know my dear friend and big brother to me john peyton passed away just a month ago. he would of been on the panel.

these remarks are obviously dedicated to him. we were going to talk about the issue of guilty. i was good to talk about the issue of trade on martin. -- of trayvon martin. i am very pleased that the attorney general and his office is doing an independent investigation, but we have to tell the truth about what happened. trayvon martin is dead because of what he was wearing and his color. that cannot happen in the 21st century. we keep thinking of mississippi, alabama, south carolina, north carolina. this was in florida. he was where he had a right to be, where his parents were trying to protect him. and then to see this happen, it calls for all of us to rethink the criminal justice system.

no matter what happens, we cannot bring trayvon martin back. and we cannot say that at 17 his life was finished because we don't know what he could have been if he had not instructed. -- if he had not been struck dead. we have to always think about the trayvons. he is now voiceless and we have to be his voice. if we talk about reforming the criminal justice system, we have to talk about what happens to a kid who is young, who is black and has no record, who is in a gated community and dies at the hands of someone else who thought he was a drug dealer, who thought he was high, who thought he was weird. he was just a 17-year-old black male like so many in our community. bringingtalking about justice into the criminal justice system, we have to save the trayvons of the 21st system the 21st century. -f

i want to see the first black man to use the "standard round" and see if it -- "stand your ground" and see if it works. it is giving people power they should not have. it is creating an episode of targeting certain individuals. it re-entered garretts issues of racial profiling. -- it reinvigorate issues of racial profiling been anyone of us could have been that young man. the color of our skin and what we're wearing is the only thing that makes the difference. profiling is one of the major

injustices' of the criminal justice system. as i take my seat, these analysts will talk about some of the things -- let me just say this to the attorney general. i'm so glad that we reduce the disparity of crack cocaine to 100-1. it should be 1-1. we should go all the way. not just 18-1. that is a partial success. treating people fairly and equally in the criminal justice system, we have to look at that. it is a problem in our criminal justice system. we have to look at people or in jail for nonviolent drug use, not selling. we have to put justice back into the criminal justice system because it has been lost and

dropped. it is up to us to put justice back in the criminal justice system and i hope that we can do that. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank all -- i want to thank all of you for coming to this national action network convention. i am the director of the washington legislative office of the aclu and i have spent my entire 36 year career being a civil liberties advocate, a civil rights advocate and a criminal justice for former. i want to tell you a little story.

my great-grandfather john murphy started the afro-american newspaper in 1892. it was one of the largest continuously running newspapers in the nation. and the reason and the afro came about was because we wanted to chronicle the great problem of lynching and violence throughout america. and that problem of violence against african-americans is as much a part of american history as trayvon martin is. i also come from a family of lawyers, but i am not an attorney. i supervise attorneys. and thurgood marshall sued the university of maryland law school so that my father could become a lawyer in baltimore, maryland and later become a judge. so all around the dinner table, we have talked about how the criminal justice singled out

african-american men in particular. i am the mother of a 22-year-old son. i have had to teach completely different protocols than his white classmates been i feel like i could be mrs. martin, there by the grace of god. i live in a neighborhood, a development, that has gone from a mostly black to the mostly white in the 16 years i have lived there. five years ago, when my son was in boarding school, there were so few black men in our neighborhood that had to send an e-mail to my neighbors saying, please, do not call the police because you see a young black man in the neighborhood wearing a hoodie. that is my son and he lives in the neighborhood. trayvon martin affects all of us and it affects me personally. i am not satisfied with a rally. i am not satisfied with the

protests. the question is, why are we going to do about it. i am here to tell you that next week, for the first time in over a decade, the senate judiciary committee is having a hearing on racial profiling, right here in washington, d.c. i need you all to come back. we need to pack that hearing room on april 17 at 10:00 a.m. in room 226 of the dirksen senate office building and we need to be there for trade bond because there is legislation that has been wallowing in congress. it is called the end of racial profiling act. we must insist that congress

pass the end racial profiling at. it would ban racial profiling and law enforcement. it would mandate a training on racial profiling part of the history of the trayvon martin tragedy is that the stanford police department has a history of mistreating african- americans. there has to be a study of whether there is a history of racial profiling. this attorney general is investigating over 19 police departments around the country. getting back to the end racial profiling act, we have to condition federal funding and local police department on the fact that these officers get training, that they valve not to violate people's constitutional rights. we have a disease in america where it is open season on

stopping an arresting african- americans and latinos. but there is something i have to tell you. the problem is not just in black and white. since the events of 9/11, the problem is also with moslem arabs and south asians. they have to worry about flying want black. we still have to worry about walking and talking while black. the problem is that the border of our nation with latinos who are american citizens and who are being deported because of the color of their skin. so the problem of racial profiling has calcified and we must demand that congress passed the end racial profiling act. the other thing that we must do and we cannot ended unless we vote -- let me just say this. it is very fine that we passed

the act that reduces the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. but we couldn't even get all of the democrats on the senate judiciary committee to reduce the disparity. asked senator schumer where he was on that issue. so i am saying to you, unless we pass that hearing room next week, they will not get the message. all right? the other thing we need to do -- and i wish to the attorney general could have stayed for questions, because i would have asked him this question -- mr. attorney general, why are you allowing guidance on the use of race in federal law enforcement that was written by attorney general john ashcroft in the bush administration not to be updated? we need to demand that federal law enforcement officers becom commanded. he can do this with a stroke of

his pen. he does not need legislation for this. and lastly, we need more resources for the attorney general civil rights division and special investigations division. under the bush administration, that division was starved. we must demand that congress give full federal funding to the civil rights division because we know that there are more than 19 police departments that engage in racial profiling. so here's what i would like to do. you can get me started and i can get really upset about this, but i want to be known as a leader who is about solutions. and i want us to understand this is a black and white problem, but it is not just a black and white problem. i want to say to all white americans. when law enforcement uses race

as a factor to determine or to predict criminality, they are being incompetent. because race is not a predictor of criminality. we don't offend as people of color any more than white people do. but we are prosecuted more. we are incarcerated more. we are demonized more. so the community is not safe if law enforcement is using sleazy tactics like let's get all the black people or let's get all the muslim people. that's like me saying let's arrest all of the catholic people because they oppose abortion and some abortion clinics get bombed. that is not american justice. peoplet investigate because of their religion, because of their national origin, because of their skin color. i have three handouts and i will

ask my three aclu colleagues to come forward. let me tell you what these handouts are. one is a description of the end racial profiling act. the second is a press release announcing the hearing. the third are the frightening and overwhelming statistics about incarceration in america. we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. what kind of an america is that? we have more overincarceration, which is a national aclu party, then we had in the 1970's. if we wanted to go back in to the incarceration level of the 1970's, we would have to remove four out of every five prisoners from jail.

four out of every five would have to be returned to the streets to go back to those levels of incarceration. and what changed that? the war on drugs. and the war on drugs is a war on people of color. and we have to end that war on drugs, which is 41 years old. it has not reduced people dependency on drugs. and when you have people like george will concerned, raising the question whether we have to continue the war on drugs, we will not solve this as people of color alone. we have to build bridges with republicans and democrats, the way we build bridges to pass the for sentencing act that president obama signed into law. so i hope you'll take these three documents. they are very simple. take them with you. we have to live true to what nan stands for.

it is not the national procrastination network. it is the national action network. so help us take action. thank you very much. >> there are always those who have been in the background of the national action network and have been one of those that help and guided and lent a hand when needed. we also want to say thank you for being here and thank you for those years of friendship. ted wells. [applause] >> i live in new york now, but i

am a d.c. boy. i was born here. i went to coolidge high school. when i was growing up in d.c., it was a segregated city and there's no confusion that we were in the middle of a struggle for civil rights. a lot of people don't remember that washington, d.c. was one of the five school districts that was part of the brown v. board of education case. the sea was widely segregated. i started kindergarten right after the brown decision was issued. it was supposed to be integrated schools. but most of the white folks moved out of the city. by the time i got to coolidge, it was all black. but there's no confusion about the struggle. no confusion at all. the problem we have today is that a lot people don't even realize there is a struggle. a lot of people want to talk

about we live today in a post- racial society. they want to say, because barack obama is the president of the united states, because eric holder is the attorney general of the united states, then there are no problems. race is not an issue anymore. that is the thing i'm most afraid of, that you have a whole generation of people, some black, some white, who are totally confused about the state of racial fears in this country. if you look at any factor that measures the quality of life, black folks are in crisis. and the educational system is a mess. employment, we under-employed. if you look at housing, we have been hit by this recession by

the subprime crisis more than any other group. if you look at the criminal justice system, we have more african-american males incarcerated than anytime in the history of this country. it is a crisis and if you look at the plight of the black male who has the unfortunate luck to become part of the criminal justice system, that person, once he goes into the system -- and i do not care how many years he goes in -- it goes in one year, six months, his life is basically destroyed. [applause] it is not just about reducing the crack cocaine numbers so that a young black man only serves four years instead of 10 years. if he goes in at all, in this society, i can tell you right now -- he cannot vote. that is taken away from him.

he will not be able to get a job. he cannot get a job. now they have programs -- you can add even getting to certain housing projects because you have a criminal record. -- you cannot even get into certain housing projects because you have a criminal record. you have to understand that this is a national crisis in terms of black males and an increasing number of black women. it started out as a male issue, but it has broadened. this really is a crisis of both black males and females in terms of going into this criminal justice system. it scars you for life. and has ramifications far beyond the people that goes in. that families. there have brothers. they have sisters appeared i have a daughter. she is looking for a black man to marry and brothers are in jail. i want you to understand that

there is a crisis. but part of the biggest fear i have is this notion that there is no crisis. we will not be able to solve this issue just with people from the action network, just with black folks. we have to have a national dialogue about this issue. if the number of people in prison, in terms of the proportion to their representation of the population, if white folks were in prison in the same proportion as black folks, it would be a national dialogue. and we need that dialogue. but again, everybody has to realize, as great as the president is and as great as it is that we have the attorney general come speak to us today, there are a lot of people who are trying to use the fact that they are in office as an excuse not to address these issues. and anybody that talks about

this post-racial society, it is a sham. it is a scam. ok? what we have to do is make sure -- i know i am preaching to the choir here -- but we have to go out and talk to others and make sure that we can have this dialogue. unless we can change the numbers -- and we will not do it in an incremental fashion, narrowing the gap between the crack cocaine issues -- unless we can really stop putting so many black men and women into the prison system, we will not be able to get off this. i will tell you one thing. i was born in 1950. i was raised in this city. people are no different today than they were in 1950. people did not go to jail like that when i was coming up. people did not suddenly get bad. is war on drugs resulted in a quadrupling of the number of black males and females in the prison system. these people are no different

today than when i was coming up. yet you have a systematic regime that makes sure that a certain proportion of our community and imprisoned. and once you're in prison, it is like the new slavery. thank you. >> thank you. next, we will have billy martin. in new york, when they said billy martin, you think of the former manager of the yankees. but he is a slugger in his own right. billy martin. [applause] >> de morning. listening to the attorney

general and these panelists, if you get the idea that when you get up, you have to get up strong. [laughter] that is not often do in this subject. as it does not have to do on the subject. i have a different background than most of our panelists. my differences that i grew up poor. a group in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. in 1969, -- first, i am one of eight children and the only one to go to college and graduate from college. i came to d.c. in 1969. i was telling my wife, who has her own show on npr, that trayvon martin happened to me when i was 17 years old. vigilantes' stopped me and another black friend of mine, a couple of white guys. a group of black guys had been

up his younger brother and had beaten him up pretty badly. they had run and left. we were going to get a haircut, walking down the street, a car pulls up, and we thought there were asking for directions. me and my buddy walkover and a shotgun comes out of the window. and he said, which one of you niggers shot my brother? and i was gone. something said to me, don't run. i will be left right here. so we stopped. the guy was in the car bleeding. and he thought, is that them? i thought in my mind, what if he had said yes? i had an interest in being a lawyer back then. i wanted to go to school and do good things. when i came out of law school, i wanted to go want -- a wanted to

go to one of these big law firms or to the sec. but when i graduated in 1973, they were not hiring. so i went to the da's office, the only job that was offered to me when i graduated from the university of cincinnati. it was a position in the d.a.'s office in cincinnati could i thought, i can do this. as a people, we have to understand that we cannot ridicule and point fingers at those of our community who work within the criminal justice system. you need people on the inside. you need people who understand that system. we need judges who have come through the system. and we need people to understand what the system is like from the outside, what is like from the inside. so my background is one of people who decided to understand what that system is from the inside. fast forward, i joined the u.s.

attorney's office here in d.c. and i rose quickly. of the 500 lawyers that they have running here in the u.s. attorney's office, i was no. 3. so i was chief of operations here in d.c. and set a lot of policy. [applause] thank you. set a lot i can remember when i was running that office that somebody came in the office with a usable amount of cocaine, and that might be up to a gram or a little less than a gram, if they had that in their pocket, they would come in and we would pay for it, throw it out and dismiss the charges. when ted talks about all these people who were not charged, they were not charged, because prosecutors exercise discretion in not charging. when i talk to michael hardy, the state of the criminal- justice system in america, the system is the same now as it was

60 years ago. it is a system. the difference in our system, i believe, is that we now know how to address the system. we now know how to demand that the system deal with us, and we can make real change. i thought about trayvon martin and i thought about that night. for years, when the crack cocaine wars broke out in d.c., i was asked to start a homicide unit in washington, d.c as a prosecutor, and we started. i cannot imagine from the inside of the criminal justice system, the facts of this case, where a homicide detective tells me there is a guy who was following a skid who was in a car -- following this kid, who was told not to get out of the car, who got out of the car, who chased the kid down, who had a gun, who shot the kid, the kids died, and

the man claimed self-defense. [applause] i cannot imagine under any circumstances if someone representing that to me as a screening prosecutor how you don't say arrest them. and you say arrest them because it is cannot the duty of a police officer to solve that crime on the street. what is the state of criminal justice in america? the system is ok. the loss or there. lolls -- the laws are there. the law should be there for all of us. we still have people interpreting those laws. that is where the problem is. when that police officer decided that this kid was beating you up, wasn't he? that was his racial views coming

out, and that should never happen. how do we make these changes? dr. king would say, we hire more black police officers. but i can tell you that is not the answer. i think we all agree that it doesn't matter who is implementing and interpreting laws. wall somebody has to have justice in their heart and understanding what equal justice means. we talk about the state criminal justice in america. i think we have a system that we can make work, and i will tell you why. i have heard the numbers from the people who talk about the state of incarceration. when i go into any jail -- we represent white collar people. we do some civil litigation, and we represent some gangbangers. we represent criminal people who do criminal things. ted, have you ever represented a guilty person? never mind.

[laughter] every now and then you will say to somebody, what happened? and you understand your client did what they are accused of doing. the new try to figure out, how do i make the system either prevent -- that is what we do. can you prove it? if they can prove it, make the system work. ladies and gentlemen, the one thing i want to walk away saying to you today is we do need to reform our criminal-justice system so there are more checks and balances, so that we take away the ability of one individual to be able to direct a state's attorney down in florida deciding we are not going to do that. that is when the system fails. the one thing you hear people say, under no circumstance could i see it doesn't black kid who had shot among white men and walked away from there.

you look at the scales of justice, we really want this law to be enforced in a color blind system. we are going to talk today, and more the things i will be very comfortable saying to you is that when i go to visit a client or prospective client who is locked up, and i walked in that jail and i don't see anything but black males, it breaks my heart and it troubles you to know. i, too, am the father of a young black male, and i have had to learn to say to my kid, looked down at times, shut up at times, even though you are right. we want you to survive, and we should not have to do that. if there is one thing we all agree on today, living in america as a black male, you are

one word, one bad move from being arrested or shot, and we should not have a system that allows that. thank you. [applause] >> all right. we are certainly giving you a lot to think about and hopefully will guide your participation as we get there. we have a couple more speakers. we have a professor at howard university. [applause] >> good morning. first i would like to give honor to god. this is an amazing opportunity. i am very grateful to be here to speak to you about these very important issues. i want to thank the national action network for bringing this convention together at this important time, and for the work they are doing.

i have to tell you, i am a law professor at howard law school in leeds, but i am also a saucier assistant secretary for regulatory affairs at the department of labour. i am speaking to you right now in my individual and personal capacity and as a professor in leeds, not in my government capacity. nothing i might say should be a reflection of the administration. [applause] the first thing i would like to say is, we need to get in a position where we stop asking. as the palace have said, this is not a confusing situation. what are people acting like we don't know what happened?

-- as the panelists have said. we know exactly what happened. it has happened so many times before. confused, ande let's not let people who are saying is a confusing situation cloud what is going on. let me step back for a second. i will start a little personal story like everyone else did. i have a 5-year-old daughter. it is strange how god works things out. it was a cooler day to day prefers to put her in a sweater and we stepped outside, and i said she needs more than a sweater. then i put another little jacket on top of her because the weather has changed. as we are getting into the karma quick, she said money, does this have a good -- as we were

getting into the car, she said mommy, does this have aa hood? let me tell another story. i was in kindergarten in the 1970's in texas. my parents tried to send me to the neighborhood kindergarten, and they said no, because of the color of my skin. do i look that old? so what i would like to do is lay out for general steps. i only have probably four minutes now. i would like to a f a four the general steps -- i would like to lay out four general steps and if we have time we can talk about expanding those later.

first obviously is justice for trayvon martin. the national action network, the naacp, operation push, people all over the world have been working to get justice for trayvon martin. we need to continue to do that. as the panelists have said, trayvon martin is just one child. regardless of what happens in this particular situation, he is just a symbol of what happens all the time. all over the country. and in some ways, probably in other countries in the world. step two is that we need to begin working on the criminalization, and i am using that in a broad way, of people of color, nationally and internationally. so that we get to a place where

we stop asking. we have been asking in many time.rent ways for a long chym we remain in that position, we will just continue the cycle. it is like an abusive relationship. it has times where he is apologizing, the abuser is apologizing to you for putting you in a hospital last week. then you get along for a little while. but guess what? a week, a month later, he is going to put you back in the hospital, and he is going to promise that will be the last time, but guess what? as soon as you heal up, you are going to find yourself back in that same situation. so at some point you will either die or make the choice to stay in that abusive relationship, or

make the choice to leave. what i am saying is that people of color need to make the choice to leave. i will give you just a couple more minutes and give a suggestion and probably get into a little controversy with somebody on the panel, but i will try to get to it. we need to get ready. if justice does not come in the trayvon martin case, we need to prepare now to engage in nonviolent, constructive movement forward. we just need to start sending that message out. i don't know what is going to happen, but we have seen what has happened in the past. we need to get ready to not let that anger become violence, because that is a waste. we have been there before. it does not help. we get hurt. our neighborhoods get torn up,

and nothing constructive happens. so we need to lay the groundwork now, the message now that it has got to be non-violent if it goes wrong, and has to be constructive. we are moving on, moving out to different place. step number three is we need to do with the criminalization of people of color. what what -- what i mean by that, the panelists have laid out all the indicators. somebody needs to come out and just say, this comes from slavery. nobody wants to talk about that anymore. nobody likes talking about it, but it was never repaired. we cannot forget about it. it is not just black people, it is native americans, immigrant populations coming in.

they all have their different stories, but you have to repair it. what you get is disparities in health, disparities in incarceration, disparities in education. it is all of it. it is dysfunctional, but it is systematic. so here is step 3. step three is progressive, economic, and political collaboration. it is not a black thing anymore, as the panelists say. you cannot limit it to that. it has to be across the scope. we need to pick out the factors we want to address first, whether incarceration, education is what i would suggest. let's pick out some. let's go into the jurisdictions that have the worst evidence of

that. let's use some massive boat or registration. let's do some massive coalitions across the organizations. we have the capacity. let's stop asking and start telling. let set a new generation of telling folks. we have a president in power. it is not necessarily him we are speaking to. we need to identify the local targets of who we are talking to. here is where i am going to get in trouble. we have to step out of this cycle of abuse and stop wondering why we keep finding ourselves in the same situation. we are not in a post racial world.

but we have to imagine it. we have to imagine what the world looks like if it is not directed by the system, the paradigm, the slave lee created. slavery created this racial paradigm. we have been living in this racial paradigm, this color paradigm. is this all that we have to work with? is there nothing else that we can imagine? i am going to sit down, because i was doing good before i got there. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, professor. before we go to our last presenter, let me just do a couple of things, because we are going to take some questions and answers. i also want to say the politics panel and also gene sperling, director of the national council of economic advisers and assistant to the president, all that will be happening in this room as soon as we wrap up here. what do they call that, a little station announcement? as i look out, i just want to recognize one of our board members here in the room with us, dr. david jefferson senior common senior pastor of -- senior pastor of metropolitan church in new jersey and also a practicing in licensed attorney in the state of new jersey. so we welcome him today. he obviously has a special

litigation going on, for those of you who do not know dr. jefferson. glenn martin is the vice president of development of public affairs for the fortune society. [applause] >> good morning. as soon as i walked into the room and saw this panel, i said as long as i don't go last, i am ok. you have a bunch of heavy hitters. i am going to be succinct. i would like to thank michael for the introduction and thank the national action network for not just talking about these issues but for literally putting soldiers on the ground to deal with this very important issue. this is the civil rights issue of our day, and the truth is that our children and grandchildren will be the ones who issued the ultimate indictment of our generation if

we don't deal with this issue. earlier, michael said we have a panel of attorneys. i want to clarify that, i am not an attorney. there are too many cameras in the room to start playing one now. but i will tell you a little bit about who i am so i can conceptualize the rest of my statements. i have been an advocate of these issues for over 15 years now. i have drafted legislation to remove some of the collateral consequences that we have talked about today in various states to remove barriers to employment and voting for people with criminal records. a currently serving as executive of one of the most well-known reentry agencies in the country. we have been around for 44 years, the fortune society, working to help large numbers of men and women coming home from present -- coming home from prison. i served six years in prison in new york state before started doing this work.

as i think about these issues, the first thing i would like to say to this group is, if you care about social justice, prisons are the belly of the beast. before we start talking about people with criminal records and how we handle people's criminal records, let's remember one thing. if the majority of people who are committing crimes and ending up in prison are people of color, if they are coming from very specific communities and returning to very specific communities, then those are also the communities affected by victimization. when we think of what a victim looks like, we rarely envision a young black man. yes, if you go to the bureau of justice statistics websites, that is exactly who is the most prevalent victim of violent crimes in the united states. i have yet to meet a victimizer that did not start with some

sort of victimization in his or her own life. until as a country we put value behind every life that we lose in this country, we will continue to have people that go from being the victims of crime or connected to a victim of crime, to becoming victimizers. i would like to give some applause to the current administration. i think attorney-general holder talks about his reentry level cabinet initiative that brings together members of the president's cabinet to discuss how do we deal with the large numbers of people coming home from prison. 700,000 this year alone. i would like to give some applause to congress for passing the second chance act. each year for the past few years, to create resources for doing the sort of work that we do at the fortune society, reentry related work. as stated earlier, the problem is so much larger than reentry. we have 5% of the world's

population, 25% of the world prison population. 2.3 million people in prison today. 7 million people under some form of criminal justice supervision. our war on drugs has been a failure. the war on crime has been a failure. it has been a war on poor people and people of color. or broken windows theory has only led to broken families and broken communities. our racially applied policies like the one in new york city where we stop 684,000 people last year -- that is not a policing strategy, that is a war zone strategy. but reentry programs are not enough. that are important, and i am speaking as the executive at reentry program, but they are not enough. if you believe we will solve this problem by creating more reentry programs, the mine as well build a hospital emergency rooms to solve cancer.

we are dealing with a deeply ingrained cancer in our society. we need to travel upstream and determine where the bodies are coming from. for every man or woman we are able to help an agency like the fortune society, there are hundreds of others who go right back into the system. the system that has a failure rate of 2/3 over three years. 700,000 people coming home, two- thirds of them are going to go back, according to the bureau of justice statistics. i don't know any other industry that is allowed to operate with that failure rate and continue to operate and be fed resources. $64 billion plus we are spending this year just on prisons alone. it is not just about incarceration. a couple of people mentioned it earlier. it is also about the lifetime punishment attached to incarceration. we have not been locking people up this right forever. if you look at the trajectory

and taiwan, has been pretty linear as to the amount people put in prison until the civil rights era. we started locking up large numbers of people, and if you extrapolate that data, it is large numbers of black men an increasingly large numbers of black and latino women. then attach all this consequences to it. if you have a criminal record to cannot vote or go to school here or work here. all the things we work hard for during the civil rights era, equality, employment, education , enfranchisement, have all been taken away. a couple of oscar, and one is on the zimmerman case. i am speaking as an individual

and not representing the fortune society on the statements. we are working hard to bring zimmerman to justice, and i think we should be, but i want to remind the audience of two things. zimmerman is not the only zimmerman. he represents the disease that is never going into remission in america. the belief that a young black man in a hoodie long that the business end of a gun. that is how law-enforcement approach is young black men. and that the very system we are asking to prosecute him has proven itself to be equally racist in its application of law. [applause] and then trayvon martin. he is not the only trayvon martin. there are millions of others like him. i see it every day. i live in harlem. i cannot walk into my building

without police officers having young men up against the wall, issuing tickets for illegally congregating on the side wall. where the hell else are you going to congregate in harlem? there are millions of trayvon martins, and many of them or unfortunately doing of life in prison on the installment plan. i want to leave you with a final thought. when i was in prison in new york state doing six years, i remember to stories, both of them involving correction officers. one was on my way in, where a correction officer took a look at the grade i got my teston said you know what, your grades or amazing. you should go to college. and he did what he needed to do to make sure i ended up in a facility that had college. that is one story, a story about how one person can touch another person's life and turn around

the trajectory of it. the other one was when i was on the way out. we talked and he was asking questions about what i was going to do next in life and so on. something he said at the end of that conversation really struck me. i don't want to screw this up. he said you being here helped me by my boat, and when your son gets here, he is going to help buy my boat. if you want to help dismantle the system, follow the dollars. thank you. [applause] >> once again, let's give all the panelists by huge hand. -- a huge hand.

we are going to have time for some questions. again, i am very mindful and i want to say thank you, thank you, because some of the attorneys up here have come at great billable hours and we are keeping them, but we appreciate their willingness to stay and entertain, because we are trying to have some interaction with you. it is very important. i say that to say this. this is question and answer. we want to keep the questions concise and we want to try to keep the answers concise so we can get to as many as we can within the time we have remaining. the attorneys here gave the opening statements. we don't need anybody else to join in to give any opening statements. whatever your thought is, try to put it into a question, and the people up here are very versatile and they will be able to help you make the point that you are trying to make, i am

sure. let's try to do that so that we can all participate in it. let me again say, when i was making introductions, i did say we had a great panel of attorneys, and i really should have said advocates, because everyone here. an advocate. we want to thank you all for being with us. we will take our first question. -- everyone here truly is an advocate. >> i am an independent for congress in the seventh district in indiana. a come to say that we need to have action. my question is this. why are we so bent on basing our strategy on non-violence and not on what is legal? if we deal with legality, the

law says we have the right to stand our ground. why would we teach our children to do something other than stand our ground? it is not the law, it is the application of the law. until we get the courage to stand our ground, the law will continue to be applied in a way that we get the short end of the stick. it is time for us to stand our ground. [applause] if there is aw .uestion in theire >> why do we deal with nonviolence instead of what is legal?

>> if anyone wants to -- i will make one comment with regard to that. i understand your statement. i understand your question. there is a difference between standing around in those situations, and i think as billy certainly referred to, you have a legal right to do that. there is a difference between that, however, and build a non- violent movement, which we have participated in building across this country in the tradition of dr. king. you should never confuse the movement for nonviolence with whatever some private, personal situation should be. on the other hand, and i say this with caution, you certainly need to be careful, because we live in a society, and we know,

again, when you start dealing with these notions that communities should somehow simply take on their own self- defense, then you are asking for war, and frankly, i think then you put our people in a very dangerous situation. i think the question is a good one, and it deserves discussion, but i think you cannot conflate the two. >> if you mean bystander brown to take advantage of the legal system that is there, we should do that bge if you mean by stand your ground. if you mean rather than back down, make the system work. we are not talking about going back to the 1960's where everybody walked around with their shotguns. we are not talking about standing around there. if you are talking about standing there -- that is what we are doing with trayvon

martin. legally, we are saying we want to stand our ground and make this system work. i hope he is not talking about getting out there with their guns, because they will execute you. but you want to make the system work. >> my name is mark matthews from clean slate america. i am representing the baltimore chapter of the national action network. this really is not a question, but i know we are here for solutions and to offer ideas. first, let me say that number one, i do think that the war on drugs was a success. it did everything that it set out to do. it made millions and billions of dollars for people that wanted to make sure that they kept us down. that broke up our families, they incarcerated us by the

millions, and the consequences last lifetime. my organization specializes in criminal record expunged and. every day i have grown men and women who sit at my desk and cry real tears because i it -- they realize that now that they have served their time, they have done what the system ask them to do, but they are not able to find a job, no matter how much training and education they get, they are locked out of the work force for a lifetime. it is not just about that individual. there is someone supporting that individual. somebody is putting food in their mouth, putting a roof over their head, and hoping and praying to god that they find employment. that individual is responsible for someone else. there are children that are hoping this person finds their way in life. we need to continue to fight, make inroads into the political system. i would like to suggest that we get back home, in baltimore on june 16, we are having a

community discussion on elizabeth alexander's book, " the new jim crow." we are looking to bill collaborations. i suggest we all consider doing that when we go back home. take a look at the money trail and offer financial solutions to states to inspire them to change policies that have hurt people. look at how much states spend, millions upon millions of dollars to support those people with records. they are supporting them with food stamps, tax assistance, medical systems, subsidized housing. if they remove the barriers to employment, they let those people find jobs. instead of spending money, they will be making money, because they will be putting money into the system. >> i will invite anybody that wants to comment on that.

i am glad to talk about solutions, because one of the things we want to come out of this, and one of the reasons why we do this panel is to help give direction and consensus to a number of items that we hear and collected across our communities and organizations of items that we can move forward on and deal with, and obviously one that has come about as a result of the trayvon martin case is to look at the whole stand your ground issue. of course the racial profiling issue is something that continues to be a major focus. >> i just want to say that the second chance act which was passed three years ago by congress is a very good act, but it is being starved by funding. congress will not fully fund the second chance act, so there are not enough resources to

reintegrate former felons into society. so i would ask the gentleman who is head of the clean slate program to really go and place great emphasis on seeing senator barbara mikulski from maryland. she is on the senate appropriations committee and she has -- she is the longest serving moment in the united states senate. she has great influence over how much money is spent in many programs. saw like to ask you to send a delegation to the maryland congressional delegation to congress, but start with senator murkowski and then go to senator carden. of course you have the support of congressman elijah cummings, but we really need to hear what you are saying in the halls of congress. it would be shot how few african-american organizations take advantage of their first amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances. so please -- you would be

shocked. please bring them to washington or the district office so they can understand how severe the problem is in the state of maryland. >> a quick follow-up. i completely agree with everything you just said, but i would like to add that the next step, an example of going beyond asking, if we really focus on building economic coalitions, peering out what it takes at specific locations to do a cross racial and economic building. we can hire people who are coming out of jail. we are no longer seeking appropriations. we have the funds.

president obama has started initiatives to help small businesses start up. when we have the businesses, we can hire us. >> i was just seeing if there are any other comments. >> [applause] i am always ready to go back. i just wanted ask the panel if they think -- and i want to thank you all, that we as black leaders in this country have done enough. there seems to be a sense in the nation that we can have free rein relative to people of

color and relative to young black men. when i heard the debate about whether or not trayvon was a good boy or a bad boy, i was enraged, because who gives a damn? he was murdered. i think that is an important issue. i don't think they are poor. their families are poor. a lot of the violence comes out property in our communities to the kids don't eat or that each step that makes them obese. their lives or a mess. when we most respondents either when they are most violent to each other, or somebody is killing them. i think that we need to figure out a way to connect to them long, long before that. i would just like to know what we are doing. we have a lot of work ahead of us, and we cannot just duet out

of actions that are just outrageous. the reason why this guy is in jail in some ways is because they know they can get away with it. what are we doing? what new things should we be doing? thank you. >> i deliberately started out with victimization in trauma for that reason. what police departments tend to do around this country is to criminalize our folks, whether they are the victimizer or the victim of the crime. they will say things like he got shot and killed and this kid has never even been in trouble before. or he got shot and killed, and he has a criminal record. who else since that same message? the person standing behind a weapon pulling the trigger,

right? i shot him because he was a bad guy. or the flip side of the message, if they have never been in trouble, then they were good. the flip side of that is, if they were bad, then they deserve to get shot and killed in the street. so we need to push our police department to not be putting that sort of rhetoric out there. as i said when i was up at the podium, to treat every issue of victimization the same, to put the same value on every single life. i can turn the lens on us in this room, i would urge folks to not use language like felon, ex- con, prisoner, and any other word that dehumanizes people who has been involved in the criminal-justice system. is part of what -- if we are not talking about people, is ok to

talk about bullying. we set the tone of the conversation. >> i would add something to that. one of the things i also do -- you heard the attorney general talk about the investigation of the entire police department. have a federal statute -- they have a federal statute on policy and practice for abuse of force. when they have so many filings, department justice comes in and conducts an investigation. there has been a sea change in the way police officers are trained. before 9/11, you remember the thing about officer friendly.

he was trained to learn to get into the neighborhood and become a part of that neighborhood. they were a friendly presence. 9/11 changed all that. if you were 60, 70 years old, white or black, and you get pulled over on the street, you will see they do two things. two officers, one will approach it from the driver's side with his hand on a gun, the second will have a gun drawn. if you have somebody who is doing that and they see a kid that frightens them, and unfortunately our young black men 10 to frighten these people, that is a spark. i think we have to find another way to go back in training so that the officer is not geared to pull that trigger or to think that these kids are bad guys. >> i just want to say i am glad

you raised that sections 14141. it was part of the crime control act, which was a misnomer, of 1994. the reason that section can about it because people like congresswoman like -- like congresswoman maxine waters and john conyers said you have to do something about police abuse in the los angeles police department, because the rodney king incident kicked off an investigation of police practices. they discover that the federal government did not have enough authority. in 1994, that provision that billy is talking about would not have become law had not members of congress said we have got to give the federal government more authority. it is very, very powerful, and it is giving his attorney general the ability to investigate those departments. i think we owe a lot of credit to maxine waters for that

particular provision. also, black students are being pushed out of school. before they even get into the criminal justice system, they are being affected by suspensions and expulsions at a much higher rate. i would just give you the statistics. these are recently released statistics from the department of education. although black students make up only 18% of those enrolled in the school samples, they account for 35 percent of those suspended. 46 of those suspended more than once, and 39% of all expulsions, according to the data collection in the statistics from 72,000 schools 7000 school districts. one in five black boys and one in 10 black girls received and out of school suspension. overall, black students for 3.5 times more likely to be suspended or expelled and their

white peers. what happens is the school systems are now calling the police department on issues that they used to resolve with the parents. so we are introducing our students and their children to the criminal justice system earlier. this calls for greater parent involvement, and again, greater demands on government to treat our children fairly, because it is now beginning before law enforcement encounters with the police. it is now beginning in our school systems. this is a problem that we must continue to face. >> thank you. we have about another 10 minutes. i also just want to say again, i know some of our panelists have been here all morning and they are being very generous with their time. some of them may have to step out as we go on, but we will try to get through as many of u.s. weekend.

>> i am the community mayor of harlem and the ambassador of good will to africa. why are we not outraged by the killing of our children and our youth, and what best practice do we have for the middle passage of the transatlantic ocean against our people? >> prof. cunningham? >> i think we are outraged. i think we have been outraged. i think the question is concretely, what are we going to do? one thing i would like to say

is, i think that really wonderful suggestions and actions have been suggested. i think we really need to set up concrete strategies for making sure that we show up where people have suggested that we show up. what i would like to point out, though, is that we have done this before. decades ago, we did this before. we had concrete plans. we took action, we marched, without affirmative action, executive orders. we did before. when i talked about a cycle, like a domestic violence relationship, all i am saying is we need to do what we need to do right now to go to the hospital to fix this particular episode, but unless we shift the paradigm, despite everything that we do right now in showing

up, we will find ourselves here again. >> thank you. again, i think what laura and others have been saying, what some of the panelists have said, and one of the reasons why we are keeping a record of some of these suggestions, so that we do come out of this with a plan of action, with a consensus on some of the things that we need to move forward on, and a number of those that were suggested, the criminalization of a section of our citizenship is focusing on the whole -- properly funding the second chance act. we have to pass our outrage into action. certainly queen mother, your suggestions as to what

concretely should be done are welcomed as well. thank you. >> i have very concise questions. my question for milton -- for mr. martin is, you discussed your time as a prosecutor. i understand the concerns of drug use for personal consumption versus distribution. you mentioned in many instances you were able to find a way to simply have evidence discarded if it was small enough to only be used for personal consumption. how can prosecutors who are employed avoid getting into legal trouble for acting in such a way? for prof. cunningham, i definitely appreciated your suggestion that we not engage in violence when it come to confronting tragedies like we have seen happen in the past two

weeks. does that mean that we also need to condemn outside organizations such as the new black panther party for putting a bounty on mr. zimmerman said? is that something we need to actually speak out against, or just remain silent on? thank you very much. >> what i was responding to is, prosecutors have great discretion. the prosecutor -- the police officer lock you up for whatever. the prosecutor has the final word whether we are going to approve this charge or not. there is a cost and benefit factor within their. when you have someone who comes in there with $50 worth of drugs, the cost of the prosecution might be $10,000- $20,000, by the time you have a number of police officers to make the rest, who book it, who put that person through locked up in detention, put them before an arraignment judge, puts it on the calendar. costs keep escalating.

prosecutors will make the cost decision to say it is not worth the cost to prosecute these minor offenses. that is what i was describing. exercise discretion just to dismiss those low-level crimes and put them somewhere, either into a drug court or some other non criminal court to deal with what might be a health problem. >> what i was talking about is what we need to do to be constructive. i was not speaking to any other organization in particular. i think part of the goal that has been illustrated by the national action network and other organizations and that attorney general holders spoke about is the approach of possibility, and the belief in what is possible. i think the paradigm shift must

entail looking back, looking at positive values within all human beings. if we are going to shift to another level, it is going to require, what we value? integrity, stability, honesty, tolerance, for business, humility. -- forgiveness, humility. it is possible across religions and back roads. >> is it mean you do oppose the downey that has been placed on george zimmerman by the national black panther party? do you oppose it or support it? >> as an individual, i oppose violence, random violence. that is unlawful. that should not be hard for me to say.

[unintelligible] >> before you go to the next question, it is important also -- and i appreciate your answer, because all of us can answer individually, but as to the question in general, i think one of the great criticisms of america today is that we are in this whole thing, whether you are dealing with congress all the way down, of always condemning and disavowing. the family of trayvon martin has set the tone for what will happen there. [applause] you just follow the lead. that is why you build movements. you don't have to get into condemning other people's opinions. that is their opinion, and in

some respects, they might have a right to express that. no one has to condemn that, but you follow a path the martin family is there. the family is providing outstanding leadership, respectful and inclusive leadership, and that is what people will follow, i am sure. >> i am pastor of a number of churches sent delaware and nationally. we have the same problems as everyone else has. i started in the civil rights movement in 1961. i started teaching in 1965. i am going to ask a serious question. i have dealt with violent children in the schools. in the state of delaware, i live

in a place that is really bad. we put together a patrol program and i wrote an anti- crime model. this was in 2009. our crime rate had gone down 75% in terms of homicides. by 2011, it had gone to zero. what i want to know from the panel, is there anybody up there who can look around all of our cities and have a roundtable to find out what is going on? .et's compare notes we are unknown, other than the criminal justice council in delaware. there is no -- they said there is no relations between -- >> repeat that last part, i am sorry. >> a testified before the criminal justice council of

delaware. can anybody bring us together? those who are dealing with the city and the state, bring us to round table where we can compare notes and advance our cells. i wrote in a police car. i saw the same thing the police did. i got to work and reversed that force. let's get to it. i am just wondering, who can do that? >> i will respond to that. i will take it back to the inauguration of president obama where he said we are the leaders we are looking for. i would urge that you be the first to start that initiative, with the support of everyone on this panel. i will add that hopefully that is why you are here today and why the national action network is here, to help you facilitate that. that certainly can be one of the

consensus items that we move forward on. >> have a conversation talking about how to do this. >> make sure i get a copy of that. let me do this, because it is 11:30. i want to be very conscious of our panel. they have been very generous. i want to give them the opportunity if any of them need to leave, if they want to make any statement in exiting, but just to give them a chance. then i will have a few moments with those that remain to take some more questions. >> at have to run, i apologize. i do want to say one last thing to leave the audience with something actionable and you will. i have talked about the collateral consequences of criminal convictions. i have been back and forth to d.c. recently meeting with members of the equal employment opportunity commission.