service where there is a heart surgeon and a city is consulting with a patient in a remote area of stop let's imagine that application. it would seem logical to prioritize that traffic over other forms of traffic that are less sensitive. at the other end of the spectrum, we all agree that if a broadband provider had exclusive arrangements to prioritize traffic, that would be anti-competitive. the point and the takeaway is that prioritization itself is not inherently good or bad. it depends on the context. ii orr we are under title section 706, the commission has appropriately proposed to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. the choice of legal authority

will not affect that all stop their proposing to make context specific case-by-case judgments about the appropriateness of certain behaviors. that makes sense. the scope is missing. if we're worried about consumers having access to the content they are choosing, the threat to that openness does not come only from broadband. hearingerested in groups arguing for open internet. protection seldom talked about what is going on outside of this. we have real-world examples all the time. last year and this year, and retransmission disputes. content owners have withheld content from customers to essentially punish a cable provider. often consumers are damaged in that. they cannot get access in a retransmission dispute within

cbs and time warner cable. withheld it from internet access address is longing to time warner cable will stop some of those customers were not time warner customers. they might have been directv subscribers. the weird thing from my perspective is that those who support a role for government in promoting openness do not seem to be talking about those sorts of comments, which are not hypothetical. they are occurring. going to haveare this debate about the role of government and it will make judgments about what sorts of discrimination are good or bad, it is hard to have that debate without looking at other players will stop without looking at whether a content owner or other service providers are acting in a way that violates these principles. >> that is interesting.

i was not expecting to hear retransmission issues. do you want to address the elephant in the room? >> i will address several elements for -- elephants. i want to say that mr. brill is a wise and learned man. i also would have brought a retransmission fees as an example. saysetaphor is, google that they will not allow their --ver -- searchers to use time warner cannot use it. cox can. say, cut usx could a better deal or we will cut off netflix to you. your customers will be harmed. >> there is an interesting history here. the baseline to take away from this history is that the content has as much or

more market power than the distribution side. we as a society, we like the content side of stop it is valuable to us. we tend to side with the content side. there is fiber in the ground. why is that so much money? if you look at the 19th century and telegrams, there was major litigation. there were investigations. actinged like they were anti-competitively. they were harming the public. after substantial investigation, the government realized that this is the news agencies that are bad actors. the entire investigation shifted to focus on them. in many ways, this is the same dynamic. the content side and the distribution side, these are big corporate entities will stop frequently the consumer gets stuck in the middle.

we turn our initial attention and blame because we like the content guides. we realize that it is the content guys who are exerting market power. to get back to the original is then, it started as open internet a good thing right acting? i think it is a bad thing for a particular reason. no matter what the commission does, unless it goes for the option that i outlined before that it won't do saying no, we won't do anything, what will result is another 2-4 years of litigation. that will be followed by 2-4 years of bickering over the details of implementation. that will just be on jurisdiction issues. that will not have a sensitive -- substantive issue.

the commission has authority to take action against a wide range of net neutrality violations. anything they could ultimately take action against. section 706. my preference would be for the commission to say, we are not going to make rules here. we will wait for real problems to occur. ?> can you give me examples given theou name comcast decision and given what they did? what authority do they have? >> the comcast example is a great example. if the current understanding of section 706 as applied to the internet were to have been the extent interpretation, that case

could have come out like differently. they dismissed it on certain grounds. the fcc could not enforce the policy. there was discussion about the nature of a policy statement. >> i am confused. you are saying that the circuit court read in 2706? >> the fcc breathed new life into it. in 2010 with the open internet we arethe fcc said, revising our prior understanding of 706. with our new understanding, it does apply to the internet. under basic principles of administrative law, the agent can change their entire interpretation. there are two important cases here. they are both fcc cases. the first is fcc versus fox. a 2007 case where justice

scalia said that agencies can change our prior interpretations . a previous interpretation does not bar them from doing so. where the agency -- this was the continuation of the prior case. entities subject to a case-by-case adjudication have noticed that they might take action against them. they can take action against them. they can change the rules. there were a mind supreme court cases. >> will we get to the elephant in the room? glad this is the lightning round. of section 706. this is a knob adjusting. the burden of proof on the

agency with the level of formality they need to go through to enforce the statute. is the unjuston and unreasonable discrimination. --y say it does not prohibit it only prohibits unreasonable discrimination. under case law, that is express language that would need to begin in meaning. >> i have a ton of questions. >> can i respond? >> get your questions ready. we will come around with a boom mic. just speak into it. >> i want to talk about what is different in these rules, versus what was in the 2010 order. particularly in light of this dialogue that has started to unfold about the beauty pageant of whether we like content providers more. why the distinctions matter from

an economic standpoint. i want to point out something that is interesting from a structure stand point of the proposed rulemaking. the commission is trying to that held theets rules in the 2010 order. that was the no blocking rule and the nondiscrimination rule. , they talk about the transparency role. the no blocking rule as it is modified, and we can talk about specifics, but instead of going to the nondiscrimination rule, they go to codifying an enforceable rule. this is important because this represents a really critical distinction that the circuit pointed out. you can do the rules that you wanted to do in the 2010 order, that you cannot apply them to

non-common carriers. this is why the fcc is bending over backwards to figure out how to protect against discrimination and how to do so in a way that allows individualized bargaining. it is trying to do nondiscrimination through rules that protect against the opposite. that is important here. getting back to a point that was made at the beginning about how things are not controversial from a legal standpoint in terms said andye 2010 order d.c. circuit agreed with -- that is, there is a risk of discrimination by internet service providers that would interfere with the advancement of telecommunication services. i want to talk about why that is true. a broadbande

subscription in your home, you only have one for residential home broadband. not ascribe to comcast and another service provider. that is a terminating access monopoly for to reach each subscriber of a network, a content company has to negotiate or connect entrance met -- and transmit their content. terminating access monopoly is important. some of the other panelists may say that this is fiction gets people have cell phones and other tablets. i think we can all think about this as reasonable people. if i have a home broadband subscription, i will not use my four g service to watch netflix.

my primary source of connectivity is my wired isp. i will use my phone to watch videos at night. i do so, but not over my data plan. i do so over my wi-fi network at home. that is why we're concerned. we're are not concerned because we do not like i used. i have nothing against them. i do have concerns about the way that the internet is structured and the way we have seen historically that service providers take advantage of their status in the market. i want to clarify concerns and why they are specific to isps. >> we are in the lightning round. glad i will do this lightning version.

i watch a lot of netflix over my verizon. i am a beneficiary of a grandfather data plan. not everyone can do that. israelk of competition and important -- israel and him are. i think as we get competition and net neutrality concerns fall basicthe question is a title to debate. it is largely driven by two worldviews. competition is not possible. the other is that competition is possible, and we do not need title to. i want to response to an economic argument that has been made here. this goes back to the idea of the virtuous circle. it is absolutely correct. it can also go the other way. the virtuous circle describes a two-sided market will stop the

economic literature very consistently holds the same result. it can harm consumers. it can also benefit substantially. prioritization, we are foreclosing the possibility of certain business and that could benefit consumers. >> can ask you to clarify? there seems to be a lot in the press and i a lot of conversations about title ii. it has been around for 80 years. common carriage in telecommunications has had a lot of things attached to it. layers and layers of regulation. it is going back 80 years. what do they mean by that? why is that not a problem?

>> the basic question of title ii is that we do not know. provisions lot of that would by virtue of reclassification automatically applies to the internet ecosystem. there is a process of weaving most of them. there is a forbearance process. it is not clear. as companies develop new business plans, this is the important transition. it agencies want to develop new plans, they would have to go to the fcc and get frugal through forbearance. that could take 15 months. >> you innovate. innovation by permission. is that right? >> excuse me. one thing that is correct is that there is literature that says a two-sided market can be

beneficial. that is right disagree with sarah. embracingheeler is paid prioritization. he is arguing that they are proposing that it should not necessarily be the norm. there is a base level of service. debate, whether the scope of the rules has to be a predicate before we get into whether we want to be in a certain category. it is hard to say which theory i would jump to until you decide what vision for the internet you would like to have. >> the commission has proposed questions on whether they think paid prioritization is good or not good. nprm did not advocate paid prioritization. the first part of that will

necessarily inform the answer to the second part. >> a couple points on title ii. there are a lot of misconceptions. choice policy driven that the fcc has discretion to make. some advocates talk about if we , it will drive a certain result. they are classifying other lines. they will look closely at how these services are provided to the consumers. it will make a technical termination of how that fits. the supreme court affirmed it on that basis. factual particulars of the service are driving classification. the fcc cannot disregard facts and say they approve or a

different outcome. they had a record showing. the functions are not what they were. that might justify a different result. that is not the case. the technologies i've spoken to say that there is nothing fundamentally different about the way isps are structured. that is one important thing to keep in mind. there is an enormous amount of baggage with title ii. it has historically required terror thing of services and price regulation. it is an intensely regulatory framework. many people feel that it is ill suited to the ecosystem. the fcc has tried to address those concerns. they may be able to waive some of its provisions. experience, that would generate a ton of and certainty. they? would a court upholds it? a lot of that uncertainty is a

concern. there is a huge spillover risk. if they look at transmission in internet access and say that transmission would be viewed as a separate regulated service, guess what? everyone else is providing transmission too. networks andery other providers who have always been providing services on an egg regulated -- unregulated basis. they are all providing transmission together content from servers to isps. there would be on in honesty stabilizing risk. it will be regulated for the first time as a telecom service. many other forms of internet transmission might be regulated. from my standpoint, having watched the debate.

debate, ifatched the they want to achieve certain concessions that there are review procedures. they are meant to ensure appropriate arrangements. we can forge a consensus around that. title ii is something that will never lead to consensus. it will lead to uncertainty and fighting. >> matt has hit on an interesting point. it is one of the things that will be the undercurrent of the debate. where do you want to see uncertainty lie? at&t says that they think there is too much uncertainty with the reasonable standards. i think it would lead to litigation over deals. uncertainty over what kind of arrangements they can do. if isropose a rule that

not affiliated, and it doesn't engage in an affiliated way, there should be some sort of as long asill be ok there is a baseline of internet service. fast we havewe are had 10 years of litigation. it is a debate about where the uncertainty lies. it makes consumers nervous about access to content. providers are nervous that they will have to pay more. they may be forced into relationships when they have isps. they may be foreclosing potential revenue surfaces that services. whered argue that that is it is going to be impossible to get to a consensus about all that. it is the job of the regulator

to figure how to bridge those gaps. forbearance, we were supposed to start this five minutes ago. if i get to donovan and allison. two grams a few questions. does anyone have a question? they will bring a boom mic over to you. it is live. raise your hand. the netflix deal, i heard dealthe netflix to comcast does not touch the internet. it is a private line. it is from netflix network to the comcast network. in terms of paid prioritization, will people be able to do these side deals where they do direct

lines bypassing the public internet? that is probably 89 or 90. when chairman wheeler was walking out, someone from the press asked about that question. he said it does not apply to the netflix deal. >> i agree with that. let me explain. these open internet rules are aimed at governing the connection between internet service providers and consumers. when we talk in that context about paid prioritization, what we're saying is that at&t should not be allowed to cut a deal with netflix. it will speed up the delivery of netflix traffic. that is compared to other services. we will have a debate over whether such an arrangement might be reasonable. the interconnection between networks and netflix directly comcast and between comcast with an intermediary is something

that the sec has set it outside of these rules. it is a debate raised on relationships that are scrutinized independent of open internet. there is a lot of activity around that. the chairman has said that it is not part of a net neutrality proceeding. >> i represent netflix. chairman has proposed that they do not extend the roles, it does ask whether it should do so. -- let'sent for that say you have rules that prevented arrangement where at&t is not able to extract a new charge.

and there was a lot they could accomplish. and whether the fcc will agree with that view or not and whether they think it should be a different proceeding. there'll be advocates that say it has to be addressed. >> i would add that the fact that the net lights comcast arrangement is coming up as a controversy in light of net neutrality is evidence that the rules work. network fromd the unreasonable discrimination. in fact, that discriminatory behavior and pressure points moved to a different point in a network. the worry here is that again, given the highest fee -- the interest, theyg have the ability to not just extract fees from content

companies. they can extract fees that are not grounded in market-driven rates. they could charge a toll. >> i want to respond quickly. i think that is fundamentally wrong to stop there is not one fight that netflix has available. what makes the deal possible is the marketplace where netflix and comcast have separate. there are backbone providers. their content delivery networks. historically, netflix is used all of those routes to transmit traffic. its own economic benefit as cutting out the middleman. it comes out with an economic arrangement. no one made netflix do that. they came up with the idea and

they are saving money. i resist the idea that somehow net neutrality had anything to do with that. think about it in common sense. this is an ideal position with merger proceedings ending. they wanted to use the regulatory process to avoid a they voluntarily went into a commercial arrangement. >> putting on my engineering hat full this is a nice demonstration of the technical architecture of the internet. technologists and engineers will tie you that the internet is not neutral. it is a concept that has a technological meaning. one of the reasons is the design of the network. there is a great deal of influence over how effectively different sources will be handled by the internet. i want to highlight that it is nothing new for netflix or

anyone to use a private connection to bypass parts of the public network. that is what level three cost is this model has been. they have a private network that the use to bypass congestion of the public internet. connect withctly the destination high-speed. but that is not from an engineering perspective. the think matt raises factual question, which will have to be addressed. if those roads are congested in a program is so popular that you have used up all the capacity and the isp says that you will have to pay us to open up another poor to gain the capacity, that is the first question. the second one is, is that rate subject to market or says? are they able to choose a number based on business models.

that will be the question on the docket. >> in a nice twist on that, from an antitrust perspective, we focus on the power to set prices. netflix is in a different position. they are in a position -- they represent such a significant portion of the traffic. they have a different form of market power. they can really set the congestion level. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> an hour and 15 minutes. >> i am the seventh director council of the naacp legal defense fund and many know that our sixth director counsel, john peyton, the brilliant lawyer from washington, d.c. who is well known to many of you passed away while he was director counsel. we wanted to be sure that all the director counsels are represented here today and i am just absolutely thrilled and happy that someone who actually was very early hero of mine is here today and has joined us and that's john peyton's wife,

a human rights activist in her own right. [applause] many know that howard law school was the incubator of much of the thinking that went into the early civil rights litigation work and so i would like to thank the interim dean and the howard faculty for oining us today as well. many know that it really does take a village of amazing activists lawyers advocates brilliant people who have committed their lives to making america better for everyone. and i would ask that any of you who are here who are leading

organizations stand. but i want to especially acknowledge the person who leads the umbrella organization in which we all sit and that is ade henderson. it is my pleasure and honor to introduce to you attorney general eric holder who was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general of the united states in 2009. we are so thrilled that he chose to join us today on this very important day. his bio is in the program so i won't belabor reading it. he is known to many of you. i did want to make a few important notes that you should know about him. the first is that attorney general holder is very closely connected to our civil rights history. his wife is dr. sharon malone

who is the sister of vivian malone, the student who helped desegregate the university of alabama. it is also true that attorney general holder very early in his career served as an intern at the legal defense fund. and it is also true that as many of you have seen in the past two years this is an attorney general of tremendous courage. his willingness to step forward and address the issue of overincarceration and of deep deep problems in the criminal justice system is really unprecedented. i do not think you will -- we have had certainly or will have another attorney general who will acknowledge the role that prosecutors can play in dealing with the issue of overcharging which leads to overincarcerations. his commitment to dealing with the issue of harsh penalties

meted out to nonviolent drug offenders sets him apart among attorney generals we've had in this country. his recent efforts around clemency, his willingness to use the bully pulpit of his office to educate america about the power that prosecutors have and about the ways in which the rapid and increased overincarceration in this country hurts all of us and impearls the vitality of our society shows him to be a courageous leader frankly in the tradition that is we revere and honor at the legal defense fund. so we were thrilled that he could take time out of his very, very busy schedule to join us to make a few remarks and so i present to you the 82nd attorney general of the united states mr. eric holder.

[applause] >> thank you. well, thank you all so much for that warm welcome. and thank you for those kind words and thank you all for such a warm welcome. it is really a pleasure for me to be here today and it is a prive lincoln to join dedicated -- privilege to join dedicated public servants along with trail blazers. gabe who is near and dear to me i think on a personal basis i

know it's difficult for you but i miss our guy. on a daily basis. john baiten, a great great man. [applause] it's great to be here in celebrating the work of the naacp legal defend fund in commemorating the victory that this organization helped to secure 60 years ago tomorrow. and in recommiting ourselves to the critical work that still lies before us. the fight is not over. now, i would like to thank our host the national press club and every member and supporter of lmp df for making this important observance possible. it's a tremendous honor to take part in this celebration and to stand with lawyers who participated in the brown case, the families of the courageous plaintiffs who made this landmark decision possible, and with mrs. sissy marshall the

wife of the late thurgood marshall, one of our great civil rights pioneers who helped found this organization nearly three quarters of a century ago. since 1940 ldf has perform critical work to rally americans to the unifying cause of justice. standing on the front lines of our fight to guarantee security advance opportunity and to ensure equal treatment under law. your enduring legacy is written not only in the words of legal opinions, but in the remarkable once unimaginable progress that so many of us have witnessed even within our own lifetimes. the fact that i serve in an administration led by another african american bears witness o that progress. [applause] your actions alongside those of

countless citizens whose names may be unknown to us now but whose contributions and sacrifices endure have forever altered the course of our nation's great history. decades ago brave individuals from across the country sustained by the strength of their convictions, fueled by their desire for change, and represented by lawyers from the imminent organizations including visionary attorneys like thurgoord marshall, robert carter and jack greenberg embarked on a dangerous long and grueling march that culminated on may 17, 1954 at the united states supreme court. it was a march that led through difficult and uncertain terrain. from the injustice -- injustice of plessy versus ferguson to the dark days of jim crow and of slavery by another name from the discrimination and violence

and the strange fruit that ultimately gave rise to a unified civil rights movement and to the founding and growth of ldf. it was a march that tested the soul of this country and questioned its president abraham lincoln once asked whether a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal could long endure. and it was a march that was immeasurably strengthened by the transformative power of a single court decision where nine jurists came together led by one of my idols chief justice earl warren, the ice of the world upon them, to unanimously declare that separate was inherently unequal. now, i was just three years old in 1954 when brown was decided. please don't do the math. yeah, yeah. he's that old?

thanks to some of the pioneers in this room, my generation -- my generation, was the first to grow up in a world in which separate but equal was no longer the law of the land. even as a child growing up in new york city i understood as i learned about the decision that its impact was truly groundbreaking bringing the law in line with the fundamental truth of the equality of our hue manty. brown marked a major victory. anyone old enough to remember the turbulence of the 1960s i also knew and saw first-hand that this country wouldn't automatically translate the words of brown into substantive change. integration of our schools, a process that was halting, confrontational, and at times even bloody did not by itself put an end to the beliefs and the attitudes that had given rise to the underlying inequity in the first place. the outlawing of institutional

segregation did not by itself soften the enmitty and alleviate the vicious bias that had been directed against african american people in communities for generation and the rejection in its clearest form by our highest court of legal discrimination could not by itself wash away the hostility that would for years fuel new and per versely innovative attempts to keep separate but equal in place. these markers of progress could not forestall the massive resistance policies that followed in states across the country in which public schools would close and private academies would open for white children only. they could not avert the protests against the little rock nine. around they could not prevent alabama governor george wallace from making his infamous stand

in the school house door in 1963, nine years after brown, when two courageous african american students one of whom was vivian malone who would become my sister in-law when they attempted to register for classes at the university of alabama. but thanks to brown and to the developments that followed on the day when vivian and her classmate james hood walked into that university they were protected not only by the power of their convictions, not only by the strength of the national guard and the authority of the united states department of justice, but by the force of binding law. when those nine students entered little rock central high school, they were supported by all nine members of a resolute supreme court. and when millions of civil rights advocates and supporters began to rally to march to stand up, and even to sit in in order to eradicate the discrimination that they continued to face in schools and other public

accommodations, they stood not only on the side of equality and on the side of that which was obviously right, but on the side of settled justice. now, this was the change that brown versus the board of education signaled and this was the progress it made possible. it did not instantaneously or painlessly tear down the walls that divided so much of the nation. but it did unlock the gates. and it continues to guide ldf's work and the justice department's civil rights enforcement efforts as we work to end the divisions and the disparities that persist even today in the 21st century. after all, as supreme court justice sonya society myyor said recently in what i think a very insightful dissent case, we must not wish away rather than confront the racial inequality that exists in our society. the way to stop discrimination

on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race. and i would add, to act. to act to eradicate the exist bs of still too persistent inequality. and i want to assure you as we mark this historic anniversary that my colleagues and i remain as committed to this cause asr before. while the number of school districts that remain under desegregation court ordered has decreased significantly in just the past decade the department of justice continues to actively enforce approximately 200 desegregation cases where school districts have not yet fulfilled their legal obligation to eliminate desegregation rooted and branch. in those cases we work to ensure that students have the building blocks, from access to advanced placement classes to

facilities without crumb bling buildings to safe environments. we are partnering with the department of education to reform school discipline policies that fuel the school to prison pipeline and have resulted in students of color facing suspensions that is three times higher than that of their white peers. and we are moving in a variety of ways to dismantle racial barriers from america's classrooms to our board rooms to our voting booths and far beyond. so long as i have the privilege to serving as the attorney general of the united states, this justice department will never, never stop working to expand the promise of a nation where everyone has the same opportunity to grow, to contrbt and to ultimately succeed. [applause]

by calling for new voting protections and by challenging unjust restrictions that discriminate against vulnerable populations or communities of color, and that's the real vote fraud. that is the real vote fraud. by challenging these measures we'll keep striving to ensure the free exercise of every citizen's most fundamental rights by leading implementation of another landmark supreme court ruling in united states versus windsor we'll ensure that lawfuly married same sex couples can receive the federal benefits and protection that is they deserve. and by fighting for comprehensive g immigration reform that includes an earned

path to citizenship so that men and women who are americans in everything but name can step out of the shadows and take their place in society. we'll make certain that children who have always called america home can build a bright future in and can enrich the country that they love and do so without fear. now, in these and other efforts there are undoubtedly difficult times ahead. challenges old and new remain before us. there are too many who are weded to the past and who irrationally fear the new america that is emerging. they miscontrue our past. america has been at its best when we have acted to embrace and make positive the changes we have been forced to conflont. and so it must be again. government will never be able

to surmount the obstacles that we face on its own but especially on days like today i'm reminded of the extraordinary courage that nce 1940 has led seemingly ordinary stitssns and lrn df leaders to stand together to transform individual voices into the strength of collective action and to bring about historic changes like the ones we gatsdz tore celebrate, changes that pull this nation closer to its founding promise, changes that make real the blessings of our constitution, and changes that codify self-evident truths into settled law. as i look around this room and with great faith in the american people, i cannot help but feel optimistic about our ability to build on the progress that we celebrate this week. and i have no doubt that with your continued leadership, with your boundless passion, and with your unyielding courage, we can chont to legacy that has

been entrusted to us. we can extend the promise that brown and those who made it possible worked so hard to secure. and we can build that more just society that that more just society that everyone in this nation deserves. thank you very much. [applause] >> getting a little business

done up here thank you, mr. ttorney general. all right. we're going to keep going with our program. sherilynn welcome back to the stage. i thought i had a minute to collect myself after that extraordinary speech. so grateful to the attorney general for being with us. i am not elaine jones. i want to be elaine, dream about being elaine but i am not elaine jones. but elaine jones has a little cold and i am going to introduce and present the award o mrs. cecilia marshall. this is something that means great deal to the lawyers and board of the naacp legal defense fund.

she is known throughout the country and has been mrs. director counsel, she has been mrs. solicitor general, she has een mrs. judge, she has been mrs. justice. but today we want to honor cecilia m. marshall for her own work and dedication to civil ights. married to the late thurgood marshall for 38 years, she saw a lot of the world through the unparalleled prism through her husband. mrs. marshall was born in maury, hawaii. her parents were among the first immigrants to hawaii from the philippine islands in 1910. she came to new york to live with her maternal aunt and

uncle and started to take classes in stenog if i at columbia university. during that same year she got a position as secretary to the national director of the naacp branches in new york where she said she admitted receiving her first baptism to the racial challenges of america. and she's been motivated ever since to make a difference in the lives of others. yesterday at our board meeting when we were taking notes on the computer mrs. marshall was reminding us of when she attended board immediatings as a young secretary and took notes in shorthand for the legal defense fund. she serves on many boards here in washington, d.c. and has been a tireless advocate on behalf of young people particularly through the thurgood marshall summer law inship program. but we know her best for her work on the board where she has served since 1994 getting on the amtrak train and coming to new york for those board meetings, serving and convening

dinners for us at her beloved georgetown club with our supporters and donors, and being a welcoming arm for every director counsel that the legal defense fund council has had including me. ive been privelinled by the joy of her friendship, her laughter, her counsel and her tremendous support. ladies and gentlemen, we present the spirit of justice award to mrs.sy sealia m. marshall. [applause] >> thank you, director. but i believe you can only prove half of what you said

about me. not even half. years ago, on may 17, after the supreme court handed down its landmark decision on brown versus board, i was at the offices of our legal fund where a celebration was taking place. but after about an hour or so, thur good announced to his staff, i don't know about you fools, but i am going back to work because our work has just begun. 'm sorry to say no truor words were said. because 60 years later, here we are after brown, we're still

fighting in one form or another. so in that regard, i would like to share this award with all the former director counsels ho took up the reins and continued our legal assault gainst all forms of bigotry. directors such as jack greenberg who worked very closely with thur good for so , and ears, elaine jones ted shaw who are all here today along with our present director counsel. but i would also like to share his award with mr. william coleman. another close friend of thur good's. just appreciated his advice and

counsel throughout the years. finally, if sara -- thurgood were here today, i think he would encourage us to keep up the good fight using the same words that he spoke on july th, 1992, when he accepted the liberty medal. he said, and i quote, the battle for racial and economic justice is not yet won. indeed, it has barely begun. the legal system can force open doors and sometimes even knock down walls. but it cannot build bridges. that job belongs to you and me. the country can't do it. ffro and white, rich and poor,

educated and ill lit rat, our faith are bound together. we can run from each other, but we cannot escape each other. we will only attain freedom if we learn to appreciate what is different and muster the courage to discover what is fundamentally the same america 's diversity offers so much richness and opportunity. take a chance, won't you? knock down the fences that divide us. tear apart the walls that imprison you. reach out for freedom. freedom lies just on the other side. we shall have liberty for all. thank you. [applause]

>> join me in another round of applause. [applause] >> so now i have the honor of introducing someone who is one f my she ros and you heard the refer to her as a trail blazer in her own rights. she is many things. an award winning journalist. you may know her from her work t npr. she worked as npr's chief correspondent in africa. 20 r joined npr after years with pbs. she began her journalism career as a reporter for the new

yorker and later worked as a local news anchor for wrctv in washington. and as the harlem bureau chief for the "new york times." she has numerous honors including two emmy awards and two pea body awards, one for her work on apartheid people, about south africa during the life of apartheid and the other for general coverage in africa in 1998. she is also a sought-after public speaker. she holds more than three honorary degrees. to protect board journalists and other committees. she is vice president of the carter foundation established by camille cosby in honor of her mother. and she is going to lead us in a conversation for the next portion of our program. charlene hunter galt. [applause]

>> we are excited about this conversation and so excited to get it started but we skipped over one thing and we can't skip it because it's too important. and that is our acnonlment and special recognition of jack greenberg. so i'm going to ask before we start the conversation for former director counsel ted shaw to come and give our special recognition to jack greenberg. >> good afternoon. first let me congratulate sissy arshall, who is an inspiration , mentor, friend, and i wish all of you could know sissy

marshall the way some of us have been fortunate to get to know her. she has one of the most wicked senses of humor you will ever hear. but she's a great, great civil ights warrior in her own name. jack greenberg. here are presently by my count v signatories to the brown 3. junl winestein isn't with us today. bill coleman of course is. one of my heroes. but out of the lawyers who argued brown, there is one survivor. and that is jack greenberg. jack greenberg came to the legal defense fund as you see from the program in 1948.

and he came to the legal defense fund after serving in world war ii. in the marines. n fact, i always remember that when jack was told at some point that he had handled what was supposed to be a tough situation with great -- grace and handled it well, jack said in a very offhanded way, i've been in tougher situations than this. he was at iwo jima. served his country even before he came to the legal defend fund to serve it in another profound way. jack as you know joined the 61 f in 48 and from 48 to was assistant counsel before becoming director counsel from 61 to 84.

the longest tenure of any director counsel. d with all due respect, to sherilynn, who is only beginning, i suspect that there will not be another who serves in that position over so many years. and he served so well. jack happened to be directedor of the uring the days civil rights movement. it was jack who was on the phone with other ldf lawyers, with the demonstrators, with martin luther king, jr. and others, who were at the edmund pet tiss bridge. it was jack who told martin luther king, jr., that if you march, and break this

injunction, you will be breaking the law, as any good lawyer should have told him. and martin luther king, jr., said to jack. it's not your job to tell me what to do. it's your job to get me out of jail when i do it. if you look at the photographs from that era, of the civil rights leadership, many of those photographs, you will see martin luther king, jr., whitney young, roy wilkins, you ill see all of the great ones. a. phillip rand awful and dorothy in -- randolph and you will see jack greenberg was oticeable.

i had the privilege along with lawyer i covering think i could describe him as, he has been busy with other things, who is here today, governor patrick, of being i think one of the last two -- i think we were the last two hired at the legal defense fund. i can't say and won't say it's not my place to say how good my hire was. i will say that he made a great hire in governor patrick. and i remember when i was hired, elaine, you know how jack was. i came to ldf from -- i was trying to get out of the justice department, the administrations had changed, i was now in the reagan administration. so i came up to new york at jack's behest for an interview. and some of the lawyers were

unhappy because jack made this decision by himself. you know, he decided who was going to be hired. and some of the lawyers were fussing about not having a role in that. and jack said, another lesson that i learned that i used later, not as well as jack perhaps. jack said in a very offhanded way again, i think democracy is rateful countries. there's so much more i could say about jack but we need to hear the governor. i will point out that he was dean of columbia college after he left ldf. he and the former dean of harvard university law school wrote a book called dean

cuisine. he is a cook, a chef. and if you know anything about jack, you know that his reach went well beyond the united states, where he was involved with and was the inspiration legal creation of other defense funds on behalf of other constituencies of color. indeed, i would say women, too. d finally, if you know jack, you would know that he was involved in being an inspiration for and helped to set up the legal resources center in south africa, the european roma rights center in budapest, has worked on behalf of roma rights in recent years. this is one of the great human rights lawyers of any time. enough. nnot honor him

you may have to lean in a little bit to hear jack now because his voice is a little softer. but you are in the presence of greatness. and so we honor jack greenberg today. he has gotten every honor ldf can give but we have one more for you, jack. jack greenberg. [applause] >> you can keep standing if you

want. you know, there are a lot of things that i don't do that this younger generation does. but i do tweet. and i've been tweeting for the last 24 hours how excited -- come on, guys. how excited i am to be here this morning. with these two great gentlemen who are getting up on the stage better than i could. but i'm here this morning as i could say r -- age before beauty but that wouldn't be appropriate. i'm here this morning as both a moderator and a child of brown which i couldn't escape if i wanted to but i don't want to. for example, when i sat in front of nelson mandela for the first time, just about four or five days after he got out of prison, i wanted to figure out

some way i could connect with him in a way that none of the other journalists had. because there were hundreds of them, as you remember. so i introduced myself as a child of brown. and that was that. we were like this from then on. so that's one of the things that has made my wy all these years. but i want to begin by saying thank you, legal defense fund. and mrs. marshall and your husband, people like constance baker motley, donald hollow horace rnon jordan, ward, so many lawyers who made it possible for me to have those three dozen honorary degrees as well as to become really close to nelson mandela and to go on a journey to the horizon. because had it not been for brown, i think i still would

have become the black brenda star. and she could eat her heart out right now based on my journey to the horizon. but it enabled me to go where i wanted to go. and that was to the university of georgia. but i want to hasten to say that 60 years ago, when the attorney general was 3 years old, i was a little bit older. i was in the 7th grade. 1954 decision handed down not a word was spoken in my classroom. and i was writing a book not -- rel, several years ago, sort of an auto biography, and i thought, i can't remember ever hearing a teacher talk about brown. and so i called one of my seventh grade teachers who was still around and i said, what? she said, my dear, i'm sorry to tell you, we did not say a word about the brown decision. because the white powers that be had for bade them to speak

about it on pain of losing their jobs not just temporarily, but forever. that was in 1954. so i was in the 7th grade. thank goodness there were murmurrings in the black community about this. but there were murmurrings because the punishment still to back people in the south was great. so there was not a lot of loud talking about this. but in the end, while we had been brought up in a separate but equal place, where we did not have first-class citizenship, our parents gave us a first-class sense of ourselves. and so many years after that when the black people decided it was time to speak up, and do something, they came to hamilton holmes and myself, and the rest is history. we desegregated the university

of georgia in 1961 and i'm happy to say that today, as you've heard, there's been so much progress since the beginning of brown. the use of the brown decision, the implementation of the brown decision, that when i return as i often do to the university of georgia, there are so many black students saying go dogs. now, not to the dogs here on but to the wonderful governors, governor doug wilder you will all read his details in the program so i won't go into them now because we have just a limited amount of time i keep being told. and of course governor duval patrick. we're so proud to have both of you with us this morning, all of us are. and i would like to start with you, governor wilder, you were in your early 20s i believe when the brown decision was

handed down. nobody do math out there now. >> do it. >> you're proud of it. so am i. do you remember hearing about it that day? >> i do remember. and brown changed my life entirely. but for brown i would not be here. and it has very little to do with education. it has very little to do with being able to go to school. all of the schools i went to were segregated until howard. and virginia union was african american. and so what brown did for me, i had just come back from fighting in korea, front-line duty. and i never could understand how i was sent to korea to fight for the freedoms and the rights of other people and i didn't have them. >> but the army was segregated. >> no, the army was not.

the army was not segregated at that time. but the country was. and harry trueman had the wisdom to with executive order not arguing with congress or anything else, he said this is not right, this is wrong. and he did that. so i'm fighting for these people's rights and i have none. and i come back and i had given up. i had been reading about the mowmow and others and what they were doing. they might have a point. i was so distraught. my major was chemistry. i was always at odds with wanting to do the social bit. so i had my degree in chemistry. but when brown came out i said wait a minute. you mean nonwhite men have said that they have been wronged? you mean that this system could work?

let me give it another thought. and so as a result of that, i immediately said i'm going to get out of this. i was working in toxicology in the state medical examiner's office. let me get out of here. i'm going to law. and so it meant so much to me to see what brown would do, because brown was more than just a decision. it was a changing of situation, a changing of direction. it was causing people to think and to talk about sissy was talking about earlier. putting race out there to be discussed. and that's what it did for me. >> did it happen within your community as well? or were people still frightened as they were in georgia as in my experience? >> no. what it did, it made people start to talk about it in the barber shops. it made people start putting up voter registration.

are you registered? if you're not, don't talk. it made people start believing that there was an opportunity. and so you saw that for the next ten years, i would say, from 54 to 64 there was a change in america. and that did so much for me. it did so much for the country. and that's why i was so impressed with what sissy said earlier. it's not over yet. and what thurgood speech she quoted from, i remember it well, it was at an aba convention. and he could have gone and said -- and he was roundly criticized for saying that. and yet the community -- brown gave the community hope. brown was almost like a joe lewis fight. >> but now on that note, let me go to -- let me go to governor patrick. you chided me for describing you as the boyish looking governor in an article i wrote

about the memorial service of another president. he is boyish look bug he didn't like that too much. but on that same tip, i want to say that while the governor here was in his early 20's you weren't even born. so i want to know when you became aware of brown. because you had a number of years before you -- well, i guess when you started school may whatever. but when did you become aware of brown and what impact did it have on your consciousness? >> can i first say that i was born two years after brown. so can we just settle this? i also have to say whenever i'm with doug wilder, this is what a governor looks and sounds ike. en mrs. marshall was quoting

justice marshall's comments about what -- really in the celebration, in the hour or so after the decision was handed down, so resonates with me. because i think brown started as much as it resolved. and one of the things that goes with the job like this, is that people give you the most extravagant introductions when you're out in the public. my favorite was from this gentleman at an event at the -- you won't remember this. but at an event at the democratic convention two cycles ago. he got up and he talked about how everybody makes a fuss about governor wilder being the first black governor elected in america. and he said being first doesn't mean a thing unless there's a econd.

i think that's what brown was about. and while brown wasn't mentioned by name by my third grade educated grandparents who -- with whom i grew up in chicago, it was a presence. it raised everybody's expectations of themselves. not just of the country but of themselves. and in a very fundamental way what i got from my grandparents on account of brown was this basic almost ordinary set of middle class expectations, that you were expected to achieve, you were expected to be resilient, you were expected to make them proud, because they had a stake in you. and i think i was not unusual. for the other kids on welfare on the south side of chicago in the 50's and 60's.

>> we heard earlier about some of the amazing things that brown has achieved. but governor wilder -- and you alluded to it but let's be a little bit specific. when you look around this nation, even around this room, tell me some of the things that you are proudest of that brown led to. >> you know, in the words of he negro national anthem, born in the days when hope undid -- unborn was dead. was dead. can you imagine the people that had no hope, no aspirations? and no one even preaching it. other than in their own families, in their own -- our teachers. even though we were -- we had segregated schools, we had the

best possible teachers. i mean, they were dedicated, they didn't watch the clock. they disciplined you. you rounded your d's, you crossed your t's and dotted your i's and you kept your mouth shut. and what brown did in terms of that aspiration, it made people believe, as the governor has so beautifully pointed out, that it's no more than the normal expectation of anyone growing up, anyone being a part of the fabric. i remember one of my teachers in virginia union -- sam proctor. you know him well. and he would say being a part process, ision making being a part of making certain that you had a say so in society -- and that's what brown did.

brown made it possible for you to believe that anything is possible. and for me, like i said, i never did believe it could happen. i never did believe we would have a society that would be willing to admit they had been wronged. >> so that you could be governor. >> oh, yes. oh, listen. that's an egg shell. but as a valid point. it didn't mean as much to me as it meant to break that membrane. to get through. make it -- you know, our life had been like a semi-permable membrane. you can go through but you can't go back. and what i would have hoped to see and why i'm so happy and so proud of him. because he made it known that it wasn't just an eeps sodic thing. it wasn't just something, these people in virginia went crazy. but he and i now are looking for others to step up to be.

and we see that in the white house now. so, yes, i'm convinced that when people -- as a matter of fact, this is just happened as i got older. this was even after i was elected. read about me being elect. . a boy came up to his father and i was in church and the father was a minister. and he looked up at the father and he said isn't that doug wild center he said that's governor wilder. and he came back and said isn't that doug wilder? i told you that's mr. wilder. he said but hasn't he been ead? what he meant was anybody that he had ever read about that had been an achiever in america must have been historic and dead. and that's why i was so happy o see this guy here.

>> governor patrick, let me apologize for saying you weren't born in 54. i magerd in journalism, not math. >> i wasn't born in 54. >> right. ok. ok. i got it right then. right? but i want to know, as you look around the landscape today, in addition to in this room, what do you see that brown enabled, that brown made possible in massachusetts, in chicago, anywhere? where do you see it? what do you see? >> my campaign strategist, a guy named doug ruben, younger guy, jewish, smart as they come, and he tells a story about sitting with his three young daughters about a year ago watching television. and he watches the news like a political junky, all the time. and he said that his -- and i

think it was -- it might have been the day i announced the appointment of mow cowen as our interim united states senator, an african american man and a wonderful colleague and a terrific senator. and he said he realized that he was living in a city where the mayor is black, in a state where the governor is black, and the junior senator then appointed was black and the president of the united states was black. and that is the frame of reference for his girls. for his girls. part of i think what brown was about was that it enabled americans, black white and everybody else, to imagine a different kind of community. it's not all about what we achieved that day or in the years since. but that we imagined it.

people used to say when i was at ldf, it might have been elaine, i can't remember. >> she said a lot. >> and all of it profound. that we -- we sent the kids in to integrate the schools because the adults wouldn't integrate the neighborhood. now a whole lot of people are leading integrated lives and that's important. >> governor wilder, we have more black college graduates than ever. isn't that one of the legacies of brown? >> yes. when you consider that it was against the law to even educate people of color, when you consider that people were punished to the extent that that availability has been put there, that is not enough as has been pointed out you still have got to look to make certain that they get to a point where they can get into

college, where they can graduate from college. but they've got to graduate from high school. they've got to be able to get a job. they've got to be able to have better health care. they've got to have those kinds of things. so brown addressed the totality of it. and if you if you listen at the last freezes that were recorded this morning, they were speaking about how you not down the world. how you break down the door. this is our collective jobs. it is so important. we are in an integrated society. >> we had just a few more minutes left. i want to adjust some of the things people say remain challenges. we want to do this very briefly. i read about how they support it.

we never thought that it would have this effect on black schools. very briefly. i want to say something else at the very end. >> all of that. i do not think brown is not responsible for everything that has gone wrong.

i do not think he was opposed to have solved everything that was wrong. we have been talking about piercing the membrane or having different ways of imagining our community and our country. rest of it is up to us. >> ldf took care of that message. when they were trying cases, they would go into a community. the lawyers would form the protective squad. the communities, the churches, all of them. our job is to reengage that efforts. they benefited from having done more. you cannot allow society and

these people to believe someone else's going to do. >> i spoke to some of the young will of the central high school today. they were given an assignment to go back and talk to people who were there when they do segregated in that vicious way. one of the young black girls talked to her great aunt. she said i never knew what a big deal was until i talked to her. she went around talking to her

fellow students. the kids told me they were graduating on may 17. i said may 17, what a great day. they looked at me like uhh. i said i can see you don't know the significance. i want you to write to me. i gave them my e-mail address. and i say write to me. the next day a white kid and a black kid did. we are not teaching them our history. if you don't learn your history, you're going to be in a position where it is going to be repeated. we want our kids to keep on keeping on but we want to give them the tools that we learned back in the day and that ldf continues to utilize as it helps round brown utilize its promise. thank you.

[applause] >> i'm going to be in the middle. i'm going to be in the middle. >> where almost to the end of our program. i want to thank both governor deval patrick and governor wilder for this extraordinary conversation. let me be clear. these are the only two black elected governors since

reconstruction. in the history of this country. i also want to say no to them -- governor patrick was an ldf lawyer. these are men who are deeply connected to the work. i'm briefly grateful to them. i want to do two things. the first thing i want to do is read to you the words of cheryl brown henderson. she is the younger sister of linda brown and the daughter of oliver brown, the plaintiff from kansas. to the juncture of council chair and members of the board of the naacp legal defense fund, on

behalf of my family, we regret not being able to be with you at the national press club. it is 15 q note this anniversary with a conversation with two african-american men. governor wilder and evolve patrick. it offers hope and inspiration. for my family, it was a source of pride to stand with the end of a lacie p -- naacp ldf attorneys. their action brought our nation to a crossroad of values versus clinical goals. the benefits of the goals are reflected in contemporary society. this is applied in our rights as citizens with disabilities, midlife and older adults and issues of gender neutrality. today we know the ongoing struggles are fueled by those

seeking to legitimize the concepts of the 21st century ruling class. we take comfort in knowing the legal defense fund is there to speak truth to power. in 1954 when chief justice earl warren and announced the unanimous decision. we believed the founding documents would have meaning for all of us as citizens of color. thank you for remembering the courage of our families who were ordinary all engaged in extraordinary work. please join me in giving and applause to the families. [applause] we ended the conversation with the governor talking about what we should be doing in the future.

many of you know ldf continues its active work in voting rights. we have been refusing to give up on ensuring that every american has the right to vote and participate in the political process. we continue to work in the area of education, working on disparities in education, continuing to focus on segregation and ensuring students have access to quality education. we work in the area of housing discrimination. yes, i see you donald sterling. we work in the area of criminal justice where we continue to do death penalty work and others related to racial disparity. my lawyers are the brightest, fiercest, this lawyers, with respect to all the lawyers in this room -- [applause]

they are. they are. they are. they are not exorbitantly paid. the entered this work for the same reason when i was eight wanted to be a civil rights lawyer. i have people before me that wanted me to believe the country could be better. this is the right of democracy maintenance. it is the work you do to keep your democracy strong and vital. sometimes it needs tweaking. sometimes it needs overhaul. sometimes you need to do refurbishing. it is work that anyone who is a citizen should see themselves involved in. it is not just for people or civil rights lawyers. it is the work for maintaining and protecting our democracy. you must be a partner with us in your work. your presence shows you recognize the significance of what we do and have been doing and protecting our democracy. to your own lives, and we're asking you as lawyers to reach out or take our calls when we

reach out and find ways to partner with us. there are multiple ways to do it. we are always looking for pro bono counsel. we are always looking for financial support. we do not take government money. we raise money to keep our legal program going. i spend lots of time reading the old letters of thurgood marshall, and he ruined his health just riding around the country trying to raise money to keep this legal program going. i would like to stay healthy. i would like you to support us at any level that you can. you can go to our website. i want you to go there because we have assembled a plethora of resources about brown. as you heard, if we are going to teach our children, we have to learn ourselves. how much you really know about brown? you know the name, you maybe know what it stood for, you maybe read the case in law

school, but how much to you know about this case, the most important constitutional moment of the 20th century? we want to ask you to make sure you know about the work, and that means telling people in your network. we are all about social media. we ask you to go to brownat60. i am on twitter. i ask you to join me. we ask you to be partners with us in our network. we want people to still know there are people who are standing on the front lines involved in civil rights work who believe this is critically important work we are doing, not just for a season, but for our entire lives. more importantly, if there is a message you're going to take with you, that civil rights work is for everyone. the work that brown vs. board of education --

ldf lawyers did, they did on behalf of all-america. we ask you to stay in relationship with us, reach out, be partners with us, mitigate, donate, spread the word, and shore up this extraordinary american institution that has changed our lives. i would also ask that you keep in mind that brown is a commemoration day, but as we heard from mrs. marshall about the celebration and then the work, today is a celebration and commemoration, and we must recognize what we have an obligation to honor those people who have done it. the work now begins. do not forget about us until next year when we have the 61st anniversary of brown. please remember us and stay in touch with us. i want to take a point of privilege by doing one thing in recognizing one person who is an extraordinary woman.

she is the mother of one of my board members, and she is the mother of a longtime former ldf counsel. she is originally from oklahoma, and today is her 91st birthday. i would like us to recognize her. [applause] mama byrd and janelle byrd. so we're at the close of our program. i want to thank the national press club and all the members of my staff for the hard work they put into making this event happened, and i want to thank you for joining us in this terrific celebration. i wish you a sunny rest of the

day, and i wish you a great weekend. thank you all very much. [applause] >> hillary clinton discusses policy strategies, and after that, a discussion on the state of community health centers. this week, we spoke with the recent bold surprise winner on "washington journey -- pulitzer prize winner on "washington

journal." you can see that interview at 2:00 sunday on c-span. you remember who first influenced you to think about issues? >> my father and my mother it i was so impressed by it, i put it in a book called "17 traditions." it was conversation around the dinner table. there was no looking at tv or listening to radio. we talked and they challenged us and asked us questions and needle thus and joked with us -- needled us and joked with us. freedom requires civic responsibility. most people think they are free because they are personally free, they can buy their own close, make their own friends, go wherever they want, even ever

they want. that does not mean their civic we free. lly free. you have to engage in democracy. >> ralph nader sunday night at 8:00 on c-span q&a. the newest book, a collection of interviews with the nations best storytellers. >> we're sitting here today in a city designed i have frenchman. -- by a frenchman. the great symbolic work of sculpture at the gateway to the country in new york, the statue of liberty, a gift from france. rivers and talent and universities, colleges all over the country with french names.

we do not pronounce them the way ofy do, but the influence france on this country is far greater than most americans appreciate. >> read the interview with david mccullough. published by it public affairs books and available at your favorite bookseller. former secretary of state hillary clinton discusses policy strategies to address various problems facing the nation. she was the keynote speaker at a conference of the new america foundation. this is just under 40 minutes.

from that moment on, i have watched her public service with awe. taking on the challenges that , first lady,ut senator, secretary of state, at a level that is hard to describe of intellect and passion. during her leadership, so many things have changed, but when you look at what she did as secretary of state, pushing the things we care about, the values of america, you see the drive and the intellectual fierceness it takes to actually care and

systems,cumbent something she has enormous energy for. what is impressive now is she has devoted her time and energy to things we all care great deal about. it is an enormous honor for me to introduce to you secretary clinton. >> thank you. good morning. i am delighted to be here, and i want to thank eric for his very kind words, but also for his generous contributions to this institution as well as everything that he does to support innovation and growth in

our country. and i want to thank my friend and former colleague ann-marie slaughter. she's bringing that same imaginative discipline leadership to the new american foundation. ann focused on big ideas on the intersection of policy and technology is exactly where she has been and where this extraordinary foundation is headed. i think new america is becoming an even more exciting and

indispensable fixture in the policy landscape, so i am delighted to be here in the midst of a conference whose program i read and admired, and i think it is a great way to bring together people who are also thinking big, but doing so with their feet firmly planted in the reality of the times in which we are living. speaking of times, this is a particularly special one for me and my husband. we are still reveling in the fact that we are going to become grandparents, and i have already learned that when you are about to become a parent for the first time, you can be a little terrified at the prospect and the responsibility, but becoming a grandparent for the first time, nothing but joy and excitement. very little responsibility. so i'm especially looking forward to that. my only regret is my late mother

will not be here to meet her great-grandchild. she would have been over the moon and filled with good advice, but only for the parents, but for the grandparents. i've been thinking a lot about her lately because mother's day always prompts those memories. they bring a fresh reminder of how much she gave to me and my brothers and so many others, and her commitment to social justice, which helped to mold and inspire me when i was growing up. i think about the obstacles she overcame in what was a very difficult life. by the age of 14 she was off on her own, working as a housekeeper and nanny. thankfully, the woman who hired her about her to take time during the middle of the day to try to complete high school, and she always talked about the

kindness that certain people showed to her in the course of what was a very difficult childhood. that gave her the confidence to keep going forward, that really drives from a community that was caring and willing to support the weakest in the most marginalized among them. and of course she and my father gave us a middle-class life, with opportunities she never could have imagined for herself, but which she always believed could be possible. for her children. and that was a great gift that i will be forever grateful for, and then bill and i of course worked hard to pass on those values to our daughter. and it has been a great reward to watch her grow into an accomplished, purposeful young

woman. i think about what it must have been like though to have very difficult circumstances during my mother's life, but never losing face or hope for her children and grandchildren could go, not just because of their hard work, but the country and society into which they would be born. that is really how america is supposed to work. each generation striving to create opportunity for the next, planting trees that we will not he sitting in the shade of, but expecting others who will follow to be able to, not expecting to be handed anything on a silver platter, but believing that all of us would be given a fair shot at success if we were willing to do the work that was required. in one way or another this has been a driving force for me in large measure because of my

mother's example, from my earliest years, and it was also a sense of obligation. how does one keep this dream alive, whether it is growing up in a suburb of chicago or going off to a great college and then law school or in arkansas, the white house, or in the senate for the state department? i always believed that, but i must tell you representing our country around the world during this very consequential time in history has given me and even the understanding of what is at stake here and why this organization, your emphasis on big ideas, your belief that we have to keep reinventing america is so essential. people everywhere told me that

that is what they have always loved and admired about america, our values of opportunity, freedom, equality. it is like so many people still look to us for leadership. it is why so many still risk so much to join our mosaic. even china's new president has picked up on the theme, starting to talk about a chinese dream. we know that america is strongest when prosperity and common purpose are broadly shared. when all our people believe they have the opportunity and in fact due to participate fully in our economy and our democracy. the empirical evidence tells us that our society is healthiest and our economy grows fast this when people in the middle are working and thriving and when people at the bottom believe that they can make their way into that broad-based middle.

this is not a new insight. it is time tested at the heart of what is the basic bargain of america, no matter who you are or where you come from, if you work hard and play by the rules, you will have the opportunity to build a good life for yourself and your family. now, unfortunately, it is no secret that for too many families in america today that is not the way it works anymore. instead of getting ahead, they are finding it harder than ever to get their footing in our changing economy. the dream of upward mobility that made this country a model for the world feels further and further out of reach, and many americans understandably feel frustrated, even angry. the numbers are stark. more than four out of 10 children born into our lowest income families never managed to climb out of relative poverty. forget about getting rich. i am just talking about getting into the middle class and

staying there. that should not be as hard as it is now. and what is more, and almost equal percentage of kids who are born into the most affluent families stay there for life no matter what their effort. that is the opposite of the mobility we think of as a hallmark of america. and here is a particularly troubling fact -- a majority of african-american children whose families fought their way into the middle class decades ago to have lower incomes than their parents did and many are falling out of the middle class altogether. to understand what is going on here we have to take a good look at what is happening in both the economy and in society. in the economy, since 2000, productivity has increased by more than 25%, yet wages for most americans have stagnated, further depressing demand, and slowing growth, median real hourly wages for americans in the middle have been flat over the past decade.

for lower income americans, they have actually fallen. and even for many higher wage earners below the very top, they have barely risen. so what do we draw from this? americans are working harder, contributing more than ever to their companies' bottom lines and our country's total economic output, yet many are still barely getting by, holding on, not seeing the reports that their hard work should have merited. and where is it all going? well, economists have document how the share of income and