ASSOCIATE AG WEST DELIVERS REMARKS AT PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Associate Attorney General Tony West Delivers Remarks at the Progressive National Baptist Convention

Fort Lauderdale, Florida ~ Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Dr. [Carroll] Baltimore, for that kind introduction.  I salute you for your leadership of this convention and I congratulate you on this successful convening.

I have to say, I feel very much at home here, being the great-grandson of two South Florida Baptist preachers – although clearly, the program organizers were unaware of my Baptist pedigree as they only allotted me 10 minutes to speak.

It is such an honor to address this convention.  I was thinking on the way down here about the living history that this convention represents: About the fact that this was the denominational home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; about how we cannot talk about the Civil Rights Movement and not in the same breath speak of this organization, and about the leadership of Dr. Taylor, Rev. Booth, Rev. Chambers and so many others.

And I thought about how much I owe to this convention, as an African-American man: too young to remember first-hand the Civil Rights Movement’s most dramatic, seminal moments; yet too old not to feel the weight of responsibility for preserving, protecting, defending and promoting the movement's legacy in the public service I am now privileged to perform.

We’re in a time when we're celebrating a number of significant anniversaries – milestones that make all the more salient the historic centrality of this great, Progressive National Baptist Convention:

Fifty years since they came by the hundreds of thousands to gather peacefully on the Washington Mall, marching for jobs and freedom;

Since college students, black and white, boarded buses in the North and rode them deep into the South, riding with the certainty of danger but the faith of Paul;

Since the ’64 Civil Rights Act and Mississippi’s “Freedom Summer.”

And as we think about the those anniversaries, we have reason to rejoice in the great progress forged by ordinary men and women in shattering boundaries once thought unbreakable – enormous change wrought in the short space of five decades.

And yet, I am struck by the fact that at the heart of what Dr. King, his contemporaries and this convention were grappling with back then remain, fundamentally, the same challenges facing us today:

How do we build a society that allows all people the freedom to realize fully their own potential?

How do we ensure that, in Dr. King’s words, “[l]aw and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice” and not as “dams that block the flow of social progress?”

How do we make certain that this bold experiment in self-government is inclusive, responsive and maintains its legitimacy in the eyes of those it serves?

The opening lines of our story as one nation begin with a promise:  a promise that we are all created equal.  And nowhere is this promise manifest more tangibly than in the right to vote.

That sacred franchise – the right to choose who will speak and act in our names; the right to express sovereignty over our government; a right that is, to paraphrase Lincoln, the foundation on which the temple of liberty is built because it protects all other rights – that right, more than any other, is what defines us as joint and equal members of this unique, democratic idea called the United States of America.

And next year, we’ll mark 50 years since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  You know, after President Lyndon signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, there were those – many of them his close allies – who told him to wait, to slow down; that it was too soon to start work on another major piece of civil rights legislation.

But President Johnson knew that 100 years after the franchise had been promised to African-Americans – a commitment forged by Civil War and consummated by constitutional amendment – Johnson knew that the time for waiting had run out.

Instead of waiting, Johnson acted, saying, “About this there can and should be no argument.  Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.”

So it is a sad irony that five decades later, we find ourselves working overtime to hold onto to that promise.  It is ironic that 50 years later, we are battling efforts that make it harder, not easier, for people to cast their votes.  It is ironic that in 2014, we must litigate against laws that impede voter registration that curtail democratic participation; or impose restrictive voter ID requirements that we know have a disproportionate effect on poor people and people of color, making it harder for them to exercise the franchise.

Now, I don’t want there to be any confusion about this so let me be clear: where there’s evidence of voter fraud, we won’t tolerate it.  Voter fraud undermines our democracy.  Nobody believes we should accept that.

But public policy studies from across the political spectrum come to the same conclusion that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.  Too often, the fervor surrounding voter ID laws seems more like a solution in search of a problem.  And so we need to be mindful that “the real voter fraud,” as the president says, “is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud.”

The right to vote faces other challenges, as well.  Repeatedly, a bipartisan Congress of the United States reauthorized Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act – most recently in 2006 with unanimous support in the Senate and near-unanimous support in the House.  And repeatedly, Republican and Democratic Administrations used these provisions to secure the franchise for all American citizens.

Yet notwithstanding this bipartisan history, last year we lost an important tool in our anti-discrimination toolbox when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

So, on the eve of the 50 th anniversary of the ’65 Voting Rights Act – in the middle of a season where we remember Mississippi’s “Freedom Summer” – we know that our work is far from done.  We know that the perennial lesson of history is that the triumphs won by Dr. King, by Fannie Lou Hamer, by the Progressive National Baptist Convention and by so many others – those triumphs must be won anew in this generation, because the hard reality is that the right to vote faces threats today as stark and serious and urgent as any it faced 50 years ago.

And that is why we must continue to act.  That is why protecting the fundamental right to vote for all Americans remains one of the Justice Department’s highest priorities.  Because standing by as the voices of some Americans are shut out of the democratic process is simply not an option.

So at the Department of Justice, we are continuing to monitor jurisdictions around the country, and we're watching for changes in their voting laws that may hamper voting rights.

Our message is unequivocal: we will use every legal tool that remains available to us, against any jurisdiction that seeks to hinder eligible citizens’ full and free right to vote.

When we see something that causes us concern, we won't hesitate to make it plain.  In Texas, we have gone to court to challenge a voter ID law and a congressional redistricting map that we contend discriminate against Latino voters.  In North Carolina, we have sued the state over discriminatory voting laws that restrict access to the polling place and make it harder for voters to case their ballots.

Last week, we submitted filings in voting rights cases in two different states: Wisconsin and Ohio.  In Wisconsin, we're contending that the federal judge there got it right when she struck down Wisconsin’s strict photo voter ID requirement due to its adverse effects on minority voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In Ohio, in a case challenging that state’s law curtailing early voting and same-day registration, we filed a statement in support of the NAACP's position, arguing that Ohio has misinterpreted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in defending its law.

And while we will continue to use all the legal authority we have to protect vigorously the right to vote, the fact is there is no substitute – as the president has made clear – for strong congressional action which guarantees that every American has equal access to the polls.  That is why the Justice Department is providing assistance to Congress to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination.

And, importantly, this work is bipartisan, because the fundamental right to vote must be above party or partisanship – too much hard work has been done, too much blood has been shed, too many lives lost and voices silenced for this to be simply about partisan politics.

No, this is about something much deeper, much more important.  We know what this is about.  It’s about who we are as a nation – who we are as a free and fair democratic society.

Because if a government of, by and for the people means anything at all, it means that a ballot has the power to give equal voice to the high and the low; the weak and the strong; those at the bottom as well as the top.  It means that in the polling place, the line is just as long for the richest among us as it is for those who often work the hardest but have the least.

And just as in 1965, those of us in the federal government – we cannot win this battle alone.  We will need your help.  We will need your hands.  We will need your voices to help us walk and not grow faint; to push us on and not get discouraged; to lift us up and carry us forward.  We will need your leadership to help us pull our nation out of its acquiescence and, in the proud tradition of this great convention, push it into action once again.

Thank you and God bless you.

ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SPEAKS TO CONFERENCE OF NATIONAL BLACK CHURCHES

Photo:  Attorney General Holder Holding A Press Conference.  Credit:  U.S. Department Of Justice. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the Conference of National Black Churches Annual Consultation Washington, D.C. ~ Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Thank you, Congressman Cleaver.   It is a privilege to join with you – and with Dr. Richardson and Dr. Burton – in opening the 2012 Consultation.   And I want to thank you for your kind words, for your leadership and partnership, and – of course – for your prayers.   Please, keep them coming.   Let me also thank the members and supporters of the Conference of National Black Churches and the Congressional Black Caucus for your work in bringing us all together today – and bringing renewed attention to the growing need to protect the voting rights of every eligible citizen.

It is a pleasure to be part of this discussion – and to be among so many friends, allies, and dedicated leaders.   I am grateful, in particular, for the opportunity to salute the important work that the people in this room are doing each day – all across the country – to enrich our communities and to improve lives.

Since its official establishment in 2009, CNBC’s efforts have reached more than 10 million people.   And, in partnership with the Congressional Black Caucus – a group that, over the last 40 years, has established itself as the “Conscience of Congress” – you have emerged as a powerful force for positive change.   Together, your organizations are not only providing a voice for the most vulnerable among us, you are shining a light on the problems we must solve and the promises that we must fulfill.

In so many different ways – in classrooms and courtrooms, in houses of worship and halls of justice, and in your own homes and neighborhoods – you are working to protect the progress that has marked our nation’s past, and to strengthen its future.   And your efforts honor America’s most noble and enduring cause – of security, opportunity, and justice for all.

Despite all that you’ve done to advance this cause – and the transformative progress that many of us have witnessed within our own lifetimes – as you know, this is no time to become complacent.   Yes, we have walked far on the long road toward freedom – but we have not yet reached the Promised Land.   And, in too many places, it’s painfully clear that our nation’s long struggle to overcome injustice, to eliminate disparities, to bridge long-standing divisions, to eradicate violence, and to uphold the civil rights of all citizens has not yet ended.

That means it is time, once again, to ask Dr. King’s most famous and enduring question: Where do we go from here?   It is time to consider – and to discuss – where we should focus our energies and where we must place our priorities.

Like many of you, I would argue that – of all the freedoms we enjoy today – none is more important, or more sacred, than the right to vote.   And I’m hardly the first to make such an assessment.   In July of 1965, when President Johnson signed the landmark Voting Rights Act into law, he proclaimed that, “the right to vote is the basic right, without which all others are meaningless.”

Today, as Attorney General, I have the privilege – and the solemn duty – of enforcing this law, and the other civil rights reforms that President Johnson, Dr. King, and so many other courageous leaders and activists once championed.   For our nation’s Department of Justice, and for our government and law enforcement partners across the country, this is among our highest priorities.   And it is evident in the historic progress that’s been made by this Administration – especially when it comes to expanding access to legal services; to combating hate crimes, community violence, and human trafficking; and to strengthening law enforcement efforts so that – in our workplaces and military bases; in our housing and lending markets; in our schools and places of worship; in our immigrant communities and our voting booths – the rights of all Americans are protected.

Our efforts honor the generations who have taken extraordinary risks, and willingly confronted hatred, bias, and ignorance – as well as billy clubs and fire hoses, bullets and bombs – to ensure that their children, and all citizens, would have the chance to participate in the work of their government.   And our efforts reflect the fact that the right to vote is not only the cornerstone of our system of government, it is – and always has been – the lifeblood of our democracy.   In fact,no force has proved more powerful – or more integral to the success of the great American experiment – than efforts to expand the franchise.

Despite this history, and despite our nation’s long tradition of extending voting rights – to non-property owners and women, to people of color and Native Americans, and to younger Americans – today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that – nearly five decades ago – so many fought to address.  In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from citizens, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble ideals; and that some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.

Congressman John Lewis may have described the reason for these concerns best, in a speech on the House floor last summer, when pointing out that the voting rights he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.”   Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices we’ve been fighting for years.    He was echoing more recent fears and frustrations about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season.

Let me assure you: for today’s Department of Justice, our commitment to strengthening – and to fulfilling – our nation’s promise of equal opportunity and equal justice has never been stronger.

Nowhere is this clearer than in current efforts to expand access to, and prevent discrimination in, our election systems.   We are dedicated to aggressively enforcing the Voting Rights Act – and to fulfilling our obligations under Section 2 and Section 5 of this vital law.

Under Section 2, which prohibits racially discriminatory practices that amount to either vote denial or vote dilution, we have opened a record number of new investigations – more than 100 in the last fiscal year.   We’ve also had success – without litigation – in encouraging voluntary improvements and compliance.

At the same time, Section 5 – which requires preclearance of proposed voting changes in parts or all of sixteen states where discrimination was deeply rooted – continues to be a critical tool in the protection of voting rights.   Under that important provision, certain “covered jurisdictions” are prevented from altering their voting practices until it can be determined that any proposed changes would have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.   This process, known as “preclearance,” has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades.   And it has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support – including in its most recent reauthorization, when President Bush and an overwhelming Congressional majority came together in 2006 to renew the Act’s key provisions – and extend it until 2031.

Yet, in the six years since its reauthorization, Section 5 has increasingly come under attack by those who claim it’s no longer needed.   Between 1965 and 2010 – nearly half a century – only eight challenges to Section 5 were filed in court.   By contrast, over the last two years alone, we’ve seen no fewer than nine lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of that provision.   Four of these currently are in litigation.   Each of these challenges to Section 5 claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.

I wish this were the case.   But the reality is that, in jurisdictions across the country, both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common – and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history.

As we’ve seen over the years, the Voting Rights Act – including Section 5 – consistently has been upheld in court.    In fact, several days ago, the D.C. Circuit rejected one of the latest challenges to Section 5, reaffirming its continued relevance as a cornerstone of civil rights law, and underscoring the fact that it remains critical in combating discrimination – and safeguarding essential voting rights that, for many Americans, now are at risk.

As you know – and have worked to draw attention to – the past two years have brought nearly two dozen new state laws and executive orders, from more than a dozen states, that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.    In response to some of these changes – in areas covered by Section 5 – the Justice Department has initiated careful, thorough, and independent reviews.   We’re now examining a number of redistricting plans in covered jurisdictions, as well as other types of changes to our election systems and processes – including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, to early voting procedures, and to photo identification requirements – to ensure that there is no discriminatory purpose or effect.  If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change.    And, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, when a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory effect – we will object, as we have in 15 separate cases since last September.

For example, in Texas, the Justice Department has argued that proposed redistricting plans for both the State House and the U.S. Congress are impermissible, based upon evidence suggesting that electoral maps were manipulated to give the appearance of minority control while minimizing minority electoral strength.   We argued – as we have successfully in the past – that this is precisely the type of discrimination that Section 5 was intended to block.   This case has been tried and we are now awaiting the court’s decision.

Unfortunately, electoral redistricting is far from the only area of concern in covered jurisdictions.    The recent wave of changes to state-level voter identification laws also has presented a number of problems requiring the Department’s attention.   In December, we objected to South Carolina’s voter ID law, after finding – based on the state’s own data – that the proposed change would place an unfair burden on non-white voters.   And this past March, we objected to a photo ID requirement in Texas because it would have had a disproportionate impact on Hispanic voters.

The Justice Department also is taking important steps to protect the voting rights of our men and women fighting overseas and our veterans returning home – as well as Americans living abroad, citizens with disabilities, college students, and language minorities.   Just a few days ago, we filed a lawsuit and proposed consent decree against the state of California to remedy the state’s failure to send absentee ballots on time to its overseas citizens and military voters for the state’s June 5th primary election.   This is the eighth such lawsuit the Department has filed in the last two years to protect the voting rights of service members and overseas citizens.   We also will continue working to enforce provisions like the “Motor Voter” law – and, to that end, have recently filed two lawsuits to increase access to registration opportunities.   In one of those cases, we reached a settlement with the State of Rhode Island that resulted in more voters being registered in the first full month after our lawsuit than in the entire previous two-year period.

In addition to these and other efforts to ensure access to the ballot box, we’re also working to uphold the integrity of our elections systems.   And, on this front, I want to be clear that no form of electoral fraud ever has been – or ever will be – tolerated by the United States government.

From my early days as a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, I’ve been proud to stand on the front lines of this fight – and I fully understand the importance of investigating and prosecuting fraud cases whenever and wherever they arise.   I also know firsthand what so many studies and assessments have shown – that making voter registration easier is not likely, by itself, to make our elections more susceptible to fraud.   And while responsible parties on all sides of this debate have acknowledged that in-person voting fraud is uncommon – any allegation of its occurrence is, and will continue to be, taken seriously.

As we continue working to expand – and to protect – the voting franchise, we’re fortunate to have strong allies in the Congressional Black Caucus whose members – just a few months ago – introduced legislation which opposes any state election law that would disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.   We’re also privileged to have committed partners in, and beyond, this room who are – in a very real sense – the stewards of our democracy.   That means you have a critical responsibility to help identify and implement the most effective ways to safeguard the “most basic” of all American rights.   You have a thoughtful voice to add to discussions about voting access – what the struggle for freedom has long been about ensuring: the opportunity for citizens to voice their opinions, and – through the casting of their ballots – to signal their priorities and shape their own futures.   Since its earliest days, the American people have worked and fought for such a system.   And, now, with each of us – this fight goes on.   The progress we hold dear is in our hands.   And the democracy we hold sacred is our responsibility to carry forward.

In driving these efforts, I am privileged to count you as partners.   And I am grateful for the leadership, commitment, and courage you’ve shown in keeping faith in the promise of this nation – and in the power of what its people can achieve together.

Thank you.

REMARKS OF RETA JO LEWIS AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Subnational Partnerships in a Globalized World
Remarks Reta Jo Lewis
Special Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs The John D. O'Bryant African-American Institute, Northeastern University
Boston, MA
April 6, 2012
Good afternoon and thank you Richard for that very kind introduction.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to visit Northeastern University, a highly acclaimed institution well-known for experiential research opportunities with a global outlook.
I would like to take a moment to thank the John D. O’Bryant African-American Institute. Not just for hosting this afternoon’s event, but for your commitment to intellectually, culturally, and socially inspiring students of African descent toward excellence, success, and service. Under the inspired leadership of Dr. Richard O’Bryant, the Institute fosters a positive and inspiring learning environment.

Today, the world faces a unique set of challenges -- economic, environmental, social, and political – that require collaborative innovation and determination of our world’s best minds.

It is almost hard to imagine how much has happened in the last 18 months, from revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, to renewed fears over economic default in Europe. The world has changed very quickly under our feet and before our eyes.

Over the last three years, the United States has ended one war, and we have begun to wind down another. We are affirming our place as a Pacific power. We are strengthening our alliance with our European and NATO partners. We are elevating the role of economics and development within U.S. diplomacy to help create jobs here at home and to advance our strategic interests around the world. And of course, we are reaching beyond governments to engage directly with people.

In this fast changing world, the Obama Administration is convinced of the need to seize this moment, to meet these challenges, and to lay the foundation for sustained global leadership in a rapidly changing world increasingly linked and transformed by new technologies. Only America has the reach, resources, and relationships to anchor a more peaceful and prosperous world.

At the same time, urbanization is occurring at an unprecedented rate, especially in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Fifty-two percent of the earth’s population now lives in cities. Every week one million people move to cities. Continued rapid urbanization will lead to three billion new urban dwellers.

Global partnerships which put aside individual philosophies and focus on solutions are essential to solving these global challenges and to building a more stable and secure world.
As Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton has said, and as the United States has long maintained, U.S. foreign policy relationships will always be nation-to-nation. But the scope of what defines nation-to-nation conversations are shifting in the modern, more global, and more flattened economy – deeming city-to-city and state-to-state dialogues just as critical to the larger context of executing, implementing, and achieving a nation’s overarching diplomatic goals.

Building peer-to-peer relationships between state and local elected officials has a tremendous effect on foreign policy that often goes unrecognized. Still, building these relationships and encouraging this engagement at the subnational level has limitless potential.

Peer-to-peer relationships provide state and local leaders around the globe with an intimate glance into the American way of life, and more importantly, into our democratic institutions and system of governance. Even at a more basic but equally important level, these interactions develop trust – an attribute essential to developing strong bilateral ties.
Secretary Clinton has stated time and time again that 21st century global challenges require us to work with new partners to collaborate and innovate globally. At the Department of State, this has meant making a transition to 21st Century Statecraft, a strategy for creating partnerships for achieving modern diplomatic goals by engaging all the elements of our national power and leveraging all forms of our strength.

Two years ago, Secretary Clinton created the Office of Global Intergovernmental Affairs emphasizing the need to utilize local leaders as a key component in the much needed widespread and deep-rooted efforts to take on our world’s greatest challenges – a key part of that charge is empowering subnational officials to lead their states and communities to a stable and secure future.

My job is to realize Secretary Clinton’s vision by connecting what the Federal Government does best with what state and local governments are doing and can do, and what our successful private sector is doing and can do. We have launched partnerships with China, India, and Brazil to strengthen subnational economic and cultural networks.

So, just as Secretary Clinton engages in important bilateral discussions with her counterparts, such as the Minister of External Relations of Brazil, so too does our office engage in pivotal conversations on a range of issues with Brazilian mayors and governors.

I just returned from a 10-day visit to Brazil during which I sought opportunities for state-to-state cooperation around the 2014 World Cup matches, trade and security interests, Sister City relationships, and social inclusion programs. I have worked to expand the relationships between U.S. mayors and governors and their counterparts in Brazil. I have made several trips to Brazil to support this effort. In each of the twelve cities and states I have visited, I have been met with incredible enthusiasm.

Exchanges between Brazilian and U.S. subnational entities have become more numerous and robust in the past two years. We have worked with the governors of California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and other elected officials to connect with their fellow leaders in Brazil

While all of the Brazilian officials with whom I have met have expressed the desire to collaborate in various ways, the issue of education is raised consistently. The United States and Brazil strongly support the internationalization of higher education. Both nations truly are honoring the commitments established in the U.S.-Brazil Partnership on Education by working together to achieve the shared goals of President Obama’s 100,000 Strong for the Americas initiative and Brazilian President Rousseff’s Science Without Borders. I am committed to engaging subnational entities in this effort, and am proud that we can count on their leadership and expertise to help make these initiatives successful.

For example, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick led a delegation of university leaders to Brazil last year, where they established the TOP USA-Massachusetts Program, an initiative that will promote an academic exchange of faculty and students between several Brazilian and Massachusetts universities. I had the opportunity to meet with a delegation from CAPES (the Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education) in Washington, DC last month during their Science Without Borders exchange. They made visits to various states a top priority. During her U.S. visit next week, President Rousseff plans to visit Massachusetts where she will meet with Governor Patrick and speak at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). When the United States and Brazil initiated the Partnership on Education, this is precisely what we had in mind.

These relationships truly strengthen the U.S.-Brazil bilateral partnership. As the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games approach, and as efforts are made to prepare our young citizens for the workforce and future leadership, the importance of subnational engagement between our nations becomes increasingly palpable.

The United States and Brazil signed in 2011 a memorandum of understanding to work together in preparation for these major global sporting events. In this agreement, we recalled our prior commitments from the Joint Action Plan to promote Ethnic and Racial Equality (JAPER) and the MOU for the advancement of women. We affirmed that we view these mega events as opportunities to tackle inequality and to advance economic opportunities to ensure citizens at every level of society benefit from those opportunities.

So, as we interact with state and local leaders in Brazil and around the world, we employ Secretary Clinton’s Economic Statecraft initiative which place economics and market forces at the center of U.S. foreign policy. Economic Statecraft harnesses global economic forces to advance America’s foreign policy and employs the tools of foreign policy to shore up our economic strength. In furtherance of the Secretary’s vision, our office has leveraged U.S. state and local officials in our economic strategy in China and India, among other nations.

For instance, we supported the establishment of the U.S. China Governors Forum in 2011. It has been reported that this dialogue fostered interactions that resulted in tangible U.S. job creation.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal visited several Chinese cities and corporations in October 2011, including Sany Group, which has invested $60 million in Peachtree City, Georgia. Sany Group plans to invest $25 million more in the State of Georgia, and to hire 300 engineers over the next five years.

Similarly, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue’s interactions with Chinese subnational leaders has reportedly led to an agreement between a Chinese and U.S. company that will create approximately 300 new jobs in North Carolina.
We collaborated with Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley on his historic trade mission to India in 2011. The mission resulted in opening new doors for the State of Maryland to create jobs, bolster trade and investments, and strengthen existing business relationships.
Two Indian companies plan investments in Maryland and eight Maryland businesses signed deals with Indian partners, with a combined total of nearly $60 million in business deals for the state and several additional deals worth millions still on the horizon.

While in India, Governor O’Malley met with a number of top Indian companies to promote Maryland as an ideal location for establishing U.S. operations. He signed an agreement in New Delhi with the Federation of India Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to create an India-Maryland Center in Maryland to boost trade between the two regions.

In addition, Maryland signed an agreement with the U.S.-India Importers Council committing Maryland and India to boost imports and exports. During the first nine months of 2011, the Port of Baltimore saw $341 in trade to and from India compared with $229 million during the same timeframe in 2010 – a 49 percent increase.

Many of the agreements entered into between Maryland and India will be of direct benefit to India. For example, CyperPoint, a Maryland cyber security company signed a $10 million contract with New Delhi-based Appin Security Group to jointly develop security solutions for mobile phones. A $20-50 million deal agreed to by Amarex Clinical Research, a Maryland company, and Scalene Cybernetics Limited, an Indian company, will create jobs both in Maryland and India.

While we are committed to continue working with state and local officials to advance U.S. economic interests, we are at the same time collaborating with these leaders on the creation of a sustainable future.

Today, we face daunting global challenges and we look forward to discussing them at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, in Rio de Janeiro in June. As we head toward an urbanized planet, we will have to build over the next 40 years, the same urban capacity as we have built over the past 4,000 years.

I believe we have the ability to meet all of these needs to build a sustainable future. We have the tools and the understanding, and we have the necessary commitment to global cooperation and collaboration. U.S. subnational leaders want to work with their foreign counterparts, with the private sector, investors, and clean technology to achieve global sustainability.

Rio+20 is about the future. The United States believes that Rio+20 should be a different kind of meeting, one that transforms the multilateral approach to sustainable development and incorporates its concepts across all sectors. It is our hope that Rio+20 will be truly inclusive of a broad collection of stakeholders, including state and local officials, civil society and the private sector.

States and cities do not face a choice between green and growth: they CAN and MUST pursue both. There is no “one-size-fits-all” model for implementing sustainability, and strategies will differ across regions as they do across countries. However, we firmly believe that local government leadership bears the fundamental responsibility to support urban sustainability.

Another fundamental message that the United States is bringing to Rio is the importance of good governance if we are to achieve a sustainable future. We need governance at all levels to be open and transparent, with robust channels for public participation, to better engage citizens and build new networks across all sectors of our societies.
So again, organizing subnational relationships promotes a deeper cultural exchange among nations, advances principles of openness, freedom, transparency and fairness in economic growth, and assists in the creation of a sustainable future.

In a 21st century world, there are no shortages of great partnerships, nor shortages of great ideas when we shore up our collective will to address the challenges we face.

By combining our strengths, we can more than double our impact to this subnational end. And the multiplier effect continues if we add philanthropies, businesses, NGOs, universities, and entrepreneurs. That’s the power of partnership at its best -- allowing us to achieve so much more together than we could apart.

As young people and the next generation who will inherit this globalized world, you possess the power to make change. You are indeed privileged to attend this fine university which affords you the opportunity to develop a global view, as well as the leadership skills to take grassroots action for peace, prosperity, and sustainability.

All over the world today our youth are taking up the batons of civic engagement and striving to build a world free of social ailments. They are springing up against dictatorships and occupying the excesses of corporate inequality; they are insisting upon a strong respect for our environment and challenging the status quo of bitter partisanship.

In order for the youth of today to truly be the leaders of tomorrow, in order for them to become effective advocates for inclusion and vanguards of social change, they would be well-advised to heed the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. All of us must continue to make those around us aware that the path to social change demands an ethic of public service, a commitment to reconciliation, and a spirit of love and mutuality.
Only 26 years old when he began preaching the gospel of tolerance, Dr. King’s principles of understanding – even now – are vital to encouraging young minds to build a compassionate world that stands up against inequality, illiteracy, hunger, and poverty, for many generations to come.

I am here today to urge you to prepare yourselves to be effective global citizens by sharpening your international perspective. I thank you for being here today to participate in this discussion of U.S. global engagement. Learning a foreign language and studying abroad are two excellent ways to expand your world view.

Secretary Clinton strongly supports study abroad programs. In her 2009 New York University commencement speech, Secretary Clinton said, “…study abroad is like spring training for this century: It helps you develop the fundamentals, the teamwork, and the determination to succeed. And we want more American students to have that opportunity.”

At the State Department, we are committed to increasing the number and the diversity of students who study in this country, as well as our American students who study abroad. We need and welcome your participation in this effort.

For our part, we recognize that finding new ways to communicate and engage with you and the young citizens of the world is critical. After all, nearly half of the world’s population -- almost 3 billion people -- is under the age of 25. The State Department is committed to strengthening our bonds with youth – reaching them wherever they are around the globe, by using every tool at our command including new media. In fact, last fall I took a leap into the 21st century by joining Twitter. Follow me at @SSRGIA so that we can stay connected.
And with that, I am happy to take your questions.