SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS TO PRESS AT KYIV EMBASSY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks at a Solo Press Availability

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy Kyiv

Kyiv, Ukraine

March 4, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Let me say, first of all, how incredibly moving it was to walk down Institutska Street and to have a chance to be able to pay my respects on behalf of President Obama and the American people at the site of last month’s deadly shootings.  It was really quite remarkable, I have to tell you, to see the barricades, see the tires, see the barbed wire, see the bullet holes in street lamps, the extraordinary number of flowers, the people still standing beside a barrel with a fire to keep them warm, the shrouded vision in the clouds and the fog of the buildings from which the shots came, and the pictures, the photographs, of those who lost their lives, of the people who put themselves on the line for the future of Ukraine.

It was deeply moving to walk into a group of Ukrainians spontaneously gathered there and to listen to them, to listen to their pleas of passion for the right not to go back to life as it was under former president Yanukovych.  One woman who pleadingly said how poor they were, how the rich lived well, and how those in power took the money, and how they were left behind.  And particularly, one man who told me that he had recently traveled to Australia, and he had come back here, but he came determined to be able to live as he had seen other people live in other parts of the world. 

So it was very moving, and it gave me a deep, personal sense of how closely linked the people of Ukraine are to not just Americans, but to people all across the world who today are asking for their rights, asking for the privilege to be able to live, defining their own nation, defining their futures.  That’s what this is about. 

And the United States extends our deepest condolences to those whose grief is still very fresh and those who lost loved ones, who bravely battled against snipers on rooftops and people armed against them with weapons they never dreamt of having.  These brave Ukrainians took to the streets in order to stand peacefully against tyranny and to demand democracy.  So instead, they were met with snipers who picked them off, one after the other, as people of courage, notwithstanding the bullets, went out to get them, drag them to safety, give them comfort, expose themselves.  They raised their voices for dignity and for freedom.  But what they stood for so bravely, I say with full conviction, will never be stolen by bullets or by invasions.  It cannot be silenced by thugs from rooftops.  It is universal, it’s unmistakable, and it’s called freedom. 

So today, in another part of this country, we’re in a new phase of the struggle for freedom.  And the United States reaffirms our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, according to international law.  We condemn the Russian Federation’s act of aggression.  And we have, throughout this moment, evidence of a great transformation taking place, and in that transformation we will stand with the people of Ukraine. 

Today, Ukrainians are demanding a government with the consent of the people.  And I have to say that we all greatly admire the restraint that the transitional government has shown as it makes this transition.  They have shown restraint, despite an invasion of Ukrainian homeland and a Russian Government that has chosen aggression and intimidation as a first resort.  The contrast really could not be clearer:  determined Ukrainians demonstrating strength through unity and a Russian Government out of excuses, hiding its hand behind falsehoods, intimidation, and provocations. 

In the hearts of Ukrainians and the eyes of the world, there is nothing strong about what Russia is doing.  So it’s time to set the record straight.  The Russian Government would have you believe it was the opposition who failed to implement the February 21^st agreement that called for a peaceful transition, ignoring the reality that it was Yanukovych who, when history came calling, when his country was in need, when this city was the place where the action was, where the leaders of the nation were gathered in order to decide the future, he broke his obligation to sign that agreement and he fled into the night with his possessions, destroying papers behind him.  He abandoned his people and eventually his country.

The Russian Government would have you believe that the Ukraine Government somehow is illegitimate or led by extremists, ignoring the reality that the Rada, representing the people of Ukraine, the elected representatives of the people of Ukraine – they overwhelming approved the new government, even with members of Yanukovych’s party deserting him and voting overwhelmingly in order to approve this new government.  It was thanks in part to the votes from Yanukovych’s own party that the future of Ukraine changed.  And today, the Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine.

The Russian Government would also have you believe that the calm and friendly streets – one of which I walked down but many of which I just drove through – that somehow these streets of Kyiv are actually dangerous, ignoring the reality that there has been no surge in crime, no surge in looting, no political retribution here.  The Russian Government would have you believe, against all the evidence, that there have been mass defections of Ukrainians to Russia, or that there have been mass attacks on churches in eastern Ukraine.  That hasn’t happened, either.

They would have you believe that ethnic Russians and Russian bases are threatened.  They’d have you believe that Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea or that Russian actions are legal or legitimate because Crimean leaders invited intervention.  And as everybody knows, the soldiers in Crimea, at the instruction of their government, have stood their ground but never fired a shot, never issued one provocation, have been surrounded by an invading group of troops and have seen an individual who got 3 percent of the vote installed as the so-called leader by the Russians.

They would have you believe that Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea, or that somehow Russian leaders invited intervention.  Not a single piece of credible evidence supports any one of these claims – none.

And the larger point is really this:  It is diplomacy and respect for sovereignty, not unilateral force, that can best solve disputes like this in the 21^st century.  President Obama and I want to make it clear to Russia and to everybody in the world that we are not seeking confrontation.  There’s a better way for Russia to pursue its legitimate interests in Ukraine.  If you were legitimately worried about some of your citizens, then go to the government.  Talk to them about it.  Go to the UN.  Raise the issue in the Security Council.  Go to the OSCE.  Raise it in one of the human rights organizations.  There are countless outlets that an organized, structured, decent world has struggled to put together to resolve these differences so we don’t see a nation unilaterally invade another nation.  There’s a better way for Russia to pursue its legitimate interests in Ukraine.

Russia can choose to comply with international law and honor its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act under the United Nations Charter.  If it wants to help protect ethnic Russians, as it purports to, and if they were threatened, we would support efforts to protect them, as would, I am told, the Government of Ukraine.  But if they want to do that, Russia could work with the legitimate Government of Ukraine, which it has pledged to do.  It cannot only permit, but must encourage, international monitors to deploy throughout Ukraine.  These are the people who could actually identify legitimate threats.  And we are asking, together with the Government of Ukraine, together with the European community, for large numbers of observers to be able to come in here and monitor the situation and be the arbiters of truth versus fiction.  Russia, if it wanted to help deescalate the situation, could return its troops to the barracks, live by the 1997 base agreement, and deescalate rather than expand their invasion.

Now, we would prefer that.  I come here today at the instruction of President Obama to make it absolutely clear the United States of America would prefer to see this deescalated.  We would prefer to see this managed through the structures of legal institutions, international institutions that we’ve worked many years in order to be able to deal with this kind of crisis.  But if Russia does not choose to deescalate, if it is not willing to work directly with the Government of Ukraine, as we hope they will be, then our partners will have absolutely no choice but to join us to continue to expand upon steps we have taken in recent days in order to isolate Russia politically, diplomatically, and economically.

I would emphasize to the leaders of Russia this is not something we are seeking to do; this is something Russia’s choices may force us to do.  So far, we have suspended participation in the preparations for the Sochi G8 summit.  We have suspended military-to-military contacts, and we have suspended bilateral economic dialogue, and we are prepared to take further steps if Russia does not return its forces to the barracks and engage in a legitimate policy of de-escalation. 

At the same time, the United States and its partners – our partners – will support Ukraine.  We will support it as it takes difficult steps to deal with its economy.  And I appreciate the meeting that I just had with the acting president and the prime minister and other leaders as we discussed how to strengthen the economy and move rapidly towards free, fair, open elections that can take place very shortly. 

We are working closely and we’ll continue to work closely with the IMF team and with international partners in order to develop an assistance package to help Ukraine restore financial stability in the short run and to be able to grow its economy in the long run.  I’m pleased to say that this package includes an immediate $1 billion in a loan guarantee to support Ukraine’s recovery, and we are currently working with the Treasury Department of the United States and with others to lay out a broader, more comprehensive plan.  We will provide the best expertise available to help Ukraine’s economy and financial institutions repair themselves, and to work towards these free, fair, fast, inclusive elections.

We’re also working with the interim government to help combat corruption and to recover stolen assets, and we are helping Ukraine to cope with Russia’s politically motivated trade practices, whether it’s manipulating the energy supply or banning the best chocolates made in Ukraine.  The fact is this is the 21^st century, and we should not see nations step backwards to behave in 19^th or 20^thcentury fashion.  There are ways to resolve these differences.  Great nations choose to do that appropriately. 

The fact is that we believe that there are a set of options available to Russia and to all of us that could move us down a road of appropriate diplomacy, appropriate diplomatic engagement.  We invite Russia to come to that table; we particularly invite Russia to engage directly with the Government of Ukraine, because I am confident they are prepared to help work through these issues in a thoughtful way. 

I’m very proud to be here in Ukraine.  Like so many Americans and other people around the world, we’ve watched with extraordinary awe the power of individuals unarmed except with ideas, people with beliefs and principles and values who have reached for freedom, for equality, for opportunity.  There’s nothing more important in this world.  That is what drives change in so many parts of the world today. 

It’s really partly why the world is in such a state of transformation in so many different places at the same time, because we’re all connected.  We all understand what other people are doing and the choices they have and the lives they get to lead.  And all over the world young people are saying:  We do not want to be deprived of those opportunities.  That’s what this is about.  And it is about all those who value democracy and who support the opportunity for this country to join the legions of others who want to practice it. 

The United States will stand by the Ukrainian people as they build the strong, sovereign, and democratic country that they deserve, and that their countrymen and women just so recently gave their lives in extraordinary courageous acts in order to ensure for the future.  We must all step up and answer their call.

I’m happy to take some questions.

MS. HARF:  Great.  Thank you.  The first question is from Andrea Mitchell of NBC.  There’s a microphone coming. 

QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Secretary, U.S. officials have been saying that Vladimir Putin will be isolated by his actions.  Yet today, he seemed defiant, speaking for an hour, taking questions.  He said, among other things, that Russia reserves the right to take any action, to use any means – obviously, military means.  He described events here as an unconstitutional coup.  He denied that there were any Russian troops in Crimea, occupying Crimea.  He blamed the crisis on United States interference, saying that the U.S. --

SECRETARY KERRY:  He really denied there were troops in Crimea?

QUESTION:  Yes, he did.  He also blamed the crisis on the United States, saying that the United States was acting as though it were conducting an experiment across the ocean on lab animals, on rats here.  And he showed no sign of being ready to step down – step down or de-escalate the military presence in Crimea.  There have been fire – shots fired today.  There’s the presence reported of naval Russian ships along the isthmus between Ukraine and Crimea. 

So with all of that, how has the U.S. pressure worked against Putin?  What is your reaction to his assertions?  And also, while you were here you met with many leaders.  You did not meet with Yulia Tymoshenko.  Is she viewed by the United States as not part of the solution or as possibly part of the problem?

SECRETARY KERRY:  Well, let me answer the last part of the question first: not at all.  I thought I actually might bump into her, but I didn’t.  I had the meetings with the current group that represent the parties that have come together and most likely presidential candidates at this moment who – with whom I’ve been in touch and working with.  I met with a number of them in Munich previously, and so we continued that conversation.

But with respect to President Putin’s comments, I’ve spoken as directly to President Putin today as I can to invite him to engage in a legitimate and appropriate dialogue, particularly with the current Government of Ukraine, knowing that there’s an election in 90 days and the people of Ukraine will have an opportunity to ratify their future leadership.  The fact is that in the eastern part of the country, Russia recently tried to get a couple of city councils to actually pass something asking for Russians to come in.  And lo and behold, those councils did the opposite.  They said, “We don’t want Russia to come in.  We want our independence.” 

And I think that it is clear that Russia has been working hard to create a pretext for being able to invade further.  Russia has talked about Russian-speaking minority citizens who are under siege.  They’re not.  And in fact, this government has acted remarkably responsibly by urging total calm, by not wanting to have any provocation, by avoiding even their troops who have a legal right to resist the invasion of other troops, but has ordered them not to engage to give a pretext of anybody being in danger.  Here in the streets today, I didn’t see anybody who feels threatened, except for the potential of an invasion by Russia. 

So I would hope that President Putin, who is insisting against all evidence everywhere in the world about troops being in Crimea that they’re not there, that he will step back and listen carefully that we could like to see this de-escalated.  We are not looking for some major confrontation.  But – and I do not believe that his interests, which we understand – a base, strong ties, everybody knows that Khrushchev gave the Crimea to the Ukraine back in 1954 or ‘6, I think it was.  We all know these things.  There’s a long history of connection.  We get it.  But those things can continue and be worked out through the legal process, through the direct relationship with the Government of Ukraine.  It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve.  That is not 21^st century, G8, major nation behavior.

And what we are looking for here is a responsible way to meet the needs of the parties but respect the integrity, the sovereignty, the territorial integrity of Ukraine.  And in fact, the UN Charter, the Final Act of Helsinki, the 1994 Budapest Agreement, and the 1997 Base Agreement between Russia and Ukraine all require a certain set of standards which have not been followed here.

So again, we would like to see President Putin address the problems not by deploying forces, not through confrontation, but by engaging in the time-honored tradition of diplomacy, of discussion, of negotiation, and let’s find a path forward which puts everybody on a track that benefits this region and the world more effectively.

QUESTION:  And will Germany stand with you against (inaudible)?

SECRETARY KERRY:  Excuse me.  We will be having further discussions.  I think the President will be talking before long with Chancellor Merkel.  I’m having more conversations with Foreign Minister Steinmeier.  And I believe we will stand united.  I believe that.

Yes.

MS. HARF:  Okay.  Our final question comes from Maria Korenyuk of EuroNews. 

QUESTION:  (Off-mike.) Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY:  Well, let me answer the second part first.  We’re working on support as rapidly as we could make it available.  We already have people working on the economic – with the IMF team, consulting with the government, working to get the facts together.  We’re trying to actually define the needs as accurately as is possible, and as I said to you, we’ve announced the $1 billion loan guarantee.  We actually have the money appropriated.  We know where we’re heading with that.  We have additional initiatives that can be quickly put together as our team works in Washington. 

The President has instructed all of us to look at every option available with respect to direct economic aid.  And the President, particularly, yesterday when he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the White House, made a statement about Ukraine in which he asked Congress, which has been making very strong statements about support for Ukraine, to come to the table quickly with an economic package appropriated by the Congress.  We want that to happen immediately.

So this is urgent.  We understand that.  I don’t think it’s appropriate for the United States or any other country to come here, talk about the strength and courage of the people in the streets, to underscore the value of democracy and of freedom that people are fighting for here, and then just walk away and not doing anything about it.  So we are committed, and we are going to work to do what we can within our system as rapidly as possible. 

And with respect to the first part of your question, I – our purpose is to try – I’ve said this several times today – I want to repeat it.  We have lots of options, obviously.  There are lots of tools at the disposal of the President of the United States and the United States of America and other countries.  But none of us want to escalate this so that it becomes the kind of confrontation where people can’t find a reasonable path forward and where, as a result, you’re stuck in a place that’s very hard to climb down from.  That is not where we would like to see this go, which is why President Obama is stressing and wants me to stress our effort to try to find a way forward which allows Russia to have its interests – and they do have some interests – to be properly listened to and properly taken into account in the system. 

I have heard each Ukrainian leader who’s talked to me acknowledge that they understand that, that there will be a relationship with Russia.  There is a capacity for a strong relationship between Ukraine and Russia, but it is a relationship that shouldn’t be at the expense of not being able to have a relationship with the rest of the world, and not be forced on them, and not a relationship that precludes the full sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation of Ukraine being respected.  That’s what should guide this, and that’s exactly what is motivating our efforts here right now.

Thank you all very, very much.  I appreciate it.  Good to be with you.  I’m sorry.  We have, unfortunately, a schedule to stay on and I apologize for that.  I would like to take more questions but we’ve got to run.  Thank you.

ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SPEAKS AT ANNUAL NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK CONVENTION

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the 15th Annual National Action Network Convention

New York ~ Thursday, April 4, 2013

Thank you, Reverend Sharpton – and thank you all for such a warm welcome. It’s a privilege to be included, once again, in this important Annual Convention. It’s a pleasure – as always – to be back home in New York City. And it’s an honor to join with so many good friends, committed partners, and current and future leaders in celebrating the memory – and extending the legacy – of one of our nation’s greatest champions for justice: the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I’d like to thank Martin Luther King III, Representative Rangel, Reverend Sharpton, Dr. Richardson, Vice President Hardy, Executive Director Mallory, and each of the National Action Network’s members and leaders – in addition to our distinguished Keepers of the Dream Award recipients – not only for your steadfast support, but for your prayers, over the last four years. Since becoming Attorney General in 2009, I’ve been proud to count you as allies in the Justice Department’s efforts to strengthen our nation and protect its most vulnerable citizens. I’m grateful for all you’ve done since this organization was founded – more than two decades ago – to help safeguard civil rights; to combat and prevent violent crime; to expand access to educational and job opportunities; and to protect that "most basic" right of American citizenship – the right to vote.

Especially tonight, as our nation marks the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s tragic and untimely death, it’s fitting that we reflect upon how far this country has since traveled on the road to equality and opportunity. It’s appropriate that we celebrate the remarkable, once-unimaginable progress that so many of us have seen even within our lifetimes. But it’s also important to remind ourselves – and our fellow citizens – that this journey is far from over. And, for all the progress we’ve made, the road ahead still stretches beyond the horizon.

Four and a half decades ago – on what was to be the last night of Dr. King’s life – he stood before a religious gathering in Memphis, Tennessee, and laid out an optimistic but unvarnished vision of what this great country has always stood for – and what he knew it could become. It was a vision inspired by the patriots who, two centuries before, had set in motion the great American experiment – and began building the "more perfect Union" that to this day remains our common pursuit. It was a vision tarnished by the evils of slavery and segregation – only to be reclaimed by generations of brave Americans who risked, and too often gave, their lives to move this country closer to its founding ideals.

Above all, it was a vision of hope – put forward in a moment of doubt – that provided assurance of the brighter future Dr. King realized he might not live to see. In that final speech, he surveyed the challenges facing the Civil Rights Movement. He described threats that had been made against his own life. And he sounded a note of confidence in the face of a gathering storm: "We’ve got some difficult days ahead," he told the crowd that night. "But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop . . . . And I’ve seen the Promised Land."

The very next day, Dr. King’s life came to a violent end. And, although he was taken from us far too suddenly, and far too soon – he was only 39 years of age – in the decades since then, his vision has endured, and his message has been amplified by millions who continued to follow his example and to walk in his footsteps.

If he could be here with us tonight, I’m confident that Dr. King would be proud of the country he helped to recreate – and the great strides we’ve witnessed over the last 45 years. I’m sure he would be encouraged to see that his work goes on every day – in the advocacy of groups like this one, and the efforts of countless citizens – seemingly ordinary, but all truly extraordinary – who are still fighting to advance this righteous struggle.

At the same time, I know Dr. King would not yet be satisfied. And he would be the first to remind us that – although segregation is no longer the law of the land; although bigotry and discrimination are not as pervasive as they once were; and although a direct beneficiary of his legacy now sits in the Oval Office, and another humbly serves as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States – even today, in 2013, our struggle to bridge divisions, to eradicate violence, and to combat disparities and disenfranchisement remains far from over. And nowhere is this clearer than in the national debate about voting rights that has captured recent headlines from coast to coast.

At the center of this discussion is the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act – a signature achievement of the Civil Rights Movement – which, for nearly half a century, has served as an essential tool for preventing disenfranchisement in our elections. Under an important provision of this Act known as "Section 5," all or parts of 15 states with documented histories of discrimination are required to obtain approval, from either the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges, for any proposed changes in voting procedures or practices – including redistricting plans, and early voting procedures, and photo identification requirements – some of which may disproportionately impact young, poor, elderly, and minority voters. Since this "preclearance" process went into effect, almost five decades ago, it has prevented these "covered jurisdictions" from altering their voting practices until it has been determined that new proposals have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect. There has long been a national consensus, a bipartisan consensus, that the Voting Rights Act was not only necessary, but good for our nation.

Since 2010, however, we’ve seen at least 10 lawsuits – more than in the first four decades of the statute’s existence – arguing that Section 5 is no longer constitutional, and that our nation has moved far beyond the challenges that prompted both its passage and its recent, bipartisan Congressional renewal. Let me be clear: while this country has indeed changed, and real progress has been made – we are not yet at the point where the most vital part of the Voting Rights Act can be described as unnecessary or a product of a flawed political process. That’s why today’s Justice Department has vigorously defended Section 5 as an indispensable – and constitutional – tool for eradicating discriminatory electoral processes.

As many of you know, the Supreme Court recently heard a case challenging the constitutionality of this vital measure. As we await the Court’s decision, I want to assure you that – no matter the outcome – the Department of Justice will remain committed to the aggressive and appropriate enforcement of all voting and civil rights protections, including every part of the Voting Rights Act. And we are eager to work with elections administrators and elected leaders throughout the country to consider policies aimed at making more fair – and modernizing – our voting systems; ensuring that all eligible citizens have equal access to the ballot; and preventing and punishing fraudulent voting practices – however rare.

Long lines are unnecessary. Shortened voting periods are unwise and inconsistent with the historic ideal of expanded participation in the process. Recent proposed changes in how electoral votes are apportioned in specific states are blatantly partisan, unfair, divisive, and not worthy of our nation. Let me be clear again: we will not sit by and allow the slow unraveling of an electoral system that so many sacrificed so much to construct.

But I also recognize – as you do – that the Justice Department can’t do it all, and we’ll never be able make the progress we need on our own.

Fortunately, each of us has the power to stand up, and speak out, in defense of this fundamental right. All of us have the responsibility to strengthen the efforts that have been entrusted to us, and the legacy that inspired the National Action Network’s founding. And no one can afford to become complacent – particularly when it comes to protecting the rights, safety, and future, of America’s most vulnerable citizens: our children.

Last December – in Newtown, Connecticut – a horrific mass shooting brought into sharp focus the importance of doing just that. And it spurred legions of policymakers, community leaders, and ordinary citizens to try and address the epidemic of gun violence that afflicts too many neighborhoods every day – and that passes, too often unnoticed, in our cities’ streets.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon is anything but new. Since April 1999 – when two teenagers used guns and homemade bombs to kill a teacher, murder a dozen of their classmates, and wound 21 others at Columbine High School in Colorado – this country has witnessed no fewer than 47 mass shootings involving over 640 victims, more than half of whom were killed. A recent report by the New York County Lawyers’ Association showed that – in a majority of these incidents – the perpetrators used extended or high-capacity magazines.

In order to prevent future tragedies, earlier this year, I joined Vice President Biden and a number of my fellow Cabinet members to develop common-sense recommendations for keeping guns from falling into the wrong hands, keeping our young people safe, and keeping our neighborhoods and schools more secure. Contrary to what a few have said, this comprehensive plan – which President Obama announced in January – is consistent with the Second Amendment, and would not infringe – in any way – on the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. And it has led the Administration to call on Congress to adopt legislation requiring "universal" background checks, so that a full background check is performed every time someone attempts to buy a gun; to impose tough new penalties on gun traffickers; and to ban high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons, updated and stronger than the law that was enacted in 1994.

I’m pleased to note that the Senate will vote on a number of promising gun violence reduction proposals in the coming weeks. And tonight, I’m proud to join the National Action Network and countless Americans in urging both houses of Congress to give each and every one of these measures the timely, individual consideration they deserve. Many have said that these will be "tough" votes, and I understand that the gun lobby will attack some who support reform. But progress is never easy, and taking risks to ensure change is almost always necessary. The American people must stand with and support those who will be with us on this critical issue. The collective voice of those who overwhelmingly support the proposed reforms must overcome the efforts of the well-financed few who stand for a violent and dangerous status quo. Those whose lives have been impacted by gun violence – the victims and the survivors – are depending on us.

In December, just days after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I traveled to Newtown. In what were without question the worst moments of my professional life, I walked the halls where those unspeakable acts took place. I met with the first responders and crime scene search officers who arrived at the school just after the first calls came in. And when these brave men and women asked me, with broken hearts and tear-streamed faces, to do whatever I could to prevent such a thing from happening again – I told them I would not rest until we had secured the common-sense changes that they and those 26 angels deserved.

I promised them I would never forget – just as I know you have not forgotten. On this, of all nights, let us dedicate ourselves, as Dr. King would expect us to do, to this new struggle.

In addition to calling for Congressional action, agencies across the Administration are implementing 23 executive actions that President Obama announced in order to provide federal and local officials with the resources and information needed to safeguard our citizens, to develop plans for making schools more secure, and to increase access to mental health services for those who need them. These efforts are currently under way, and I’m hopeful that they’ll help to prevent violence and save lives. But all of this is only the beginning.

More broadly, we must also move to improve our nation’s criminal justice system – and to promote public safety, deterrence, efficiency, and fairness at every level. We’re providing increased support for programs offering quality legal representation to those who cannot afford it, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright– a landmark ruling, handed down 50 years ago last month, which held that every defendant charged with a serious crime has the right to an attorney.

We’re also asking larger questions about the mechanisms of our criminal justice system as a whole – and, where appropriate, exploring ways to recalibrate this system and ensure that it’s as fair and effective as possible.

Already, this urgent need has driven the Administration to advocate – successfully – for the elimination of the unjust 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. As we speak, it is propelling us to become both smarter and tougher on crime by facilitating more effective policing at the state and local levels; broadening the impact of innovative prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry programs; using intelligence-based strategies to target federal law enforcement resources and assistance to the areas where they’re most needed; and seeking new ways to help crime victims – especially victims of sexual assault – to make their lives whole again.

Our reform efforts are also driving us to engage allies like the Department of Education – and others – to confront the "school-to-prison pipeline" that transforms too many educational institutions from doorways of opportunity into gateways to the criminal justice system. They are informing essential programs like the Department’s Defending Childhood Initiative and the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention – which are helping to rally federal leaders, state officials, private organizations, and community groups to examine how we can better understand, address, and prevent youth exposure to violence – as victims or as witnesses. And these efforts are inspiring us to forge new partnerships like the Federal Interagency Reentry Council – a group I first convened in 2011, which brings together leaders from 20 federal agencies to address barriers that formerly incarcerated individuals face in rejoining their communities, to promote best practices, and to confront these and related issues as more than just criminal justice problems.

The sheer number of Americans contending with these challenges is staggering. Well over two million people are currently behind bars in this country. As a nation we are coldly efficient in our incarceration efforts. One in 28 children has a parent in prison. For African American children, this ratio is roughly 1 in 9. In total, approximately 700,000 people are released from state and federal prisons every year. Nine to 10 million more cycle through local jails. And 40 percent of former federal prisoners – along with more than 60 percent of former state prisoners – are rearrested or have their supervision revoked within three years after their release.

Now, there’s no question that incarceration has a role to play in our criminal justice system. But there’s also no denying that widespread incarceration at the federal, state, and local levels imposes a significant economic burden – totaling nearly $83 billion in 2009 alone – along with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate. As a nation – and as a people – we pay a high price whenever our criminal justice policies fall short of fairly delivering outcomes that deter and punish crime, keep the American people safe, and ensure that those who pay their debts to society have the chance to become productive, law-abiding citizens.

This is why – as we look toward the future – we must promote public safety and deterrence while at the same time ensuring efficiency and fairness. I am concerned by a troubling report released by the United States Sentencing Commission in February, which indicates that – in recent years – black male offenders have received sentences that are nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes. The Department of Justice is determined to continue working alongside Congressional leaders, judges, law enforcement officials, and independent groups – like the American Bar Association – to study the unintended collateral consequences of certain convictions; to address unwarranted sentencing disparities; and – where appropriate – to explore ways to give judges more flexibility in determining certain sentences. Too many people go to too many prisons for far too long for no good law enforcement reason. It is time to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about our criminal justice system. Statutes passed by legislatures that mandate sentences, irrespective of the unique facts of an individual case, too often bear no relation to the conduct at issue, breed disrespect for the system, and are ultimately counterproductive. It is time to examine our systems and determine what truly works. We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to rehabilitate, and to deter – and not simply to warehouse and forget.

I remain hopeful about what my colleagues and I will be able to achieve in the months and years ahead – as long as we can count on the strong support, and steadfast partnership, of leaders like all of you. As I look around this crowd – of friends, allies, and distinguished award recipients and despite the frustrations of the moment, and the obstacles ahead, I can’t help but feel confident in our ability to move forward together – and to build upon the legacy of the icon who was taken from us 45 years ago tonight.

Dr. King was a singular figure in our history, and his impact on the world we live in today would be difficult to overstate. But the struggle that came to define his life was anything but unique.

This struggle is reflected in the stories of selflessness – and sacrifice – that are woven throughout our history. These stories remind us that this nation was built, and it continues to be improved, by generations of Americans – young and old, from all backgrounds and walks of life – like those in this room tonight. Ultimately, these stories – and the legacy of progress that is our common inheritance – are founded on a hope as old as our Republic, and as contemporary as this new century: that – here and now – we have the power not merely to overcome --- but to come together and to confront the challenges of our time. We have the strength to bear one another up, and push one another forward, in our continuing march down the road to equality and justice. And we have the solemn responsibility – and the rare opportunity – not just to maintain a steady course, but to help realize the vision of a King whose example still guides us; whose words still inspire us; and whose dream will someday lead us to walk – together – into the Promised Land.

May God continue to bless our journey. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.