Monday, September 23, 2013
READOUT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL TO KENYAN PRESIDENT KENYATTA
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Readout of the President’s Call with President Kenyatta of Kenya
President Obama called President Kenyatta of Kenya this morning to express condolences to the government and people of Kenya for the terrorist attack carried out by al-Shabaab yesterday on the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi. President Obama reiterated U.S. support for Kenya’s efforts to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice. The President also reaffirmed the strong and historic partnership between the United States and Kenya as well as our shared commitment to combating terrorism and promoting peace and prosperity in East Africa and around the world.
REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY BEFORE MEETING WITH EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 22, 2013
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what do you have to say to al-Shabaab after this weekend's attack?
SECRETARY KERRY: I’ll have something to say about it tomorrow, but obviously it’s an enormous offense against everybody’s sense of right and wrong. And President Obama talked today with the President; I talked with the Foreign Minister, our Ambassador. We’re in close touch with everybody there. But it’s – it represents the seriousness and the breadth of the challenge that we face with ruthless and completely reckless terrorists. So we’re going to proceed.
Thank you
Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 22, 2013
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what do you have to say to al-Shabaab after this weekend's attack?
SECRETARY KERRY: I’ll have something to say about it tomorrow, but obviously it’s an enormous offense against everybody’s sense of right and wrong. And President Obama talked today with the President; I talked with the Foreign Minister, our Ambassador. We’re in close touch with everybody there. But it’s – it represents the seriousness and the breadth of the challenge that we face with ruthless and completely reckless terrorists. So we’re going to proceed.
Thank you
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCES $34 MILLION IN EXPORTS TO SUPPORT 200 U.S. JOBS
FROM: EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Ex-Im Bank Approves $34 Million to Finance the Export of U.S.
Solar-Related Products to Spain and South Africa
Transaction Supports White House Power Africa Initiative
Washington, D.C. – As part of its renewable-energy push, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) has authorized a pair of direct loans totaling $33.6 million to Abengoa of Seville, Spain, that will facilitate the export of American heat-transfer fluid produced by The Dow Chemical Company for use in solar projects in Spain and South Africa.
Ex-Im Bank’s financing will support approximately 200 U.S. jobs, according to bank estimates derived from Departments of Commerce and Labor data and methodology.
“Ex-Im Bank’s consistent support of renewable-energy projects demonstrates our commitment to supporting high-skilled jobs in an important homegrown industry and improving the environment,” said Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg. “In addition to contributing to cleaner sources of energy and supporting U.S. jobs, these two transactions will support President Obama’s goal of doubling access to power in sub-Saharan Africa.”
Power Africa is a new initiative to double access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. In its initial phase, the United States has already committed more than $7 billion in financial support to this effort.
DOWTHERMTM A heat-transfer fluid from Dow is a key component of the steam-heating process in concentrated solar power plants and replaces conventional fossil-fuel boilers.
Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company, and its consolidated subsidiaries (Dow), delivers a broad range of technology-based products and solutions through the production, marketing, and sales of specialty chemicals and advanced materials and plastics. Dow operates manufacturing sites in 36 countries and employs approximately 54,000 people.
“The Ex-Im Bank is enabling growth in the U.S. and beyond,” said Carolina Barrios, market development manager for Dow Heat Transfer Fluids. “By supporting the use of high quality, U.S.-made exports, this transaction advances the competitiveness of Dow manufacturing and operations jobs locally, while helping to meet clean energy demands around the world.”
Abengoa is an international company based in Seville, Spain, that applies innovative technology solutions for sustainability in the energy and environment sectors. The company operates two parabolic-trough solar plants in Logrosan, Spain, and is currently building two plants in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa with the Industrial Development Corporation. The two plants in Spain and one of the two in South Africa will rely upon DOWTHERM A.
Ex-Im Bank Approves $34 Million to Finance the Export of U.S.
Solar-Related Products to Spain and South Africa
Transaction Supports White House Power Africa Initiative
Washington, D.C. – As part of its renewable-energy push, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) has authorized a pair of direct loans totaling $33.6 million to Abengoa of Seville, Spain, that will facilitate the export of American heat-transfer fluid produced by The Dow Chemical Company for use in solar projects in Spain and South Africa.
Ex-Im Bank’s financing will support approximately 200 U.S. jobs, according to bank estimates derived from Departments of Commerce and Labor data and methodology.
“Ex-Im Bank’s consistent support of renewable-energy projects demonstrates our commitment to supporting high-skilled jobs in an important homegrown industry and improving the environment,” said Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg. “In addition to contributing to cleaner sources of energy and supporting U.S. jobs, these two transactions will support President Obama’s goal of doubling access to power in sub-Saharan Africa.”
Power Africa is a new initiative to double access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. In its initial phase, the United States has already committed more than $7 billion in financial support to this effort.
DOWTHERMTM A heat-transfer fluid from Dow is a key component of the steam-heating process in concentrated solar power plants and replaces conventional fossil-fuel boilers.
Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company, and its consolidated subsidiaries (Dow), delivers a broad range of technology-based products and solutions through the production, marketing, and sales of specialty chemicals and advanced materials and plastics. Dow operates manufacturing sites in 36 countries and employs approximately 54,000 people.
“The Ex-Im Bank is enabling growth in the U.S. and beyond,” said Carolina Barrios, market development manager for Dow Heat Transfer Fluids. “By supporting the use of high quality, U.S.-made exports, this transaction advances the competitiveness of Dow manufacturing and operations jobs locally, while helping to meet clean energy demands around the world.”
Abengoa is an international company based in Seville, Spain, that applies innovative technology solutions for sustainability in the energy and environment sectors. The company operates two parabolic-trough solar plants in Logrosan, Spain, and is currently building two plants in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa with the Industrial Development Corporation. The two plants in Spain and one of the two in South Africa will rely upon DOWTHERM A.
DOCTOR RECEIVES 151 YEAR PRISON SENTENCE FOR ROLE IN $77 MILLION MEDICARE FRAUD
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, September 16, 2013
“No Show” Doctor Sentenced to 151 Months in Prison in Connection with $77 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme
Gustave Drivas, M.D., 58, of Staten Island, N.Y., was sentenced to serve 151 months in prison for his role as a “no show” doctor in a $77 million Medicare fraud scheme. The State of New York revoked Dr. Drivas’s medical license earlier this year.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Director in Charge George Venizelos of the FBI’s New York Field Office and Special Agent in Charge Thomas O’Donnell of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) made the announcement.
Drivas was convicted by a jury on April 8, 2013, of health care fraud conspiracy and health care fraud after a seven-week trial. He was acquitted of kickback conspiracy. Including Drivas, 13 individuals have been convicted of participating in the massive fraud scheme, either through guilty pleas or trial convictions. In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York sentenced Drivas to three years of supervised release with a concurrent exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and all Federal health programs, ordered him to forfeit $511,000 and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $50.9 million.
The evidence at trial showed that Drivas knowingly authorized his co-conspirators at a Brooklyn medical clinic to use his Medicare billing number to charge Medicare for more than $20 million in medical procedures and services that were never performed. In return, he received more than $500,000 for his role in the scheme. According to court documents, from 2005 to 2010, Drivas was the medical director of or a rendering physician at a clinic in Brooklyn that billed Medicare under three corporate names: Bay Medical Care PC, SVS Wellcare Medical PLLC and SZS Medical Care PLLC (collectively “Bay Medical clinic”). The evidence established that Drivas was a “no show” doctor, who almost never visited the clinic except to pick up his check. The evidence also showed that the clinic paid cash kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries and used the beneficiaries’ names to bill Medicare for more than $77 million in services that were medically unnecessary and never provided.
The government’s investigation included the use of a court-ordered audio/video recording device hidden in a room at the clinic in which the conspirators paid cash kickbacks to corrupt Medicare beneficiaries. The conspirators were recorded paying approximately $500,000 in cash kickbacks during a period of approximately six weeks from April to June 2010. This room was marked “PRIVATE” and featured a Soviet-era poster of a woman with a finger to her lips and the words “Don’t Gossip” in Russian. The purpose of the kickbacks was to induce the beneficiaries to receive unnecessary medical services or to stay silent when services not provided to the patients were billed to Medicare.
To generate the large amounts of cash needed to pay the patients, Drivas’s business partners and co-conspirators recruited a network of external money launderers who cashed checks for the clinic. Clinic owners wrote clinic checks payable to various shell companies controlled by the money launderers. These checks did not represent payment for any legitimate service at or for the Bay Medical clinic, but rather were written to launder the clinic’s fraudulently obtained health care proceeds. The money launderers cashed these checks and provided the cash back to the clinic. Clinic employees used the cash to pay illegal cash kickbacks to the Bay Medical clinic’s purported patients.
This case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Sarah M. Hall of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys William C. Campos and Shannon C. Jones of the Eastern District of New York.
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion. In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, is taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.
Monday, September 16, 2013
“No Show” Doctor Sentenced to 151 Months in Prison in Connection with $77 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme
Gustave Drivas, M.D., 58, of Staten Island, N.Y., was sentenced to serve 151 months in prison for his role as a “no show” doctor in a $77 million Medicare fraud scheme. The State of New York revoked Dr. Drivas’s medical license earlier this year.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Director in Charge George Venizelos of the FBI’s New York Field Office and Special Agent in Charge Thomas O’Donnell of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) made the announcement.
Drivas was convicted by a jury on April 8, 2013, of health care fraud conspiracy and health care fraud after a seven-week trial. He was acquitted of kickback conspiracy. Including Drivas, 13 individuals have been convicted of participating in the massive fraud scheme, either through guilty pleas or trial convictions. In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York sentenced Drivas to three years of supervised release with a concurrent exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and all Federal health programs, ordered him to forfeit $511,000 and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $50.9 million.
The evidence at trial showed that Drivas knowingly authorized his co-conspirators at a Brooklyn medical clinic to use his Medicare billing number to charge Medicare for more than $20 million in medical procedures and services that were never performed. In return, he received more than $500,000 for his role in the scheme. According to court documents, from 2005 to 2010, Drivas was the medical director of or a rendering physician at a clinic in Brooklyn that billed Medicare under three corporate names: Bay Medical Care PC, SVS Wellcare Medical PLLC and SZS Medical Care PLLC (collectively “Bay Medical clinic”). The evidence established that Drivas was a “no show” doctor, who almost never visited the clinic except to pick up his check. The evidence also showed that the clinic paid cash kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries and used the beneficiaries’ names to bill Medicare for more than $77 million in services that were medically unnecessary and never provided.
The government’s investigation included the use of a court-ordered audio/video recording device hidden in a room at the clinic in which the conspirators paid cash kickbacks to corrupt Medicare beneficiaries. The conspirators were recorded paying approximately $500,000 in cash kickbacks during a period of approximately six weeks from April to June 2010. This room was marked “PRIVATE” and featured a Soviet-era poster of a woman with a finger to her lips and the words “Don’t Gossip” in Russian. The purpose of the kickbacks was to induce the beneficiaries to receive unnecessary medical services or to stay silent when services not provided to the patients were billed to Medicare.
To generate the large amounts of cash needed to pay the patients, Drivas’s business partners and co-conspirators recruited a network of external money launderers who cashed checks for the clinic. Clinic owners wrote clinic checks payable to various shell companies controlled by the money launderers. These checks did not represent payment for any legitimate service at or for the Bay Medical clinic, but rather were written to launder the clinic’s fraudulently obtained health care proceeds. The money launderers cashed these checks and provided the cash back to the clinic. Clinic employees used the cash to pay illegal cash kickbacks to the Bay Medical clinic’s purported patients.
This case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Sarah M. Hall of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys William C. Campos and Shannon C. Jones of the Eastern District of New York.
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,500 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion. In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, is taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.
TWO FUJIKURA LTD. EXECUTIVES INDICTED IN AUTO PARTS PRICE FIXING CASE
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Two Fujikura Ltd. Executives Indicted for Roles in Fixing Prices on Automobile Parts Sold to Subaru to Be Installed in U.S. Cars
A federal grand jury in Detroit returned an indictment against two Fujikura Ltd. executives for their roles in an international conspiracy to fix prices of auto parts used in automotive wire harnesses sold to Subaru and installed in U.S. cars, the Department of Justice announced today.
The indictment, filed today in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Detroit, charges Ryoji Fukudome and Toshihiko Nagashima, both Japanese nationals, with participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of automotive wire harnesses sold to Fuji Heavy Industries–an automaker more commonly known by its brand name, Subaru–for installation in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere.
Fukudome was employed by Fujikura as general manager of the Automotive Global Marketing Department from April 2001 to April 2006 and Nagashima was employed by Fujikura as manager of the Fujikura Wire Harness Center in Ohta, Japan, from July 1994 to April 2006, and as general manager of the Automotive Global Marketing Department from April 2006 to April 2009.
Fujikura is a Toyko-based manufacturer of automotive wire harnesses. Automotive wire harnesses are automotive electrical distribution systems used to direct and control electronic components, wiring and circuit boards. Fujikura pleaded guilty to its role in the conspiracy in June 2012, and was sentenced to pay a $20 million criminal fine.
The indictment alleges, among other things, that from at least as early as September 2005 until at least February 2010, Fukudome, Nagashima and their co-conspirators attended meetings in Japan to reach collusive agreements to rig bids and allocate the supply of automotive wire harnesses sold to Subaru. The indictment alleges that Fukudome, Nagashima and their co-conspirators had further communications to monitor and enforce the collusive agreements.
“International cartels targeting U.S. businesses and consumers pose a serious threat to our competitive market place,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. “The Antitrust Division is working closely with competition enforcers abroad to ensure that there are no safe harbors for executives who engage in international cartel crimes.”
“Those who engage in price fixing, bid rigging and other fraudulent schemes harm the automotive industry by driving up costs for vehicle makers and buyers,” said John Robert Shoup, Acting Special Agent in Charge, FBI Detroit Division. “The FBI is committed to pursuing and prosecuting these individuals for their crimes.”
Fukudome and Nagashima are charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Including Fukudome and Nagashima, 11 companies and 18 executives have been charged in the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into the automotive parts industry. To date, more than $874 million in criminal fines have been imposed and 14 individuals have been sentenced to pay criminal fines and to serve prison sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years each. One other executive has agreed to serve time in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 25, 2013.
The charges are the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by each of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement sections and the FBI.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Two Fujikura Ltd. Executives Indicted for Roles in Fixing Prices on Automobile Parts Sold to Subaru to Be Installed in U.S. Cars
A federal grand jury in Detroit returned an indictment against two Fujikura Ltd. executives for their roles in an international conspiracy to fix prices of auto parts used in automotive wire harnesses sold to Subaru and installed in U.S. cars, the Department of Justice announced today.
The indictment, filed today in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Detroit, charges Ryoji Fukudome and Toshihiko Nagashima, both Japanese nationals, with participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of automotive wire harnesses sold to Fuji Heavy Industries–an automaker more commonly known by its brand name, Subaru–for installation in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere.
Fukudome was employed by Fujikura as general manager of the Automotive Global Marketing Department from April 2001 to April 2006 and Nagashima was employed by Fujikura as manager of the Fujikura Wire Harness Center in Ohta, Japan, from July 1994 to April 2006, and as general manager of the Automotive Global Marketing Department from April 2006 to April 2009.
Fujikura is a Toyko-based manufacturer of automotive wire harnesses. Automotive wire harnesses are automotive electrical distribution systems used to direct and control electronic components, wiring and circuit boards. Fujikura pleaded guilty to its role in the conspiracy in June 2012, and was sentenced to pay a $20 million criminal fine.
The indictment alleges, among other things, that from at least as early as September 2005 until at least February 2010, Fukudome, Nagashima and their co-conspirators attended meetings in Japan to reach collusive agreements to rig bids and allocate the supply of automotive wire harnesses sold to Subaru. The indictment alleges that Fukudome, Nagashima and their co-conspirators had further communications to monitor and enforce the collusive agreements.
“International cartels targeting U.S. businesses and consumers pose a serious threat to our competitive market place,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. “The Antitrust Division is working closely with competition enforcers abroad to ensure that there are no safe harbors for executives who engage in international cartel crimes.”
“Those who engage in price fixing, bid rigging and other fraudulent schemes harm the automotive industry by driving up costs for vehicle makers and buyers,” said John Robert Shoup, Acting Special Agent in Charge, FBI Detroit Division. “The FBI is committed to pursuing and prosecuting these individuals for their crimes.”
Fukudome and Nagashima are charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Including Fukudome and Nagashima, 11 companies and 18 executives have been charged in the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into the automotive parts industry. To date, more than $874 million in criminal fines have been imposed and 14 individuals have been sentenced to pay criminal fines and to serve prison sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years each. One other executive has agreed to serve time in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 25, 2013.
The charges are the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by each of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement sections and the FBI.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION PROBLEM OF AIR TRAINING IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
ISAF Air Training Commander Describes 'Delicate Balance'
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md., Sept. 20, 2013 - The commander of NATO's Air Training Command Afghanistan admits that he has a public perception problem: while polls show Americans have largely dismissed the war in Afghanistan as an effort that's winding down, his mission is ramping up in size and complexity and in the number of obstacles encountered.
Air Force Brig. Gen. John E. Michel's command is responsible for training the Afghan air force, or as he puts it, building a minimum, sustainable air capability suited to Afghanistan's needs, terrain, development and resources.
While visiting here this week to attend an Air Force conference, Michel spoke to American Forces Press Service about the challenges his command faces in ramping up a training mission to last through 2017 as the rest of NATO's International Security Assistance Force looks to draw down troops by the end of next year.
He acknowledges that to accomplish his mission by December 2017, he'll need every advantage he can wring from dwindling war funds.
"It's very easy to lose this in translation, because most people don't realize [air trainers are] staying [in Afghanistan] until '17," he said. "The mindset is, 'We're done in '14,' and I got that, but the biggest challenge is just where we are in time and space. The story has shifted to another direction.
"Everyone else is leaving, and we're growing," he continued. "We're building an 8,000-person force that can do what they need for Afghanistan -- humanitarian [missions], basic intelligence, troop insertion, resupply [and] casualty evacuation."
Michel's coalition aircrews fly alongside their Afghan counterparts during training, combat and joint missions, conducting resupply, troop and passenger movements and casualty evacuation for the Afghan army. Coalition advisors also train in maintenance, logistics, finance and communications.
The Afghan air force is divided into three wings, located respectively in Kabul, Kandahar and Shindand. The command center is in Kabul, and the Shindand Air Base in Herat province is the main training area.
The Afghan air force's fleet eventually will include 58 Mi-17 transport helicopters, six Mi-35 attack helicopters, 20 C-208 turboprop airliners, four C-130 transport aircraft and 20 A-29 light attack aircraft. The training command staff that will grow in the next few years as Afghan air capabilities come online, Michel emphasized, will shrink as the Afghan force develops its own experts.
"We've got to go from 649 to 1,114 people," he said. That number will plateau for a time, and then gradually decline as Afghan air capabilities are ramped up, brought to sustainment and handed off, the general said.
Michel said the American people are the command's "stockholders," along with the coalition nations and the Afghans.
His trainers are "very good stewards of every dollar we spend, every person we bring in," Michel said. He and his staff use detailed charts that show growing Afghan air mission capability to brief NATO International Security Assistance Force leaders. They demonstrate the progress made and justify future effort, he said.
Fighting for funding is becoming familiar again in military circles, Michel said, noting the importance of what he views as a mission vital to U.S. and Afghan security.
"My goal is, 'Let's use data to keep us on the intellectual high ground, instead of being pulled to the emotional low ground,'" he said.
Partner commitment is as important as economic commitment in mission success, the general noted.
"There are things the U.S. Air Force cannot build in an Afghan air force, because those skills aren't requisite [to American needs]," he said. "Where are we going to get Mi-17 talent? Where's my Mi-35 talent? Who's going to turn wrenches?"
American pilots have learned to fly those Russian helicopters, Michel said, and the training command relies on ISAF coalition partners, including Croatia and Italy, to teach the Afghan force how to maintain and support them. But some partners are reluctant to pledge people or funds after the larger national security mission transition wraps up in 2014, he added, partly because of uncertainty over U.S. intentions in Afghanistan.
"There's a series of concerns, realistically," he said, listing partner questions about final troop numbers, funding and security concerns. All contribute to an environment in which partner nations postpone commitment, Michel said.
"So we've got this very perilous situation setting up that, without the coalition support -- if we don't get the right people ... for the right time frame -- then we'll have to start de-scaling capabilities," he added.
Among other metrics, Michel said, the charts his command keeps track growth in the Afghan air force's overall and detailed capabilities, using a green-yellow-red legend. Given the state of development the Afghan forces have achieved to date, he said, "if we stop [training] today, the only things they could sustain is what's green."
Those capabilities all are in the "air movement" category, and about halfway mature there, judging by the green-yellow chart pattern, he said. The yellow areas, he added, "where we are currently improving slowly, would immediately start to diffuse and be unsustainable. And then if it's red, we haven't started it yet."
Red areas on the chart include advanced combat capabilities such as close air support and close air attack, which now are mostly yellow.
Likewise, he said, the air training command is still building infrastructure which will continue through 2015 if current plans hold. It was just last month, he noted, that the Shindand Air Wing Training Complex opened, adding 32 facilities from aircraft hangars to flight simulators to Afghanistan's training inventory.
"But now there are pressures to potentially reduce infrastructure," Michel said, noting that a recent report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction drew media and congressional attention when it blasted an unused headquarters building that was built in Helmand for $34 million.
"Every [inspector general] report is killing us," he said.
The general emphasized that all new Afghan air force facilities will be designed for Afghanistan's needs and budgeted accordingly. But, he added, "if all of a sudden we change our minds on infrastructure, that significantly impacts our ability to build a sustainable air force."
Michel and his staff also are preparing for a scaling-back in funding on Kabul's part; he said the Afghan air force is projected to cost its government between $600 million and $620 million a year after coalition funding support ends.
"Let's look at their overall defense budget," he said. "Because of the Chicago accords, it's fixed at $4.1 billion. So as a percentage, 3.5 percent of the force -- their air force -- is going to, now, absorb as much as 15 to 20 percent of their budget."
Planning in true military fashion for likely contingencies, Michel said, he and his staff offered to plan force structure options at a number of funding levels for Afghan leaders.
"The smart thing to do is find efficiencies [and] recommend options," he said.
Synchronizing the systems and subsystems that are working toward a self-sustaining Afghan air force with its own training, command, maintenance and support systems requires a delicate balance, the general said.
"We think [what they can pay for] is the right question," he said. "Because we can go to the [Afghan] leadership and say, 'It is affordable, therefore it's sustainable.' ... They've got to steward their own resources when we leave. It's our job to create the conditions, and advise, and train."
ISAF Air Training Commander Describes 'Delicate Balance'
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md., Sept. 20, 2013 - The commander of NATO's Air Training Command Afghanistan admits that he has a public perception problem: while polls show Americans have largely dismissed the war in Afghanistan as an effort that's winding down, his mission is ramping up in size and complexity and in the number of obstacles encountered.
Air Force Brig. Gen. John E. Michel's command is responsible for training the Afghan air force, or as he puts it, building a minimum, sustainable air capability suited to Afghanistan's needs, terrain, development and resources.
While visiting here this week to attend an Air Force conference, Michel spoke to American Forces Press Service about the challenges his command faces in ramping up a training mission to last through 2017 as the rest of NATO's International Security Assistance Force looks to draw down troops by the end of next year.
He acknowledges that to accomplish his mission by December 2017, he'll need every advantage he can wring from dwindling war funds.
"It's very easy to lose this in translation, because most people don't realize [air trainers are] staying [in Afghanistan] until '17," he said. "The mindset is, 'We're done in '14,' and I got that, but the biggest challenge is just where we are in time and space. The story has shifted to another direction.
"Everyone else is leaving, and we're growing," he continued. "We're building an 8,000-person force that can do what they need for Afghanistan -- humanitarian [missions], basic intelligence, troop insertion, resupply [and] casualty evacuation."
Michel's coalition aircrews fly alongside their Afghan counterparts during training, combat and joint missions, conducting resupply, troop and passenger movements and casualty evacuation for the Afghan army. Coalition advisors also train in maintenance, logistics, finance and communications.
The Afghan air force is divided into three wings, located respectively in Kabul, Kandahar and Shindand. The command center is in Kabul, and the Shindand Air Base in Herat province is the main training area.
The Afghan air force's fleet eventually will include 58 Mi-17 transport helicopters, six Mi-35 attack helicopters, 20 C-208 turboprop airliners, four C-130 transport aircraft and 20 A-29 light attack aircraft. The training command staff that will grow in the next few years as Afghan air capabilities come online, Michel emphasized, will shrink as the Afghan force develops its own experts.
"We've got to go from 649 to 1,114 people," he said. That number will plateau for a time, and then gradually decline as Afghan air capabilities are ramped up, brought to sustainment and handed off, the general said.
Michel said the American people are the command's "stockholders," along with the coalition nations and the Afghans.
His trainers are "very good stewards of every dollar we spend, every person we bring in," Michel said. He and his staff use detailed charts that show growing Afghan air mission capability to brief NATO International Security Assistance Force leaders. They demonstrate the progress made and justify future effort, he said.
Fighting for funding is becoming familiar again in military circles, Michel said, noting the importance of what he views as a mission vital to U.S. and Afghan security.
"My goal is, 'Let's use data to keep us on the intellectual high ground, instead of being pulled to the emotional low ground,'" he said.
Partner commitment is as important as economic commitment in mission success, the general noted.
"There are things the U.S. Air Force cannot build in an Afghan air force, because those skills aren't requisite [to American needs]," he said. "Where are we going to get Mi-17 talent? Where's my Mi-35 talent? Who's going to turn wrenches?"
American pilots have learned to fly those Russian helicopters, Michel said, and the training command relies on ISAF coalition partners, including Croatia and Italy, to teach the Afghan force how to maintain and support them. But some partners are reluctant to pledge people or funds after the larger national security mission transition wraps up in 2014, he added, partly because of uncertainty over U.S. intentions in Afghanistan.
"There's a series of concerns, realistically," he said, listing partner questions about final troop numbers, funding and security concerns. All contribute to an environment in which partner nations postpone commitment, Michel said.
"So we've got this very perilous situation setting up that, without the coalition support -- if we don't get the right people ... for the right time frame -- then we'll have to start de-scaling capabilities," he added.
Among other metrics, Michel said, the charts his command keeps track growth in the Afghan air force's overall and detailed capabilities, using a green-yellow-red legend. Given the state of development the Afghan forces have achieved to date, he said, "if we stop [training] today, the only things they could sustain is what's green."
Those capabilities all are in the "air movement" category, and about halfway mature there, judging by the green-yellow chart pattern, he said. The yellow areas, he added, "where we are currently improving slowly, would immediately start to diffuse and be unsustainable. And then if it's red, we haven't started it yet."
Red areas on the chart include advanced combat capabilities such as close air support and close air attack, which now are mostly yellow.
Likewise, he said, the air training command is still building infrastructure which will continue through 2015 if current plans hold. It was just last month, he noted, that the Shindand Air Wing Training Complex opened, adding 32 facilities from aircraft hangars to flight simulators to Afghanistan's training inventory.
"But now there are pressures to potentially reduce infrastructure," Michel said, noting that a recent report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction drew media and congressional attention when it blasted an unused headquarters building that was built in Helmand for $34 million.
"Every [inspector general] report is killing us," he said.
The general emphasized that all new Afghan air force facilities will be designed for Afghanistan's needs and budgeted accordingly. But, he added, "if all of a sudden we change our minds on infrastructure, that significantly impacts our ability to build a sustainable air force."
Michel and his staff also are preparing for a scaling-back in funding on Kabul's part; he said the Afghan air force is projected to cost its government between $600 million and $620 million a year after coalition funding support ends.
"Let's look at their overall defense budget," he said. "Because of the Chicago accords, it's fixed at $4.1 billion. So as a percentage, 3.5 percent of the force -- their air force -- is going to, now, absorb as much as 15 to 20 percent of their budget."
Planning in true military fashion for likely contingencies, Michel said, he and his staff offered to plan force structure options at a number of funding levels for Afghan leaders.
"The smart thing to do is find efficiencies [and] recommend options," he said.
Synchronizing the systems and subsystems that are working toward a self-sustaining Afghan air force with its own training, command, maintenance and support systems requires a delicate balance, the general said.
"We think [what they can pay for] is the right question," he said. "Because we can go to the [Afghan] leadership and say, 'It is affordable, therefore it's sustainable.' ... They've got to steward their own resources when we leave. It's our job to create the conditions, and advise, and train."
PRESS STATEMENT ON TERRORIST ATTACK AT NAIROBI, KENYA SHOPPING MALL
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Terrorist Attack at Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi, Kenya
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
September 21, 2013
Today's terrorist massacre of so many innocents is a heartbreaking reminder that there exists unspeakable evil in our world which can destroy life in a senseless instant. I want to express my deepest condolences - and the condolences of our entire nation - to the families and friends of the victims in Nairobi today. While the casualty count is still to be determined, we know already that there are at least 30 innocent men, women, and children dead and 60 injured, including several American citizens. We have offered our assistance to the Government of Kenya and stand ready to help in any way we can.
Although we have no reports of any Americans killed today, we have lost a member of our own State Department family: the wife of a foreign service national working for the U.S. Agency for International Development. The men and women of USAID work courageously around the world to help people striving for a better life. While we mourn with her family today, we also pledge our commitment to do whatever we can to assist in bringing the perpetrators of this abhorrent violence to justice, and to continue our efforts to improve the lives of people across the globe.
Attacks like this can't change who we are, a people committed to peace and justice for all, but rather must reaffirm our determination to counter extremism and promote tolerance everywhere. As we prepare to bring the world's leaders together at the United Nations next week, we are reminded again in tragedy of our common humanity.
Terrorist Attack at Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi, Kenya
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
September 21, 2013
Today's terrorist massacre of so many innocents is a heartbreaking reminder that there exists unspeakable evil in our world which can destroy life in a senseless instant. I want to express my deepest condolences - and the condolences of our entire nation - to the families and friends of the victims in Nairobi today. While the casualty count is still to be determined, we know already that there are at least 30 innocent men, women, and children dead and 60 injured, including several American citizens. We have offered our assistance to the Government of Kenya and stand ready to help in any way we can.
Although we have no reports of any Americans killed today, we have lost a member of our own State Department family: the wife of a foreign service national working for the U.S. Agency for International Development. The men and women of USAID work courageously around the world to help people striving for a better life. While we mourn with her family today, we also pledge our commitment to do whatever we can to assist in bringing the perpetrators of this abhorrent violence to justice, and to continue our efforts to improve the lives of people across the globe.
Attacks like this can't change who we are, a people committed to peace and justice for all, but rather must reaffirm our determination to counter extremism and promote tolerance everywhere. As we prepare to bring the world's leaders together at the United Nations next week, we are reminded again in tragedy of our common humanity.
DETAILS OF 2014 SEQUESTRATION PRESENTED BEFORE HOUSE PANEL
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Service Chiefs Detail 2014 Sequestration Effects
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2013 - One after another yesterday in a hearing before a House panel, the nation's service chiefs described how severe budget cuts required by law in fiscal year 2014 would slash their forces, capabilities and readiness and raise security risks to the American people.
The House Armed Services Committee heard testimony on planning for sequestration in fiscal 2014 from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Sequestration is the name for a decade-long series of severe budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 that amount to $470 billion taken from defense spending in addition to an equivalent cut that already was planned.
In fiscal 2013 the cuts, implemented only in the last half of the year and leading to six furlough days for DOD civilian employees, were $37 billion. In fiscal 2014 they are estimated to be $52 billion.
It is imperative to preserve the range of strategic options for the commander in chief, the secretary of defense, and Congress, Odierno told the panel.
"Together," the general said, "we must ensure our Army can deliver a trained and ready force that deters conflict but when necessary has the capability and capacity to execute a sustained successful major combat operation. The Budget Control Act with sequestration simply does not allow us to do this."
If Congress does not act to mitigate the magnitude and speed of reductions with sequestration, Odierno said, the Army will not be able to fully execute requirements of the defense strategic guidance issued in 2012.
By the end of fiscal 2014, the Army will have significantly degraded readiness, as 85 percent of active and reserve brigade combat teams will be unprepared for contingency requirements, he said.
From fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2017, as the Army continues to draw down and is restructured into a smaller force, its readiness will continue to degrade and modernization programs will experience extensive shortfalls, the general added.
"We'll be required to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs, putting at risk the ground combat vehicle program, the armed aerial scout, the production and modernization of our other aviation programs, system upgrades for unmanned aerial vehicles, and the modernization of air defense command-and-control systems, just to name a few," Odierno told the panel.
Only in fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2023 will the Army begin to rebalance readiness and remodernization, the general said, but this will come at the expense of significant reductions in the Army's number of soldiers and its force structure.
The Army will be forced to take further cuts from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers in the active Army, 358,000 in the Army National Guard and 205,000 in the Army Reserve to no more than 420,000 in the active Army, 315,000 in the Army National Guard and 185,000 in the Army Reserve, the general said.
This represents a total Army end-strength reduction of more than 18 percent over seven years, a 26 percent reduction in the active Army, a 12 percent reduction in the Army National Guard and a 9 percent reduction in the Army Reserve, he explained, adding that it also will cause a 45-percent reduction in active Army brigade combat teams.
"In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation," Odierno said.
Today's international environment and its emerging threats require a joint force with a ground component that has the capability and the capacity to deter and compel adversaries who threaten our national security interests," he said. "Sequestration severely threatens our ability to do this."
The Army is increasing its investment in the cyber domain, however, the general said, adding at least 1,800 people to that effort.. And noting that the Army provides intelligence not only for the Army, but also for the broader strategic and operational force -- he said Army officials are reviewing how they do that, but that the primacy of what it does in the intelligence community will not change.
In his comments to the panel, Greenert said sequestration also would reduce readiness in the Navy's preparations for fiscal 2014, its impacts realized mainly in operations and maintenance and in investments.
"There are several operational impacts, but the most concerning to me is that reductions in operations and maintenance accounts are going to result in having only one nondeployed carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group trained and ready for surge operations," Greenert said.
"We have a covenant with the global combatant commanders and the national command authority," he told the panel. "We provide carrier strike groups forward ready on deployment, and that's generally two. We have two to three, generally three, ready to respond within about 14 days. And then we have about three within 60 to 90 days. That's what we've signed up to. That's called the fleet response plan. That has to change now."
The Navy also will be forced to cancel maintenance, inevitably leading to reduced life for ships and aircraft, he said, adding that the service will conduct only safety-essential renovation of facilities, further increasing the maintenance backlog.
The Navy probably will be compelled to keep a hiring freeze in place for most of its civilian positions, Greenert added, affecting the spectrum and balance of the civilian force.
Because the Navy will not be able to use prior-year funds to mitigate sequestration cuts in its investment accounts as it could in fiscal 2013, without congressional action it will lose at least a Virginia-class submarine, a littoral combat ship, and an afloat forward-staging base, the admiral said.
"We will be forced to delay the delivery of the next aircraft carrier, the Ford, and will delay the mid-life overhaul of the George Washington aircraft carrier. Also we'll cancel procurement of 11 tactical aircraft," he noted.
Greenert said the Navy needs to transfer $1 billion into its operations and maintenance account by January and $1 billion into its procurement accounts post-sequestration to get shipbuilding back on track and to meet its essential needs.
"Other deliveries of programs and weapon systems may be delayed regardless," he added, "depending on the authority that we are granted to reapportion funds between accounts."
On the topics of nuclear deterrence and cyber, Greenert said, "My job is to provide strategic nuclear deterrence, safe and credible, No. 1. Right behind that is cyber. ... We are staying the course on our cyber warrior plan that we've briefed in here. Through any budget scenario ... we have got to maintain that."
In his remarks, Welsh told the panel that if sequestration stays in place in fiscal 2014, the Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours by up to 15 percent.
"Within three to four months, many of our flying units will be unable to maintain mission readiness," he said. "We'll cancel or significantly curtail major exercises again, and we'll reduce our initial pilot production targets."
Over the long term, sequestration will significantly affect the service's force structure, readiness and modernization, Welsh said, adding that over the next five years the service could be forced to cut up to 25,000 total force airmen, or about 4 percent of its people.
"We also will probably have to cut up to 550 aircraft, about 9 percent of our inventory," the general said. "And to achieve the necessary savings in aircraft force structure, we'll be forced to divest entire fleets of aircraft."
To determine the proper force structure, the Air Force will prioritize global, long-range capabilities and multirole platforms needed to operate in a highly contested environment. Other platforms will be at risk, the general said.
"We plan to protect readiness to the maximum extent possible [and to] prioritize full-spectrum training, because if we're not ready for all possible scenarios, we'll be forced to accept what I believe is unnecessary risk, which means we may not get there in time, it may take the joint team longer to win, and our people will be placed at greater risk," Welsh added.
Air Force modernization and recapitalization forecasts will be bleak if sequestration continues, he said, affecting every program.
"We will favor recapitalization over modernization whenever that decision is required," he said. "That's why our top three acquisition priorities will remain the KC-46, the F-35, and the long-range strike bomber."
The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world and a vital piece of the world's best military team, the general said, "but the impacts are going to be significant, and the risk occurs from readiness in the ways it impacts our airmen."
In his remarks to the panel, Amos said that for the Marine Corps to meet requirements of the defense strategic guidance it needs 186,800 active-duty Marines to meet steady-state requirements, go to war, and preserve a 1-to-3 ratio of deployed time to home-station time for Marines.
"Our share of the 2011 Budget Control Act's $487 billion reduction cut our end strength to 182,000," he said. "Based on sequestration, I simply cannot afford a force that size." Sequestration will force the Marines to plow through scarce resources, funding old equipment and weapon systems to try to keep them functional, the general said.
The Marines will be forced to reduce or cancel modernization programs and infrastructure investments to maintain readiness for deployed and next-to-deploy units, he said. Money that should be available for procuring new equipment will be rerouted to maintenance and spare accounts for legacy equipment, including a 42-year-old Nixon-era amphibious assault vehicle, he added.
In February, the Marines initiated a parallel study to the Defense Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, Amos said.
"Our exhaustive research, backed by independent analysis, determined that a force of 174,000 Marines is the smallest force that can meet mission requirements. This is a force with levels of risk that are minimally acceptable," he said.
"For instance," he added, "assuming that global requirements for Marine forces remain the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the Marine Corps to a 1-to-2 dwell –[ratio] for virtually all Marine units -- gone six months, home 12 months, gone six months."
A force of that size accepts risk when the nation commits itself to the next major theater war, Amos said. The Marines would have 11 fewer combat arms battalions and 14 fewer aircraft squadrons.
"This is a single Marine major contingency operation force that would deploy and fight until the war's end," the general said. "In other words, we would come home when the war was over."
Marines who joined the corps during that period likely would go from drill field to battlefield, he added. Across the joint force, America would start to see shortfalls in the military's ability to accomplish its national strategy.
"Today we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg," Amos said. "Tomorrow's Marines will face violent extremism, battles for influence and natural disasters. Developing states and nonstate actors will acquire new technology and advanced conventional weapons that will challenge our ability to project power and gain access."
To be effective in the new environment, he said, Marines must maintain their forward influence, strategic mobility, power projection, and rapid response capabilities they are known for today.
Service Chiefs Detail 2014 Sequestration Effects
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2013 - One after another yesterday in a hearing before a House panel, the nation's service chiefs described how severe budget cuts required by law in fiscal year 2014 would slash their forces, capabilities and readiness and raise security risks to the American people.
The House Armed Services Committee heard testimony on planning for sequestration in fiscal 2014 from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Sequestration is the name for a decade-long series of severe budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 that amount to $470 billion taken from defense spending in addition to an equivalent cut that already was planned.
In fiscal 2013 the cuts, implemented only in the last half of the year and leading to six furlough days for DOD civilian employees, were $37 billion. In fiscal 2014 they are estimated to be $52 billion.
It is imperative to preserve the range of strategic options for the commander in chief, the secretary of defense, and Congress, Odierno told the panel.
"Together," the general said, "we must ensure our Army can deliver a trained and ready force that deters conflict but when necessary has the capability and capacity to execute a sustained successful major combat operation. The Budget Control Act with sequestration simply does not allow us to do this."
If Congress does not act to mitigate the magnitude and speed of reductions with sequestration, Odierno said, the Army will not be able to fully execute requirements of the defense strategic guidance issued in 2012.
By the end of fiscal 2014, the Army will have significantly degraded readiness, as 85 percent of active and reserve brigade combat teams will be unprepared for contingency requirements, he said.
From fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2017, as the Army continues to draw down and is restructured into a smaller force, its readiness will continue to degrade and modernization programs will experience extensive shortfalls, the general added.
"We'll be required to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs, putting at risk the ground combat vehicle program, the armed aerial scout, the production and modernization of our other aviation programs, system upgrades for unmanned aerial vehicles, and the modernization of air defense command-and-control systems, just to name a few," Odierno told the panel.
Only in fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2023 will the Army begin to rebalance readiness and remodernization, the general said, but this will come at the expense of significant reductions in the Army's number of soldiers and its force structure.
The Army will be forced to take further cuts from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers in the active Army, 358,000 in the Army National Guard and 205,000 in the Army Reserve to no more than 420,000 in the active Army, 315,000 in the Army National Guard and 185,000 in the Army Reserve, the general said.
This represents a total Army end-strength reduction of more than 18 percent over seven years, a 26 percent reduction in the active Army, a 12 percent reduction in the Army National Guard and a 9 percent reduction in the Army Reserve, he explained, adding that it also will cause a 45-percent reduction in active Army brigade combat teams.
"In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation," Odierno said.
Today's international environment and its emerging threats require a joint force with a ground component that has the capability and the capacity to deter and compel adversaries who threaten our national security interests," he said. "Sequestration severely threatens our ability to do this."
The Army is increasing its investment in the cyber domain, however, the general said, adding at least 1,800 people to that effort.. And noting that the Army provides intelligence not only for the Army, but also for the broader strategic and operational force -- he said Army officials are reviewing how they do that, but that the primacy of what it does in the intelligence community will not change.
In his comments to the panel, Greenert said sequestration also would reduce readiness in the Navy's preparations for fiscal 2014, its impacts realized mainly in operations and maintenance and in investments.
"There are several operational impacts, but the most concerning to me is that reductions in operations and maintenance accounts are going to result in having only one nondeployed carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group trained and ready for surge operations," Greenert said.
"We have a covenant with the global combatant commanders and the national command authority," he told the panel. "We provide carrier strike groups forward ready on deployment, and that's generally two. We have two to three, generally three, ready to respond within about 14 days. And then we have about three within 60 to 90 days. That's what we've signed up to. That's called the fleet response plan. That has to change now."
The Navy also will be forced to cancel maintenance, inevitably leading to reduced life for ships and aircraft, he said, adding that the service will conduct only safety-essential renovation of facilities, further increasing the maintenance backlog.
The Navy probably will be compelled to keep a hiring freeze in place for most of its civilian positions, Greenert added, affecting the spectrum and balance of the civilian force.
Because the Navy will not be able to use prior-year funds to mitigate sequestration cuts in its investment accounts as it could in fiscal 2013, without congressional action it will lose at least a Virginia-class submarine, a littoral combat ship, and an afloat forward-staging base, the admiral said.
"We will be forced to delay the delivery of the next aircraft carrier, the Ford, and will delay the mid-life overhaul of the George Washington aircraft carrier. Also we'll cancel procurement of 11 tactical aircraft," he noted.
Greenert said the Navy needs to transfer $1 billion into its operations and maintenance account by January and $1 billion into its procurement accounts post-sequestration to get shipbuilding back on track and to meet its essential needs.
"Other deliveries of programs and weapon systems may be delayed regardless," he added, "depending on the authority that we are granted to reapportion funds between accounts."
On the topics of nuclear deterrence and cyber, Greenert said, "My job is to provide strategic nuclear deterrence, safe and credible, No. 1. Right behind that is cyber. ... We are staying the course on our cyber warrior plan that we've briefed in here. Through any budget scenario ... we have got to maintain that."
In his remarks, Welsh told the panel that if sequestration stays in place in fiscal 2014, the Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours by up to 15 percent.
"Within three to four months, many of our flying units will be unable to maintain mission readiness," he said. "We'll cancel or significantly curtail major exercises again, and we'll reduce our initial pilot production targets."
Over the long term, sequestration will significantly affect the service's force structure, readiness and modernization, Welsh said, adding that over the next five years the service could be forced to cut up to 25,000 total force airmen, or about 4 percent of its people.
"We also will probably have to cut up to 550 aircraft, about 9 percent of our inventory," the general said. "And to achieve the necessary savings in aircraft force structure, we'll be forced to divest entire fleets of aircraft."
To determine the proper force structure, the Air Force will prioritize global, long-range capabilities and multirole platforms needed to operate in a highly contested environment. Other platforms will be at risk, the general said.
"We plan to protect readiness to the maximum extent possible [and to] prioritize full-spectrum training, because if we're not ready for all possible scenarios, we'll be forced to accept what I believe is unnecessary risk, which means we may not get there in time, it may take the joint team longer to win, and our people will be placed at greater risk," Welsh added.
Air Force modernization and recapitalization forecasts will be bleak if sequestration continues, he said, affecting every program.
"We will favor recapitalization over modernization whenever that decision is required," he said. "That's why our top three acquisition priorities will remain the KC-46, the F-35, and the long-range strike bomber."
The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world and a vital piece of the world's best military team, the general said, "but the impacts are going to be significant, and the risk occurs from readiness in the ways it impacts our airmen."
In his remarks to the panel, Amos said that for the Marine Corps to meet requirements of the defense strategic guidance it needs 186,800 active-duty Marines to meet steady-state requirements, go to war, and preserve a 1-to-3 ratio of deployed time to home-station time for Marines.
"Our share of the 2011 Budget Control Act's $487 billion reduction cut our end strength to 182,000," he said. "Based on sequestration, I simply cannot afford a force that size." Sequestration will force the Marines to plow through scarce resources, funding old equipment and weapon systems to try to keep them functional, the general said.
The Marines will be forced to reduce or cancel modernization programs and infrastructure investments to maintain readiness for deployed and next-to-deploy units, he said. Money that should be available for procuring new equipment will be rerouted to maintenance and spare accounts for legacy equipment, including a 42-year-old Nixon-era amphibious assault vehicle, he added.
In February, the Marines initiated a parallel study to the Defense Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, Amos said.
"Our exhaustive research, backed by independent analysis, determined that a force of 174,000 Marines is the smallest force that can meet mission requirements. This is a force with levels of risk that are minimally acceptable," he said.
"For instance," he added, "assuming that global requirements for Marine forces remain the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the Marine Corps to a 1-to-2 dwell –[ratio] for virtually all Marine units -- gone six months, home 12 months, gone six months."
A force of that size accepts risk when the nation commits itself to the next major theater war, Amos said. The Marines would have 11 fewer combat arms battalions and 14 fewer aircraft squadrons.
"This is a single Marine major contingency operation force that would deploy and fight until the war's end," the general said. "In other words, we would come home when the war was over."
Marines who joined the corps during that period likely would go from drill field to battlefield, he added. Across the joint force, America would start to see shortfalls in the military's ability to accomplish its national strategy.
"Today we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg," Amos said. "Tomorrow's Marines will face violent extremism, battles for influence and natural disasters. Developing states and nonstate actors will acquire new technology and advanced conventional weapons that will challenge our ability to project power and gain access."
To be effective in the new environment, he said, Marines must maintain their forward influence, strategic mobility, power projection, and rapid response capabilities they are known for today.
CFTC CHAIRMAN GENSLER MAKES REMARKS BEFORE THE ISDA EUROPEAN CONFERENCE
FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler before the ISDA European Conference
September 19, 2013
Thank you, Bob, for that introduction. I would also like to thank the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) for the invitation to speak at this annual European conference.
Five years ago this week, the U.S. economy was in a free fall. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Paulson faced the unthinkable – asking the American people to bail out financial institutions to save the economy.
Five years ago, the swaps market was at the center of the crisis. It cost middle-class Americans – and hardworking people across the globe – their jobs, their pensions and their homes.
Five years ago, there was no reporting of swaps to the public or to regulators
Five years ago, the swaps market was largely uncleared.
Five years ago, unregulated dealers dominated the market.
Five years ago, swaps were not exchange traded – all classic attributes of a dark market.
President Obama then met in 2009 with the G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh. They committed to bringing the swaps market into the light through transparency and oversight.
The President, working with the U.S. Congress, in 2010 gave the task of implementing swaps market reform to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and security-based swaps market reform to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Today, the CFTC has substantially completed these reforms.
The CFTC’s 61 final rules, orders and guidance have brought traffic lights, stop signs, and speed limits to the once dark and unregulated swaps roads.
This new era of swaps market reform began to be implemented last October 12. With numerous implementation dates behind us and a number of critical dates coming up, the transition to a reformed swaps market is fully in motion.
This represents a paradigm shift to a transparent, regulated marketplace.
Transparency
Today, the public can see the price and volume of each swap transaction as it occurs on a website, like a modern-day tickertape. Further, half of the swaps market (by volume) is being reported to the public without delay – or as Congress mandated “as soon as technologically practicable.” Soon swaps will be traded on transparent platforms.
This transparency lowers costs for investors, consumers and businesses. It increases liquidity, efficiency and competition.
Regulators have benefited as well. Nearly $400 trillion in market facing swaps now are being reported into data repositories. There is still work to be done to ensure the data in the warehouses is reliable and accessible. There is still work to be done to aggregate across data warehouses as well. But this market transparency is a reality.
This transparency also spans the entire marketplace – cleared as well as bilateral or customized swaps. All categories of market participant from swap dealers to end-users now are to report transactions. Every product, without exception, now must be reported – interest rate; cross currency; foreign exchange; credit index; equity index; and commodities, such as energy and agricultural.
On September 30, the far-flung operations of U.S. financial entities, the guaranteed affiliates and the branches of U.S. persons, also will begin required public reporting.
Further, starting October 2 the public will benefit from the competition and transparency that swap execution facilities (SEFs) will bring to the marketplace. All market participants will have impartial access to SEFs where they can leave live, executable bids or offers in an order book.
We have 18 SEF applications, with seven of them now temporarily registered.
These reforms will finally close what had been known in the U.S. as the “Enron Loophole,” which had allowed for unregistered, multilateral swaps trading platforms.
Five years ago, this market transparency was nonexistent.
Clearing
This month, with the completion of phased implementation, mandatory clearing of interest rate and credit index swaps is a reality. Clearinghouses lower risk and promote access for market participants.
In the month of August, even before our last domestic clearing compliance date, 63 percent of new interest rate swaps were cleared. In total, nearly $180 trillion of the approximately $330 trillion market facing interest rate swaps market, or 53 percent, was cleared at the end of August. This compares to only 21 percent of the market in 2008, according to information on ISDA’s website.
On October 9, the guaranteed affiliates and branches of U.S. persons also will come into central clearing. This includes hedge funds that are operating in the United States but are incorporated in the Cayman Islands.
As we move into 2014, I would anticipate that closer to two-thirds of the interest rate swaps market will be in central clearing.
Yet five years ago, there was no required clearing in the swaps market.
We’ve also made significant progress since the crisis on reforms to protect both futures and swaps customers through the CFTC’s gross margining and the so-called “LSOC” (legal segregation with operational comingling) rules.
Commissioners now are considering final rules that would further strengthen controls around customer funds.
Swap Dealer Oversight
In 2008, swaps were basically not regulated in the United States, Europe or Asia. Among the reasons for this, it was claimed that financial institutions did not need to be specifically regulated for their swaps activity, as they or their affiliates already were generally regulated as banks, investment banks, or insurance companies.
AIG’s downfall was a clear example of what happens with such limited oversight.
Today, we have 82 swap dealers and two major swap participants registered. This group includes the world’s 16 largest financial institutions in the global swaps market, commonly referred to as the G16 dealers. It also includes a number of energy swap dealers.
These reforms help protect the public, lower risk and increase market integrity as swap dealers now must report their transactions and comply with sales practice and other business conduct standards.
Working closely with our counterparts in Europe, we have essentially identical risk mitigation rules that include promoting the timely confirmation of trades and documentation of the trading relationship. Through ISDA protocols, 9,100 market participants have amended their documents to conform to the new U.S. risk mitigation requirements, and 5,200 market participants have conformed to European standards. More than 10,900 market participants are adhering to ISDA’s protocols for sales practices.
These reforms will significantly lower the risk of the swaps market to the public and the economy.
Five years ago, such oversight of swap dealers did not exist.
International Coordination on Swap Market Reform
AIG nearly brought down the U.S. economy through the operations of its offshore guaranteed affiliate.
It wasn’t the only U.S. financial institution that brought risk back home from its far-flung operations during the 2008 crisis.
It was also true at Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, and Bear Stearns. Ten years earlier, it was true at Long-Term Capital Management.
The nature of modern finance is that financial institutions commonly set up hundreds, or even thousands, of legal entities around the globe. When a run starts on any part of an overseas affiliate or branch of a modern financial institution, risk crosses international borders.
The U.S. Congress was clear in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) that the far-flung operations of U.S. enterprises are to be covered by reform.
The CFTC, coordinating closely with global regulators, completed guidance on the cross-border application of the Dodd-Frank Act in July. Swaps market reform covers transactions between non-U.S. swap dealers and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. persons, as well as swaps between two guaranteed affiliates.
Further, the guidance captures offshore hedge funds and collective investment vehicles that have their principal place of business in the U.S. or that are majority owned by U.S. persons.
The guidance embraces the concept of substituted compliances where there are comparable and comprehensive rules abroad. We are currently reviewing submissions for entity-level substituted compliance in six jurisdictions (the European Union, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan and Switzerland). We’re consulting closely with regulators in those jurisdictions and look forward to making determinations prior to December 21 of this year.
Benchmark Interest Rates
Five years ago, interest rate benchmarks such as LIBOR and Euribor were being readily and pervasively rigged.
Working with the Financial Conduct Authority and the U.S. Justice Department, we brought actions against three global banks for such abuses.
LIBOR and Euribor are critical reference rates for global futures and swaps markets. In the U.S., LIBOR is the reference rate for 70 percent of the futures market and more than half of the swaps market. It is the reference rate for more than $10 trillion in loans.
We must ensure that these benchmark interest rates have market integrity and that they are based on fact, not fiction.
The interbank, unsecured market that the benchmarks are intended to measure, however, essentially no longer exists, particularly for longer tenors.
The U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council recommended that U.S. regulators work with foreign regulators, international bodies, and market participants to promptly identify alternative interest rate benchmarks anchored in observable transactions and supported by appropriate governance structures, and to develop a plan to accomplish a transition.
An International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) task force took an important step in announcing new principles in July that require benchmarks to be anchored by observable transactions and subject to robust governance processes that address potential conflicts of interest.
Building on IOSCO’s work, the Financial Stability Board is initiating a review of alternatives to existing benchmark interest rates, as well as considering any potential transition issues.
I want to thank Martin Wheatley, with whom I’ve worked so closely on these issues, for all of his efforts and leadership.
Conclusion
In the five years since the financial crisis, the swaps market has experienced a paradigm shift.
No longer is the market closed and dark.
With the substantially completed reforms, the public and regulators have transparency. We have a majority of the market moving to central clearing. We have oversight of swap dealers, including the far-flung operations of U.S financial institutions.
The public and the markets are benefitting from these common-sense rules of the road.
I’d like to close by saying that the CFTC is currently an underfunded agency. We are only slightly larger than we were 20 years ago. At that time, we oversaw just the futures market, which is less than a tenth of the size of the swaps market we now oversee as well.
It is critical to the public’s confidence in these markets that the regulator is well funded.
Investments in both people and technology are needed for effective market oversight – like having more cops on the beat.
It’s only with a well-funded CFTC that market participants, including this association’s members, will get timely reviews of applications and petitions and answers to your questions.
Last Updated: September 19, 2013
Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler before the ISDA European Conference
September 19, 2013
Thank you, Bob, for that introduction. I would also like to thank the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) for the invitation to speak at this annual European conference.
Five years ago this week, the U.S. economy was in a free fall. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Paulson faced the unthinkable – asking the American people to bail out financial institutions to save the economy.
Five years ago, the swaps market was at the center of the crisis. It cost middle-class Americans – and hardworking people across the globe – their jobs, their pensions and their homes.
Five years ago, there was no reporting of swaps to the public or to regulators
Five years ago, the swaps market was largely uncleared.
Five years ago, unregulated dealers dominated the market.
Five years ago, swaps were not exchange traded – all classic attributes of a dark market.
President Obama then met in 2009 with the G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh. They committed to bringing the swaps market into the light through transparency and oversight.
The President, working with the U.S. Congress, in 2010 gave the task of implementing swaps market reform to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and security-based swaps market reform to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Today, the CFTC has substantially completed these reforms.
The CFTC’s 61 final rules, orders and guidance have brought traffic lights, stop signs, and speed limits to the once dark and unregulated swaps roads.
This new era of swaps market reform began to be implemented last October 12. With numerous implementation dates behind us and a number of critical dates coming up, the transition to a reformed swaps market is fully in motion.
This represents a paradigm shift to a transparent, regulated marketplace.
Transparency
Today, the public can see the price and volume of each swap transaction as it occurs on a website, like a modern-day tickertape. Further, half of the swaps market (by volume) is being reported to the public without delay – or as Congress mandated “as soon as technologically practicable.” Soon swaps will be traded on transparent platforms.
This transparency lowers costs for investors, consumers and businesses. It increases liquidity, efficiency and competition.
Regulators have benefited as well. Nearly $400 trillion in market facing swaps now are being reported into data repositories. There is still work to be done to ensure the data in the warehouses is reliable and accessible. There is still work to be done to aggregate across data warehouses as well. But this market transparency is a reality.
This transparency also spans the entire marketplace – cleared as well as bilateral or customized swaps. All categories of market participant from swap dealers to end-users now are to report transactions. Every product, without exception, now must be reported – interest rate; cross currency; foreign exchange; credit index; equity index; and commodities, such as energy and agricultural.
On September 30, the far-flung operations of U.S. financial entities, the guaranteed affiliates and the branches of U.S. persons, also will begin required public reporting.
Further, starting October 2 the public will benefit from the competition and transparency that swap execution facilities (SEFs) will bring to the marketplace. All market participants will have impartial access to SEFs where they can leave live, executable bids or offers in an order book.
We have 18 SEF applications, with seven of them now temporarily registered.
These reforms will finally close what had been known in the U.S. as the “Enron Loophole,” which had allowed for unregistered, multilateral swaps trading platforms.
Five years ago, this market transparency was nonexistent.
Clearing
This month, with the completion of phased implementation, mandatory clearing of interest rate and credit index swaps is a reality. Clearinghouses lower risk and promote access for market participants.
In the month of August, even before our last domestic clearing compliance date, 63 percent of new interest rate swaps were cleared. In total, nearly $180 trillion of the approximately $330 trillion market facing interest rate swaps market, or 53 percent, was cleared at the end of August. This compares to only 21 percent of the market in 2008, according to information on ISDA’s website.
On October 9, the guaranteed affiliates and branches of U.S. persons also will come into central clearing. This includes hedge funds that are operating in the United States but are incorporated in the Cayman Islands.
As we move into 2014, I would anticipate that closer to two-thirds of the interest rate swaps market will be in central clearing.
Yet five years ago, there was no required clearing in the swaps market.
We’ve also made significant progress since the crisis on reforms to protect both futures and swaps customers through the CFTC’s gross margining and the so-called “LSOC” (legal segregation with operational comingling) rules.
Commissioners now are considering final rules that would further strengthen controls around customer funds.
Swap Dealer Oversight
In 2008, swaps were basically not regulated in the United States, Europe or Asia. Among the reasons for this, it was claimed that financial institutions did not need to be specifically regulated for their swaps activity, as they or their affiliates already were generally regulated as banks, investment banks, or insurance companies.
AIG’s downfall was a clear example of what happens with such limited oversight.
Today, we have 82 swap dealers and two major swap participants registered. This group includes the world’s 16 largest financial institutions in the global swaps market, commonly referred to as the G16 dealers. It also includes a number of energy swap dealers.
These reforms help protect the public, lower risk and increase market integrity as swap dealers now must report their transactions and comply with sales practice and other business conduct standards.
Working closely with our counterparts in Europe, we have essentially identical risk mitigation rules that include promoting the timely confirmation of trades and documentation of the trading relationship. Through ISDA protocols, 9,100 market participants have amended their documents to conform to the new U.S. risk mitigation requirements, and 5,200 market participants have conformed to European standards. More than 10,900 market participants are adhering to ISDA’s protocols for sales practices.
These reforms will significantly lower the risk of the swaps market to the public and the economy.
Five years ago, such oversight of swap dealers did not exist.
International Coordination on Swap Market Reform
AIG nearly brought down the U.S. economy through the operations of its offshore guaranteed affiliate.
It wasn’t the only U.S. financial institution that brought risk back home from its far-flung operations during the 2008 crisis.
It was also true at Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, and Bear Stearns. Ten years earlier, it was true at Long-Term Capital Management.
The nature of modern finance is that financial institutions commonly set up hundreds, or even thousands, of legal entities around the globe. When a run starts on any part of an overseas affiliate or branch of a modern financial institution, risk crosses international borders.
The U.S. Congress was clear in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) that the far-flung operations of U.S. enterprises are to be covered by reform.
The CFTC, coordinating closely with global regulators, completed guidance on the cross-border application of the Dodd-Frank Act in July. Swaps market reform covers transactions between non-U.S. swap dealers and guaranteed affiliates of U.S. persons, as well as swaps between two guaranteed affiliates.
Further, the guidance captures offshore hedge funds and collective investment vehicles that have their principal place of business in the U.S. or that are majority owned by U.S. persons.
The guidance embraces the concept of substituted compliances where there are comparable and comprehensive rules abroad. We are currently reviewing submissions for entity-level substituted compliance in six jurisdictions (the European Union, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan and Switzerland). We’re consulting closely with regulators in those jurisdictions and look forward to making determinations prior to December 21 of this year.
Benchmark Interest Rates
Five years ago, interest rate benchmarks such as LIBOR and Euribor were being readily and pervasively rigged.
Working with the Financial Conduct Authority and the U.S. Justice Department, we brought actions against three global banks for such abuses.
LIBOR and Euribor are critical reference rates for global futures and swaps markets. In the U.S., LIBOR is the reference rate for 70 percent of the futures market and more than half of the swaps market. It is the reference rate for more than $10 trillion in loans.
We must ensure that these benchmark interest rates have market integrity and that they are based on fact, not fiction.
The interbank, unsecured market that the benchmarks are intended to measure, however, essentially no longer exists, particularly for longer tenors.
The U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council recommended that U.S. regulators work with foreign regulators, international bodies, and market participants to promptly identify alternative interest rate benchmarks anchored in observable transactions and supported by appropriate governance structures, and to develop a plan to accomplish a transition.
An International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) task force took an important step in announcing new principles in July that require benchmarks to be anchored by observable transactions and subject to robust governance processes that address potential conflicts of interest.
Building on IOSCO’s work, the Financial Stability Board is initiating a review of alternatives to existing benchmark interest rates, as well as considering any potential transition issues.
I want to thank Martin Wheatley, with whom I’ve worked so closely on these issues, for all of his efforts and leadership.
Conclusion
In the five years since the financial crisis, the swaps market has experienced a paradigm shift.
No longer is the market closed and dark.
With the substantially completed reforms, the public and regulators have transparency. We have a majority of the market moving to central clearing. We have oversight of swap dealers, including the far-flung operations of U.S financial institutions.
The public and the markets are benefitting from these common-sense rules of the road.
I’d like to close by saying that the CFTC is currently an underfunded agency. We are only slightly larger than we were 20 years ago. At that time, we oversaw just the futures market, which is less than a tenth of the size of the swaps market we now oversee as well.
It is critical to the public’s confidence in these markets that the regulator is well funded.
Investments in both people and technology are needed for effective market oversight – like having more cops on the beat.
It’s only with a well-funded CFTC that market participants, including this association’s members, will get timely reviews of applications and petitions and answers to your questions.
Last Updated: September 19, 2013
TRAFFICKER IN BLACK RHINOCEROS HORNS ARRESTED
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Rhino Horn Trafficker Arrested and Detained
Irish National Arrested for Passing Fraudulent Documents in Connection with His Sale of Four Black Rhinoceros Horns for $50,000
Earlier today, a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn detained an Irish national who was arrested on Saturday and charged in a complaint for false labeling in connection with his alleged role in international rhinoceros horn smuggling in violation of the Lacey Act. The arrest and charge is a result of “Operation Crash,” a nationwide effort led by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute those involved in the black market trade of endangered rhinoceros horns.
The Department of Justice filed a complaint in federal court in the Eastern District of New York alleging that Michael Slattery, Jr., a 25-year-old Irish national, fraudulently purchased a set of black rhinoceros horns in Texas and then travelled to New York and used a falsified document to sell the horns for $50,000.
The charge and arrest were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division.
According to the complaint filed in on September 14, 2013, in 2010 Slattery traveled from England to Texas to acquire black rhinoceros horns. Slattery and others then used a day laborer with a Texas driver’s license as a straw buyer to purchase two horns from an auction house in Austin. The complaint charges that Slattery and his group then traveled to New York where they presented a fraudulent Endangered Species Bill of Sale and sold those two and two other horns to an individual for $50,000.
According to court records and government statements made in court, Slattery is a member of The Rathkeale Rovers (also known as the “Irish Travelers”), which are tight-knit extended family groups that live a nomadic lifestyle. The group leverages the rising price for rhinoceros horns in the black market to be used for traditional medicines and carving. According to information made public by Europol, the Rathkeale Rovers have been involved in an epidemic of raids on museums in Europe in which rhinoceros horns have been stolen.
Rhinoceros are an herbivore species of prehistoric origin and one of the largest remaining mega-fauna on earth. They have no known predators other than humans. All species of rhinoceros are protected under United States and international law, and all black rhinoceros species are endangered. Since 1976, trade in rhinoceros horn has been regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a treaty signed by more than 175 countries around the world to protect fish, wildlife and plants that are or may become imperiled due to the demands of international markets. Nevertheless, the demand for rhinoceros horn and black market prices have skyrocketed in recent years due to the value that some cultures have placed on ornamental carvings, good luck charms or alleged medicinal purposes, leading to a decimation of the global rhinoceros population. In China, there is a tradition dating back centuries of intricately carved rhinoceros horn cups. Drinking from such a cup was believed to bring good health and such carvings are highly prized by collectors. As a result of this demand, rhino populations have declined by more than 90 percent since 1970. South Africa, for example, has witnessed a rapid escalation in poaching of live animals, rising from 13 in 2007 to more than 618 in 2012.
The charge in the complaint is merely and allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Nestor of the Eastern District of New York and Trial Attorney Gary N. Donner of the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Rhino Horn Trafficker Arrested and Detained
Irish National Arrested for Passing Fraudulent Documents in Connection with His Sale of Four Black Rhinoceros Horns for $50,000
Earlier today, a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn detained an Irish national who was arrested on Saturday and charged in a complaint for false labeling in connection with his alleged role in international rhinoceros horn smuggling in violation of the Lacey Act. The arrest and charge is a result of “Operation Crash,” a nationwide effort led by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute those involved in the black market trade of endangered rhinoceros horns.
The Department of Justice filed a complaint in federal court in the Eastern District of New York alleging that Michael Slattery, Jr., a 25-year-old Irish national, fraudulently purchased a set of black rhinoceros horns in Texas and then travelled to New York and used a falsified document to sell the horns for $50,000.
The charge and arrest were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division.
According to the complaint filed in on September 14, 2013, in 2010 Slattery traveled from England to Texas to acquire black rhinoceros horns. Slattery and others then used a day laborer with a Texas driver’s license as a straw buyer to purchase two horns from an auction house in Austin. The complaint charges that Slattery and his group then traveled to New York where they presented a fraudulent Endangered Species Bill of Sale and sold those two and two other horns to an individual for $50,000.
According to court records and government statements made in court, Slattery is a member of The Rathkeale Rovers (also known as the “Irish Travelers”), which are tight-knit extended family groups that live a nomadic lifestyle. The group leverages the rising price for rhinoceros horns in the black market to be used for traditional medicines and carving. According to information made public by Europol, the Rathkeale Rovers have been involved in an epidemic of raids on museums in Europe in which rhinoceros horns have been stolen.
Rhinoceros are an herbivore species of prehistoric origin and one of the largest remaining mega-fauna on earth. They have no known predators other than humans. All species of rhinoceros are protected under United States and international law, and all black rhinoceros species are endangered. Since 1976, trade in rhinoceros horn has been regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a treaty signed by more than 175 countries around the world to protect fish, wildlife and plants that are or may become imperiled due to the demands of international markets. Nevertheless, the demand for rhinoceros horn and black market prices have skyrocketed in recent years due to the value that some cultures have placed on ornamental carvings, good luck charms or alleged medicinal purposes, leading to a decimation of the global rhinoceros population. In China, there is a tradition dating back centuries of intricately carved rhinoceros horn cups. Drinking from such a cup was believed to bring good health and such carvings are highly prized by collectors. As a result of this demand, rhino populations have declined by more than 90 percent since 1970. South Africa, for example, has witnessed a rapid escalation in poaching of live animals, rising from 13 in 2007 to more than 618 in 2012.
The charge in the complaint is merely and allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Nestor of the Eastern District of New York and Trial Attorney Gary N. Donner of the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division.
SEC VOTES ON EXECUTIVE "PAY RATIO" PROPOSAL AND DISSENTING OPINION
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Sept. 18, 2013
The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted 3-2 to propose a new rule that would require public companies to disclose the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer (CEO) to the median compensation of its employees.
The new rule, required under the Dodd-Frank Act, would not prescribe a specific methodology for companies to use in calculating a “pay ratio.” Instead, companies would have the flexibility to determine the median annual total compensation of its employees in a way that best suits its particular circumstances.
“This proposal would provide companies significant flexibility in complying with the disclosure requirement while still fulfilling the statutory mandate,” said SEC Chair Mary Jo White. “We are very interested in receiving comments on the proposed approach and the flexibility it affords.”
The proposal will have a 60-day public comment period following its publication in the Federal Register.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher Concerning the Proposal of Rules to Implement the Section 953(b) Pay Ratio Disclosure Provision of the Dodd-Frank Act
Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher
SEC Open Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Sept. 18, 2013
Today, the Commission will vote on proposed rules to implement yet another Dodd-Frank mandate having nothing to do with the SEC’s mission and everything to do with the politics of not letting a serious crisis go to waste.
The pay ratio computation that the proposed rules would require is sure to cost a lot and teach very little. Its only conceivable purpose is to name and, presumably in the view of its proponents, shame U.S. issuers and their executives. This political wish-list mandate represents another page of the Dodd-Frank playbook for special interest groups who seem intent on turning the notion of materiality-based disclosure on its head.
There are no – count them, zero – benefits that our staff have been able to discern. As the proposal explains, “[T]he lack of a specific market failure identified as motivating the enactment of this provision poses significant challenges in quantifying potential economic benefits, if any, from the pay ratio disclosure[.]”[1]
So much for the benefits. If you don’t have a good imagination – or a robust political agenda – you simply won’t find any.
* * *
It could have been worse, and I commend, as always, our expert staff in the Division of Corporation Finance, under the Chair’s direction, for taking a somewhat more flexible approach to the proposal than many which have been considered. But the fact that the Commission could have imposed even greater costs does not create some otherwise absent benefit to mitigate the wasteful costs of the proposal. It merely confirms that there are even more costly ways to accomplish nothing.
So why do this at all? Simple. Dodd-Frank says we must.[2] Crossing one more required rule proposal off our long to-do list of unfinished Dodd-Frank mandates might be the closest thing to a benefit that an objective analysis can squeeze out of today’s proposal.
It's important not to forget, however, that the pay ratio mandate, unlike so many in Dodd-Frank, carries no congressionally imposed deadline. We need not act on it now or soon. It has, nevertheless, jumped to the front of the queue.
We must, therefore, acknowledge as another cost of the rule the decision not to do something else, something more pressing, something that would have yielded discernible benefits – a JOBS Act rulemaking to address the ongoing employment crisis in this country, perhaps, or something – anything – to do with the financial crisis – maybe, for example, the Dodd-Frank section 939A rulemaking that is years overdue.
Given the tremendous strain placed on our resources by Dodd-Frank's seemingly endless stream of mandates as well as our "day job" of doing the blocking-and-tackling work that actually protects investors, maintains fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitates capital formation, today's rulemaking represents a significant and distressing misallocation of time and resources.
* * *
Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank mandates the application of the pay ratio requirement to “each issuer.” A flexible approach, designed to reduce costs to issuers, would have defined the word “issuer” simply to mean the registrant itself, thus requiring issuers to include only their own employees in the median employee compensation calculation. Such an interpretation would also have the benefit of being consistent with the plain language of the statute. It would have been consistent with the definition of the term “issuer” in both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, which define the term to mean any person who issues or proposes to issue any security.[3]
This morning’s proposal, however, interprets the term “issuer” by reference to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, which has enterprise-wide applicability and so concludes that in section 953(b) the term “issuer” should likewise have enterprise-wide scope.[4] This inflexible interpretation has the effect of bringing exponentially more entities – and all of their employees’ compensation – into the pay ratio provision’s costly ambit.
Even more problematically, the proposal would extend the scope of the proposed rules further by requiring the calculation of the median salary and, therefore, the resulting ratio, to be global – that is, applicable not only to the full-time U.S. employees of the issuer and its subsidiaries, but to all of its employees everywhere in the world – including the worldwide employees of its subsidiaries. And the median calculation must include seasonal, temporary, and part-time employees – assuming they are on the rolls at fiscal year’s end – without, however, requiring annualization of their compensation.[5]
Even from the perspective of the 953(b) supporters, these interpretations of the statute are unnecessary overkill. Requiring issuers to calculate the median salary based solely on their own full-time employees located in the United States would still have yielded pay ratio figures more than impressive enough to serve the law’s scapegoating and shaming goals. Such a calculation would still have been complex, although much less costly and more in line with our responsibility as regulators to strike an appropriate balance between costs and benefits.
In addition, a more reasonable, literal interpretation of the statutory mandate would have avoided the distortions the chosen method inevitably introduces. Why, after all, should we require a global calculation, thereby introducing a non-scientific and uninstructive comparison that ignores the variances in the costs of labor and the costs of living in widely disparate economies worldwide?[6] Of what conceivable use could comparing the pay of workers in developing nations to that of U.S. CEOs be to the investors the SEC is tasked with protecting? Why include part-time and temporary and seasonal employees? Why incorporate currency exchange assumptions or pay variations due to governmental social benefits schemes that vary from country to country? These and other extraneous variables introduce a degree of complexity and obfuscation that renders meaningless what was meant to be a simple ratio.
The only logical conclusion is that the real point of this exercise is to ensure the most eye-poppingly huge ratios possible. Gimmicks like these don’t belong in corporate filings. The agency would sanction issuers who acted so “creatively” in other areas of their 10K or proxy disclosure.
* * *
Finally, I remind the Commission, once again, that the Exchange Act mandates that we consider the effect of what we do on competition,[7] which even the proposal itself acknowledges by noting, “the competitive impact of compliance with the disclosure requirements prescribed by Section 953(b) could disproportionately fall on U.S. companies with large workforces and global operations….”[8] Notwithstanding this clear mandate, today’s proposal continues a trend of politically motivated new disclosure requirements that impose unnecessary compliance costs on U.S. issuers, reducing their international competitiveness while providing no benefits to investors and political benefits to special interest groups.[9]
* * *
Putting the most positive face possible on today’s proposal, then, its benefits are not so much elusive, as illusory. Indeed, the “benefits” portion of our economists’ evaluation of the proposed rules is really just a discussion of relative costs. It amounts to this: Congress told us to do it, and since we could have done it in a more costly way than we did, the result is an implicit net benefit. I believe this is the best that DERA could do with such a rotten mandate, but none of us should be happy about it.
I cannot see any way to support today’s proposal. I lament the time wasted on it, and I urge investors, public companies and others directly affected by the proposal to submit detailed, data-heavy comments.
[1] Release at p. 91 (“Economic Analysis”).
[2] Note, however, that on June 19, 2013, a bipartisan majority of the House Financial Services Committee reported favorably H.R. 1135, which would repeal Section 953(b).
[3] Securities Act, sec. 2(a)(4); Exchange Act, sec. 3(a)(8).
[4] “By directing the Commission to amend Item 402, we believe that Section 953(b) is intended to cover employees on an enterprise-wide basis, including both the registrant and its subsidiaries, which is the same approach as that taken for other Item 402 information” (Release at p. 110), and “we believe it is appropriate to apply the same definition of subsidiary that is used for other disclosure under Item 402” (id. at 111).
[5] The Release permits annualization for permanent employees, which would include those employed at fiscal year’s end but not for the whole fiscal year, as well as permanent part-time employees. It does not permit annualization for seasonal or temporary employees employed at year’s end. Release at 33-34 and 114-15.
[6] The Release acknowledges that any comparison of registrants’ pay ratios would be uninstructive: “[W]e do not believe that precise comparability or conformity of disclosure from registrant to registrant is necessarily achievable due to the variety of factors that could cause the ratio to differ…” (Release at 35).
[7] Exchange Act, sec. 23(a)(2).
[8] Release at p. 104 (“Economic Analysis”).
[9] See, e.g., Release No. 34-67716 (“Conflict Minerals”), Aug. 22, 2012, and Rel. No. 34-67717 (“Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers”), Aug. 22, 2012 (subsequently vacated and remanded).
Sept. 18, 2013
The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted 3-2 to propose a new rule that would require public companies to disclose the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer (CEO) to the median compensation of its employees.
The new rule, required under the Dodd-Frank Act, would not prescribe a specific methodology for companies to use in calculating a “pay ratio.” Instead, companies would have the flexibility to determine the median annual total compensation of its employees in a way that best suits its particular circumstances.
“This proposal would provide companies significant flexibility in complying with the disclosure requirement while still fulfilling the statutory mandate,” said SEC Chair Mary Jo White. “We are very interested in receiving comments on the proposed approach and the flexibility it affords.”
The proposal will have a 60-day public comment period following its publication in the Federal Register.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher Concerning the Proposal of Rules to Implement the Section 953(b) Pay Ratio Disclosure Provision of the Dodd-Frank Act
Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher
SEC Open Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Sept. 18, 2013
Today, the Commission will vote on proposed rules to implement yet another Dodd-Frank mandate having nothing to do with the SEC’s mission and everything to do with the politics of not letting a serious crisis go to waste.
The pay ratio computation that the proposed rules would require is sure to cost a lot and teach very little. Its only conceivable purpose is to name and, presumably in the view of its proponents, shame U.S. issuers and their executives. This political wish-list mandate represents another page of the Dodd-Frank playbook for special interest groups who seem intent on turning the notion of materiality-based disclosure on its head.
There are no – count them, zero – benefits that our staff have been able to discern. As the proposal explains, “[T]he lack of a specific market failure identified as motivating the enactment of this provision poses significant challenges in quantifying potential economic benefits, if any, from the pay ratio disclosure[.]”[1]
So much for the benefits. If you don’t have a good imagination – or a robust political agenda – you simply won’t find any.
* * *
It could have been worse, and I commend, as always, our expert staff in the Division of Corporation Finance, under the Chair’s direction, for taking a somewhat more flexible approach to the proposal than many which have been considered. But the fact that the Commission could have imposed even greater costs does not create some otherwise absent benefit to mitigate the wasteful costs of the proposal. It merely confirms that there are even more costly ways to accomplish nothing.
So why do this at all? Simple. Dodd-Frank says we must.[2] Crossing one more required rule proposal off our long to-do list of unfinished Dodd-Frank mandates might be the closest thing to a benefit that an objective analysis can squeeze out of today’s proposal.
It's important not to forget, however, that the pay ratio mandate, unlike so many in Dodd-Frank, carries no congressionally imposed deadline. We need not act on it now or soon. It has, nevertheless, jumped to the front of the queue.
We must, therefore, acknowledge as another cost of the rule the decision not to do something else, something more pressing, something that would have yielded discernible benefits – a JOBS Act rulemaking to address the ongoing employment crisis in this country, perhaps, or something – anything – to do with the financial crisis – maybe, for example, the Dodd-Frank section 939A rulemaking that is years overdue.
Given the tremendous strain placed on our resources by Dodd-Frank's seemingly endless stream of mandates as well as our "day job" of doing the blocking-and-tackling work that actually protects investors, maintains fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitates capital formation, today's rulemaking represents a significant and distressing misallocation of time and resources.
* * *
Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank mandates the application of the pay ratio requirement to “each issuer.” A flexible approach, designed to reduce costs to issuers, would have defined the word “issuer” simply to mean the registrant itself, thus requiring issuers to include only their own employees in the median employee compensation calculation. Such an interpretation would also have the benefit of being consistent with the plain language of the statute. It would have been consistent with the definition of the term “issuer” in both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, which define the term to mean any person who issues or proposes to issue any security.[3]
This morning’s proposal, however, interprets the term “issuer” by reference to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, which has enterprise-wide applicability and so concludes that in section 953(b) the term “issuer” should likewise have enterprise-wide scope.[4] This inflexible interpretation has the effect of bringing exponentially more entities – and all of their employees’ compensation – into the pay ratio provision’s costly ambit.
Even more problematically, the proposal would extend the scope of the proposed rules further by requiring the calculation of the median salary and, therefore, the resulting ratio, to be global – that is, applicable not only to the full-time U.S. employees of the issuer and its subsidiaries, but to all of its employees everywhere in the world – including the worldwide employees of its subsidiaries. And the median calculation must include seasonal, temporary, and part-time employees – assuming they are on the rolls at fiscal year’s end – without, however, requiring annualization of their compensation.[5]
Even from the perspective of the 953(b) supporters, these interpretations of the statute are unnecessary overkill. Requiring issuers to calculate the median salary based solely on their own full-time employees located in the United States would still have yielded pay ratio figures more than impressive enough to serve the law’s scapegoating and shaming goals. Such a calculation would still have been complex, although much less costly and more in line with our responsibility as regulators to strike an appropriate balance between costs and benefits.
In addition, a more reasonable, literal interpretation of the statutory mandate would have avoided the distortions the chosen method inevitably introduces. Why, after all, should we require a global calculation, thereby introducing a non-scientific and uninstructive comparison that ignores the variances in the costs of labor and the costs of living in widely disparate economies worldwide?[6] Of what conceivable use could comparing the pay of workers in developing nations to that of U.S. CEOs be to the investors the SEC is tasked with protecting? Why include part-time and temporary and seasonal employees? Why incorporate currency exchange assumptions or pay variations due to governmental social benefits schemes that vary from country to country? These and other extraneous variables introduce a degree of complexity and obfuscation that renders meaningless what was meant to be a simple ratio.
The only logical conclusion is that the real point of this exercise is to ensure the most eye-poppingly huge ratios possible. Gimmicks like these don’t belong in corporate filings. The agency would sanction issuers who acted so “creatively” in other areas of their 10K or proxy disclosure.
* * *
Finally, I remind the Commission, once again, that the Exchange Act mandates that we consider the effect of what we do on competition,[7] which even the proposal itself acknowledges by noting, “the competitive impact of compliance with the disclosure requirements prescribed by Section 953(b) could disproportionately fall on U.S. companies with large workforces and global operations….”[8] Notwithstanding this clear mandate, today’s proposal continues a trend of politically motivated new disclosure requirements that impose unnecessary compliance costs on U.S. issuers, reducing their international competitiveness while providing no benefits to investors and political benefits to special interest groups.[9]
* * *
Putting the most positive face possible on today’s proposal, then, its benefits are not so much elusive, as illusory. Indeed, the “benefits” portion of our economists’ evaluation of the proposed rules is really just a discussion of relative costs. It amounts to this: Congress told us to do it, and since we could have done it in a more costly way than we did, the result is an implicit net benefit. I believe this is the best that DERA could do with such a rotten mandate, but none of us should be happy about it.
I cannot see any way to support today’s proposal. I lament the time wasted on it, and I urge investors, public companies and others directly affected by the proposal to submit detailed, data-heavy comments.
[1] Release at p. 91 (“Economic Analysis”).
[2] Note, however, that on June 19, 2013, a bipartisan majority of the House Financial Services Committee reported favorably H.R. 1135, which would repeal Section 953(b).
[3] Securities Act, sec. 2(a)(4); Exchange Act, sec. 3(a)(8).
[4] “By directing the Commission to amend Item 402, we believe that Section 953(b) is intended to cover employees on an enterprise-wide basis, including both the registrant and its subsidiaries, which is the same approach as that taken for other Item 402 information” (Release at p. 110), and “we believe it is appropriate to apply the same definition of subsidiary that is used for other disclosure under Item 402” (id. at 111).
[5] The Release permits annualization for permanent employees, which would include those employed at fiscal year’s end but not for the whole fiscal year, as well as permanent part-time employees. It does not permit annualization for seasonal or temporary employees employed at year’s end. Release at 33-34 and 114-15.
[6] The Release acknowledges that any comparison of registrants’ pay ratios would be uninstructive: “[W]e do not believe that precise comparability or conformity of disclosure from registrant to registrant is necessarily achievable due to the variety of factors that could cause the ratio to differ…” (Release at 35).
[7] Exchange Act, sec. 23(a)(2).
[8] Release at p. 104 (“Economic Analysis”).
[9] See, e.g., Release No. 34-67716 (“Conflict Minerals”), Aug. 22, 2012, and Rel. No. 34-67717 (“Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers”), Aug. 22, 2012 (subsequently vacated and remanded).
FTC WARNS PUBLIC OF POSSIBLE DONATION SCAMS AFTER COLORADO FLOODING DISASTER
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
If You're Helping Colorado Flood Victims, Make Sure Your Donations Count
In the wake of the flooding in Colorado, the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, urges people to be wary of charity scams.
If you’re looking for a way to give, do some research to ensure that your donation will go to a reputable organization. Urgent appeals that you get in person, by phone or mail, by e-mail, on websites, or on social networking sites may not be on the up-and-up. Unfortunately, legitimate charities face competition from fraudsters who either solicit for bogus charities or aren't entirely honest about how a so-called charity will use your contribution.
If you’re asked to make a charitable donation to support victims of the flooding in Colorado, consider these tips:
Donate to charities you know and trust. Be alert for charities that seem to have sprung up overnight in connection with current events.
Ask if a caller is a paid fundraiser, who they work for, and what percentage of your donation goes to the charity and to the fundraiser. If you don’t get a clear answer – or if you don’t like the answer – consider donating to a different organization.
Don’t give out personal or financial information – including your credit card or bank account number – a unless you know the charity is reputable.
Never send cash: you can’t be sure the organization will receive your donation, and you won’t have a record for tax purposes.
Check out the charity with the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, or GuideStar.
Find out if the charity or fundraiser must be registered in your state by contacting the National Association of State Charity Officials.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
If You're Helping Colorado Flood Victims, Make Sure Your Donations Count
In the wake of the flooding in Colorado, the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, urges people to be wary of charity scams.
If you’re looking for a way to give, do some research to ensure that your donation will go to a reputable organization. Urgent appeals that you get in person, by phone or mail, by e-mail, on websites, or on social networking sites may not be on the up-and-up. Unfortunately, legitimate charities face competition from fraudsters who either solicit for bogus charities or aren't entirely honest about how a so-called charity will use your contribution.
If you’re asked to make a charitable donation to support victims of the flooding in Colorado, consider these tips:
Donate to charities you know and trust. Be alert for charities that seem to have sprung up overnight in connection with current events.
Ask if a caller is a paid fundraiser, who they work for, and what percentage of your donation goes to the charity and to the fundraiser. If you don’t get a clear answer – or if you don’t like the answer – consider donating to a different organization.
Don’t give out personal or financial information – including your credit card or bank account number – a unless you know the charity is reputable.
Never send cash: you can’t be sure the organization will receive your donation, and you won’t have a record for tax purposes.
Check out the charity with the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, or GuideStar.
Find out if the charity or fundraiser must be registered in your state by contacting the National Association of State Charity Officials.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
DOD OFFICIAL SITES LESSONS LEARNED FROM FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Officials: Fort Hood Lessons May Have Saved Lives at Navy Yard
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20, 2013 - Of 89 recommendations that came from two reviews of the 2009 shooting that killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, 52 are fully implemented, and some may have helped to save lives during the Navy Yard shooting here Sept. 16, senior defense officials said.
The officials, who briefed reporters here this week, were unable to discuss the ongoing investigation involving a civilian contractor, 34-year-old Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 people and wounded several others at the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters building before being killed by police.
But they did discuss results of the Defense Department's 2010 independent review of events at Fort Hood and final recommendations from that review, and of a 2012 Defense Science Board review sought by DOD to look deeper into the motivations of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, and other potential violent actors.
"In the area of response, there are a few very specific things that I believe helped save lives as a result and led to a faster response time [and] greater cooperation between local law enforcement with the FBI and in terms of warning people ... on the Navy Yard at the time," a senior defense official said.
Specifically, he added, as a result of one of the DOD recommendations, the department is using a North American telephone network feature called enhanced 911, or E-911, to push out alert notices during emergencies on DOD installations.
Because of some of the recommendations, the official said, guards have received training for scenarios in which they must respond to emergencies involving an active shooter or shooters, and there are new information-sharing agreements between the FBI and local law enforcement agencies that allow military-civilian collaboration.
"There are two examples of how we've increased information sharing," the official said. First, "the Department of Defense and the FBI signed a memorandum of understanding by which if either organization has information about a threat to or from DOD personnel, we are obligated to share with each other."
The senior defense official said that's important because DOD persons and installations are a prime target of what's called homegrown violent extremism.
For those wanting to commit acts of violence, DOD people and facilities often are the target, he added, "so it matters to us when FBI has an operational case that they share information about threats that might be around a particular location or base."
Second, he said, the Defense Department now has people working in a significant number of FBI-led joint terrorism task forces, giving DOD personnel insight into and awareness of FBI cases and how they may be relevant to DOD safety and security.
"I think we're in a significantly better place," the official said. "Obviously we're not there fully, based on Monday's events, but there has been a lot of progress."
After the Fort Hood incident, he added, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates established an independent review of events that produced an August 2010 report and 79 recommendations to improve the ability to identify patterns that might lead to violence and to safety and security on installations.
One of the recommendations was to ask the Defense Science Board to look for useful indicators of warning in individuals who might be prone to acts of violence, the official said, adding that the board's task force provided 10 recommendations of its own, for a total of 89 recommendations from reviews of the Fort Hood incident.
About 52 of the recommendations have been adopted and fully implemented, he said, and the vast majority of the remaining recommendations have been agreed to. Most are in various stages of implementation, he added.
The defense official said that some of the remaining tasks have to do with a Defense Science Board recommendation that the defense secretary direct a departmentwide requirement for the military departments and DOD agencies to establish a multidisciplinary threat management unit that identifies, assesses and responds to or manages threats of targeted violence.
"The kinds of things we're wrestling with right now [are], 'How tailored do they have to be? Should there be one unique to the Navy, one to the Army, one to the Marines, one to the Air Force? Do you have something at headquarters?" he said.
And DOD officials are still working through some of the privacy issues involved in sharing information, he said.
"When an individual is assigned to one base and events and incidents that might happen at a base don't rise to the level of criminality -- because for criminal cases there's a pre-existing system by which that information is captured permanently -- and here someone could be going through a difficult period of life, and it could be a one-time incident," he explained.
"We're trying to make sure we have a system by which we are appropriately protecting [people] but providing information to the experts who need to know it," the official said.
Such details, he added, "are difficult and important things for our military families."
In March, the official said, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued an instruction directing rapid completion of the remaining tasks. "So this is something that's been very much on his mind as well," he added.
This week, before a news conference with Pentagon reporters, Hagel and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed condolences to the families and coworkers of the 12 Navy employees gunned down at the Navy Yard.
Hagel said he's asked Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter to lead two departmentwide reviews. The first will examine physical security and access procedures at all DOD installations.
In the second, Carter will look at DOD practices and procedures for granting and renewing security clearances, including those held by contractors. He will coordinate with officials at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of Management and Budget, Hagel said.
The secretary also has directed an independent panel to conduct its own assessment of security at DOD facilities and of the department's security clearance procedures and practices.
Officials: Fort Hood Lessons May Have Saved Lives at Navy Yard
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20, 2013 - Of 89 recommendations that came from two reviews of the 2009 shooting that killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, 52 are fully implemented, and some may have helped to save lives during the Navy Yard shooting here Sept. 16, senior defense officials said.
The officials, who briefed reporters here this week, were unable to discuss the ongoing investigation involving a civilian contractor, 34-year-old Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 people and wounded several others at the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters building before being killed by police.
But they did discuss results of the Defense Department's 2010 independent review of events at Fort Hood and final recommendations from that review, and of a 2012 Defense Science Board review sought by DOD to look deeper into the motivations of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, and other potential violent actors.
"In the area of response, there are a few very specific things that I believe helped save lives as a result and led to a faster response time [and] greater cooperation between local law enforcement with the FBI and in terms of warning people ... on the Navy Yard at the time," a senior defense official said.
Specifically, he added, as a result of one of the DOD recommendations, the department is using a North American telephone network feature called enhanced 911, or E-911, to push out alert notices during emergencies on DOD installations.
Because of some of the recommendations, the official said, guards have received training for scenarios in which they must respond to emergencies involving an active shooter or shooters, and there are new information-sharing agreements between the FBI and local law enforcement agencies that allow military-civilian collaboration.
"There are two examples of how we've increased information sharing," the official said. First, "the Department of Defense and the FBI signed a memorandum of understanding by which if either organization has information about a threat to or from DOD personnel, we are obligated to share with each other."
The senior defense official said that's important because DOD persons and installations are a prime target of what's called homegrown violent extremism.
For those wanting to commit acts of violence, DOD people and facilities often are the target, he added, "so it matters to us when FBI has an operational case that they share information about threats that might be around a particular location or base."
Second, he said, the Defense Department now has people working in a significant number of FBI-led joint terrorism task forces, giving DOD personnel insight into and awareness of FBI cases and how they may be relevant to DOD safety and security.
"I think we're in a significantly better place," the official said. "Obviously we're not there fully, based on Monday's events, but there has been a lot of progress."
After the Fort Hood incident, he added, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates established an independent review of events that produced an August 2010 report and 79 recommendations to improve the ability to identify patterns that might lead to violence and to safety and security on installations.
One of the recommendations was to ask the Defense Science Board to look for useful indicators of warning in individuals who might be prone to acts of violence, the official said, adding that the board's task force provided 10 recommendations of its own, for a total of 89 recommendations from reviews of the Fort Hood incident.
About 52 of the recommendations have been adopted and fully implemented, he said, and the vast majority of the remaining recommendations have been agreed to. Most are in various stages of implementation, he added.
The defense official said that some of the remaining tasks have to do with a Defense Science Board recommendation that the defense secretary direct a departmentwide requirement for the military departments and DOD agencies to establish a multidisciplinary threat management unit that identifies, assesses and responds to or manages threats of targeted violence.
"The kinds of things we're wrestling with right now [are], 'How tailored do they have to be? Should there be one unique to the Navy, one to the Army, one to the Marines, one to the Air Force? Do you have something at headquarters?" he said.
And DOD officials are still working through some of the privacy issues involved in sharing information, he said.
"When an individual is assigned to one base and events and incidents that might happen at a base don't rise to the level of criminality -- because for criminal cases there's a pre-existing system by which that information is captured permanently -- and here someone could be going through a difficult period of life, and it could be a one-time incident," he explained.
"We're trying to make sure we have a system by which we are appropriately protecting [people] but providing information to the experts who need to know it," the official said.
Such details, he added, "are difficult and important things for our military families."
In March, the official said, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued an instruction directing rapid completion of the remaining tasks. "So this is something that's been very much on his mind as well," he added.
This week, before a news conference with Pentagon reporters, Hagel and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed condolences to the families and coworkers of the 12 Navy employees gunned down at the Navy Yard.
Hagel said he's asked Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter to lead two departmentwide reviews. The first will examine physical security and access procedures at all DOD installations.
In the second, Carter will look at DOD practices and procedures for granting and renewing security clearances, including those held by contractors. He will coordinate with officials at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of Management and Budget, Hagel said.
The secretary also has directed an independent panel to conduct its own assessment of security at DOD facilities and of the department's security clearance procedures and practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)