Wednesday, February 25, 2015
NO CHARGES FILED FOLLOWING FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF TRAVON MARTIN CASE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Federal Officials Close Investigation Into Death of Trayvon Martin
The Justice Department announced today that the independent federal investigation found insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, officials from the FBI, and the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service met today with Martin’s family and their representatives to inform them of the findings of the investigation and the decision.
“The death of Trayvon Martin was a devastating tragedy. It shook an entire community, drew the attention of millions across the nation, and sparked a painful but necessary dialogue throughout the country,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here, this young man’s premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface. We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future.”
Following the shooting, a team of some of the department’s most experienced civil rights prosecutors and FBI agents conducted a comprehensive, independent investigation of the events of Feb. 26, 2012. The federal investigation was opened and conducted separately from the state of Florida’s investigation of the shooting under local laws. Once the state initiated the second-degree murder prosecution, federal investigators began monitoring the state’s case and halted active investigation in order not to interfere with the state’s trial. Federal investigators provided reports of interviews and other evidence they obtained to the state’s prosecution team.
Shortly after Zimmerman’s acquittal in state court on July 13, 2013, federal investigators resumed active investigation. Federal investigators reviewed all of the material and evidence generated by the state of Florida in connection with its investigation and prosecution of Zimmerman, including witness statements, crime scene evidence, cell phone data, ballistics reports, reconstruction analysis, medical and autopsy reports, depositions, and the trial record. Federal investigators also independently conducted 75 witness interviews and obtained and reviewed the contents of relevant electronic devices. The investigation included an examination of police reports and additional evidence that was generated related to encounters Zimmerman has had with law enforcement in Florida since the state trial acquittal. In addition, federal authorities retained an independent biomechanical expert who assessed Zimmerman’s descriptions of the struggle and the shooting.
The federal investigation sought to determine whether the evidence of the events that led to Martin’s death were sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s actions violated the federal criminal civil rights statutes, specifically Section 3631 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code or Section 249 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, as well as other relevant federal criminal statutes. Section 3631 criminalizes willfully using force or threat of force to interfere with a person’s federally protected housing rights on account of that person’s race or color. Section 249 criminalizes willfully causing bodily injury to a person because of that person’s actual or perceived race. Courts define “willfully” to require proof that a defendant knew his acts were unlawful, and committed those acts in open defiance of the law. It is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law.
The federal investigation examined whether Zimmerman violated civil rights statutes at any point during his interaction with Martin, from their initial encounter through the fatal shooting. This included investigating whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 by approaching Martin in a threatening manner before the fatal shooting because of Martin’s race and because he was using the residential neighborhood. Investigators also looked at whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 or Section 249, by using force against Martin either during their struggle or when shooting Martin, because of Martin’s race.
“Although the department has determined that this matter cannot be prosecuted federally, it is important to remember that this incident resulted in the tragic loss of a teenager’s life,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “Our decision not to pursue federal charges does not condone the shooting that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin and is based solely on the high legal standard applicable to these cases.”
After a thorough and independent investigation into the facts surrounding the shooting, federal investigators determined that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of these statutes. Accordingly, the investigation into this incident has been closed. This decision is limited strictly to the department’s inability to meet the high legal standard required to prosecute the case under the federal civil rights statutes; it does not reflect an assessment of any other aspect of the shooting.
The Justice Department is committed to investigations of allegations of bias-motivated violence and will continue to devote the resources required to ensure that allegations of civil rights violations are fully and completely investigated. The department aggressively prosecutes criminal civil rights violations whenever there is sufficient evidence to do so.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Federal Officials Close Investigation Into Death of Trayvon Martin
The Justice Department announced today that the independent federal investigation found insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, officials from the FBI, and the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service met today with Martin’s family and their representatives to inform them of the findings of the investigation and the decision.
“The death of Trayvon Martin was a devastating tragedy. It shook an entire community, drew the attention of millions across the nation, and sparked a painful but necessary dialogue throughout the country,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here, this young man’s premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface. We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future.”
Following the shooting, a team of some of the department’s most experienced civil rights prosecutors and FBI agents conducted a comprehensive, independent investigation of the events of Feb. 26, 2012. The federal investigation was opened and conducted separately from the state of Florida’s investigation of the shooting under local laws. Once the state initiated the second-degree murder prosecution, federal investigators began monitoring the state’s case and halted active investigation in order not to interfere with the state’s trial. Federal investigators provided reports of interviews and other evidence they obtained to the state’s prosecution team.
Shortly after Zimmerman’s acquittal in state court on July 13, 2013, federal investigators resumed active investigation. Federal investigators reviewed all of the material and evidence generated by the state of Florida in connection with its investigation and prosecution of Zimmerman, including witness statements, crime scene evidence, cell phone data, ballistics reports, reconstruction analysis, medical and autopsy reports, depositions, and the trial record. Federal investigators also independently conducted 75 witness interviews and obtained and reviewed the contents of relevant electronic devices. The investigation included an examination of police reports and additional evidence that was generated related to encounters Zimmerman has had with law enforcement in Florida since the state trial acquittal. In addition, federal authorities retained an independent biomechanical expert who assessed Zimmerman’s descriptions of the struggle and the shooting.
The federal investigation sought to determine whether the evidence of the events that led to Martin’s death were sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s actions violated the federal criminal civil rights statutes, specifically Section 3631 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code or Section 249 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, as well as other relevant federal criminal statutes. Section 3631 criminalizes willfully using force or threat of force to interfere with a person’s federally protected housing rights on account of that person’s race or color. Section 249 criminalizes willfully causing bodily injury to a person because of that person’s actual or perceived race. Courts define “willfully” to require proof that a defendant knew his acts were unlawful, and committed those acts in open defiance of the law. It is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law.
The federal investigation examined whether Zimmerman violated civil rights statutes at any point during his interaction with Martin, from their initial encounter through the fatal shooting. This included investigating whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 by approaching Martin in a threatening manner before the fatal shooting because of Martin’s race and because he was using the residential neighborhood. Investigators also looked at whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman violated Section 3631 or Section 249, by using force against Martin either during their struggle or when shooting Martin, because of Martin’s race.
“Although the department has determined that this matter cannot be prosecuted federally, it is important to remember that this incident resulted in the tragic loss of a teenager’s life,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “Our decision not to pursue federal charges does not condone the shooting that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin and is based solely on the high legal standard applicable to these cases.”
After a thorough and independent investigation into the facts surrounding the shooting, federal investigators determined that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of these statutes. Accordingly, the investigation into this incident has been closed. This decision is limited strictly to the department’s inability to meet the high legal standard required to prosecute the case under the federal civil rights statutes; it does not reflect an assessment of any other aspect of the shooting.
The Justice Department is committed to investigations of allegations of bias-motivated violence and will continue to devote the resources required to ensure that allegations of civil rights violations are fully and completely investigated. The department aggressively prosecutes criminal civil rights violations whenever there is sufficient evidence to do so.
REMARKS ON UKRAINE BY AMBASSADOR PRESSMAN
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs
New York, NY
February 24, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to welcome the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Minister Dacic, to the Security Council and thank you for your briefing on OSCE activities under Serbia’s leadership. The partnership between the OSCE and the United Nations is critically important and we welcome the opportunity to hear about the OSCE's priorities.
Mr. President, the OSCE has taken on a very difficult and very important set of responsibilities in Ukraine, and we strongly endorse the Chairman-in-Office’s continued focus on brokering peace in Ukraine and serving as an impartial observer to the September 2014 agreements and February 2015 implementation package signed in Minsk. Of course, OSCE engagement and focus cannot alone turn commitments on the many papers that have been signed in Minsk into tangible realities on the ground, though the OSCE can uniquely shed light on those who undermine the path to peace. So it should come as no surprise that – in addition to repeated attacks on Ukrainian positions well past the agreed line of contact, repeated failure to withdraw foreign fighters and military equipment, and repeated failure to pull back heavy weaponry – Russian-backed separatists have also repeatedly frustrated the access of OSCE observers to the very places they have pledged to ensure such access.
This must end. It is imperative that OSCE observers be allowed to operate safely and be granted unfettered access to all areas in order to effectively monitor the terms of the ceasefire and the subsequent withdrawal of heavy weaponry, foreign troops, and mercenaries in accordance with the Minsk agreements and Security Council Resolution 2202, which we just adopted last week.
Under the terms of the Minsk Memorandum, OSCE observers are supposed to be allowed to monitor and verify the ceasefire, monitor and verify security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Under the terms of the Minsk Protocol, OSCE observers are supposed to be allowed to monitor the ceasefire, monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons, and monitor the withdrawal of all foreign militarized formations, military equipment, militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine. Under the terms of the Minsk Implementation Package, OSCE observers are supposed to facilitate the withdrawal of heavy weapons and monitor and verify the ceasefire regime and withdrawal of heavy weapons, from day one.
And, yet, six months after the signing of the Minsk Memorandum and Protocol and almost two weeks after the signing of the Minsk Implementation Package, OSCE observers have yet to receive full access from the separatists to all areas to monitor and verify the ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons and foreign fighters, or security along the border.
Even today, after laying ruthless and deadly siege to the city of Debaltseve last week, approximately 30 to 40 kilometers beyond lines established by the September Minsk Agreements, separatists have yet to allow the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission unrestricted and unfettered access to that city to observe the situation on the ground. So if we are serious about improving cooperation between regional organizations and the United Nations, let’s start with this: Let’s recognize that the work of the OSCE is critical to making the agreed ceasefire and any effort at de-escalation stick, as agreed by all 57 OSCE participating States. And let’s take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all actors uphold their commitment to provide unfettered access to the OSCE in eastern Ukraine, and that all parties respect the neutrality of its mission and its monitors.
Protecting their access is important because the reports of the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine have been a key source for timely and impartial information on the situation in the Donbas area, and notably, on incidents like the downing of the MH17 plane; the appearance of weapons, troops, and support flowing from Russia into Ukraine; and the shelling of civilian targets in eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Chairman, we commend the OSCE’s efforts thus far and encourage your continued dedication to monitoring the ceasefire and ensuring all commitments made in Minsk are upheld, despite the very difficult conditions in which the mission works. You have the full backing of the United States and with the adoption of Resolution 2202, the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council to implement the Minsk Agreements.
Mr. President, the United States strongly endorses the Chairman-in-Office’s focus on bolstering OSCE field missions and independent institutions, like the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the High Commissioner for National Minorities, and the Representative on Freedom of the Media. The OSCE’s field missions contribute to our collective respect for human rights, and the institutionalization of rule of law.
We also welcome the passage by the OSCE Ministerial Council in December of 2014 of two decisions on Countering the Phenomenon of Foreign Fighters and Countering Kidnapping for Ransom. We support your efforts as Chairperson-in-Office to encourage implementation of these important decisions and to continue the work of OSCE field missions in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Balkans on counterterrorism issues, including countering violent extremism. We welcome more OSCE awareness-raising and capacity building efforts, which promote a multi-dimensional approach to countering violent extremism, and we encourage collaboration amongst stakeholders, particularly in the areas of youth/civil society, gender, community-policing, and human rights compliant approaches to addressing terrorism and violent extremism. We also thank the Chairman-in-Office for planning to host a regional “expert-level” summit in June to follow-up on all of these efforts.
Mr. President, lastly but importantly, in recent months, we have seen what should be an alarming display of anti-Semitism in Europe. From the shootings at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, to the horrific anti-Semitic attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, to the recent wide scale desecration of a Jewish cemetery. Just as anti-Semitism in Europe is rising, so too, must our will to combat it and defeat it. For any organization that has a role in the maintenance of security and peace, it must also confront the kind of hate that undermines both – and anti-Semitism, as history has shown time and time again, is certainly that. As such, it is all the more important that the OSCE has undertaken the important work that it has to address anti-Semitism and intolerance, including its Declaration to Enhance Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism adopted at the Basel Ministerial as a follow-up to the commemoration in November of the 10th anniversary of the OSCE Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin. And yet, despite all that has been unfolding across Europe, at this 10-year anniversary meeting of the historic inaugural session, a third fewer countries showed up at the 2014 conference.
Of course, meetings and declarations will never alone crush hate, but they are important to focus our collective efforts, galvanize our collective will, and force our collective action.
Mr. Chair, the United States urges you to continue the OSCE’s critical work on this issue and we encourage OSCE participating States to help uphold the commitments enshrined in the Declaration.
The United States, as an active member of the OSCE, remains fully committed to the important work of the organization. A strong OSCE is a good partner for the United Nations, and it is a good partner in our cause of championing fairness, security, justice, and peace.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs
New York, NY
February 24, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to welcome the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Minister Dacic, to the Security Council and thank you for your briefing on OSCE activities under Serbia’s leadership. The partnership between the OSCE and the United Nations is critically important and we welcome the opportunity to hear about the OSCE's priorities.
Mr. President, the OSCE has taken on a very difficult and very important set of responsibilities in Ukraine, and we strongly endorse the Chairman-in-Office’s continued focus on brokering peace in Ukraine and serving as an impartial observer to the September 2014 agreements and February 2015 implementation package signed in Minsk. Of course, OSCE engagement and focus cannot alone turn commitments on the many papers that have been signed in Minsk into tangible realities on the ground, though the OSCE can uniquely shed light on those who undermine the path to peace. So it should come as no surprise that – in addition to repeated attacks on Ukrainian positions well past the agreed line of contact, repeated failure to withdraw foreign fighters and military equipment, and repeated failure to pull back heavy weaponry – Russian-backed separatists have also repeatedly frustrated the access of OSCE observers to the very places they have pledged to ensure such access.
This must end. It is imperative that OSCE observers be allowed to operate safely and be granted unfettered access to all areas in order to effectively monitor the terms of the ceasefire and the subsequent withdrawal of heavy weaponry, foreign troops, and mercenaries in accordance with the Minsk agreements and Security Council Resolution 2202, which we just adopted last week.
Under the terms of the Minsk Memorandum, OSCE observers are supposed to be allowed to monitor and verify the ceasefire, monitor and verify security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Under the terms of the Minsk Protocol, OSCE observers are supposed to be allowed to monitor the ceasefire, monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons, and monitor the withdrawal of all foreign militarized formations, military equipment, militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine. Under the terms of the Minsk Implementation Package, OSCE observers are supposed to facilitate the withdrawal of heavy weapons and monitor and verify the ceasefire regime and withdrawal of heavy weapons, from day one.
And, yet, six months after the signing of the Minsk Memorandum and Protocol and almost two weeks after the signing of the Minsk Implementation Package, OSCE observers have yet to receive full access from the separatists to all areas to monitor and verify the ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons and foreign fighters, or security along the border.
Even today, after laying ruthless and deadly siege to the city of Debaltseve last week, approximately 30 to 40 kilometers beyond lines established by the September Minsk Agreements, separatists have yet to allow the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission unrestricted and unfettered access to that city to observe the situation on the ground. So if we are serious about improving cooperation between regional organizations and the United Nations, let’s start with this: Let’s recognize that the work of the OSCE is critical to making the agreed ceasefire and any effort at de-escalation stick, as agreed by all 57 OSCE participating States. And let’s take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all actors uphold their commitment to provide unfettered access to the OSCE in eastern Ukraine, and that all parties respect the neutrality of its mission and its monitors.
Protecting their access is important because the reports of the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine have been a key source for timely and impartial information on the situation in the Donbas area, and notably, on incidents like the downing of the MH17 plane; the appearance of weapons, troops, and support flowing from Russia into Ukraine; and the shelling of civilian targets in eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Chairman, we commend the OSCE’s efforts thus far and encourage your continued dedication to monitoring the ceasefire and ensuring all commitments made in Minsk are upheld, despite the very difficult conditions in which the mission works. You have the full backing of the United States and with the adoption of Resolution 2202, the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council to implement the Minsk Agreements.
Mr. President, the United States strongly endorses the Chairman-in-Office’s focus on bolstering OSCE field missions and independent institutions, like the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the High Commissioner for National Minorities, and the Representative on Freedom of the Media. The OSCE’s field missions contribute to our collective respect for human rights, and the institutionalization of rule of law.
We also welcome the passage by the OSCE Ministerial Council in December of 2014 of two decisions on Countering the Phenomenon of Foreign Fighters and Countering Kidnapping for Ransom. We support your efforts as Chairperson-in-Office to encourage implementation of these important decisions and to continue the work of OSCE field missions in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Balkans on counterterrorism issues, including countering violent extremism. We welcome more OSCE awareness-raising and capacity building efforts, which promote a multi-dimensional approach to countering violent extremism, and we encourage collaboration amongst stakeholders, particularly in the areas of youth/civil society, gender, community-policing, and human rights compliant approaches to addressing terrorism and violent extremism. We also thank the Chairman-in-Office for planning to host a regional “expert-level” summit in June to follow-up on all of these efforts.
Mr. President, lastly but importantly, in recent months, we have seen what should be an alarming display of anti-Semitism in Europe. From the shootings at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, to the horrific anti-Semitic attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, to the recent wide scale desecration of a Jewish cemetery. Just as anti-Semitism in Europe is rising, so too, must our will to combat it and defeat it. For any organization that has a role in the maintenance of security and peace, it must also confront the kind of hate that undermines both – and anti-Semitism, as history has shown time and time again, is certainly that. As such, it is all the more important that the OSCE has undertaken the important work that it has to address anti-Semitism and intolerance, including its Declaration to Enhance Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism adopted at the Basel Ministerial as a follow-up to the commemoration in November of the 10th anniversary of the OSCE Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin. And yet, despite all that has been unfolding across Europe, at this 10-year anniversary meeting of the historic inaugural session, a third fewer countries showed up at the 2014 conference.
Of course, meetings and declarations will never alone crush hate, but they are important to focus our collective efforts, galvanize our collective will, and force our collective action.
Mr. Chair, the United States urges you to continue the OSCE’s critical work on this issue and we encourage OSCE participating States to help uphold the commitments enshrined in the Declaration.
The United States, as an active member of the OSCE, remains fully committed to the important work of the organization. A strong OSCE is a good partner for the United Nations, and it is a good partner in our cause of championing fairness, security, justice, and peace.
Thank you, Mr. President.
DEFENSE SECRETARY CARTER MAKES REMARKS TO TROOPS AT CAMP ARIFJAN, KUWAIT
Right: U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter holds a press conference after meeting with senior commanders attending a regional security conference on Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, Feb. 23, 2015. During the meeting, Carter and other defense leaders discussed strategies for dealing with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, and other regional threats to partner and ally nations. DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett.
Defeating ISIL Takes Diplomatic, Military Effort, Carter Says
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2015 – Dealing a lasting defeat to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant will require “a combined diplomatic and military effort,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters today at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, after he concluded a conference there with ambassadors and senior U.S. and regional military leaders.
Earlier in the day during a troop talk at Camp Arifjan, Carter said he convened the conference to “begin to make my own assessment of the campaign to counter ISIL.”
Carter thanked the conference participants, noting that “many traveled a significant distance on short notice to be here, and I sincerely appreciate it.”
Wide-ranging Discussion
He added, “We had an incisive, candid, wide-ranging discussion.”
There were no briefings during the conference, said Carter, noting it featured participants’ sharing “of experience and ideas and expertise, and it made me very proud of the American team here in this region working on this problem of ISIL.”
Conference participants reflected on the “seriousness and the complexity of the threat posed by ISIL, especially in an interconnected and networked world,” the secretary said.
“Lasting defeat of this brutal group can and will be accomplished,” he said. “But I learned some things that we'll need to guide our effort to do so.
“First, doing so, that is achieving the lasting defeat of ISIL, will require a combined diplomatic and military effort,” Carter continued. “That was abundantly confirmed by our discussion, and was affirmed or rather affirms the bringing together of this unique grouping of political and military leaders.”
Second, although he’s cognizant “of the great strength of the coalition the United States has assembled and leads in this struggle,” Carter said there’s a need “to leverage further the individual contributions of each.”
Third, he added, while the center of gravity of the anti-ISIL campaign is in Iraq and Syria, “it has ramifications in other regions of the world that need to be taken into account also in our approach.”
Fourth, ISIL's “use of social media will be pressing us to be more creative in combating it in the information dimension as well as the physical dimension,” Carter said.
The secretary also said that discussion among conference participants indicated to him that ISIL “is hardly invincible.”
Anti-ISIL Efforts ‘Having Some Important Impacts’
Coalition anti-ISIL efforts to date “have already been having some important impacts,” Carter said.
He added, “Our global coalition is up to the task, and so is American leadership, which has shone through -- throughout the course of this campaign.”
Carter described today’s conference as “very productive and very valuable, and you should expect to see more consultations like this by me in the future, convening senior leaders from across our government and sometimes experts from outside of it to ensure that our nation's defense is as dynamic as the challenges before it.”
At the conclusion of his remarks, Carter took questions from the press. One reporter asked him about the importance of a political-military balance in the fight against ISIL.
Political-Military Dimensions ‘Closely Interconnected’
Carter acknowledged that the anti-ISIL campaign in Syria does have both political and military dimensions.
“They're closely interconnected,” the secretary said. “We had an opportunity to review today the train and equip effort that is beginning in Syria, but I need to remind you and very much in the spirit of your question that -- and as the discussion certainly indicated there, our campaign in Syria, like our campaign in Iraq, has an important political dimension to it. And we discussed that also: they're both important, they're both essential, both the political and the military dimension.”
Another reporter asked Carter if there would be any fundamental changes to the anti-ISIL strategy.
The secretary replied that the coalition recognizes the need to employ a combined political and military effort against ISIL.
“I think that's crucial, and I think that's understood by all, and it's reflected in what we're trying to do,” Carter explained. “I think that we have clearly in focus the idea that this can't be a purely American thing, that it truly is a coalition effort and needs to be a coalition effort to succeed. I think it was clear to us that we can't neatly partition it geographically, that it has global evocations.”
Conference participants’ discussions “reinforced the idea of the need to stitch all of the different aspects of this together, and that the leaders that I met with today are to a remarkable degree doing that,” Carter said.
‘Working Closely Together’
He added, “And this bringing them together was a further effort to work across geographies and work across functions to make sure that we are in fact all working closely together. And to a large extent, these folks have been doing that already. But I think today's meeting reinforced that and gave them yet [another] opportunity to do that, and me to do that with them.”
Carter was also asked about his confidence level of building an anti-ISIL force. The secretary responded that providing good military training to people from other lands is a core skill of the U.S. military.
“It's become a skill of many of our coalition partners, knowing how to train others, how to work with and through others, how to enable and use U.S. capabilities to enable the capabilities of others and to make sure that –… we conduct all these activities in a way that's consistent with American values,” the secretary said. “We're good at all that. We've been doing that in many contexts for quite awhile.”
Providing training is “one of the key lessons that we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Carter said. “It's one of the key skills we honed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't think there's any military that does it better.”
TWO MEN RECEIVE 25-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE FOR PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, February 23, 2015
Two Men Who Provided Material Support to Terrorists and Plotted to Kill American Targets in Afghanistan Receive 25-Year Prison Terms
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S Attorney Stephanie Yonekura of the Central District of California and Assistant Director in Charge David Bowdich of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office announced today that two men with ties to the Inland Empire region of California were each sentenced today to 300 months in federal prison for participating in plots to provide material support to terrorists and to kill American personnel.
The two men sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips are Sohiel Omar Kabir, 37, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Afghanistan and who until late 2011, resided in Pomona, California; and Ralph Deleon, 26, of Ontario, a lawful permanent resident and citizen of the Philippines.
Last summer, Kabir and Deleon were convicted by a federal jury for their role in a plot to travel overseas to fight against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Specifically, the jury convicted Kabir and Deleon of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to murder United States military and government personnel. The jury also found Kabir guilty of conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, namely Al-Qa’ida, and conspiring to receive military-type training from Al-Qa’ida. In addition, the jury convicted defendant Deleon of conspiring to murder, maim, or kindap overseas.
Two other defendants who were indicted in the case in 2012 – Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales and Arifeen David Gojali – previously pleaded guilty and are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Phillips on March 16, 2015.
“This case demonstrates the need for vigilance and swift action to counter the false allure of violent extremism,” said U.S. Attorney Yonekura. “When confronted with young Americans who succumbed to the empty promises of violent extremism and sought to assist a terrorist group in killing American soldiers abroad, law enforcement acted swiftly to eliminate the threat.”
“The defendants betrayed the citizens of the United States by supporting terror and conspiring to murder military members serving overseas” said Assistant Director in Charge Bowdich. “The lengthy prison sentences handed to Mr. Kabir and Mr. DeLeon should send a clear message to those who support terror groups that the FBI and our partners are committed to preventing deadly plots hatched either at home or abroad targeting the United States.”
The evidence presented during last year’s trial showed Kabir introduced Deleon and Santana to radical Islamic ideology in 2010. Kabir left the United States in the final days of 2011, arriving in Afghanistan in July 2012. While in Afghanistan, Kabir continued to communicate with Deleon and others, encouraging them to join him in Afghanistan. Kabir told the group that he had contacts with terrorist organizations and that, when they arrived, he and the group would join “the Students” – referring to the Taliban – and later “the Professors” – referring to Al-Qa’ida.
Deleon, Kabir, and others involved in the plot were heavily influenced by the doctrine of now-deceased Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula spokesman Anwar Al-Awlaki and other advocates of violent jihad, whose teachings they frequently invoked during their planning and preparation in this case.
In September 2012, Deleon recruited Gojali to join the plot to travel overseas to engage in violent jihad. As part of their planning and preparation, Deleon led Santana and Gojali in training activities in southern California, including participating in paintball activities and traveling to firearms ranges to fire AK-47s and other assault weapons, which they expected to use in future fighting.
The men made plans to rejoin Kabir, who had relocated to Kabul, Afghanistan. In effort to avoid detection by law enforcement, Deleon and the others planned to cross the border into Mexico by land and from there to travel to the Middle East by air. In November 2012, Deleon purchased airline tickets for the group. On Nov. 16, 2012, the FBI arrested Deleon, Santana, and Gojali as they departed a Chino apartment in a car driven by one of Deleon’s associates intending to drive to Mexico. Kabir was taken into custody by American military personnel in Afghanistan.
The investigation into this terrorism scheme was conducted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Riverside, California. The Riverside JTTF is comprised of members from the following agencies: Riverside County Sheriff’s Office; Riverside Police Department; San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department; Beaumont Police Department; Ontario Police Department; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; and the FBI.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Allen W. Chiu, Christopher D. Grigg and Susan J. DeWitt of the Central District of California, and Trial Attorneys Annamartine Salick and Josh Parecki of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Two Men Who Provided Material Support to Terrorists and Plotted to Kill American Targets in Afghanistan Receive 25-Year Prison Terms
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S Attorney Stephanie Yonekura of the Central District of California and Assistant Director in Charge David Bowdich of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office announced today that two men with ties to the Inland Empire region of California were each sentenced today to 300 months in federal prison for participating in plots to provide material support to terrorists and to kill American personnel.
The two men sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips are Sohiel Omar Kabir, 37, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Afghanistan and who until late 2011, resided in Pomona, California; and Ralph Deleon, 26, of Ontario, a lawful permanent resident and citizen of the Philippines.
Last summer, Kabir and Deleon were convicted by a federal jury for their role in a plot to travel overseas to fight against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Specifically, the jury convicted Kabir and Deleon of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to murder United States military and government personnel. The jury also found Kabir guilty of conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, namely Al-Qa’ida, and conspiring to receive military-type training from Al-Qa’ida. In addition, the jury convicted defendant Deleon of conspiring to murder, maim, or kindap overseas.
Two other defendants who were indicted in the case in 2012 – Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales and Arifeen David Gojali – previously pleaded guilty and are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Phillips on March 16, 2015.
“This case demonstrates the need for vigilance and swift action to counter the false allure of violent extremism,” said U.S. Attorney Yonekura. “When confronted with young Americans who succumbed to the empty promises of violent extremism and sought to assist a terrorist group in killing American soldiers abroad, law enforcement acted swiftly to eliminate the threat.”
“The defendants betrayed the citizens of the United States by supporting terror and conspiring to murder military members serving overseas” said Assistant Director in Charge Bowdich. “The lengthy prison sentences handed to Mr. Kabir and Mr. DeLeon should send a clear message to those who support terror groups that the FBI and our partners are committed to preventing deadly plots hatched either at home or abroad targeting the United States.”
The evidence presented during last year’s trial showed Kabir introduced Deleon and Santana to radical Islamic ideology in 2010. Kabir left the United States in the final days of 2011, arriving in Afghanistan in July 2012. While in Afghanistan, Kabir continued to communicate with Deleon and others, encouraging them to join him in Afghanistan. Kabir told the group that he had contacts with terrorist organizations and that, when they arrived, he and the group would join “the Students” – referring to the Taliban – and later “the Professors” – referring to Al-Qa’ida.
Deleon, Kabir, and others involved in the plot were heavily influenced by the doctrine of now-deceased Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula spokesman Anwar Al-Awlaki and other advocates of violent jihad, whose teachings they frequently invoked during their planning and preparation in this case.
In September 2012, Deleon recruited Gojali to join the plot to travel overseas to engage in violent jihad. As part of their planning and preparation, Deleon led Santana and Gojali in training activities in southern California, including participating in paintball activities and traveling to firearms ranges to fire AK-47s and other assault weapons, which they expected to use in future fighting.
The men made plans to rejoin Kabir, who had relocated to Kabul, Afghanistan. In effort to avoid detection by law enforcement, Deleon and the others planned to cross the border into Mexico by land and from there to travel to the Middle East by air. In November 2012, Deleon purchased airline tickets for the group. On Nov. 16, 2012, the FBI arrested Deleon, Santana, and Gojali as they departed a Chino apartment in a car driven by one of Deleon’s associates intending to drive to Mexico. Kabir was taken into custody by American military personnel in Afghanistan.
The investigation into this terrorism scheme was conducted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Riverside, California. The Riverside JTTF is comprised of members from the following agencies: Riverside County Sheriff’s Office; Riverside Police Department; San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department; Beaumont Police Department; Ontario Police Department; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; and the FBI.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Allen W. Chiu, Christopher D. Grigg and Susan J. DeWitt of the Central District of California, and Trial Attorneys Annamartine Salick and Josh Parecki of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
2 DOCTORS AND SPOUSES TO PAY $1.3 MILLION TO SETTLE ALLEGATIONS OF HEALTH CARE FRAUD
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, February 23, 2015
Two Florida Couples Agree to Pay $1.13 Million to Resolve Allegations that They Accepted Kickbacks in Exchange for Home Health Care Referrals
Two South Florida medical doctors and their wives have agreed to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act when their wives accepted sham marketer salaries in exchange for their husbands’ referrals to a home health care company called A Plus Home Health Care Inc., the Justice Department announced today. Under the settlements, Dr. Alan and Lynn Buhler will pay to the United States $1.047 million and Dr. Craig and Cynthia Prokos will pay $90,000. Dr. Buhler practices in Plantation, Florida, and Dr. Prokos practices in Jupiter, Florida.
“Kickbacks can corrupt the judgment of physicians and cause them to make decisions for their own financial benefit rather than for the benefit of their patients,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will not tolerate these conflicts of interest where Medicare patients and dollars are concerned.”
“The settlement announced today is another example of the Justice Department’s unrelenting efforts to hold accountable those who engage in kickback schemes,” said U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida. “Health care providers should generate business by offering their patients superior care. Financial relationships that put profits over patients undermine the quality and care given to patients and ultimately, the integrity of our public health care program upon which millions of Americans depend.”
The United States alleged that, beginning in 2006, A Plus and its owner, Tracy Nemerofsky, engaged in a scheme to increase Medicare referrals in the heavily saturated home health care market in South Florida. Specifically, the United States alleged that A Plus paid spouses of referring physicians for sham marketing positions in order to induce patient referrals. Among the spouses allegedly paid by A Plus as part of this scheme were Lynn Buhler and Cynthia Prokos. The United States alleged that the spouses were required to perform few, if any, of the job duties they were allegedly hired for and instead, the spouses’ salaries were intended as an inducement for the husband physicians to refer their Medicare patients to A Plus. The United States also alleged that Alan Buhler received medical director payments as part of A Plus’s scheme to obtain his referrals and he attempted to hide those payments from the United States.
The United States previously settled with A Plus, Tracy Nemerofsky and five other couples that allegedly accepted payments from A Plus.
The settlements announced today resolve allegations that were brought by William Guthrie, a former director of development at A Plus, under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the United States for the submission of false claims and to receive a share of any recovery. On Jan. 6, Judge William P. Dimitrouleas dismissed Mr. Guthrie’s suit without prejudice to the United States’ right to proceed. The lawsuit was captioned U.S. ex rel. Guthrie v. A Plus Home Health Care, Inc., 12 CV 60629 (S.D. Fla.).
“Being a physician in the Medicare program is a privilege, not a right,” said Special Agent in Charge Derrick L. Jackson of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “Physicians who engage in such in-your-face kickback schemes to refer Medicare patients to certain home health companies in exchange for money will be held accountable for their behavior. Our agency will continue to crack down on kickbacks, which undermine impartial medical judgment, corrode the public’s trust in the health care system and waste scarce Medicare funding.”
These settlements illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and mark another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $23.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $15.2 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation of this matter reflects a coordinated effort among the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, HHS-OIG and the FBI.
The claims resolved by the settlements are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Two Florida Couples Agree to Pay $1.13 Million to Resolve Allegations that They Accepted Kickbacks in Exchange for Home Health Care Referrals
Two South Florida medical doctors and their wives have agreed to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act when their wives accepted sham marketer salaries in exchange for their husbands’ referrals to a home health care company called A Plus Home Health Care Inc., the Justice Department announced today. Under the settlements, Dr. Alan and Lynn Buhler will pay to the United States $1.047 million and Dr. Craig and Cynthia Prokos will pay $90,000. Dr. Buhler practices in Plantation, Florida, and Dr. Prokos practices in Jupiter, Florida.
“Kickbacks can corrupt the judgment of physicians and cause them to make decisions for their own financial benefit rather than for the benefit of their patients,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will not tolerate these conflicts of interest where Medicare patients and dollars are concerned.”
“The settlement announced today is another example of the Justice Department’s unrelenting efforts to hold accountable those who engage in kickback schemes,” said U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida. “Health care providers should generate business by offering their patients superior care. Financial relationships that put profits over patients undermine the quality and care given to patients and ultimately, the integrity of our public health care program upon which millions of Americans depend.”
The United States alleged that, beginning in 2006, A Plus and its owner, Tracy Nemerofsky, engaged in a scheme to increase Medicare referrals in the heavily saturated home health care market in South Florida. Specifically, the United States alleged that A Plus paid spouses of referring physicians for sham marketing positions in order to induce patient referrals. Among the spouses allegedly paid by A Plus as part of this scheme were Lynn Buhler and Cynthia Prokos. The United States alleged that the spouses were required to perform few, if any, of the job duties they were allegedly hired for and instead, the spouses’ salaries were intended as an inducement for the husband physicians to refer their Medicare patients to A Plus. The United States also alleged that Alan Buhler received medical director payments as part of A Plus’s scheme to obtain his referrals and he attempted to hide those payments from the United States.
The United States previously settled with A Plus, Tracy Nemerofsky and five other couples that allegedly accepted payments from A Plus.
The settlements announced today resolve allegations that were brought by William Guthrie, a former director of development at A Plus, under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the United States for the submission of false claims and to receive a share of any recovery. On Jan. 6, Judge William P. Dimitrouleas dismissed Mr. Guthrie’s suit without prejudice to the United States’ right to proceed. The lawsuit was captioned U.S. ex rel. Guthrie v. A Plus Home Health Care, Inc., 12 CV 60629 (S.D. Fla.).
“Being a physician in the Medicare program is a privilege, not a right,” said Special Agent in Charge Derrick L. Jackson of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “Physicians who engage in such in-your-face kickback schemes to refer Medicare patients to certain home health companies in exchange for money will be held accountable for their behavior. Our agency will continue to crack down on kickbacks, which undermine impartial medical judgment, corrode the public’s trust in the health care system and waste scarce Medicare funding.”
These settlements illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and mark another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $23.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $15.2 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation of this matter reflects a coordinated effort among the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, HHS-OIG and the FBI.
The claims resolved by the settlements are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO AARP
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
February 23, 2015
Remarks by the President at the AARP
AARP
Washington, D.C.
**Please see below for a correction, marked with an asterisk.
2:05 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) It is great to be back here -- not just to pick up my AARP card. (Laughter.) I want to thank Jo Ann and everybody at AARP for the work you do every single day on behalf of seniors. I am especially grateful to all of you for the work you're doing to help us prepare for the White House Conference on Aging, which will be coming up later this year and will cover a whole host of issues, including protecting one of the most critical components of middle-class life, and that's a secure and dignified retirement. And that’s what we're here to talk about today.
I want to thank some other people who care passionately about this issue: My energetic, tireless Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. (Applause.) A couple of outstanding Senators, Cory Booker from New Jersey -- (applause) -- and Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. (Applause.) And Congressmen John Delaney is here -- proud of the work he is doing. (Applause.)
So six years after the financial crisis that shook a lot of people’s faith in a secure retirement, the good news is our economy is steadily growing and creating new jobs. Last year was the best year for job growth since the 1990s. And all told, over the past five years, the private sector has created nearly *2 12 million new jobs. And since I took office, the stock market has more than doubled, which means that 401ks for millions of families have been replenished.
America is poised -- as long as Washington doesn’t screw it up, as long as we keep the progress going with policies that help and don't hinder the middle class, no stalemates, no standoffs, no self-inflicted wounds or manufactured crisis -- if we stay away from those things, then the projections are that the economy can do very well again this year.
But we're going to have to choose whether we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well, or whether we build an economy where everybody who works hard can get ahead, and have some semblance of security in this ever-changing world?
Because while we’ve come a long way, we’ve got a lot more work to do to make sure that the recovery reaches every single American out there and not just those at the top. That’s what I've been calling middle-class economics -- the idea that this country does best when everybody does their fair share, and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is playing by the same set of rules.
And that last part -- everybody playing by the same set of rules -- is why we passed historic Wall Street reform that put in place smarter, tougher, common-sense rules of the road to protect consumers and to end taxpayer-funded bailouts. And by the way, I know that there have been times where folks questioned whether or not Wall Street reform works. If you look at how the banking system has responded, if you look at what’s happened on Wall Street, when you look at how the markets gauge what we've done, reform has been meaningful. It has been effective.
That's why we passed a Credit Card Bill of Rights that gives consumers a simpler credit card bill -- no more hidden fees, no more shifting deadlines, no more sudden changes of terms, or “any time, any reason” rate hikes. It’s why we created a new consumer watchdog agency that protects hardworking Americans from everything from predatory mortgage practices to payday loans that can destroy people’s finances. And I want to thank our outstanding CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his team -- (applause) -- they are working day in, day out to protect working families, and when families are taken advantage of, they’ve been working hard to get them their hard-earned money back.
Today, we’re going to build on these consumer protections for the middle class by taking a new action to protect hardworking families’ retirement security. Because, in America, after a lifetime of hard work, you should be able to retire with dignity and a sense of security.
And in today’s economy, that's gotten tougher. Most workers don’t have a traditional pension. A Social Security check often isn't enough on its own. And while the stock market is doing well right now, that doesn't help folks who don't have retirement accounts. As a consequence, too few Americans at or near retirement have saved enough to have peace of mind.
So, in addition to keeping Social Security strong -- and we will keep it strong as long as I am President. That is going to be a priority for me. (Applause.) In addition to keeping Social Security strong, I’ve proposed ways to make it easy and automatic for workers to save for retirement through their employer, including offering tax incentives to small businesses that offer retirement plans. And these proposals, it's estimated, would expand workplace savings opportunities to 30 million more workers. We’ve also proposed paying for them by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy.
At the same time, we’ve got to make sure that Americans who are doing the responsible thing by preparing for retirement are getting a fair share of the returns on those savings. That's what I want to focus on today. If you are working hard, if you're putting away money, if you're sacrificing that new car or that vacation so that you can build a nest egg for later, you should have the peace of mind of knowing that the advice you’re getting for investing those dollars is sound, that your investments are protected, that you're not being taken advantage of.
And the challenge we've got is right now, there are no uniform rules of the road that require retirement advisors to act in the best interests of their clients -- and that’s hurting millions of working and middle-class families. There are a lot of very fine financial advisors out there, but there are also financial advisors who receive backdoor payments or hidden fees for steering people into bad retirement investments that have high fees and low returns. So what happens is these payments, these inducements incentivize the broker to make recommendations that generate the best returns for them, but not necessarily the best returns for you.
They might persuade investors, individuals with savings, to roll over their existing savings out of a low-fee plan and into a high-cost plan. They might even recommend investments with worse returns simply because they get paid to recommend those products. And one study by professors at Harvard and MIT had researchers send people to pose as middle-class investors seeking investment advice from advisors. In 284 client visits, advisors recommended higher-fee funds about half the time. The lowest-fee funds were recommended only 21 times.
So think about what that means. You’ve done the right thing. You’ve worked hard. You’ve saved what you could. You're responsibly trying to prepare for retirement, but because of bad advice, because of skewed incentives, because of lack of protection, you could end up in a situation where you lose some of your hard-earned money simply because your advisor isn’t required to put your interests first. And the truth is most people don’t even realize that’s happening.
We read a story in the paper about Merlin and Elaine Toffel, a retired couple from near my hometown of Chicago -- Lindenhurst, Illinois. They had worked their whole lives so they could rest easy in their golden years. They got bad advice to invest in expensive annuities that made it hard for them to access their money. Suddenly, they were short on cash -- which is exactly what they had tried to avoid by saving and acting responsibly all those years. They were taken advantage of by an advisor of an institution where they had been longtime clients and it was an institution they trusted. And Merlin now lives in a nursing home and he and Elaine aren’t here today. As they get older, their children are trying to help them get all this sorted out. And that's just one family. They’re not alone.
On average, conflicts of interest in retirement advice results in annual losses of 1 percentage point for affected persons. I know 1 percent may not sound like a lot, but the whole concept of compounding interest -- it adds up. It can cut your savings by more than a quarter over the course of 35 years -- cut your savings by more than 25 percent. So, instead of $10,000 in savings growing to more than $38,000, it will grow to just over $27,500. That's a big spread. And all told, bad advice that results from conflicts of interest costs middle-class and working families about $17 billion a year -- $17 billion every year.
So you can put a number on how this affects us. But it affects something else. It offends our basic values of honesty and fair play. The values that say, in America, responsibility is rewarded and not exploited.
I want to emphasize once again, there are a whole lot of financial advisors out there who do put their clients’ interests first. There are a lot of hardworking men and women in this field and got into this field to help people. They’re folks like financial advisor Sheryl Garrett, from Arkansas, who says, “The role” -- is Sheryl here? There she is. Sheryl, stand up just so we know where you are. (Applause.) We're proud of Sheryl. So I'm quoting you, Sheryl. Sheryl says, “The role of a financial advisor is one of the most important jobs. But there is a segment of the industry today that operates like the gunslingers of the Wild West. We don’t have the rules and regulations to protect those who we’re supposed to be serving.”
Couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I quoted you. (Laughter.) Sheryl is right. The rules governing retirement investments were written 40 years ago, at a time when most workers with a retirement plan had traditional pensions, and IRAs were brand new, and 401ks didn’t even exist. So it's not surprising that the rules that existed 40 years ago haven't caught up to the realities of most families today. Now, outdated regulations, legal loopholes, fine print -- all that stuff today makes it harder for savers to know who they can trust. Financial advisors absolutely deserve fair compensation for helping people save for retirement and helping people figure out how to manage their investments. But they shouldn’t be able to take advantage of their clients. The system makes it harder, in fact, for those financial advisors like Sheryl who are trying to do the right thing, because if she’s making really good advice but somebody who is competing with her is selling snake oil, she’s losing business. And ultimately, those clients are going to lose money.
So, today, I’m calling on the Department of Labor to update the rules and requirements that retirement advisors put the best interests of their clients above their own financial interests. It's a very simple principle: You want to give financial advice, you’ve got to put your client’s interests first. You can't have a conflict of interest.
And this is especially important for middle-class families, who can't afford to lose even a penny of the hard-earned savings that they’ve put away. These folks aren’t asking for any special help or special consideration. They just want to be treated with fairness and respect. And that’s what this new rule would do. And for outstanding advisors out there, it levels the playing field so that they can do what they know is the right thing to do -- putting their clients first.
Now, here’s one last element of it I've got to emphasize. Just because we put forward a new rule doesn’t mean that it becomes law. There are a lot of financial advisors who support these basic safeguards to prevent abuse, but there are also some special interests that are going to fight it with everything they’ve got, saying that these costs will skyrocket or services are going to be lost.
But it turns out that we can actually look at the evidence. These industry doomsday predictions have not come true in other countries that have taken even more aggressive action on this issue than we're proposing. And if your business model rests on taking advantage, bilking hardworking Americans out of their retirement money, then you shouldn’t be in business. (Applause.) That's pretty straightforward.
So we welcome different perspectives and ideas on how to move forward. That's what the comment period for the rule is all about. What I won’t accept is the notion that there’s nothing we can do to make sure that hardworking, responsible Americans who scrimp and save somehow end up losing some of those savings to less than scrupulous practices. We should be able to make sure that folks are treated fairly, and give every possible assistance we can so that they can retire with security and dignity.
So we’re going to keep on pushing for this rule. It’s the right thing to do for our workers. It’s the right thing to do for our country. We are thrilled that AARP is supporting this, but AARP is not alone. We've got all kinds of organizations that are stepping up -- consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, labor organizations. We've got a great coalition of people who understand that the strength of our economy rests on whether hardworking families can feel more secure, knowing that if they do the right thing, they can get ahead. And that’s what I’m going to keep fighting for -- an economy where not only everybody is sharing in America’s success, but they’re also contributing to America’s success. This is a important component in that basic promise that makes America the greatest country on Earth.
So thank you so much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END
2:28 P.M. EST
February 23, 2015
Remarks by the President at the AARP
AARP
Washington, D.C.
**Please see below for a correction, marked with an asterisk.
2:05 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) It is great to be back here -- not just to pick up my AARP card. (Laughter.) I want to thank Jo Ann and everybody at AARP for the work you do every single day on behalf of seniors. I am especially grateful to all of you for the work you're doing to help us prepare for the White House Conference on Aging, which will be coming up later this year and will cover a whole host of issues, including protecting one of the most critical components of middle-class life, and that's a secure and dignified retirement. And that’s what we're here to talk about today.
I want to thank some other people who care passionately about this issue: My energetic, tireless Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. (Applause.) A couple of outstanding Senators, Cory Booker from New Jersey -- (applause) -- and Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. (Applause.) And Congressmen John Delaney is here -- proud of the work he is doing. (Applause.)
So six years after the financial crisis that shook a lot of people’s faith in a secure retirement, the good news is our economy is steadily growing and creating new jobs. Last year was the best year for job growth since the 1990s. And all told, over the past five years, the private sector has created nearly *2 12 million new jobs. And since I took office, the stock market has more than doubled, which means that 401ks for millions of families have been replenished.
America is poised -- as long as Washington doesn’t screw it up, as long as we keep the progress going with policies that help and don't hinder the middle class, no stalemates, no standoffs, no self-inflicted wounds or manufactured crisis -- if we stay away from those things, then the projections are that the economy can do very well again this year.
But we're going to have to choose whether we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well, or whether we build an economy where everybody who works hard can get ahead, and have some semblance of security in this ever-changing world?
Because while we’ve come a long way, we’ve got a lot more work to do to make sure that the recovery reaches every single American out there and not just those at the top. That’s what I've been calling middle-class economics -- the idea that this country does best when everybody does their fair share, and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is playing by the same set of rules.
And that last part -- everybody playing by the same set of rules -- is why we passed historic Wall Street reform that put in place smarter, tougher, common-sense rules of the road to protect consumers and to end taxpayer-funded bailouts. And by the way, I know that there have been times where folks questioned whether or not Wall Street reform works. If you look at how the banking system has responded, if you look at what’s happened on Wall Street, when you look at how the markets gauge what we've done, reform has been meaningful. It has been effective.
That's why we passed a Credit Card Bill of Rights that gives consumers a simpler credit card bill -- no more hidden fees, no more shifting deadlines, no more sudden changes of terms, or “any time, any reason” rate hikes. It’s why we created a new consumer watchdog agency that protects hardworking Americans from everything from predatory mortgage practices to payday loans that can destroy people’s finances. And I want to thank our outstanding CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his team -- (applause) -- they are working day in, day out to protect working families, and when families are taken advantage of, they’ve been working hard to get them their hard-earned money back.
Today, we’re going to build on these consumer protections for the middle class by taking a new action to protect hardworking families’ retirement security. Because, in America, after a lifetime of hard work, you should be able to retire with dignity and a sense of security.
And in today’s economy, that's gotten tougher. Most workers don’t have a traditional pension. A Social Security check often isn't enough on its own. And while the stock market is doing well right now, that doesn't help folks who don't have retirement accounts. As a consequence, too few Americans at or near retirement have saved enough to have peace of mind.
So, in addition to keeping Social Security strong -- and we will keep it strong as long as I am President. That is going to be a priority for me. (Applause.) In addition to keeping Social Security strong, I’ve proposed ways to make it easy and automatic for workers to save for retirement through their employer, including offering tax incentives to small businesses that offer retirement plans. And these proposals, it's estimated, would expand workplace savings opportunities to 30 million more workers. We’ve also proposed paying for them by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy.
At the same time, we’ve got to make sure that Americans who are doing the responsible thing by preparing for retirement are getting a fair share of the returns on those savings. That's what I want to focus on today. If you are working hard, if you're putting away money, if you're sacrificing that new car or that vacation so that you can build a nest egg for later, you should have the peace of mind of knowing that the advice you’re getting for investing those dollars is sound, that your investments are protected, that you're not being taken advantage of.
And the challenge we've got is right now, there are no uniform rules of the road that require retirement advisors to act in the best interests of their clients -- and that’s hurting millions of working and middle-class families. There are a lot of very fine financial advisors out there, but there are also financial advisors who receive backdoor payments or hidden fees for steering people into bad retirement investments that have high fees and low returns. So what happens is these payments, these inducements incentivize the broker to make recommendations that generate the best returns for them, but not necessarily the best returns for you.
They might persuade investors, individuals with savings, to roll over their existing savings out of a low-fee plan and into a high-cost plan. They might even recommend investments with worse returns simply because they get paid to recommend those products. And one study by professors at Harvard and MIT had researchers send people to pose as middle-class investors seeking investment advice from advisors. In 284 client visits, advisors recommended higher-fee funds about half the time. The lowest-fee funds were recommended only 21 times.
So think about what that means. You’ve done the right thing. You’ve worked hard. You’ve saved what you could. You're responsibly trying to prepare for retirement, but because of bad advice, because of skewed incentives, because of lack of protection, you could end up in a situation where you lose some of your hard-earned money simply because your advisor isn’t required to put your interests first. And the truth is most people don’t even realize that’s happening.
We read a story in the paper about Merlin and Elaine Toffel, a retired couple from near my hometown of Chicago -- Lindenhurst, Illinois. They had worked their whole lives so they could rest easy in their golden years. They got bad advice to invest in expensive annuities that made it hard for them to access their money. Suddenly, they were short on cash -- which is exactly what they had tried to avoid by saving and acting responsibly all those years. They were taken advantage of by an advisor of an institution where they had been longtime clients and it was an institution they trusted. And Merlin now lives in a nursing home and he and Elaine aren’t here today. As they get older, their children are trying to help them get all this sorted out. And that's just one family. They’re not alone.
On average, conflicts of interest in retirement advice results in annual losses of 1 percentage point for affected persons. I know 1 percent may not sound like a lot, but the whole concept of compounding interest -- it adds up. It can cut your savings by more than a quarter over the course of 35 years -- cut your savings by more than 25 percent. So, instead of $10,000 in savings growing to more than $38,000, it will grow to just over $27,500. That's a big spread. And all told, bad advice that results from conflicts of interest costs middle-class and working families about $17 billion a year -- $17 billion every year.
So you can put a number on how this affects us. But it affects something else. It offends our basic values of honesty and fair play. The values that say, in America, responsibility is rewarded and not exploited.
I want to emphasize once again, there are a whole lot of financial advisors out there who do put their clients’ interests first. There are a lot of hardworking men and women in this field and got into this field to help people. They’re folks like financial advisor Sheryl Garrett, from Arkansas, who says, “The role” -- is Sheryl here? There she is. Sheryl, stand up just so we know where you are. (Applause.) We're proud of Sheryl. So I'm quoting you, Sheryl. Sheryl says, “The role of a financial advisor is one of the most important jobs. But there is a segment of the industry today that operates like the gunslingers of the Wild West. We don’t have the rules and regulations to protect those who we’re supposed to be serving.”
Couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I quoted you. (Laughter.) Sheryl is right. The rules governing retirement investments were written 40 years ago, at a time when most workers with a retirement plan had traditional pensions, and IRAs were brand new, and 401ks didn’t even exist. So it's not surprising that the rules that existed 40 years ago haven't caught up to the realities of most families today. Now, outdated regulations, legal loopholes, fine print -- all that stuff today makes it harder for savers to know who they can trust. Financial advisors absolutely deserve fair compensation for helping people save for retirement and helping people figure out how to manage their investments. But they shouldn’t be able to take advantage of their clients. The system makes it harder, in fact, for those financial advisors like Sheryl who are trying to do the right thing, because if she’s making really good advice but somebody who is competing with her is selling snake oil, she’s losing business. And ultimately, those clients are going to lose money.
So, today, I’m calling on the Department of Labor to update the rules and requirements that retirement advisors put the best interests of their clients above their own financial interests. It's a very simple principle: You want to give financial advice, you’ve got to put your client’s interests first. You can't have a conflict of interest.
And this is especially important for middle-class families, who can't afford to lose even a penny of the hard-earned savings that they’ve put away. These folks aren’t asking for any special help or special consideration. They just want to be treated with fairness and respect. And that’s what this new rule would do. And for outstanding advisors out there, it levels the playing field so that they can do what they know is the right thing to do -- putting their clients first.
Now, here’s one last element of it I've got to emphasize. Just because we put forward a new rule doesn’t mean that it becomes law. There are a lot of financial advisors who support these basic safeguards to prevent abuse, but there are also some special interests that are going to fight it with everything they’ve got, saying that these costs will skyrocket or services are going to be lost.
But it turns out that we can actually look at the evidence. These industry doomsday predictions have not come true in other countries that have taken even more aggressive action on this issue than we're proposing. And if your business model rests on taking advantage, bilking hardworking Americans out of their retirement money, then you shouldn’t be in business. (Applause.) That's pretty straightforward.
So we welcome different perspectives and ideas on how to move forward. That's what the comment period for the rule is all about. What I won’t accept is the notion that there’s nothing we can do to make sure that hardworking, responsible Americans who scrimp and save somehow end up losing some of those savings to less than scrupulous practices. We should be able to make sure that folks are treated fairly, and give every possible assistance we can so that they can retire with security and dignity.
So we’re going to keep on pushing for this rule. It’s the right thing to do for our workers. It’s the right thing to do for our country. We are thrilled that AARP is supporting this, but AARP is not alone. We've got all kinds of organizations that are stepping up -- consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, labor organizations. We've got a great coalition of people who understand that the strength of our economy rests on whether hardworking families can feel more secure, knowing that if they do the right thing, they can get ahead. And that’s what I’m going to keep fighting for -- an economy where not only everybody is sharing in America’s success, but they’re also contributing to America’s success. This is a important component in that basic promise that makes America the greatest country on Earth.
So thank you so much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END
2:28 P.M. EST
MAN CHARGED WITH FRAUD RELATED TO A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CLAIM TO DEEPWATER HORIZON SPILL COMPENSATION FUND
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, February 23, 2015
North Carolina Man Charged for Making $2.3 Million Fraudulent Claim to Deepwater Horizon Spill Compensation Fund
A North Carolina resident was arrested today for allegedly making a fraudulent claim on the fund set up to compensate victims of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
Michael R. Rosella, 45, of Wilmington, North Carolina, was arrested in connection with an indictment returned last week and unsealed following his arrest. The indictment by a grand jury in the District of Columbia charges Rosella with one count of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering.
According to allegations in the indictment, Rosella, who lived in the District of Columbia in 2010, submitted a claim for compensation in the amount of $2.3 million to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), the entity that formerly handled claims for persons and businesses injured by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Rosella allegedly submitted the claim on behalf of a fictitious entity called the Bayou Barataria Sportsmen’s Resort, which Rosella allegedly represented to have been a successful hotel and sport fishing business in Louisiana immediately before the spill, and to have suffered lost profits due to the spill’s impact on the Gulf of Mexico. The documents submitted by Rosella allegedly included false affidavits of the Resort’s “owners,” federal tax filings, state sales tax records, financial statements, and invoices.
The charges contained in an indictment are merely accusations, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The case is being investigated by the U.S. Secret Service and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Gary A. Winters of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
Monday, February 23, 2015
North Carolina Man Charged for Making $2.3 Million Fraudulent Claim to Deepwater Horizon Spill Compensation Fund
A North Carolina resident was arrested today for allegedly making a fraudulent claim on the fund set up to compensate victims of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
Michael R. Rosella, 45, of Wilmington, North Carolina, was arrested in connection with an indictment returned last week and unsealed following his arrest. The indictment by a grand jury in the District of Columbia charges Rosella with one count of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering.
According to allegations in the indictment, Rosella, who lived in the District of Columbia in 2010, submitted a claim for compensation in the amount of $2.3 million to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), the entity that formerly handled claims for persons and businesses injured by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Rosella allegedly submitted the claim on behalf of a fictitious entity called the Bayou Barataria Sportsmen’s Resort, which Rosella allegedly represented to have been a successful hotel and sport fishing business in Louisiana immediately before the spill, and to have suffered lost profits due to the spill’s impact on the Gulf of Mexico. The documents submitted by Rosella allegedly included false affidavits of the Resort’s “owners,” federal tax filings, state sales tax records, financial statements, and invoices.
The charges contained in an indictment are merely accusations, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The case is being investigated by the U.S. Secret Service and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Gary A. Winters of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
U.S. ASSISTANT AG CALDWELL ANNOUNCES REWARD FOR LEADER OF MALWARE CYBER-GANG
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Announces Reward for Cyber Fugitive at Washington Foreign Press Center
Washington, DCUnited States ~ Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Good afternoon, thank you all for joining us.
Today, we are announcing a reward for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Evgeniy Bogachev, an alleged leader of a tightly knit gang of cyber criminals based in Russia and Ukraine who were responsible for the development and operation of both the Gameover Zeus and Cryptolocker malware.
Gameover Zeus was one of the most sophisticated and damaging botnets ever encountered, infecting between 500,000 and one million computers worldwide, and causing more than $100 million in financial losses to businesses and consumers in the United States alone.
On top of that, the Cryptolocker ransomware infected more than 250,000 computers worldwide, and targeted companies big and small, as well as individuals.
In May and June 2014, we were able to wrest control of the Gameover Zeus botnet from the criminals and take Cryptolocker offline. This was thanks to an unprecedented action orchestrated by law enforcement and private sector partners in 10 different countries.
Today, due to the work of the FBI and its partners, Gameover Zeus has been neutralized and is out of the criminals’ hands and Cryptolocker remains non-operational.
But one significant part of the puzzle remains incomplete, as Bogachev remains at large. Although we were able to significantly disrupt the Gameover Zeus and Cryptolocker criminal enterprise, we have not yet brought Bogachev himself to justice.
We must not allow international borders to shield criminals from the law. As more nations join the fight against international cybercrime, the number of countries once perceived as sanctuaries is shrinking, and will continue to shrink.
In the case of Bogachev, the same international coalition that brought down his botnet is now chasing him.
We appreciate the State Department shining the light on this important case again today. This reward will reinvigorate the efforts to find Bogachev and encourage others to join the hunt.
I am confident that Bogachev will one day be caught and brought to face justice in the United States.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Announces Reward for Cyber Fugitive at Washington Foreign Press Center
Washington, DCUnited States ~ Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Good afternoon, thank you all for joining us.
Today, we are announcing a reward for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Evgeniy Bogachev, an alleged leader of a tightly knit gang of cyber criminals based in Russia and Ukraine who were responsible for the development and operation of both the Gameover Zeus and Cryptolocker malware.
Gameover Zeus was one of the most sophisticated and damaging botnets ever encountered, infecting between 500,000 and one million computers worldwide, and causing more than $100 million in financial losses to businesses and consumers in the United States alone.
On top of that, the Cryptolocker ransomware infected more than 250,000 computers worldwide, and targeted companies big and small, as well as individuals.
In May and June 2014, we were able to wrest control of the Gameover Zeus botnet from the criminals and take Cryptolocker offline. This was thanks to an unprecedented action orchestrated by law enforcement and private sector partners in 10 different countries.
Today, due to the work of the FBI and its partners, Gameover Zeus has been neutralized and is out of the criminals’ hands and Cryptolocker remains non-operational.
But one significant part of the puzzle remains incomplete, as Bogachev remains at large. Although we were able to significantly disrupt the Gameover Zeus and Cryptolocker criminal enterprise, we have not yet brought Bogachev himself to justice.
We must not allow international borders to shield criminals from the law. As more nations join the fight against international cybercrime, the number of countries once perceived as sanctuaries is shrinking, and will continue to shrink.
In the case of Bogachev, the same international coalition that brought down his botnet is now chasing him.
We appreciate the State Department shining the light on this important case again today. This reward will reinvigorate the efforts to find Bogachev and encourage others to join the hunt.
I am confident that Bogachev will one day be caught and brought to face justice in the United States.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S VETO XL PIPELINE VETO MESSAGE SENT TO THE SENATE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
February 24, 2015
Veto Message to the Senate: S. 1, Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am returning herewith without my approval S. 1, the "Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act." Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.
The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously. But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto.
February 24, 2015
Veto Message to the Senate: S. 1, Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am returning herewith without my approval S. 1, the "Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act." Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.
The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously. But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto.
FDIC INSTITUTIONS REPORT NET INCOME OF $36.9 BILLION IN 4TH QUARTER 2014
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Commercial banks and savings institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported aggregate net income of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter of 2014, down $2.9 billion (7.3 percent) from earnings of $39.8 billion that the industry reported a year earlier. The decline in earnings was mainly attributable to a $4.4 billion increase in litigation expenses at a few large banks. More than half of the 6,509 insured institutions reporting (61.2 percent) had year-over-year growth in quarterly earnings. The proportion of banks that were unprofitable during the fourth quarter fell to 9.4 percent from 12.7 percent a year earlier.
"The banking industry continued to improve at the end of the year," FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said. "Although total industry earnings declined as a result of significant litigation expenses at a few large institutions and a continued decline in mortgage-related income, a majority of banks reported higher operating revenues and improved earnings from the previous year. In addition, banks made loans at a faster pace, asset quality improved, and the number of banks on the 'Problem List' declined to the lowest level in six years."
Chairman Gruenberg added: "Community banks performed especially well during the quarter. Their earnings were up 28 percent from the previous year, their net interest margin and rate of loan growth were appreciably higher than the industry, and they increased their small loans to businesses."
Community banks earned $4.8 billion during the quarter. Based on criteria developed for the FDIC Community Banking Study published in December 2012, there were 6,037 community banks (92.7 percent of all FDIC-insured institutions) in the fourth quarter of 2014 with assets of $2.1 trillion (13.3 percent of industry assets). Fourth quarter net income of $4.8 billion at community banks was up $1.0 billion (27.7 percent) from a year earlier, driven by higher net interest income, increased noninterest income, and lower loan-loss provisions. Community banks' net income, net interest income, noninterest income, and loan balances all grew at a faster pace than the industry as a whole. Asset quality indicators showed further improvement, and community banks continued to hold 45 percent of small loans to businesses.
For the industry as a whole, loan and lease balances rose $149.4 billion (1.8 percent) in the fourth quarter to $8.3 trillion. Commercial and industrial loans increased by $42.2 billion (2.5 percent), and credit card balances grew by $35.4 billion (5.2 percent). Over the past 12 months, loan and lease balances increased 5.3 percent. This is the highest 12-month growth rate for loans since mid-year 2008.
Net interest income was $1.1 billion (1 percent) higher than a year ago, as the industry's interest-bearing assets increased 6.2 percent in 2014. Almost three out of four institutions (70.5 percent) reported higher net interest income than in the fourth quarter of 2013. The average net interest margin (the difference between the average yield banks earn on loans and other investments and the average cost of funding those investments) was 3.12 percent, down from the 3.27 average in the fourth quarter of 2013. This is the lowest quarterly average margin since the 3.11 percent reported in the third quarter of 1989, as larger institutions continued to increase their holdings of low-yield, liquid investments.
Noninterest income was down $160 million (0.3 percent) from a year ago, as income from the sale, securitization, and servicing of residential mortgages declined $1.6 billion (30.8 percent). More than half of all banks (54.4 percent) reported year-over-year increases in quarterly noninterest income.
Noninterest expenses were $4.9 billion (4.8 percent) higher than a year ago, as itemized litigation expenses at a few of the largest banks were $4.4 billion higher. Banks set aside $8.2 billion in provisions for loan losses, up 12 percent from $7.3 billion a year earlier. This is the second consecutive quarter that the industry has reported a year-over-year increase in loss provisions.
Asset quality indicators continued to improve as insured banks and thrifts charged off $9.9 billion in uncollectible loans during the quarter, down $2.2 billion (18.3 percent) from a year earlier. The amount of noncurrent loans and leases (those 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) fell $9.2 billion (5.4 percent) during the fourth quarter. The percentage of loans and leases that were noncurrent declined to 1.96 percent, the lowest level since the 1.73 percent posted at the end of the first quarter of 2008.
The average return on assets (ROA) fell to 0.96 percent in the fourth quarter from 1.09 percent a year earlier. The average return on equity (ROE) declined from 9.76 percent to 8.56 percent.
Chairman Gruenberg concluded: "The current operating environment remains challenging. Revenue growth continues to be held back by narrow interest margins and lower mortgage-related income. And, many institutions are reaching for yield given the low interest-rate environment, which is a matter of ongoing supervisory attention. Nevertheless, results from the fourth quarter generally were positive for the banking industry, and for community banks in particular."
Financial results for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year are contained in the FDIC's latest Quarterly Banking Profile, which was released today. Also among the findings:
Full-year earnings totaled $152.7 billion. Total net income for 2014 was $1.7 billion (1.1 percent) less than the industry reported in 2013. This is the first decline in annual net income in five years. Full-year ROA was 1.01 percent, marking the third year in a row that the annual ROA has exceeded 1 percent. Reduced revenues from the sale, securitization, and servicing of residential mortgages (down $9.1 billion or 35 percent) and increased litigation expenses at a few large banks (up $6.5 billion or 206 percent) were the main causes of the drop in full-year earnings. Almost two out of every three banks (64 percent) reported higher net income than in 2013.
The number of "problem banks" fell for the 15th consecutive quarter. The number of banks on the FDIC's "Problem List" declined from 329 to 291 during the quarter, the lowest since the end of 2008. The number of "problem banks" now is 67 percent below the post-crisis high of 888 at the end of the first quarter of 2011.
The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) balance continued to increase. The DIF balance (the net worth of the Fund) rose to a record $62.8 billion as of December 31 from $54.3 billion at the end of September. The Fund balance increased primarily due to decreases in estimated losses for past bank failures. Estimated insured deposits increased 1.0 percent, and the DIF reserve ratio (the Fund balance as a percentage of estimated insured deposits) rose to 1.01 percent as of December 31 from 0.88 percent as of September 30. A year ago, the DIF reserve ratio was 0.79 percent.
Commercial banks and savings institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported aggregate net income of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter of 2014, down $2.9 billion (7.3 percent) from earnings of $39.8 billion that the industry reported a year earlier. The decline in earnings was mainly attributable to a $4.4 billion increase in litigation expenses at a few large banks. More than half of the 6,509 insured institutions reporting (61.2 percent) had year-over-year growth in quarterly earnings. The proportion of banks that were unprofitable during the fourth quarter fell to 9.4 percent from 12.7 percent a year earlier.
"The banking industry continued to improve at the end of the year," FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said. "Although total industry earnings declined as a result of significant litigation expenses at a few large institutions and a continued decline in mortgage-related income, a majority of banks reported higher operating revenues and improved earnings from the previous year. In addition, banks made loans at a faster pace, asset quality improved, and the number of banks on the 'Problem List' declined to the lowest level in six years."
Chairman Gruenberg added: "Community banks performed especially well during the quarter. Their earnings were up 28 percent from the previous year, their net interest margin and rate of loan growth were appreciably higher than the industry, and they increased their small loans to businesses."
Community banks earned $4.8 billion during the quarter. Based on criteria developed for the FDIC Community Banking Study published in December 2012, there were 6,037 community banks (92.7 percent of all FDIC-insured institutions) in the fourth quarter of 2014 with assets of $2.1 trillion (13.3 percent of industry assets). Fourth quarter net income of $4.8 billion at community banks was up $1.0 billion (27.7 percent) from a year earlier, driven by higher net interest income, increased noninterest income, and lower loan-loss provisions. Community banks' net income, net interest income, noninterest income, and loan balances all grew at a faster pace than the industry as a whole. Asset quality indicators showed further improvement, and community banks continued to hold 45 percent of small loans to businesses.
For the industry as a whole, loan and lease balances rose $149.4 billion (1.8 percent) in the fourth quarter to $8.3 trillion. Commercial and industrial loans increased by $42.2 billion (2.5 percent), and credit card balances grew by $35.4 billion (5.2 percent). Over the past 12 months, loan and lease balances increased 5.3 percent. This is the highest 12-month growth rate for loans since mid-year 2008.
Net interest income was $1.1 billion (1 percent) higher than a year ago, as the industry's interest-bearing assets increased 6.2 percent in 2014. Almost three out of four institutions (70.5 percent) reported higher net interest income than in the fourth quarter of 2013. The average net interest margin (the difference between the average yield banks earn on loans and other investments and the average cost of funding those investments) was 3.12 percent, down from the 3.27 average in the fourth quarter of 2013. This is the lowest quarterly average margin since the 3.11 percent reported in the third quarter of 1989, as larger institutions continued to increase their holdings of low-yield, liquid investments.
Noninterest income was down $160 million (0.3 percent) from a year ago, as income from the sale, securitization, and servicing of residential mortgages declined $1.6 billion (30.8 percent). More than half of all banks (54.4 percent) reported year-over-year increases in quarterly noninterest income.
Noninterest expenses were $4.9 billion (4.8 percent) higher than a year ago, as itemized litigation expenses at a few of the largest banks were $4.4 billion higher. Banks set aside $8.2 billion in provisions for loan losses, up 12 percent from $7.3 billion a year earlier. This is the second consecutive quarter that the industry has reported a year-over-year increase in loss provisions.
Asset quality indicators continued to improve as insured banks and thrifts charged off $9.9 billion in uncollectible loans during the quarter, down $2.2 billion (18.3 percent) from a year earlier. The amount of noncurrent loans and leases (those 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) fell $9.2 billion (5.4 percent) during the fourth quarter. The percentage of loans and leases that were noncurrent declined to 1.96 percent, the lowest level since the 1.73 percent posted at the end of the first quarter of 2008.
The average return on assets (ROA) fell to 0.96 percent in the fourth quarter from 1.09 percent a year earlier. The average return on equity (ROE) declined from 9.76 percent to 8.56 percent.
Chairman Gruenberg concluded: "The current operating environment remains challenging. Revenue growth continues to be held back by narrow interest margins and lower mortgage-related income. And, many institutions are reaching for yield given the low interest-rate environment, which is a matter of ongoing supervisory attention. Nevertheless, results from the fourth quarter generally were positive for the banking industry, and for community banks in particular."
Financial results for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year are contained in the FDIC's latest Quarterly Banking Profile, which was released today. Also among the findings:
Full-year earnings totaled $152.7 billion. Total net income for 2014 was $1.7 billion (1.1 percent) less than the industry reported in 2013. This is the first decline in annual net income in five years. Full-year ROA was 1.01 percent, marking the third year in a row that the annual ROA has exceeded 1 percent. Reduced revenues from the sale, securitization, and servicing of residential mortgages (down $9.1 billion or 35 percent) and increased litigation expenses at a few large banks (up $6.5 billion or 206 percent) were the main causes of the drop in full-year earnings. Almost two out of every three banks (64 percent) reported higher net income than in 2013.
The number of "problem banks" fell for the 15th consecutive quarter. The number of banks on the FDIC's "Problem List" declined from 329 to 291 during the quarter, the lowest since the end of 2008. The number of "problem banks" now is 67 percent below the post-crisis high of 888 at the end of the first quarter of 2011.
The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) balance continued to increase. The DIF balance (the net worth of the Fund) rose to a record $62.8 billion as of December 31 from $54.3 billion at the end of September. The Fund balance increased primarily due to decreases in estimated losses for past bank failures. Estimated insured deposits increased 1.0 percent, and the DIF reserve ratio (the Fund balance as a percentage of estimated insured deposits) rose to 1.01 percent as of December 31 from 0.88 percent as of September 30. A year ago, the DIF reserve ratio was 0.79 percent.
DEFENSE SECRETARY CARTER STOPPED IN KANDAHAR TO THANK TROOPS
Right: U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter talks with troops on Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, Feb. 22, 2015. Carter answered a range of questions and thanked troops for their service. DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett.
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2015 – As part of his first official trip to Afghanistan as defense secretary, Ash Carter made a stop in Kandahar today to thank U.S. troops there for their dedication to the mission and the progress they and their NATO and Afghan allies have achieved.
His visit was to the Train Advise and Assist Command South, or TAAC South, formerly Regional Command South. The command’s area of responsibility includes the provinces of Kandahar, Uruzgan, Zabul and Daykundi.
The U.S. 1st Cavalry Division is what is called the TAAC South framework element, and contributing countries include Romania, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Australia, Jordan and Georgia.
At TAAC South’s Kandahar Airfield headquarters, Carter told the troops that they are his priority.
Thanking the Troops
“You're what I wake up to every morning” he said. “I never forget for one minute that you're here and what you're doing, the sacrifice that being here entails and the risk that it entails for you.”
He thanked the troops personally and on behalf of the Defense Department and the nation.
While in Afghanistan, the secretary will assess progress being made in the country so he can determine future actions and make recommendations to President Barack Obama, he told service members.
The train, advise and assist mission is becoming the heart of the effort in Afghanistan that will make permanent the success that U.S. and coalition troops have sacrificed so much for, Carter said.
An Important Country in the World
“We'll never be gone from Afghanistan because Afghanistan is an important country in the world,” he added, “but when our presence here is reduced to something much smaller than today, we want to make sure that the Afghans themselves are able to preserve the environment our forces have created over the last few years, one of relative security and stability.”
Carter told the men and women in uniform that he’d met with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Dr. Abdulla Abdullah in Kabul.
“There's one thing President Ghani said that I want to share with you. He said, ‘Would you please tell your people that I appreciate the sacrifice they have made for my country.’”
Carter said, “Just think about that -- remember that.”
Questions From the Troops
Before giving each service member a coin and having his picture taken with them, Carter took questions from his audience that ranged from cybersecurity to military retirement to downsizing the force. But first he commented on the coins.
“Let me tell you a little bit about the coin. … I'm so new they haven't made coins with my name on them yet, so I'm sorry about that. It's a more generic secretary of defense coin. It may not be as valuable on eBay as an Aston B. Carter coin,” he said to laughter from the audience, “but you can trade up later.”
His first question was about the cyber dimension of building a force of the future.
“Cyber has to be part of building the force of the future -- is in fact part of the force of right now,” the defense secretary said.
Leveraging Technology
One of the reasons the United States has the finest fighting force the world has ever seen is because of the way the nation leverages technology, Carter said, especially information technology.
The field is exploding and it's everywhere in the world, he added, “and that means if we don't change and we don't keep up, we can't keep our position as the best in the world.”
The United States has a substantial lead in cyberspace now, Carter said, “and there’s no reason why we can't keep it.”
“The reason we'll stay the greatest is that we'll keep striving to be at the forefront,” the secretary added. “And in today's world the only way to be excellent is to be open to ideas from the outside. You can't think of everything yourself and you can't do everything yourself.”
Military Retirement System
To a question about the military retirement system, Carter said he’s open to reconsidering the system.
The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission studied the current system and sent its report to Carter, who said he’s studying it.
“Ultimately under the law I'm required to then tell President Obama what I think about it and I haven't had a chance to do all that yet, and absorb it,” he said.
But Carter added that his starting point is that such a system attracts those who will keep the all-volunteer force healthy in the future and that continues to offer a retirement structure that is attractive and gives recruits appropriate incentives along the way to stay in the military or retire at a time that is best for them and best for the force.
Keeping the All-volunteer Force Healthy
“That’s the criterion that I will principally apply in considering these things,” the secretary added. “It's not about money [or] anything else. It's fundamentally mostly about the health of the force in the future and that's the lens through which I will look at it.”
The military retirement system has financial implications for each individual service member and for the country as a whole, Carter said, but the priority is to make sure the services have the right people.
“Any change we make [should] be one that those already in service don't have to make if they don't want to,” the secretary said, adding that this in line with what the commission recommended.
“I don't want to breach our understanding with you at the time you joined, that's not fair, he told service members.
The services can make alternatives available to those who may join the military in the future, and available to those who are in now, Carter said, “but if we made a deal with you when you first got in, I think we ought to keep that deal.”
Defending the Nation
To a question about downsizing the military at a time when multiple national security challenges face the nation, Carter said he’s adamantly opposed to the budget cuts known as sequestration.
The sequestration process is unwise and unsafe for national security going forward,” he told troops.
“We’ve got to spend enough money on defense to protect our country and protect our interests,” the secretary said. “We just can't have a mindless mechanism that decides what the defense budget is.” The nation, he added, must decide what it needs to protect itself, its interests and its allies, and consider those elements to build a budget.
It’s also imperative, he said, to put every defense dollar to good use.
“My reaction every time somebody says … how are you spending your money? Fair enough. It’s fair enough to be challenged and make sure we're using all that money” in the best possible ways, Carter said.
DEFENSE SECRETARY CARTER MEETS WITH THE AMIR OF KUWAIT
Right: Defense Secretary Ash Carter, left, meets with the Amir of Kuwait Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah in Kuwait City, Kuwait, Feb. 23, 2015. DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett.
Carter Thanks Kuwait's Leaders for Strategic Partnership
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2015 – In Kuwait, Defense Secretary Ash Carter expressed U.S. appreciation for the strategic partnership between the United States and Kuwait during his meetings with His Highness Amir Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Sheikh Khalid al-Jarrah al-Sabah, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a statement issued today.
Appreciation for Strategic Partnership
Carter also expressed his thanks for Kuwait's willingness to host U.S. and coalition forces in support of military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Kirby said in the statement.
The leaders also discussed their shared commitment to continue the two nations' close security cooperation during Carter’s leadership of the defense department, Kirby said.
Afghanistan, Middle East Visit
The meetings come at the end of the defense secretary’s first week in office, the admiral said, during which he made it a priority to travel to Afghanistan and the Middle East.
SECURITY DISCUSSED BY GEN. DEMPSEY, AUSTRALIAN CHIEF OF DEFENSE FORCE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Dempsey, Australian Defense Chief Discuss Security Issues
By Lisa Ferdinando
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
SYDNEY, Feb. 23, 2015 – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his Australian counterpart met here today to examine security challenges and find ways to further strengthen ties as the U.S. military rebalances to the Pacific.
The day-long meeting between Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and the Australian chief of the Defense Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, was the second Defense Chiefs Strategic Dialogue held between the United States and Australia. The first DCSD was held in Washington in 2013.
A Complex Global Security Environment
Dempsey said the meeting was an important opportunity for both nations to discuss today’s complex global security environment. He cited diverse challenges including Iran, Russian aggression in Ukraine, and the campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists.
"We really have to keep our eye on the future while dealing with the issues of the present," the chairman said at the meeting.
There needs to be talk about the long-term threat posed by violent extremists, Dempsey said. The terrorist attack in a café in Sydney in December in which two hostages were killed was a "terrible tragedy," the chairman said.
Australia is a strong U.S. partner and ally that has made incredible contributions to stability efforts in the Pacific and around the globe, said Dempsey's spokesman, Air Force Col. Ed Thomas.
"The United States and Australia have a shared worldview that is governed by international law that has been the foundation for peace and security in the region," Thomas said. "Today's dialogue and the commitment it represents are important as we continue to rebalance to the Pacific."
The defense chiefs, along with their senior staff, talked candidly about the challenges each nation faces and how their militaries can continue to strengthen relations and interoperability, the colonel said.
Expanding Security Partnership
A key aspect of the U.S.-Australian alliance is the expanding security relationship, supported by the Force Posture Agreement, which provides an "enduring foundation for regional security and complements the initiatives upon which the two governments have embarked since 2011," Thomas explained.
Currently, there’s a 1,150-member rotational presence of U.S. Marines in Darwin, Australia, he said. And the growing cooperation between the countries' air forces, he added, is a "tangible measure of the strength of the U.S.-Australia defense alliance and our shared vision for regional security.”
The basis of the military relationship between the United States and Australia is the 1951 Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, or ANZUS Treaty, Thomas said.
Australia invoked the treaty once -- in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
Dempsey, Australian Defense Chief Discuss Security Issues
By Lisa Ferdinando
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
SYDNEY, Feb. 23, 2015 – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his Australian counterpart met here today to examine security challenges and find ways to further strengthen ties as the U.S. military rebalances to the Pacific.
The day-long meeting between Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and the Australian chief of the Defense Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, was the second Defense Chiefs Strategic Dialogue held between the United States and Australia. The first DCSD was held in Washington in 2013.
A Complex Global Security Environment
Dempsey said the meeting was an important opportunity for both nations to discuss today’s complex global security environment. He cited diverse challenges including Iran, Russian aggression in Ukraine, and the campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists.
"We really have to keep our eye on the future while dealing with the issues of the present," the chairman said at the meeting.
There needs to be talk about the long-term threat posed by violent extremists, Dempsey said. The terrorist attack in a café in Sydney in December in which two hostages were killed was a "terrible tragedy," the chairman said.
Australia is a strong U.S. partner and ally that has made incredible contributions to stability efforts in the Pacific and around the globe, said Dempsey's spokesman, Air Force Col. Ed Thomas.
"The United States and Australia have a shared worldview that is governed by international law that has been the foundation for peace and security in the region," Thomas said. "Today's dialogue and the commitment it represents are important as we continue to rebalance to the Pacific."
The defense chiefs, along with their senior staff, talked candidly about the challenges each nation faces and how their militaries can continue to strengthen relations and interoperability, the colonel said.
Expanding Security Partnership
A key aspect of the U.S.-Australian alliance is the expanding security relationship, supported by the Force Posture Agreement, which provides an "enduring foundation for regional security and complements the initiatives upon which the two governments have embarked since 2011," Thomas explained.
Currently, there’s a 1,150-member rotational presence of U.S. Marines in Darwin, Australia, he said. And the growing cooperation between the countries' air forces, he added, is a "tangible measure of the strength of the U.S.-Australia defense alliance and our shared vision for regional security.”
The basis of the military relationship between the United States and Australia is the 1951 Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, or ANZUS Treaty, Thomas said.
Australia invoked the treaty once -- in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
AG HOLDER'S REMARKS ON 800-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE MAGNA CARTA
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Attorney General Holder Delivers Remarks at the Global Law Summit to Commemorate the 800-Year Anniversary of Magna Carta
LondonUnited Kingdom ~ Monday, February 23, 2015
Thank you for that kind introduction. It’s a pleasure to be back in London this morning, where history has brought our predecessors so many times before. And it’s a great privilege to join you all in opening this important forum – as we gather to reaffirm the rights and principles of Magna Carta; as we pledge to renew our shared commitment to these timeless ideals; and as we resolve to carry them forward into a new century.
I’d like to thank the board of the Global Law Summit for bringing us together today. I want to thank Prime Minister [David] Cameron, members of Her Majesty’s government, and of course the City of London for hosting this unique event. Most of all, I want to thank the sponsors, speakers, and delegates who are here with us for lending your voices – and perspectives – to this historic gathering.
It was 800 years ago this June – just two dozen miles from here, along the banks of the River Thames at Runnymede – that King John forever changed the course of history when he put his seal to a sheet of parchment and extended basic rights to those subject to his reign.
The circumstances that gave rise to this Great Charter belong not merely to another millennium, but another age. Yet this singular document, comprising just 54 lines of Latin text, would come to be regarded as the source to which many fundamental building blocks of liberty trace their origin. And as we convene this morning, the enumerated rights and bedrock principles set down in Magna Carta remain as contemporary as any challenge we now face – standing at the center of our modern societies and our systems of government.
From the reigns of successive monarchs, to the fires of revolution; from the birth of modern democracy, to the global movement for civil rights – our dedication to these principles has been repeatedly challenged, and rigorously tested, over the last eight centuries. Our collective history has been shaped by our fidelity to these essential tenets. And our future will be determined, in no small measure, by our ongoing efforts to venerate their spirit – and vindicate their promise.
It was during the American civil rights movement – as millions marched, and rallied, and sacrificed to bring an end to my country’s long night of racial injustice – that I first became conscious of this notion in my own life. In June of 1963 as a young boy, I watched, on a black-and-white television in the basement of my childhood home, as a charismatic young President, John F. Kennedy – and another Attorney General, Robert Kennedy – sought to bend the course of history towards justice by enforcing a court order that allowed two courageous African-American students to enroll in a segregated Southern university.
Many years after that indelible moment, one of those brave students, Vivian Malone, would become my sister-in-law. And as I began to walk the path that would take me from that very small house in New York City, to the United States Department of Justice, to this last official trip to this great nation as a representative of my government – a journey made possible by the sacrifices of countless trailblazers who had gone before – I have never forgotten those images, that dramatic “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,” or the formative lesson it imparted: that the law, at its best, can be a strong, deft instrument for positive change – a framework for doing that which is right.
It was this vision of promise and possibility – a promise rooted in Magna Carta, broadened by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights it inspired, and illustrated by the examples of my nation's civil rights movement and the call to service by the brothers Kennedy – that first led me to dream of a life of public service. It was the same conception of justice that drove me to build my career – in both the public and the private sectors – as a steward of America’s legal system. And it is the same imperative – to do that which is right – that guides my colleagues and me, at every level of my country’s Justice Department, even today.
I am deeply proud of all that these dedicated men and women have accomplished, over the past six years, in securing the rights that flow from Magna Carta’s timeless guarantees. During my tenure as Attorney General, we have taken decisive action to reform America’s criminal justice system – and pull it closer to our founding ideals – while keeping our people safe.
We have kept faith with our belief in the power of our great judicial system and the appropriate interrogation techniques used thereunder – which owe so much to your own – to fairly and effectively adjudicate any cases, including those that implicate threats to our national security.
We have fought hard to secure the civil rights of all people, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society – and taken strong action to safeguard the most basic of American rights: the right to vote.
We have begun to realize the promise of equality for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters, and their families. And we are forcefully supporting those who have taken the struggle for marriage equality to the highest court in our land.
We have stood firm against financial fraud, and worked to bring fairness to the rules by which our commercial enterprises operate. We have taken rigorous steps to protect the environment. And we have presided over the first reduction in America’s federal prison population in decades, along with a continued decrease in the national crime rate – the first time these two critical markers have declined together in more than forty years.
Now, despite these extraordinary results, there’s no question that a great deal of work remains to be done. But the progress we have secured, and the difference we’ve made, is real. Through all of these efforts, we have been guided by a steadfast devotion to the core protections of Magna Carta; a dedication to securing the vastly expanded rights in which they take modern expression; and a determination to harness the law as a tool for protecting our people.
No principle is more fundamental than Magna Carta’s single most powerful assurance: that justice is not an abstraction defined merely by the powerful. It lives in our daily work and lives. And it must never be an act that’s imposed arbitrarily, by the state upon the individual. Rather, it is a sacred compact, to be fulfilled by the people and their government, working side by side.
This is an ideal that must be realized in every interaction between our institutions, our laws, and the lives of our citizens. Like many of you, this is something I’ve seen firsthand. During my time as chief federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia – during the mid-1990s – Washington, D.C., was a city in crisis. And I saw, with my own eyes, that mistrust between law enforcement and local residents was – in some areas – both corrosive and widespread.
In response, my colleagues and I launched a community prosecution initiative – an innovative program that led us to build engagement and establish rapport between prosecutors, police officers, community leaders and the residents we were sworn to protect. Over time, these connections helped to restore trust and strengthen the fabric of the community. And as we speak, today’s Justice Department is employing the very same approach – by implementing engagement and community policing strategies from coast to coast – to advance a critical national dialogue to address mistrust, and resolve long-simmering tensions, that have been exposed by a series of recent tragedies.
We know that doing so will enable our brave men and women in law enforcement to perform their dangerous jobs with maximum safety and effectiveness. It will help us to ensure the unbiased and equal treatment of every citizen. And it will reinforce the notion that public safety is not a cause to be served by a courageous few, but a calling to be fulfilled by citizens as well as public servants.
Of course, our ongoing effort to build community trust also implicates broader questions about the fairness of America’s justice system as a whole. And just as Magna Carta provided an early conception of the law as a social contract, so, too, did it give rise to another key principle that must always guide our work: the notion that the rule of law is dependent on the guarantee of due process.
This guarantee hinges on the integrity of our institutions, on remedies such as habeas corpus, and on the ability of the legal system to deliver fair and impartial outcomes – something I saw during my service as a judge in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
During my time on the bench, I came face-to-face with the destructive cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration that has trapped far too many people and weakened entire communities. I recognized the counterproductive practices that have contributed to an unprecedented rise in the American prison population over the last 30 years. And I grew determined to help forge a better path.
As we speak – with support from leaders and experts across the political spectrum – my colleagues and I are working to break this destructive cycle, to strengthen the federal justice system in the United States, and to overturn our country’s overreliance on incarceration. About 18 months ago, I launched a series of reforms known as the Smart on Crime initiative. As part of this initiative, I mandated policy changes to ensure that low-level, nonviolent defendants – who stand accused of certain federal drug crimes – will face sentences appropriate to their alleged conduct, rather than excessive mandatory minimum sentences better suited to violent criminals or kingpins.
Today, I am proud to report that – by every measure we’ve seen so far – these reforms are working as intended. Since the launch of the Smart on Crime initiative, we’ve witnessed a decline in the number of people charged with federal drug trafficking crimes. We’ve experienced an increase in the seriousness of federal crimes charged, indicating that resources are being used to pursue the most dangerous criminals. And we’ve seen an unprecedented reduction in our reliance on mandatory minimums – without any impact on our ability to elicit cooperation or secure guilty pleas.
Across the board, these changes are improving the efficiency, the effectiveness and the fairness of our criminal justice system. But even this fundamental notion – that justice must be applied equally, to every individual – rests on yet another principle inherited from Magna Carta: that the law itself must be held as supreme. That no one is above it. And that no one is immune from either its protections or its limitations.
It was nearly four decades ago, during my first job at the United States Department of Justice, that I came to understand the singular importance of this principle. At the beginning of my career, I spent a dozen years prosecuting elected leaders and public officials accused of betraying the public trust. I witnessed the acutely corrosive nature of official corruption. And I saw how it can imperil our values, undermine the rule of law, and impose costs that are immense and long-lasting.
I also saw, as my career unfolded, that these challenges are anything but unique to the United States. That’s why, as Attorney General, I have been proud to work with my colleagues in the United Kingdom – and around the world – to make anticorruption and asset forfeiture major priorities for the community of nations.
Five years ago, I launched a Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative to help the Justice Department combat large-scale foreign corruption – and return stolen funds to the citizens to whom they belong. More recently, I stood with my international counterparts in Doha, and in Marrakech, for the first and second Arab Forums on Asset Recovery. And last spring, here in London, I helped to convene the first-ever Ukraine Forum on Asset Recovery, dedicated to supporting the Ukrainian people as they strive to chart their own, independent course to safety, prosperity, and peace.
The aims of this work are far from transitory. They reflect a universal desire – as old as recorded time – to shape one’s own future. And they underscore the enduring importance of Magna Carta not just as a legal document, but as a potent symbol of freedom under the rule of law – a symbol whose power and significance are truly global, and whose reach must be made global as well.
After all, we know that our democratic values, our open societies – and our commitment to tolerance and inclusion – must be continuously protected against intolerance, extremism, and hate. And we are bound together by our conviction that the world must stand united in support of the rule of law – and in opposition to all who threaten it.
This is the reality that drives President Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which lays out a credible vision of leadership – through patience, persistence, and a clear sense of purpose – in concert with America’s global allies. The events now unfolding in Syria and Iraq remind us every day that we cannot afford to be passive in the face of violent extremism, however it is cloaked. It is clear that we must address those underlying causes that tend to breed this mindless desire to join a cause that is in the truest sense of the word – barbaric – and antithetical to all that we celebrate today. And we must ensure that there can be no impunity for those who actively contemplate committing terrorist acts – because, if we wait for our citizens to travel to regions in conflict, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our security.
As we assemble this morning – in an hour of challenge and tremendous consequence – we are separated from the sealing of Magna Carta by a gulf of time; by the sweep of eight centuries; by the rise and fall of empires; by the ravages of global war. Yet the principles of this Great Charter endure. Our governments, and our societies, continue to be defined by the protection of due process, the supremacy of law, and the engagement of our citizens in the work of public safety and economic prosperity. And just as our histories are bound together at Runnymede – where, today, there stands a monument to Magna Carta, built by my American Bar Association – so, too, does our sovereign soil intermingle there, along the banks of the Thames.
A short distance from the Magna Carta monument lies a block of stone inscribed to the memory of a man who spent his life in defense of the principles that found their origin in that meadow – the very same leader whose service inspired my own career, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. This memorial rests on land that was given to the American people, as a symbolic gift, by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And it speaks not just to the contributions of one individual – or the common heritage of our legal systems – but to the common aspirations of our peoples.
Through 800 years of transformative change, our progress has been rooted in values that are long-shared; values that define us. Over time, Magna Carta’s story has become our story. Its history has shaped our history. And its future will define our future.
So the question now before this gathering – and the decision that rests with each of us – is whether, and how, this progress will continue. What will history record of this moment – our moment – in this age of possibility and peril? What will we do to bolster the protections with which our leaders are now entrusted? And how will future generations measure our worthiness to carry Magna Carta’s principles into yet another new century?
My own dearest hope, for the fleeting time I’ve been privileged to stand with you on the world stage, has been to do honor to the faith that’s been placed in me – by my country; by my fellow citizens; and by the legacies of all who have gone before. So let it be said of us – when this brief moment is completed – that we held true to the path we have been walking together for eight centuries.
Let it be said that we strengthened the social contract – and served as protectors not just of our citizens, but of our systems.
Let it be said that we fought for the equality of all people in the eyes of the law.
And let it be said that – in an hour of grave danger, just as those who preceded us – we faithfully bore the burdens of justice. That, in a time of contemporary great darkness, we held high the torch of liberty and principle.
And that, in a time of uncommon threat, we dared – with intention, with clarity of purpose, and with an audacity that will be long remembered – to rise, together, against the tyranny of injustice and inhumanity.
May this be our legacy – and our challenge – to all who may succeed us in this endeavor.
I’d like to thank you all, once again, for your leadership and your steadfast support over the years. It has been the greatest honor of my professional life to stand with you in this work, to count you as colleagues and partners, and to join you in advancing the cause of justice. More than an occupation, this has become my life’s work. And in the months and years to come – and as my time in public service draws to a close – it will remain a calling that continues to push me forward, wherever my path may take me.
I wish you all a most productive Summit – may it help to lead us all to a new age of justice and enlightenment and be truly worthy of the promise of Runnymede.
Thank you.
Attorney General Holder Delivers Remarks at the Global Law Summit to Commemorate the 800-Year Anniversary of Magna Carta
LondonUnited Kingdom ~ Monday, February 23, 2015
Thank you for that kind introduction. It’s a pleasure to be back in London this morning, where history has brought our predecessors so many times before. And it’s a great privilege to join you all in opening this important forum – as we gather to reaffirm the rights and principles of Magna Carta; as we pledge to renew our shared commitment to these timeless ideals; and as we resolve to carry them forward into a new century.
I’d like to thank the board of the Global Law Summit for bringing us together today. I want to thank Prime Minister [David] Cameron, members of Her Majesty’s government, and of course the City of London for hosting this unique event. Most of all, I want to thank the sponsors, speakers, and delegates who are here with us for lending your voices – and perspectives – to this historic gathering.
It was 800 years ago this June – just two dozen miles from here, along the banks of the River Thames at Runnymede – that King John forever changed the course of history when he put his seal to a sheet of parchment and extended basic rights to those subject to his reign.
The circumstances that gave rise to this Great Charter belong not merely to another millennium, but another age. Yet this singular document, comprising just 54 lines of Latin text, would come to be regarded as the source to which many fundamental building blocks of liberty trace their origin. And as we convene this morning, the enumerated rights and bedrock principles set down in Magna Carta remain as contemporary as any challenge we now face – standing at the center of our modern societies and our systems of government.
From the reigns of successive monarchs, to the fires of revolution; from the birth of modern democracy, to the global movement for civil rights – our dedication to these principles has been repeatedly challenged, and rigorously tested, over the last eight centuries. Our collective history has been shaped by our fidelity to these essential tenets. And our future will be determined, in no small measure, by our ongoing efforts to venerate their spirit – and vindicate their promise.
It was during the American civil rights movement – as millions marched, and rallied, and sacrificed to bring an end to my country’s long night of racial injustice – that I first became conscious of this notion in my own life. In June of 1963 as a young boy, I watched, on a black-and-white television in the basement of my childhood home, as a charismatic young President, John F. Kennedy – and another Attorney General, Robert Kennedy – sought to bend the course of history towards justice by enforcing a court order that allowed two courageous African-American students to enroll in a segregated Southern university.
Many years after that indelible moment, one of those brave students, Vivian Malone, would become my sister-in-law. And as I began to walk the path that would take me from that very small house in New York City, to the United States Department of Justice, to this last official trip to this great nation as a representative of my government – a journey made possible by the sacrifices of countless trailblazers who had gone before – I have never forgotten those images, that dramatic “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,” or the formative lesson it imparted: that the law, at its best, can be a strong, deft instrument for positive change – a framework for doing that which is right.
It was this vision of promise and possibility – a promise rooted in Magna Carta, broadened by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights it inspired, and illustrated by the examples of my nation's civil rights movement and the call to service by the brothers Kennedy – that first led me to dream of a life of public service. It was the same conception of justice that drove me to build my career – in both the public and the private sectors – as a steward of America’s legal system. And it is the same imperative – to do that which is right – that guides my colleagues and me, at every level of my country’s Justice Department, even today.
I am deeply proud of all that these dedicated men and women have accomplished, over the past six years, in securing the rights that flow from Magna Carta’s timeless guarantees. During my tenure as Attorney General, we have taken decisive action to reform America’s criminal justice system – and pull it closer to our founding ideals – while keeping our people safe.
We have kept faith with our belief in the power of our great judicial system and the appropriate interrogation techniques used thereunder – which owe so much to your own – to fairly and effectively adjudicate any cases, including those that implicate threats to our national security.
We have fought hard to secure the civil rights of all people, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society – and taken strong action to safeguard the most basic of American rights: the right to vote.
We have begun to realize the promise of equality for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters, and their families. And we are forcefully supporting those who have taken the struggle for marriage equality to the highest court in our land.
We have stood firm against financial fraud, and worked to bring fairness to the rules by which our commercial enterprises operate. We have taken rigorous steps to protect the environment. And we have presided over the first reduction in America’s federal prison population in decades, along with a continued decrease in the national crime rate – the first time these two critical markers have declined together in more than forty years.
Now, despite these extraordinary results, there’s no question that a great deal of work remains to be done. But the progress we have secured, and the difference we’ve made, is real. Through all of these efforts, we have been guided by a steadfast devotion to the core protections of Magna Carta; a dedication to securing the vastly expanded rights in which they take modern expression; and a determination to harness the law as a tool for protecting our people.
No principle is more fundamental than Magna Carta’s single most powerful assurance: that justice is not an abstraction defined merely by the powerful. It lives in our daily work and lives. And it must never be an act that’s imposed arbitrarily, by the state upon the individual. Rather, it is a sacred compact, to be fulfilled by the people and their government, working side by side.
This is an ideal that must be realized in every interaction between our institutions, our laws, and the lives of our citizens. Like many of you, this is something I’ve seen firsthand. During my time as chief federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia – during the mid-1990s – Washington, D.C., was a city in crisis. And I saw, with my own eyes, that mistrust between law enforcement and local residents was – in some areas – both corrosive and widespread.
In response, my colleagues and I launched a community prosecution initiative – an innovative program that led us to build engagement and establish rapport between prosecutors, police officers, community leaders and the residents we were sworn to protect. Over time, these connections helped to restore trust and strengthen the fabric of the community. And as we speak, today’s Justice Department is employing the very same approach – by implementing engagement and community policing strategies from coast to coast – to advance a critical national dialogue to address mistrust, and resolve long-simmering tensions, that have been exposed by a series of recent tragedies.
We know that doing so will enable our brave men and women in law enforcement to perform their dangerous jobs with maximum safety and effectiveness. It will help us to ensure the unbiased and equal treatment of every citizen. And it will reinforce the notion that public safety is not a cause to be served by a courageous few, but a calling to be fulfilled by citizens as well as public servants.
Of course, our ongoing effort to build community trust also implicates broader questions about the fairness of America’s justice system as a whole. And just as Magna Carta provided an early conception of the law as a social contract, so, too, did it give rise to another key principle that must always guide our work: the notion that the rule of law is dependent on the guarantee of due process.
This guarantee hinges on the integrity of our institutions, on remedies such as habeas corpus, and on the ability of the legal system to deliver fair and impartial outcomes – something I saw during my service as a judge in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
During my time on the bench, I came face-to-face with the destructive cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration that has trapped far too many people and weakened entire communities. I recognized the counterproductive practices that have contributed to an unprecedented rise in the American prison population over the last 30 years. And I grew determined to help forge a better path.
As we speak – with support from leaders and experts across the political spectrum – my colleagues and I are working to break this destructive cycle, to strengthen the federal justice system in the United States, and to overturn our country’s overreliance on incarceration. About 18 months ago, I launched a series of reforms known as the Smart on Crime initiative. As part of this initiative, I mandated policy changes to ensure that low-level, nonviolent defendants – who stand accused of certain federal drug crimes – will face sentences appropriate to their alleged conduct, rather than excessive mandatory minimum sentences better suited to violent criminals or kingpins.
Today, I am proud to report that – by every measure we’ve seen so far – these reforms are working as intended. Since the launch of the Smart on Crime initiative, we’ve witnessed a decline in the number of people charged with federal drug trafficking crimes. We’ve experienced an increase in the seriousness of federal crimes charged, indicating that resources are being used to pursue the most dangerous criminals. And we’ve seen an unprecedented reduction in our reliance on mandatory minimums – without any impact on our ability to elicit cooperation or secure guilty pleas.
Across the board, these changes are improving the efficiency, the effectiveness and the fairness of our criminal justice system. But even this fundamental notion – that justice must be applied equally, to every individual – rests on yet another principle inherited from Magna Carta: that the law itself must be held as supreme. That no one is above it. And that no one is immune from either its protections or its limitations.
It was nearly four decades ago, during my first job at the United States Department of Justice, that I came to understand the singular importance of this principle. At the beginning of my career, I spent a dozen years prosecuting elected leaders and public officials accused of betraying the public trust. I witnessed the acutely corrosive nature of official corruption. And I saw how it can imperil our values, undermine the rule of law, and impose costs that are immense and long-lasting.
I also saw, as my career unfolded, that these challenges are anything but unique to the United States. That’s why, as Attorney General, I have been proud to work with my colleagues in the United Kingdom – and around the world – to make anticorruption and asset forfeiture major priorities for the community of nations.
Five years ago, I launched a Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative to help the Justice Department combat large-scale foreign corruption – and return stolen funds to the citizens to whom they belong. More recently, I stood with my international counterparts in Doha, and in Marrakech, for the first and second Arab Forums on Asset Recovery. And last spring, here in London, I helped to convene the first-ever Ukraine Forum on Asset Recovery, dedicated to supporting the Ukrainian people as they strive to chart their own, independent course to safety, prosperity, and peace.
The aims of this work are far from transitory. They reflect a universal desire – as old as recorded time – to shape one’s own future. And they underscore the enduring importance of Magna Carta not just as a legal document, but as a potent symbol of freedom under the rule of law – a symbol whose power and significance are truly global, and whose reach must be made global as well.
After all, we know that our democratic values, our open societies – and our commitment to tolerance and inclusion – must be continuously protected against intolerance, extremism, and hate. And we are bound together by our conviction that the world must stand united in support of the rule of law – and in opposition to all who threaten it.
This is the reality that drives President Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which lays out a credible vision of leadership – through patience, persistence, and a clear sense of purpose – in concert with America’s global allies. The events now unfolding in Syria and Iraq remind us every day that we cannot afford to be passive in the face of violent extremism, however it is cloaked. It is clear that we must address those underlying causes that tend to breed this mindless desire to join a cause that is in the truest sense of the word – barbaric – and antithetical to all that we celebrate today. And we must ensure that there can be no impunity for those who actively contemplate committing terrorist acts – because, if we wait for our citizens to travel to regions in conflict, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our security.
As we assemble this morning – in an hour of challenge and tremendous consequence – we are separated from the sealing of Magna Carta by a gulf of time; by the sweep of eight centuries; by the rise and fall of empires; by the ravages of global war. Yet the principles of this Great Charter endure. Our governments, and our societies, continue to be defined by the protection of due process, the supremacy of law, and the engagement of our citizens in the work of public safety and economic prosperity. And just as our histories are bound together at Runnymede – where, today, there stands a monument to Magna Carta, built by my American Bar Association – so, too, does our sovereign soil intermingle there, along the banks of the Thames.
A short distance from the Magna Carta monument lies a block of stone inscribed to the memory of a man who spent his life in defense of the principles that found their origin in that meadow – the very same leader whose service inspired my own career, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. This memorial rests on land that was given to the American people, as a symbolic gift, by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And it speaks not just to the contributions of one individual – or the common heritage of our legal systems – but to the common aspirations of our peoples.
Through 800 years of transformative change, our progress has been rooted in values that are long-shared; values that define us. Over time, Magna Carta’s story has become our story. Its history has shaped our history. And its future will define our future.
So the question now before this gathering – and the decision that rests with each of us – is whether, and how, this progress will continue. What will history record of this moment – our moment – in this age of possibility and peril? What will we do to bolster the protections with which our leaders are now entrusted? And how will future generations measure our worthiness to carry Magna Carta’s principles into yet another new century?
My own dearest hope, for the fleeting time I’ve been privileged to stand with you on the world stage, has been to do honor to the faith that’s been placed in me – by my country; by my fellow citizens; and by the legacies of all who have gone before. So let it be said of us – when this brief moment is completed – that we held true to the path we have been walking together for eight centuries.
Let it be said that we strengthened the social contract – and served as protectors not just of our citizens, but of our systems.
Let it be said that we fought for the equality of all people in the eyes of the law.
And let it be said that – in an hour of grave danger, just as those who preceded us – we faithfully bore the burdens of justice. That, in a time of contemporary great darkness, we held high the torch of liberty and principle.
And that, in a time of uncommon threat, we dared – with intention, with clarity of purpose, and with an audacity that will be long remembered – to rise, together, against the tyranny of injustice and inhumanity.
May this be our legacy – and our challenge – to all who may succeed us in this endeavor.
I’d like to thank you all, once again, for your leadership and your steadfast support over the years. It has been the greatest honor of my professional life to stand with you in this work, to count you as colleagues and partners, and to join you in advancing the cause of justice. More than an occupation, this has become my life’s work. And in the months and years to come – and as my time in public service draws to a close – it will remain a calling that continues to push me forward, wherever my path may take me.
I wish you all a most productive Summit – may it help to lead us all to a new age of justice and enlightenment and be truly worthy of the promise of Runnymede.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)