Remarks by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Marshall L. Miller at the Global Investigation Review Program

Remarks by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Marshall L. Miller at the Global Investigation Review Program

New York ~ Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Thank you, for that kind introduction.  As a born and bred New Yorker, it is a pleasure to be back in my hometown.

I want to focus my comments today on how we in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice are addressing criminal conduct when it takes place at corporations and other institutions.  I’ll begin with a short discussion about our evolving approach to such investigations.  Then, I’ll turn to our thought process in deciding how to resolve charges against corporations with criminal exposure – or whether to bring criminal charges at all. 

Some years ago, there was a perception that the Justice Department outsourced investigations of corporate criminal conduct to private law firms, then sat back and waited for presentations and memos and hot docs to roll in.  At the Criminal Division, nothing could be farther from the truth.

As much as we encourage cooperation, we do not rely upon internal investigations to make our cases.  A company’s cooperation is just one of many tools we use to further our investigations.  It is not an insignificant tool, and it can expedite the department’s ability to act, but we successfully prosecute complex cases regardless of a company’s cooperation. 

As in any other type of case, the Criminal Division conducts its own active investigation of criminal misconduct at a corporation, even when an internal investigation is underway.  We serve subpoenas, execute search warrants, interview witnesses, and use a host of other mechanisms to obtain evidence. 

Today, in the Criminal Division, we are capitalizing on the cooperative relationships we have developed with foreign prosecutors, law enforcement and regulatory agencies to better access evidence and individuals located overseas.  Even more significantly, we have dramatically increased our coordination with foreign partners when they are looking at similar or overlapping criminal conduct – so that when we engage in parallel investigations, they complement, rather than compete with, each other.  

In fact, I flew into New York last night not from Washington but from London, where we are coordinating closely to add a new dimension to our countries’ historic special relationship, this time in the arena of white collar law enforcement.

And in today’s Criminal Division, we are vigorously employing proactive investigative tools that may not have been used frequently enough in white collar cases in past years:  tools like wiretaps, body wires, physical surveillance, and border searches, to name just a few. 

In one recent fraud investigation, Frederic Cilins, a French citizen, was captured on tape directing a witness to “destroy everything, everything, everything,” and saying that “we need to urgently, urgently, urgently destroy all of this.”  Unbeknownst to Mr. Cilins, his trusted cohort was actually a witness working for the FBI, and his obstructive instructions were captured on tape.  Faced with that damning evidence, Cilins recently pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice.

 Similarly, in another recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation, a group of executives at BizJet International, a US-based subsidiary of the Lufthansa corporation, engaged in a scheme to funnel bribes to Mexican and Panamanian officials.   When one of the conspiring executives began cooperating with the investigation, he wore a body wire and recorded the scheme’s participants as they plotted.   The result: four executives and BizJet have now been charged with FCPA crimes; three of them – including the chief executive officer (CEO) and president – have pled guilty; and Bizjet entered into an eight-figure deferred prosecution agreement, admitted the full scope of its criminal conduct, replaced its leadership team, and overhauled its compliance programs.

Such proactive investigative tools – previously used primarily in organized crime and drug cases – have become a staple in our white collar investigations.   I can promise you we will continue to use them.

And when corporations engaged in wrongdoing choose not to cooperate – which, of course, they have every right to do – the Criminal Division will make the cases on our own.

An excellent example is the Marubeni case – an FCPA investigation stemming, in part, from a seven-year scheme to pay bribes to Indonesian officials in exchange for a $118 million power contract.  When the Criminal Division learned of that conduct and launched an investigation, Marubeni opted not to cooperate at all.  What ensued was an extensive multi-tool investigation involving recordings, interviews, subpoenas, mutual legal assistance treaty requests, the use of cooperating witnesses, and more.  Today, four individual executives of Marubeni’s consortium partner have been charged with FCPA crimes; three of the executives have pleaded guilty to those crimes; and Marubeni itself was charged and pled guilty to violating the FCPA.  And the investigation continues to grow. 

Marubeni decided to roll the dice.   I’m guessing they may have had some gambler’s remorse when the dice came to rest.

Other companies have taken a different approach.   Earlier this year, we announced charges against the former co-CEOs and general counsel of PetroTiger Ltd. for paying bribes to a Colombian official to secure a $39 million oil services contract.   The general counsel and one of the CEOs have pleaded guilty to bribery and fraud charges, and the other former CEO is headed for trial in January.  But unlike in the Marubeni case, this conduct was brought to the attention of the department through voluntary disclosure by PetroTiger, which cooperated fully with the department’s investigation.  Notably, no charges of any kind were filed against PetroTiger, and no non-prosecution agreement was entered.

This is all to say: we would like corporations to cooperate.  We will ensure that there are appropriate incentives for corporations to do so.  But if there is no cooperation, we will continue to investigate and prosecute the old-fashioned way.   And companies will face the consequences.  

Now, a few observations about the developing landscape of corporate resolutions.   The last year has made crystal clear that the Department of Justice will use every legal avenue to hold corporations responsible for criminal conduct.   The guilty pleas from BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse, two of the world’s largest financial institutions, have demonstrated once and for all that no institution is too large to prosecute.

At the Criminal Division, we’ve shown that we will pursue the full range of corporate resolutions – from non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements to guilty pleas – sometimes all in the same case, as we did just last week with Hewlett-Packard.   In that case, we secured a guilty plea from the HP subsidiary where the most extensive criminal conduct occurred, a deferred prosecution agreement from a second subsidiary, and a non-prosecution agreement from a third, calibrating each resolution to address each entity’s culpability.   In all, the company paid $109 million in penalties to the Justice Department and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and overhauled its accounting, reporting and compliance programs.   And the investigation continues, as we seek to hold all culpable parties responsible for their actions.

Now, given the sophistication of this audience, nobody here needs an introduction to the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, or the Filip factors, upon which we base our corporate charging and resolution decisions.   I suspect that nearly everyone in this audience has given presentations on behalf of corporate clients regarding those factors.   In fact, both in Brooklyn and now in Washington, I have sat across the table from many of you during those presentations.

I want to focus today on an aspect of those factors that I believe, at times, receives insufficient attention – but that lies at the heart of our approach at the Criminal Division.   And that is what the factors have to say about the importance of individual prosecutions to the decision on how to approach a corporation.

Let me start by explaining the lens through which we view corporate cooperation.   Now, the Department frequently touts the benefits of corporate cooperation and the perils of opting not to cooperate.   The lack of timely and complete cooperation, which effectively frustrated the pursuit of individual prosecutions, was one of the tipping points that led to the charges, guilty pleas, and landmark monetary penalties in the BNPP and Credit Suisse cases.   By contrast, in the paradigmatic case involving a declination – the Morgan Stanley case from 2012 – corporate cooperation was a prime motivating factor.

In publicly announcing that declination – an unusual move for the Justice Department, where we are usually silent in the many cases where we decline prosecution – we praised Morgan Stanley’s robust internal compliance program and its voluntary disclosure of the misconduct.  

But often overlooked is one of the critical factors that led to that declination.   Morgan Stanley assisted the government in identifying the individual executive responsible for the criminal conduct, Garth Peterson, and in securing evidence to hold Peterson criminally responsible.    

As you all know, Filip Factor Four addresses corporate cooperation.   And in analyzing that factor, companies are always quick to tout voluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct and the breadth of an internal investigation.   What is sometimes given short shrift, however, is in many ways the heart of effective corporate cooperation: whether that cooperation exposed, and provided evidence against, the culpable individuals who engaged in criminal activity, as in the Morgan Stanley example.  

The importance of cooperating regarding individuals is set forth, in black and white, in the text of the factor itself.   Factor Four expressly states that prosecutors should evaluate a corporation’s “willingness to cooperate in the investigation of [its] agents.”   This key point is fleshed out later in the guidance section, where prosecutors are directed to consider the corporation’s “willingness to provide relevant information and evidence and identify relevant actors within and outside the corporation, including senior executives.”

Voluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct does not constitute true cooperation, if the company avoids identifying the individuals who are criminally responsible.   Even the identification of culpable individuals is not true cooperation, if the company fails to locate and provide facts and evidence at their disposal that implicate those individuals.         

This principle of cooperation is not new or unique to companies.   We have applied it to criminal cases of all kinds for decades.   Take, for example, organized crime cases.   Mob cooperators do not receive cooperation credit merely for halting or disclosing their own criminal conduct.   Attempted cooperators should not get reduced sentences if they refuse to provide testimony or fail to turn over evidence against other culpable parties.   A true cooperator – whether a mobster or a company – must forthrightly provide all the available facts and evidence so that the most culpable individuals can be prosecuted.  

The importance of this principle is enhanced by a second Filip factor – Factor Eight – which states that, in deciding whether to charge a corporation, prosecutors must consider “the adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance.”   So, effective and complete corporate cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of culpable individuals is not only called for by Factor Four, but reinforced by Factor Eight.  

In assessing how to treat corporations, the Criminal Division carefully considers whether its law enforcement interests have been – or can be – met by the prosecution of culpable individuals.  Conversely, in some cases, when prosecutions of culpable individuals are prevented, the government’s interest may only be vindicated by prosecuting the corporation itself.   This is one of the lessons that should be drawn from the BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse cases.   Through parent-level guilty pleas and multi-billion dollar penalties , BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse paid a historic price not only for their criminal conduct, but also for their insulation of culpable corporate employees.

Just as importantly, if a corporation wants credit for cooperation, it must engage in comprehensive and timely cooperation; lip service simply will not do.  

Corporations are often too quick to claim that they cannot retrieve overseas documents, emails or other evidence regarding individuals due to foreign data privacy laws.   Just as we carefully test – and at times reject – corporate claims about collateral consequences of a corporate prosecution, the department will scrutinize a claimed inability to provide foreign documents or evidence.   We have forged deepening relationships with foreign governments and developed growing sophistication and experience in analyzing foreign laws.   A company that tries to hide culpable individuals or otherwise available evidence behind inaccurately expansive interpretations of foreign data protection laws places its cooperation credit at great risk.   We strongly encourage careful analysis of those laws with an eye toward cooperating with our investigations, not stalling them.  

Understand too, that we will use our own parallel investigation to pressure test a company’s internal investigation: to determine whether the company actually sought to root out the wrongdoing and identify those responsible, as far up the corporate ladder as the misconduct goes, or instead merely checked a box on a cooperation punch list.  

Companies that have not conducted comprehensive investigations will not secure significant cooperation benefits.   Worse, companies that hamper the government’s investigation while conducting an internal investigation – for example, by conducting interviews that serve to spread corporate talking points rather than secure facts relating to individual culpability – will pay a price when they ask for cooperation credit.

A few final words: when you come in to discuss the results of an internal investigation to the Criminal Division and make a Filip factor presentation – expect that a primary focus will be on what evidence you uncovered as to culpable individuals, what steps you took to see if individual culpability crept up the corporate ladder, how tireless your efforts were to find the people responsible.  

At the risk of being a little too Brooklyn, I’m going to be blunt.  

If you want full cooperation credit, make your extensive efforts to secure evidence of individual culpability the first thing you talk about when you walk in the door to make your presentation.  

Make those efforts the last thing you talk about before you walk out.  

And most importantly, make securing evidence of individual culpability the focus of your investigative efforts so that you have a strong record on which to rely.

Corporations do not act criminally, but for the actions of individuals.   The Criminal Division intends to prosecute those individuals, whether they’re sitting on a sales desk or in a corporate suite.

           

We’re already doing it.   Just two weeks ago, the former CEO and chief financial officer of ArthroCare Corporation, a stock exchange-listed Texas medical device company, were sentenced to decades in prison after their trial convictions for securities and accounting fraud – 20 years and 10 years, respectively.   Last week, the chief credit officer of a publicly traded commercial bank pleaded guilty to defrauding the bank’s shareholders and creditors.   As we speak, the CEO of a large Houston hospital is on trial for allegedly engaging in massive corporate health care fraud.   And there’s much more to come.

The prosecution of individuals – including corporate executives – for white-collar crimes is at the very top of the Criminal Division’s priority list under Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.  

We seek the cooperation of corporations where criminal conduct occurred, but we will not wait for it.   We will reward with cooperation credit companies who identify criminal wrongdoers and provide evidence that assists in their prosecution.   And we will be looking long and hard at corporations who purport to cooperate, but fail to provide timely information and available evidence about the criminal misconduct of their executives and employees.  

It has been a privilege to speak with you, and a pleasure to be back home – where I know New Yorkers appreciate straight talk.   Thank you for having me here.

Department of Defense Press Briefing by Rear Adm. Kirby in the Pentagon Briefing Room

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Just a couple of opening comments. First, I hope you all had a chance to see Secretary Hagel's remarks today at the National POW-MIA Recognition Day ceremony out there on the river terrace. One of the things he talked about was the ongoing transformation of how we account for and recover our missing personnel from past wars which, as the secretary said, will become the new Defense Personnel Accounting Agency beginning this January. I'd like to give you just a little more context about our progress in this transformation. Next month, all the different budgets and budget offices will be combined into one. By the end of October, a single streamlined directorate responsible for all external communications and outreach to the families, to the public, to Congress and other stakeholders will be established. In December, an armed forces medical examiner will be named and in place to oversee the scientific operations at DOD's laboratories in Hawaii and in Omaha. As the secretary said, the new agency will achieve initial operating capability this coming January and it will continue to reevaluate and refine its processes and reorient its structure over the following 12 months before becoming fully operational in January of 2016. Throughout this process, DOD has been working closely with everyone who has a stake in this new agency and its mission, including families, veterans, service organizations, Congress, and the employees who will comprise the agency's workforce. We will continue to stay engaged going forward. Even once this new agency is completely established, we must remain committed to continuously improving its operations because, as Secretary Hagel made clear today, those Americans still missing in action deserve nothing less than our constant vigilance and our full effort in working to bring them home. Second, as the president announced on Tuesday, the U.S. government is increasing its assistance to help affected countries deal with the most devastating Ebola outbreak in history. The Defense Department brings unique capabilities and capacity to support our interagency partners, especially the lead federal agency, USAID, as we collectively respond to the outbreak in West Africa. Let me provide you with just a brief update on what DOD is doing to support this effort. Major General Darryl Williams, the U.S. Army-Africa commander, will lead the U.S. military's response, Operation United Assistance. He arrived in Monrovia two days ago with a 12-person assessment team. The assessment team is conducting on-the-ground planning and site surveys to construct Ebola treatment units in Liberia. The assessment team is also evaluating what our deployed U.S. military personnel will need in terms of support infrastructure to sustain the operations for up to six months or however long U.S. military assistance is required. Major General Williams along with U.S. Ambassador Malac have met with Liberian officials, including President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, to discuss our increased U.S. response to the Ebola crisis and toward several sites where more Ebola treatment units will be constructed. In addition, a C-17 with military handling equipment arrived yesterday. The aircraft offloaded a heavy-duty forklift, a generator and a crew of seven military personnel to quickly assess the capacity and payload of the runways at Roberts International Airport. This equipment will help provide general support for our overall whole-of-government response going forward. We anticipate that two C-17s will arrive in Liberia this weekend with approximately 45 additional U.S. military personnel, and they will begin work establishing the command headquarters for General Williams. Currently, program funds approved for the DoD Ebola response are around $30 million. This includes our efforts previously announced, such as the 25-bed deployable hospital, supplies and lab training diagnostic equipment and personnel protective equipment. On Tuesday, DoD also requested to reprogram an additional $500 million in Fiscal Year 2014 overseas contingency funds to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to fight Ebola. This is on top of a previous reprogramming request of $500 million. As such, DoD would be prepared to devote up to $1 billion to Ebola response efforts. We're still working through all the planning process to determine future requirements and resources, and we expect additional personnel and materials to continue flowing to the affected area over the next several weeks and months. With that, I'll take your questions. Justin. Q: On Ebola, do you -- can you help us understand? Are -- are any of these troops you're sending over there going to be directly caring for patients affected by the virus? What protection measures are you putting in place to stop the spread to these -- these troops, and again, will they be working directly with any of the patients? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Thanks. Right now, the effort does not include U.S. military personnel treating Ebola patients; we're going to be in support of other healthcare workers that -- that are experts at doing this. And obviously, a key component of moving our troops anywhere in any situation is to make sure that adequately prepare them, train them and equip them for their own personal protection. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, personal protective equipment is part of the material that we are sending down with them. So we're doing everything we can to make sure that they're informed, they're educated and they're trained on how to protect themselves from the environment. But there's no -- there's no intent right now for them to have direct contact with patients. Courtney. Q: The two C-17s, the 45 additional personnel, where are they coming from? And then when you talk about personal protective equipment, does that include weapons? Are they all going to be armed going down there? REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't know the answer to your first question, and on the second one, I'll -- let me get back to you as well. This is not a -- there's not a security issue. The -- the danger, if you will, is the disease itself, not security. So there's no intent to put armed troops down there. I can't sit here and tell you that -- that amongst none of them will -- will -- will be any firearms, so let me get back to you with a more specific answer. But we aren't introducing armed troops into Liberia. That's not the purpose here. These are logistics personnel -- engineers, that kind of thing -- to create these units, so this isn't -- this isn't a combat mission of any kind. Again, the -- the real threat is the -- the disease itself. Q: Can I ask you about Mexico too? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yes. Q: Can you update us on the -- there's reports there were about 40 Americans taken out this morning on a U.S. military aircraft. Are there more military aircraft that are going to be going out today and in the coming days, and how many Americans do you -- is DoD prepared to take out, or have you been tasked to take anymore? REAR ADM. KIRBY: So earlier this morning, you're right, at the request of the State Department and with Secretary Hagel's approval and that of the government of Mexico, 41 U.S. citizens that were stranded in Cabo San Lucas when Hurricane Odile -- during the hurricane, sorry. They were flown to Los Angeles International Airport on an Air Force C-130. That is, right now, the extent of any transportation that we expect for American citizens out of Mexico. I would add that -- that these 41 asked for this transport. They -- they were offered the opportunity and -- and took us up on it. We don't anticipate a huge scale evacuation of American citizens from Mexico at this time. We obviously remain postured and have aircraft available should there be additional requests or a need, but right now we don't foresee that. Yes, Phil? Q: Admiral, yesterday the president and Secretary Hagel both said they welcome the action by Congress to endorse the $500 million training program for Syrian opposition forces. Now that that's moving, can you give us a sense about what the next couple steps are for this department in starting it up, building the site, and assigning the people who will be doing that work? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, you're right. And we are grateful for Congress's action, as you saw the secretary say last night. So what has to happen now is a process of working closely with the intelligence community and frankly with the Saudis on a proper recruiting and vetting program for the moderate opposition. And that work will begin very, very soon. As Chairman Dempsey said in testimony, it's going to take a period of months to work our way through that process, probably three to five months is the best estimate, before the vetting process is complete. And we know we've got a body of willing, capable partners to work within the Syrian moderate opposition. And then there will be probably a period of eight to 12 months of actual training and fielding. So it's going to be a little while before you start to see opposition fighters returning to Syria trained and capable and ready to take on ISIL inside Syria. But that work will, now that we have the authorization, now that we have the funds that go with it, that work will start immediately. Q: So is there a base in Saudi Arabia that's been identified? Or is a new one going to be built? Who's going to build it? And will American contractors be involved or American Army soldiers? Or will the Saudis manage that whole end of it? REAR ADM. KIRBY: I -- what I -- the facility is existing. So there's no anticipation of construction of any kind of new facility. We're grateful for the support that the Saudis gave us for existing -- an existing facility. And so there's no need for contractors or anything like that. We'll just -- we'll fall in on a facility that already exists. Q: Can you tell us where it is or what it's called? REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, I'd rather not at this time. I mean, again, we're grateful for Saudi Arabia's help and I think I'll just leave it at that. Joe? Q: (inaudible) two questions. You mentioned -- back to the Ebola thing -- you mentioned the number of $1 billion. Is this -- can you verify that, please? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, it's two -- we asked for two reprogramming requests, each of $500 million. So they came separately. When you add it up, it's about $1 billion. Q: Okay. Back to the Syrian issue of training the moderate Syrian position. Is this force -- the Syrian force that should be trained in Saudi Arabia, its mission to fight ISIS? That's what I understand, not the regime? REAR ADM. KIRBY: There's three things, really, that we're going to help train and equip the moderate opposition to deal with. One is to defend their own communities and their own citizens -- where they live, where they are; so basic defense, community defense. Two, to go after ISIL as well. And then of course, third, to counter the Assad regime. Q: Two things. First, can you tell us what you can about this review that the secretary is looking at regarding the DoD's connection with the NFL? And also on Ebola, you said that the troops will have no direct contact with patients. Can you tell us anything more about what parameters or restrictions are -- this operation is starting out with in terms of will servicemembers there be restricted to their own facilities? Will they be kept entirely out of patient facilities? I mean, what -- will all that be left up to the discretion of the commander? Or are there some ground rules going in regarding (inaudible)? RER ADM. KIRBY: That's what Major General Williams is going to be working on right now. I mean, he's just now standing up this joint task force headquarters. And he will be working through all the particulars of that. What I'll say just broadly is that it's important to remember the mission. The mission is to do some training; to build these units and do some logistics, some transports, the movement of materiel. It is not to treat. And General Williams understands those parameters. He knows what his mission is. And he'll make sure that the troops are properly trained themselves and have the -- the protective equipment that they need. But there's no intention right now that they will be interacting with patients or in areas where they would necessarily come into contact with patients. They're not doctors. They're not nurses. They're not -- they're not trained for that and not equipped for that. That's not part of the mission. So they will be -- they will be kept in locations where they can do their jobs without coming into contact with patients. As for the particulars, you know, let's let General Williams, he just got there, let him work through and he'll -- and he'll, I'm sure, have more to say in coming days about exactly how he's going to accomplish that. But that's the goal. It's really important. And we're very good at mission accomplishment. We know what our job is. It's been made very clear to us, and the troops know that as well, and as they flow in, they'll continue to just -- to do what they're focused on, what they've been told to do. On the NFL, there is no review -- there is no investigation, there is no study being done by the Pentagon on the National Football League or our involvement with the National Football League. Secretary Hagel, just like every leader in this building, is monitoring the situation ongoing with the NFL. We have high expectations of ourselves and our own behavior and conduct, as I think you all know, and we hold ourselves to a very high standard. And we have high expectations of the organizations with whom we partner and with whom we work. What the secretary has done, given what's been going on inside the National Football League is simply ask to better understand our interactions with the National Football League, in what ways and to what degree do we have -- do we partner with them? And you know that we do. I mean, there's community relations events that we do around football games, not unlike and perfectly in keeping with the way that we interact with other professional sports leagues. There is -- we have been working, and we've talked about this a lot, we've been working with the NFL jointly to better understand concussive injuries, because we're dealing with that, after 13 years of war and traumatic brain injury. So there are some parallel efforts going on there. And so, I think the secretary just wants to get a sense of the depth and the scope of the interaction. That's all that's going on. It's not a review. Ma'am. Q: Back to the Islamic State. Since you've mentioned what Saudi Arabia is contributing and talked about having a facility there, President Obama has done that as well. The Saudis, I haven't seen them come out with anything, so in the same vein, what are other countries doing, because I know that we've been hesitant to announce, but if we're announcing what Saudi Arabia is doing, can't we announce some other coalition involvements as well? REAR ADM. KIRBY: We didn't announce what the Saudis are doing. The Saudis announced what they were willing to do. We have been very careful not to announce the participation and contributions of other nations until or unless they have done so. So... Q: (off mic) did announce it after a phone conversation between President Obama and the Saudi king. It was U.S. officials that came out first, and I still haven't seen anything from the Saudis. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, I don't know how that transpired. And I'm not going to speak up here for another nation. It's my job to speak just for the American military. What I can tell you is the Saudis have offered to contribute a training facility. We're grateful for that. Now, we're going to move forward on getting that train and equip mission up. But I think your question gets to this larger issue about this coalition of the willing. There's more than 40 nations involved. Each of them are contributing what they can, given their own capacities and limitations and the desires of their populations. Some are willing to participate in military action. Some are only willing to contribute to humanitarian efforts or resupply efforts. Some are contributing monetary donations of aid. Everybody is doing something different. And that's okay. We're not going to dictate terms to these nations as they sign up to do things. Just as importantly, we're going to respect their right to talk about it in ways that they're comfortable with. So, just this morning for instance, you saw that President Hollande announced that the French had started conducting airstrikes in Iraq. That's their right to do that. And we're certainly grateful for that support, obviously. But that's up to each nation to do it. What we are seeing is more and more nations coming into this coalition. Some of them are actually evolving their participation. Early contributors that are now willing to contribute more over time. The French are a great example of that. And I think we're going to continue to see that happen. And this notion that's out there that Arab countries aren't signing up is just false. And we talked about Saudi Arabia. There are other Arab nations who have agreed in writing on the communique out of Jeddah to contribute to action against ISIL. Each will do it in their own way, and each will talk about it in their own way. And again, we're not going to -- we're not going to dictate terms to them, and we're not going to announce things for them. Maggie? Q: I noticed in the hearing today that chief of defense forces for Uganda, General (inaudible) is here? And I'm sure you know there's reports al-Shabaab is planning an attack in Uganda, so I'm wondering has that general asked to meet with Defense Secretary Hagel? And if so, is there a plan for the two to could speak? And if not, why not? REAR ADM. KIRBY: The secretary is not planning to meet with the Ugandan chief of defense. He was here to meet with Admiral Winnefeld. I'd refer you to the joint staff on the scope of that discussion and the agenda items. I don't have anything for you more than that. Q: I want to follow up on a couple of different issues, please. First on the NFL. Given the fact that you do have such an extensive -- the U.S. military has such an extensive relationship with the NFL organization, and the White House earlier today said the NFL basically needed to get its act together on domestic violence. What -- why not speak out against -- on this issue? What message might you be sending to military women and military spouses by -- by not speaking more strongly against what's going on, given that the White House has now said they need to -- they need to get their act together? And I have a follow up on another one. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Okay. I'm not going to -- I'm certainly not going to speak for the White House and how they characterized it. Again, I can only speak for Secretary Hagel. We have been crystal clear about our expectations of ourselves and the men and women who serve this department about how they conduct themselves and about the standards that we're going to hold them to when they don't. Crystal clear. And nobody takes issues of violence, sexual assault, more seriously than us. We have more work to do and we know that. We also have high expectations, as I said, of organizations that we partner with. And so the secretary is viewing with concern what he has seen the National Football League go through. That's why he's asking questions about the full scope of our interaction with them. So, we need to work that through. We need to answer his questions. And then we'll see where we are. But I'm not going to get ahead of decisions he hasn't made yet and I'm -- I'm not -- it's not our place at the Pentagon to be casting judgment on private entities outside the building. Q: But you do say that you have expectations of the organizations you partner with. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Absolutely. Q: Can you say anything about what the United States military's expectations are, then, of the NFL? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Our expectations of organizations that we work with are the same that we expect of ourselves; that everybody is going to be treated with dignity and respect; that there's going to be accountability when they're not; and that there will be transparency about -- about the efforts. But that's -- those are the standards we hold ourselves to. Q: To follow up on Ebola very briefly. Every time you've answered, you talked about the fact that there is no intent now -- you did mention that several times -- no intent right now for U.S. troops to be involved in treating Ebola patients. Can you really shut the door to -- to that? Is there some future notion that they might be called upon to do that? And the fact is, even with personal protective gear and everything, you -- how would you know if you might be coming into contact with someone who's developing Ebola or who's been exposed to it? That -- I mean, there certainly is some risk to U.S. troops. But on the treatment question, you qualified it each time. REAR ADM. KIRBY: We're clear-eyed about the risk that we're incurring in standing up this mission down in Liberia and in Africa with this -- with this deadly disease. And as I answered to Courtney, the disease itself is a threat. We understand that. We get paid to deal in risk and to manage that and to mitigate it the best we can. It's difficult in any military operation to eliminate it, and the men and women who sign up and serve in the military understand that when they do. The mission right now that General Williams has been assigned is one of engineering and support logistics. And I would say the word "support" means a lot to us. We are supporting USAID and the State Department and also the government of Liberia in this particular case. Now, this is not a military-led operation. And so the mission itself as it's defined is limited to those -- those areas, and not direct medical care of patients. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about what might or could change over time. We are -- we have unique capabilities. We try to stay as ready and prepared across those capabilities as we can. And if there should be a need in the future to change the mission, to modify it somewhat, then we'll have that discussion. But there's no discussion about that right now. Q: A couple of random questions (inaudible). $7.5 million -- is that still roughly the daily expenditure? That was the expenditure as of August 26th. The air campaign has racheted up to over (inaudble) sorties now. What's the current figure? REAR ADM. KIRBY: We -- I don't have an exact figure for you, Tony, and I -- and I know -- you know, I get asked this a lot. We -- we -- we do owe you better clarity on that. Obviously, because the operations have intensified, I think it's fair to say that the estimate by day has increased. I just don't know by how much, and so I'm going to have to get back to you on that. Q: Can you clarify General Allen's role? Is he actively contacting former compatriots in the Sunni -- in the Anbar Province? There's been reports from the region that he's been in contact with Sunni consul members. What is his role right now? What -- what level of -- what -- what is he doing right now? REAR ADM. KIRBY: General Allen is serving the State Department in a civilian diplomatic role. And as for his specific activities, I would refer you to the State Department. We don't have visibility on that. We're not -- I mean, that's -- that's really not for us to speak to. He works for Secretary Kerry. Q: One very (inaudible). Where are the -- the aircraft in Irbil, when are they going to be placed there, stationed there? REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think you're going to see the -- the aircraft that we talked about getting to Irbil in the very near future. I don't have an exact date for you. I don't think I would telegraph that even if I did. There's still some sourcing solutions that need to be worked out. Yeah? Q: On Syria, if it's going to take between eight and 12 months to field a vetted and effective ground force to take territory away from ISIS, what do you expect airstrikes that occur before then to accomplish? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we're not there yet, so let me just state that right out at the top. But certainly, the options of conducting strikes in Syria remains open, and as you know, the president was in Tampa on Wednesday and got briefed on some of those options and some of those plans. What -- what airstrikes would enable us to do is to continue to put pressure on them, particularly the safe havens and sanctuaries that they enjoy in Syria. And again, I -- I don't want to get into a discussion of targeting here from the podium. I think you can understand why that wouldn't be a good idea. But the idea is to continue to put pressure on them and disrupt their activities, their ability to operate, to fund themselves, to train, to equip, to recruit. Q: But will you be pushing them from areas that you can't capitalize on, on the ground that they've left? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, I don't want to get -- I don't want to get ahead of operations that haven't been conducted yet. I -- I think I'm going to leave it where I did. Yeah, Julian. Q: This morning, General Odierno citing the Ebola deployment of more rotations in Europe and the advisers who have gone to Iraq said that it is time to kind of reopen discussion on what is the proper size of the military. Is that something that Secretary Hagel has discussed with his team or is considering, given that the decisions made in the SCMR and the budget were done before, you know, these three major crises sort of caused more demand for your services around the world? Are you relooking at the size of the army? REAR ADM. KIRBY: No. No. There's no intent right now to reconsider the manpower and end strength requirements that we laid before the Congress when we submitted the '15 budget. Yes, sir? Q: Back to the train-and-equip, the Syrian opposition forces. Those 5,000 men that will be trained, will they get this basic military training? Are they getting training on the equipment they're going to receive? Are they trainers themselves? They're going to go back and train their men? I mean... REAR ADM. KIRBY: Actually, I think the short answer to your question is -- all of them is yes. We're going to be training them in basic military skills to create a basic, competent, defensive force that can go, as I said to -- to Joe's question, to defend their citizens, their communities, to go against ISIL and also go against the Assad regime. The equipment that will be provided to them will be in keeping with those kinds of missions. It'll be tactical equipment, communications gear, arms, ammunition, the kinds of things that don't need to do that. And while it's not a train-the-trainers program, certainly, one outcome of this is we want to develop leaders too, good moderate opposition military leaders. And when you develop a leader, you develop a trainer, because any good leader is going to be a trainer just by default, so I think there'll be an element of that. We want to develop a good leadership foundation among them. That answer your question? Q: Yes. Any -- any details on the tactical weapons they're going to be... REAR ADM. KIRBY: No. I'm not at liberty right now to kind of give you the laundry list, but I think it's the kinds of things that you would expect that you would be given to a force with those goals in mind. You know, small arms ammunition, personnel served weapon systems, and you know, basic defensive capabilities as well. And we've said this, that over time, as they get better and more capable and perhaps as the threat requires, it's possible that more sophisticated weaponry and equipment could be delivered to them. But we just aren't there yet. We're just at the beginning of this. We've got a long way to go, and we know that. Right now, the focus is on recruiting and vetting process, so that we can start to build a core that we can get through this training. Q: Admiral, when was the first request for the $500 million for Ebola? REAR ADM. KIRBY: When was the first request? Q: Yeah. You said that there's two requests. There was $500 million, and now we have a second $500 million. Q: It was in an earlier program. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah, it was. I know I talked about it a couple of weeks ago. Q: Wasn't that merged with an Iraq request, too? That wasn't all... RER ADM. KIRBY: It was. It was, you're right. It was Iraq and the Ebola. Yeah. You know, I don't have the exact date, Richard, but we can get that to you. It was a couple of weeks ago, but I'll have to get back to you on the exact date. Q: Could we get the exact dollar figure for how much of both of those is for Ebola? RER ADM. KIRBY: Yeah, we'll certainly. Yeah. Q: And then the second request was last week. REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'm sorry? Q: The second request, $500 million. You had a total of $1 billion now for a second request that was last week. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah. Q: At most, it was pending before Congress. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Hang on a second. The second request for reprogramming was on Tuesday. This Tuesday. Q: Okay, Tuesday. So, both of those requests are pending before Congress. REAR ADM. KIRBY: That's right. Q: The reprogramming authority. REAR ADM. KIRBY: That is right. That's right. So, it's up to a billion dollars. But -- as you rightly pointed out, not all of the first $500 million is devoted to Ebola. Q: So, we should be saying up to $1 billion? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Which is what I said in my opening statement. I think I did. (Laughter.) REAR ADM. KIRBY: Wait a minute. I think I did. Q: You said a billion. Q: I wrote it down. Q: Not in your opening. You said 500 plus 500. You said a billion. REAR ADM. KIRBY: That's right, because you know how challenged I am at math. Yeah, here it was right in my opening statement. As such -- I'll read it again -- DoD would be prepared to devote up to $1 billion to Ebola response ever. So... Q: You win. REAR ADM. KIRBY: Thank you. (Laughter.) It feels good. Q: (off mic) did you say how long those troops are supposed to be there as a part of setting up this... REAR ADM. KIRBY: The initial effort of setting up these treatment units is anticipated to take about six months. But I also said that we would certainly stay there as long as required. It could very well go beyond that. The initial estimate is about six months. Q: This is sort of random, but is there a plan to quarantine them afterwards before bringing them back to wherever they're coming from? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we're going to be, obviously, monitoring their health throughout their mission. I think we'll have a good sense before they come back, you know, how they're doing. We'll -- we'll -- as we always do, we take good care of our troops and we'll be monitoring their health throughout the process. Q: As long as required, is the department committed to staying there in a significant capacity until this outbreak is... REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah, I know you guys love timelines. I'll tell you, we'll be committed to this mission for as long as it's required. And I -- I can't put a date -- I can't put a date certain on that. Q: What does victory look like in this operation? REAR ADM. KIRBY: This is -- this -- the success will be measured by the degree to which we are able to support USAID and the State Department, and Liberian officials in particular, in combating this disease. As I said, our job is -- we are very much -- in this case, you know, in the military we have a parlance of supported organization and a supporting organization. We are very much a supporting organization in this. So, success for us is the degree to which we have adequately supported those whoa re going to be on the front lines of treating patients, and we will do that for as long as required. The initial estimate of how long it will be to do the equipment and setting up the training sites that we talked about is about six months. It could go beyond that. And if it does, we'll be prepared to stay as long as required. Q: Admiral Kirby, you always have contingency plans, so what is the contingency plan if, unfortunately, any number of troops fall ill to Ebola? Because we have seen that it's been a struggle to get even one or two victims back to the United States on these isolation chambers onboard aircraft. It's a very limited capacity. So, what's your plan if troops become ill? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we'll do everything we can to take care of them Barb. There's no question about that. We know that in this -- in this mission as in so many missions around the world, we are in effect deploying them into harm's way. We're aware of that. They are aware of that. We're going to train. We're going to equip them the best we can. You can never eliminate risk in a military operation. You deal with it. And I -- I can't give you chapter and verse right now. General Williams is setting up his organization right now. And I can tell you that should any of our troops fall ill, we're going to everything we can to make them better, and to get them back to the treatment that they need. Q: And are troops getting hazard pay on this mission? REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'll have to get back to you on that. Yes? I've got time for just one more. Q: Originally, you had said that you were training the Syrian opposition to go after ISIL, and then to counter the Assad regime. I was just wondering if there's a difference between countering and going after in terms of training? REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, I'm just not great user of verbs. I'm just -- so if you want, I could be more precise. I just was thinking about zorch for a second. (Laughter.) But I don't think there's a -- I don't think there's a way I can actually use it in a sentence. We anticipate there are three missions for the moderate opposition. One is to help defend their communities and their local citizens. Two, to take the fight, to battle against, to combat ISIL inside Syria. Three, to struggle against, battle against, combat the Assad regime. Same thing. But we anticipate that those would be the three goals for the trained moderate opposition. But we're going to start -- and the reason I mentioned the defend the communities first is because that's really where we've got to start. We've got to get them to a basic level of military capability so that they can go back into Syria, defend their homes, their families, their communities, their neighborhoods. And that's the way you start here. You start to build bubbles of security that people can then start to live normal lives and not have to live under the threat -- the threat that their facing from both terrorist networks like ISIL and the Assad regime itself. Did that answer your question? Q: Is the eight-month training or a 12-month training, is that consistent with zorch or is that slower than zorch? (Laughter.) REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think that's slower than Zorch. (Laughter.) I'll just take -- this will be the last one. Q: These guys when they finish the training program be zorching individually back into Syria or will they zorch as a unit when all 5,000 of them are done and go... REAR ADM. KIRBY: It's a great question. Actually, I think our anticipation is that they will be deployed as, fielded as units. And that gets to the question I answered to the gentleman earlier about leadership. So one of the things that we know we have to do is help them develop leadership, command and control, basic organizational functions and tasks. So our -- our going in proposition is that they will be trained as, and then deployed back to Syria as units, again, to defend their communities and their -- their -- and their families, their homes. That's -- that's kind of... (CROSSTALK) Q: Do you have a sense of what that will look like? Is it 30 guys and they'll zorch back? Or is it going to be 300 guys? Where will the unit breakdowns be when the process is done? REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah, I don't think we have that level of specificity right now. But we want to -- we want to, you know, you can't -- nobody in the military, speaking just as in the U.S. military, we all -- you wear the uniform individually, but you always serve and deploy and right as a unit at various levels. All of us do no matter what uniform we wear. And so I think what we're, you know, your question gets at like there's like one encapsulated unit size and that's all we're going to train to. And I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean. I mean, we're going to help train them and teach them about military organization in general and how effective organizational leadership and activities can be effected. And so I can't give you an answer that they're going to go, you know, we're only going to train them to a platoon level and that's it. I think we're working our way through that. But military organizations occur -- there's a hierarchical structure and you learn tactics and operations throughout that whole structure, across the spectrum of unit organization. We're not -- and I -- I want to make sure I make it clear that as we work on this training, nobody is expecting that we are -- especially in this initial tranche, in this first year -- you know, that we're going to get to perfection here or that it is going, you know, it is in effect the training of an army. This is the moderate opposition. We're trying to give them basic military and defensive capabilities and command and control and organizational effectiveness at a basic level. So, I want to make it clear that, you know, it's not about bringing in 5,400 of them and turning them into, you know, a formal military outfit if you will, at a large level. Does that answer your question? Yep? Yes sir? Q: I guess my question was that most civilian, Syrian people have already served in the army. So they have this basic, you know, military training. And that's why I was asking if there would be more trained to the equipment they're going to use? Are they going to be... REAR ADM. KIRBY: Absolutely. The moderate opposition is not a monolithic group, as you know. And some may very well have relevant military experience, and I suspect that a large number do not. We're trying to give them basic skills. And certainly, we will train them on how to use the equipment that they get, obviously. Some may already be schooled in it. I suspect many will not be. But you've got to start somewhere. You've got to start with a base level, and we'll do that. They'll be -- they'll be trained in how to use the equipment that they're being provided as well. Thanks everybody, have a great weekend.

Official Discusses Prevention of Root Causes of Armed Conflict

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2014 - The Defense Department is using its resources and stated defense strategy to examine methods of employing technology to prevent the root causes of future armed conflict, a senior DoD official said here today.

Alan Shaffer, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, listens before answering a question following his remarks at the PeaceTech Summit at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, Sept. 19, 2014. DoD photo by Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.  (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

Alan Shaffer, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, discussed the department's efforts during the PeaceTech Summit at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

"It's a particularly interesting time right now in the department," he said. "So you here are talking about peace, and yet we have very, very serious armed conflict going on around the world right now." He cited examples such as Iraq, Ukraine, Thailand and the Central African Republic.

"All of these are troublesome to the Department of Defense, and they're troublesome to the nation," he said.

Examining root causes of armed conflict

"So how do we start to relieve some of these?" Shaffer asked. "We see growing tensions through the conflux of transnational criminal organizations with terrorists and how those things work back and forth, leading to armed conflict."

Shaffer said the United States is coming out of about a 35-year period in which it had the world's most dominant military capa-bility. "But there are other nations now that are coming onboard with very advanced, high-end weapons systems," he said. "That poses a challenge, because that increases the chance of conflict. So we have to pay attention to the where the department is going."

Shaffer encouraged the summit's audience to examine DoD's pub-lished defense strategy "a remarkable document" because it "really is a blueprint for a wonderful, wonderful world where we're trying to bring in peace."

Implementing the strategy is producing a shift in momentum for the Defense Department toward smaller operations, Shaffer said. "We're looking at packages to de-escalate armed conflict before it happens," he added.

Defense Department initiatives

Three key initiatives, Shaffer said, are the Minerva initiative, international science and technology, and how DoD is supporting the United Nations.

"Minerva is a fairly small program," he said. "But it is the de-partment's outreach to the sociologists [and] anthropologists community to start to understand the base roots of armed conflict and violence. Minerva looks at things as disparate as large data sets to look for signals early, ... like the Arab Spring, to try to pick out the precursors."

Large data sets, he said, help in understanding some of the flow of commerce from transnational criminal organizations and ter-rorists, Shaffer said, because there's "an amazing correlation."

"They feed off each other," he added, "and that continues to perpetuate violence."

Understand some of the root causes of some of these activities facilitates treating the symptom rather than the event, Shaffer said. "And that's really the point of Minerva how do you treat the symptom?" he told the audience.

Regarding international science and technology, Shaffer said the Defense Department has university grants with researchers in 57 nations.

"Our DoD is a global enterprise for funding research and devel-opment and research in universities," he said. "We have research grants in countries such as Ethiopia, Vietnam, China and Jordan, just to name four. Those are not places you would normally think of the DoD operating. But we believe, very strongly, that one of the best ways to reduce potential for armed conflict through mu-tual understanding."

Technology also plays a part in efforts to address the root causes of conflict, Shaffer said, noting that DoD has developed a series of joint capability technology demonstration programs to increase deployable packages for information technology. And multiple platforms with communications, power and energy capa-bilities are able to be deployed in response to a natural disas-ter and give response officials the best possible information awareness, he added.

"The more situational awareness you can give to people that are in charge on the ground," he said, "the more quickly you can re-turn operations and life to as near normal as you can. That is a big deal."