WHITE HOUSE REPORT ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
May 20, 2015
White House Report: The National Security Implications of a Changing Climate

The full report can be found HERE.

Today, President Obama will travel to New London, Connecticut to deliver the commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy. During his speech, the President will speak to the importance of acting on climate change and the risks to national security this global threat poses. The White House also released a new report on the national security implications of climate change and how the Federal government is rising to the challenge.

As the President has made very clear, no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change, as we are already seeing these threats in communities across the country. We know that climate change is contributing to extreme weather, wildfires, and drought, and that rising temperatures can lead to more smog and more allergens in the air we breathe, meaning more kids are exposed to the triggers that can cause asthma attacks.

But as the President will stress, climate change does not respect national borders and no one country can tackle climate change on its own. Climate change poses immediate risks to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters and resulting in humanitarian crises, and potentially increasing refugee flows and exacerbating conflicts over basic resources like food and water. It also aggravates issues at home and abroad including poverty, political instability and social tensions – conditions that can fuel instability and enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.

The Department of Defense (DOD) is assessing the vulnerability of the military’s more than 7,000 bases, installations and other facilities to climate change, and studying the implications of increased demand for our National Guard in the aftermath of extreme weather events. Two years ago, DOD and DHS released Arctic Strategies, which addresses the potential security implications of increased human activity in the Arctic, a consequence of rapidly melting sea ice.
 
But we also need to decrease the harmful carbon pollution that causes climate change. That is why, this summer, the EPA will put in place commonsense standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, the largest source in the United States. Today, the U.S. harnesses three times as much electricity from the wind and twenty times as much from the sun as we did since President Obama took office. We are working with  industry  and  have taken action to phase down HFCs and address methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. By the middle of the next decade, our cars will go twice as far on a gallon of gas, and we have made unprecedented investments to cut energy waste in our homes and buildings. And as the single largest user of energy in the United States, DOD is making progress to deploy 3 gigawatts of renewable energy on military installations by 2025.

NSA SUSAN E. RICE MAKES REMARKS TO ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE'S ANNUAL KAHLIL GIBRAN GALA

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice
Remarks at the Arab American Institute’s Annual Kahlil Gibran Gala
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
As Prepared

Good evening everyone. It’s wonderful to be back at the Kahlil Gibran Gala. I had the honor of attending five years ago, when I wished the Arab American Institute a happy 25th anniversary. Tonight, I’m proud to extend my best wishes in honor of your 30th year. Should I look forward to seeing you again in 2020?

Thank you, Jim, for that wonderful introduction. Jim is a dear friend, and I have always admired your commitment to our founding ideals—that everyone is equal, that every voice matters. You and I share the belief that America’s limitless diversity is a source of profound national strength.

That’s the ethos behind AAI. We need to hear Arab-American voices and concerns just as we need to hear from every American—regardless of heritage or faith; gender, race, or sexual orientation. And, it’s up to all of us to push back against the hatred and ignorance that are so damaging to our country and our world. So, thank you, AAI, for your leadership representing this proud and vital community. Let me also add my congratulations to tonight’s honorees for the enormous good you do as advocates and educators.

Arab Americans have been at the forefront of advancing our national security and our shared domestic interests for more than a century. They serve with dedication across our armed forces, many making the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Leading diplomats and politicians and public servants of Arab descent, including many here tonight, work tirelessly to make our world a more peaceful place. Thank you for what you do.

As a country, in the 30 years since AAI was founded we’ve come a long way. You’ve led the way to overcome barriers of exclusion and intolerance, and to make sure Arab Americans are full participants in our democracy. You’ve helped shape our government’s response on a range of civil rights and civil liberties issues, leading coalitions to ensure all ethnic and religious minorities receive equal protection under the law. And, I’m so proud that AAI is supporting the next generation of Arab-American leaders who will continue to strengthen our country.

Leaders like Sherin Nassar. Sherin’s double majoring in International Affairs and Economics at George Washington University with a plan to join the Foreign Service after college. Ever since high school, she’s dedicated herself to helping others—volunteering hundreds of hours with Habitat for Humanity. This year, she used her winter break to help build a school in Nicaragua. This summer, she’s heading to China to help rural children learn English. And, at GW, she’s worked in student government to expand accessibility for her classmates with disabilities. Thank you, Sherin, for your commitment to others.

Leaders like Ahmad Abuznaid. Ahmad was born in East Jerusalem, and his Arab-American heritage sparked in him a lifelong passion for social justice. After graduating from law school, rather than pursuing a corporate job, he co-founded The Dream Defenders, a group dedicated to changing the culture that marginalizes minority communities and to training young people of color to be our future leaders. He’s helped lead non-violent protests and advocated for important policy changes.  He’s even testified before the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. So thank you, Ahmad, for taking on big challenges.

Sherin and Ahmad—like all of this year’s award winners—capture the spirit of humanity we celebrate tonight. Unfortunately, as we know too well, there are those in the world who choose violence over working for peaceful change, and many of today’s biggest challenges come together in the Middle East. So, let me briefly touch on some of the ways we are responding to current crises and working to improve security in the region.

First, we continue to believe that a comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians is necessary, just, and possible. The United States remains firmly committed to an independent, viable, and contiguous Palestinian state living alongside a democratic, Jewish State of Israel in peace and security. President Obama has made clear that we need to take a hard look at our approach to the conflict, and that resolving it is in the national security interest of the United States. We look to the next Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to demonstrate—through policies and actions—a genuine commitment to a two-state solution.

We know what a peace agreement should look like—Israel and an independent Palestine both need secure and recognized borders, based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. There must be robust provisions for Israel’s security. The occupation must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves in their own sovereign state. That’s why, like every U.S. administration since 1967, we have opposed Israeli settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground. It only makes it harder to negotiate peace in good faith.

We’re also working to address the lasting impact and human toll of last summer’s conflict in Gaza. Incremental progress has been made, but we must accelerate reconstruction efforts and address core challenges to Gaza’s future, including reinvigorating Gaza’s connection with the West Bank and reestablishing strong commercial links with Israel and the global economy.

Second, we’ve assembled a coalition of more than 60 partners to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. Together, we’ve conducted more than 3,500 airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, damaging or destroying upwards of 5,700 ISIL targets. ISIL has lost control of 25 to 30 percent of the populated areas it had seized in Iraq. We are also working closely with our Iraqi partners to stabilize and rebuild the country, making sure that local populations can return and live safely in areas liberated from ISIL.

In Syria, we’ve made some progress slowing, and in some cases reversing, ISIL’s advance. But, we won’t be able to fully root out ISIL—and the Syrian people will continue to suffer—as long as the war in Syria persists. As we have long said, there is no military solution to this conflict. Secretary Kerry and his team all throughout the Administration have tirelessly pursued a negotiated political transition, and we will continue to do so. But, the Syrian people need help now. That’s why the United States has committed more than $3.5 billion in humanitarian funding—more than any other country—to help ease the terrible suffering of the Syrian people.

We’re also supporting the surrounding countries who are confronting massive challenges hosting Syrian refugees. There are more than 1.2 million Syrians just in Lebanon. To date, we’ve provided nearly $800 million in humanitarian assistance to aid Syrians living in Lebanon and to support Lebanese host communities with essential services such as emergency food supplies, clean water, and health care.

As in Syria, there is no military solution to the crisis in Yemen, and the humanitarian situation will only worsen if the conflict continues. We’re working with all parties to end the violence so that U.N.-led political negotiations can resume promptly and humanitarian access can be restored. We’re also closely monitoring the safety of U.S. citizens in Yemen, including offering opportunities for evacuation.

Finally, even as we’re facing difficult challenges, we’re strengthening our vital relationships in the region. In a few weeks, President Obama will welcome the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to Camp David to reaffirm our strong partnership, improve our security cooperation, and discuss how we can work together to end the region’s conflicts.

And, as you know, together with our P5+1 partners, we recently reached a political framework for Iran’s nuclear program. This is a good deal that, if finalized and implemented, will address a serious threat to the United States, the region, and the entire world.  But, I want to be clear that, if there is a deal, it does not mean we will cease to confront Iran’s destabilizing role in the region. Rather, we would be ensuring that Iran cannot become an even more destructive force by gaining a nuclear weapon.

There are no quick fixes. But, the United States is committed to working with our partners to do everything we can to promote greater security, prosperity, and dignity throughout the Middle East.

In the past year, I’ve had the privilege to meet with college students getting a world-class education at NYU’s campus in Abu Dhabi. I met with Palestinian youth in Ramallah, eager to build a more hopeful future for their people. And, I hosted the Peace Players, a group of Israeli and Palestinian teens, boys and girls, who use basketball to bridge political differences for a pickup game on the White House court. These young people are no different from Sherin and Ahmad. They have big dreams and bold ideas. They are a powerful testament to our common humanity. And, for their sake—for all the children of the region who deserve a bright future—we will continue to push forward. As we do, we ask for your continued partnership, support, and friendship.

Thank you so much.

NEW PARTICLE ACCELERATORS COULD EXPAND USE TO SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Smaller and cheaper particle accelerators?

Scientists developing technology that could expand use for medicine, national security, materials science, industry and high energy physics research
Traditionally, particle accelerators have relied on electric fields generated by radio waves to drive electrons and other particles close to the speed of light. But in radio-frequency machines there is an upper limit on the electric field before the walls of the accelerator "break down," causing it to not perform properly, and leading to equipment damage.

In recent years, however, scientists experimenting with so-called "plasma wakefields" have found that accelerating electrons on waves of plasma, or ionized gas, is not only more efficient, but also allows for the use of an electric field a thousand or more times higher than those of a conventional accelerator.

And most importantly, the technique, where electrons gain energy by "surfing" on a wave of electrons within the ionized gas, raises the potential for a new generation of smaller and less expensive particle accelerators.

"The big picture application is a future high energy physics collider," says Warren Mori, a professor of physics, astronomy and electrical engineering at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who has been working on this project. "Typically, these cost tens of billions of dollars to build. The motivation is to try to develop a technology that would reduce the size and the cost of the next collider."

The National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded scientist and his collaborators believe the next generation of smaller and cheaper accelerators could enhance their value, expanding their use in medicine, national security, materials science, industry and high-energy physics research.

"Accelerators are also used for sources of radiation. When a high energy particle wiggles up and down, it generates X-rays, so you could also use smaller accelerators to make smaller radiation sources to probe a container to see whether there is nuclear material inside, or to probe biological samples," Mori says. "Short bursts of X-rays are currently being used to watch chemical bonds form and to study the inner structure of proteins, and viruses."

Just as important, albeit on a more abstract level, "the goal of the future of high-energy physics is to understand the fundamental particles of matter," he says. "To have the field continue, we need these expensive, large, and complex tools for discovery."

NSF has supported basic research in a series of grants in recent years totaling $4 million, including computational resources. The Department of Energy (DOE) has provided the bulk of the funding for experimental facilities and experiments, and has contributed to theory and simulations support.

"Mori's work is the perfect example of an innovative approach to advancing the science and technology frontiers that can come about when the deep understanding of fundamental laws of nature, of the collective behavior of charged particles that we call a plasma, is combined with state-of-the-art numerical modeling algorithms and simulation tools," says Vyacheslav (Slava) Lukin, program director in NSF's physics division.

Using DOE's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, the scientists from SLAC and UCLA increased clusters of electrons to energies 400 to 500 times higher than what they could reach traveling the same distance in a conventional accelerator. Equally important, the energy transfer was much more efficient than that of earlier experiments, a first to show this combination of energy and efficiency using "plasma wakefields."

In the experiments, the scientists sent pairs of electron bunches containing 5 billion to 6 billion electrons each into a laser-generated column of plasma inside an oven of hot lithium gas. The first bunch in each pair was the "drive" bunch; it blasted all the free electrons away from the lithium atoms, leaving the positively charged lithium nuclei behind, a configuration known as the "blowout regime." The blasted electrons then fell back in behind the second bunch of electrons, known as the "trailing" bunch to form a "plasma wake" that thrust the trailer electrons to higher energy.

While earlier experiments had demonstrated high-field acceleration in plasma wakes, the SLAC/UCLA team was the first to demonstrate simultaneously high efficiency and high accelerating fields using a drive and trailer bunch combination in the strong "blowout" regime. Furthermore, the accelerated electrons ended up with a relatively small energy spread.

"Because it's a plasma, there is no breakdown field limit," Mori says. "The medium itself is fully ionized, so you don't have to worry about breakdown. Therefore, the electric field in a plasma device can be pushed to a thousand or more times higher amplitude than that in a conventional accelerator."

Chandrashekhar Joshi, UCLA professor of electrical engineering, led the team that developed the plasma source used in the experiment. Joshi, the director of the Neptune Facility for Advanced Accelerator Research at UCLA is the UCLA principal investigator for this research and is a long-time collaborator with the SLAC group. The team also is made up of SLAC accelerator physicists, including Mike Litos and Mark Hogan; Mori leads the group that developed the computer simulations used in the experiments. Their findings appeared last fall in the journal Nature.

"The near term goal of this research is to produce compact accelerators for use in universities and industry, while a longer term goal remains developing a high energy collider operating at the energy frontier of particle physics," Mori says.

-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Investigators
Warren Mori
Frank Tsung
Viktor Decyk
Russel Caflisch
Michail Tzoufras
Philip Pritchett
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of California-Los Angeles

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LETTER ON BLOCKING PROPERTY REGARDING MALICIOUS CYBER-ENABLED ACTIVITIES

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
April 01, 2015
Letter -- "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities"

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
April 1, 2015

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order (the "order") declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the increasing prevalence and severity of malicious cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States.

The order would block the property and interests in property of:

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of:

harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the provision of services by, a computer or network of computers that support one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

significantly compromising the provision of services by one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers; or causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain; or any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:

to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States;

to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, certain malicious cyber-enabled activities described in the order or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order;

to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order; orto have attempted to engage in any of the malicious activities described in the order.

In addition, the order suspends entry into the United States of any alien determined to meet one or more of the above criteria.

I have delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the order. All executive agencies are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the order.

I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

Sincerely,
BARACK OBAMA

WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON SENATE BUDGET

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
March 27, 2015
Statement by the Press Secretary on the Passage of the Senate Budget

Following in the footsteps of their House colleagues, Senate Republicans today voted in favor of a budget that relies on top-down economics and gimmicks.  The Senate Republican budget refuses to ask the wealthy to contribute a single dollar to deficit reduction, putting the entire burden on the middle-class, seniors, low-income children and families, and national security.  Senate Republicans voted in favor of locking in draconian sequestration cuts to investments in the middle class like education, job training and manufacturing and also failed to responsibly fund our national security, opting instead for budget gimmicks, an approach that now faces procedural hurdles put in place by their own party.

Meanwhile, the President has a plan to bring middle class economics into the 21st Century.  The President’s Budget builds on the progress we’ve made and shows what we can do if we invest in America's future, and end sequestration, by cutting inefficient spending and reforming our broken tax code to make sure everyone pays their fair share. It lays out a strategy to strengthen our middle class with investments in research, education, training, and infrastructure, while also fulfilling our most basic responsibility to keep Americans safe.

In 2013 Republicans came to the negotiating table and ultimately chose the responsible path by supporting the Murray-Ryan agreement, which reversed harmful sequestration cuts to both defense and non-defense equally, dollar for dollar.  Last night, Senators from both parties came together to call for building on that approach this year and to support paying for sequester relief with both spending and tax reforms.  The President has been clear that he will not accept a budget that locks in sequestration or one that increases funding for our national security without providing matching increases in funding for our economic security.  The Administration will continue to abide by these principles moving forward.

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON NATIONAL SECURITY IN 2015

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
February 06, 2015
Fact Sheet: The 2015 National Security Strategy
Fact Sheet:  The 2015 National Security Strategy

Today, the United States is stronger and better positioned to seize the opportunities of a still new century and safeguard our interests against the risks of an insecure world.  The President’s new National Security Strategy provides a vision and strategy for advancing the nation’s interests, universal values, and a rules-based international order through strong and sustainable American leadership.  The strategy sets out the principles and priorities that describe how America will lead the world toward greater peace and a new prosperity.

We will lead with purpose, guided by our enduring national interests and values and committed to advancing a balanced portfolio of priorities worthy of a great power.

We will lead with strength, harnessing a resurgent economy, increased energy security, an unrivaled military, and the talent and diversity of the American people.

We will lead by example, upholding our values at home and our obligations abroad.

We will lead with capable partners, mobilizing collective action and building partner capacity to address global challenges.

We will lead with all instruments of U.S. power, leveraging our strategic advantages in diplomacy, development, defense, intelligence, science and technology, and more.

We will lead with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future.

We will advance the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners by:

Maintaining a national defense that is the best trained, equipped, and led force in the world while honoring our promises to service members, veterans, and their families.

Working with Congress to end the draconian cuts imposed by sequestration that threaten the effectiveness of our military and other instruments of power.
Reinforcing our homeland security to keep the American people safe from terrorist attacks and natural hazards while strengthening our national resilience.
Transitioning to a sustainable global security posture that combines our decisive capabilities with local partners and keeps pressure on al-Qa’ida, ISIL, and their affiliates.

Striving for a world without nuclear weapons and ensuring nuclear materials do not fall into the hands of irresponsible states and violent non-state actors.
Developing a global capacity to prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to biological threats like Ebola through the Global Health Security Agenda.

Confronting the urgent crisis of climate change, including through national emissions reductions, international diplomacy, and our commitment to the Green Climate Fund.

We will advance a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity by:

Strengthening American energy security and increasing global access to reliable and affordable energy to bolster economic growth and development worldwide.
Opening markets for U.S. goods, services, and investment and leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses to boost our economic competitiveness.

Advancing a trade agenda – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – that creates good American jobs and shared prosperity.

Leading efforts to reduce extreme poverty, food insecurity, and preventable deaths with initiatives such as Feed the Future and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

Proving new sustainable development models like the President’s Power Africa Initiative.

We will advance respect for universal values at home and around the world by:

Holding ourselves to the highest possible standard by living our values at home even as we do what is necessary to keep our people safe and our allies secure.
Promoting and defending democracy, human rights, and equality while supporting countries such as Tunisia and Burma that are transitioning from authoritarianism.

Empowering future leaders of government, business, and civil society around the world, including through the President’s young leaders initiatives.
Leading the way in confronting the corruption by promoting adherence to standards of accountable and transparent governance.

Leading the international community to prevent and respond to human rights abuses and mass atrocities as well as gender-based violence and discrimination against LGBT persons.

We will advance an international order that promotes peace, security, and oppor­tunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges by:

Working with partners to reinforce and update the rules of the road, norms, and institutions that are foundational to peace, prosperity, and human dignity in the 21st century.

Strengthening and growing our global alliances and partnerships, forging diverse coalitions, and leading at the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
Rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific through increased diplomacy, stronger alliances and partnerships, expanded trade and investment, and a diverse security posture.

Strengthening our enduring commitment to a free and peaceful Europe by countering aggression and modernizing the NATO alliance to meet emerging threats.

Pursuing a stable Middle East and North Africa by countering terrorism, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and reducing the underlying sources of conflict.

Building upon the success of the U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit by investing in Africa’s economic, agricultural, health, governance, and security capacity.
Promoting a prosperous, secure, and democratic Western Hemisphere by expanding integration and leveraging a new opening to Cuba to expand our engagement.

SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY BLUEPRINT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
The National Security Strategy
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 6, 2015

This National Security Strategy is a blueprint to leverage America's leadership in a more complicated world than many people would have ever imagined.

It's ambitious and achievable. It's a pragmatic, clear-eyed assessment of both the challenges we face and the full arsenal of our power to confront them through moral, diplomatic, economic, development, and military tools. It's a strategy to promote our values in a world where no ocean, no fence, and no firewall can shield us from the reality of threats across the globe.

In the 21st Century, next door is everywhere.

Whether the opportunities and threats are old or new, from proliferation to violent extremism to global climate change, this strategy reflects the fact that America needs to lead, we will lead, and we are leading.

It's a vision of an America that energizes and galvanizes alliances and partnerships and puts our credibility and our capacity on the line to get things done.

For the State Department, it's also a clarion call for the resources that back up our mission. The investments are relatively small but couldn't pay bigger dividends for our country and our people.

Strong and sustainable leadership of a rules-based international order isn’t a favor we do for other countries – it’s a strategic imperative for America. And with this strategy, we are putting ourselves in the strongest possible position to lead and to get things done that simply couldn’t happen without our leadership and our engagement.

SCIENTIST SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR ATOMIC ENERGY ACT VIOLATIONS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Former Los Alamos National Laboratory Scientist Sentenced to Prison for Atomic Energy Act Violations

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Damon P. Martinez for the District of New Mexico, Assistant Director Randall C. Coleman of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division and Special Agent in Charge Carol K.O. Lee of the FBI’s Albuquerque Division announced that Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni, a scientist formerly employed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), was sentenced this morning for Atomic Energy Act and other violations relating to his communication of classified nuclear weapons data to a person he believed to be a Venezuelan government official.

Mascheroni, 79, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Argentina, was sentenced in Albuquerque, New Mexico, by U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson to 60 months in federal prison followed by the three years of supervised release.  His wife, Marjorie Roxby Mascheroni, 71, previously was sentenced in August 2014 to a year and a day of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release for her conviction on conspiracy and false statement charges.

“The public trusts that the government will do all it can to safeguard Restricted Data from being unlawfully transmitted to foreign nations not entitled to receive it,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin.  “We simply cannot allow people to violate their pledge to protect the classified nuclear weapons data with which they are entrusted.  Today’s sentencing should leave no doubt that counterespionage investigations remain one of our most powerful tools to protect our national security.  I thank the many people who worked to bring these convictions to fruition.”

“Our laws are designed to prevent ‘Restricted Data’ from falling into the wrong hands because of the potential harm to our national security,” said U.S. Attorney Martinez.  “Those who work at our country’s national laboratories are charged with safeguarding that sensitive information, and we must and will vigorously prosecute anyone who compromises our nation’s nuclear secrets for profit.  I commend the many agents, analysts and prosecutors who worked tirelessly to bring about the convictions in this case.  I also thank the Los Alamos National Laboratory for cooperating fully in the investigation and prosecution of this case.”

“This case demonstrates the consequences that result when those charged with protecting our nation’s secrets violate the trust placed in them by the American people,” said Assistant Director Coleman.  “Safeguarding classified material is vital to the public interest, and the FBI will continue to hold accountable those who knowingly and willfully threaten the national security of the United States through the unauthorized disclosure of protected information.”

“America trusts those who work with our country's classified information to keep it away from those who would harm us.  Anyone who betrays that trust for his own gain puts our nation's security up for auction, and the price for us all could be very high indeed,” said Special Agent in Charge Lee.  “Since World War II, the FBI has worked tirelessly to protect U.S. nuclear weapons data, and we are proud of our investigation in this case.”

Mascheroni, a Ph.D. physicist, worked as a scientist at LANL from 1979 to 1988 and held a security clearance that allowed him access to certain classified information, including “Restricted Data.”  Roxby Mascheroni worked at LANL between 1981 and 2010, where her duties included technical writing and editing.  She also held a security clearance at LANL that allowed her access to certain classified information, including “Restricted Data.”  As defined under the Atomic Energy Act, “Restricted Data” is classified information concerning the design, manufacture or use of atomic weapons; the production of special nuclear material; or the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy.

Mascheroni and Roxby Mascheroni were indicted in September 2010 and charged with conspiracy to communicate and communicating Restricted Data to an individual with the intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation, as well as conspiracy to convey and conveying classified information.  The indictment also charged Mascheroni with concealing and retaining U.S. records with the intent to convert them to his own use and gain, and both defendants with making false statements.

Mascheroni pleaded guilty in June 2013, to counts seven and eight of the indictment, charging him with conversion of government property and retention of U.S. records, and counts 10 through 15, charging him with making false statements.  Mascheroni also pleaded guilty to a felony information charging him with two counts of communication of Restricted Data and one count of retention of national defense information.

In entering his guilty plea, Mascheroni admitted that in November 2008 and July 2009, he unlawfully communicated Restricted Data to another individual with reason to believe that the data would be utilized to secure an advantage to Venezuela.  He also admitted unlawfully converting Department of Energy information to his own use and selling the information in November 2008 and July 2009, and failing to deliver classified information relating to the United States’ national defense to appropriate authorities and instead unlawfully retaining the information in his home.  Finally, Mascheroni admitted making materially false statements to the FBI when he was interviewed in October 2009.

Roxby Mascheroni pleaded guilty in June 2014, to count six of the indictment, charging her with conspiracy, and counts 16 through 22, charging her with making false statements.  She also pleaded guilty to a felony information charging her with conspiracy to communicate Restricted Data.  Roxby Mascheroni admitted that between October 2007 and October 2009, she conspired with Mascheroni to convey Restricted Data belonging to the United States to another person with reason to believe that the information would be used to secure an advantage to Venezuela.  She also admitted making materially false statements to the FBI when she was interviewed in October 2009.

The indictment in this case did not allege that the government of Venezuela or anyone acting on its behalf sought or was passed any classified information, nor did it charge any Venezuelan government officials or anyone acting on their behalf with wrongdoing.  The indictment also did not allege any wrongdoing by other individuals working at LANL.

This investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Albuquerque Division with assistance from the Department of Energy and LANL.  The prosecution was handled by Senior Counsel Kathleen Kedian and Trial Attorney David Recker of the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Fred J. Federici, Dean Tuckman and Holland S. Kastrin of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON INTERNATIONAL ANTICORRUPTION DAY

FROM:  THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Welcomes International Anticorruption Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 9, 2014

On this day, International Anticorruption Day, the United States reiterates its commitment to working with its partners to combat the scourge of corruption. The moral and practical costs of corruption are no longer debatable. Corruption drives instability, popular protests, and revolutions. In some cases, these popular movements produce democratic reform, but in other cases they produce a power vacuum or an authoritarian backlash. Frustration with corruption can also drive insurgency movements and be exploited by terrorist groups to gain popular support. And the proceeds of corruption – which are often sheltered in banks or shell corporations in Western Europe and the United States – enable terrorist financing and sustain unaccountable regimes. Put simply, corruption endangers U.S. national security.

That is why the United States is using a variety of tools, including bilateral diplomacy, multilateral engagement, enforcement, and capacity building assistance, to advance our anticorruption agenda. Through initiatives such as the Ukraine and Arab Forums on Asset Recovery, we help build capacity to ensure motivated governments have the ability, and in some cases, the resources to effectively combat corruption.

Beyond providing technical assistance, we also work to generate the political will to respond to corruption by creating trade incentives for reform, celebrating good performers in venues like the Open Government Partnership, and supporting citizen organizations, journalists, and prosecutors holding public officials accountable. We will also continue to lead by example, including through U.S. enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, cooperation on asset recovery, use of our visa authorities, and our work to enhance open government domestically.

The broad subscription to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) by 174 governments, as well as wide adherence to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, create a shared road map for reform and reflect the firmly established principle that corruption is no longer permissible.

Today, we call on partners in government, civil society, and the private sector, to join us in fighting corruption. We also call on countries undergoing democratic transition to redouble their efforts to build governments that are accountable to citizens and respect the rule of law. Advanced economies, like the United States, should continue to guard against our financial systems becoming havens for the proceeds of corruption, and to ensure that our companies do not pay bribes overseas. And today, we renew our notice to kleptocrats around the world: continued theft from your communities will not be tolerated and the international community is committed to denying safe haven to you and your illicit assets.

SECRETARY HAGEL PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO HIS APPROACH TO NATIONAL SECURITY

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Hagel Offers Perspective on ‘Historic, Defining Times’

By Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jake Richmond

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today provided perspectives on his approach to national security issues during an interview at the Washington Ideas Forum here.

“I think we are living through one of these historic, defining times,” Hagel told James Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic. “I think we are seeing a new world order.”

Hagel said the multitude of issues confronting the nation “affects us now, [and] will continue to affect us into the future,” especially the conflicts involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“What we’re seeing in the Middle East with ISIL is going to require a steady, long-term effort,” Hagel said. “It’s going to require coalitions of common interests, which we are forming.”

The secretary also cited pandemic disease, relationships with China and Russia and climate change as major issues affecting national defense.

Emphasis on relationships

Navigating those issues, Hagel said, requires not only large-scale cooperation, but also a greater emphasis on individual, personal relationships.

“We all know that nations always respond in their own self interests. That’s predictable. That’s good,” he said. “But personal relationships are the lubricant. It doesn’t change a policy, but it makes it better.”

The secretary said his approach is heavily influenced by his experience as an enlisted veteran of the Vietnam War. Nothing else has made him more aware of being careful of unintended consequences and good intentions, he added.
“It’s made me cautious,” Hagel said. “[I] always think through the whole sequence of questions. What happens? Where’s this going? What’s the end result? And what could go wrong?”

And caution is good up to a point, he said, “but then you’ve got to make decisions.”

ASSISTANT AG CARLIN MAKES REMARKS AT U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CYBERSECURITY SUMMIT

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks by Assistant Attorney General John Carlin at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Third Annual Cybersecurity Summit

Washington, DCUnited States ~ Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Ann [Beauchesne], for your warm introduction and for inviting me to your annual Cybersecurity Summit.  We all benefit greatly from your leadership, especially in promoting the Chamber of Commerce’s role in national security.

In establishing an annual gathering focused on cybersecurity challenges, the Chamber of Commerce continues to demonstrate its commitment to keeping our nation secure, and to lowering barriers for American businesses to compete fairly in our global economy.  The fact that this is your third annual cybersecurity summit is a testament to the growing magnitude of these threats and your commitment to make cybersecurity central to your business plans.

This is an important issue, and one I know the Chamber has emphasized as part of its National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign, which kicked off in May.  In the campaign roundtable events leading up to today’s summit, the Chamber stressed the importance of cyber risk management and reporting cyber incidents to law enforcement.  I couldn’t agree with these two recommendations more.  Today’s event is our opportunity to discuss how we can take these steps and others to best protect ourselves and our nation.

Cybersecurity threats affect us all – and they affect our privacy, our safety, and our economic vitality.  They present collective risk; disrupting them is our collective responsibility. The attackers we face range in sophistication.  And when it comes to nation states and terrorists, it is not fair to let the private sector face these threats alone.  The government ought to help, and we do.

At the National Security Division, we focus on tackling cyber threats to the national security – in other words, those posed by terrorists and state-sponsored actors.  As I will talk about a bit later, we have restructured our division to focus on bringing all tools to bear against these threats.      

Likewise, Chamber members have a particularly important role to play in our strategy.

You are living through these consequences with alarming frequency: according to Brookings, 97 percent of Fortune 500 companies have been hacked.  PwC released a report this week finding that the number of detected cyberattacks in 2014 increased 48 percent over 2013.  As FBI Director James Comey said, “there are two kinds of big companies in America: those who have been hacked . . . and those who don't know they've been hacked.”

We are on notice.  We are all targets.  I would venture to say everyone in this room has, in their professional or private life, been affected by a cybersecurity breach.  At best – a minor inconvenience.  A re-issued credit card.  At worst – devastation to your company’s reputation, loss of customer trust, and injury to your bottom line.

Without taking proper steps – it is a question of when, not if, a major public breach will happen to you.  And with that will come questions about whether you did enough to protect your company, your customers, and your information.

Have you thought ahead to the day when you will have to face your customers, your employees, your board, and your shareholders.  When you will have to notify them that someone has infiltrated your company and stolen your most valuable or private information?  If that day was today, could you tell them that you’ve done everything in your power to protect your company’s future?  Had you warned them of the risks?  Would you be able to say that you minimized the damage?

Do you have a plan?

It’s a pretty daunting scenario.  So it is no surprise that surveys of general counsels identify cybersecurity as the number one issue on their minds today.  But surveys show that over a quarter of Fortune 500 companies still don’t have an established response to cyber intrusions.

This is risky business.  We know that we will never achieve impenetrable defenses.  That we will remain vulnerable.  But you can take steps to mitigate the risk, protect yourselves and your companies, and ultimately, the cybersecurity of the United States.

We have identified four essential components of corporate cyber risk management.

First – equip and educate yourself.  Make sure you have a comprehensive—and comprehensible— cyber incident response plan.

And review it.  I have spoken with many CEOs and general counsels who have said they have not reviewed, or cannot decipher, their company’s plan.  We must do better.  These are C-suite decisions.  You cannot manage your corporate risk if you do not understand it.

Make sure it addresses the “who,” the “what,” and the “when.”

Who is involved and who needs to be notified?

What will you disclose?

When will you notify clients, law enforcement, and the general public?

Second – know that your business contacts create risk.  Malicious actors can exploit your outside vendors—no matter how resilient you think your defenses may be.  Consider guidelines to govern third-party access to your network and ensure that your contracts require vendors to adopt appropriate cybersecurity practices.

Third – protect your bottom line.  Companies are increasingly considering cyber insurance, and you should consider how this may fit into your risk management strategy.  Cyber insurance may offer financial protection, and may also incentivize companies to audit their system’s defenses.

Finally – do not go it alone.  Some of our attackers are linked to deep state military budgets.  And when they are, it’s not a fair fight for you to take on alone. We must work together.

So working with us can be one more component of your risk-management strategy.  As more breaches are publicly acknowledged, the public will ask how quickly and effectively you responded.

As leaders, you will have to answer to your shareholders, board members, customers, the media and the public.  You will want to say you did everything you could to mitigate your financial loss.  Your company’s bottom line, and your financial reputation, will depend on it.  And we can help.  We can provide you with information to protect your networks, and we may be able to take actions to disrupt and deter the attackers that you cannot take by yourself.  So you are on the front lines of these battles, but we are with you.  We are committed to working with you to protect your networks, identify perpetrators, disrupt their efforts, and hold them accountable.  At the Department of Justice, this is among our top priorities.

At the National Security Division, we recently appointed new senior leadership to strengthen our capacity to protect national assets from cyberattacks and economic espionage. We created and trained the nation-wide National Security Cyber Specialists’ – or NSCS – Network to focus on combating cyber threats to the national security.

At DOJ, we follow the facts and evidence where they lead – whether to a disgruntled employee or lone hacker working in obscurity; to an organized crime syndicate in Russia; or even to a uniformed member of the Chinese military.

And indictments and prosecutions are a public and powerful way in which we the people, governed by the rule of law, legitimize and prove our allegations.  As Attorney General Holder said in May, “enough is enough.”  We are aware of no nation that publicly states that theft of information for commercial gain is acceptable.  And that’s because it’s not.  Nevertheless, in the shadows of their flags, some may encourage and support corporate theft for the profit of state-owned enterprises.  We will continue to denounce these actions, including by bringing criminal charges.  And we won’t stop until the crimes stop.  A core part of the government’s response must be disruption and deterrence, in order to raise the costs to people who commit these thefts and to deter others from emulating their actions.

Of course, we recognize that the criminal justice system is just one tool in our toolbox.  In addition to prosecutions, we are working in conjunction with key government partners to explore how to apply designations, sanctions, trade pressure, and other options, to confront new cyber challenges.

These changes will help us fulfill our collective responsibility.  And they will help us work with you.

Which is important because we rely on cooperation from the private sector to bring many of these cases, from identifying the malware and its functions, to pinpointing the location of servers commanding botnets, to assisting victims in removing the malicious software from their computers.

Take as one example the take-down of Gameover Zeus and disruption of the Cryptolocker ransomware – a big success for our colleagues in the Criminal Division’s Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section and the Western District of Pennsylvania.  This take-down would not have been possible without close cooperation.  The FBI’s Robert Anderson called it the “the largest fusion of law enforcement and industry partner cooperation ever undertaken in support of an FBI cyber operation.”

We recognize that one of the best ways to protect the nation is to support you in your own efforts.  In 2013, federal agents informed over 3,000 companies that their computer systems were hacked.  And every day, the FBI works with companies targeted by malicious activity, ranging from low-tech denial of service attacks to sophisticated intrusions by elite, state-supported military hacking units.

But, we’re not limited to helping you solely in the aftermath of an intrusion.

Nor do we see our role as only a collector of information.

We also share sensitive information with you so you can defend against attacks in real time, and engage in disruption efforts.  In the past year alone, the FBI presented over three dozen classified, sector-specific threat briefings to companies like yours.

The information we share with you may enhance your ability to deter future intrusions.  And your engagement with law enforcement can help us connect the dots between your breach and a broader threat.

We may be able to help identify what was stolen from you, locate the perpetrator of the attack, and in certain cases, be able to disrupt planned attacks or mitigate the effects of past intrusions.

Given the importance of this cooperation, the Department of Justice is committed to lowering the barriers to sharing information.  Through extensive one-on-one meetings with in-house legal teams, we learned what you perceive to be the legal hurdles to cooperation, and are addressing them.  

We’ve clarified that certain laws - such as the Stored Communications Act and antitrust statutes – are not impediments to sharing information with the government in certain situations.

We understand that trust is an essential predicate to voluntary reporting.  And in our work with you, we strive to protect your sensitive data – including trade secrets, details of network architecture, and PII.

Bottom line, we can help you manage your risk, and you can help us keep our nation safe.

The 9/11 Commission recently concluded that “we are at September 10th levels in terms of cyber preparedness,” and warned that “history may be repeating itself in the cyber realm.”  We must band together to keep that from happening.

At the department, we want to arm ourselves for the threats of today, but prepare ourselves for those that are just over the horizon.

Think about the tools that cyber criminals use – intrusion software, ransomware, and botnets.  When used by cyber criminals, these tools are generally used for financial gain.  But these tools can also be used to disrupt and destroy.  Terrorists have stated they want to exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities to harm our way of life.  Al Qaeda announced its intent to conduct cyberattacks against civilian targets such as the electric grid and financial system.

The Department of Homeland Security recently confirmed it is investigating two dozen cybersecurity flaws in medical devices and hospital equipment that could be exploited to injure or kill a patient with a few strokes on a keyboard.  The threats are real.

We must acknowledge that terrorists want to acquire these cyber capabilities and, if they succeed, will not hesitate to deploy them.  It is a race against time, and one with high-stakes consequences.

At the department, we are also looking at the gaps that may exist in our authorities.  Many of our laws – long on the books – were not written with cyberspace in mind.  They don’t necessarily contemplate remote access or extraterritorial crimes, they don’t facilitate multi-jurisdictional investigation, and they don’t always empower us to bring our authorities to bear swiftly and effectively.  But we are committed to working with the relevant law- and rule-makers who support modernizing these laws.  New cyber legislation, in several different areas, is needed.

I want to conclude my remarks by discussing the changing perceptions of being hacked.  Among consumers and industry, there is a growing understanding that companies are going to get breached.  But that doesn’t mean you should turn the other way.  There is an enormous downside to taking an “ostrich approach” to cyber threats.  Consumers expect that companies will adopt industry standards for cybersecurity.  And when intrusions happen, consumers expect companies to respond promptly, acknowledge the intrusion publicly, and cooperate with law enforcement to mitigate the damage.

The Chamber of Commerce and its members are uniquely positioned to drive corporate change; to ensure that your companies and your partners treat cyber breaches as more than mere technical problems; to recognize that security operations are not insulated from business operations; and to discuss with your boards, your employees, and your industries the importance of cybersecurity risk management.

As we face ever more threats in cyberspace, let’s incorporate public-private cooperation into our cyber tool kit.  The threats aren’t letting up, and neither will we.  Thank you very much for inviting me.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON OUTER SPACE SECURITY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Ensuring the Long-Term Sustainability and Security of the Space Environment

Remarks

Frank A. Rose

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

U.S. Strategic Command Deterrence Symposium

Omaha, Nebraska

August 13, 2014

---

Introduction
Good afternoon. Thank you for your kind introduction, General. I would also like to thank Admiral Haney and his staff for hosting this conference and inviting me to speak today. The topic of this panel speaks to a vital interest of the United States, as well as the entire global community: ensuring the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security of the space environment.
This audience is not one that needs to be convinced of the importance of the space environment to our national security. We all know very well that space assets are integral to our national security, as well as that of our allies and coalition partners. While many in the international community understand both the benefits that our space activities bring to our economies and society, and the increasing fragility of the environment due to orbital debris and counterspace threats, our efforts to educate the international community must continue, and must emphasize the importance of supporting initiatives for encouraging responsible behavior that will mitigate these threats.

In my remarks today, I would like to cover three aspects of our work at the Department of State on ensuring the sustainability of the space environment: first, the threat to outer space systems from debris generating Anti Satellite or ASAT tests; second, the importance of continued access to outer space to the international community; and third, the role of international efforts in maintaining the long-term sustainability and security of the space environment.

Threats to Outer Space

When I heard the topic of this panel months ago, I was very glad to speak to the challenges of establishing standards of behavior in outer space. However, in the last month, the topic of this panel became even more important. On July 23, the Chinese Government conducted a non-destructive test of a missile designed to destroy satellites in low Earth orbit. Despite China’s claims that this was not an ASAT test; let me assure you the United States has high confidence in its assessment, that the event was indeed an ASAT test.

And China is not the only one pursuing these capabilities. As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper noted in his February 2014 congressional testimony, "Russian leaders openly maintain that the Russian armed forces have antisatellite weapons and conduct antisatellite research."

The United States believes that these activities, which include the continued development and testing of destructive anti-satellite systems, are both destabilizing and threaten the long-term security and sustainability of the outer space environment. A previous destructive test of the Chinese system in 2007 created thousands of pieces of debris, which continue to present an ongoing danger to the space systems—as well as astronauts—of all nations, including China.
Debris-generating ASAT weapons present a host of threats to the space environment that threaten all who benefit from outer space: the civil, commercial, military and scientific space endeavors of all nations. On the security side, ASAT weapons directly threaten individual satellites and the strategic and tactical information they provide, and their use could be escalatory in a crisis. They also present a threat to key assets used in arms control monitoring, command and control and attack warning. The destructive nature of debris-generating weapons has decades-long consequences as well: they can increase the potential for further collisions in the future, which only create more debris. A debris forming test or attack may only be minutes in duration, but the consequences can last decades threatening all space systems. It is for these reasons that the United States believes testing debris-generating ASAT systems threaten the security, economic well-being, and civil endeavors of all nations.

Importance of the Space Environment

Since the dawn of the space age, the global community has been inspired by humanity's space endeavors and reaped the benefits of the use and exploration, of outer space. Many may take these benefits for granted so we must ask ourselves: "What will the consequences be if the space environment were to become unusable?"

The use and exploration of space and the information we derive from these activities permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives. We are safer, healthier, and more knowledgeable—not to mention more connected—due to humanity’s creativity, ingenuity, and willingness to transcend the difficulties mankind faces in harnessing outer space. All nations and peoples have seen a radical transformation in the way we live our daily lives and in our understanding of our planet and the universe. Today there are more than sixty nations and many nongovernmental entities that are space-faring; furthermore, nearly all nations benefit from space capabilities.

But space, a domain that no nation owns but on which all rely, is becoming increasingly congestedfrom orbital debris, and contested from man-made threats—such as debris-generating ASAT systems—that may disrupt the space environment, upon which we all depend. The world’s growing dependence on the globe-spanning and interconnected nature of space capabilities mean that irresponsible acts in space by one entity can have damaging consequences for all. Therefore, it is essential that all nations work together to adopt approaches for responsible activity in space —such as ceasing developing and testing destructive ASAT systems—in order to preserve this domain for future generations.
So, what do we do to ensure the long-term sustainability of the space environment?

Multilateral Efforts toward a Stable and Sustainable Space Environment

Given the current era where dozens of States and nongovernmental organizations are harnessing the benefits of outer space, we have no choice but to work with our allies and partners around the world to ensure the long-term sustainability of the space environment. We also must speak clearly and publicly about what behavior the international community should find both acceptable and unacceptable. Over the past few years, the United States has worked to support a number of multilateral initiatives that seek to establish “rules of the road” for space that are both in the national security interests of the United States, and will further the long-term stability and sustainability of the space environment.

Just last year, I served as the United States expert on a United Nations-sponsored Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) study of outer space transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs). The GGE report which was published in July of last year and was agreed to by China and Russia, endorsed voluntary, non-legally binding TCBMs to strengthen stability in space. The GGE recommended that States implement measures to promote coordination to enhance safety and predictability in the uses of outer space. The GGE also endorsed “efforts to pursue political commitments, for example, a multilateral code of conduct, to encourage responsible actions in, and the peaceful use of, outer space.”

This International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities is another important multilateral initiative. Among the Code’s commitments for signatories is to refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects and to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the creation of space debris, in particular, the creation of long-lived space debris. The Code could also help solidify safe operational practices, reduce the chance of collisions or other harmful interference with nations’ activities, reduce the rate of growth of debris, contribute to our awareness of the space environment through notifications, and strengthen stability in space by helping establish norms for responsible behavior in space.
Lastly, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) is also doing important work to move forward in the development of new international long-term sustainability guidelines.

These multilateral diplomatic initiatives contribute greatly to defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviors in space and therefore are key components of the United States deterrence strategy. In addition, if we are serious about maintaining the space environment for future generations, we must support such measures that promote positive activities in space and further the creation of norms which dissuade countries from taking destabilizing actions such as the testing of debris-generating ASAT systems. By working with the international community, we can, and must, advance the long-term sustainability and security of the outer space environment for all nations.

With that, I would like to thank you for your time and stop there in order to leave time for questions.

300 MILITARY ADVISERS HEAD TO IRAQ

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Obama Announces Military Advisers Heading to Iraq

By Nick Simeone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 19, 2014 – President Barack Obama today announced plans to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq to help the government in Baghdad combat a rapid advance by Sunni-led insurgents who have taken over towns and cities and routed Iraqi troops in the north and west of the country, a situation which the president said threatens to plunge Iraq into civil war.

“American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people in the region and American interests as well,” Obama said during an appearance in the White House press room, saying the U.S. forces will help train, advise and support Iraqi security forces.

The president spoke after another in what have been a series of meetings with his national security team to review options on how to respond to Iraq’s request for military assistance in putting down rapid gains made by insurgents led by Syrian-based fighters known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS, whose advance on Baghdad has threatened reprisals from Iraq’s Shiite majority and a return of full blown sectarian conflict.

“We will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it,” Obama said.
Yesterday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Gen. Martin E. Demspey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress further intelligence would be needed about the situation on the ground along with clear objectives in order for possible airstrikes or other military intervention to be effective.

Obama said joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq will be stood up to better share intelligence and coordinate planning with the Iraqis as they confront the terrorist threat posed by ISIS. These steps are in addition to surveillance flights the United States is already conducting along with the positioning of increased U.S. military assets in the region.

Obama again called on Iraq’s political leaders including Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to rise above sectarian differences and develop a broad-based political plan for ending a crisis that he said cannot be resolved through military means.

“It’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders,” Obama said. “It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.”

To that end, Obama said the United States will launch a diplomatic initiative to work with Iraq’s leaders and countries in the region and dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to Europe and the Middle East for talks with allies and partners.
During an exchange with reporters, Obama said his administration has told Maliki there “has to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia, and Kurds all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interest through the political process,” and that “as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.”
Obama said the rapid collapse of two divisions of the Iraqi military and the threat of sectarian conflict “have reminded us of the deep scars left by America’s war in Iraq” and the sacrifice made by nearly 4,500 Americans, as well as “the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action.”

But in announcing his decision to send military advisers to Iraq, the president said it is in the U.S. national security interests not to see “an all-out civil war inside Iraq.”

In addition, a senior U.S official said the terrorist group ISIS -- an outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq -- if not confronted, would attempt to create a caliphate and expand its influence across a huge swath of territory spanning the Iraq-Syria border, creating a safe haven for extremists groups that could eventually target the United States.

DARPA SEEKS TECHNOLOGY THAT CHANGES OUTCOMES

Above:  The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is seeking to develop the next generation of search technologies to revolutionize the discovery, organization and presentation of search results. The Memex program ultimately would apply to any public-domain content. Initially, DARPA plans to develop Memex to address a key Defense Department mission: fighting human trafficking. An index curated for the countertrafficking domain, along with configurable interfaces for search and analysis, would enable new opportunities to uncover and defeat trafficking enterprises, officials explained. DARPA photo.

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT  

DARPA Sows Seeds of Technological Surprise, Director Says

By Cheryl Pellerin

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 30, 2014 – Many of the advances that contribute to national security resulted from early investment in developing new technologies, the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency told Congress yesterday.

Dr. Arati Prabhakar represented the Defense Department at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing called to address concern that the national investment in research and development had shrunk since 2001, along with the education pipeline for young scientists and engineers.

The directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Energy Department also testified at the hearing.

“DARPA is part of Defense Department science and technology investments,” Prabhakar said. “We're also part of this much larger national ecosystem for R&D. But within those communities, we have one very specific role: to make the pivotal early investments that change what's possible so we can take big steps forward in our national security capabilities.”

DARPA’s output is technology, but the organization counts its mission complete only when the technologies change outcomes, she added.

“Every time a stealth fighter evades an air defense system, every time a soldier on the ground is able to place himself precisely with GPS and get the data he needs, every time a radar on an aircraft carrier allows us to see a threat to a carrier strike group before it sees us -- that's when we count our mission complete,” Prabhakar said.

In every case, DARPA made a pivotal early investment that showed the technologies were possible, and what followed from that, Prabhakar said, was equally important.

“That was the investment, often by our partners in other parts of the Defense Department and the military services -- their science and technology investments, their development investments or their acquisition programs,” the director said. “Of course,” she added, “many in industry were involved deeply in those efforts, and ultimately to make those technologies into real capabilities for our warfighters.”

Along the way, as DARPA focused on its mission of investments for national security, the organization’s scientists and engineers planted some of the seeds that formed the technology base that the U.S. commercial sector has built layer on layer above the foundation, Prabhakar said.

“Every time you pick up your cell phone and do something as mundane and miraculous as check a social networking site, you're living on top of a set of technologies that trace back to that early work we did,” she added. “Public investment laid that foundation. Billions of dollars of private investment and enormous entrepreneurship is what built those industries and ended up changing how we live and work with these technologies.”

DARPA’s mission of creating breakthrough technologies for national security is unchanged across more than five decades, she told the panel, but the world in which DARPA invests and pursues its mission continues to change, and so do the things DARPA does that reflect the national security and technology context in which the organization must operate today.

“In one arena, we see information at massive scale affecting every aspect of national security,” the director said. “So if you look in our portfolio today, you will find game-changing investments in cyber and in big-data programs.” One example is work DARPA is doing to tackle the networks that drive human trafficking around the world, she added.

In another arena, Prabhakar said, DARPA is looking at what's happening with the cost and complexity of military systems today.

“We recognize that [such systems] are becoming too costly and too inflexible to be effective for the next generation of threats we will face around the world,” Prabhakar explained, “so at DARPA we are investing in programs that are fundamentally rethinking complex military systems.”

DARPA is investing in technology its experts believe will lead to powerful new approaches for radar, communications, weapons and navigation, she said.
“And in a range of research areas, we can see the new seeds of technological surprise,” Prabhakar said. “One example is where biology is intersecting with engineering today, and in areas like that, we are making investments that will lead to new technologies like synthetic biology and neurotechnology.”
Another expert who testified before the committee, National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis S. Collins, mentioned a breakthrough neuroscience project that Stanford University is working on with funding from NIH and DARPA and the National Science Foundation.

“Traditionally, researchers have studied the postmortem brain by cutting a specimen into slim slices. While all that slicing generates neat, two-dimensional images, it also makes it impossible to reconstruct the connections of the brain's tens of billions of neurons,” Collins said. “What if we could study the details of the wiring and the location of specific proteins in transparent 3-D?

“Using a chemical cocktail,” he continued, “researchers at Stanford University -- supported by NIH, NSF and DARPA -- have figured out a way to do just that. They've dubbed their technique ‘Clarity,’ and in an extraordinary technical feat, the team made possible a 3-D tour of an intact mouse brain illuminated by a green dye that marks the neurons.”

Clarity is now being applied to human brains, he added, and undoubtedly will advance the BRAIN Initiative, a research effort unveiled by President Barack Obama and Collins in April 2013. In his State of the Union message last year, the president addressed research and development and its value to the nation.
“If we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas,” Obama said. “Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy -- every dollar. Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s. They’re developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs, devising new material to make batteries 10 times more powerful.
“Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation,” Obama added. “Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race.”

During her testimony yesterday, Prabhakar also discussed the nature of the world today and its relation to research and development.

“In many ways we are living in very challenging times,” she said. “Technology is getting more and more complex, [and] it's moving at a very rapid pace. Other nations are jockeying for position in global affairs, and many of them … are making their own aggressive moves to build their own science and technology capabilities.”

Meanwhile, here at home, she added, many are dealing with constrained resources, and many agencies are dealing with the corrosive effects of sequestration.

“But when I step back and look at what we have done over many decades in this country, I would observe that we have had a long and very successful commitment to investing in R&D as a nation,” the director told the panel. “And when we make that investment in R&D, we are investing in two things that are deeply American.”
One is the kind of creativity sparked by the open society that is the hallmark of the United States, she said, and in this case the nation is investing in the creativity of its scientists and engineers.

“The second thing is this drive to create a better future,” Prabhakar added. “And in a sense, this is the most productive kind of restlessness you could possibly imagine.”

DEFENSE SECRETARY, CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS TESTIFY ON BUDGET BEFORE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel: Severe Budget Cuts Will Compromise National Security
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Mar. 5, 2014 – Congressional failure to fund the Defense Department above levels required by sequestration in fiscal years 2015, 2016 and beyond will compromise national security, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said here today.

The secretary testified with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the president’s fiscal year 2015 budget request.

The abrupt and severe budget cuts known as sequestration would result in “a military that could not fulfill its defense strategy, putting at risk America’s traditional role as guarantor of global security and, ultimately, our own security,” Hagel told the panel.

The president’s defense budget is responsible, balanced and realistic, he said, supporting the U.S. defense strategy, defending the nation and keeping Defense Department’s compensation and training commitments to its people.

“These commitments will be seriously jeopardized by a return to sequestration-level spending,” the secretary said. “That is not the military the president and I want for America’s future. I don’t think that’s the military this committee wants for America’s future, but it’s the path we’re on.”

Hagel called the defense budget far more than a set of numbers or a list of decisions.

“It is a statement of values and priorities,” the secretary said. “It is a budget grounded in reality … that prepares the U.S. military to defend our national security in a world that is becoming less predictable, more volatile and, in some ways, more threatening to our country and our interests.”

The department’s fiscal 2015 base budget request is about $496 billion and includes an extra $26 billion, a proposal called the president’s Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative that DOD would use next year to improve readiness and modernization.

“That $26 billion represents an effort that would help dig us back out of the hole that we have been in for the last two years on readiness, and particularly focused on modernization,” Hagel said.

And the president’s five-year plan offers what the secretary called a realistic alternative to sequestration, projecting $115 billion more than the current law allows.

DOD requires the added funding to implement its updated defense strategy as outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, a study by the department undertaken every four years that analyzes strategic objectives and potential military threats.

“The strategic priorities articulated in the QDR represent America’s highest security interests -- defending the homeland, building security globally, deterring aggression and being ready and capable to win decisively against the adversary,” Hagel said.

In December, the Bipartisan Budget Act passed by Congress gave the department temporary relief from sequestration and a year of budget certainty, Hagel said, but it still imposes more than $75 billion in cuts over the next two years. Unless Congress changes the law, sequestration will cut another $50 billion from the budget beginning in fiscal 2016.

“Even though we are requesting spending levels above sequestration, we have maintained flexibility in our budget to respond immediately to the lower topline should sequestration be reimposed,” the secretary said, noting that this was done by reprogramming some of the sequestration-level force-structure reductions that take longer to plan and implement, such as the decommissioning of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington.

Hagel also issued formal guidance to the service leadership that these reductions will not be made if Congress indicates it will make future appropriations at topline levels in the five-year plan.

Addressing for the panel critical issues in the budget request, Hagel said that to meet national security needs under a constrained budget the department focused on the balance among readiness, capability and capacity.

“After more than a decade of large stability operations, we traded some capacity to protect the readiness and modernization capabilities as we shift the focus on future requirements. These are shaped by enduring and emerging threats. We have to be able to defeat terrorist threats and deter adversaries with increasingly modern weapons and technological capabilities,” he said.

“We must also assure that America’s economic interests are protected through open sea lanes, freedom of the skies and space, and deal with one of the most urgent and real threats facing all nations – cyberattacks,” the secretary added. “That’s why we protected funding for cyber and special operations forces.”
For the active-duty Army, the department proposed drawing down to 440,000 or 450,000 soldiers, less than 10 percent below its size before the attacks of 9/11. And the department will continue investing in high-end ground capabilities to keep its soldiers the most advanced on earth, Hagel said.

Army National Guard and Army Reserve units will draw down by 5 percent, and the Army’s helicopter force structure will be reduced by 8 percent. The active Army’s helicopter fleet will be cut by 25 percent while keeping the aircraft modernized as the fleet moves from seven models to four.

The decisions, including the department’s recommendation to trade out Apaches in the Army National Guard for Black Hawks were driven by strategic evaluations, Hagel added.

The Navy will take 11 ships out of its operational inventory, and these will be modernized and returned to service with greater capability and longer lifespans, he said.

The Marine Corps will continue its planned drawdown to 182,000, but will devote 900 more Marines to increased embassy security. Hagel said the Marine Corps will remain ready and postured for crisis response as it moves back to its expeditionary, amphibious roots.

The Air Force will retire the A-10, replacing it with more modern sophisticated multi-mission aircraft such as the joint strike fighter, he said.
On compensation reform, Hagel said, under a restricted budget the department needs modest adjustments to the growth in pay and benefits, and the savings will be reinvested in training and equipping the troops. There are no proposals to change military retirement in this budget, he added.

The department will continue to recommend pay increases, the secretary said, but they won’t be as substantial as in past years. The Defense Department will continue subsidizing off-base housing costs, he added, but at 95 percent rather than 100 percent, and the decrease will be phased in over the next several years.
The department will not close commissaries, Hagel said, but it recommends gradually phasing out some subsidies for domestic commissaries that are not in remote locations. And the department recommends simplifying and modernizing its three TRICARE health care plan systems. It will do this by merging them into one system, with modest increases in copays and deductibles that encourage using the most affordable means of care.

“Active duty personnel will still receive health care that is entirely free,” the secretary said. “This will be more effective and more efficient and will let us focus more on quality. Overall, everyone’s benefits will remain substantial, affordable and generous, as they should be.”

The fiscal 2015 proposed defense budget will allow the military to meet America’s future challenges and threats, he said, and it matches resources to strategy.

“As we end our second war of the last decade, our longest ever, this budget adapts and adjusts to new strategic realities and fiscal constraints while preparing for the future,” Hagel told the panel.

“This is not a business-as usual-presentation,” he added. “It is a budget that begins to make the hard choices that will have to be made. The longer we defer these difficult decisions, the more risk we will have down the road, and the next DOD leaders and Congress will have to face more complicated and difficult choices.”

PRESS GAGGLE EN ROUTE TO TOLUCA, MEXICO

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Press Gaggle en route Toluca, Mexico
PRESS GAGGLE BY
PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS BEN RHODES

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Toluca, Mexico

9:50 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good morning.  Thank you for joining us on our early start this morning.  We are making our way to Mexico for the North American Leaders Summit.  And I have with me today Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who can assist on questions you may have about national security and foreign affairs.

Let me just start by saying, as I think you know, later on this flight, the President will sign an executive order on streamlining the export-import process for America’s businesses. In his State of the Union address, President Obama set an ambitious agenda to make 2014 a “Year of Action,” using his pen and his phone to take steps to expand opportunity for America’s middle class, including helping small, American businesses compete in a global economy.

Today, as I said, aboard Air Force One, the President will sign a new executive order on streamlining the export-import process for America’s businesses, specifically the executive order that cuts processing and approval times from days to minutes for small businesses that export American-made goods and services by completing the International Trade Data System by December 2016.  

Today, businesses must submit information to dozens of government agencies, often on paper forms -- sometimes waiting on process for days to move goods across the border.  The ITDS will allow businesses to electronically transmit through a single window the data required by the U.S. government to import or export cargo.  This new electronic system will speed up the shipment of American-made goods overseas, eliminate often duplicative and burdensome paperwork, and make our government more efficient.

I have no other announcements to make, so if you have questions on domestic matters, why don't you fire away?  And then we'll turn it over to Ben.

Q    Ben, can you talk about -- (laughter.)  Sorry, Jay, I’ll get back to you.  Can you comment on the U.S. response to what’s going on in Ukraine, the violence there?  Have there been conversations with both President Putin and with Ukrainian leadership?

MR. RHODES:  Well, I think the scenes that we saw in Kyiv yesterday were completely outrageous and have no place in the 21st century.  The fact of the matter is we have made it very clear to the Ukrainian government that it is their responsibility to allow for peaceful protest.  We consistently oppose any use of violence by all sides, but the responsibility is on the government to pull back its riot police, to call a truce and to engage in a meaningful discussion with the opposition about the way forward.

Clearly, the people of Ukraine feel that their legitimate aspirations are not being met in the current political context, and it's incumbent on the Ukrainian government to reach out to the opposition and to find a way forward that can unify the country.

We have also made clear that Ukraine has a future that is a part of the Atlantic community, that Ukraine’s orientation towards Europe and the Transatlantic community is an important priority of U.S. foreign policy; that it is not a zero-sum game with Russia.  We understand that Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia, has historic ties to Russia, but that that need not preclude Ukraine from, again, continuing to pursue a European path as well.

So Vice President Biden communicated our position to President Yanukovych yesterday.  I know that Secretary Kerry, Victoria Nuland are working this with their counterparts, particularly as the EU prepares for a meeting.  The only additional thing I'd say is that we continue to watch events very closely, including who we believe is responsible for violence, and we've made clear that we would consider taking action against individuals who are responsible for acts of violence within Ukraine.  And we have a tool kit for doing that that includes sanctions.

Q    Can you say whether the United States would consider following the European Union’s lead if they impose sanctions against the Ukraine as an institution?

MR. RHODES:  Well, I think as a general matter we aim to be coordinated with the European Union and we have generally had a common position and spoken with a similar voice on issues related to Ukraine because we both have an interest in seeing an end to the violence and seeing the unity of Ukraine upheld and seeing Ukraine on a European orientation.  So I think we are in consultation with the European Union on the questions like which individuals should be held responsible for the violence, and in consideration of issues like imposing sanctions related to the ongoing violence.

Q    You guys have been talking about sanctions now for a while.  What would it actually take to pull the trigger?

MR. RHODES:  Well, I think the events that we saw yesterday are certainly heightening our focus on this issue and I think we'll be reviewing this, as we have been, on a near daily basis. And we also will be talking to the Europeans as they have their meeting of the EU foreign ministers, and we'll make a determination both on our own and, again, in consultation with the European Union about the next steps.

Q    Is that near-term thing, though?  I mean, would there be a determination like this within days, weeks?

MR. RHODES:  Well, obviously, the situation is very fluid, so I don’t want to put a timeline on it or get ahead of any particular announcement.  I will say that events like what we saw yesterday are clearly going to impact our decision-making.  On the other hand, if the government takes the appropriate steps of pulling back riot police, of respecting the right of peaceful protest, releasing prisoners and pursuing serious dialogue with the opposition about how to pursue a more unified government and way forward, that would obviously factor into our calculus as well.

But, clearly, the United States and the European Union believe that the events of yesterday were unacceptable.  And I think that’s why you see renewed diplomatic activity this week.

Q    To what extent does Russia have a role in either reducing the violence or creating additional disturbances?

MR. RHODES:  Well, I think the message that we delivered to the Russians is that, again, we are not in some competition for the future of Ukraine.  Frankly, our interest is that the people of Ukraine are able to determine their future, not any external actor.  Clearly, we believe that a significant number of Ukrainians believe very deeply in the importance of Ukraine pursuing a European orientation, even as they maintain relations with Russia as a neighbor.

And so the role we would like to see Russia play is of constructive support for reducing these tensions and allowing the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, and that we don’t think that there should be, again, a situation where Russia is viewing this as some competition with the European Union or the United States; rather, we all have an interest in a Ukraine that is stable.  And, clearly, the status quo is not a recipe for stability, because too many Ukrainians are feeling like their own aspirations are not being met in this government and in this plan that turns away from Europe.  So that’s the message we delivered to the Ukrainian government and the Russian government as well.

Q    So far, Vice President Biden has been your main interlocutor on this.  Is there a point at which the President gets to follow up directly?

MR. RHODES:  Yes, I would expect the President -- he’s been involved in the sense that he’s followed the situation very closely.  He’s discussed it with counterparts in the past; with President Hollande this was a subject of discussion.  And I’d expect the President to be involved in the days to come as well.

Again, he has pressed us to make sure we’re doing everything we can to try to reduce tensions and to try to stabilize the situation and support the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people for a more unified government and a government that has the ability to pursue a European orientation as well as good relations with Russia.

So I’d expect him to be involved.  I’d expect it to come up today, frankly.  It’s a pressing global issue and I’m sure he’ll be discussing this with President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Harper.

Q    Is he watching any of the television footage from Kyiv or anything?

MR. RHODES:  I don’t know if he’s -- we’d have to ask him that.  I’m not aware that he’s seen particular footage, but he has been getting very regular updates on the situation in Ukraine.

Q    Do you expect the President to say anything publicly today or for it to be more in the meetings with the other leaders?

MR. RHODES:  I mean, obviously, it’s not the focus of these meetings.  The focus of these meetings is our North American partnership, trade and commerce, and increasing economic competitiveness in the North American region, security issues.

However, it being a significant global issue, I’d anticipate that he will have some public comment on it, as well as comment with the other leaders.

Q    Jay, can you talk about the executive order a little bit?  This system has been in the works for a while.  Why was an executive order necessary?

MR. CARNEY:  Because the President has the authority through an executive order to streamline the process on behalf of American businesses, in particular small businesses.  And, as you know, while he has taken an approach since he took office that includes not just acting legislatively, but using his executive authority where he can on behalf of the American people, he has tasked his team with finding opportunities for him to use that authority in a way that benefits the American economy and the American people.  This is an example of that.

Q    Jay, you said numerous times in recent days that it's no surprise that Democrats as well as Republicans have their problems with trade-expanding agreements.  But the enthusiasm among Democrats seems particularly slight this time around compared to last -- past rounds of big trade deals.  What can the President say to reassure Peña Nieto and Harper that there’s any hope whatsoever for accomplishing trade deals this year?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as you know, Mark, the President has made clear that expanding American exports and trade, especially in the Pacific region, is a priority.  And the reason for that is that there’s enormous growth and opportunity in that region, and absent an agreement that allows for expansion we would cede that territory to our competitors, which would be detrimental to our economy, to our middle class.  He is pursuing an agreement, the TPP, that explicitly protects American workers and the environment, and that he believes would be highly beneficial to our economy and the middle class.  So it’s a conversation he has and others have with lawmakers of both parties.

I think it’s worth noting that this is an issue around which there is not a uniform point of view in either party.  And the President has long understood that.  And I think it is worth noting that this is nothing new, especially for those of us who have been around Washington for more than 20 years.

But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a reason to make it a priority.  The President believes it's a priority and he’ll continue to have those conversations.  And I’m sure he'll make his views known in his conversations with the other two leaders today.

MR. RHODES:  One thing to add is that this has been an ongoing negotiation for several years, so there’s been a very sustained effort over a period of years, precisely because this represents an agreement that would encompass 40 percent of the global economy and have huge opportunity for the United States and the countries involved.  That’s part of the reason why Canada and Mexico came into this process.

What I’d say also, though, is that, first of all, we see this as an opportunity to introduce elevated standards on issues like labor and the environment that were not in NAFTA.  So, in many respects, it’s an opportunity to, again, elevate the standards that were absent from the NAFTA agreement so that we are dealing with issues like labor and environmental standards that are important to 21st century trade.

The other thing I’d say, though, is that as you get further along in a trade negotiation, there are sensitive issues in every country.  Trade is not simply an issue that has a significant range of opinions in the United States.  Every country in a negotiation always has constituencies that have a divergence of views on issues in a trade agreement.

So I think these leaders, like all leaders involved in the agreement, understand and appreciate that.  As you continue towards the end of a negotiation, you get into sensitive issues and you will have an effort undertaken to build support for an agreement.  And so I think the leaders know exactly where things are in the negotiation and appreciate that.

Q    Can you explain the decision to make this such a short trip?  Any concern at all that this could be viewed as a bit of a snub by Mexico?

MR. RHODES:  No, I don’t think so.  This is our second visit to Mexico since President Peña Nieto became President.  We had a full bilateral summit in Mexico City and had two days of good meetings and a dinner with the President the last time we were here.  So this is not the first time the President has been to Mexico since President Peña Nieto took office.

I think if you look at the history of the North American Leaders Summit, it’s generally a one-day meeting, so this is consistent with summits that have been held in the past, including summits in the United States.

Q    Jay, on Keystone, Harper told reporters yesterday his message to our President will be the same as he said publicly.  What will President Obama’s message be back to Harper on that discussion today?

MR. CARNEY:  He will say the same thing that he and I and others have said publicly, which is this a process that is run out of the State Department in keeping with past practice of administrations of both parties.  We have reached a stage in that process with the release of the environmental impact statement.  We’re now in a phase where there is input from agencies -- others agencies and from the public, and that that process needs to be insulated from politics -- that’s the President’s view -- and that he will explain that to both leaders.  I’m sure they’re fully aware of that dynamic.

Q    Do you think you can say the timeline of a likely decision, though, without commenting on the substance of it?

MR. CARNEY:  The timeline is as I just relayed to you and we’ve discussed publicly, and it’s something that is institutionalized by the State Department.  And we’re now in a phase of input from agencies and the public, and the process will move forward.  But we’re not going to alter the process; we’re going to let it proceed the way it should, because these are issues, as the President said, that have to be determined based on what is viewed as in the best national interest of the United States.

Q    Immigration is a big issue in Mexico.  In his bilat with President Peña Nieto, what will be the President’s assessment of the best chances on the timing of passage of immigration reform?

MR. CARNEY:  The President continues to believe that 2014 presents the best opportunity we’ve had to see comprehensive immigration reform become law.  We obviously have a ways to go, but the Senate has passed a bill with bipartisan support and a large majority.  The House, through its leadership, has taken steps by putting forth standards and principles.  That’s a new development this year that represents progress and demonstrates that Republican leaders recognize the value of immigration reform and the benefit that it would provide to our economy, to our border security, to our middle class, and to innovation for our businesses.

So I’m sure the President will update both leaders on where that stands, and his hope and belief that the question around comprehensive immigration reform is not if but when, and we hope it’s this year.

Q    Are you guys having any kind of communiqué or deliverable-specific tangible things you’re planning to announce as a result of today?  Or is it mainly a matter of catching up and sort of updating each other on where things stand?

MR. RHODES:  I’d expect there to be a leaders’ statement at the conclusion of the summit that addresses the agenda that we will have worked on.  And again, I think if you look at the North American Leaders Summit, it’s been a venue for us to do two things:  in the near term, to work through specific issues related to trade and commerce.  That gets at cross-border trade, customs issues, supporting the free flow of commerce, but also secure borders, efforts to promote security in North America more broadly.  We have energy cooperation and cooperation on climate change.  So there’s a range of near-term steps that they’ll be discussing today and I think we’ll be able to address at the conclusion of the summit.

At the same time, we’re also looking to what is our vision for North America more broadly going forward.  It’s a huge asset of the United States, frankly, to have such close relationships with our two neighbors, two significant trading partners.  And we cooperate on issues that run the gamut from trade to the environment, to energy and climate change, to security.  And so what is the vision of a stable, secure, prosperous North America looking ahead, I think they’ll also be addressing that as well.

Q    Obviously, going at a time when we’re marking the 20th anniversary of NAFTA, a lot of debate -- good, bad.  What is the President’s assessment of NAFTA?  Even though he’s had some issues with it, was it overall a success?  Was it something that he wishes didn’t happen?  What is his view of that?

MR. RHODES:  Well, I think, on the one hand, NAFTA supports a huge amount of trade that supports a significant number of U.S. jobs.  If you look at the trade between the United States and Mexico and Canada, millions of U.S. jobs are associated with that.  I think it has led to a more prosperous and competitive North America as a whole within the global economy.  So there has been progress that is rooted in the trade relationship between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

At the same time, there are issues that were not addressed in NAFTA, like the labor and environmental standards that the President has spoken about in the past and that, frankly, are a part of the TPP agreement.

So we see NAFTA as providing, clearly, a foundation for trade in North America that can be improved and enhanced by elevating the standards of trade to include the issues that are of increasing attention to us.  And if you look at TPP, that’s labor and the environment, but also issues related to intellectual property and state-owned enterprises, access to the Pacific markets.

So what you really want, Peter, is a dynamic where the North American competitiveness allows us to be drivers in terms of getting into the fastest emerging markets in the world, which are in this Asia Pacific region.  And so we’re in a good position to do that given our own trade relationship, but we also can, frankly, go back and elevate some of the issues that were not a part of the original agreement through the TPP.

Q    Ben, last year when we were in Mexico, one of the issues that hung over at those meetings was the level of cooperation taking place between the new Peña Nieto administration and the U.S. over security.  What’s the status of that?  Has the Peña Nieto administration made inroads on the security issue to the satisfaction of the U.S.?  What’s the U.S. view of security?

MR. RHODES:  We have maintained our security cooperation with Mexico.  We are very pleased with the level of cooperation that we have with the Mexican government in addressing the narcotrafficking issue.  President Peña Nieto is focused on reducing the levels of violence, broadly.  We continue to provide whatever support the Mexican government asks us for and requires as they deal with huge border security -- huge issues of violence around the border, and because of the narcotrafficking issue.  At the same time, we’ve continued to make clear our own responsibilities to crack down, for instance, on the flow of guns southward, which has been an element of the violence there.

So the cooperation has continued.  It’s certainly been good from our perspective, and I’m sure that they’ll address it in their bilateral meeting, as well as in the trilat.

MR. CARNEY:  Can I just say, since nobody asked -- hey, Christi, did you have a question?

Q    No.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, so a couple of things have happened this week related to the President’s primary focus on growing the economy and expanding opportunity that are rather remarkable.  First of all, you see Republicans lining up en masse against raising the minimum wage, which is a remarkable development if you think about it.  You have Americans across the country working full-time and yet being paid a wage that keeps them in poverty.  That’s not something that should happen in this country.  And the American people, including Republicans’ constituents, overwhelmingly support lifting the minimum wage.  As the CBO report demonstrated, that would lift something on the order of 900,000 Americans out of poverty and raise the wages for 16 million-plus Americans across the country.  And as Jason Furman said, the substantial consensus among economists is that it would not have a negative impact on jobs.

The second thing that happened was the five-year anniversary of the Recovery Act.  And as a point of personal privilege as somebody who was covering these matters back in the early ‘90s, I find it remarkable that Speaker Boehner attacks the President for the Recovery Act.  I remember when Speaker Boehner powerfully argued against President Clinton’s economic agenda, said that it would lead to stagnation and job loss.  He could not have been more wrong then.  We saw record job creation.  Speaker Boehner was wrong.

Speaker Boehner argued powerfully against the Recovery Act and President Obama’s economic agenda.  In the wake of the worst recession since the Great Depression, we've seen the creation of 8.5 million private sector jobs.  Speaker Boehner could not have been more wrong.  In between, Speaker Boehner supported economic policies that helped to precipitate the worst financial crisis and economic crisis in our lifetimes and, by the way, led to record deficits, which were handed over to President Obama when he took office.

It's very important to have the long view here.  And what we know about the Recovery Act is that it delivered tax cuts, it delivered investments in clean energy, it delivered an infusion in an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse.  And the alternative at the time, as you remember if you saw the headlines, was the potential for depression, some predicting 20 to 25 percent unemployment.  Republicans refused to support a plan that saved the country from that kind of disaster and set us on the course towards job creation and economic growth.

This is not a project that's anywhere near done.  That's why the President remains focused principally on growing the economy, helping the middle class.  And certainly raising the minimum wage is a way to do that.

Q    Jay, since you brought it up, on the CBO, it’s been remarkable cherry-picking of the results of the conclusions of that report by both sides.  How can it be that those economists can be right on one issue from your side, the raising people out of poverty, but so wrong on the job costs of that report?  And is there a danger in going after what is usually considered a fairly neutral arbiter of economic issues and budget issues?

MR. CARNEY:  Jim, we're not going after anyone.  As Jason Furman, the President’s chief economist, said yesterday, we respectfully disagree with that particular conclusion and point to the deep and wide body of academic research on this that supports our view.  But it’s not about -- obviously we have enormous respect for the CBO, and I think that’s reflected in the fact that we point to some of the other conclusions in that report.

It’s just demonstrated by history and, again, by the work of many experts in the field that there’s likely to have no negative impact in terms of job creation by raising the minimum wage, which spurs economic activity, lifts people out of poverty, and raises the wages for Americans across the country, including middle-class Americans.  But again, that’s a respectful disagreement on a particular finding in which the experts in the field have expressed a different view.

Q    But you must have felt that that report was damaging to your efforts to get support for raising the minimum wage.

MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think that Republicans who, against the overwhelming opinion of the American people, rally around that particular item in the report to suggest that we can’t give Americans a raise risk more damage to themselves and politically, as well as to the middle class economically, and to Americans economically.

So I don’t think we view it that way.  Support for raising the minimum wage is broad and deep.  We’ve seen states take action, and we’re going to continue to press the Congress to take action.

Thank you.

END