INTERNET FREEDOM AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW

Photo:  Statue of Liberty and Coast Guard patrol.  Credit:  Wikimedia. 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Two Cases for Internet Freedom
Remarks Philip L. Verveer
Coordinator for International Communications & Information Policy Winnik Telecom and Internet Forum
Hogan Lovells, Washington, DC
May 12, 2012
 I am very grateful to Hogan Lovells and to my friends in its communications practice for the invitation to deliver these remarks.
I first met Joel Winnik nearly 35 years ago when we both worked at the Federal Communications Commission. Joel’s many outstanding qualities are well known to his colleagues in the communications bar. But beyond those qualities, there is one thing about him that has always marked him apart for me. Joel was the first lawyer I ever met who specialized in international communications law.

In this, he was prescient. When he began practicing international communications law, the sector almost universally consisted of state-owned monopolies. There were perhaps one billion telephone connections in world. And here “telephone” is a material qualification, because apart from telex services, voice connections were about the only thing available for international communications. Some international calls went by undersea cables, some by satellite, and some by high frequency radio.

The international regulatory concerns of the day involved such things as AT&T’s preferred use of undersea cables in which it had an ownership interest rather than communications satellites in which it did not; the consequences of the Congressional decision to appoint the Communications Satellite Corporation as the chosen instrument for our participation in International satellite communications; and disputes between Western Union and the International Record Carriers, who were the international suppliers of what we now would now call ultra slow speed data service.

Although Joel died too young, he lived long enough—and he contributed to—a great transformation in international telecommunications. Today there are almost no true monopolies in telecommunications—thanks to changes in public policy around the world and to wireless technology. There are approximately eight billion connections—an astounding increase that has contributed immeasurably to the well being of the world’s population. New institutions of great significance—ICANN, IETF, the Internet Society, and the World Wide Web Consortium, among others—have come into existence. And, most remarkably, the increase in the amount of information accessible almost instantaneously to anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world ranges well beyond anything anyone could have imagined when Joel began practicing international communications law.

Joel’s work as a government and private attorney contributed to all of these developments. It represents a very tangible accomplishment in which Joel’s family, friends, and professional colleagues can and should take pride.

These developments continue to produce changes so fundamental in economics, politics, culture, and social relationships that we cannot hope to understand them in any comprehensive way. As Hegel said, “The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk,” and we are much closer to sunrise than to sunset.

But we do know some things. One of them—a very important thing about which we can feel very secure—is that the Internet is a great enabler of human expression, association, and assembly; and another thing—about which we can feel equally confident—is that the Internet is a great enabler of increases in material well being. One of the most important responsibilities confronting us today is assuring that these Internet-related opportunities are not impaired. This is a responsibility not just to ourselves and our descendants, but to people like Joel whose life’s work helped to provide the opportunities.

At the State Department, one aspect of this responsibility involves Internet Freedom. This is what I propose to elaborate upon.

A great deal has been and continues to be written and debated about Internet Freedom. Most of it, understandably, involves the extent of the Internet’s intrinsic utility in addressing and solving the very acute geopolitical problems of the day. One prominent example: the disputes involving the significance of the Internet in the Middle Eastern and North African political upheavals of the last eighteen months. Or, closer to home, of the never ending effort to find the optimal balance between the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the broader society in the use of the Internet. An example: the extraordinarily contentious disputes about proposed approaches to the protection of intellectual property in cyberspace. The recent books of Evgeny Morozov and Rebecca MacKinnon, among many others, provide examples.

I will prescind from these important immediate and practical concerns. Instead, I will very briefly offer my thoughts on the fundamental case for Internet freedom. Or, to say it differently, on the proposition that—explicitly or implicitly—we hold out when we address governments on the subject of Internet Freedom.

That case, of course, is not entirely divorced from considerations of utility. But, as we shall see, the assertions associated with principle are more fully developed than the assertions associated with material advantage.

The interest of Secretary Clinton and of the State Department as an institution in Internet Freedom falls squarely within the traditional functions of diplomacy. Diplomacy is conventionally said to involve three things—security, prosperity, and values. Internet Freedom addresses values and prosperity in a direct way and, we believe, through them, security.

This suggests that Internet Freedom relies on two bases—rights, specifically human rights, and economics. Both of these foster security.

Secretary Clinton has addressed Internet Freedom on several occasions. Her remarks have been wide-ranging, but they begin with the premise that freedom of expression, of association, and of assembly are fundamental human rights. They are innate. Each human being is entitled to them by virtue of being human, not by virtue of a grant from a governing authority. These rights are reflected—again, not granted, but acknowledged—in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Championed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, with eight abstentions but without dissent, in 1948. Article 19 holds that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” is the embodiment of the rights-based case for Internet Freedom, articulated some two decades before the concepts that, reduced to practice, became the Internet.

The Uniform Declaration is just that, a declaration. While it enjoys great moral authority, it is not binding, in the sense of international law. But the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, derived from the Universal Declaration, is. Adopted by the General Assembly in 1966, but also signed and ratified by most nations, with some notable exceptions, it is a binding, multilateral treaty. Article 19.2 mirrors the Universal Declaration in holding that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

From a juridical perspective, then, there is a compelling case for Internet Freedom grounded in human rights. The problem, of course, is that it is not enough to persuade countries that have strong reasons to interfere with Internet Freedom.

This is why the economics case for Internet Freedom—the case appealing to more immediate self-interest—is very important. And, as I am about to describe, that case is not as well developed as the rights-based case.

The economic case for Internet Freedom is grounded on at least two propositions. The first is that interfering with the use of the Internet as a commercial channel inevitably will impose costs. We might think of this as the transactional case. This raises the question of whether it is possible to interfere with the Internet as a transmitter of political and related ideas while maintaining it at full, or at least acceptable, efficiency for economic purposes. The second proposition is more fundamental. It is based on the intuition that serious reductions in the free flow of ideas will harm a society’s ability to engage in innovation and thus ultimately will handicap economic growth. We might think of this as the cultural/psychological case in the sense the effects of censorship and repression on culture and behavior.

Secretary Clinton addressed both of these matters in her second Internet Freedom speech:
Walls that divide the internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic internet and a social internet and a political internet: there’s just the internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs—moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression—costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.

In both of these propositions, we are involved in an assessment of costs and benefits. If a government’s highest priority is regime preservation, it may be willing to pay any cost to secure it. History gives us too many examples of this, but we do not need to go beyond the present case of North Korea to appreciate both that the phenomenon exists and that the willingness to pay any cost is appalling in terms of its consequences.

Fortunately, we do not have many contemporaneous examples of countries that approach the regime stability-economic growth equation with the ferocity of North Korea, but we do have many that are making a bet that they can secure the Internet’s economic benefits without incurring unacceptable costs. They do this through censorship—in the modern way through technology and in the time-tested way through intimidation.
To dilate on the use of technology, the problems for governments attempting to rely on filtering and firewalls to keep out unwanted ideas involve both effectiveness and overbreadth. The more fully the screening of information, the more certain it is that the screens will catch too much. They will exclude information that would be valuable for commercial purposes, impair marketing and sales, and complicate supply chain cooperation. It is not hard to imagine why these kinds of problems are certain to arise. If a country is intent on keeping its citizens in ignorance about matters that might seem politically unsettling, it must constantly adjust what is acceptable and what is not. Given news cycles that have been compressed to minutes by the Internet, censorship requires literally constant judgments. And if the individuals responsible for censorship face greater sanctions for errors of omission than of commission, it is inevitable that economically valuable material will be excluded.

So this is the transactional case. What of the second proposition involving culture and psychology?

There is a strong and widely held belief that Internet Freedom produces economic benefits in fundamental ways, separate and apart from its transactional value. But at least as far as I am aware, this hasn’t yet been the object of extensive scholarship. What might confirm this intuition of deeper economic benefit?

This obviously is related to the far larger matter of the prerequisites for economic growth. As it happens, we have a reasonably clear sense of what they are. Sustained economic growth requires a stable level of security where citizens have protection from violence from both internal and external sources. So a state is necessary, but so are appropriate and effective institutions. The state must be what Professors Acemoglu and Robinson in their recent book Why Nations Failcall inclusive and non-extractive. Opportunities to amass wealth must be widely available rather than limited to a small, politically powerful segment of the population. And those with governing authority must not make excessive extractions of the society’s wealth. They must not be rent seekers, pursuing the accumulation of wealth for themselves, their families, and their retainers, a phenomenon that continues to be all too prevalent in our world.

The ideal, then, involves the creation of a legal and regulatory milieu that is conducive to investment. This prototypically consists of a stable, reliable rule of law that, among other things, assures that contractual commitments are honored. The ideal also involves an autonomous judiciary for purposes of arbitration of disputes and to oversee those matters that warrant the imposition of social controls.

We need these institutional arrangements for purposes of economic growth, but there remains the interesting possibility that Internet Freedom has a critical connection to innovation—a connection that involves respect for and encouragement of personal autonomy. At the risk of intruding on the prerogatives of the tenured, I would like to propose one approach to the question based on an historical analogy. This follows the suggestion of Thomas Spavins, a valued colleague who has been providing his expert advice on all things related to the Internet.

Economic historians have addressed the question of why over the last five centuries Western Europe has experienced a great increase in wealth. One of the most prominent academicians, Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University, has produced very important insights. Professor Mokyr identifies several relevant factors. One is especially intriguing for present purposes. It involves the freedom of individuals to pursue their ideas as they wished, free from the strictures of authority. To quote Professor Mokyr, it is:
the Enlightenment notion of freedom of expression. In our age, we think of technological change as natural and obvious; indeed, we consider its absence a source of concern. Not so in the past: inventors were seen as disrespectful, rebelling against the existing order, threatening the stability of the regime and the Church, and jeopardizing employment. In the eighteenth century, this notion slowly began to give way to tolerance, to the belief that those with odd notions should be allowed to subject them to a market test. … Words like “heretic” to describe innovators began to disappear.

This insight, it seems to me, provides an entirely plausible basis for the belief that Internet Freedom leads to innovation and economic growth. Or, stated differently, that the absence of Internet Freedom diminishes a society’s economic growth. In any event, scholars would perform a material service to all of us interested in information and communications technologies if they would take up the study of Internet Freedom, either in the manner of Professor Mokyr or otherwise.

There is one more thing to consider. The Enlightenment experience had another feature that is self-evidently relevant to the Age of the Internet and the freedom to spread of its benefits. To quote Professor Mokyr again:

To bring about the progress that they envisioned—to solve pragmatic problems of industry, agriculture, medicine, and navigation—European scientists realized that they needed to accumulate a solid body of knowledge and that this required, above all, reliable communications. They churned out encyclopedias, compendiums, dictionaries, and technical volumes—the search engines of their day—in which useful knowledge was organized, cataloged, classified, and made as available as possible. … The age of Enlightenment was also the age of the “Republic of Science,” a transnational, informal community in which European scientists relied on an epistolary network to read, critique, translate, and sometimes plagiarize one another’s ideas and work. Nationality mattered little, it seemed, compared with the shared goal of human progress.
“The shared goal of human progress” seems like an appropriate place to end my speculations.

There are, then, two pillars on which Internet Freedom rests. Internet Freedom is right and it is useful. In a better world, it would be sufficient that it is right. But until human nature and this world experience improvement, it matters that Internet Freedom is useful.

I don’t have any difficulty accepting Internet Freedom’s value in the generation of wealth. But for purposes of persuading the present and future leaders of Administrations that may be less sure of this, the attention of the academy to this matter would be entirely welcome.
Thank you.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INCREASES BY $100 MILLION FUNDING TO COMBAT ALZHEIMER'S

Photo: Kathleen Sebelius

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

HHS Secretary Sebelius outlines research funding, tools for health care providers, awareness campaign and new website

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today released an ambitious national plan to fight Alzheimer’s disease. The plan was called for in the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA), which President Obama signed into law in January 2011. The National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease sets forth five goals, including the development of effective prevention and treatment approaches for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias by 2025.

In February 2012, the administration announced that it would take immediate action to implement parts of the plan, including making additional funding available in fiscal year 2012 to support research, provider education and public awareness. Today, the Secretary announced additional specific actions, including the funding of two major clinical trials, jumpstarted by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) infusion of additional FY 2012 funds directed at Alzheimer’s disease; the development of new high-quality, up-to-date training and information for our nation’s clinicians; and a new public education campaign and website to help families and caregivers find the services and support they need.

To help accelerate this urgent work, the President’s proposed FY 2013 budget provides a $100 million increase for efforts to combat Alzheimer’s disease. These funds will support additional research ($80 million), improve public awareness of the disease ($4.2 million), support provider education programs ($4.0 million), invest in caregiver support ($10.5 million), and improve data collection ($1.3 million).

“These actions are the cornerstones of an historic effort to fight Alzheimer’s disease,” Secretary Sebelius said. “This is a national plan—not a federal one, because reducing the burden of Alzheimer’s will require the active engagement of both the public and private sectors.”

The plan, presented today at the Alzheimer’s Research Summit 2012: Path to Treatment and Prevention, was developed with input from experts in aging and Alzheimer’s disease issues and calls for a comprehensive, collaborative approach across federal, state, private and non-profit organizations. More than 3,600 people or organizations submitted comments on the draft plan.

As many as 5.1 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease and that number is likely to double in the coming years. At the same time, millions of American families struggle with the physical, emotional and financial costs of caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s disease.

The initiatives announced today include:

• Research – The funding of new research projects by the NIH will focus on key areas in which emerging technologies and new approaches in clinical testing now allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the disease. This research holds considerable promise for developing new and targeted approaches to prevention and treatment. Specifically, two major clinical trials are being funded. One is a $7.9 million effort to test an insulin nasal spray for treating Alzheimer’s disease. A second study, toward which NIH is contributing $16 million, is the first prevention trial in people at the highest risk for the disease.
• Tools for Clinicians – The Health Resources and Services Administration has awarded $2 million in funding through its geriatric education centers to provide high-quality training for doctors, nurses, and other health care providers on recognizing the signs and symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and how to manage the disease.
• Easier access to information to support caregivers–HHS’ new website, www.alzheimers.gov, offers resources and support to those facing Alzheimer’s disease and their friends and family. The site is a gateway to reliable, comprehensive information from federal, state, and private organizations on a range of topics. Visitors to the site will find plain language information and tools to identify local resources that can help with the challenges of daily living, emotional needs, and financial issues related to dementia. Video interviews with real family caregivers explain why information is key to successful caregiving, in their own words.
• Awareness campaign – The first new television advertisement encouraging caregivers to seek information at the new website was debuted. This media campaign will be launched this summer, reaching family members and patients in need of information on Alzheimer’s disease.

Today’s announcement demonstrates the Obama administration’s continued commitment to taking action in the fight against Alzheimer’s disease.

In 2013, the National Family Caregiver Support Program will continue to provide essential services to family caregivers, including those helping loved ones with Alzheimer’s disease. This program will enable family caregivers to receive essential respite services, providing them a short break from caregiving duties, along with other essential services, such as counseling, education and support groups.

For more information on the national plan to address Alzheimer’s disease, visit: www.alzheimers.gov.

NATO COMMANDER IN AFGHANISTAN POSITIVE ON PAKISTAN RELATIONS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
ISAF Commander Sees Positive Signs for Relationship with Pakistan
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. , May 16, 2012 - The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan pointed to indications today that Pakistan is preparing to open cross-border NATO supply lines into Afghanistan.

Speaking by video teleconference, Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, told the sixth annual 2012 Joint Warfighting Conference he would welcome the move as well as improved relations with Pakistan for the stability of the region.

"There have been in the last several days, some very important signals coming out of Islamabad that there is a consideration to re-open the ground lines of communication, and we, frankly, would welcome that, we would applaud that decision," Allen said. "It would, in fact, be helpful to us if the ground lines of communication were opened, not just because of what could flow into Afghanistan but what could flow out of Afghanistan."
Relations between ISAF and Pakistan have been strained since a November 26 engagement near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead. Pakistan closed ISAF ground supply lines into Afghanistan in response. Allen noted the closing of the routes has not affected the ISAF mission.

"I will tell you the effect of the closure of that route on the campaign has not slowed us at all," he said. "The air bridge into Afghanistan and the flow of materiel across the Northern Distribution Network were modulated in a way that continued to support the campaign in every operational respect."

He said there has been a general review by the Pakistani Parliament of relations with the United States and some "very hopeful signs".

Allen also said Pakistan has "paid a great price" in fighting terrorism on its own soil. "I have to take a few minutes to honor the sacrifices of the Pakistani military who have fought across the border from us against their own insurgent elements."

Pakistani casualties in just the last two years, Allen said, far exceed ISAF casualties in the entire 10 years of the Afghan war. "The numbers of their troops that have been wounded by IEDs, the civilians who have been killed by suicide bombers – the price has been very high in Pakistan as well," he said. "And often, that has been overlooked."
There have been occasions when ISAF and Pakistan have conducted "coordinated operations" along the border for a common interest in security, although "there haven't been any for a couple years now," he said.

"So I would say that over the next several months, we may well see, between ISAF and the Afghan national security forces and the Pakistani military, an ability to work very closely to ensure that we can coordinate operations along the border," Allen said, ensuring an avoidance of any new cross-border incidents.

Allen said he believes there could "conceivably" be coordinated operations between ISAF, Afghanistan and Pakistan to ensure "a stable, peaceful and secure Afghanistan."
"My hope is, in the weeks and months ahead, we can leverage all of that opportunity for common ground, both to improve the relationship at a policy level, but certainly to improve the military to military relationship as well," he said.

CAMP DAVID DECLARATION

Photo:  Camp David 1959.  Credit: U.S. Government.
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Camp David Declaration
May 19, 2012
Camp David, Maryland, United States
May 18-19, 2012
Preamble
1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Eight, met at Camp David on May 18 and 19, 2012 to address major global economic and political challenges.

The Global Economy
2. Our imperative is to promote growth and jobs.

3. The global economic recovery shows signs of promise, but significant headwinds persist.

4. Against this background, we commit to take all necessary steps to strengthen and reinvigorate our economies and combat financial stresses, recognizing that the right measures are not the same for each of us.

5. We welcome the ongoing discussion in Europe on how to generate growth, while maintaining a firm commitment to implement fiscal consolidation to be assessed on a structural basis. We agree on the importance of a strong and cohesive Eurozone for global stability and recovery, and we affirm our interest in Greece remaining in the Eurozone while respecting its commitments. We all have an interest in the success of specific measures to strengthen the resilience of the Eurozone and growth in Europe. We support Euro Area Leaders’ resolve to address the strains in the Eurozone in a credible and timely manner and in a manner that fosters confidence, stability and growth.

6. We agree that all of our governments need to take actions to boost confidence and nurture recovery including reforms to raise productivity, growth and demand within a sustainable, credible and non-inflationary macroeconomic framework. We commit to fiscal responsibility and, in this context, we support sound and sustainable fiscal consolidation policies that take into account countries’ evolving economic conditions and underpin confidence and economic recovery.

7. To raise productivity and growth potential in our economies, we support structural reforms, and investments in education and in modern infrastructure, as appropriate. Investment initiatives can be financed using a range of mechanisms, including leveraging the private sector. Sound financial measures, to which we are committed, should build stronger systems over time while not choking off near-term credit growth. We commit to promote investment to underpin demand, including support for small businesses and public-private partnerships.

8. Robust international trade, investment and market integration are key drivers of strong sustainable and balanced growth. We underscore the importance of open markets and a fair, strong, rules-based trading system. We will honor our commitment to refrain from protectionist measures, protect investments and pursue bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral efforts, consistent with and supportive of the WTO framework, to reduce barriers to trade and investment and maintain open markets. We call on the broader international community to do likewise. Recognizing that unnecessary differences and overly burdensome regulatory standards serve as significant barriers to trade, we support efforts towards regulatory coherence and better alignment of standards to further promote trade and growth.

9. Given the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) to stimulating job and economic growth, we affirm the significance of high standards for IPR protection and enforcement, including through international legal instruments and mutual assistance agreements, as well as through government procurement processes, private-sector voluntary codes of best practices, and enhanced customs cooperation, while promoting the free flow of information. To protect public health and consumer safety, we also commit to exchange information on rogue internet pharmacy sites in accordance with national law and share best practices on combating counterfeit medical products.

Energy and Climate Change
10. As our economies grow, we recognize the importance of meeting our energy needs from a wide variety of sources ranging from traditional fuels to renewables to other clean technologies. As we each implement our own individual energy strategies, we embrace the pursuit of an appropriate mix from all of the above in an environmentally safe, sustainable, secure, and affordable manner. We also recognize the importance of pursuing and promoting sustainable energy and low carbon policies in order to tackle the global challenge of climate change. To facilitate the trade of energy around the world, we commit to take further steps to remove obstacles to the evolution of global energy infrastructure; to reduce barriers and refrain from discriminatory measures that impede market access; and to pursue universal access to cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy. We remain committed to the principles on global energy security adopted by the G-8 in St. Petersburg.

11. As we pursue energy security, we will do so with renewed focus on safety and sustainability. We are committed to establishing and sharing best practices on energy production, including exploration in frontier areas and the use of technologies such as deep water drilling and hydraulic fracturing, where allowed, to allow for the safe development of energy sources, taking into account environmental concerns over the life of a field. In light of the nuclear accident triggered by the tsunami in Japan, we continue to strongly support initiatives to carry out comprehensive risk and safety assessments of existing nuclear installations and to strengthen the implementation of relevant conventions to aim for high levels of nuclear safety.

12. We recognize that increasing energy efficiency and reliance on renewables and other clean energy technologies can contribute significantly to energy security and savings, while also addressing climate change and promoting sustainable economic growth and innovation. We welcome sustained, cost-effective policies to support reliable renewable energy sources and their market integration. We commit to advance appliance and equipment efficiency, including through comparable and transparent testing procedures, and to promote industrial and building efficiency through energy management systems.

13. We agree to continue our efforts to address climate change and recognize the need for increased mitigation ambition in the period to 2020, with a view to doing our part to limit effectively the increase in global temperature below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, consistent with science. We strongly support the outcome of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban to implement the Cancun agreements and the launch of the Durban Platform, which we welcome as a significant breakthrough toward the adoption by 2015 of a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force applicable to all Parties, developed and developing countries alike. We agree to continue to work together in the UNFCCC and other fora, including through the Major Economies Forum, toward a positive outcome at Doha.

14. Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year. Therefore, we agree to join the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants.

15. In addition, we strongly support efforts to rationalize and phase-out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, and to continue voluntary reporting on progress.

Food Security and Nutrition
16. For over a decade, the G-8 has engaged with African partners to address the challenges and opportunities afforded by Africa’s quest for inclusive and sustainable development. Our progress has been measurable, and together we have changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people. International assistance alone, however, cannot fulfill our shared objectives. As we move forward, and even as we recommit to working together to reduce poverty, we recognize that our task is also to foster the change that can end it, by investing in Africa’s growth, its expanding role in the global economy, and its success. As part of that effort, we commit to fulfill outstanding L’Aquila financial pledges, seek to maintain strong support to address current and future global food security challenges, including through bilateral and multilateral assistance, and agree to take new steps to accelerate progress towards food security and nutrition in Africa and globally, on a complementary basis.

17. Since the L’Aquila Summit, we have seen an increased level of commitment to global food security, realignment of assistance in support of country-led plans, and new investments and greater collaboration in agricultural research. We commend our African partners for the progress made since L’Aquila, consistent with the Maputo Declaration, to increase public investments in agriculture and to adopt the governance and policy reforms necessary to accelerate sustainable agricultural productivity growth, attain greater gains in nutrition, and unlock sustainable and inclusive country-led growth. The leadership of the African Union and the role of its Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) have been essential.

18. Building on this progress, and working with our African and other international partners, today we commit to launch aNew Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition to accelerate the flow of private capital to African agriculture, take to scale new technologies and other innovations that can increase sustainable agricultural productivity, and reduce the risk borne by vulnerable economies and communities. This New Alliance will lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next decade, and be guided by a collective commitment to invest in credible, comprehensive and country-owned plans, develop new tools to mobilize private capital, spur and scale innovation, and manage risk; and engage and leverage the capacity of private sector partners – from women and smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs to domestic and international companies.

19. The G-8 reaffirms its commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and recognizes the vital role of official development assistance in poverty alleviation and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. As such, we welcome and endorse the Camp David Accountability Report which records the important progress that the G-8 has made on food security consistent with commitments made at the L’Aquila Summit, and in meeting our commitments on global health, including the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health. We remain strongly committed to reporting transparently and consistently on the implementation of these commitments. We look forward to a comprehensive report under the UK Presidency in 2013.

Afghanistan’s Economic Transition
20. We reaffirm our commitment to a sovereign, peaceful, and stable Afghanistan, with full ownership of its own security, governance and development and free of terrorism, extremist violence, and illicit drug production and trafficking. We will continue to support the transition process with close coordination of our security, political and economic strategies.

21. With an emphasis on mutual accountability and improved governance, building on the Kabul Process and Bonn Conference outcomes, our countries will take steps to mitigate the economic impact of the transition period and support the development of a sustainable Afghan economy by enhancing Afghan capacity to increase fiscal revenues and improve spending management, as well as mobilizing non-security assistance into the transformation decade.

22. We will support the growth of Afghan civil society and will mobilize private sector support by strengthening the enabling environment and expanding business opportunities in key sectors, as well as promote regional economic cooperation to enhance connectivity.
23. We will also continue to support the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in its efforts to meet its obligation to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, including in the rights of women and girls and the freedom to practice religion.

24. We look forward to the upcoming Tokyo Conference in July, as it generates further long-term support for civilian assistance to Afghanistan from G-8 members and other donors into the transformation decade; agrees to a strategy for Afghanistan’s sustainable economic development, with mutual commitments and benchmarks between Afghanistan and the international community; and provides a mechanism for biennial reviews of progress being made against those benchmarks through the transformation decade.

The Transitions in the Middle East and North Africa
25. A year after the historic events across the Middle East and North Africa began to unfold, the aspirations of people of the region for freedom, human rights, democracy, job opportunities, empowerment and dignity are undiminished. We recognize important progress in a number of countries to respond to these aspirations and urge continued progress to implement promised reforms. Strong and inclusive economic growth, with a thriving private sector to provide jobs, is an essential foundation for democratic and participatory government based on the rule of law and respect for basic freedoms, including respect for the rights of women and girls and the right to practice religious faith in safety and security.

26. We renew our commitment to the Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition, launched at the G-8 Summit last May. We welcome the steps already taken, in partnership with others in the region, to support economic reform, open government, and trade, investment and integration.

27. We note in particular the steps being taken to expand the mandate of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to bring its expertise in transition economies and financing support for private sector growth to this region; the platform established by international financial institutions to enhance coordination and identify opportunities to work together to support the transition country reform efforts; progress in conjunction with regional partners toward establishing a new transition fund to support country-owned policy reforms complementary to existing mechanisms; increased financial commitments to reforming countries from international and regional financial institutions, the G-8 and regional partners; strategies to increase access to capital markets to help boost private investment; and commitments from our countries and others to support small and medium-sized enterprises, provide needed training and technical assistance and facilitate international exchanges and training programs for key constituencies in transition countries.

28. Responding to the call from partner countries, we endorse an asset recovery action plan to promote the return of stolen assets and welcome, and commit to support the action plans developed through the Partnership to promote open government, reduce corruption, strengthen accountability and improve the regulatory environment, particularly for the growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises. These governance reforms will foster the inclusive economic growth, rule of law and job creation needed for the success of democratic transition. We are working with Partnership countries to build deeper trade and investment ties, across the region and with members of the G-8, which are critical to support growth and job creation. In this context, we welcome Partnership countries’ statement on openness to international investment.

29. G-8 members are committed to an enduring and productive partnership that supports the historic transformation underway in the region. We commit to further work during the rest of 2012 to support private sector engagement, asset recovery, closer trade ties and provision of needed expertise as well as assistance, including through a transition fund. We call for a meeting in September of Foreign Ministers to review progress being made under the Partnership.

Political and Security Issues
30. We remain appalled by the loss of life, humanitarian crisis, and serious and widespread human rights abuses in Syria. The Syrian government and all parties must immediately and fully adhere to commitments to implement the six-point plan of UN and Arab League Joint Special Envoy (JSE) Kofi Annan, including immediately ceasing all violence so as to enable a Syrian-led, inclusive political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system. We support the efforts of JSE Annan and look forward to seeing his evaluation, during his forthcoming report to the UN Security Council, of the prospects for beginning this political transition process in the near-term. Use of force endangering the lives of civilians must cease. We call on the Syrian government to grant safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to populations in need of assistance in accordance with international law. We welcome the deployment of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria, and urge all parties, in particular the Syrian government, to fully cooperate with the mission. We strongly condemn recent terrorist attacks in Syria. We remain deeply concerned about the threat to regional peace and security and humanitarian despair caused by the crisis and remain resolved to consider further UN measures as appropriate.

31. We remain united in our grave concern over Iran’s nuclear program. We call on Iran to comply with all of its obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions and requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors. We also call on Iran to continuously comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including its safeguards obligations. We also call on Iran to address without delay all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program, including questions concerning possible military dimensions. We desire a peaceful and negotiated solution to concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, and therefore remain committed to a dual-track approach. We welcome the resumption of talks between Iran and the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union High Representative). We call on Iran to seize the opportunity that began in Istanbul, and sustain this opening in Baghdad by engaging in detailed discussions about near-term, concrete steps that can, through a step-by-step approach based on reciprocity, lead towards a comprehensive negotiated solution which restores international confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. We urge Iran to also comply with international obligations to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, and end interference with the media, arbitrary executions, torture, and other restrictions placed on rights and freedoms.

32. We continue to have deep concerns about provocative actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that threaten regional stability. We remain concerned about the DPRK's nuclear program, including its uranium enrichment program. We condemn the April 13, 2012, launch that used ballistic missile technology in direct violation of UNSC resolution. We urge the DPRK to comply with its international obligations and abandon all nuclear and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. We call on all UN member states to join the G-8 in fully implementing the UNSC resolutions in this regard. We affirm our will to call on the UN Security Council to take action, in response to additional DPRK acts, including ballistic missile launches and nuclear tests. We remain concerned about human rights violations in the DPRK, including the situation of political prisoners and the abductions issue.

33. We recognize that according women full and equal rights and opportunities is crucial for all countries’ political stability, democratic governance, and economic growth. We reaffirm our commitment to advance human rights of and opportunities for women, leading to more development, poverty reduction, conflict prevention and resolution, and improved maternal health and reduced child mortality. We also commit to supporting the right of all people, including women, to freedom of religion in safety and security. We are concerned about the reduction of women’s political participation and the placing at risk of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, including in Middle East and North Africa countries emerging from conflict or undergoing political transitions. We condemn and avow to stop violence directed against, including the trafficking of, women and girls. We call upon all states to protect human rights of women and to promote women’s roles in economic development and in strengthening international peace and security.

34. We pay tribute to the remarkable efforts of President Thein Sein, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and many other citizens of Burma/Myanmar to deliver democratic reform in their country over the past year. We recognize the need to secure lasting and irreversible reform, and pledge our support to existing initiatives, particularly those which focus on peace in ethnic area, national reconciliation, and entrenching democracy. We also stress the need to cooperate to further enhance aid coordination among international development partners of Burma/Myanmar and conduct investment in a manner beneficial to the people of Burma/Myanmar.

35. We recognize the particular sacrifices made by the Libyan people in their transition to create a peaceful, democratic, and stable Libya. The international community remains committed to actively support the consolidation of the new Libyan institutions.
36. We condemn transnational organized crime and terrorism in all forms and manifestations. We pledge to enhance our cooperation to combat threats of terrorism and terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida, its affiliates and adherents, and transnational organized crime, including individuals and groups engaged in illicit drug trafficking and production. We stress that it is critical to strengthen efforts to curb illicit trafficking in arms in the Sahel area, in particular to eliminate the Man-Portable Air Defense Systems proliferated across the region; to counter financing of terrorism, including kidnapping for ransom; and to eliminate support for terrorist organizations and criminal networks. We urge states to develop necessary capacities including in governance, education, and criminal justice systems, to address, reduce and undercut terrorist and criminal threats, including "lone wolf" terrorists and violent extremism, while safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law. We underscore the central role of the United Nations and welcome the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) and efforts of the Roma-Lyon Group in countering terrorism. We reaffirm the need to strengthen the implementation of the UN Al-Qaida sanctions regime, and the integrity and implementation of the UN conventions on drug control and transnational organized crime.

37. We reaffirm that nonproliferation and disarmament issues are among our top priorities. We remain committed to fulfill all of our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and, concerned about the severe proliferation challenges, call on all parties to support and promote global nonproliferation and disarmament efforts.
38. We welcome and fully endorse the G-8 Foreign Ministers Meeting Chair’s Statement with accompanying annex.

Conclusion
39. We look forward to meeting under the presidency of the United Kingdom in 2013.

USS BLUE RIDGE CREW MEMBERS SERVE AS GOODWILL AMBASSADORS

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
Indonesia (May 14, 2012) Sailors assigned to U.S. 7th Fleet flagship USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19) carry tools and supplies at Yayasan Pendidikan Banglin school during a community service event in Jakarta, Indonesia. These port visits represent an opportunity for U.S. 7th Fleet flagship USS Blue Ridge crewmembers to serve as goodwill ambassadors of the U.S., promoting peace and stability in the region and to demonstrate their commitment to regional partnerships and foster relations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Mel Orr/Released)




Blue Ridge Builds Friendship with Indonesia 
By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class James Norman, USS Blue Ridge Public Affairs
JAKARTA, Indonesia (NNS) -- Sailors aboard U.S. 7th Fleet flagship USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), embarked 7th Fleet staff and Marines assigned to Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team Pacific departed Jakarta, Indonesia May 15, after a four-day port visit strengthening bonds between the U.S. and Indonesian navies.

Blue Ridge Sailors participated in a community service event that gave them the opportunity to demonstrate the Navy's dedication to fostering positive relations with countries in the Asian-Pacific region.

They participated in sporting events with Indonesian nationals and interacted with the community through an outreach project involving a children's school. Sailors volunteered their time at the Yayasan Pendidikan Bangun School to help create a soccer field for the children.

"Giving my time to create a soccer field for the children at the school was a very fulfilling and rewarding experience," said Ensign Wanda Colon, Blue Ridge stock control officer. "The work we did at the school was hard labor, but the children made it all worth while. You could tell the children really wanted us there."

For one Sailor, the port visit was much more personal.

"I was glad to have this opportunity to come back to Indonesia after being a part of the relief efforts for the 2004 tsunami," said U.S. 7th Fleet Staff member Hospital Corpsman 1st Class Philip Keehn. "It was enlightening knowing I helped Indonesia get back on its feet when I was assigned to the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) in 2004. I never thought I'd be back to Indonesia to see how the Navy's hard work paid off."

NATO 2012 SUMMIT IN CHICAGO

Photo:  Soldier Field Viewed From McCormick Place, Chicago.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Secretary General Kicks Off NATO Summit in Chicago
By Cheryl Pellerin
CHICAGO, May 20, 2012 - NATO's largest-ever summit opened here today to focus on keeping Afghanistan secure, ensuring NATO's capability in the 21st century, and enhancing the alliance's global network of partners, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.

Representatives from 60 countries and organizations have gathered in this busy midwestern U.S. city for a meeting that NATO officials characterize as preparation for the alliance's future.

President Barack Obama arrived this morning after hosting a daylong G-8 summit at Camp David in Maryland with leaders of Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is here to participate in discussions and attend North Atlantic Council sessions on 21st-century NATO capabilities, the long-term commitment of nations participating in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and NATO partnerships.

Panetta also will convene a working dinner of his fellow defense ministers, attend a signing ceremony for the purchase by 13 NATO allies of a ground surveillance system for future alliance operations, and join Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki for a visit to a first-of-its-kind joint Defense Department-VA hospital in north Chicago.

During a short preliminary briefing on the first day of the two-day international meeting, Rasmussen said discussions today will focus on security in an age of austerity.

"We will ensure that the alliance has the capabilities to deal with the security challenges of the future, even as we tackle the economic challenges of the present," he told reporters at the summit's media center at McCormick Place on the shore of Lake Michigan.

"We will adopt a concrete package of multinational projects which can provide greater security for all our citizens at lower cost, we will embrace a renewed culture of cooperation which we call 'smart defense,' and I expect we will take the first step to make our missile defense system operational," he added.

Tomorrow, on the second day of the summit, Rasmussen said, "we will meet 13 of our most active partners around the globe, from Europe to Asia and the Middle East, because today's security challenges are global and they need global solutions."

NATO will continue to cooperate with partners from around the world, building on successes "so that we can provide more security for NATO, for our partners, and for the world," he added.

Tomorrow also will be the day that summit participants shape the next stage of NATO's engagement with Afghanistan. "We will complete transition of security responsibility to the Afghans by the end of 2014, but we will continue to support them for the long term," Rasmussen said.

NATO officials and ISAF partners will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, leaders of many countries in the region and beyond, and key international organizations, the secretary general added.

"This will be a powerful demonstration of the commitment of the whole international community to the future of Afghanistan," he said.

AIR FORCE SHOWS AFTERMATH OF HURRICANE KATRINA

FROM:  U.S. AIR FORCE
NEW ORLEANS – Scanning for signs of survivors, Tech. Sgt. Andrew Canfield keeps a close watch as the sun sets on the flooded city of New Orleans on Sept. 4, 2005. A provision of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act permits the federal government to mobilize Air Force reservists like Canfield if they are needed to respond to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Bill Huntington)

From an HH-60 helicopter, Tech. Sgt. Keith Berry scans the flooded streets of New Orleans searching for survivors on Sept. 4, 2005. A provision of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act permits the secretary of defense to mobilize Air Force reservists like Berry if they are needed to respond to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Bill Huntington) 

HOUSTON NURSE GETS 97 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR PART IN $5.2 MILLION MEDICARE FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Houston-Area Nurse Sentenced to 97 Months in Prison for Role in $5.2 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme
WASHINGTON – A Houston-area nurse was sentenced today in Houston for her participation in a $5.2 million Medicare fraud scheme, announced the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS).
Ezinne Ubani, the former director of nursing at Family Healthcare Group, a Houston home health care company, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas in the Southern District of Texas to 97 months in prison, followed by three years supervised release.  Ubani was ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution jointly and severally with her codefendants.  Ubani was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and two counts of making false statements following a May 2011 trial.

According to the evidence presented at trial and in court documents, Family Healthcare Group purported to provide skilled nursing to Medicare beneficiaries.  Family Healthcare Group paid co-conspirators to recruit Medicare beneficiaries for the purpose of filing claims with Medicare for skilled nursing that was medically unnecessary and/or not provided.  The evidence showed that Ezinne Ubani falsified documents to support the fraudulent payments.  After the Medicare beneficiaries were recruited, other co-conspirators fraudulently signed plans of care stating that the beneficiaries needed home health care when in fact they knew the beneficiaries were not home-bound and not in need of skilled nursing.

Ubani is the seventh defendant sentenced in connection with this scheme.  Three other defendants, Clifford Ubani, Princewill Njoku and Cynthia Garza Williams, await sentencing in the Southern District of Texas.

The sentence was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas; Special Agent-In-Charge Stephen L. Morris of the FBI’s Houston Field Office; Special Agent-in-Charge Mike Fields of the Dallas Regional Office of HHS’s Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG); and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (OAG-MFCU).

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Charles D. Reed and Deputy Chief Sam S. Sheldon of the Fraud Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.  The case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG, Texas OAG-MFCU and the Federal Railroad Retirement Board-Office of Inspector General.  The case was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the Fraud Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.
Since their inception in March 2007, Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in nine locations have charged more than 1,330 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $4 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

SEC CHARGES FUND MANAGER WITH DIVERTING NEARLY $48 MILLION TO HIS OWN COMPANIES

Photo:  New York Stock Exchange 1939.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 18, 2012
On May 17 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Seattle-based financial adviser and his firm with defrauding clients by secretly investing their money in two risky start-up companies he co-founded.

The SEC alleges that Mark Spangler, a former chairman of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, funneled approximately $47.7 million of client money into these private ventures despite representing that he would invest primarily in publicly traded securities. Spangler served as chairman and CEO of one of the companies, which is now bankrupt. Such risky investments were inconsistent with the investment strategies that Spangler promised his clients and contrary to their investment objectives.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington also announced parallel criminal charges against Spangler.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Seattle, Spangler raised more than $56 million from his clients since 1998 for several private investment funds he managed. Beginning around 2003, without notifying investors in the funds, Spangler and his advisory firm The Spangler Group (TSG) began diverting the majority of client money into two private technology companies he created. One of the companies received nearly $42 million from the funds before shutting down operations. It had long been a cash-poor company with a history of net losses, generating less than $100,000 in revenue during its 11-year history. Yet Spangler continued to treat the funds as the company’s piggy bank.
The SEC alleges that Spangler also did not tell investors that TSG collected fees for “financial and operational support” from these companies, which were essentially paying these fees with the client money they had received from the funds. Therefore, Spangler and his firm secretly reaped $830,000 from the companies in addition to any management fees that TSG received from clients.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Spangler concealed his diversion of client funds for years. He disclosed it only after he placed TSG and the funds he managed into state court receivership in 2011.

The SEC’s complaint charges Spangler and TSG with violating, among other things, the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Karen Kreuzkamp and Robert S. Leach of the San Francisco Regional Office with assistance from Michael Tomars, Peter Bloom, and Christine Pelham of the investment adviser/investment company examination program. Robert L. Tashjian will lead the SEC’s litigation.
The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service for their assistance in this matter.

ACTORS FOUNDATION BUILDS HOMES FOR WOUNDED WARRIORS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE 
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, May 14, 2012 - Actor Gary Sinise's efforts to help wounded warriors were highlighted by journalist David Martin on last night's broadcast of the CBS program "60 Minutes."

In the 1994 film "Forrest Gump," Sinise portrayed "Lt. Dan," an Army officer who loses both legs while serving in the Vietnam War and overcomes adversity following his discharge.

Since visiting Iraq as part of a USO tour in 2003, Sinise and his foundation have worked to support service members and veterans. Martin's "60 Minutes" story focused on Sinise's foundation helping to build custom "smart homes" for real-life amputees, such as Marine Corps Cpl. Juan Dominguez, who lost both legs and an arm to a roadside bomb in Afghanistan in 2010.

In his report, Martin said that as of May 1, 1,459 service members from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had limbs amputated. Of those, 439 lost more than one limb, and Dominguez is one of 39 who'd lost three, he said.

"I basically thought I was worthless until one of the [quadruple] amputees that were there, he was walking around like it was nothing," Dominguez said in the "60 Minutes" report. He was referring to Marine Corps Cpl. Todd Nicely, one of five surviving quadruple amputees.

"I have a feeling 10 years down the road I'm not even [going to] remember what it was like to have arms and legs," said Nicely, who was injured in March 2010 when he stepped on a booby-trapped bridge in Afghanistan.

Martin reported that Nicely and his wife, Crystal, are about to move into a new house being built in Lake of the Ozarks, Mo., and paid for by Sinise, who performs throughout the year with his Lt. Dan Band, raising money for wounded service members.
Nicely explained to Martin during the interview what the new home will mean to his family.

"For me, it means getting my life back -- you know, being able to do a lot of the things on my own," he said.

Living without hands is the hardest thing, Nicely told Martin, but he added that having the house will make life 10 times easier.

Martin noted during the interview that Sinise's foundation assists the severely wounded by building new homes. But triple amputee Bryan Anderson said he doesn't want one.
"I'm good," he said. "Like, I get around just fine. I do everything I [want to] do. I don't need it, so give it to somebody that would take it, and I would feel guilty taking something away from somebody that could actually need it."

Anderson explained how he'd met Sinise and became friends with the actor while learning to use his new prosthetic legs during physical therapy at Walter Reed Medical Center. "I just put my arms out and I landed on the first person that I could grab, and then I look up. I'm like, 'Oh, holy crap, it's Gary Sinise.'

"And he looks at me," Anderson continued. "He's like 'Holy crap, the real Lt. Dan,' and I'm just like, 'No, no, no, no, you'll always be Lt. Dan,'" Anderson said.
Anderson said he and Sinise began to talk about everyday things. "It was like he was talking to me as a person and not just a wounded soldier," he added.
Anderson said he is now in a "very good place" in his life and credits some of that to Sinise.

"Gary's responsible for the beginning," he said. "I've done a lot on my own for myself. Gary was the one to show me that I can do everything -- that it is possible. He really showed me that I can still do anything. It doesn't matter that I'm in a [wheelchair]. If this guy can see that, why can't I?"

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION RECENT COMPOSITE IMAGES

FROM:  NASA
This is a composite of a series of images photographed from a mounted camera on the Earth-orbiting International Space Station, from approximately 240 miles above Earth. Space station hardware in the foreground includes the Mini-Research Module (MRM1, center) and a Russian Progress vehicle docked to the Pirs Docking Compartment (right). Expedition 31 Flight Engineer Don Pettit said of the photographic techniques used to achieve the images: "My star trail images are made by taking a time exposure of about 10 to 15 minutes. However, with modern digital cameras, 30 seconds is about the longest exposure possible, due to electronic detector noise effectively snowing out the image. To achieve the longer exposures I do what many amateur astronomers do. I take multiple 30-second exposures, then 'stack' them using imaging software, thus producing the longer exposure." A total of 47 images photographed by the astronaut-monitored stationary camera were combined to create this composite. Image Credit: NASA

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON BURMA

Photo:  Oil Wells, Burma.  Credit:  Wikimedia 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on Burma
Special Briefing Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
May 17, 2012
MODERATOR: Good afternoon and thanks, everyone, for joining us. As you know, some new measures were announced today in support of Burma’s ongoing democratic reform efforts. And here to talk to us a little bit about what these new actions mean, we have two senior Administration officials. For your own information, they are [names withheld]. Just so you know the ground rules is that they will be referred to as senior Administration officials, and that this call is on background.

So with that out of the way, I’d like to introduce [Senior Administration Official One] to say a few words, and then we’ll open it up to your questions. Go ahead, [Senior Administration Official One].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. Thank you, [Moderator]. And good afternoon everybody, and thank you for joining.
As you heard from the Secretary this afternoon, we came to a major decision on the future of our policy approach to Burma. I think it’s important, though, as you look at this that you understand the context and the details of what we are doing. It is what I would call a substantial refinement and recalibration of our approach to Burma policy, and it is done in response to a pattern of reform that we have seen, that we continue to be encouraged by. But at the same time, we have no illusions about the continuing challenges inside the country and the continuing issues of core concern to us, as the Secretary also outlined today in her statement.

The decision we came to and the announcement we made, we have put much careful thought into, about how to prudently respond and accommodate our policy to the evolving environment on the ground while at the same time staying true to our longstanding principled approach to promoting reform in Burma.

And I would say there are a few elements here that we need to spotlight. First, the approach here, in essence, is to take the bluntness out of the sanctions that have been there to date. What we are doing is easing on society at large and carefully looking to target what we call the spoilers, the bad actors within the system. In a very carefully considered process in coming weeks, we are going to sharpen, refine the tools we have at our disposal to update the specially designated entities list, the SDN list, to ensure that we are working in and consistent with reform and in partnership with a country in reform, and we are not contributing to a system that we have had concerns – deep concerns – about to date. And that’s going to be a very, very carefully considered process, and we will be working on that in coming weeks and such.

Now secondly, as the Secretary outlined, we are – we believe our companies are really the best models for best practices around the world. And in fact, that gives us an opportunity to lead in a way that is consistent with this partnership and reform mantra that we have. We expect and we are very confident that they can model the behavior we are seeking inside the country, that the people of the country are seeking for themselves, which is transparency, accountability, equity, benefit to the citizens and not simply to the elites and the other, as we would call them, bad actors in the country. And this model behavior, I think, is going to be very, very important going forward, and we will be also, I think, talking a bit more about that in coming weeks and working with companies to act accordingly.

And third, I think it’s very important that folks understand that we will continue to listen to voices, particularly inside the country, but also in our NGO community, in Congress, with whom we’ve had a very deep and productive partnership on this. There are diverse voices with diverse opinions about the way forward, and we were pleased by some of the statements – many statements we’ve seen, bipartisan statements coming out from Capitol Hill today in support of what we’re looking to do, the calibrated approach. And we will continue to consult closely with them and all others who have a deep concern about the future of Burma going forward.

MODERATOR: Great. Well, thank you very much. And now, with that, we’ll turn it over to your questions. Operator?

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. Please un-mute your phone and record your name and affiliation clearly when prompted. To withdraw your question, press *2. Once again, to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone and record your name and affiliation.

Our first question comes from Josh Rogin with Foreign Policy. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks very much for taking the time to do the call, and thank you for your service. Can you talk in more detail about what changes you’re making to the sanctions? How did you choose which changes to make? Which changes will affect the oil sector in particular? And what accountability measures will you have in place to measure whether or not these new provisions or changes are being instituted in the way that you want? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Right. Thank you for the question. I want to make sure it’s clear we are not looking at this in terms of sectors. This is countrywide, again, with the notion of targeting, as well carefully targeting bad actors, so it is not based on any particular sector – oil, gas, or otherwise. So we are easing – and some people call it suspending – the restrictions on financial services and investment, new investment, broadly across all the different sectors.

The – we will hold folks accountable and in terms of – and we’re going to look at various mechanisms going forward for ensuring that there is oversight, that there is transparency, and through transparency, accountability for the activities or our companies and those who engage in Burma going forward.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Paul Eckert with Reuters News Agency. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. [Senior Administration Official One’s position withheld.] And thanks for doing this call. I’ve noted that the NGO groups are not entirely positive about this development. I know you talk to them, but one of their concerns is that even though you are pointedly maintaining sanctions on the military elements when it comes to investment, that there’s not anything to stop them from still being the enforcers and conducting warfare on the ethnic areas where a lot of these resource – investment projects might be set up; in other words, that a lot of the pressure that’s happening on – the pressure on the ethnic groups is driven by trade, right now China trade but could also – that future foreign investors could step in in that role. Is there ways you can put a check on that? In other words, the cronies of the militaries are eligible for investment projects and for financial transactions and they rely on the military behind the scenes?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We are taking a very close look at that. We understand the challenges, and the Secretary laid those out, about the activities on the ground that can create complications for the reform effort. And in fact, we’ll look to ensure that if there are those types of activities, we have an SDN list that will be regularly updated – it’s not simply a one-time thing – that we will continue to refine. We will need, obviously, very good evidence of this type of activity. And if there are people being pushed off their land, if there’s all kinds of activities that clearly run afoul of our values in human rights, that we will ensure that our companies are not enabled to benefit from that.

And in fact, we’re now going to look to local communities, engagement with them, with local NGOs, with international NGOs to get us good information, the best information they can. I think there’s more information we can get as the country starts to open up and as more people go into the country to get greater fidelity and insight into these types of activities. And we will do everything possible, and I think we can be successful in ensuring that there are no benefits to these people through this new policy.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from William Wan with The Washington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hey, thanks for doing this. My key question is just why there aren’t any kind of codified regulations on companies. From what the Secretary was saying, it sounded like it was just – that they were encouraging good corporate governance, that kind of thing, but there wasn’t anything written down that would regulate that.

The other one is, just last month we were doing one of these backgrounders, and it seemed at that point, you guys were looking at very specific targeting sectors as a way to do this, and you guys named jade, oil, some of these things that are very tied closely with the military, as sectors you would avoid. I was wondering what changed in terms of the thinking, and why you guys ended up going down this road.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you for the question. On the good corporate governance standards – to outline – she outlined some of them, actually, in her statement – we are going to be very specific about the types of things we’re looking for. And as I said, we will have a mechanism set up to ensure there is some transparency and oversight, to ensure that this is not just exhorting folks and then leaving it, but that we are, again, working with the people of Burma who are asking for this.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been quite consistent in asking for more transparency by corporations and the contracting and the use of funds from those contracting, who folks are talking to and how it’s benefitting local communities. And we are going to be quite – we’re going to outline these things as we see them and have very close consultation, discussion with companies as they go in, those who are interested, and again, try to ensure that they model the behavior and are acting consistent with American values as I think they do in many places around the world. So we haven’t outlined them in full today, but we will be talking. This is not the end of the conversation; this is the beginning of the conversation on that particular point, and we’re going to continue to harp on this over time to ensure that we are doing this right.

On the issue of sectors in specific, it was asked during the previous backgrounder about sectors, and off the cuff, we would list various sectors that raised questions and such or – and I – we still – there are still questions, I think, about mining and timber and oil and gas. I mean, they’re legitimate questions. I think we can get at them effectively through the method that we are, which is to, again, target the entities, the individuals, and the activities rather than do it simply by sector. So it’s just that I think the last time, we were at the start of the process and we’ve been doing some very, very careful consideration, and we’re very confident this is the best way to go in that effort.

MODERATOR: Very good. Next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Jill Dougherty with CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes. Hi there. I just wanted to get into the bad actors part again, just more specifically. Are these individuals who are defined by their actions or their positions? And will there be a publicly available list of the ones that have – American companies cannot do business with? And also, did you consult with Aung San Suu Kyi on any of the specifics about this? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Can I ask maybe [agency withheld] to take a first stab on that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: There is already authority, both statutory and by Executive Order, for the Executive Branch to target problematic actors in Burma – not only human rights abusers, but other figures. So we think we have the authority to address the kind of concerns that were just discussed. And the usual way for this to be promulgated is through [agency withheld] specially designated nationals list.
As to the particular bad actors, I think I would refer that question back to [agency withheld].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, there will be a public document, and we are looking at actions and behavior. What we want to do is incentivize or disincentivize the bad behaviors and incentivize constructive behavior. And obviously that sounds easier than it will be in practice, but there are ways that we target folks and we demonstrate, as we have in the past, and I think it has worked in the past with some – with individuals that you and your family and others are not going to get any benefit from the United States or others and try to lead other countries as well the best we can by saying these are folks that are not consistent with reform, that we can potentially create a positive environment inside the country. So it’s really based on actions and behavior as much as anything about positions, but we will be working on those sort of criteria or those tools going forward.

Consultation with Aung San Suu Kyi on this – we have general conversations with her about everything, and we do want to consult with a wide range of actors and people inside the country and get more information about who’s who, on who is considered reformist and has – is trying to do the right thing in our view, and those who are not, who are moving against the tide and are getting in the way of reform and are regressive. So we will be consulting with a wide range of people in that regard going forward.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. I think we have time for just one more question, Operator.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Matthew Pennington. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah, hello, and thanks for doing this. On the corporate standards, I’m still not sort of clear whether these standards would be legally binding under U.S. law. And on the SDN list, will – that’s going to be renewed now – how long do you think that process will take? And do you think the Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise would be a company that U.S. companies could deal with?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Does [agency withheld] want to take the issue of the process, the SDN process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: There’s a process underway to consider the new landscape within Burma, the progress we’ve seen and the actors and activities that still cause concern. So it’s the usual process of sifting through a lot of information, using our best judgment, see how to use our tools to preserve the good things that have happened over the course of the past few months. I couldn’t make any kind of comment on any particular person or types of persons or actors that we would focus on.

QUESTION: How long would that process take, do you think, to renew the list?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: The (inaudible) is reviewed as matter of course every year, and that is being renewed as a matter of course to keep in place all the statutory authorities that are used to enforce the current Burma sanctions. The SDN list is ongoing; it’s organic. We add people, we subtract people, on an ongoing basis. How long any particular set of designations would take, I can’t tell you except to say that this is obviously a priority as we work forward and try to balance the need for the general licenses with the understanding that we have to be careful and target those who would impede the process we’d all like to see.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the issue of a binding CSR, it will not be legally binding. But we will, as I say, put mechanisms in place that will ideally be – have oversight functions to ensure that there’s transparency about what’s going on, that no one can do anything in the shadows, and that there will be therefore the ability for folks to see and that these – that companies know that their practices will be viewed negatively. And we will find ways to ensure that they’re uncomfortable – made uncomfortable. And I’m sure so will be NGO community and the people of Burma should they find their practices contrary to reform efforts inside the country.

And I know our companies are quite aware of this. And I think companies should be – also note that even though we are moving today on easing the restrictions, it is not a very welcoming environment right now for investment. They need to understand very well the context in which they are operating. It is a very complex context; it is a very fraught context. The human rights situation, the corruption situation, the legal environment, regulatory environment, very, very rudimentary, still a lot of problems inside the country. And they need to be extraordinarily careful as they move in.

And this also goes with the SDN process, because if they move in swiftly and we find they’re working actors that are on the SDN list, they will be held accountable for that. They will need to ensure they are not working with the wrong people. So we will work closely with them. And they, I am sure, will be in touch with us. And we will try to be as clear as possible, making things as public as possible. And I know that’s what companies care most about. They want clarity. What are the rules? What do they need to be aware of? And what should they be doing? What do we expect? And I have great confidence in our corporations to be partners in the effort of what we call principled engagement in Burma going forward.

On the issue of the MOGE, again, we have a process for looking at all the different entities, individuals and such, and that process will be ongoing. So I think it’s premature to talk about any specific item or entity.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: And thank you. And thanks to both of our interlocutors today for taking time out, as well as to all of you who joined us on this call. That’s all we have time for, so have a great afternoon and evening. Bye-bye.

RIVERINE PATROL BOAT DURING LIVE-FIRE EXERCISE

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
Gunner's Mate Seaman Edward Brand, assigned to Riverine Squadron (RIVRON) 1, fires a GAU-17A gun system from the bow of a riverine patrol boat during a live-fire exercise. RIVRON 1 completed a three-day field exercise to prepare for final evaluation problem that will qualify them for deployment. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Steven Hoskins (Released)

SHIP'S CAPTAIN CONVICTED OF OBSTRUCTING A COAST GUARD INSPECTION

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, May 18, 2012
WASHINGTON – The former captain of a Panama-flagged cargo ship that discharged hundreds of plastic pipes into the ocean, was convicted yesterday by a jury in Mobile, Ala., for obstructing a U.S. Coast Guard inspection of the vessel in the port of Mobile on Sept. 21, 2011.  Prastana Taohim, 38, the captain of the M/V Gaurav Prem, was found guilty of two counts of obstruction of justice, announced Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and Kenyen R. Brown, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

At trial, witnesses testified that Captain Taohim ordered the ship’s chief officer to throw hundreds of plastic pipes into the ocean and not record the discharge in the ship’s garbage record book as required.  The garbage record book is a required log regularly inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard.  Taohim then knowingly made the garbage record book available during a Coast Guard inspection of the vessel in the Port of Mobile, Ala., on Sept. 21, 2011. The plastic pipes had previously contained insecticide and were used to fumigate a grain shipment.  The discharge of plastic into the sea is prohibited under the International Convention to Prevent Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL.  

Taohim was found guilty in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Alabama for obstructing the Coast Guard’s inspection of the ship.   The jury also found the defendant guilty of one count of obstruction of justice related to covering up the pollution by creating a false and fictitious garbage log.
Sentencing is set for Aug. 15, 2012.

This investigation was conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division.  Additional assistance was provided by the Coast Guard Sector Mobile, and U.S. Coast Guard Eighth District Legal Office.  The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney David O’Connell of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Anderson of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama.

G8 LEADER'S STATEMENT ON THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Credit:  Wikimedia.  
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Statement by G8 Leaders on the Global Economy
May 19, 2012
Our imperative is to promote growth and jobs.
The global economic recovery shows signs of promise, but significant headwinds persist.
Against this background, we commit to take all necessary steps to strengthen and reinvigorate our economies and combat financial stresses, recognizing that the right measures are not the same for each of us.

We welcome the ongoing discussion in Europe on how to generate growth, while maintaining a firm commitment to implement fiscal consolidation to be assessed on a structural basis. We agree on the importance of a strong and cohesive Eurozone for global stability and recovery, and we affirm our interest in Greece remaining in the Eurozone while respecting its commitments. We all have an interest in the success of specific measures to strengthen the resilience of the Eurozone and growth in Europe. We support Euro Area Leaders’ resolve to address the strains in the Eurozone in a credible and timely manner and in a manner that fosters confidence, stability and growth.

We agree that all of our governments need to take actions to boost confidence and nurture recovery including reforms to raise productivity, growth and demand within a sustainable, credible and non-inflationary macroeconomic framework. We commit to fiscal responsibility and, in this context, we support sound and sustainable fiscal consolidation policies that take into account countries’ evolving economic conditions and underpin confidence and economic recovery.

To raise productivity and growth potential in our economies, we support structural reforms, and investments in education and in modern infrastructure, as appropriate. Investment initiatives can be financed using a range of mechanisms, including leveraging the private sector. Sound financial measures, to which we are committed, should build stronger systems over time while not choking off near-term credit growth. We commit to promote investment to underpin demand, including support for small businesses and public-private partnerships.

Robust international trade, investment and market integration are key drivers of strong sustainable and balanced growth. We underscore the importance of open markets and a fair, strong, rules-based trading system. We will honor our commitment to refrain from protectionist measures, protect investments and pursue bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral efforts, consistent with and supportive of the WTO framework, to reduce barriers to trade and investment and maintain open markets. We call on the broader international community to do likewise. Recognizing that unnecessary differences and overly burdensome regulatory standards serve as significant barriers to trade, we support efforts towards regulatory coherence and better alignment of standards to further promote trade and growth.

Given the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) to stimulating job and economic growth, we affirm the significance of high standards for IPR protection and enforcement, including through international legal instruments and mutual assistance agreements, as well as through government procurement processes, private-sector voluntary codes of best practices, and enhanced customs cooperation, while promoting the free flow of information. To protect public health and consumer safety, we also commit to exchange information on rogue internet pharmacy sites in accordance with national law and share best practices on combating counterfeit medical products.

MUSKEGON LAKE GETS CLOSER TO LEAVING LIST OF AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION

Photo:  Muskegon County Michigan 1959.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Cleanup Brings Muskegon Lake Area of Concern Closer to Restoration, Delivers Results Under Great Lakes Initiative

CHICAGO (May 14, 2012) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the City and County of Muskegon today announced the completion of a contaminated sediment removal project at the Division Street Outfall to Muskegon Lake.  This project brings Muskegon Lake closer to being removed from a binational list of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes.

"The work by federal, state, county, city and other partners over the years has helped deliver real results under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative," said Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator.  “This work will help boost human, ecological and local economic health. But we can’t stop here. We’re looking for new partners to match funds to accelerate cleanups in other Areas of Concern in Michigan and around the Great Lakes."

The $12 million project under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative’s Legacy Act removed about 43,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated with mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.  The contamination contributed to limits on eating fish caught in the lake, as well as loss of habitat and other environmental problems.

“The State of Michigan is excited to work with the EPA Great Lakes Legacy Act in cleaning up our Areas of Concern. We appreciate the time and effort of the local partners in restoring the values of the Muskegon Lake area to the local community,” said Patty Birkholz, Director of the Office of the Great Lakes.

The Muskegon Lake Area of Concern includes the entire lake, which is separated from Lake Michigan by sand dunes and a navigation channel. The Muskegon River flows through the lake before emptying into Lake Michigan. Additional tributaries include Mosquito Creek, Ryerson Creek, Ruddiman Creek, Green Creek, and Four Mile Creek.  In the 1980s, the U.S. and Canada identified 43 highly degraded shoreline areas along the Great Lakes.  Today there are 30 AOCs wholly in the U.S. or shared with Canada.

The Great Lakes provide more than 30 million Americans with drinking water and underpin a multi-billion dollar economy.  In February 2009, President Obama proposed the GLRI, the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades.

The GLRI Action Plan, which covers FY 2010 through 2014, was developed by a task force of 16 federal departments and agencies to implement the president’s historic initiative.  It calls for aggressive efforts to address five urgent priority focus areas:

- Cleaning up toxics and toxic hot spot areas of concern.
- Combating invasive species.
- Promoting near-shore health by protecting watersheds from polluted runoff.
- Restoring wetlands and other habitats.
- Raising public awareness, tracking progress and working with partners.

THE NEW AMPHIBIOUS TRANSPORT DOCK SHIP USS SAN DIEGO COMMISSIONING CEREMONY

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
Sailors and Marines man the rails of the newest San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS San Diego (LPD 22) during the commissioning ceremony. San Diego will provide improved war-fighting capabilities including an advanced command and control suite, increased lift capability, increased vehicle and cargo carrying capacity and advanced ship survivability features. San Diego will be home ported in its namesake city as a part of the U.S. 3rd Fleet. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Shawnte Bryan (Released) 120519-N-YQ852-152