FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to Press at Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Remarks
Glyn Davies
Special Representative for North Korea Policy
Tokyo, Japan
November 25, 2013
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: What I would like to do very much – first of all, let me thank you all for coming out. I appreciate that very much. I would like to say something at the beginning since it’s been a long visit here to North Asia and I’ve had good talks in Tokyo. First of all, I want to thank Director General Ihara and Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary Kanehara for giving me so much time today here in Tokyo. We had very in-depth and useful talks, and I believe that our visit here today and the talks I’ve had in Tokyo today demonstrate our close collaboration on North Korea.
We talked of course about the nuclear issue. Japan and the United States are in complete agreement, complete sync about that. We also talked about North Korean human rights – we’ll do more of that in a minute at lunch – and touched on the abductions issue. And we’ll again have more to say about that at lunch. I want to reiterate again, as I always do here in Tokyo, about how we in the United States share the pain and the suffering of abductee families and the Japanese people and pledge once again that we will work tirelessly in cooperation with Japan to try to resolve this important matter.
But as I wrap up a very productive week in the three key North Asian capitals – Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo – I want to report a strong convergence of views on North Korea. All of us are in quite close alignment, and I believe Russia, an essential partner in the Six-Party process, agrees that we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. There are of course some differences among the five – but not at all among the three allies, who are in complete solidarity – but some differences over secondary issues such as the precise threshold or timing of talks, but there is unanimity on what North Korea must do: North Korea must abandon its nuclear weapons and agree to begin that process.
So we are looking for concrete indications from Pyongyang of its commitment to do that. This is because the core purpose of the Six-Party process is the complete, verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula on a clear and quick timetable.
North Korea, however, is moving in the opposite direction. They have made clear through words and actions that they reject that premise. We have heard them say repeatedly that instead they demand acceptance as a nuclear weapons state, that they demand prior lifting of sanctions, that they demand a weakening of the U.S.-ROK alliance, which has kept the peace on the Korean Peninsula now for 60 years. I’ve spoken – I did so in Beijing – about North Korea’s “Byungjin” policy of prioritizing nuclear weapons development, which I call a dead end.
I also want to underscore that Pyongyang’s attempts to engage in dialogue while keeping its program running are completely unacceptable. So it’s understandable, we believe, after so many broken promises, after the nuclear and missile tests, the threats against its neighbors and the United States, that not just its negotiating partners in the Six-Party process, but the international community writ large would have high standards of evidence to measure North Korean intentions.
That’s why the United States and its allies call on North Korea to make convincing indications, take concrete steps to demonstrate its seriousness of purpose. We will continue this process of joining with our partners – especially China, given its unique role – to keep the onus for action on North Korea.
With that, I’m very happy to take any questions that you have.
QUESTION: Could you be more specific about what is the concrete step you want North Korea to take?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, this is now a matter of diplomatic discussion among the diplomatic partners in the five-party process, so I don’t want to go into a great deal of detail now. We’re talking about this between governments. We commend China for its tireless efforts to try to move forward on this discussion of what the appropriate threshold for Six-Party Talks would look like. My friend and colleague Ambassador Wu Dawei was just in Washington, some weeks ago, and we had the opportunity there to talk about it, and of course I followed up in Beijing on that same subject. And of course the discussions we had in Washington with separately the ROK and Japan, and then we had a trilateral session, and then again out here in the region – all are meant to define to our collective satisfaction what the threshold for talks should look like. So with your permission I do not plan at this stage to go into a great deal of detail about it.
The North Koreans know full well the kinds of things that we are looking for and talking about. We’ve been at this diplomacy now for a generation, through bilateral talks, trilateral talks, quadrilateral talks and Six-Party Talks, and we’ll keep it up.
QUESTION: Ambassador Davies, what is the U.S. currently doing to pull its citizen out of North Korea, and did you discuss it with the allies?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Of course. This issue of the fate of American citizens who are in North Korean custody is one that we’ve raised – that I’ve raised at each stop, but particularly in Beijing, given their relationship with North Korea. I’m not going to get into, again, the specific discussion of the measures that we’re taking, but I will use this occasion to once again call on North Korea to make the right decision and to respect our concerns and let American citizens who are there go free. I also want to commend our Swedish protecting power. The Government of Sweden has been magnificent in trying every day to work on these issues in Pyongyang with the North Korean government, and that is very important. It is very important to us that this be resolved, that it be resolved quickly.
QUESTION: There have been reports that it is Mr. Newman who has been detained. Can you confirm that identity?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: I’m not at liberty to do that. We have a law that we take very seriously in the United States called the Privacy Act, and because there is no signed Privacy Act waiver, I’m not in position to speak specifically about that issue, out of respect for the law.
QUESTION: Ambassador, your opening remark was very strong, and it comes obviously after the deal with Iran. Is the United States ready to deepen the sanctions, to make the sanctions more strict, to make them more effective?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, look, I’m glad you raised that. I actually – since I knew you’d raise the issue of Iran, and this gives me an occasion to talk about it, so let me say some general things about that, since I know it’s the topic of the moment. Other than the nuclear denominator, the cases could not be more different, frankly, between Iran and North Korea. The two states, simply put, are on opposite sides of the nuclear weapons divide. I would point you to the remarks just made by Secretary of State Kerry. He pointed out that there is the very significant difference on the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that, as I think many of you know, North Korea is the only nation on earth to have first signed that treaty and then renounced its signature. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Also North Korea has said repeatedly, with increasing frequency, has asserted that it is a nuclear weapons state. They have now placed provisions in their constitution to enshrine that. They’ve sought acceptance as a nuclear weapons state. Iran in contrast has pledged not to build nuclear weapons.
But the starkest contrast of all – and I think this is the most important point to make – is that in the 21st century, North Korea is the only nation on earth that has exploded nuclear devices. They’ve done it not once, not twice, but three times.
There are other differences between the two cases. North Korea walked away from its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, the agency where I spent several years representing the United States, that is now under the direction of Director General Yukiya Amano. Iran is and has always been a very active and engaged member of the IAEA although we have often had differences with them in the past. I would also remind that I’ve alluded to this before, that North Korea has elevated the pursuit of nuclear weapons to one of its two strategic priorities in its “Byungjin” policy that I spoke to a minute ago.
One way the cases are similar – and I think this is very important – is that pressure, particularly in the form of sanctions, do play a critical role. Sanctions helped convince Iran to agree to this interim deal that’s just been announced. We believe sanctions and pressure are key to sharpening the choices that Pyongyang faces. So given North Korea’s continued flouting of its international obligations and international law, given its testing of nuclear devices, given its repeated threats of nuclear attack, its elevation of its nuclear weapons program pursuit to its highest national priority, we will continue to keep pressure on North Korea, to keep the screws to North Korea.
But it’s pressure not for its own sake; it’s pressure with a purpose, and this is important because what we seek is a negotiated, diplomatic solution to this long-running problem. Here we believe we are making progress with our partners to define an appropriate threshold for resumed multilateral talks, and we will keep that up.
QUESTION: There have been many rumors that the two countries, Iran and North Korea, have been cooperating on nuclear programs. How do you address these concerns?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, proliferation is a concern. It’s a big concern, and it’s something that we work on every day and about which we have conversations with our partners. I’m not going to get into what we do or don’t know about the state of affairs between North Korea and Iran. That would dip into intelligence matters which I can’t comment on, but this issue of proliferation of the spread of nuclear technologies, in particular from North Korea, remains an area of key concern to us, and of vigorous action.
QUESTION: Ambassador, regarding the sanctions, are you suggesting that we don’t have the right level or the right mix as we stand?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Sanctions are always a work in progress. I mean, I think that there are always more sanctions we could put in place if needed. But what I want to put the emphasis on here is what I said at the end of my earlier remarks, that we want the sanctions to help clarify for Pyongyang the choices that they face. If they continue to defy the international community, pursue nuclear weapons and missile technologies, all they will do is continue to isolate themselves, quite frankly to impoverish their people, to keep North Korea outside the community of nations. So we’re saying to North Korea – and we’re doing this increasingly with one voice across not just the six parties, not just the northeast Asian region, but across the world – take a different approach; take a different decision; come in the direction of the concerns of the international community; give up your nuclear weapons; pledge to eliminate your nuclear program; stop this relentless pursuit of these technologies; stop threatening the outside world, testing weapons and declaring yourself at odds with the international community.
If you do that, there is hope going forward for diplomacy, but we’ve seen just the opposite. I’ve detailed that. I won’t go back into that. And that’s why we’re so concerned, that North Korea seems uninterested in meeting the concerns of the international community, and that’s where pressure and sanctions come into play. And so we will keep the pressure on North Korea, and if necessary if they cannot in the near term go in a different direction, we’ll have to ramp up that pressure in order to continue to try to bring home to them that this is a mistake, it’s not in their interest, and that if they wish a better relationship with the United States, their neighbors in the world, they have to give up the nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: What is the latest (inaudible)?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: I’ve talked about this before. I actually talked about it at length in Beijing, and I don’t want to really repeat myself. What I said was that it remains a matter of some wonderment that they haven’t understood that if, as they say, they want a better relationship with the United States, one thing they could do is release these Americans and answer our calls to take seriously our concerns about the fate of those being held there. And you know Kenneth Bae has been there for over a year. He’s been in North Korean custody longer than any American in quite a while. His family is understandably concerned. We talk to them frequently. They are keeping their hope up, and I believe that’s the case with the family of the other individual concerned. And we want them to know that we’re with them, and we’re doing everything we can to convince North Korea to let these men go.
QUESTION: The current level of sanctions hasn’t quite persuaded North Korea to think as you suggested. Is it time for a different tactic?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, that time will come soon, but we’re not there yet. There’s still room for diplomacy. We’d like to get something going here, and that’s why the pace of diplomacy has increased, to see if we can’t agree on an appropriate threshold for Six-Party Talks. But at the same time, we keep up our pressure. We keep up our sanctions, and if we do not see signs of North Korean sincerity, if they do not act to demonstrate that they understand they must fulfill their obligations to give up their nuclear weapons, then there is more pressure that will be brought to bear on them.
QUESTION: Did you give them a deadline?
AMBASSADOR DAVIES: You know, I’m not in the business of giving deadlines. I’m not going to do that. Let me – if there’s one more question, I’m happy to take it, but I’ve been invited to lunch by Director General Ihara, and I would not like to be rude. I want to show up for that lunch, so any other questions here? No? Excellent. Thank you very much for coming here and listening to me. I really appreciate it. I look forward to seeing many of you in the near future either in Washington or back here in Tokyo. Thanks again. All the best.
Monday, November 25, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REMARKS AT DCCC EVENT IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
November 25, 2013
Remarks by the President at DCCC Event -- Seattle, WA
Private Residence
Seattle, Washington
7:24 P.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! Thank you, guys. (Applause.) Sit down. You already did that. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Have a seat. Have a seat.
Well, first of all, let me just thank Jon for the second time for his incredible hospitality. And I think it’s fair to say that between Nancy and me and Steve Israel, we do a lot of events. I will say that this particular space is one of the more spectacular venues for an event. (Applause.) And we couldn’t have a more gracious host. The only problem when I come to Jon’s house is I want to just kind of roam around and check stuff out, and instead I’ve got to talk. (Laughter.) But Jon, thank you for your friendship. We’ve very grateful.
A few other people I want to acknowledge. First of all, our once Speaker and soon to be Speaker again, Nancy Pelosi. We are thrilled to be with her. (Applause.) Someone who has an incredibly thankless job, but does it with energy and wisdom -- and I was going to say joy, but I’m not, I don’t want to kind of overdo it -- (laughter) -- but is doing an outstanding job -- Steve Israel, who is heading up the DCCC. Thank you so much, Steve, for the great job that you’re doing. (Applause.)
We’ve got some outstanding members of Congress here. Congressman Rick Larsen is here. Where’s Rick? There he is.(Applause.) Congresswoman Suzan DelBene is here. (Applause.) Congressman Derek Kilmer is here. Where’s Derek? There he is -- (applause) -- who just informed me that his four-year-old at the Christmas party is going to sing me at least one patriotic song. (Laughter.) And I’m very excited about this. She has a repertoire of five songs, and we’re trying to hone in on what one song she is going to do.
And you’ve got a former outstanding member of Congress, who now is doing a great job as the Governor of this great state -- Governor Jay Inslee is here. (Applause.) And Trudi, who’s keeping him in line at all times. (Applause.) And I want to thank John Frank, who also spent a lot of time on this event. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Now, the great thing about these kinds of events is I spend most of my time in a conversation with you, as opposed to just making a long speech. Let me make a couple of observations. Number one, Jay claims he arranged it, but when we landed, we were flying over Mt. Rainier -- pulled into the airport, came off the plane, and the sunset was lighting the mountain. And it was spectacular, and reminded me of why it is that I love the Pacific Northwest so much.
Now, part of it -- I was saying to somebody, part of it may also be that I always feel the spirit of my mom here, because I graduated from Mercer Island High. (Applause.) But you guys have got a good thing going here, and it’s not just the Seahawks. I just want to make that point. (Applause.)
Point number two, obviously, there are such enormous challenges that we face all across this country and internationally, and this year we’ve seen issues ranging from the tragedy of Sandy Hook to disclosures at the NSA to the shutdown and the potential of default to continuing issues surrounding the Middle East and peace there. And so it’s understandable, I think, that sometimes people feel discouraged or concerned about whether or not we can continue to make progress. And one thing that I always try to emphasize is that if you look at American history, there have been frequent occasions in which it looked like we had insoluble problems -- either economic, political, security -- and as long as there were those who stayed steady and clear-eyed and persistent, eventually we came up with an answer; eventually we were able to work through these challenges and come out better on the other end.
And that’s true today as well. After seeing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we’ve now seen 44 straight months of job growth. We’ve doubled our production of clean energy. We are actually importing less oil than ever before, producing more energy than ever before. We’ve reduced the pace of our carbon emissions in a way that is actually better than the vast majority of industrialized nations over the last five years.
We’ve been able to not only create the possibility of all people enjoying the security of health care, but we’ve also been driving down the cost of health care, which benefits people’s pocket books, their businesses. Our institutions of higher learning continue to be the best in the world. And you’re actually -- because of the productivity of our workers, we’re actually seeing manufacturing move back to America in ways that we haven’t seen in decades.
A lot of the reason that we’re making progress is because of the inherent resilience and strength of the American people, but a lot of it is because folks like Nancy Pelosi and some of the members of Congress, or even former members of Congress who are here made some tough decisions early on in my administration. And we’re starting to see those bear fruit and pay off.
And so I’m incredibly optimistic about our future. But I’m also mindful of the fact that we have some barriers, some impediments to change and progress. And the biggest barrier and impediment we have right now is a Congress -- and in particular, a House of Representatives -- that is not focused on getting the job done for the American people, but is a lot more focused on trying to position themselves for the next election or to defeat my agenda.
And that’s unfortunate, because that’s not what the American people are looking for right now. And the truth is, is that there are a lot of ideas -- things like early childhood education, or rebuilding our infrastructure, or investing in basic science and research -- there are a whole range of -- immigration reform -- a whole range of ideas that if you strip away the politics, there’s actually a pretty broad consensus in this country.
I’m not a particularly ideological person. There are some things, some values I feel passionately about. I feel passionate about making sure everybody in this country gets a fair shake. I feel passionate about everybody being treated with dignity and respect regardless of what they look like or what their last name is or who they love. I feel passionate about making sure that we’re leaving a planet that is as spectacular as the one we inherited from our parents and our grandparents. I feel passionate about working for peace even as we are making sure that our defenses are strong.
So there are values I care about. But I’m pretty pragmatic when it comes to how do we get there -- and so is Nancy, and so is Jay. And so more than anything, what we’re looking for is not the defeat of another party; what we’re looking for is the advancement of ideas that are going to vindicate those values that are tried and true, and that have led this country to the spectacular heights that we’ve seen in the past.
But to do that we’re going to need Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, because there’s just a lot of work to be done right now. Between now and next November, I’m going to do everything I can and look for every opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done. There will not be a point in time where I’ve got an opportunity to get something done where I don't do it simply because of politics. But those opportunity have been few and far between over the last several years, and the American people can’t afford to wait in perpetuity for us to grow faster, create more jobs, strengthen our middle class, clean our environment, fix our immigration system.
And so if we don't have partners on the other side, we’re going to have to go ahead and do it ourselves. And so the support that you’re providing today and the support that you’ve provided time and again is making all the difference in the world. And it’s part of what gives me confidence that we’re going to be successful over the long term.
So thank you. We appreciate it.
And with that, let me take some questions. (Applause.)
November 25, 2013
Remarks by the President at DCCC Event -- Seattle, WA
Private Residence
Seattle, Washington
7:24 P.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! Thank you, guys. (Applause.) Sit down. You already did that. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Have a seat. Have a seat.
Well, first of all, let me just thank Jon for the second time for his incredible hospitality. And I think it’s fair to say that between Nancy and me and Steve Israel, we do a lot of events. I will say that this particular space is one of the more spectacular venues for an event. (Applause.) And we couldn’t have a more gracious host. The only problem when I come to Jon’s house is I want to just kind of roam around and check stuff out, and instead I’ve got to talk. (Laughter.) But Jon, thank you for your friendship. We’ve very grateful.
A few other people I want to acknowledge. First of all, our once Speaker and soon to be Speaker again, Nancy Pelosi. We are thrilled to be with her. (Applause.) Someone who has an incredibly thankless job, but does it with energy and wisdom -- and I was going to say joy, but I’m not, I don’t want to kind of overdo it -- (laughter) -- but is doing an outstanding job -- Steve Israel, who is heading up the DCCC. Thank you so much, Steve, for the great job that you’re doing. (Applause.)
We’ve got some outstanding members of Congress here. Congressman Rick Larsen is here. Where’s Rick? There he is.(Applause.) Congresswoman Suzan DelBene is here. (Applause.) Congressman Derek Kilmer is here. Where’s Derek? There he is -- (applause) -- who just informed me that his four-year-old at the Christmas party is going to sing me at least one patriotic song. (Laughter.) And I’m very excited about this. She has a repertoire of five songs, and we’re trying to hone in on what one song she is going to do.
And you’ve got a former outstanding member of Congress, who now is doing a great job as the Governor of this great state -- Governor Jay Inslee is here. (Applause.) And Trudi, who’s keeping him in line at all times. (Applause.) And I want to thank John Frank, who also spent a lot of time on this event. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Now, the great thing about these kinds of events is I spend most of my time in a conversation with you, as opposed to just making a long speech. Let me make a couple of observations. Number one, Jay claims he arranged it, but when we landed, we were flying over Mt. Rainier -- pulled into the airport, came off the plane, and the sunset was lighting the mountain. And it was spectacular, and reminded me of why it is that I love the Pacific Northwest so much.
Now, part of it -- I was saying to somebody, part of it may also be that I always feel the spirit of my mom here, because I graduated from Mercer Island High. (Applause.) But you guys have got a good thing going here, and it’s not just the Seahawks. I just want to make that point. (Applause.)
Point number two, obviously, there are such enormous challenges that we face all across this country and internationally, and this year we’ve seen issues ranging from the tragedy of Sandy Hook to disclosures at the NSA to the shutdown and the potential of default to continuing issues surrounding the Middle East and peace there. And so it’s understandable, I think, that sometimes people feel discouraged or concerned about whether or not we can continue to make progress. And one thing that I always try to emphasize is that if you look at American history, there have been frequent occasions in which it looked like we had insoluble problems -- either economic, political, security -- and as long as there were those who stayed steady and clear-eyed and persistent, eventually we came up with an answer; eventually we were able to work through these challenges and come out better on the other end.
And that’s true today as well. After seeing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we’ve now seen 44 straight months of job growth. We’ve doubled our production of clean energy. We are actually importing less oil than ever before, producing more energy than ever before. We’ve reduced the pace of our carbon emissions in a way that is actually better than the vast majority of industrialized nations over the last five years.
We’ve been able to not only create the possibility of all people enjoying the security of health care, but we’ve also been driving down the cost of health care, which benefits people’s pocket books, their businesses. Our institutions of higher learning continue to be the best in the world. And you’re actually -- because of the productivity of our workers, we’re actually seeing manufacturing move back to America in ways that we haven’t seen in decades.
A lot of the reason that we’re making progress is because of the inherent resilience and strength of the American people, but a lot of it is because folks like Nancy Pelosi and some of the members of Congress, or even former members of Congress who are here made some tough decisions early on in my administration. And we’re starting to see those bear fruit and pay off.
And so I’m incredibly optimistic about our future. But I’m also mindful of the fact that we have some barriers, some impediments to change and progress. And the biggest barrier and impediment we have right now is a Congress -- and in particular, a House of Representatives -- that is not focused on getting the job done for the American people, but is a lot more focused on trying to position themselves for the next election or to defeat my agenda.
And that’s unfortunate, because that’s not what the American people are looking for right now. And the truth is, is that there are a lot of ideas -- things like early childhood education, or rebuilding our infrastructure, or investing in basic science and research -- there are a whole range of -- immigration reform -- a whole range of ideas that if you strip away the politics, there’s actually a pretty broad consensus in this country.
I’m not a particularly ideological person. There are some things, some values I feel passionately about. I feel passionate about making sure everybody in this country gets a fair shake. I feel passionate about everybody being treated with dignity and respect regardless of what they look like or what their last name is or who they love. I feel passionate about making sure that we’re leaving a planet that is as spectacular as the one we inherited from our parents and our grandparents. I feel passionate about working for peace even as we are making sure that our defenses are strong.
So there are values I care about. But I’m pretty pragmatic when it comes to how do we get there -- and so is Nancy, and so is Jay. And so more than anything, what we’re looking for is not the defeat of another party; what we’re looking for is the advancement of ideas that are going to vindicate those values that are tried and true, and that have led this country to the spectacular heights that we’ve seen in the past.
But to do that we’re going to need Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, because there’s just a lot of work to be done right now. Between now and next November, I’m going to do everything I can and look for every opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done. There will not be a point in time where I’ve got an opportunity to get something done where I don't do it simply because of politics. But those opportunity have been few and far between over the last several years, and the American people can’t afford to wait in perpetuity for us to grow faster, create more jobs, strengthen our middle class, clean our environment, fix our immigration system.
And so if we don't have partners on the other side, we’re going to have to go ahead and do it ourselves. And so the support that you’re providing today and the support that you’ve provided time and again is making all the difference in the world. And it’s part of what gives me confidence that we’re going to be successful over the long term.
So thank you. We appreciate it.
And with that, let me take some questions. (Applause.)
NEXAVAR APPROVED BY FDA TO TREAT LATE-STAGE DIFFERENTIATED THYROID CANCER
FROM: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
FDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Nov. 22, 2013
FDA approves Nexavar to treat type of thyroid cancer
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the approved uses of Nexavar (sorafenib) to treat late-stage (metastatic) differentiated thyroid cancer.
Thyroid cancer is a cancerous growth of the thyroid gland, which is located in the neck. Differentiated thyroid cancer is the most common type of thyroid cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 60,220 Americans will be diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 1,850 will die from the disease in 2013.
Nexavar works by inhibiting multiple proteins in cancer cells, limiting cancer cell growth and division. The drug’s new use is intended for patients with locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive differentiated thyroid cancer that no longer responds to radioactive iodine treatment.
“Differentiated thyroid cancer can be challenging to treat, especially when unresponsive to conventional therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval demonstrates the FDA’s commitment to expediting the availability of treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat diseases.”
The safety and effectiveness of Nexavar were established in a clinical study involving 417 participants with locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive differentiated thyroid cancer that does not respond to radioactive iodine treatment. Nexavar increased the length of time patients lived without the cancer progressing (progression-free survival) by 41 percent. Half of patients receiving Nexavar lived without cancer progression for at least 10.8 months compared to at least 5.8 months for participants receiving a placebo.
The most common side effects in patients treated with Nexavar were diarrhea, fatigue, infection, hair loss (alopecia), hand-foot skin reaction, rash, weight loss, decreased appetite, nausea, gastrointestinal and abdominal pains and high blood pressure (hypertension). Thyroid stimulating hormone, a potential promoter of thyroid cancer, is more likely to become elevated while on treatment with Nexavar, requiring adjustment of thyroid hormone replacement therapy.
The FDA completed its review of Nexavar’s new indication under its priority review program. This program provides for an expedited, six-month review for drugs that may offer a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a serious condition. Nexavar also received orphan-product designation by the FDA because it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition.
The FDA approved Nexavar to treat advanced kidney cancer in 2005. In 2007, the agency expanded the drug’s label to treat liver cancer that cannot be surgically removed.
Nexavar is co-marketed by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in Wayne, N.J., and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, based in South San Francisco, Calif.
For more information:
FDA: Office of Hematology and Oncology Products
FDA: Approved Drugs: Questions and Answers
NCI: Thyroid Cancer
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, promotes and protects the public health by, among other things, assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
#
Editor's Note: This release has been updated to include Onyx Pharmaceuticals as a co-marketer of the product.
FDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Nov. 22, 2013
FDA approves Nexavar to treat type of thyroid cancer
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the approved uses of Nexavar (sorafenib) to treat late-stage (metastatic) differentiated thyroid cancer.
Thyroid cancer is a cancerous growth of the thyroid gland, which is located in the neck. Differentiated thyroid cancer is the most common type of thyroid cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 60,220 Americans will be diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 1,850 will die from the disease in 2013.
Nexavar works by inhibiting multiple proteins in cancer cells, limiting cancer cell growth and division. The drug’s new use is intended for patients with locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive differentiated thyroid cancer that no longer responds to radioactive iodine treatment.
“Differentiated thyroid cancer can be challenging to treat, especially when unresponsive to conventional therapies,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval demonstrates the FDA’s commitment to expediting the availability of treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat diseases.”
The safety and effectiveness of Nexavar were established in a clinical study involving 417 participants with locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive differentiated thyroid cancer that does not respond to radioactive iodine treatment. Nexavar increased the length of time patients lived without the cancer progressing (progression-free survival) by 41 percent. Half of patients receiving Nexavar lived without cancer progression for at least 10.8 months compared to at least 5.8 months for participants receiving a placebo.
The most common side effects in patients treated with Nexavar were diarrhea, fatigue, infection, hair loss (alopecia), hand-foot skin reaction, rash, weight loss, decreased appetite, nausea, gastrointestinal and abdominal pains and high blood pressure (hypertension). Thyroid stimulating hormone, a potential promoter of thyroid cancer, is more likely to become elevated while on treatment with Nexavar, requiring adjustment of thyroid hormone replacement therapy.
The FDA completed its review of Nexavar’s new indication under its priority review program. This program provides for an expedited, six-month review for drugs that may offer a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a serious condition. Nexavar also received orphan-product designation by the FDA because it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition.
The FDA approved Nexavar to treat advanced kidney cancer in 2005. In 2007, the agency expanded the drug’s label to treat liver cancer that cannot be surgically removed.
Nexavar is co-marketed by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in Wayne, N.J., and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, based in South San Francisco, Calif.
For more information:
FDA: Office of Hematology and Oncology Products
FDA: Approved Drugs: Questions and Answers
NCI: Thyroid Cancer
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, promotes and protects the public health by, among other things, assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
#
Editor's Note: This release has been updated to include Onyx Pharmaceuticals as a co-marketer of the product.
FINAL SIX 'RACHEL ROBOCALL' DEFENDANTS BANNED FROM TELEMARKETING
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Final Six Defendants in 'Rachel Robocall' Scheme Settle FTC Charges
They Will Be Permanently Banned from All Telemarketing and Debt Relief Services
The final six of 10 defendants named in an alleged “Rachel from Cardholder Services” scam have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled consumers with bogus claims that they would lower their credit card interest rates.
The FTC settlement bans Emory L. “Jack” Holley IV, Lisa Miller, and the remaining corporate defendants from telemarketing and marketing debt relief services or assisting others in such conduct, prohibits them from misrepresenting any products or services, and imposes a partially suspended $11.9 million judgment.
The FTC filed its complaint in this matter in October 2012, alleging that the defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by charging illegal up-front fees during telemarketing calls in which they made false promises to reduce the interest rate on consumers’ credit cards and save them thousands of dollars.
In the complaint, the FTC also charged the defendants with making other misrepresentations, such as claiming that consumers who bought their services would be able to pay off their debts much faster as a result of the lowered credit card interest rates and making false claims about their refund policies.
The other four Key One defendants agreed to settle the FTC charges against them in June of this year. They allegedly defendants participated in the scheme by opening merchant and bank accounts in their names for processing consumer payments obtained in connection with the deceptive sales of credit card interest rate-reduction and by providing substantial assistance, such as web pages, mail drops, customer service, and shipping of CDs with general debt and other financial information to consumers.
Under the settlement announced today, Emory L. “Jack” Holley, Lisa Miller, and the companies they control, will be permanently banned from all telemarketing, with extremely limited exceptions to allow them to engage in legitimate business activities. The settlement also bans the defendants from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any debt relief-related products or services. Several of the defendants are repeat offenders, and this ban will permanently stop them from preying on consumers in financial distress.
The final order also prohibits the six defendants from making any misrepresentations related to any financial product or service, and requires them to substantiate any claims they make to consumers in the future about the potential benefits or effectiveness of any product or service. Finally, the order imposes a partially suspended judgment of $11.9 million jointly against the corporate and individual defendants. The defendants' assets, currently being held in receivership, will be paid to the Commission.
The Commission vote approving the proposed consent decree announced today was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on October 16, 2013, and entered by the court the next day. The final order settles the FTC’s allegations against: 1) ELH Consulting, LLC, also doing business as Proactive Planning Solutions; 2) Purchase Power Solutions, LLC; 3) Allied Corporate Connection, LLC; 4) Complete Financial Strategies, LLC; 5) Emory L. Holley IV, a/k/a Jack Holley, individually and as the sole member of ELH Consulting, LLC; and 6) Lisa Miller, individually and as the sole member of Allied Corporate Connection, LLC, Complete Financial Strategies, LLC, and Purchase Power Solutions, LLC.
Final Six Defendants in 'Rachel Robocall' Scheme Settle FTC Charges
They Will Be Permanently Banned from All Telemarketing and Debt Relief Services
The final six of 10 defendants named in an alleged “Rachel from Cardholder Services” scam have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled consumers with bogus claims that they would lower their credit card interest rates.
The FTC settlement bans Emory L. “Jack” Holley IV, Lisa Miller, and the remaining corporate defendants from telemarketing and marketing debt relief services or assisting others in such conduct, prohibits them from misrepresenting any products or services, and imposes a partially suspended $11.9 million judgment.
The FTC filed its complaint in this matter in October 2012, alleging that the defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by charging illegal up-front fees during telemarketing calls in which they made false promises to reduce the interest rate on consumers’ credit cards and save them thousands of dollars.
In the complaint, the FTC also charged the defendants with making other misrepresentations, such as claiming that consumers who bought their services would be able to pay off their debts much faster as a result of the lowered credit card interest rates and making false claims about their refund policies.
The other four Key One defendants agreed to settle the FTC charges against them in June of this year. They allegedly defendants participated in the scheme by opening merchant and bank accounts in their names for processing consumer payments obtained in connection with the deceptive sales of credit card interest rate-reduction and by providing substantial assistance, such as web pages, mail drops, customer service, and shipping of CDs with general debt and other financial information to consumers.
Under the settlement announced today, Emory L. “Jack” Holley, Lisa Miller, and the companies they control, will be permanently banned from all telemarketing, with extremely limited exceptions to allow them to engage in legitimate business activities. The settlement also bans the defendants from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any debt relief-related products or services. Several of the defendants are repeat offenders, and this ban will permanently stop them from preying on consumers in financial distress.
The final order also prohibits the six defendants from making any misrepresentations related to any financial product or service, and requires them to substantiate any claims they make to consumers in the future about the potential benefits or effectiveness of any product or service. Finally, the order imposes a partially suspended judgment of $11.9 million jointly against the corporate and individual defendants. The defendants' assets, currently being held in receivership, will be paid to the Commission.
The Commission vote approving the proposed consent decree announced today was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on October 16, 2013, and entered by the court the next day. The final order settles the FTC’s allegations against: 1) ELH Consulting, LLC, also doing business as Proactive Planning Solutions; 2) Purchase Power Solutions, LLC; 3) Allied Corporate Connection, LLC; 4) Complete Financial Strategies, LLC; 5) Emory L. Holley IV, a/k/a Jack Holley, individually and as the sole member of ELH Consulting, LLC; and 6) Lisa Miller, individually and as the sole member of Allied Corporate Connection, LLC, Complete Financial Strategies, LLC, and Purchase Power Solutions, LLC.
CDC REPORTS ON FIGHT AGAINST POLIO IN PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN
FROM: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Progress and Challenges Fighting Polio in Pakistan and Afghanistan
Not reaching every child jeopardizes progress and risks re-introduction in other parts of the world
Both Pakistan and Afghanistan saw an overall decrease in wild poliovirus (WPV) cases from January – September 2013 compared with the same time period in 2012 according to data published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since 2012, transmission of indigenous WPV has been limited to three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. Results for Nigeria will be released in December.
Both countries still face significant challenges in reaching unvaccinated children. Afghanistan is fighting a polio outbreak in the Eastern Region while Pakistan continues to see polio increases in the conflict-affected Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where there is a ban on polio vaccination, and in security-compromised Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. The potential risk of transmission to other countries highlights the need for strong ongoing global efforts to eradicate this disease.
“Although there have been setbacks, we are making progress towards global polio eradication,” said CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “There is encouraging progress in Afghanistan, but, as long as transmission is uninterrupted in Pakistan and Nigeria, the risk for spread to other countries continues because polio anywhere presents a threat of polio everywhere."
In Afghanistan, confirmed cases of WPV dropped from 80 in 2011 to 37 in 2012. The downward trend continues for 2013 with only eight cases confirmed during January–September 2013, compared with 26 during the same period in 2012. All eight polio cases in 2013 were in the Eastern Region and originated from the wild poliovirus in Pakistan.
This week Afghanistan achieved a significant milestone - 12 months without any recorded cases of wild poliovirus in the traditionally polio-endemic provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, long recognized as Afghanistan's epicentres of polio. This unprecedented progress is an endorsement of the effectiveness of the polio eradication programs and their implementation in the Southern Region.
akistan reported a decrease from 198 WPV cases throughout the country in 2011 to 58 in 2012 in selected areas. Fifty-two cases were reported during January–September 2013, compared with 54 cases during the same period in 2012. However, because of additional cases since September, 2013 Pakistan has now surpassed the 2012 numbers, thus reversing the downward trend. Eighty-four percent of cases reported since January 2012 occurred in the FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.
Approximately 350,000 children in the FATA have not received polio vaccines during immunization campaigns conducted since mid-2012 because local authorities have banned vaccination. In other areas of Pakistan, polio vaccination teams have encountered increased security threat-levels, hindering immunization programs. Further multi-pronged efforts to reach children in conflict-affected and security-compromised areas will be necessary to prevent WPV re-introduction into other areas of Pakistan and other parts of the world. This situation requires all countries to take additional public health actions to strengthen detection and strengthen protection by enhancing polio surveillance programs and intensifying vaccination efforts.
Progress and Challenges Fighting Polio in Pakistan and Afghanistan
Not reaching every child jeopardizes progress and risks re-introduction in other parts of the world
Both Pakistan and Afghanistan saw an overall decrease in wild poliovirus (WPV) cases from January – September 2013 compared with the same time period in 2012 according to data published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since 2012, transmission of indigenous WPV has been limited to three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria. Results for Nigeria will be released in December.
Both countries still face significant challenges in reaching unvaccinated children. Afghanistan is fighting a polio outbreak in the Eastern Region while Pakistan continues to see polio increases in the conflict-affected Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where there is a ban on polio vaccination, and in security-compromised Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. The potential risk of transmission to other countries highlights the need for strong ongoing global efforts to eradicate this disease.
“Although there have been setbacks, we are making progress towards global polio eradication,” said CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “There is encouraging progress in Afghanistan, but, as long as transmission is uninterrupted in Pakistan and Nigeria, the risk for spread to other countries continues because polio anywhere presents a threat of polio everywhere."
In Afghanistan, confirmed cases of WPV dropped from 80 in 2011 to 37 in 2012. The downward trend continues for 2013 with only eight cases confirmed during January–September 2013, compared with 26 during the same period in 2012. All eight polio cases in 2013 were in the Eastern Region and originated from the wild poliovirus in Pakistan.
This week Afghanistan achieved a significant milestone - 12 months without any recorded cases of wild poliovirus in the traditionally polio-endemic provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, long recognized as Afghanistan's epicentres of polio. This unprecedented progress is an endorsement of the effectiveness of the polio eradication programs and their implementation in the Southern Region.
akistan reported a decrease from 198 WPV cases throughout the country in 2011 to 58 in 2012 in selected areas. Fifty-two cases were reported during January–September 2013, compared with 54 cases during the same period in 2012. However, because of additional cases since September, 2013 Pakistan has now surpassed the 2012 numbers, thus reversing the downward trend. Eighty-four percent of cases reported since January 2012 occurred in the FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.
Approximately 350,000 children in the FATA have not received polio vaccines during immunization campaigns conducted since mid-2012 because local authorities have banned vaccination. In other areas of Pakistan, polio vaccination teams have encountered increased security threat-levels, hindering immunization programs. Further multi-pronged efforts to reach children in conflict-affected and security-compromised areas will be necessary to prevent WPV re-introduction into other areas of Pakistan and other parts of the world. This situation requires all countries to take additional public health actions to strengthen detection and strengthen protection by enhancing polio surveillance programs and intensifying vaccination efforts.
MARKETERS SETTLE WITH FTC REGARDING AUTOMOBILE ENGINE "MULTIVITAMIN" CLAIMS
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Marketers Who Claimed Fuel Additive Could Drastically Increase Fuel Economy and Reduce Emissions Settle with FTC
Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, the marketers of a fuel additive called EnviroTabs will pay $800,000 for consumer redress and is prohibited from making false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims that EnviroTabs, when added to any type of fuel, will increase fuel efficiency, reduce emissions, and save consumers money.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Green Foot Global LLC (GFG) represented EnviroTabs as the “World’s 1st Multi-Vitamin for Your Engine!” and sold it nationwide through its website and through multi-level marketing via distributors. In English and Spanish, GFG advertised EnviroTabs as a fuel additive that drastically improves fuel mileage and significantly reduces vehicle emissions, and claimed it was scientifically proven to be effective.
The individual defendants are William C. Hyman, also known as Bill Hyman; Mary Ann P. Hyman, a/k/a Mary Ann Proulx Hyman, Mary A. Hyman, Mary P. Hyman, Mary Ann Proulx, MaryAnn Denise L. Proulx, Mary Ann Prouleaux, Mary P. Proulx Hyman, Mary Ann A. Hyman, and Mary Hyman; Ralph M. Flynn Jr., a/k/a Ralph Flynn; Martinez Van Turner, a/k/a Martinez V. Turner, Marty Turnberg, and Marty Turner; and Patrick Hintze, a/k/a Pat Hintze. The corporate defendant is Green Foot Global LLC, also doing business as Green Foot Global, Greenfoot Global, GFG, GFG Commercial, GFG Industrial, GreenFootGlobal.com, GFG Fuel Tech LLC, and GWO Network.
In addition to the $800,000 judgment, the settlement prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting tests or studies about any product or service, and bars them from making claims about any product without having competent and reliable scientific evidence. For example, the defendants may not claim that any product saves fuel; increases motor vehicle fuel economy or decreases fuel consumption rates; reduces emissions; helps a vehicle pass an emissions inspection; saves money on fuel, maintenance or repairs; is environmentally friendly, “green” or “eco-friendly;” has any environmental benefit; removes engine carbon deposits; or extends oil or engine life.
The settlement also bars the defendants from selling or otherwise benefitting from consumers’ personal information and from failing to properly dispose of customer information after providing the information to the FTC so that the agency can return money to defendants’ customers.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and approving the proposed consent judgments was 4-0. The judgment against Flynn, Turner and Hintze was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on November 18, 2013. The order against GFG, William C. Hyman and Mary Ann P. Hyman was entered by the court on November 19, 2013.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Consent judgments have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
Marketers Who Claimed Fuel Additive Could Drastically Increase Fuel Economy and Reduce Emissions Settle with FTC
Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, the marketers of a fuel additive called EnviroTabs will pay $800,000 for consumer redress and is prohibited from making false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims that EnviroTabs, when added to any type of fuel, will increase fuel efficiency, reduce emissions, and save consumers money.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Green Foot Global LLC (GFG) represented EnviroTabs as the “World’s 1st Multi-Vitamin for Your Engine!” and sold it nationwide through its website and through multi-level marketing via distributors. In English and Spanish, GFG advertised EnviroTabs as a fuel additive that drastically improves fuel mileage and significantly reduces vehicle emissions, and claimed it was scientifically proven to be effective.
The individual defendants are William C. Hyman, also known as Bill Hyman; Mary Ann P. Hyman, a/k/a Mary Ann Proulx Hyman, Mary A. Hyman, Mary P. Hyman, Mary Ann Proulx, MaryAnn Denise L. Proulx, Mary Ann Prouleaux, Mary P. Proulx Hyman, Mary Ann A. Hyman, and Mary Hyman; Ralph M. Flynn Jr., a/k/a Ralph Flynn; Martinez Van Turner, a/k/a Martinez V. Turner, Marty Turnberg, and Marty Turner; and Patrick Hintze, a/k/a Pat Hintze. The corporate defendant is Green Foot Global LLC, also doing business as Green Foot Global, Greenfoot Global, GFG, GFG Commercial, GFG Industrial, GreenFootGlobal.com, GFG Fuel Tech LLC, and GWO Network.
In addition to the $800,000 judgment, the settlement prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting tests or studies about any product or service, and bars them from making claims about any product without having competent and reliable scientific evidence. For example, the defendants may not claim that any product saves fuel; increases motor vehicle fuel economy or decreases fuel consumption rates; reduces emissions; helps a vehicle pass an emissions inspection; saves money on fuel, maintenance or repairs; is environmentally friendly, “green” or “eco-friendly;” has any environmental benefit; removes engine carbon deposits; or extends oil or engine life.
The settlement also bars the defendants from selling or otherwise benefitting from consumers’ personal information and from failing to properly dispose of customer information after providing the information to the FTC so that the agency can return money to defendants’ customers.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and approving the proposed consent judgments was 4-0. The judgment against Flynn, Turner and Hintze was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on November 18, 2013. The order against GFG, William C. Hyman and Mary Ann P. Hyman was entered by the court on November 19, 2013.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Consent judgments have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
TWO MS-13 GANG MEMBERS CONVICTED OF MURDERS AND ATTEMPTED MURDERS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, November 22, 2013
Ms-13 Members Convicted of Murders and Attempted Murders
After a three-week trial, a federal jury has convicted two MS-13 members for their roles in committing murders, attempted murders and armed robberies in Gwinnett and DeKalb counties in northern Georgia.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates of the Northern District of Georgia, Special Agent in Charge Brock D. Nicholson of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations in Atlanta, and Special Agent in Charge Mark F. Giuliano of the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office made the announcement.
“These MS-13 gang members engaged in a ruthless – and senseless – string of attacks and murders, terrorizing the communities in which they operated,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman. “Thanks to the investigators and prosecutors who made today’s convictions possible, these violent gang members are off the streets of northern Georgia and face up to life in prison behind bars.”
“These two defendants set the standard for violence as members of MS-13, an international gang infamous for its disregard for human life,” said U.S. Attorney Yates. “They spread fear throughout the community by killing innocent pedestrians, shooting suspected rival gang members and robbing innocent people at gunpoint. By finding them guilty, this jury has held them accountable for their crimes.”
“As active members of one of the most violent gangs in the world, these men posed a significant threat to the public safety of our communities,” said HSI Special Agent in Charge Nicholson, who is responsible for agency investigations in Georgia and the Carolinas. “HSI and our partners at the FBI and local law enforcement agencies have taken a strong stand against transnational gangs in Atlanta. These are just the latest convictions that show how successful our efforts have been.”
“Today's conviction in federal court of two violent members of the international gang known as MS-13 adds to the list of successes for those law enforcement officers, investigators and prosecutors who are working hard to neutralize this dangerous criminal enterprise,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Giuliano. “While these successes are important for the FBI and its various law enforcement partners, it is more important to those particular communities impacted by MS-13's violent crimes.”
Remberto Argueta, aka Pitufo, 27, of Lilburn, Ga., and William Espinoza, aka Cheberria and Crazy, 31, of Norcross, Ga., were convicted today by a federal jury and will be sentenced at a later date before U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story. Each defendant was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving murder. Argueta was also convicted of violent crime in aid of racketeering and a firearms offense related to the murder of Arpolonio Rios-Jarquin. Espinoza was also convicted of violent crime in aid of racketeering and a firearms offense related to the attempted murder of Jayro Arango-Sanchez. Violent crime in aid of racketeering for murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, while RICO conspiracy involving murder carries a sentence of up to life in prison. Parole has been abolished in the federal system.
According to court records, MS-13 is an international gang that has operated in the Atlanta area since at least 2005. The gang members staked out Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties as their home territory.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Argueta, along with other gang members, planned to rob Arpolonio Rios-Jarquin, a suspected drug dealer, at a hotel in April 2007. When Rios-Jarquin turned out to have his own gun, Argueta and his fellow MS-13 members engaged in a shootout with Rios-Jarquin that spilled outside the hotel room. Surveillance video showed one of the MS-13 members stopping to pick up Rios-Jarquin’s weapon, which he later showed off as a trophy.
In October 2007, Argueta and several other MS-13 members were at an apartment complex in Gwinnett County when Argueta spotted suspected rival gang members. According to evidence at trial, he approached them and asked them who they “claimed”—that is, what gang they belonged to. When Christian Escobar responded that he and his friend, Jose Garcia-Barajas, were members of the rival gang 18th Street, Argueta said, “You’re going to die.” Argueta pulled out a handgun and started chasing and shooting at Escobar and Garcia-Barajas. He shot Escobar in the back and Garcia-Barajas in the hip and arm. While shooting at them, Argueta also fired shots into the apartments of nearby residents. An elderly woman testified that one of Argueta’s bullets hit an armchair that she had been sitting in just a few minutes earlier.
Evidence at trial showed that in early July 2008, Espinoza lent his .380 caliber handgun to fellow gang members so that they could retaliate against a member of La Raza, a rival gang. An MS-13 member shot a 15-year-old boy who was taking a shortcut across through an apartment complex. The boy was not a member of a gang and had traveled from Ohio with his family to visit other family members for the Fourth of July holiday.
A few weeks later in July 2008, Espinoza and other members of MS-13 were at El Pueblito, a nightclub in DeKalb County, when a fight broke out with suspected members of the rival gang 18th Street. Surveillance video showed Espinoza going out to the parking lot and retrieving a .380 handgun from a car. He approached the club entrance and shot Jayro Arango-Sanchez in the stomach. Arango-Sanchez testified at trial that he was not a gang member and that he was at the club with his girlfriend and brother to celebrate his birthday.
According to evidence at trial, just two days later, Espinoza and four other MS-13 members drove to an apartment complex in Gwinnett County to look for pedestrians to rob. After spotting a victim, Espinoza and another gang member got out of their SUV and approached Aurelio Vasquez. Espinoza put his .380 handgun to Vasquez’s head while the other MS-13 member started to search Vasquez’s pockets for money. Vasquez, who was returning home after buying groceries, resisted being robbed, so Espinoza shot him through the head. Espinoza and his fellow gang members wanted to rob Vasquez to get money for beer.
This case is being investigated by ICE-HSI and FBI, with assistance from Gwinnett County Police Department, DeKalb County Police Department and Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office.
Trial Attorney Joseph K. Wheatley of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section and Assistant United States Attorney Paul R. Jones are prosecuting the case.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Ms-13 Members Convicted of Murders and Attempted Murders
After a three-week trial, a federal jury has convicted two MS-13 members for their roles in committing murders, attempted murders and armed robberies in Gwinnett and DeKalb counties in northern Georgia.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates of the Northern District of Georgia, Special Agent in Charge Brock D. Nicholson of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations in Atlanta, and Special Agent in Charge Mark F. Giuliano of the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office made the announcement.
“These MS-13 gang members engaged in a ruthless – and senseless – string of attacks and murders, terrorizing the communities in which they operated,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman. “Thanks to the investigators and prosecutors who made today’s convictions possible, these violent gang members are off the streets of northern Georgia and face up to life in prison behind bars.”
“These two defendants set the standard for violence as members of MS-13, an international gang infamous for its disregard for human life,” said U.S. Attorney Yates. “They spread fear throughout the community by killing innocent pedestrians, shooting suspected rival gang members and robbing innocent people at gunpoint. By finding them guilty, this jury has held them accountable for their crimes.”
“As active members of one of the most violent gangs in the world, these men posed a significant threat to the public safety of our communities,” said HSI Special Agent in Charge Nicholson, who is responsible for agency investigations in Georgia and the Carolinas. “HSI and our partners at the FBI and local law enforcement agencies have taken a strong stand against transnational gangs in Atlanta. These are just the latest convictions that show how successful our efforts have been.”
“Today's conviction in federal court of two violent members of the international gang known as MS-13 adds to the list of successes for those law enforcement officers, investigators and prosecutors who are working hard to neutralize this dangerous criminal enterprise,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Giuliano. “While these successes are important for the FBI and its various law enforcement partners, it is more important to those particular communities impacted by MS-13's violent crimes.”
Remberto Argueta, aka Pitufo, 27, of Lilburn, Ga., and William Espinoza, aka Cheberria and Crazy, 31, of Norcross, Ga., were convicted today by a federal jury and will be sentenced at a later date before U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story. Each defendant was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving murder. Argueta was also convicted of violent crime in aid of racketeering and a firearms offense related to the murder of Arpolonio Rios-Jarquin. Espinoza was also convicted of violent crime in aid of racketeering and a firearms offense related to the attempted murder of Jayro Arango-Sanchez. Violent crime in aid of racketeering for murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, while RICO conspiracy involving murder carries a sentence of up to life in prison. Parole has been abolished in the federal system.
According to court records, MS-13 is an international gang that has operated in the Atlanta area since at least 2005. The gang members staked out Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties as their home territory.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Argueta, along with other gang members, planned to rob Arpolonio Rios-Jarquin, a suspected drug dealer, at a hotel in April 2007. When Rios-Jarquin turned out to have his own gun, Argueta and his fellow MS-13 members engaged in a shootout with Rios-Jarquin that spilled outside the hotel room. Surveillance video showed one of the MS-13 members stopping to pick up Rios-Jarquin’s weapon, which he later showed off as a trophy.
In October 2007, Argueta and several other MS-13 members were at an apartment complex in Gwinnett County when Argueta spotted suspected rival gang members. According to evidence at trial, he approached them and asked them who they “claimed”—that is, what gang they belonged to. When Christian Escobar responded that he and his friend, Jose Garcia-Barajas, were members of the rival gang 18th Street, Argueta said, “You’re going to die.” Argueta pulled out a handgun and started chasing and shooting at Escobar and Garcia-Barajas. He shot Escobar in the back and Garcia-Barajas in the hip and arm. While shooting at them, Argueta also fired shots into the apartments of nearby residents. An elderly woman testified that one of Argueta’s bullets hit an armchair that she had been sitting in just a few minutes earlier.
Evidence at trial showed that in early July 2008, Espinoza lent his .380 caliber handgun to fellow gang members so that they could retaliate against a member of La Raza, a rival gang. An MS-13 member shot a 15-year-old boy who was taking a shortcut across through an apartment complex. The boy was not a member of a gang and had traveled from Ohio with his family to visit other family members for the Fourth of July holiday.
A few weeks later in July 2008, Espinoza and other members of MS-13 were at El Pueblito, a nightclub in DeKalb County, when a fight broke out with suspected members of the rival gang 18th Street. Surveillance video showed Espinoza going out to the parking lot and retrieving a .380 handgun from a car. He approached the club entrance and shot Jayro Arango-Sanchez in the stomach. Arango-Sanchez testified at trial that he was not a gang member and that he was at the club with his girlfriend and brother to celebrate his birthday.
According to evidence at trial, just two days later, Espinoza and four other MS-13 members drove to an apartment complex in Gwinnett County to look for pedestrians to rob. After spotting a victim, Espinoza and another gang member got out of their SUV and approached Aurelio Vasquez. Espinoza put his .380 handgun to Vasquez’s head while the other MS-13 member started to search Vasquez’s pockets for money. Vasquez, who was returning home after buying groceries, resisted being robbed, so Espinoza shot him through the head. Espinoza and his fellow gang members wanted to rob Vasquez to get money for beer.
This case is being investigated by ICE-HSI and FBI, with assistance from Gwinnett County Police Department, DeKalb County Police Department and Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office.
Trial Attorney Joseph K. Wheatley of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section and Assistant United States Attorney Paul R. Jones are prosecuting the case.
NEW DEVICE FOR TREATING PEDIATRIC BRAIN CANCER
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Safer, more convenient pump to treat pediatric brain cancer
Treating pediatric brain cancer can be a challenge, since the brain has ways to protect itself from drugs taken orally or intravenously. One solution to this frustrating problem: A miniature, implantable infusion pump no bigger than two small cookies stacked together.
The hope is to improve the treatment for a devastating type of cancer, leptomeningeal metastases, which afflicts the lining of the brain and spinal cord. The device, when implanted in the abdomen, would send chemotherapy into the spinal fluid for direct delivery to the brain, a process infinitely easier for young patients who otherwise must endure uncomfortable spinal taps several times a week, and a hospital stay. The pump would send the correct amount of medicine where it is needed, and, just as important, would allow children to remain at home while they are undergoing treatment.
"With this disease, you need a lot of drug, since the spinal fluid is constantly being made and replenished, every six hours," says Ellis Meng, a National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded scientist who is associate professor of biomedical and electrical engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). "So it makes sense to treat with this type of pump, because we have the ability to dose frequently."
To be sure, implantable pumps are not new. They play an important role in treating many severe diseases, and often are the last line of defense when less-invasive approaches are not an option. But the technology behind this still experimental new pump is an innovation. It is a tether-free, wirelessly activated release system that precisely controls the infusion of drugs into the body using "bubble power," that is, the power of electrolytically generated bubbles, rather than a motor--a feature that makes it different from other infusion pumps.
"We use a simple technique to electronically control how much drug is pumped, when it is pumped and how often it is pumped," Meng says. Also, the pump is fully implantable, and not tethered to an outside power source, appealing because "humans want to be able to move around and experience daily life and not be reminded all the time of being ill," Meng says.
Meng decided to pursue research that could help children because "pediatric populations are underserved by medical devices," she says. "They get adult devices put in after the fact. They don't benefit from devices specifically designed for pediatric populations. After evaluating the needs of this particular condition, it really fits what we do."
In the fall of 2011, Meng was among the first group of scientists to receive a $50,000 NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) award, which supports a set of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory into the commercial world.
Such results may be translated through I-Corps into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society. It is a public-private partnership program that teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to faculty and student participants.
Meng is an inventor, researcher, and now entrepreneur, whose work has produced six patents and more than a dozen patent applications. To further commercialization of the new pump, she co-founded Fluid Synchrony LLC, a startup company looking to promote these high performance micro-pumps for laboratory research, preclinical research and, ultimately, for use in humans.
The pumps are not yet available on the market; they are, in fact, undergoing their own animal studies to ensure the devices are safe, and that they work. Human trials likely are several years away.
Her work on miniature pumps began in 2004, shortly after she arrived at USC, when she began working with a USC ophthalmologist on an implantable infusion pump for the eye, a process to replace the current practice of direct needle injections. Several chronic eye diseases, macular degeneration, for example, require regular, frequent shots directly through the eye wall.
"This puts a huge burden on the medical system," Meng says. "The idea is to avoid frequent trips to the doctors for these injections, which can be traumatic. You put the implant in the eye wall, and it continues to dispense the drug until it runs out. The only thing you have to do is get the device refilled."
Her research on this project ended once her collaborator ophthalmologist formed his own startup company. But it prompted Meng to explore additional opportunities for her pump technology, ultimately leading her in two directions, the aforementioned pediatric cancer, and drug research, specifically providing an improved drug delivery system for scientists to use in animal studies of experimental drugs.
She explains: "Drug researchers first study their drugs in animals. How do you give a drug to an animal? It's difficult to get them to swallow. The next option is injection, but animals experience stress, just like humans. If you trigger stress, it will affect drug response. Also, animals don't like external pumps; they want to move around, just like people. Putting in an implantable device will allow you to dose an animal without the animal being stressed."
This aspect of her work "will enhance a researcher's ability to better understand drug dosing and safety, and speed up drug development," Meng says, adding: "We hope to reduce the time it takes to develop a new drug."
She believes that, ultimately, the pump will provide a safer, more convenient and comfortable alternative to current drug delivery approaches. "The NSF I-Corps experience was instrumental in getting this technology one step closer to the hands of patients," she says.
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Safer, more convenient pump to treat pediatric brain cancer
Treating pediatric brain cancer can be a challenge, since the brain has ways to protect itself from drugs taken orally or intravenously. One solution to this frustrating problem: A miniature, implantable infusion pump no bigger than two small cookies stacked together.
The hope is to improve the treatment for a devastating type of cancer, leptomeningeal metastases, which afflicts the lining of the brain and spinal cord. The device, when implanted in the abdomen, would send chemotherapy into the spinal fluid for direct delivery to the brain, a process infinitely easier for young patients who otherwise must endure uncomfortable spinal taps several times a week, and a hospital stay. The pump would send the correct amount of medicine where it is needed, and, just as important, would allow children to remain at home while they are undergoing treatment.
"With this disease, you need a lot of drug, since the spinal fluid is constantly being made and replenished, every six hours," says Ellis Meng, a National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded scientist who is associate professor of biomedical and electrical engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). "So it makes sense to treat with this type of pump, because we have the ability to dose frequently."
To be sure, implantable pumps are not new. They play an important role in treating many severe diseases, and often are the last line of defense when less-invasive approaches are not an option. But the technology behind this still experimental new pump is an innovation. It is a tether-free, wirelessly activated release system that precisely controls the infusion of drugs into the body using "bubble power," that is, the power of electrolytically generated bubbles, rather than a motor--a feature that makes it different from other infusion pumps.
"We use a simple technique to electronically control how much drug is pumped, when it is pumped and how often it is pumped," Meng says. Also, the pump is fully implantable, and not tethered to an outside power source, appealing because "humans want to be able to move around and experience daily life and not be reminded all the time of being ill," Meng says.
Meng decided to pursue research that could help children because "pediatric populations are underserved by medical devices," she says. "They get adult devices put in after the fact. They don't benefit from devices specifically designed for pediatric populations. After evaluating the needs of this particular condition, it really fits what we do."
In the fall of 2011, Meng was among the first group of scientists to receive a $50,000 NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) award, which supports a set of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory into the commercial world.
Such results may be translated through I-Corps into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society. It is a public-private partnership program that teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to faculty and student participants.
Meng is an inventor, researcher, and now entrepreneur, whose work has produced six patents and more than a dozen patent applications. To further commercialization of the new pump, she co-founded Fluid Synchrony LLC, a startup company looking to promote these high performance micro-pumps for laboratory research, preclinical research and, ultimately, for use in humans.
The pumps are not yet available on the market; they are, in fact, undergoing their own animal studies to ensure the devices are safe, and that they work. Human trials likely are several years away.
Her work on miniature pumps began in 2004, shortly after she arrived at USC, when she began working with a USC ophthalmologist on an implantable infusion pump for the eye, a process to replace the current practice of direct needle injections. Several chronic eye diseases, macular degeneration, for example, require regular, frequent shots directly through the eye wall.
"This puts a huge burden on the medical system," Meng says. "The idea is to avoid frequent trips to the doctors for these injections, which can be traumatic. You put the implant in the eye wall, and it continues to dispense the drug until it runs out. The only thing you have to do is get the device refilled."
Her research on this project ended once her collaborator ophthalmologist formed his own startup company. But it prompted Meng to explore additional opportunities for her pump technology, ultimately leading her in two directions, the aforementioned pediatric cancer, and drug research, specifically providing an improved drug delivery system for scientists to use in animal studies of experimental drugs.
She explains: "Drug researchers first study their drugs in animals. How do you give a drug to an animal? It's difficult to get them to swallow. The next option is injection, but animals experience stress, just like humans. If you trigger stress, it will affect drug response. Also, animals don't like external pumps; they want to move around, just like people. Putting in an implantable device will allow you to dose an animal without the animal being stressed."
This aspect of her work "will enhance a researcher's ability to better understand drug dosing and safety, and speed up drug development," Meng says, adding: "We hope to reduce the time it takes to develop a new drug."
She believes that, ultimately, the pump will provide a safer, more convenient and comfortable alternative to current drug delivery approaches. "The NSF I-Corps experience was instrumental in getting this technology one step closer to the hands of patients," she says.
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Sunday, November 24, 2013
PRESS STATEMENT ON LOYA JIRGA IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Loya Jirga and the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 24, 2013
The Loya Jirga, a gathering of thousands of representatives of the Afghan people in accordance with a proud tradition, has powerfully backed the Bilateral Security Agreement we have been negotiating with the Afghan government. Very significantly, the Loya Jirga also urged that the BSA should be signed before the end of the year. I can't imagine a more compelling affirmation from the Afghan people themselves of their commitment to a long term partnership with the United States and our international partners.
The critical next step must be to get the BSA signed in short order, and put into motion an agreement which will lay a firm foundation for our two countries to continue working together toward a more secure and prosperous future for Afghanistan. Afghans are rightly taking the lead in providing for their own peace and security. We remain committed to supporting those efforts, and look forward to signing an agreement that will enable us to do so.
The Loya Jirga and the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 24, 2013
The Loya Jirga, a gathering of thousands of representatives of the Afghan people in accordance with a proud tradition, has powerfully backed the Bilateral Security Agreement we have been negotiating with the Afghan government. Very significantly, the Loya Jirga also urged that the BSA should be signed before the end of the year. I can't imagine a more compelling affirmation from the Afghan people themselves of their commitment to a long term partnership with the United States and our international partners.
The critical next step must be to get the BSA signed in short order, and put into motion an agreement which will lay a firm foundation for our two countries to continue working together toward a more secure and prosperous future for Afghanistan. Afghans are rightly taking the lead in providing for their own peace and security. We remain committed to supporting those efforts, and look forward to signing an agreement that will enable us to do so.
REMARKS AFTER MEETING WITH LIBYAN PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague and Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you all. It’s our pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Libya Ali Zeidan here to Winfield House, our American enclave in the heart of the capital of the United Kingdom. We’re honored to be here with my colleague, William Hague, to do so.
Libya has gone through great turmoil, particularly after the course of the last weeks, and the Prime Minister informed us of a transformation that he believes is beginning to take place and could take place because the people of Libya have spoken out and pushed back against the militias. And so this is a moment of opportunity where there’s a great deal of economic challenge, there’s a great deal of security challenge. And we talked with the Prime Minister today about the things that we can do together – the United Kingdom and the United States and other friends – in order to help Libya to achieve the stability that it needs. So we’re very grateful to him for taking time to come here and do that.
William, do you want to add anything before we introduce the minister?
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much, indeed, for hosting this. Like the United States, the United Kingdom is very strongly committed to help the government and the people of Libya, and we are pleased that the people of Libya are also clearly strongly committed to Libya’s government, to democracy and stability in their country, to friendship in the region and with the countries of Europe. So there are many different ways in which we are trying to assist. It’s been a pleasure to discuss with the Prime Minister today more ways in which we can assist. And the United Kingdom, working with the U.S. and European partners, will do our utmost to do so over the coming months.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Secretary Kerry and Mr. Hague for this kind invitation and for their continuous – and their commitment for the continuous support of Libya. The Libyan people have had a long struggle, and lately they have done a lot to get rid of the militias and that there are markers that fell in this process to end the armed militias. And this visit is a witness to the relationship and a confirmation of the friendship that started since the first days of our struggle towards independence. Our friends have supported us in the – during our revolution, and we are here in order to affirm the importance of cooperation with our friends. They have also committed to help Libya in order to become a more independent state, a state that is going to be revealed and to be an active contributor on the world arena.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you, Prime Minister. I’ll take my leave, and so I’ll see you soon.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: Thank you.
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague and Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you all. It’s our pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Libya Ali Zeidan here to Winfield House, our American enclave in the heart of the capital of the United Kingdom. We’re honored to be here with my colleague, William Hague, to do so.
Libya has gone through great turmoil, particularly after the course of the last weeks, and the Prime Minister informed us of a transformation that he believes is beginning to take place and could take place because the people of Libya have spoken out and pushed back against the militias. And so this is a moment of opportunity where there’s a great deal of economic challenge, there’s a great deal of security challenge. And we talked with the Prime Minister today about the things that we can do together – the United Kingdom and the United States and other friends – in order to help Libya to achieve the stability that it needs. So we’re very grateful to him for taking time to come here and do that.
William, do you want to add anything before we introduce the minister?
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much, indeed, for hosting this. Like the United States, the United Kingdom is very strongly committed to help the government and the people of Libya, and we are pleased that the people of Libya are also clearly strongly committed to Libya’s government, to democracy and stability in their country, to friendship in the region and with the countries of Europe. So there are many different ways in which we are trying to assist. It’s been a pleasure to discuss with the Prime Minister today more ways in which we can assist. And the United Kingdom, working with the U.S. and European partners, will do our utmost to do so over the coming months.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Secretary Kerry and Mr. Hague for this kind invitation and for their continuous – and their commitment for the continuous support of Libya. The Libyan people have had a long struggle, and lately they have done a lot to get rid of the militias and that there are markers that fell in this process to end the armed militias. And this visit is a witness to the relationship and a confirmation of the friendship that started since the first days of our struggle towards independence. Our friends have supported us in the – during our revolution, and we are here in order to affirm the importance of cooperation with our friends. They have also committed to help Libya in order to become a more independent state, a state that is going to be revealed and to be an active contributor on the world arena.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you, Prime Minister. I’ll take my leave, and so I’ll see you soon.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: Thank you.
NSF ARTICLE ON USING COMPUTER MODELS TO UNDERSTAND GENETIC STRESS IN CELLS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Simple computer models unravel genetic stress reactions in cells
Integrated biological and computational methods provide insight into why genes are activated.
February 8, 2013
Experimental and computational scientists improve the illusive process of genetic prediction with a simple model.
Many questions arise when two identical twins raised in the same home—fed the same, nurtured the same way—follow disparate paths. How can the identical offspring of a single egg turn out so differently?
Scientists ask the same question when genetically identical cells in identical environments—monoclonal cells produced by a single ancestor that replicated—exhibit wildly different behaviors. Researchers say the changes may be due to random biochemical fluctuations known as stochasticity, or “noise”—variability occurring over time and influenced by environmental factors.
Cells are highly sensitive to this noise, and minor fluctuations can lead to major changes, such as an Alzheimer’s gene turning on or off or a cancer cell not responding to chemotheraphy. Are these random events due to chance or is there an undiscovered cause?
The answer might be contained within nearly undetectable processes—the noise—at the molecular level, so researchers must peer into individual cells really, really closely without nudging and accidentally altering these sensitive cells and their processes. This is complicated in itself, there are so many cells—about 100 trillion in each human. All that can get lost in the noise, and even supercomputers cannot hope to capture all aspects of this incredible complexity.
But experimental and computational scientists developed methods to sift through all the complexity and improve the illusive process of prediction with a simple model.
Unraveling genetic stress reactions
Brian Munsky, a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Center for Nonlinear Studies, is adept at untangling biology. Munsky and colleagues report their combined experimental and modeling prediction methods in the Feb. 1, 2013 edition of Science. These methods integrate single-cell experiments and discrete stochastic analysis to predict complex gene expression and signaling behaviors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae—or yeast, a scientific-lab standard since yeast and human cells share many genes. Scientists frequently test drugs or biological processes on yeast before advancing to human trials.
Using a technique called smFISH (single-molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization), the team attached dozens of small fluorescently labeled probes to each molecule of specific messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA), which causes these molecules to light up under the microscope. Some cells turn on (lots of lights) while others remain off. This data was incorporated into several models. Munsky notes that it would be impossible to combine the infinite possible reactions at different scales into a single computational model.
The combined, data-driven approach that includes validation allows researchers to systematically determine when models are too simple, too complex or just right—the “Goldilocks” approach.
The approach developed in this study helps researchers understand cellular death at the single-molecule and single-cell level—with wide applications
The research team identified predictive models of transcription—the first step in gene expression—when the yeast cell is responding to osmotic stress (salt), which greatly affects cell growth. Understanding how yeast cope with osmotic stress is useful to understand how human cells respond to medical treatments, but the principles are also applicable to many other fields, including agriculture.
“Depending upon molecular fluctuations, a single gene in a cell may switch randomly between active and inactive states, leading to vastly different biological responses, even for genetically identical cells,” says Munsky. “The fluctuations can be quantified at the single-molecule and single-cell levels.”
Munsky was a joint first author on the Science paper with Vanderbilt University’s Gregor Neuert. The paper was selected as an Editors’ Choice by the magazine.
“The approach we developed in this study is applicable far beyond yeast,” Munsky adds. “Our experimental and computational analyses could enable quantitative prediction for any gene, pathway or organism.”
Simple computer models unravel genetic stress reactions in cells
Integrated biological and computational methods provide insight into why genes are activated.
February 8, 2013
Experimental and computational scientists improve the illusive process of genetic prediction with a simple model.
Many questions arise when two identical twins raised in the same home—fed the same, nurtured the same way—follow disparate paths. How can the identical offspring of a single egg turn out so differently?
Scientists ask the same question when genetically identical cells in identical environments—monoclonal cells produced by a single ancestor that replicated—exhibit wildly different behaviors. Researchers say the changes may be due to random biochemical fluctuations known as stochasticity, or “noise”—variability occurring over time and influenced by environmental factors.
Cells are highly sensitive to this noise, and minor fluctuations can lead to major changes, such as an Alzheimer’s gene turning on or off or a cancer cell not responding to chemotheraphy. Are these random events due to chance or is there an undiscovered cause?
The answer might be contained within nearly undetectable processes—the noise—at the molecular level, so researchers must peer into individual cells really, really closely without nudging and accidentally altering these sensitive cells and their processes. This is complicated in itself, there are so many cells—about 100 trillion in each human. All that can get lost in the noise, and even supercomputers cannot hope to capture all aspects of this incredible complexity.
But experimental and computational scientists developed methods to sift through all the complexity and improve the illusive process of prediction with a simple model.
Unraveling genetic stress reactions
Brian Munsky, a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Center for Nonlinear Studies, is adept at untangling biology. Munsky and colleagues report their combined experimental and modeling prediction methods in the Feb. 1, 2013 edition of Science. These methods integrate single-cell experiments and discrete stochastic analysis to predict complex gene expression and signaling behaviors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae—or yeast, a scientific-lab standard since yeast and human cells share many genes. Scientists frequently test drugs or biological processes on yeast before advancing to human trials.
Using a technique called smFISH (single-molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization), the team attached dozens of small fluorescently labeled probes to each molecule of specific messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA), which causes these molecules to light up under the microscope. Some cells turn on (lots of lights) while others remain off. This data was incorporated into several models. Munsky notes that it would be impossible to combine the infinite possible reactions at different scales into a single computational model.
The combined, data-driven approach that includes validation allows researchers to systematically determine when models are too simple, too complex or just right—the “Goldilocks” approach.
The approach developed in this study helps researchers understand cellular death at the single-molecule and single-cell level—with wide applications
The research team identified predictive models of transcription—the first step in gene expression—when the yeast cell is responding to osmotic stress (salt), which greatly affects cell growth. Understanding how yeast cope with osmotic stress is useful to understand how human cells respond to medical treatments, but the principles are also applicable to many other fields, including agriculture.
“Depending upon molecular fluctuations, a single gene in a cell may switch randomly between active and inactive states, leading to vastly different biological responses, even for genetically identical cells,” says Munsky. “The fluctuations can be quantified at the single-molecule and single-cell levels.”
Munsky was a joint first author on the Science paper with Vanderbilt University’s Gregor Neuert. The paper was selected as an Editors’ Choice by the magazine.
“The approach we developed in this study is applicable far beyond yeast,” Munsky adds. “Our experimental and computational analyses could enable quantitative prediction for any gene, pathway or organism.”
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES REMARKS AFTER P5+1 TALKS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Press Availability After P5+1 Talks
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Geneva, Switzerland
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good very early morning to all of you. It’s been a long day and a long night, and I’m delighted to be here to share some thoughts with you about the recent negotiations. I particularly want to thank the Swiss Government. I want to thank the United Nations. It’s been a (inaudible) and we’re honored to be here, even at this very early hour of the morning. I particularly want to thank my colleagues from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, China, and especially Lady Cathy Ashton, who is not only a good friend but a persistent and dogged negotiator and somebody who’s been staying at this for a long period of time. And we’re very grateful for her stewardship of these negotiations.
And if I can take a moment, I really want to thank the team from the United States. There have been a great many people involved in this effort for a long period of time now, both here in Switzerland with us now, but also back in the United States, and they know who they are. But I will single out our Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has been a dogged, unbelievably patient hand and a skillful hand, and she has helped through long and arduous months – years of stewardship of our part of this within the P5+1, and I’m very grateful to her for those long efforts and all of her team.
At the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asked me and our team to work with our partners in order to pursue a negotiated settlement or solution with respect to the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Last month, the P5+1 entered into a more accelerated negotiation after a number of years of meetings in various parts of the world and efforts to engage Iran in serious negotiations. The purpose of this is very simple: to require Iran to prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and to ensure that it cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. And the reason for this is very clear. The United Nations Security Council found that they were not in compliance with the NPT or other IAEA and other standards. And obviously, activities such as a secret, multi-centrifuge mountain hideaway, which was being used for enrichment, raised many people’s questions, which is why ultimately sanctions were put in place.
Today, we are taking a serious step toward answering all of those important questions that have been raised through the United Nations Security Council, through the IAEA, and by individual countries. And we are taking those steps with an agreement that impedes the progress in a very dramatic way of Iran’s principal enrichment facilities and parts of its program, and ensures they cannot advance in a way that will threaten our friends in the region, threaten other countries, threaten the world. The fact is that if this step – first step – leads to what is our ultimate goal, which is a comprehensive agreement that will make the world safer. This first step, I want to emphasize, actually rolls back the program from where it is today, enlarges the breakout time, which would not have occurred unless this agreement existed. It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer. This has been a difficult and a prolonged process. It’s been difficult for us, and it’s been difficult for our allies, and it’s obviously been difficult for the Government of Iran. The next phase, let me be clear, will be even more difficult, and we need to be honest about it. But it will also be even more consequential.
And while we obviously have profound differences with Iran yet to be resolved, the fact is that this agreement could not have been reached without the decision of the Iranian Government to come to the table and negotiate. And I want to say tonight that Foreign Minister Zarif worked hard, deliberated hard, and we are obviously, we believe, better that the decision was made to come here than not to, and to work hard to reach an agreement. And we thank the Foreign Minister for those efforts.
Together now, we need to set about the critical task of proving to the world what Iran has said many times – that its program is in fact peaceful. Now, with this first step, we have created the time and the space in order to be able to pursue a comprehensive agreement that would finish the work that President Obama began on the very first day in office, and that is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. President Obama worked intensively and his Administration worked intensively before I even came in; when I was in the Congress and voted for sanctions, the President worked in order to put in place a significant sanctions regime, an unprecedented regime. And he worked with countries around the world in order to ensure broad participation and support for these sanctions. That has been essential to the success of these sanctions. And we believe that it is the sanctions that have brought us to this negotiation and ultimately to the more significant negotiation to follow for a comprehensive agreement.
Make no mistakes, and I ask you, don’t interpret that the sanctions were an end unto themselves. They weren’t. The goal of the sanctions was always to have a negotiation. And that is precisely what is now taking place, and that negotiation’s goal is to secure a strong and verifiable agreement that guarantees the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear program. For more than 40 years, the international community has been united in its willingness to negotiate in good faith. And we have been particularly crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary in order to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We have also said that we prefer a peaceful solution, a peaceful path for Iran to respond to the international community’s concerns. And as a result of those efforts, we took the first step today to move down that path.
The measures that we have committed to will remain in place for six months, and they will address the most urgent concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Since there have been many premature and even misleading reports, I want to clearly outline what this first step entails. First, it locks the most critical components of a nuclear program into place and impedes progress in those critical components in a way that actually rolls back the stockpile of enriched uranium and widens the length of time possible for breakout. That makes people safer. With daily access – we will gain daily access to key facilities. And that will enable us to determine more quickly and with greater certainty than ever before that Iran is complying. Here’s how we do that: Iran has agreed to suspend all enrichment of uranium above 5 percent. Iran has agreed to dilute or convert its entire stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium.
So let me make clear what that means. That means that whereas Iran today has about 200 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, they could readily be enriched towards a nuclear weapon. In six months, Iran will have zero – zero. Iran will not increase its stockpile of 3.5 percent lower-enriched uranium over the next six months, and it will not construct additional enrichment facilities. Iran will not manufacture centrifuges beyond those that are broken and must be replaced. Very importantly, Iran will not commission or fuel the Arak reactor – Arak, A-r-a-k, reactor – an unfinished facility, that if it became operational would provide Iran with an alternative plutonium path to a nuclear weapon.
And to ensure that these commitments are met, Iran has agreed to submit its program to unprecedented monitoring. For the international community, this first step will provide the most far-reaching insight and view of Iran’s nuclear program that the international community has ever had. This first step – let me be clear. This first step does not say that Iran has a right to enrichment. No matter what interpretive comments are made, it is not in this document. There is no right to enrich within the four corners of the NPT. And this document does not do that. Rather, the scope and role of Iran’s enrichment, as is set forth in the language within this document, says that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is subject to a negotiation and to mutual agreement. And it can only be by mutual agreement that enrichment might or might not be able to be decided on in the course of negotiations.
So what is on the other side of the ledger here? Again, there have been a number of premature reports and reactions, so I want to be clear about what this step provides, this first step, and what it doesn’t provide. In return for the significant steps that Iran will take that I just listed – and there are more, incidentally, than I just listed; those are the principal – the international community will provide Iran with relief that is limited and, perhaps most importantly, reversible. The main elements of this relief would hold Iran’s oil sales steady and permit it to repatriate $4.2 billion from those sales. And that would otherwise be destined for an overseas account restricted by our sanctions. In addition, we will suspend certain sanctions on imports of gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially – potentially – providing Iran with about $1.5 billion in additional export revenues.
For the benefit of the Iranian people, we will also facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. No U.S. law will be changed. Nothing will have to be different. In fact, the sanctions laws specifically exempt humanitarian assistance. So this channel will not provide Iran any new source of funds, but we will help them in order to try to provide the people of Iran with additional assistance. It simply improves access to goods that were never intended to be denied to the Iranian people.
Now, I want to emphasize the core sanctions architecture that President Obama, together with allies and friends around the world, have put together, that core architecture remains firmly in place through these six months, including with respect to oil and financial services. To put this number in perspective, during this six-month phase, the oil sanctions that will remain in place will continue to cause over 25 billion in lost revenues to Iran, or over $4 billion a month. That is compared to what Iran earned before this took effect – the sanctions. And while Iran will get access to the 4.2 billion that I talked about of the restricted oil revenues, 14 to 16 billion of its sales during this period will be locked up and out of reach.
Together with our partners, we are committed to maintaining our commitment to vigorously enforcing the vast majority of the sanctions that are currently in place. Again, let me repeat: This is only the first step. But it is a first step that guarantees while you take the second step and move towards a comprehensive agreement, Iran’s fundamentals of its program are not able to progress – Fordow, Natanz, Arak, and other centrifuge and other things that matter. So that is a critical first step.
And I will say to all of you that as we conclude this first round of negotiation, with the beginning of the possibility of a much broader accomplishment down the road, it is our responsibility to be as firmly committed to diplomacy and as relentless in our resolve over the years as we have been to bring the concerted pressure that brought us to this moment. For the Iranian Government, it’s their responsibility to recognize that this first phase is a very simple test. Many times, Iran, I think you heard the Foreign Minister here tonight reiterate, that they have a peaceful program and that’s their only intention. Folks, it is not hard to prove peaceful intent if that’s what you want to do. We are anxious to try to make certain that this deal ultimately will do exactly that – prove it.
And I will just say finally, I know that there are those who will assert that this deal is imperfect. Well, they too bear a responsibility, and that is to tell people what the better alternative is. Some might say we should simply continue to increase pressure – just turn up the screws, continue to put sanctions on, and somehow that’s going to push Iran towards capitulation or collapse. Not by any interpretation that we have from all the experts and all of the input that we have, and from all of the countries – the P5+1 – that took place in this today, none of them believe that would be the outcome.
Instead, we believe that while we are engaged in that effort, Iran’s program would actually march forward. It would gain. And while it gains, it would become more dangerous in the region and countries like Israel and the Emirates, other people in the region who are threatened, would in fact be more threatened.
So we believe that you would wind up with an Iran with bigger stockpiles, with more advanced centrifuges and more progress at pursuing a plutonium track. And President Obama believes that doesn’t benefit anybody.
In 1973 – 19 – excuse me, in 2003, when the Iranians made an offer to the former Administration with respect to their nuclear program, there were 164 centrifuges. That offer was not taken. Subsequently, sanctions came in, and today there are 19,000 centrifuges and growing. So people have a responsibility to make a judgment about this choice. And I am comfortable, as is President Obama, that we have made the right choice for how you proceed to get a complete agreement.
Moreover, making sanctions the sum total of our policy will not strengthen the international coalition that we have built in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Instead, it would actually weaken that coalition, and many people believe that to merely continue at a time where Iran says, “We’re prepared to negotiate,” would in fact break up the current sanctions regime. Others argue for military action as a first resort. Well, President Obama and I do not share a belief that war is a permanent solution, and it should never be the first option. Instead, that particular option involves enormous risks in many different ways, and as President Obama has often said, while that option remains available to us – and the President will not take it off the table – he believes that that can only be entertained after we have made every effort to resolve the dispute through diplomacy, barring some immediate emergency that requires a different response.
So I close by saying to all of you that the singular objective that brought us to Geneva remains our singular objective as we leave Geneva, and that is to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. In that singular object, we are resolute. Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intent to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa, which forbids them to do this. We want to see the process put in place by which all of that is proven, not through words but with actions. And we are prepared to work in good faith, with mutual respect, to work in a way as we did in the last days – cordially, with an atmosphere that was respectful, even as it was tough, as we move towards the process of making certain that this threat will be eliminated. In that singular object, we are absolutely resolute, and in that mission, we are absolutely committed, and in that endeavor, we will do everything in our power to be able to succeed.
On that note, I’m happy to answer a couple of questions.
MODERATOR: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.
SECRETARY KERRY: Anne, hi.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you started with your – about (inaudible) who want this on Iran, and you’re opposed for what it will do on a sort of a technical level. I would hope that you might just take a moment and reflect on what this agreement may mean or signify longer term or in a larger sense. And this is – you just came through several months that represent the first time that a diplomatic level from the United States and one from Iran sat together and talked about anything, much less something of this moment. What is your view and what is your hope for the next steps as far as the U.S. relationship with Iran will be?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I – the – obviously it is not insignificant, nor does it just fly be me, nor the President, who took great risks in committing on this and making certain that we would proceed forward with this endeavor. It’s no small thing, I think, that since 1979, for about 34 years, Iran and the United States have not been able to talk to each other. And there’s been enormous buildup of suspicion and an enormous buildup of animosity, and there have been moments here and there where there might have been some kind of minor assistance one way or the other. For instance, when we went into Afghanistan in 2001, there actually was some assistance back home (inaudible) from Iran. So there have been these moments.
But I think by and large, it is fair to say that Iran’s choices have created a very significant barrier, and huge security concerns for our friends in the region, for Israel, for Gulf states and others, and obviously they have made certain choices that are deeply, profoundly unsettling in terms of stability in the region and the possibility of anything except our focus on (inaudible). It’s too early for us to talk about other things. It’s just not right. Obviously, one would hope that Iran will make choices that it will rejoin the community of nations in full. The first step is to resolve the nuclear issue, and it shouldn’t be hard if you are in fact absolutely determined to make good on the promise that this is a peaceful program.
So our hope is that the (inaudible) engagement and the resolution of its differences with respect to the UN and the international community can indeed lead to what the Foreign Minister and President Rouhani have talked about, which is a new relationship with the West and with its neighbors. But nobody that I know of is going to accept the words at face value. It is going to be proven by the choices Iran makes, by the actions that it takes. We are open. President Obama has made clear that he is prepared to put in motion the steps that can improve those attributes, to put these words to the test. And that’s exactly what we’re doing now with this first step. And we look forward to, hopefully in a short span of time, being able to put together a comprehensive agreement that will provide the guarantees necessary to our friends in the region.
Let me be crystal clear to Israel, to our other friends in the region, to any neighbor who feels threatened, that the next step requires proof certain of a failsafe set of steps which eliminate the current prospect of a breakout and the creation of a nuclear weapon. That will require dismantling certain things. It will require stopping certain kinds of activities. It will require some fundamental choices, and we’re prepared to work with Iran in order to put in place a protocol that achieves those ends.
So I think this is potentially a significant moment, but I’m not going to stand here in some triumphal moment and suggest to you that this is an end unto itself. It is not. It is a step towards the much more significant goal and the much harder to achieve goal of having a program that is absolutely failsafe provable to be only possible to be peaceful. And that’s what we have to work for now.
MODERATOR: The last question will be from Nicole Gaouette of Bloomberg News.
QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations to you and your team. I’m wondering (inaudible) and how you answer the criticism from Israel that by easing sanctions, you have less leverage over Iran, say, than you did yesterday. They’re (inaudible) reach that settlement. I also just wondered if you have a brief comment about more sanctions being in place. That’s been true for a long time, and for a long time (inaudible) Congress.
SECRETARY KERRY: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) by the Congress and designed to give new sanctions. And in my email feed, there are already statements from Republican senators saying it’s not good enough. The – my understanding is that this deal --
SECRETARY KERRY: Gee, you mean members of the other party (inaudible). (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My understanding is that you – the P5+1 are pledging not to increase nuclear-review sanctions for the next six months if Iran complies? How can you assure that you can get the majority in the Congress (inaudible)?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, those are two very good questions. Let me answer both of them very directly. First of all, with respect to Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a friend of mine, a man I have great respect for and I’ve worked with very closely, particularly right now, on the Middle East peace process. I talk to him several times a week. I’ve talked to him as recently as the last days about this very issue, on several occasions. And the fact that we might disagree about a tactic does not mean there is a sliver of daylight between us with respect to our strategy. The tactic is whether or not you increase sanctions or take advantage of this moment to pull the progress and guarantee you have insight into their program while you keep the pressure on. And it’s a difference of judgment. It would be nice, but there is no difference whatsoever between the United States and Israel and what the end goal must be here. We cannot have an Iran that is going to threaten its neighbors, and that has a nuclear weapon. From the day President Obama came into office, he made it clear that a centerpiece of his policy is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
Now, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, it is going after a nuclear weapon. Therefore, it ought to be really easy to do the things that other nations do who enrich, and prove that their program is peaceful. So that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for it in absolute sync with our friends in Israel. And I have said frequently, no deal is better than a bad deal. We are not going to strike, ultimately, a bad deal. And you have to be able to prove that this program is peaceful. That means you’re going to have to look at putting on the grave uranium and what happens to it. You’re going to have to have limitations on certain components. You’re going to have to have limitations on the type of facilities. Arak, a heavy-water plutonium facilities, has no business within the framework of a peaceful program. We’ve been very clear about that.
So there are many things. I’m not going to go through them all right now, but it is crystal clear that Israel and the United States have the same goal, the same strategic interest, and we will stand with Israel with respect to this policy and the other allies in the region who are equally concerned about what Iran might or might not choose to do.
Now, with respect to the second part of your question, the Congress, look, I have great confidence in my colleagues in the Congress. I think they are going to look at this very carefully, and they should. And I look forward to going up on the Hill. I look forward to engaging with my former colleagues, explaining what we’ve done, why we can keep the – and working together with Congress in order to achieve the goal that Congress embraced when they put these sanctions in place in the first place. Congress sought to have negotiations.
Now ultimately, if somehow we wind up (inaudible) and Congress – midterm election obviously – the President obviously has a possibility of a veto. There have been. But I don’t think it should come to that. We don’t want it to come to that. I don’t if it will come to that. I believe Congress will see the wisdom of pursuing this for the very specific purposes that I’ve articulated with very straight delineation of exactly how we’re going to achieve our goals. And it was really a cooperative effort. And we will brief Congress readily. We will work for Congress in a very cooperative way. And I think Congress will be a very important partner in helping us put this to the test over the course of the next six months.
MODERATOR: That’s it, everyone.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
Press Availability After P5+1 Talks
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Geneva, Switzerland
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good very early morning to all of you. It’s been a long day and a long night, and I’m delighted to be here to share some thoughts with you about the recent negotiations. I particularly want to thank the Swiss Government. I want to thank the United Nations. It’s been a (inaudible) and we’re honored to be here, even at this very early hour of the morning. I particularly want to thank my colleagues from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, China, and especially Lady Cathy Ashton, who is not only a good friend but a persistent and dogged negotiator and somebody who’s been staying at this for a long period of time. And we’re very grateful for her stewardship of these negotiations.
And if I can take a moment, I really want to thank the team from the United States. There have been a great many people involved in this effort for a long period of time now, both here in Switzerland with us now, but also back in the United States, and they know who they are. But I will single out our Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has been a dogged, unbelievably patient hand and a skillful hand, and she has helped through long and arduous months – years of stewardship of our part of this within the P5+1, and I’m very grateful to her for those long efforts and all of her team.
At the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asked me and our team to work with our partners in order to pursue a negotiated settlement or solution with respect to the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Last month, the P5+1 entered into a more accelerated negotiation after a number of years of meetings in various parts of the world and efforts to engage Iran in serious negotiations. The purpose of this is very simple: to require Iran to prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and to ensure that it cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. And the reason for this is very clear. The United Nations Security Council found that they were not in compliance with the NPT or other IAEA and other standards. And obviously, activities such as a secret, multi-centrifuge mountain hideaway, which was being used for enrichment, raised many people’s questions, which is why ultimately sanctions were put in place.
Today, we are taking a serious step toward answering all of those important questions that have been raised through the United Nations Security Council, through the IAEA, and by individual countries. And we are taking those steps with an agreement that impedes the progress in a very dramatic way of Iran’s principal enrichment facilities and parts of its program, and ensures they cannot advance in a way that will threaten our friends in the region, threaten other countries, threaten the world. The fact is that if this step – first step – leads to what is our ultimate goal, which is a comprehensive agreement that will make the world safer. This first step, I want to emphasize, actually rolls back the program from where it is today, enlarges the breakout time, which would not have occurred unless this agreement existed. It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer. This has been a difficult and a prolonged process. It’s been difficult for us, and it’s been difficult for our allies, and it’s obviously been difficult for the Government of Iran. The next phase, let me be clear, will be even more difficult, and we need to be honest about it. But it will also be even more consequential.
And while we obviously have profound differences with Iran yet to be resolved, the fact is that this agreement could not have been reached without the decision of the Iranian Government to come to the table and negotiate. And I want to say tonight that Foreign Minister Zarif worked hard, deliberated hard, and we are obviously, we believe, better that the decision was made to come here than not to, and to work hard to reach an agreement. And we thank the Foreign Minister for those efforts.
Together now, we need to set about the critical task of proving to the world what Iran has said many times – that its program is in fact peaceful. Now, with this first step, we have created the time and the space in order to be able to pursue a comprehensive agreement that would finish the work that President Obama began on the very first day in office, and that is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. President Obama worked intensively and his Administration worked intensively before I even came in; when I was in the Congress and voted for sanctions, the President worked in order to put in place a significant sanctions regime, an unprecedented regime. And he worked with countries around the world in order to ensure broad participation and support for these sanctions. That has been essential to the success of these sanctions. And we believe that it is the sanctions that have brought us to this negotiation and ultimately to the more significant negotiation to follow for a comprehensive agreement.
Make no mistakes, and I ask you, don’t interpret that the sanctions were an end unto themselves. They weren’t. The goal of the sanctions was always to have a negotiation. And that is precisely what is now taking place, and that negotiation’s goal is to secure a strong and verifiable agreement that guarantees the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear program. For more than 40 years, the international community has been united in its willingness to negotiate in good faith. And we have been particularly crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary in order to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We have also said that we prefer a peaceful solution, a peaceful path for Iran to respond to the international community’s concerns. And as a result of those efforts, we took the first step today to move down that path.
The measures that we have committed to will remain in place for six months, and they will address the most urgent concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Since there have been many premature and even misleading reports, I want to clearly outline what this first step entails. First, it locks the most critical components of a nuclear program into place and impedes progress in those critical components in a way that actually rolls back the stockpile of enriched uranium and widens the length of time possible for breakout. That makes people safer. With daily access – we will gain daily access to key facilities. And that will enable us to determine more quickly and with greater certainty than ever before that Iran is complying. Here’s how we do that: Iran has agreed to suspend all enrichment of uranium above 5 percent. Iran has agreed to dilute or convert its entire stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium.
So let me make clear what that means. That means that whereas Iran today has about 200 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, they could readily be enriched towards a nuclear weapon. In six months, Iran will have zero – zero. Iran will not increase its stockpile of 3.5 percent lower-enriched uranium over the next six months, and it will not construct additional enrichment facilities. Iran will not manufacture centrifuges beyond those that are broken and must be replaced. Very importantly, Iran will not commission or fuel the Arak reactor – Arak, A-r-a-k, reactor – an unfinished facility, that if it became operational would provide Iran with an alternative plutonium path to a nuclear weapon.
And to ensure that these commitments are met, Iran has agreed to submit its program to unprecedented monitoring. For the international community, this first step will provide the most far-reaching insight and view of Iran’s nuclear program that the international community has ever had. This first step – let me be clear. This first step does not say that Iran has a right to enrichment. No matter what interpretive comments are made, it is not in this document. There is no right to enrich within the four corners of the NPT. And this document does not do that. Rather, the scope and role of Iran’s enrichment, as is set forth in the language within this document, says that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is subject to a negotiation and to mutual agreement. And it can only be by mutual agreement that enrichment might or might not be able to be decided on in the course of negotiations.
So what is on the other side of the ledger here? Again, there have been a number of premature reports and reactions, so I want to be clear about what this step provides, this first step, and what it doesn’t provide. In return for the significant steps that Iran will take that I just listed – and there are more, incidentally, than I just listed; those are the principal – the international community will provide Iran with relief that is limited and, perhaps most importantly, reversible. The main elements of this relief would hold Iran’s oil sales steady and permit it to repatriate $4.2 billion from those sales. And that would otherwise be destined for an overseas account restricted by our sanctions. In addition, we will suspend certain sanctions on imports of gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially – potentially – providing Iran with about $1.5 billion in additional export revenues.
For the benefit of the Iranian people, we will also facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. No U.S. law will be changed. Nothing will have to be different. In fact, the sanctions laws specifically exempt humanitarian assistance. So this channel will not provide Iran any new source of funds, but we will help them in order to try to provide the people of Iran with additional assistance. It simply improves access to goods that were never intended to be denied to the Iranian people.
Now, I want to emphasize the core sanctions architecture that President Obama, together with allies and friends around the world, have put together, that core architecture remains firmly in place through these six months, including with respect to oil and financial services. To put this number in perspective, during this six-month phase, the oil sanctions that will remain in place will continue to cause over 25 billion in lost revenues to Iran, or over $4 billion a month. That is compared to what Iran earned before this took effect – the sanctions. And while Iran will get access to the 4.2 billion that I talked about of the restricted oil revenues, 14 to 16 billion of its sales during this period will be locked up and out of reach.
Together with our partners, we are committed to maintaining our commitment to vigorously enforcing the vast majority of the sanctions that are currently in place. Again, let me repeat: This is only the first step. But it is a first step that guarantees while you take the second step and move towards a comprehensive agreement, Iran’s fundamentals of its program are not able to progress – Fordow, Natanz, Arak, and other centrifuge and other things that matter. So that is a critical first step.
And I will say to all of you that as we conclude this first round of negotiation, with the beginning of the possibility of a much broader accomplishment down the road, it is our responsibility to be as firmly committed to diplomacy and as relentless in our resolve over the years as we have been to bring the concerted pressure that brought us to this moment. For the Iranian Government, it’s their responsibility to recognize that this first phase is a very simple test. Many times, Iran, I think you heard the Foreign Minister here tonight reiterate, that they have a peaceful program and that’s their only intention. Folks, it is not hard to prove peaceful intent if that’s what you want to do. We are anxious to try to make certain that this deal ultimately will do exactly that – prove it.
And I will just say finally, I know that there are those who will assert that this deal is imperfect. Well, they too bear a responsibility, and that is to tell people what the better alternative is. Some might say we should simply continue to increase pressure – just turn up the screws, continue to put sanctions on, and somehow that’s going to push Iran towards capitulation or collapse. Not by any interpretation that we have from all the experts and all of the input that we have, and from all of the countries – the P5+1 – that took place in this today, none of them believe that would be the outcome.
Instead, we believe that while we are engaged in that effort, Iran’s program would actually march forward. It would gain. And while it gains, it would become more dangerous in the region and countries like Israel and the Emirates, other people in the region who are threatened, would in fact be more threatened.
So we believe that you would wind up with an Iran with bigger stockpiles, with more advanced centrifuges and more progress at pursuing a plutonium track. And President Obama believes that doesn’t benefit anybody.
In 1973 – 19 – excuse me, in 2003, when the Iranians made an offer to the former Administration with respect to their nuclear program, there were 164 centrifuges. That offer was not taken. Subsequently, sanctions came in, and today there are 19,000 centrifuges and growing. So people have a responsibility to make a judgment about this choice. And I am comfortable, as is President Obama, that we have made the right choice for how you proceed to get a complete agreement.
Moreover, making sanctions the sum total of our policy will not strengthen the international coalition that we have built in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Instead, it would actually weaken that coalition, and many people believe that to merely continue at a time where Iran says, “We’re prepared to negotiate,” would in fact break up the current sanctions regime. Others argue for military action as a first resort. Well, President Obama and I do not share a belief that war is a permanent solution, and it should never be the first option. Instead, that particular option involves enormous risks in many different ways, and as President Obama has often said, while that option remains available to us – and the President will not take it off the table – he believes that that can only be entertained after we have made every effort to resolve the dispute through diplomacy, barring some immediate emergency that requires a different response.
So I close by saying to all of you that the singular objective that brought us to Geneva remains our singular objective as we leave Geneva, and that is to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. In that singular object, we are resolute. Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intent to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa, which forbids them to do this. We want to see the process put in place by which all of that is proven, not through words but with actions. And we are prepared to work in good faith, with mutual respect, to work in a way as we did in the last days – cordially, with an atmosphere that was respectful, even as it was tough, as we move towards the process of making certain that this threat will be eliminated. In that singular object, we are absolutely resolute, and in that mission, we are absolutely committed, and in that endeavor, we will do everything in our power to be able to succeed.
On that note, I’m happy to answer a couple of questions.
MODERATOR: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.
SECRETARY KERRY: Anne, hi.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you started with your – about (inaudible) who want this on Iran, and you’re opposed for what it will do on a sort of a technical level. I would hope that you might just take a moment and reflect on what this agreement may mean or signify longer term or in a larger sense. And this is – you just came through several months that represent the first time that a diplomatic level from the United States and one from Iran sat together and talked about anything, much less something of this moment. What is your view and what is your hope for the next steps as far as the U.S. relationship with Iran will be?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I – the – obviously it is not insignificant, nor does it just fly be me, nor the President, who took great risks in committing on this and making certain that we would proceed forward with this endeavor. It’s no small thing, I think, that since 1979, for about 34 years, Iran and the United States have not been able to talk to each other. And there’s been enormous buildup of suspicion and an enormous buildup of animosity, and there have been moments here and there where there might have been some kind of minor assistance one way or the other. For instance, when we went into Afghanistan in 2001, there actually was some assistance back home (inaudible) from Iran. So there have been these moments.
But I think by and large, it is fair to say that Iran’s choices have created a very significant barrier, and huge security concerns for our friends in the region, for Israel, for Gulf states and others, and obviously they have made certain choices that are deeply, profoundly unsettling in terms of stability in the region and the possibility of anything except our focus on (inaudible). It’s too early for us to talk about other things. It’s just not right. Obviously, one would hope that Iran will make choices that it will rejoin the community of nations in full. The first step is to resolve the nuclear issue, and it shouldn’t be hard if you are in fact absolutely determined to make good on the promise that this is a peaceful program.
So our hope is that the (inaudible) engagement and the resolution of its differences with respect to the UN and the international community can indeed lead to what the Foreign Minister and President Rouhani have talked about, which is a new relationship with the West and with its neighbors. But nobody that I know of is going to accept the words at face value. It is going to be proven by the choices Iran makes, by the actions that it takes. We are open. President Obama has made clear that he is prepared to put in motion the steps that can improve those attributes, to put these words to the test. And that’s exactly what we’re doing now with this first step. And we look forward to, hopefully in a short span of time, being able to put together a comprehensive agreement that will provide the guarantees necessary to our friends in the region.
Let me be crystal clear to Israel, to our other friends in the region, to any neighbor who feels threatened, that the next step requires proof certain of a failsafe set of steps which eliminate the current prospect of a breakout and the creation of a nuclear weapon. That will require dismantling certain things. It will require stopping certain kinds of activities. It will require some fundamental choices, and we’re prepared to work with Iran in order to put in place a protocol that achieves those ends.
So I think this is potentially a significant moment, but I’m not going to stand here in some triumphal moment and suggest to you that this is an end unto itself. It is not. It is a step towards the much more significant goal and the much harder to achieve goal of having a program that is absolutely failsafe provable to be only possible to be peaceful. And that’s what we have to work for now.
MODERATOR: The last question will be from Nicole Gaouette of Bloomberg News.
QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations to you and your team. I’m wondering (inaudible) and how you answer the criticism from Israel that by easing sanctions, you have less leverage over Iran, say, than you did yesterday. They’re (inaudible) reach that settlement. I also just wondered if you have a brief comment about more sanctions being in place. That’s been true for a long time, and for a long time (inaudible) Congress.
SECRETARY KERRY: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) by the Congress and designed to give new sanctions. And in my email feed, there are already statements from Republican senators saying it’s not good enough. The – my understanding is that this deal --
SECRETARY KERRY: Gee, you mean members of the other party (inaudible). (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My understanding is that you – the P5+1 are pledging not to increase nuclear-review sanctions for the next six months if Iran complies? How can you assure that you can get the majority in the Congress (inaudible)?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, those are two very good questions. Let me answer both of them very directly. First of all, with respect to Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a friend of mine, a man I have great respect for and I’ve worked with very closely, particularly right now, on the Middle East peace process. I talk to him several times a week. I’ve talked to him as recently as the last days about this very issue, on several occasions. And the fact that we might disagree about a tactic does not mean there is a sliver of daylight between us with respect to our strategy. The tactic is whether or not you increase sanctions or take advantage of this moment to pull the progress and guarantee you have insight into their program while you keep the pressure on. And it’s a difference of judgment. It would be nice, but there is no difference whatsoever between the United States and Israel and what the end goal must be here. We cannot have an Iran that is going to threaten its neighbors, and that has a nuclear weapon. From the day President Obama came into office, he made it clear that a centerpiece of his policy is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
Now, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, it is going after a nuclear weapon. Therefore, it ought to be really easy to do the things that other nations do who enrich, and prove that their program is peaceful. So that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for it in absolute sync with our friends in Israel. And I have said frequently, no deal is better than a bad deal. We are not going to strike, ultimately, a bad deal. And you have to be able to prove that this program is peaceful. That means you’re going to have to look at putting on the grave uranium and what happens to it. You’re going to have to have limitations on certain components. You’re going to have to have limitations on the type of facilities. Arak, a heavy-water plutonium facilities, has no business within the framework of a peaceful program. We’ve been very clear about that.
So there are many things. I’m not going to go through them all right now, but it is crystal clear that Israel and the United States have the same goal, the same strategic interest, and we will stand with Israel with respect to this policy and the other allies in the region who are equally concerned about what Iran might or might not choose to do.
Now, with respect to the second part of your question, the Congress, look, I have great confidence in my colleagues in the Congress. I think they are going to look at this very carefully, and they should. And I look forward to going up on the Hill. I look forward to engaging with my former colleagues, explaining what we’ve done, why we can keep the – and working together with Congress in order to achieve the goal that Congress embraced when they put these sanctions in place in the first place. Congress sought to have negotiations.
Now ultimately, if somehow we wind up (inaudible) and Congress – midterm election obviously – the President obviously has a possibility of a veto. There have been. But I don’t think it should come to that. We don’t want it to come to that. I don’t if it will come to that. I believe Congress will see the wisdom of pursuing this for the very specific purposes that I’ve articulated with very straight delineation of exactly how we’re going to achieve our goals. And it was really a cooperative effort. And we will brief Congress readily. We will work for Congress in a very cooperative way. And I think Congress will be a very important partner in helping us put this to the test over the course of the next six months.
MODERATOR: That’s it, everyone.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
NAVY RESERVE READY MOBILIZATION POOL ELIMINATED DUE TO DRAWDOWNS
 |
| 130124-N-IE116-395 LASH-E JUWAYN, Afghanistan (Jan. 24, 2013) Soldiers and Sailors assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Farah and leadership from the Farah directorate of agriculture, irrigation and livestock file onto a CH-47 Chinook helicopter after a key leader engagement in Lash-e Juwayn. PRT Farah met with key leaders in Lash-e Juwayn to discuss an ongoing irrigation project. PRT Farah's mission is to train, advise and assist Afghan government leaders at the municipal, district and provincial levels in Farah province, Afghanistan. Their civil military team is comprised of members of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of State and the Agency for International Development (USAID). (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Hospital Corpsman Josh Ives/Released) |
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Navy Reserve Ready Mobilization Pool Disestablished
Release Date: 11/22/2013 7:58:00 PM
From Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command Public Affairs
NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, the Reserve Ready Mobilization Pool (RMP) will no longer be used to involuntarily recall Reserve Sailors.
The RMP is being eliminated due to the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan and the extremely high mobilization volunteer rate throughout the Navy Reserve Force.
"Although our immediate need for a large forward deployed force has been reduced in correlation with the drawdown in Afghanistan, our Reserve Sailors will continue to stand, 'Ready. Anytime, Anywhere," said Rear Adm. Bryan Cutchen, commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command.
Across the force, the volunteer rate has consistently remained near 75 percent, with a September 2013 volunteer rate of 87.7 percent. This high volunteer rate is projected to continue due to the opportunities mobilizations provide for valuable career growth in a variety of joint and specialized billets.
The Ready Mobilization Pool (RMP) was first implemented in 2009 to manage the mobilization of Reserve Officers. In 2010, Reserve Enlisted personnel were added to the pool, coinciding with an increase in the number of mobilizations across the entire Reserve Force which had reached their highest level since 2003.
The mission of the Navy Reserve is to deliver strategic depth and operational capability to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Forces.
WINDMILL ENERGY COMPANY RECEIVES SENTENCE FOR KILLING BIRDS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, November 22, 2013
Utility Company Sentenced in Wyoming for Killing Protected Birds at Wind Projects
Duke Energy Renewables Inc., a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind projects in Wyoming. This case represents the first ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at wind projects.
Under a plea agreement with the government, the company was sentenced to pay fines, restitution and community service totaling $1 million and was placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan aimed at preventing bird deaths at the company’s four commercial wind projects in the state. The company is also required to apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for minimizing and mitigating the deaths of golden eagles at the wind projects.
The charges stem from the discovery of 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at its “Campbell Hill” and “Top of the World” wind projects in Converse County between 2009 and 2013. The two wind projects are comprised of 176 large wind turbines sited on private agricultural land.
According to the charges and other information presented in court, Duke Energy Renewables Inc. failed to make all reasonable efforts to build the projects in a way that would avoid the risk of avian deaths by collision with turbine blades, despite prior warnings about this issue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, the company cooperated with the USFWS investigation and has already implemented measures aimed at minimizing avian deaths at the sites.
“This case represents the first criminal conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts.”
“The Service works cooperatively with companies that make all reasonable efforts to avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of industrial facilities,” said William Woody, Assistant Director for Law Enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “But we will continue to investigate and refer for prosecution cases in which companies - in any sector, including the wind industry - fail to comply with the laws that protect the public’s wildlife resources.”
More than 1,000 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA, enacted in 1918, implements this country’s commitments under avian protection treaties with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The MBTA provides a misdemeanor criminal sanction for the unpermitted taking of a listed species by any means and in any manner, regardless of fault. The maximum penalty for an unpermitted corporate taking under the MBTA is $15,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, and five years’ probation.
According to papers filed with the court, commercial wind power projects can cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification. Collision and electrocution risks from power lines (collisions and electrocutions) and guyed structures (collision) have been known to the utility and communication industries for decades, and specific methods of minimizing and avoiding the risks have been developed, in conjunction with the USFWS. The USFWS issued its first interim guidance about how wind project developers could avoid impacts to wildlife from wind turbines in 2003, and replaced these with a “tiered” approach outlined in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 LBWEGs), developed with the wind industry starting in 2007 and released in final form by the USFWS on March 23, 2012. The Service also released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance in April 2013 and strongly recommends that companies planning or operating wind power facilities in areas where eagles occur work with the agency to implement that guidance completely.
For wind projects, due diligence during the pre-construction stage—as described in the 2003 Interim Guidelines and tiers I through III in the 2012 LBWEGs—by surveying the wildlife present in the proposed project area, consulting with agency professionals, determining whether the risk to wildlife is too high to justify proceeding and, if not, carefully siting turbines so as to avoid and minimize the risk as much as possible, is critically important because, unlike electric distribution equipment and guyed towers, at the present time, no post-construction remedies, except “curtailment” (i.e., shut-down), have been developed that can “render safe” a wind turbine placed in a location of high avian collision risk. Other experimental measures to reduce prey, detect and deter avian proximity to turbines are being tested. In the western United States, golden eagles may be particularly susceptible to wind turbine blade collision by wind power facilities constructed in areas of high eagle use.
The $400,000 fine imposed in the case will be directed to the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. The company will also pay $100,000 in restitution to the State of Wyoming, and perform community service by making a $160,000 payment to the congressionally-chartered National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, designated for projects aimed at preserving golden eagles and increasing the understanding of ways to minimize and monitor interactions between eagles and commercial wind power facilities, as well as enhance eagle rehabilitation and conservation efforts in Wyoming. Duke Energy Renewables is also required to contribute $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase of land, or conservation easements on land, in Wyoming containing high-use golden eagle habitat, which will be preserved and managed for the benefit of that species. The company must implement a migratory bird compliance plan containing specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in Wyoming.
According to papers filed with the court, Duke Energy Renewables will spend approximately $600,000 per year implementing the compliance plan. Within 24 months, the company must also apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit at each of the two wind projects cited in the case.
The case was investigated by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and prosecuted by Senior Counsel Robert S. Anderson of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Conder of the District of Wyoming.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Utility Company Sentenced in Wyoming for Killing Protected Birds at Wind Projects
Duke Energy Renewables Inc., a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind projects in Wyoming. This case represents the first ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at wind projects.
Under a plea agreement with the government, the company was sentenced to pay fines, restitution and community service totaling $1 million and was placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan aimed at preventing bird deaths at the company’s four commercial wind projects in the state. The company is also required to apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for minimizing and mitigating the deaths of golden eagles at the wind projects.
The charges stem from the discovery of 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at its “Campbell Hill” and “Top of the World” wind projects in Converse County between 2009 and 2013. The two wind projects are comprised of 176 large wind turbines sited on private agricultural land.
According to the charges and other information presented in court, Duke Energy Renewables Inc. failed to make all reasonable efforts to build the projects in a way that would avoid the risk of avian deaths by collision with turbine blades, despite prior warnings about this issue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, the company cooperated with the USFWS investigation and has already implemented measures aimed at minimizing avian deaths at the sites.
“This case represents the first criminal conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts.”
“The Service works cooperatively with companies that make all reasonable efforts to avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of industrial facilities,” said William Woody, Assistant Director for Law Enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “But we will continue to investigate and refer for prosecution cases in which companies - in any sector, including the wind industry - fail to comply with the laws that protect the public’s wildlife resources.”
More than 1,000 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA, enacted in 1918, implements this country’s commitments under avian protection treaties with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The MBTA provides a misdemeanor criminal sanction for the unpermitted taking of a listed species by any means and in any manner, regardless of fault. The maximum penalty for an unpermitted corporate taking under the MBTA is $15,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, and five years’ probation.
According to papers filed with the court, commercial wind power projects can cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification. Collision and electrocution risks from power lines (collisions and electrocutions) and guyed structures (collision) have been known to the utility and communication industries for decades, and specific methods of minimizing and avoiding the risks have been developed, in conjunction with the USFWS. The USFWS issued its first interim guidance about how wind project developers could avoid impacts to wildlife from wind turbines in 2003, and replaced these with a “tiered” approach outlined in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 LBWEGs), developed with the wind industry starting in 2007 and released in final form by the USFWS on March 23, 2012. The Service also released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance in April 2013 and strongly recommends that companies planning or operating wind power facilities in areas where eagles occur work with the agency to implement that guidance completely.
For wind projects, due diligence during the pre-construction stage—as described in the 2003 Interim Guidelines and tiers I through III in the 2012 LBWEGs—by surveying the wildlife present in the proposed project area, consulting with agency professionals, determining whether the risk to wildlife is too high to justify proceeding and, if not, carefully siting turbines so as to avoid and minimize the risk as much as possible, is critically important because, unlike electric distribution equipment and guyed towers, at the present time, no post-construction remedies, except “curtailment” (i.e., shut-down), have been developed that can “render safe” a wind turbine placed in a location of high avian collision risk. Other experimental measures to reduce prey, detect and deter avian proximity to turbines are being tested. In the western United States, golden eagles may be particularly susceptible to wind turbine blade collision by wind power facilities constructed in areas of high eagle use.
The $400,000 fine imposed in the case will be directed to the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. The company will also pay $100,000 in restitution to the State of Wyoming, and perform community service by making a $160,000 payment to the congressionally-chartered National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, designated for projects aimed at preserving golden eagles and increasing the understanding of ways to minimize and monitor interactions between eagles and commercial wind power facilities, as well as enhance eagle rehabilitation and conservation efforts in Wyoming. Duke Energy Renewables is also required to contribute $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase of land, or conservation easements on land, in Wyoming containing high-use golden eagle habitat, which will be preserved and managed for the benefit of that species. The company must implement a migratory bird compliance plan containing specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in Wyoming.
According to papers filed with the court, Duke Energy Renewables will spend approximately $600,000 per year implementing the compliance plan. Within 24 months, the company must also apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit at each of the two wind projects cited in the case.
The case was investigated by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and prosecuted by Senior Counsel Robert S. Anderson of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Conder of the District of Wyoming.
USDA ANNOUNCES INVITATION TO SELL SUGAR
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
USDA Announces November 2013 Feedstock Flexibility Program Results and a New CCC Invitation to Sell Sugar for Non-Food Uses
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2013 — U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) today announced the results of CCC’s offer made on Nov. 14, 2013, to sell its sugar inventory for bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP). CCC also announced a new invitation to sell the remainder of its recently acquired sugar inventory for both bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program and other non-food uses. CCC successfully sold 216,750 short tons to bioenergy producers for $11.3 million under the Nov. 14 offer, but still holds 79,750 tons in inventory.
Today’s invitation reduces the minimum quantity for bids to 5,000 tons and offers sugar for both bioenergy and other non-food uses. This invitation, and all of the Farm Service Agency’s actions to address the 2012 sugar crop-year surplus, can be found on the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Commodity Operations website at www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=coop&topic=pas-sa
CCC acquired 296,500 short tons of sugar on Oct. 1, 2013, in lieu of cash repayments on its remaining 2012 crop year sugar loans. These sugar loan forfeitures were the result of record domestic sugar production, record Mexican sugar imports, and world prices falling below U.S. price support levels for the first time in several years. CCC is prohibited by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) from selling its sugar inventory for domestic food use unless there is an emergency sugar shortage.
USDA Announces November 2013 Feedstock Flexibility Program Results and a New CCC Invitation to Sell Sugar for Non-Food Uses
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2013 — U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) today announced the results of CCC’s offer made on Nov. 14, 2013, to sell its sugar inventory for bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP). CCC also announced a new invitation to sell the remainder of its recently acquired sugar inventory for both bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program and other non-food uses. CCC successfully sold 216,750 short tons to bioenergy producers for $11.3 million under the Nov. 14 offer, but still holds 79,750 tons in inventory.
Today’s invitation reduces the minimum quantity for bids to 5,000 tons and offers sugar for both bioenergy and other non-food uses. This invitation, and all of the Farm Service Agency’s actions to address the 2012 sugar crop-year surplus, can be found on the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Commodity Operations website at www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=coop&topic=pas-sa
CCC acquired 296,500 short tons of sugar on Oct. 1, 2013, in lieu of cash repayments on its remaining 2012 crop year sugar loans. These sugar loan forfeitures were the result of record domestic sugar production, record Mexican sugar imports, and world prices falling below U.S. price support levels for the first time in several years. CCC is prohibited by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) from selling its sugar inventory for domestic food use unless there is an emergency sugar shortage.
4 FISHERMEN INDICTED FOR INTERSTATE SALE OF STRIPED BASS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Four Commercial Fishermen Indicted in Maryland for Illegal Harvest and Interstate Sale of Striped Bass from Chesapeake Bay
One Charged with Threatening Retaliation and Witnesses Tampering During Investigation
Four commercial fishermen and one company were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Baltimore for a criminal conspiracy involving the illegal harvesting and interstate sale of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay, announced Robert G. Dreher, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.
According to court documents, Michael D. Hayden Jr., his company, William J. Lednum, Kent Sadler and Daniel Murphy engaged in a multi-year conspiracy during which time they harvested tens of thousands of pounds of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay in violation of Maryland fishing regulations, falsified documents filed with the State of Maryland, and then transported and sold those poached fish in interstate commerce. In addition, after the investigation of these crimes began, it is alleged that Hayden attempted to manipulate some witnesses’ testimony while trying to outright prevent the testimony and cooperation of others. In addition, it is alleged that in at least one incident, Hayden threatened to retaliate against another potential witness he believed to be cooperating with investigators. Hayden was arrested on Sept. 17, 2013, having been charged in a criminal complaint with several counts of witness intimidation and retaliation.
The 26-count indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy, and Lacey Act violations. These charges carry possible terms of incarceration of five years. In addition, the witness intimidation/retaliation charges against Mr. Hayden each carry a maximum-term of 20 years in prison.
An indictment is a charging document and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
This case is being investigated by criminal investigators with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Police and Special Agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The case is being jointly prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the Environmental Crimes Section of the United States Department of Justice.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Four Commercial Fishermen Indicted in Maryland for Illegal Harvest and Interstate Sale of Striped Bass from Chesapeake Bay
One Charged with Threatening Retaliation and Witnesses Tampering During Investigation
Four commercial fishermen and one company were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Baltimore for a criminal conspiracy involving the illegal harvesting and interstate sale of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay, announced Robert G. Dreher, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.
According to court documents, Michael D. Hayden Jr., his company, William J. Lednum, Kent Sadler and Daniel Murphy engaged in a multi-year conspiracy during which time they harvested tens of thousands of pounds of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay in violation of Maryland fishing regulations, falsified documents filed with the State of Maryland, and then transported and sold those poached fish in interstate commerce. In addition, after the investigation of these crimes began, it is alleged that Hayden attempted to manipulate some witnesses’ testimony while trying to outright prevent the testimony and cooperation of others. In addition, it is alleged that in at least one incident, Hayden threatened to retaliate against another potential witness he believed to be cooperating with investigators. Hayden was arrested on Sept. 17, 2013, having been charged in a criminal complaint with several counts of witness intimidation and retaliation.
The 26-count indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy, and Lacey Act violations. These charges carry possible terms of incarceration of five years. In addition, the witness intimidation/retaliation charges against Mr. Hayden each carry a maximum-term of 20 years in prison.
An indictment is a charging document and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
This case is being investigated by criminal investigators with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Police and Special Agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The case is being jointly prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the Environmental Crimes Section of the United States Department of Justice.
ONCOLOGY COMPANY TO PAY OVER $2 MILLION TO SETTLE FALSE MEDICARE CLAIMS ALLEGATIONS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Vantage Oncology LLC to Pay More Than $2.08 Million for False Medicare Claims for Radiation Oncology Services
Vantage Oncology LLC (Vantage) has agreed to pay the government more than $2.08 million to settle allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare for radiation oncology services performed at its Illinois centers from 2007 through June 2012, the Justice Department announced today. Vantage owns and manages radiation oncology centers in multiple states, including two centers in Spring Valley and Streator, Ill.
“Billing Medicare for patient care that is not necessary or appropriate contributes to the soaring costs of health care,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting public funds and guarding against abuse of the Medicare system.”
The government alleged that Vantage double billed and overbilled Medicare for certain procedures, billed for services that lacked supporting documentation and improperly billed for radiation treatment provided to patients without proper physician supervision.
“Our office remains committed to ensuring appropriate patient care and protecting the integrity of government insurance programs,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio C arter M. Stewart .
“Cheating taxpayers by double billing, overbilling and wrongly billing for services without required medical oversight will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Lamont Pugh III. “The Office of Inspector General is committed to identifying, investigating and holding accountable those who improperly profit at the expense of the Medicare program.”
This settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former Vantage employee Suleiman Refaei under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The Act allows private citizens with knowledge of fraud to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. Refaei will receive $354,450.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation was jointly handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio; the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General.
The case is captioned United States ex rel. Suleiman Refaei v. Vantage Oncology, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-833 (S.D. Ohio). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Vantage Oncology LLC to Pay More Than $2.08 Million for False Medicare Claims for Radiation Oncology Services
Vantage Oncology LLC (Vantage) has agreed to pay the government more than $2.08 million to settle allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare for radiation oncology services performed at its Illinois centers from 2007 through June 2012, the Justice Department announced today. Vantage owns and manages radiation oncology centers in multiple states, including two centers in Spring Valley and Streator, Ill.
“Billing Medicare for patient care that is not necessary or appropriate contributes to the soaring costs of health care,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting public funds and guarding against abuse of the Medicare system.”
The government alleged that Vantage double billed and overbilled Medicare for certain procedures, billed for services that lacked supporting documentation and improperly billed for radiation treatment provided to patients without proper physician supervision.
“Our office remains committed to ensuring appropriate patient care and protecting the integrity of government insurance programs,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio C arter M. Stewart .
“Cheating taxpayers by double billing, overbilling and wrongly billing for services without required medical oversight will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Lamont Pugh III. “The Office of Inspector General is committed to identifying, investigating and holding accountable those who improperly profit at the expense of the Medicare program.”
This settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former Vantage employee Suleiman Refaei under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The Act allows private citizens with knowledge of fraud to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. Refaei will receive $354,450.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation was jointly handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio; the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General.
The case is captioned United States ex rel. Suleiman Refaei v. Vantage Oncology, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-833 (S.D. Ohio). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
MEMORIES OF THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
FROM: THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
The Sound of Drums
November 22, 2013 by Jennifer Gavin
On Friday, November 22, 1963, the students in Mrs. Maxwell’s third-grade class at Sabin Elementary School in southwest Denver got a singular history lesson: the news came in that President John F. Kennedy had been murdered.
Janet Maxwell, a popular young instructor who taught 25 kids reading, math, science and history by turns, was trying to get an educational program on a radio at the front of the classroom – a weekly radio play called “I Am an American” in which actors dramatized the lives of famous figures in U.S. history. But she couldn’t seem to lock in the station. So she went next door to Mrs. Grossman’s room to see if they were having difficulty there, as well.
When she came back, perhaps 10 minutes later, her students – I was one of them — were startled to find her weeping.
“Boys and girls, I don’t know how to tell you this,” she said. “President Kennedy has been shot. I hope he will be all right.”
We were stunned. A couple of kids began crying, too. We were old enough to understand that the leader of our country was fighting for his life, and might even be dead. The president! The president of the United States.
This was not an era of instant communication. There might have been one TV in the whole school. But we did have the radio in the classroom, and Mrs. Maxwell began dialing around to find news coverage of the shooting.
It was only a matter of minutes before the announcement came: President Kennedy was dead.
Mrs. Maxwell tried to project an air of calm, but her grief could not be hidden, and it upset all of us.
Lunchtime came, and we took our sack lunches and went out on the gravel field beside the school. Some kids were hysterical. Other kids were silent, a little frightened by the effect this news had on adults. I wondered what my Mom and Dad were thinking. I knew they liked President Kennedy and had voted for him.
We tried to have a normal afternoon in school, but no one could keep their mind on the work. One boy cracked an inappropriate joke; Mrs. Maxwell upbraided him. At 3:20 we got to go home.
That night I went to my friend Jonnie Sue’s house for a sleepover. My mother urged me to have fun and not to dwell too much on the sad event.
But all Jonnie Sue and I did Saturday morning, when we would ordinarily have been watching cartoons, was to stay glued to the wall-to-wall television coverage of the assassination, the swearing-in of LBJ, the speculation about the arrested man, Lee Harvey Oswald. I walked home at noon and a few hours were spent away from the TV.
Sunday morning I got up and went to the basement, where we had a big black-and-white tube set. As I sat there in my pajamas, police officers were seen moving Lee Harvey Oswald along a corridor crowded with people. A man—later identified as Jack Ruby — stepped forward, and suddenly Oswald’s face contorted in pain. He had been shot, right there on live TV, and I had witnessed it as it happened.
I ran upstairs, delivering my first “flash” in a lifetime that later included 18 years as a newspaperwoman: “Dad! Dad! Somebody shot Lee Harvey Oswald!”
The true tragedy came through to me as I watched the state funeral Monday on TV. JFK’s children stood by their mother as their father’s casket rolled past. I was only a little older than those kids. The roll of the drums was unforgettable:
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum
Brum – ba – brum.
It may be hard for people born more recently to grasp the impact John F. Kennedy had on lives in that era. In later years I met several people who had been inspired by his challenge to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and in response had actually joined the Peace Corps or done some kind of public service. Kennedy’s killing did great damage to their collective spirit.
Within five years, both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead at the hands of assassins. It was a profoundly disquieting time.
But this is America. New leaders step forward, and we build the bench so new leaders can step forward. Democracy can be untidy, and not always satisfying, but it still beats the alternatives.
Who will fill out that bench – by serving on the city council, or the school board, or in the legislature?
What can you do for your country?
The Sound of Drums
November 22, 2013 by Jennifer Gavin
On Friday, November 22, 1963, the students in Mrs. Maxwell’s third-grade class at Sabin Elementary School in southwest Denver got a singular history lesson: the news came in that President John F. Kennedy had been murdered.
Janet Maxwell, a popular young instructor who taught 25 kids reading, math, science and history by turns, was trying to get an educational program on a radio at the front of the classroom – a weekly radio play called “I Am an American” in which actors dramatized the lives of famous figures in U.S. history. But she couldn’t seem to lock in the station. So she went next door to Mrs. Grossman’s room to see if they were having difficulty there, as well.
When she came back, perhaps 10 minutes later, her students – I was one of them — were startled to find her weeping.
“Boys and girls, I don’t know how to tell you this,” she said. “President Kennedy has been shot. I hope he will be all right.”
We were stunned. A couple of kids began crying, too. We were old enough to understand that the leader of our country was fighting for his life, and might even be dead. The president! The president of the United States.
This was not an era of instant communication. There might have been one TV in the whole school. But we did have the radio in the classroom, and Mrs. Maxwell began dialing around to find news coverage of the shooting.
It was only a matter of minutes before the announcement came: President Kennedy was dead.
Mrs. Maxwell tried to project an air of calm, but her grief could not be hidden, and it upset all of us.
Lunchtime came, and we took our sack lunches and went out on the gravel field beside the school. Some kids were hysterical. Other kids were silent, a little frightened by the effect this news had on adults. I wondered what my Mom and Dad were thinking. I knew they liked President Kennedy and had voted for him.
We tried to have a normal afternoon in school, but no one could keep their mind on the work. One boy cracked an inappropriate joke; Mrs. Maxwell upbraided him. At 3:20 we got to go home.
That night I went to my friend Jonnie Sue’s house for a sleepover. My mother urged me to have fun and not to dwell too much on the sad event.
But all Jonnie Sue and I did Saturday morning, when we would ordinarily have been watching cartoons, was to stay glued to the wall-to-wall television coverage of the assassination, the swearing-in of LBJ, the speculation about the arrested man, Lee Harvey Oswald. I walked home at noon and a few hours were spent away from the TV.
Sunday morning I got up and went to the basement, where we had a big black-and-white tube set. As I sat there in my pajamas, police officers were seen moving Lee Harvey Oswald along a corridor crowded with people. A man—later identified as Jack Ruby — stepped forward, and suddenly Oswald’s face contorted in pain. He had been shot, right there on live TV, and I had witnessed it as it happened.
I ran upstairs, delivering my first “flash” in a lifetime that later included 18 years as a newspaperwoman: “Dad! Dad! Somebody shot Lee Harvey Oswald!”
The true tragedy came through to me as I watched the state funeral Monday on TV. JFK’s children stood by their mother as their father’s casket rolled past. I was only a little older than those kids. The roll of the drums was unforgettable:
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum
Brum – ba – brum.
It may be hard for people born more recently to grasp the impact John F. Kennedy had on lives in that era. In later years I met several people who had been inspired by his challenge to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and in response had actually joined the Peace Corps or done some kind of public service. Kennedy’s killing did great damage to their collective spirit.
Within five years, both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead at the hands of assassins. It was a profoundly disquieting time.
But this is America. New leaders step forward, and we build the bench so new leaders can step forward. Democracy can be untidy, and not always satisfying, but it still beats the alternatives.
Who will fill out that bench – by serving on the city council, or the school board, or in the legislature?
What can you do for your country?
MALWARE SCAMMER SETTLES FTC COMPLAINT
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FTC
Tech Support Scheme Participant Settles FTC Charges
One of the defendants in an alleged tech support scheme has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint against him and give up the money he made from the scheme.
Navin Pasari is a defendant in one of six complaints filed by the FTC in September 2012 as part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams. According to the complaint against Pasari and his co-defendants, the defendants placed ads with Google, which appeared when consumers searched for their computer company’s tech support telephone number. After getting consumers on the phone, the defendants’ telemarketers allegedly claimed they were affiliated with legitimate companies, including Dell, Microsoft, McAfee and Norton, and told consumers they had detected malware that posed an imminent threat to their computers. The scammers then offered to rid the computer of the non-existent malware for fees ranging from $139 to $360.
The stipulated final order against Pasari imposes a $14,369 monetary judgment, which represents the total amount of money Pasari received in connection with the scam. The final order also requires him to divest his ownership interest in PCCare247 Inc., another defendant in the action, and transfer any proceeds he receives from the divestiture to the FTC.
In addition, the final order prohibits Pasari from opening or assisting with the opening of payment processing accounts for a company or other entity unless he personally supervises the accounts. The final order also prohibits Pasari from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting any information to consumers.
While the stipulated final order announced today resolves the FTC’s claims against Pasari, litigation continues against the remaining defendants in each of these actions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the judgment on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Tech Support Scheme Participant Settles FTC Charges
One of the defendants in an alleged tech support scheme has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint against him and give up the money he made from the scheme.
Navin Pasari is a defendant in one of six complaints filed by the FTC in September 2012 as part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams. According to the complaint against Pasari and his co-defendants, the defendants placed ads with Google, which appeared when consumers searched for their computer company’s tech support telephone number. After getting consumers on the phone, the defendants’ telemarketers allegedly claimed they were affiliated with legitimate companies, including Dell, Microsoft, McAfee and Norton, and told consumers they had detected malware that posed an imminent threat to their computers. The scammers then offered to rid the computer of the non-existent malware for fees ranging from $139 to $360.
The stipulated final order against Pasari imposes a $14,369 monetary judgment, which represents the total amount of money Pasari received in connection with the scam. The final order also requires him to divest his ownership interest in PCCare247 Inc., another defendant in the action, and transfer any proceeds he receives from the divestiture to the FTC.
In addition, the final order prohibits Pasari from opening or assisting with the opening of payment processing accounts for a company or other entity unless he personally supervises the accounts. The final order also prohibits Pasari from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting any information to consumers.
While the stipulated final order announced today resolves the FTC’s claims against Pasari, litigation continues against the remaining defendants in each of these actions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the judgment on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)