FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Remarks by the President on Immigration Reform -- San Francisco, CA
Betty Ong Chinese Recreation Center
San Francisco, California
11:55 A.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) Well, hello, San Francisco! (Applause.) It is great to be back in California. It is great to be with all of you. I love San Francisco. (Applause.) You got great food. You got great people, beautiful scenery -- no more super villains because Batkid cleaned up the streets. (Applause.) Love Batkid. (Laughter.)
I want to start by thanking Geetha for the wonderful introduction and the great work that she’s doing. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) I want to thank your Mayor, Ed Lee. (Applause.) Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. (Applause.) I want to recognize some wonderful members of Congress who are fighting every day for the people of California -- Mike Honda -- (applause) -- Eric Swalwell, Judy Chu. They are all doing great work every single day. (Applause.)
We have a special guest, Janet Napolitano, who is now overseeing the entire UC system and going to be doing a great job. (Applause.) We miss her back in Washington, but she is going to be outstanding leading the University of California.
Now, before I begin, I want to say a few words about the news from the weekend. I'm here to talk about immigration reform, but I'm also here in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief, and this weekend, together with our allies and our partners, the United States reached an agreement with Iran -- (applause) -- on a first step towards resolving our concerns over its nuclear program.
Now, some of you may recall that when I first ran for President, I said it was time for a new era of American leadership in the world -- one that turned the page on a decade of war, and began a new era of our engagement with the world. And as President and as Commander-in-Chief, I’ve done what I said. We ended the war in Iraq; we brought our troops home. Osama bin Laden met justice; the war in Afghanistan will end next year.
And as the strongest, most powerful nation on the face of the Earth, we’ve engaged in clear-eyed and principled diplomacy -- even with our adversaries -- in order to begin to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons and to place the first real constraints in a decade on Iran’s nuclear program. Because I firmly believe in what President Kennedy once said: He said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” I believe that. And this diplomacy, backed by the unprecedented sanctions we brought on Iran, has brought us the progress that was achieved this weekend.
For the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress on Iran’s nuclear program. Key parts of the program will be rolled back. (Applause.) International inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear-related facilities. So this will help Iran from building a nuclear weapon. And over the coming months, we’re going to continue our diplomacy, with the goal of achieving a comprehensive solution that deals with the threat of Iran’s nuclear program once and for all.
And if Iran seizes this opportunity and chooses to join the global community, then we can begin to chip away at the mistrust that’s existed for many, many years between our two nations.
None of that is going to be easy. Huge challenges remain. But we cannot close the door on diplomacy. And we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. We cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. And tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security. It is not the right thing for our security. (Applause.)
Now, this progress, and the potential it offers, reminds us of what is possible when the United States has the courage to lead -- not just with the force of arms, but with the strength of our diplomacy and our commitment to peace. That’s what keeps us strong. That’s what makes us a beacon to the world. That’s how I’ll continue to lead so long as I’m President of the United States.
And that spirit -- not just what we can criticize or tear down or be against, but what we can build together -- that’s what brings me here today. Because it’s long past time to fix our broken immigration system. (Applause.) We need to make sure Washington finishes what so many Americans just like you started. We’ve got to finish the job.
And it’s fitting that we’re here in Chinatown, just a few miles away from Angel Island. In the early 1900s, about 300,000 people -- maybe some of your ancestors -- passed through on their way to a new life in America. And for many, it represented the end of a long and arduous journey -- they’d finally arrived in a place where they believed anything was possible.
And for some, it also represented the beginning of a new struggle against prejudice in a country that didn’t always treat its immigrants fairly or afford them the same rights as everybody else. Obviously, Asians faced this, but so did the Irish; so did Italians; so did Jews; and many groups still do today.
That didn’t stop those brave men and women from coming. They were drawn by a belief in the power of opportunity; in a belief that says, maybe I never had a chance at a good education, but this is a place where my daughter can go to college. Maybe I started out washing dishes, but this is a place where my son can become mayor of San Francisco. (Applause.) Maybe I have to make sacrifices today, but those sacrifices are worth it if it means a better life for my family.
And that’s a family story that will be shared by millions of Americans around the table on Thursday. It’s the story that drew my great-great-great-great-grandfather from a small village in Ireland, and drew my father from a small village in Kenya. It’s the story that drew so many of your ancestors here -- that America is a place where you can make it if you try.
And here’s something interesting: Today, more than one in four residents born outside the United States came here from Asian countries -- many through our family immigration system. They’re doctors and business owners, laborers, refugees. This rec center’s namesake, Betty Ong, was a hero on 9/11. (Applause.) But she was also the daughter of immigrants who grew up not far from here. And we’re honored to have her family with us here today. (Applause.)
But too often when we talk about immigration, the debate focuses on our southern border. The fact is we’re blessed with immigrants from all over the world who’ve put down roots in every corner of this country. Here in San Francisco, 35 percent of business owners are immigrants -- and your economy is among the fastest growing in the country. That’s not an accident. That’s the impact that our talented, hardworking immigrants can have. That’s the difference they can make. They’re hungry and they’re striving and they’re working hard and they’re creating things that weren’t there before.
And that’s why it is long past time to reform an immigration system that right now doesn’t serve America as well as it should. We could be doing so much more to unleash our potential if we just fix this aspect of our system.
And I know out here in California that you watch the news and you share the country’s not very sunny view of Washington these days. For the last few months, you’ve seen a lot of headlines about gridlock and partisan bickering, and too often one faction of one party in one house of Congress has chosen courses of action that ended up harming our businesses, or our economy, or our workers. Or they want to refight old political battles rather than create jobs and grow the economy and strengthen the middle class, or take 40 more votes to undermine or repeal the Affordable Care Act -- (laughter) -- instead of passing a single serious jobs bill, despite the fact that Americans want us to focus on jobs and business and growth. And, by the way, thousands of Californians are signing up every day for new health care plans all across this state. (Applause.)
So even as we’re getting this darn website up to speed -- (laughter) -- and it's getting better -- states like California are proving the law works. People want the financial security of health insurance.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thanks to you!
THE PRESIDENT: And even if you’re already insured, reach out to a friend or neighbor who’s not and help them get covered.
But when it comes to immigration reform, we have to have the confidence to believe we can get this done. And we should get it done. And, by the way, most Americans agree. The only thing standing in our way right now is the unwillingness of certain Republicans in Congress to catch up with the rest of the country.
I met the other day with the CEOs of some of America's biggest companies. And I'm positive not all of them voted for me. (Laughter.) I'm pretty sure. (Laughter.) Maybe some of them, but definitely not all of them. But the thing they wanted to talk about, their top priority was the fact that we invite the brightest minds from around the world to study here -- many of them enrolled in the University of California system -- and then we don't invite them to stay. We end up sending them home to create new jobs and start new businesses someplace else. So we're training our own competition, rather than invite those incredibly talented young people, like Geetha, to stay here and start businesses and create jobs here.
I hear from folks who’ve been separated from their families for years because of green card backlogs who desperately want their loved ones to be able to join them here in America. I hear from young DREAMers who are Americans through and through in every way but on paper, and they just want a chance to study and serve and contribute to the nation that they love. (Applause.)
I talk to business owners who play by the rules, but get frustrated because they end up being undercut by those who exploit workers in a shadow economy -- aren't getting paid overtime, aren't required to meet the same obligations. And so those companies end up losing out on business.
Right now, I'm seeing brave advocates who have been fasting for two weeks in the shadow of the Capitol, sacrificing themselves in an effort to get Congress to act. And I want to say to Eliseo Medina, my friend from SEIU, and the other fasters who are there as we speak, I want them to know we hear you. We're with you. The whole country hears you.
And there are plenty of leaders –- Democrat and Republican –- who don’t think it’s fair that we’ve got 11 million people in this country, including more than a million from Asia, with no real way to come forward and get on the right side of the law. It’s not smart. It’s not fair. It doesn’t make sense. And we have kicked this particular can down the road long enough. Everybody knows it.
Now, the good news is we know what the solutions are. There is bipartisan hope of getting it done. This year, the Senate passed an immigration reform bill by a wide, bipartisan majority, and it addresses the key issues that need to be addressed. It would strengthen our borders. It would level the playing field by holding employers accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. It would modernize our legal immigration system so that we eliminate the backlog of family visas and make it easier to attract highly skilled entrepreneurs from beyond our borders. It would make sure that everybody plays by the same rules by providing a pathway to earned citizenship for those who are living in the shadows –- a path that includes passing a background check, and learning English, and paying taxes and a penalty, and getting in line behind everyone trying to come here the right way.
And each of these pieces would go a long way towards fixing our broken immigration system. Each of them has been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. There’s no reason we can’t come together and get it done.
And what's more, we know the immigration reform that we're proposing would boost our economy and shrink our deficits. Independent economists have said that if the Senate bill became law, over the next two decades, our economy would grow by $1.4 trillion more, and it would reduce our deficits by $850 billion more.
And you don’t have to be an economist to figure out that workers will be more productive if they’ve got their families here with them, they're not worried about deportation, they're not living halfway around the world. This isn’t just the right thing to do -– it’s the smart thing to do.
Of course, just because something is smart, fair, good for the economy, and supported by business, labor, law enforcement and faith leaders -- (laughter) -- Democratic and Republican governors, including the Governor of this state –- just because all that is in place doesn’t mean we'll actually get it done, because this is Washington, after all, that we’re talking about and everything is looked through a political prism. And, look, let's be honest, some folks automatically think, well, if Obama’s for it, then I've got to be against it even if I was, before that, I was for it.
But I want to remind everybody, to his great credit, my Republican predecessor, President Bush, was for reform. He proposed reform like this almost a decade ago. I was in the Senate. I joined 23 Senate Republicans back then supporting reform. It's worth remembering that the Senate bill that just passed won more than a dozen Republican votes this past summer. And some of them even forget that I'm -- sometimes people forget I'm not running for office again. Michelle doesn’t forget. (Laughter and applause.) So you don’t have to worry about this somehow being good for me. This is good for the country. It's the right thing to do for the American people.
And I believe, ultimately -- not always in the short term -- but ultimately, good policy is good politics. Look at the polls right now, because the American people support immigration reform by a clear majority. Everybody wins if we get this done. So there's no reason we shouldn’t get immigration reform done right now. None. If there is a good reason I haven't heard it.
And, by the way, if there's a better plan out there than the one that Democrats and Republicans have already advanced together, if there are additional ideas that would make it even better, I’m always willing to listen to new ideas. My door is always open. But right now it’s up to Republicans in the House to decide if we can move forward as a country on this bill. If they don’t want to see it happen, they’ve got to explain why.
The good news is, just this past week Speaker Boehner said that he is “hopeful we can make progress” on immigration reform. And that is good news. I believe the Speaker is sincere. I think he genuinely wants to get it done. And that’s something we should be thankful for this week. And I think there are a number of other House Republicans who also want to get this done. Some of them are hesitant to do it in one big bill, like the Senate did. That’s okay. They can -- it’s Thanksgiving; we can carve that bird into multiple pieces. (Laughter.) A drumstick here -- (laughter) -- breast meat there. But as long as all the pieces get done -- soon -- and we actually deliver on the core values we’ve been talking about for so long, I think everybody is fine with it. They're not worried about the procedures. They just want the result.
But it’s going to require some courage. There are some members of the Republican caucus who think this is bad politics for them back home. And they're free to vote their conscience, but what I’ve said to the Speaker and others is, don't let a minority of folks block something that the country desperately needs. And we can’t leave this problem for another generation to solve. If we don’t tackle this now, then we’re undercutting our own future.
So my message to Congress is rather than create problems, let’s prove Washington can get something done. This is something that has broad-based support. We’ve been working on it for a decade now. This reform comes as close as we’ve gotten to something that will benefit everybody, now and for decades to come. And it has the potential to enrich this country in ways that we can’t even imagine.
And I’ll just give you one example to wrap up. Andrew Ly is here today. Where’s Andrew? He’s around here somewhere. There he is. Now, Andrew has got an amazing story. Andrew grew up in Vietnam, and he and his four brothers tried three times to flee to the United States. Obviously, the country was going through all kinds of difficulties. So three times, they tried; three times, they failed. On the fourth try, their boat –- filled with 140 refugees -- is that right, Andrew -– was attacked by pirates.
But the Lys and their family eventually made it to Malaysia, and then they eventually made it here to San Francisco. And they learned English, and they worked as handymen, and they worked as seamstresses. And eventually, Andrew and his brothers earned enough money to buy a small bakery. And they started making donuts, and they started selling them to Chinese restaurants. And with a lot of hard work and a little luck, the Sugar Bowl Bakery today is a $60 million business. (Applause.)
So these humble and striving immigrants from Vietnam now employ more than 300 Americans. They’re supplying pastries to Costco and Safeway, and almost every hotel and hospital in San Francisco. And I don't know if Andrew brought me any samples, but -- (laughter) -- they must be pretty good. (Laughter.)
And Andrew says, “We came here as boat people, so we don’t take things for granted. We know this is the best country in the world if you work hard.” That’s what America is about. This is the place where you can reach for something better if you work hard. This is the country our parents and our grandparents and waves of immigrants before them built for us. And it falls on each new generation to keep it that way. The Statue of Liberty doesn’t have its back to the world. The Statue of Liberty faces the world and raises its light to the world.
When Chinese immigrants came to this city in search of “Gold Mountain,” they weren’t looking just for physical riches. They were looking for freedom and opportunity. They knew that what makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are -- because we look like the world. You got a President named Obama. (Laughter and applause.) What makes us American is our shared belief in certain enduring principles, our allegiance to a set of ideals, to a creed, to the enduring promise of this country.
And our shared responsibility is to leave this country more generous, more hopeful than we found it. And if we stay true to that history -- if we get immigration reform across the finish line -- and it is there just within our grasp, if we can just get folks in Washington to go ahead and do what needs to be done -- we’re going to grow our economy; we’re going to make our country more secure; we’ll strengthen our families; and most importantly, we will live --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Obama --
THE PRESIDENT: -- most importantly, we will live up --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- my family has been separated for 19 months now --
THE PRESIDENT: -- most importantly, we will live up to our character as a nation.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’ve not seen my family. Our families are separated. I need your help. There are thousands of people --
THE PRESDIENT: That’s exactly what we’re talking about.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- are torn apart every single day.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s why we’re here.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, please use your executive order to halt deportations for all 11.5 undocumented immigrants in this country right now.
THE PRESIDENT: What we’re trying --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you agree
AUDIENCE: Obama! Obama! Obama!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- that we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform at the same time we -- you have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this country.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually I don’t. And that’s why we’re here.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, please, I need your help.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Stop deportations!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Stop deportations!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. All right.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Stop deportations! Stop deportations!
THE PRESIDENT: What I’d like to do -- no, no, don’t worry about it, guys. Okay, let me finish.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Stop deportations! Yes, we can! Stop deportations!
THE PRESIDENT: These guys don’t need to go. Let me finish. No, no, no, he can stay there. Hold on a second. (Applause.) Hold on a second.
So I respect the passion of these young people because they feel deeply about the concerns for their families. Now, what you need to know, when I’m speaking as President of the United States and I come to this community, is that if, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so.
But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. But it won’t be as easy as just shouting. It requires us lobbying and getting it done. (Applause.)
So for those of you who are committed to getting this done, I am going to march with you and fight with you every step of the way to make sure that we are welcoming every striving, hardworking immigrant who sees America the same way we do -- as a country where no matter who you are or what you look like or where you come from, you can make it if you try.
And if you’re serious about making that happen, then I’m ready to work with you. (Applause.) But it is going to require work. It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out. That’s always been the case in this country; that’s going to continue to be the case today. (Applause.)
Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END
Monday, November 25, 2013
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR NOVEMBER 25, 2013
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Atlantic Diving Supply Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va., (SPM8E3-14-D-0001); Noble Supply & Logistics**, Rockland, Mass., (SPM8E3-14-D-0002); and Theodore Wille Intertrade, Switzerland, (SPM8E3-14-D-0003) have been awarded a maximum $260,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for maintenance, repair and operations supplies for the Central Command area of responsibility. This is a two-year base contract with two 18-month option periods. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and 18 offers were received. Locations of performance are Virginia, Massachusetts, and Switzerland, with a Nov. 25, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Patterson Dental Supply Inc., Saint Paul, Minn., has been awarded a maximum $14,607,354 modification (P00009) exercising the fourth one-year option period on a one-year base contract (SPM2DE-10-D-7447) with four one-year option periods for distribution of a wide range of general dental supplies. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. Location of performance is Minnesota with a Dec. 13, 2014 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
NAVY
Kings Bay Support Services, LLC, Baton Rouge, La., is being awarded a $37,741,080 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N69450-11-D-7578) to exercise option two for base operations support services at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay. The work to be performed provides for base operations support services including public safety, harbor security, security operations, supply, personnel support, facilities support, facility management/facility investment, other (swimming pools), pavement clearance, utilities, chiller, electrical, wastewater, steam, water, telecommunications, compressed air, base support vehicles and equipment, environmental, and vertical transportation equipment. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $109,668,695. Work will be performed in Kings Bay, Ga. (99 percent) and Shellman Bluff, Ga. (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed November 2014. Fiscal 2014 operation and maintenance, Navy; fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds; fiscal 2014 Defense Health Program funds; and fiscal 2014 family housing operation and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $3,140,101 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity.
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $37,338,608 modification to a delivery order 007302 issued previously against a basic ordering agreement (N00019-11-G-0001) for the procurement of retrofit kits in support of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Trailing Edge Flap engineering change proposal redesign, including 48 Trailing Edge Flap Redesign kits, 48 left hand units and 48 right hand units. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo., and is expected to be completed in July 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount $37,338,608 will be obligated at time of award; none of which expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $15,940,631 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-5403) for engineering and technical support services for the standard missile program. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (82.8 percent); Andover, Mass. (12.4 percent); Huntsville, Ala. (3.8 percent), and Camden, Ark. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by November 2014. Fiscal 2012 weapons procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $9,590,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
CACI Inc. - Federal, Chantilly, Va., is being awarded $8,436,370 for modification P00009 to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract (N00189-12-D-Z001) to provide functional, technical professional, analytical, and administrative support services to NAVSUP in support of the Navy’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Taskings will include: sustainment support, working on Engineering Change Proposals, business process improvement evaluations, testing, and deployment of the Navy ERP Single Supply Solution release, and other Navy ERP initiatives. Services provided will include: participation on functional teams within the NAVSUP Enterprise Business Office, Navy ERP program, Navy, and Department of Defense; assisting the Navy in resolving issues pertaining to Navy ERP, as well as, cross service, and existing Navy business processes by providing functional expertise in Navy business processes; technical and functional architecture support; training development and execution support. Work will be performed in Mechanicsburg, Pa. (60 percent); Philadelphia, Pa. (15 percent); Norfolk, Va. (15 percent); and San Diego, Calif. (10 percent), and is expected to be completed by Nov. 30, 2014. With the exercise of this option, the total value of the contract is increased from $27,104,747 to $35,541,117. No funding will be obligated with the exercise of the option. No funds will expire before the end of the current fiscal year. The requirement was competitively procured through full and open competition and solicited via the Navy Electronic Commerce on Line website, with two offers received in response to this solicitation. The NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Largo Fla., is being awarded a $7,097,447 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-5212) to exercise options for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) engineering services. CEC is a sensor netting system that significantly improves battle force anti-air warfare capability by extracting and distributing sensor-derived information such that the superset of this data is available to all participating CEC units. CEC improves battle force effectiveness by improving overall situational awareness and by enabling longer range, cooperative, multiple, or layered engagement strategies. Work will be performed in St. Petersburg, Fla., and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2013 Army research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; fiscal 2012 other procurement, Navy; and fiscal 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2013 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding in the amount of $1,984,786 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds in the amount of $371,638 funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington D.C., is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Y-Tech Services Inc.*, Alaska was awarded a $15,625,895 multi-year, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for aviation maintenance services in support of the Aviation Flight Test Directorate at the Redstone Test Center. This is a base year with a four one-year options contract. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $23,460 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Jan. 31, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with seven received. Work location will be Redstone Arsenal, Ala. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal (Aviation) Ala., is the contracting agency (W58RGZ-14-C-0007).
General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Mich., was awarded a $28,200,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for Phase II of the Engineering Change Proposal Upgrade program. Technical upgrades to be performed include improved automotive and electrical power generation, chassis upgrades and improved in vehicle network capabilities. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funds were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Nov. 26, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Work location will be Sterling Heights, Mich. Army Contracting Command (Tank and Automotive) Warren, Mich., is the contracting agency (W56HZV-14C-B019).
*Small Business
**Woman Owned Small Business
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Atlantic Diving Supply Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va., (SPM8E3-14-D-0001); Noble Supply & Logistics**, Rockland, Mass., (SPM8E3-14-D-0002); and Theodore Wille Intertrade, Switzerland, (SPM8E3-14-D-0003) have been awarded a maximum $260,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for maintenance, repair and operations supplies for the Central Command area of responsibility. This is a two-year base contract with two 18-month option periods. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and 18 offers were received. Locations of performance are Virginia, Massachusetts, and Switzerland, with a Nov. 25, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Patterson Dental Supply Inc., Saint Paul, Minn., has been awarded a maximum $14,607,354 modification (P00009) exercising the fourth one-year option period on a one-year base contract (SPM2DE-10-D-7447) with four one-year option periods for distribution of a wide range of general dental supplies. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. Location of performance is Minnesota with a Dec. 13, 2014 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
NAVY
Kings Bay Support Services, LLC, Baton Rouge, La., is being awarded a $37,741,080 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N69450-11-D-7578) to exercise option two for base operations support services at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay. The work to be performed provides for base operations support services including public safety, harbor security, security operations, supply, personnel support, facilities support, facility management/facility investment, other (swimming pools), pavement clearance, utilities, chiller, electrical, wastewater, steam, water, telecommunications, compressed air, base support vehicles and equipment, environmental, and vertical transportation equipment. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $109,668,695. Work will be performed in Kings Bay, Ga. (99 percent) and Shellman Bluff, Ga. (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed November 2014. Fiscal 2014 operation and maintenance, Navy; fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds; fiscal 2014 Defense Health Program funds; and fiscal 2014 family housing operation and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $3,140,101 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity.
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $37,338,608 modification to a delivery order 007302 issued previously against a basic ordering agreement (N00019-11-G-0001) for the procurement of retrofit kits in support of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Trailing Edge Flap engineering change proposal redesign, including 48 Trailing Edge Flap Redesign kits, 48 left hand units and 48 right hand units. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo., and is expected to be completed in July 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount $37,338,608 will be obligated at time of award; none of which expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $15,940,631 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-5403) for engineering and technical support services for the standard missile program. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (82.8 percent); Andover, Mass. (12.4 percent); Huntsville, Ala. (3.8 percent), and Camden, Ark. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by November 2014. Fiscal 2012 weapons procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $9,590,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
CACI Inc. - Federal, Chantilly, Va., is being awarded $8,436,370 for modification P00009 to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract (N00189-12-D-Z001) to provide functional, technical professional, analytical, and administrative support services to NAVSUP in support of the Navy’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Taskings will include: sustainment support, working on Engineering Change Proposals, business process improvement evaluations, testing, and deployment of the Navy ERP Single Supply Solution release, and other Navy ERP initiatives. Services provided will include: participation on functional teams within the NAVSUP Enterprise Business Office, Navy ERP program, Navy, and Department of Defense; assisting the Navy in resolving issues pertaining to Navy ERP, as well as, cross service, and existing Navy business processes by providing functional expertise in Navy business processes; technical and functional architecture support; training development and execution support. Work will be performed in Mechanicsburg, Pa. (60 percent); Philadelphia, Pa. (15 percent); Norfolk, Va. (15 percent); and San Diego, Calif. (10 percent), and is expected to be completed by Nov. 30, 2014. With the exercise of this option, the total value of the contract is increased from $27,104,747 to $35,541,117. No funding will be obligated with the exercise of the option. No funds will expire before the end of the current fiscal year. The requirement was competitively procured through full and open competition and solicited via the Navy Electronic Commerce on Line website, with two offers received in response to this solicitation. The NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Largo Fla., is being awarded a $7,097,447 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-5212) to exercise options for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) engineering services. CEC is a sensor netting system that significantly improves battle force anti-air warfare capability by extracting and distributing sensor-derived information such that the superset of this data is available to all participating CEC units. CEC improves battle force effectiveness by improving overall situational awareness and by enabling longer range, cooperative, multiple, or layered engagement strategies. Work will be performed in St. Petersburg, Fla., and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2013 Army research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation; fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; fiscal 2012 other procurement, Navy; and fiscal 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2013 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding in the amount of $1,984,786 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds in the amount of $371,638 funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington D.C., is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Y-Tech Services Inc.*, Alaska was awarded a $15,625,895 multi-year, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for aviation maintenance services in support of the Aviation Flight Test Directorate at the Redstone Test Center. This is a base year with a four one-year options contract. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $23,460 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Jan. 31, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with seven received. Work location will be Redstone Arsenal, Ala. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal (Aviation) Ala., is the contracting agency (W58RGZ-14-C-0007).
General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Mich., was awarded a $28,200,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for Phase II of the Engineering Change Proposal Upgrade program. Technical upgrades to be performed include improved automotive and electrical power generation, chassis upgrades and improved in vehicle network capabilities. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funds were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Nov. 26, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Work location will be Sterling Heights, Mich. Army Contracting Command (Tank and Automotive) Warren, Mich., is the contracting agency (W56HZV-14C-B019).
*Small Business
**Woman Owned Small Business
REMARKS BY SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES ON NORTH KOREA
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)