FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel: U.S. to Send 2 More Aegis Ships to Japan
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
TOKYO, April 6, 2014 – For reasons a senior defense official said included North Korean provocations, treaty commitments to Japan and U.S. national security interests, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today that the United States will send Japan two more Aegis-equipped ballistic-missile defense ships by 2017
The ships are designed to intercept ballistic missiles post-boost phase and before reentry. When delivered, Japan will have a total of seven such ships.
Hagel made the announcement this morning during a joint press conference with Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera after the two leaders met earlier to discuss a range of alliance issues, including the threat posed by North Korea.
“In response to Pyongyang¹s pattern of provocative and destabilizing actions, including recent missile launches in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, I can announce today that the United States is planning to forward-deploy two additional Aegis ballistic missile defense ships to Japan by 2017,” Hagel said.
The secretary said he visited one of the U.S. ballistic missile defense ships when he was in Japan on October 3, 2013, for the “2 plus 2” meeting of U.S. and Japanese secretaries of state and defense.
“This deployment follows our October announcement to establish a second missile-defense radar site in Kyoto Prefecture and my decision last year to increase ground-based interceptors in Alaska,” Hagel said, adding that these steps will enhance the United States’ ability to defend Japan and its own homeland from North Korea’s ballistic missile threat.
Significantly bolstering the U.S. naval presence also strengthens the U.S.-Japan alliance and increases deterrence against North Korean aggression, the secretary said.
In late March, on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, President Barack Obama, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye sat down for the first time to discuss the shared threat they face from North Korea. They agreed that they would consider specific steps they could take to deepen diplomatic and military coordination to deter the threat, including joint exercises and on missile defense.
Building off that meeting, Hagel said today that he and Onodera had “discussed ways to help deepen trilateral defense cooperation,” including through the upcoming Defense Trilateral Talks to be held in Washington this month.
Hagel and Onodera also discussed plans for consolidation on Okinawa, and the secretary thanked the minister for Japan’s efforts in securing approval in December for the Futenma replacement facility¹s landfill permit.
“We look forward to the facility¹s construction beginning soon,” Hagel said. “I reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to continue exploring ways to reduce the economic impact of our facilities on Okinawa and our desire to be a good neighbor.”
The secretary said these issues will be part of revising the guidelines for U.S.-Japan defense cooperation as the United States adjusts its posture in the Asia-Pacific region and Japan expands its roles and relationships around the world.
“The United States welcomes Japan’s efforts to play a more proactive role in contributing to global and regional peace and stability,” Hagel said, “including reexamining the interpretation of its Constitution relating to the rights of collective self-defense.”
It is Japan’s responsibility and sovereign right to review its self-defense guidelines in the interests of what is best for the Japanese people, the secretary added.
“We encourage and support that effort and believe the decisions made by the Japanese government on behalf of the Japanese people will continue to enhance and strengthen this important alliance between our two countries,” he said.
During their meeting, Hagel and Onodera also discussed key challenges in the East China Sea.
“I restated the principles that govern longstanding U.S. policy on the Senkaku Islands and other islands,” the secretary said, “and we affirmed that since [the Senkaku Islands] are under Japan’s administrative control, they fall under Article 5 of our Mutual Security Treaty.”
According to Article 5, “each party recognizes that an armed attack against either party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.”
It continues, “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
“We take seriously America's treaty commitments and we strongly oppose any unilateral coercive action that seeks to undermine Japan¹s administrative control,” Hagel said. “A peaceful resolution of territorial disputes is in the interest of all nations of the region.”
America has no stronger ally or better friend in this region than Japan, he added.
Going forward, the secretary said, there’s “no doubt that, as the United States continues to rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific, the enduring friendship and alliance between our two nations will only grow stronger.”
Tomorrow, Hagel said, he continues his Asia-Pacific trip with a stop in China at the invitation of Chinese Defense Minister Chang Wanquan.
“I look forward to spending time in China and having direct conversations with the leaders in China about many issues,” the secretary added. “Certainly many … of those issues will revolve around the Asia-Pacific issues, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, [China’s] neighbors [and] the continued dangerous and provocative actions of the North Koreans.”
Great powers have great responsibilities and China is a great power, Hagel said.
“With this power comes new and wider responsibilities as to how you use that power, how you employ that military power,” he added. “And I want to talk with the Chinese about all of that, particularly transparency -- a key dimension of relationships. Transparency, intentions, what governments are doing, why. The more transparent and open governments can be with each other, the better for everyone. That avoids miscalculation, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and hopefully that lowers the risk of conflict.”
Hagel said he’d also like to speak with the Chinese about respect for one’s neighbors. Coercion and intimidation are deadly and lead only to conflict, he added.
“All nations, all people, deserve respect no matter how large or how small. I think we're seeing clear evidence of a lack of respect, along with intimidation and coercion in Europe today in what the Russians have done in Ukraine,” the secretary said.
“We must be very careful and … very clear, [to] all nations of the world, that in the 21st century this will not stand,” he added. “You cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion and intimidation, whether it's in small islands in the Pacific or large nations in Europe. Nations must be clear on this and speak plainly. It takes courage from leaders.”
Hagel said he’d like to speak with the Chinese about common interests and building relationships, especially military-to-military relationships, and opportunities for engagement with neighbors like Japan and South Korea.
“I look forward to an honest dialogue,” he added. “I look forward to listening carefully to the Chinese, and only then do we help move forward, not just with opportunities but with possibilities and the processes to fulfill those prospects.”
Monday, April 7, 2014
U.S. CONGRATULATES LUIS SOLIS ON WINNING PRESIDENCY OF COSTA RICA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Costa Rica Presidential Elections
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
April 7, 2014
We congratulate Luis Guillermo Solis on his election as the next President of Costa Rica.
The partnership between the United States and Costa Rica has a long history, and reflects many issues of common interest, including energy, education, citizen security, job creation, and economic growth.
As President Obama made clear during his visit last year, the United States and Costa Rica share a close friendship based on a commitment to democratic values and human rights.
We stand ready to build on those common values with the Solis administration in the years to come.
The partnership between the United States and Costa Rica has a long history, and reflects many issues of common interest, including energy, education, citizen security, job creation, and economic growth.
As President Obama made clear during his visit last year, the United States and Costa Rica share a close friendship based on a commitment to democratic values and human rights.
We stand ready to build on those common values with the Solis administration in the years to come.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF RWANDAN GENOCIDE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the President on the 20th Commemoration of the Genocide in Rwanda
We join with the people of Rwanda in marking twenty years since the beginning of the genocide that took the lives of so many innocents and which shook the conscience of the world. We honor the memory of the more than 800,000 men, women and children who were senselessly slaughtered simply because of who they were or what they believed. We stand in awe of their families, who have summoned the courage to carry on, and the survivors, who have worked through their wounds to rebuild their lives. And we salute the determination of the Rwandans who have made important progress toward healing old wounds, unleashing the economic growth that lifts people from poverty, and contributing to peacekeeping missions around the world to spare others the pain they have known.
At this moment of reflection, we also remember that the Rwandan genocide was neither an accident nor unavoidable. It was a deliberate and systematic effort by human beings to destroy other human beings. The horrific events of those 100 days—when friend turned against friend, and neighbor against neighbor—compel us to resist our worst instincts, just as the courage of those who risked their lives to save others reminds us of our obligations to our fellow man. The genocide we remember today—and the world’s failure to respond more quickly—reminds us that we always have a choice. In the face of hatred, we must remember the humanity we share. In the face of cruelty, we must choose compassion. In the face of intolerance and suffering, we must never be indifferent. Embracing this spirit, as nations and as individuals, is how we can honor all those who were lost two decades ago and build a future worthy of their lives.
RECENT PHOTOS FROM THE U.S. AIR FORCE
FROM: U.S. AIR FORCE
An F-15E Strike Eagle from Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, takes on fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker March 28, 2014, during exercise Tonnerre Lightning. The exercise was a combined endeavor between U.S., British and French air force members to train for real world operations. The KC-135 is assigned to RAF Mildenhall, England. (U.S. Air Force photo-Airman 1st Class Dillon Johnston).
KC-135s refuel Idaho's A-10s in mid-flight
First Lt. Micha Stoddard, flying the lead aircraft, and his wingman Capt. Casey Peasley fly their A-10 Thunderbolt IIs in an echelon formation March 26, 2014, enroute from Barksdale Air Force Base, La., to their home base in Boise, Idaho. The crews performed an in-air refueling with a Utah National Guard KC-135 Stratotanker after the air combat exercise Green Flag East. Stoddard and Peasley are with the 190th Fighter Squadron. (U.S. Air National Guard photo-Master Sgt. Becky Vanshur).
FIRST EVER EXTRADITION ON ANTITRUST CHARGE
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Former Marine Hose Executive Extradited from Germany to Face Charges of
Participating in Worldwide Bid-Rigging Conspiracy
WASHINGTON — Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national, was extradited from Germany on a charge of participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids, fixing prices and allocating market shares for sales of marine hose sold in the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today. This marks the first successfully litigated extradition on an antitrust charge.
Pisciotti, a former executive with Parker ITR Srl, a marine hose manufacturer headquartered in Veniano, Italy, was arrested in Germany on June 17, 2013. He arrived in the Southern District of Florida, in Miami, yesterday and is scheduled to make his initial appearance today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Ft. Lauderdale, at 11:00 a.m. EDT.
“This first of its kind extradition on an antitrust charge allows the department to bring an alleged price fixer to the United States to face charges of participating in a worldwide conspiracy,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “This marks a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to work with our international antitrust colleagues to ensure that those who seek to subvert U.S. law are brought to justice.”
Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities. During the conspiracy, the cartel affected prices for hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of marine hose and related products sold worldwide.
According to a one-count felony indictment filed under seal on Aug. 26, 2010, and ordered unsealed on Aug. 5, 2013, in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida, Pisciotti carried out the conspiracy by agreeing during meetings, conversations and communications to allocate shares of the marine hose market among the conspirators; use a price list for marine hose in order to implement the conspiracy; and not compete for customers with other marine hose sellers either by not submitting prices or bids or by submitting intentionally high prices or bids, all in accordance with the agreements reached among the conspiring companies. As part of the conspiracy, Pisciotti and his conspirators provided information received from customers in the United States and elsewhere about upcoming marine hose jobs to a co-conspirator who served as the coordinator of the conspiracy. That coordinator acted as a clearinghouse for bidding information that was shared among the conspirators, and was paid by the manufacturers for coordinating the conspiracy. The department said the conspiracy began at least as early as 1999 and continued until at least May 2007. Pisciotti was charged with joining and participating in the conspiracy from at least as early as 1999 until at least November 2006.
Pisciotti is charged with violating the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
As a result of the department’s ongoing marine hose investigation, five companies, including Parker ITR; Bridgestone Corp. of Japan; Manuli SPa of Italy’s Florida subsidiary; Trelleborg of France; and Dunlop Marine and Oil Ltd, of the United Kingdom, and nine individuals have pleaded guilty.
The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) of the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Navy Criminal Investigative Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Marshals Service and other law enforcement agencies from multiple foreign jurisdictions are also investigating or assisting in the ongoing matter. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance.
Former Marine Hose Executive Extradited from Germany to Face Charges of
Participating in Worldwide Bid-Rigging Conspiracy
WASHINGTON — Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national, was extradited from Germany on a charge of participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids, fixing prices and allocating market shares for sales of marine hose sold in the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today. This marks the first successfully litigated extradition on an antitrust charge.
Pisciotti, a former executive with Parker ITR Srl, a marine hose manufacturer headquartered in Veniano, Italy, was arrested in Germany on June 17, 2013. He arrived in the Southern District of Florida, in Miami, yesterday and is scheduled to make his initial appearance today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Ft. Lauderdale, at 11:00 a.m. EDT.
“This first of its kind extradition on an antitrust charge allows the department to bring an alleged price fixer to the United States to face charges of participating in a worldwide conspiracy,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “This marks a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to work with our international antitrust colleagues to ensure that those who seek to subvert U.S. law are brought to justice.”
Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities. During the conspiracy, the cartel affected prices for hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of marine hose and related products sold worldwide.
According to a one-count felony indictment filed under seal on Aug. 26, 2010, and ordered unsealed on Aug. 5, 2013, in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida, Pisciotti carried out the conspiracy by agreeing during meetings, conversations and communications to allocate shares of the marine hose market among the conspirators; use a price list for marine hose in order to implement the conspiracy; and not compete for customers with other marine hose sellers either by not submitting prices or bids or by submitting intentionally high prices or bids, all in accordance with the agreements reached among the conspiring companies. As part of the conspiracy, Pisciotti and his conspirators provided information received from customers in the United States and elsewhere about upcoming marine hose jobs to a co-conspirator who served as the coordinator of the conspiracy. That coordinator acted as a clearinghouse for bidding information that was shared among the conspirators, and was paid by the manufacturers for coordinating the conspiracy. The department said the conspiracy began at least as early as 1999 and continued until at least May 2007. Pisciotti was charged with joining and participating in the conspiracy from at least as early as 1999 until at least November 2006.
Pisciotti is charged with violating the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
As a result of the department’s ongoing marine hose investigation, five companies, including Parker ITR; Bridgestone Corp. of Japan; Manuli SPa of Italy’s Florida subsidiary; Trelleborg of France; and Dunlop Marine and Oil Ltd, of the United Kingdom, and nine individuals have pleaded guilty.
The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) of the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Navy Criminal Investigative Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Marshals Service and other law enforcement agencies from multiple foreign jurisdictions are also investigating or assisting in the ongoing matter. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance.
WORLD TRADE CENTER CHARLESTON SIGNS PARTNERSHIP DEAL THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
FROM: EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Ex-Im Bank Signs Partnership with World Trade Center Charleston, Enhances Access to Financing
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) today announced its working partnership with Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce and World Trade Center Charleston (WTCC) in South Carolina. The City/State Partnership program gives exporters enhanced access to information about financing that supports export sales and jobs.
“Ex-Im Bank has much to offer Charleston’s businesses that want to reach customers overseas and grow their export sales. This partnership will put Ex-Im’s financing tools within easy reach,” said Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg. “Together we show more exporters and lenders how private financing and U.S.-backed insurance enable them to compete effectively, and that means more jobs for South Carolina at no cost to taxpayers.”
“The Ex-Im Bank partnership represents the importance of our region in the international marketplace,” said Pennie Bingham, Executive Director of WTCC. “Charleston region’s global presence is growing rapidly. Businesses are eager to learn how to bring visibility of their products and services to new customers around the world.”
With more than 1,700 member organizations representing 100,000 professionals, the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce acts as catalyst for advancing the region’s economy. World Trade Center Charleston, a member of the World Trade Centers Association, was initiated by the Chamber. WTCC posts information online on its own website, wtccharleston.com.
As an Ex-Im Bank partner, WTCC can provide additional resources in trade finance expertise to businesses interested in exporting their products and services. In WTCC, entrepreneurs will find a one-stop resource for both technical information about international trade and advice on solving challenges in financing and risk-management.
Ex-Im Bank Signs Partnership with World Trade Center Charleston, Enhances Access to Financing
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) today announced its working partnership with Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce and World Trade Center Charleston (WTCC) in South Carolina. The City/State Partnership program gives exporters enhanced access to information about financing that supports export sales and jobs.
“Ex-Im Bank has much to offer Charleston’s businesses that want to reach customers overseas and grow their export sales. This partnership will put Ex-Im’s financing tools within easy reach,” said Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg. “Together we show more exporters and lenders how private financing and U.S.-backed insurance enable them to compete effectively, and that means more jobs for South Carolina at no cost to taxpayers.”
“The Ex-Im Bank partnership represents the importance of our region in the international marketplace,” said Pennie Bingham, Executive Director of WTCC. “Charleston region’s global presence is growing rapidly. Businesses are eager to learn how to bring visibility of their products and services to new customers around the world.”
With more than 1,700 member organizations representing 100,000 professionals, the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce acts as catalyst for advancing the region’s economy. World Trade Center Charleston, a member of the World Trade Centers Association, was initiated by the Chamber. WTCC posts information online on its own website, wtccharleston.com.
As an Ex-Im Bank partner, WTCC can provide additional resources in trade finance expertise to businesses interested in exporting their products and services. In WTCC, entrepreneurs will find a one-stop resource for both technical information about international trade and advice on solving challenges in financing and risk-management.
U.S. TRAVELER RETURNS HOME FROM WEST AFRICA WITH LASSA FEVER
FROM: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Lassa Fever Reported in U.S. Traveler Returning from West Africa
Contact investigation under way; risk to other travelers considered extremely low
The CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) have confirmed a diagnosis of Lassa fever in a person returning to the United States from West Africa. The patient was admitted to a hospital in Minnesota on March 31 with symptoms of fever and confusion. Blood samples submitted to CDC tested positive for Lassa fever on April 3. The patient is recovering and is in stable condition.
“This imported case is a reminder that we are all connected by international travel. A disease anywhere can appear anywhere else in the world within hours,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
Lassa fever is a severe viral disease that is common in West Africa but rarely seen in the United States. Seven other Lassa fever cases, all travel related, have been identified in the United States, with the last one reported in Pennsylvania in 2010. Although Lassa fever can produce hemorrhagic symptoms in infected persons, the disease is not related to Ebola hemorrhagic fever, which is responsible for the current outbreak in West Africa.
In West Africa, Lassa virus is carried by rodents and transmitted to humans through contact with urine or droppings of infected rodents. In rare cases it can be transmitted from person to person through direct contact with a sick person’s blood or bodily fluids, through mucous membrane, or through sexual contact. The virus is not transmitted through casual contact. About 100,000 to 300,000 cases of Lassa fever, and 5,000 deaths related to Lassa fever, occur in West Africa each year.
CDC is working with public health officials and airlines to determine the patient’s travel route from West Africa and identify any passengers or others who may have had close contact with the infected person. Preliminary information indicates that the patient flew from West Africa to New York City and caught another flight to Minneapolis.
“Given what we know about how Lassa virus is spread to people, the risk to other travelers and members of the public is extremely low,” said Martin Cetron, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine.
“Casual contact is not a risk factor for getting Lassa fever,” said Barbara Knust, D.V.M., M.P.H., an epidemiologist in CDC’s Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, which performed the laboratory testing. “People will not get this infection just because they were on the same airplane or in the same airport.”
As part of its investigation, CDC is working with the airlines to gather contact information for passengers and crew who were seated near the infected individual. CDC will provide passenger contact information to state and local health departments where the passengers live to notify them about their possible exposure.
Lassa Fever Reported in U.S. Traveler Returning from West Africa
Contact investigation under way; risk to other travelers considered extremely low
The CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) have confirmed a diagnosis of Lassa fever in a person returning to the United States from West Africa. The patient was admitted to a hospital in Minnesota on March 31 with symptoms of fever and confusion. Blood samples submitted to CDC tested positive for Lassa fever on April 3. The patient is recovering and is in stable condition.
“This imported case is a reminder that we are all connected by international travel. A disease anywhere can appear anywhere else in the world within hours,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
Lassa fever is a severe viral disease that is common in West Africa but rarely seen in the United States. Seven other Lassa fever cases, all travel related, have been identified in the United States, with the last one reported in Pennsylvania in 2010. Although Lassa fever can produce hemorrhagic symptoms in infected persons, the disease is not related to Ebola hemorrhagic fever, which is responsible for the current outbreak in West Africa.
In West Africa, Lassa virus is carried by rodents and transmitted to humans through contact with urine or droppings of infected rodents. In rare cases it can be transmitted from person to person through direct contact with a sick person’s blood or bodily fluids, through mucous membrane, or through sexual contact. The virus is not transmitted through casual contact. About 100,000 to 300,000 cases of Lassa fever, and 5,000 deaths related to Lassa fever, occur in West Africa each year.
CDC is working with public health officials and airlines to determine the patient’s travel route from West Africa and identify any passengers or others who may have had close contact with the infected person. Preliminary information indicates that the patient flew from West Africa to New York City and caught another flight to Minneapolis.
“Given what we know about how Lassa virus is spread to people, the risk to other travelers and members of the public is extremely low,” said Martin Cetron, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine.
“Casual contact is not a risk factor for getting Lassa fever,” said Barbara Knust, D.V.M., M.P.H., an epidemiologist in CDC’s Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, which performed the laboratory testing. “People will not get this infection just because they were on the same airplane or in the same airport.”
As part of its investigation, CDC is working with the airlines to gather contact information for passengers and crew who were seated near the infected individual. CDC will provide passenger contact information to state and local health departments where the passengers live to notify them about their possible exposure.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
WATER UNDER ENCELADUS
Ocean Inside Saturn's Moon Enceladus
This diagram illustrates the possible interior of Saturn's moon Enceladus based on a gravity investigation by NASA's Cassini spacecraft and NASA's Deep Space Network, reported in April 2014. The gravity measurements suggest an ice outer shell and a low density, rocky core with a regional water ocean sandwiched in between at high southern latitudes.
Views from Cassini's imaging science subsystem were used to depict the surface geology of Enceladus and the plume of water jets gushing from fractures near the moon's south pole.
Enceladus is 313 miles (504 kilometers) in diameter.
The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington.
Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
DEBT COLLECTOR BULLY BANNED FROM DEBT COLLECTION BUSINESS
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Obtains more than $3.3 Million for Consumers; Defendants Agree to be Permanently Banned from the Debt Collection Business
Scheme Often Targeted Spanish-Speaking Consumers, Defendants Posed as Process Servers and Attorneys
The two principal owners of Rincon Debt Management, Jason R. Begley and Wayne W. Lunsford, will surrender more than $3.3 million worth of assets that will be used to provide refunds to victims, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The two defendants also are permanently banned from the debt collection business.
Litigation continues against several companies that Begley and Lunsford used as part of their debt collection scheme. The Corona, California-based operation collected debts nationwide.
Part of the FTC’s continuing efforts to curb illegal debt collection practices, the settlement resolves FTC allegations that from April 2009 until October 2011 when the Court shut down the operation at the FTC’s request, Begley and Lunsford deceived and abused Spanish- and English-speaking consumers – making bogus threats that consumers had been sued or could be arrested over debts they often did not owe.
“These debt collectors focused on Spanish-speaking consumers and other people who were strapped for cash, and preyed on them by using abusive collection tactics in violation of federal law,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The FTC’s complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by calling consumers and their employers, family, friends, and neighbors, posing as process servers seeking to deliver legal papers that purportedly related to a lawsuit. In some instances, the defendants threatened that consumers would be arrested if they did not respond to the calls. The defendants and their employees also masqueraded as attorneys or employees of a law office – demanding that consumers pay “court costs” and “legal fees” – even though the operation did not file lawsuits against consumers, the FTC alleged. Also, in many instances, consumers did not even owe the debt the defendants were trying to collect.
In addition to the permanent ban on participating in debt relief services, Begley and Lunsford are prohibited from misrepresenting the features of any financial products or services, including lending, credit repair, debt relief, and mortgage assistance relief services.
The order imposes a $23 million judgment against the defendants, which will be suspended due to their inability to pay, except for the $3 million in frozen funds held by the receiver and the personal assets both agreed to surrender. Begley is required to surrender the rights to more than 3,500 American Eagle silver and gold coins. He will also pay a $176,115 contempt judgment for having sold his home and some other coins in violation of the asset freeze that was imposed as part of the FTC’s case. Lunsford is required to pay a $134,000 contempt judgment for the proceeds he received when he sold his home in violation of the asset freeze.
If it is determined that the financial information the defendants gave the FTC was untruthful, the full $23 million judgment would become due.
For consumer information about dealing with debt collectors, see Debt Collection.
The Commission vote approving the proposed consent judgment was 4-0. The FTC filed the proposed consent judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Court approved it on March 28,
FTC Obtains more than $3.3 Million for Consumers; Defendants Agree to be Permanently Banned from the Debt Collection Business
Scheme Often Targeted Spanish-Speaking Consumers, Defendants Posed as Process Servers and Attorneys
The two principal owners of Rincon Debt Management, Jason R. Begley and Wayne W. Lunsford, will surrender more than $3.3 million worth of assets that will be used to provide refunds to victims, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The two defendants also are permanently banned from the debt collection business.
Litigation continues against several companies that Begley and Lunsford used as part of their debt collection scheme. The Corona, California-based operation collected debts nationwide.
Part of the FTC’s continuing efforts to curb illegal debt collection practices, the settlement resolves FTC allegations that from April 2009 until October 2011 when the Court shut down the operation at the FTC’s request, Begley and Lunsford deceived and abused Spanish- and English-speaking consumers – making bogus threats that consumers had been sued or could be arrested over debts they often did not owe.
“These debt collectors focused on Spanish-speaking consumers and other people who were strapped for cash, and preyed on them by using abusive collection tactics in violation of federal law,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The FTC’s complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by calling consumers and their employers, family, friends, and neighbors, posing as process servers seeking to deliver legal papers that purportedly related to a lawsuit. In some instances, the defendants threatened that consumers would be arrested if they did not respond to the calls. The defendants and their employees also masqueraded as attorneys or employees of a law office – demanding that consumers pay “court costs” and “legal fees” – even though the operation did not file lawsuits against consumers, the FTC alleged. Also, in many instances, consumers did not even owe the debt the defendants were trying to collect.
In addition to the permanent ban on participating in debt relief services, Begley and Lunsford are prohibited from misrepresenting the features of any financial products or services, including lending, credit repair, debt relief, and mortgage assistance relief services.
The order imposes a $23 million judgment against the defendants, which will be suspended due to their inability to pay, except for the $3 million in frozen funds held by the receiver and the personal assets both agreed to surrender. Begley is required to surrender the rights to more than 3,500 American Eagle silver and gold coins. He will also pay a $176,115 contempt judgment for having sold his home and some other coins in violation of the asset freeze that was imposed as part of the FTC’s case. Lunsford is required to pay a $134,000 contempt judgment for the proceeds he received when he sold his home in violation of the asset freeze.
If it is determined that the financial information the defendants gave the FTC was untruthful, the full $23 million judgment would become due.
For consumer information about dealing with debt collectors, see Debt Collection.
The Commission vote approving the proposed consent judgment was 4-0. The FTC filed the proposed consent judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Court approved it on March 28,
HHS HAS UPDATED ACTION PLAN FOR VIRAL HEPATITIS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Updated Action Plan to Combat Viral Hepatitis Released
A statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Infectious Diseases,
Ronald O. Valdiserri, MD, MPH
Today, federal partners launched an updated Action Plan for the Prevention, Care and Treatment of Viral Hepatitis (2014-2016), building upon the nation’s first comprehensive cross-agency action plan to combat viral hepatitis.
The three-year renewal of the Action Plan builds upon the substantial progress accomplished since 2011 by agencies and offices from across the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as with our partners at the Departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, to prevent new infections and improve the diagnosis, care and treatment of individuals living with chronic hepatitis C in the United States.
Between 3.5 and 5.3 million Americans are living with chronic viral hepatitis, and most of them do not know that they are infected. Viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplantation in the United States. In addition, it is a leading infectious cause of death in the U.S., claiming the lives of 12,000–18,000 Americans each year.
In recent years we have made significant progress in addressing these challenges. With the new advances in hepatitis C treatment, more widespread availability of safe and effective vaccines for hepatitis A and B, and more opportunities for testing for hepatitis C under the Affordable Care Act, we have arrived at a critical moment. By harnessing these and other developments, we have the potential to reduce the toll of viral hepatitis in the U.S. and save many lives.
Thanks to the outstanding commitment of our public and private partners, we are closer than ever to realizing the potential of this plan.
To access the full Action Plan for the Prevention Care and Treatment of Viral Hepatitis (2014-2016) visit www.aids.gov/hepatitis.
Updated Action Plan to Combat Viral Hepatitis Released
A statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Infectious Diseases,
Ronald O. Valdiserri, MD, MPH
Today, federal partners launched an updated Action Plan for the Prevention, Care and Treatment of Viral Hepatitis (2014-2016), building upon the nation’s first comprehensive cross-agency action plan to combat viral hepatitis.
The three-year renewal of the Action Plan builds upon the substantial progress accomplished since 2011 by agencies and offices from across the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as with our partners at the Departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, to prevent new infections and improve the diagnosis, care and treatment of individuals living with chronic hepatitis C in the United States.
Between 3.5 and 5.3 million Americans are living with chronic viral hepatitis, and most of them do not know that they are infected. Viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplantation in the United States. In addition, it is a leading infectious cause of death in the U.S., claiming the lives of 12,000–18,000 Americans each year.
In recent years we have made significant progress in addressing these challenges. With the new advances in hepatitis C treatment, more widespread availability of safe and effective vaccines for hepatitis A and B, and more opportunities for testing for hepatitis C under the Affordable Care Act, we have arrived at a critical moment. By harnessing these and other developments, we have the potential to reduce the toll of viral hepatitis in the U.S. and save many lives.
Thanks to the outstanding commitment of our public and private partners, we are closer than ever to realizing the potential of this plan.
To access the full Action Plan for the Prevention Care and Treatment of Viral Hepatitis (2014-2016) visit www.aids.gov/hepatitis.
HOW ROCKS AND TREES COMMUNICATE IN SIERRA NEVADA
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Granite bedrock and sequoia forests 'communicate' in the Sierra Nevada
Research reveals the coevolution of life and landscapes
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If it lands on granite bedrock, it does. But beyond the crash of timber onto rock, scientists have found that bedrock and the trees that grow from its weathered soils are, in a sense, communicating.
Bedrock influences forests--and the landscapes of which they are a part--more than was thought, according to researchers funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Critical Zone Observatories (CZO) network.
The scientists investigated the factors that influence forest cover in California's Sierra Nevada. Bedrock may be as important as temperature and moisture, they found, in regulating the distribution of trees and other vegetation across mountain slopes.
Geoscientists Cliff Riebe, Jesse Hahm, Claire Lukens and Sayaka Araki of the University of Wyoming recently published results of their study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
Bedrock and trees in the critical zone
The research took place at the Southern Sierra CZO, one of ten NSF CZOs funded to unearth the secrets of Earth's critical zone.
Critical zone research looks at how water, life, rock and air interact from the base of the soil to the top of the vegetation canopy.
"The CZOs are providing scientists with new knowledge of the critical zone and its response to climate and land-use change," says Enriqueta Barrera, a program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences, which funds the CZO network.
"They're the first systems-based observatories dedicated to understanding how Earth's surface processes are coupled," says Barrera. "The results will help us predict how the critical zone affects the ecosystem services on which society depends."
The water cycle, the breakdown of rocks and eventual formation of soil, the evolution of rivers and valleys, patterns of plant growth and landforms that people see all result from processes that take place in the critical zone.
CZO scientists are investigating the integration and coupling of Earth surface processes, and how they are affected by the presence of fresh water.
The researchers are using field and analytical methods, space-based remote sensing and theoretical techniques.
The CZOs add to the environmental sensor networks in place and planned by NSF, including EarthScope, the National Ecological Observatory Network and the Ocean Observatories Network.
Scientists have known that the critical zone is a complex system in which different components interact at various space and time scales, and in which the rates of processes depend on the nature of those interactions.
Until now, however, researchers have looked at the components individually, especially in the field. The CZOs allow for investigation of the critical zone as a holistic system, rather than as isolated parts.
NSF CZOs are located in watersheds in the Southern Sierra Nevada; Boulder Creek in the Colorado Rockies; Susquehanna Shale Hills in Pennsylvania; Christina River Basin on the border of Delaware and Pennsylvania; Luquillo riparian zone in Puerto Rico; Jemez River and Santa Catalina Mountains in New Mexico and Arizona; Piedmont region of South Carolina; Reynolds Creek in Southwest Idaho; Eel River in Northern California; and linked Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota watersheds.
Composition of bedrock limits plant growth
The Southern Sierra CZO is home to extensive forests and huge exposures of granite bedrock.
"We were puzzled by the patchiness of vegetation on mountain slopes," Hahm says. "Densely forested areas are right next to places with little or no trees and soil.
"Strikingly, these bare areas sometimes occur side-by-side with groves of the largest trees on Earth, giant sequoias."
The researchers determined that bedrock composition acts to limit plant growth.
"Unexpectedly, we found that differences in bedrock composition are just as important in this ecosystem as climate," Riebe says. "That's hard to see without spatial analysis tools and integrated datasets on how vegetation and bedrock change across the landscape."
Plants get some of their nutrients from weathering of minerals as bedrock breaks down into soil. Granite rock, it turns out, contains plant-essential nutrients such as phosphorus.
"The results are important because they demonstrate that bedrock geochemistry is on par with climate as a regulator of vegetation in the Sierra Nevada--and likely in other granite mountain ranges around the world," Riebe says.
Geology of 100 million years ago linked with biology of today
Subtle differences in the cooling history of granite 100 million years ago are likely fueling the biogeochemical interactions that produce today's forest patterns.
Understanding these links is at the heart of critical zone science, says Riebe.
The findings also show that variations in forest cover correspond with differences in erosion rates. They appear to affect the pace at which the Sierra Nevada is wearing down due to the action of water, wind and biological processes.
The results will help efforts to learn how mountain forests are responding to climate-linked changes in temperature and precipitation.
"Most studies point to a shift in vegetation toward higher, cooler elevations," Riebe says. "But changes in climate may be just part of the story.
"Any changes in tree distribution will occur only with the consent of the underlying bedrock."
In the Sierra Nevada, rock meets life meets rock. Or life meets rock meets life.
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov
Investigators
Jan Hopmans
Roger Bales
Martha Conklin
Christina Tague
Michael Goulden
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of California - Merced
Granite bedrock and sequoia forests 'communicate' in the Sierra Nevada
Research reveals the coevolution of life and landscapes
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If it lands on granite bedrock, it does. But beyond the crash of timber onto rock, scientists have found that bedrock and the trees that grow from its weathered soils are, in a sense, communicating.
Bedrock influences forests--and the landscapes of which they are a part--more than was thought, according to researchers funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Critical Zone Observatories (CZO) network.
The scientists investigated the factors that influence forest cover in California's Sierra Nevada. Bedrock may be as important as temperature and moisture, they found, in regulating the distribution of trees and other vegetation across mountain slopes.
Geoscientists Cliff Riebe, Jesse Hahm, Claire Lukens and Sayaka Araki of the University of Wyoming recently published results of their study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
Bedrock and trees in the critical zone
The research took place at the Southern Sierra CZO, one of ten NSF CZOs funded to unearth the secrets of Earth's critical zone.
Critical zone research looks at how water, life, rock and air interact from the base of the soil to the top of the vegetation canopy.
"The CZOs are providing scientists with new knowledge of the critical zone and its response to climate and land-use change," says Enriqueta Barrera, a program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences, which funds the CZO network.
"They're the first systems-based observatories dedicated to understanding how Earth's surface processes are coupled," says Barrera. "The results will help us predict how the critical zone affects the ecosystem services on which society depends."
The water cycle, the breakdown of rocks and eventual formation of soil, the evolution of rivers and valleys, patterns of plant growth and landforms that people see all result from processes that take place in the critical zone.
CZO scientists are investigating the integration and coupling of Earth surface processes, and how they are affected by the presence of fresh water.
The researchers are using field and analytical methods, space-based remote sensing and theoretical techniques.
The CZOs add to the environmental sensor networks in place and planned by NSF, including EarthScope, the National Ecological Observatory Network and the Ocean Observatories Network.
Scientists have known that the critical zone is a complex system in which different components interact at various space and time scales, and in which the rates of processes depend on the nature of those interactions.
Until now, however, researchers have looked at the components individually, especially in the field. The CZOs allow for investigation of the critical zone as a holistic system, rather than as isolated parts.
NSF CZOs are located in watersheds in the Southern Sierra Nevada; Boulder Creek in the Colorado Rockies; Susquehanna Shale Hills in Pennsylvania; Christina River Basin on the border of Delaware and Pennsylvania; Luquillo riparian zone in Puerto Rico; Jemez River and Santa Catalina Mountains in New Mexico and Arizona; Piedmont region of South Carolina; Reynolds Creek in Southwest Idaho; Eel River in Northern California; and linked Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota watersheds.
Composition of bedrock limits plant growth
The Southern Sierra CZO is home to extensive forests and huge exposures of granite bedrock.
"We were puzzled by the patchiness of vegetation on mountain slopes," Hahm says. "Densely forested areas are right next to places with little or no trees and soil.
"Strikingly, these bare areas sometimes occur side-by-side with groves of the largest trees on Earth, giant sequoias."
The researchers determined that bedrock composition acts to limit plant growth.
"Unexpectedly, we found that differences in bedrock composition are just as important in this ecosystem as climate," Riebe says. "That's hard to see without spatial analysis tools and integrated datasets on how vegetation and bedrock change across the landscape."
Plants get some of their nutrients from weathering of minerals as bedrock breaks down into soil. Granite rock, it turns out, contains plant-essential nutrients such as phosphorus.
"The results are important because they demonstrate that bedrock geochemistry is on par with climate as a regulator of vegetation in the Sierra Nevada--and likely in other granite mountain ranges around the world," Riebe says.
Geology of 100 million years ago linked with biology of today
Subtle differences in the cooling history of granite 100 million years ago are likely fueling the biogeochemical interactions that produce today's forest patterns.
Understanding these links is at the heart of critical zone science, says Riebe.
The findings also show that variations in forest cover correspond with differences in erosion rates. They appear to affect the pace at which the Sierra Nevada is wearing down due to the action of water, wind and biological processes.
The results will help efforts to learn how mountain forests are responding to climate-linked changes in temperature and precipitation.
"Most studies point to a shift in vegetation toward higher, cooler elevations," Riebe says. "But changes in climate may be just part of the story.
"Any changes in tree distribution will occur only with the consent of the underlying bedrock."
In the Sierra Nevada, rock meets life meets rock. Or life meets rock meets life.
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov
Investigators
Jan Hopmans
Roger Bales
Martha Conklin
Christina Tague
Michael Goulden
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of California - Merced
Saturday, April 5, 2014
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER ADDRESSES CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON "HIGH-FREQUENCY TRADING"
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Attorney General Eric Holder Testifies Before U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
~ Friday, April 4, 2014
Good morning. Chairman [Frank] Wolf, Ranking Member [Chaka] Fattah, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Budget for the U.S. Department of Justice – and to provide an overview of the Department’s recent achievements and ongoing priorities.
Despite significant challenges, the past year has been characterized by remarkable progress – from expanding civil rights for all Americans to holding private corporations accountable for wrongdoing. In the financial sector, concerns have been raised recently about a practice called “high-frequency trading.” This practice, which consists of financial brokers and trading firms using advanced computer algorithms and ultra-high speed data networks to execute trades, has rightly received scrutiny from regulators. I can confirm that we at the Justice Department are investigating this practice to determine whether it violates insider trading laws. The Department is committed to ensuring the integrity of our financial markets – and we are determined to follow this investigation wherever the facts and the law may lead.
Across the board, many of the Department’s ongoing activities and recent accomplishments are notable – but none have been more important than our work to protect the American people from terrorism and other threats to our national security. I know we’re all mindful, as we come together this morning, of Wednesday’s mass shooting at Fort Hood. As I indicated yesterday, I have directed that the full resources of the Department of Justice and the FBI be made available to help conduct a thorough federal investigation. And as we keep striving to achieve justice on behalf of our men and women in uniform – by working to determine what happened this week, and bringing help and healing to those who need it – my colleagues and I will continue to do everything in our power to prevent these horrific and far-too-common tragedies from happening again.
We also will remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure America’s national security – and to hold accountable those who seek to harm our nation and its people. Last week, the Department achieved a major milestone in this regard when we secured the conviction of Sulaiman Abu Ghayth, the son-in-law of Usama bin Laden and a senior member of al Qaeda, on terrorism-related charges.
We never doubted the ability of our Article III court system to administer justice swiftly in this case, as it has in hundreds of other cases involving terrorism defendants – and this outcome vindicates the government’s approach to securing convictions of senior al Qaeda leaders. It is my hope that this case will help lay that political debate to rest.
The President’s budget request would strengthen our national security work by investing a total of $4 billion in the Department’s cutting-edge counterterrorism and national security programs, including $15 million in new funding to maintain and operate the FBI’s new Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center facility in Alabama.
It also would provide $173 million to support our efforts to strengthen the federal criminal justice system through the groundbreaking “Smart on Crime” initiative I launched last August to make our criminal justice system both more effective and more efficient.
This, in turn, would enable us to further invest in the outstanding work that’s performed every day by dedicated attorneys and support staff in each of the Department’s litigating divisions and United States Attorneys’ Offices. Thanks to their efforts, during the fiscal year ending in 2013, the Justice Department collected a total of more than $8 billion in civil and criminal fines and penalties. This represents more than double the approximately $3 billion in direct appropriations that pay for our 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and main litigating divisions. During FY 2012 and FY 2013, the Department collected a combined total of more than $21 billion – a record amount for a two-year span. And, particularly in recent months, we’ve obtained a series of historic resolutions and taken other significant actions to ensure that we’re serving as sound stewards of taxpayer dollars – and protecting American consumers from fraud and other financial crimes.
Last November, the Justice Department secured a $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. – the largest settlement with a single entity in American history – to resolve federal and state civil claims related to the company’s mortgage securitization process. As part of our ongoing efforts to hold accountable those whose conduct sowed the seeds of the mortgage crisis, the Department also filed a lawsuit against the ratings firm S&P. Last month, we reached a $1.2 billion agreement with Toyota – the largest criminal penalty ever imposed on an automotive company. And just yesterday, we announced a record $5.15 billion settlement with Kerr-McGee Corporation and certain affiliates, and their parent Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, including $4.4 billion for environmental cleanup and claims. This represents the largest recovery for cleanup of environmental contamination in the history of the Department of Justice. It holds the company and its subsidiaries accountable for decades of significant environmental damage and fraudulent attempts to evade responsibility for its actions. And it marks another critical step in our effort to protect the American people from all forms of fraud, to combat corporate misconduct, and to safeguard the environment.
As we move forward, I am eager to work with this Subcommittee, and with the entire Congress, to secure the timely passage of the President’s budget request – which provides a total of $27.4 billion in discretionary resources for the Department of Justice, including $25.3 billion for vital federal programs and $2.1 billion for discretionary state, local, and tribal assistance programs. This support will be essential to ensuring that we can continue to protect the American people and strengthen our criminal justice system.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, FY2014 marks a critical year in the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, as states will soon be required to comply with national standards for curbing sexual assault in prisons. The Department is committed to helping state and local governments overcome any challenges they may encounter as they work towards implementing the National PREA Standards and – with funding this Committee has provided – has established a PREA Resource Center in order to assist with implementation. We are confident that these standards, which were the results of extensive public comment, are attainable. The problem of sexual assault in prisons is too great to settle for anything less than an aggressive approach to implementing these key reforms.
I thank you all for the opportunity to discuss this work with you today. And I especially want to thank Chairman Wolf for his exemplary leadership and support of the Department’s work – and particularly our efforts to combat the heinous crime of human trafficking – over the course of a long and distinguished career in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I have come to greatly value your advocacy of the Justice Department’s essential mission and your high regard for the tireless career employees who make our work possible every day. Your expertise – and your steadfast support of our public safety efforts – have been invaluable over the years. And upon your retirement from the House of Representatives at the end of this year, they will be greatly missed.
Thank you, once again, for your service and leadership. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL TOUTS IMPORTANCE OF U.S.-JAPAN PARTNERSHIP
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel: U.S.-Japan Partnership Critical to Regional Security
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
TOKYO, April 5, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel landed in Japan today as part of his fourth official trip to the Asia-Pacific region to reassure the nation’s leaders that the U.S.-Japan relationship is one of America’s strongest partnerships, friendships and treaty relationships.
This evening Hagel met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. According to Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, the secretary thanked Abe for his leadership and for helping the two militaries maintain a strong relationship.
Hagel expressed his firm commitment to the U.S.-Japan treaty of mutual cooperation and security and to working closely with the leadership of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces to improve the nations’ collective capabilities, Kirby said.
The leaders discussed a range of regional security issues, including recent provocations by North Korea, Chinese maritime claims and military activities, and the need for a continued focus on dialogue and cooperation among the United States, Japan and South Korea.
Hagel affirmed strong U.S. support for Japanese efforts at defense reform and thanked Abe for supporting the Japanese government last December in securing a landfill permit for the Futenma replacement facility.
Tomorrow, Hagel will meet with Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera, Foreign Affairs Minister Fumio Kishida and U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy.
“There are challenges in this part of the world that include Japan’s future,” the defense secretary told reporters traveling with him.
“I’m visiting Japan … not just [to] reconnect and recommit U.S. efforts but to build on the recent meeting President {Barack] Obama had with Prime Minister Abe and South Korean President Park [Geun-hye],” Hagel said, “as we look at new opportunities and challenges in this part of the world.”
He added, “The Japanese-American partnership is a very critical anchor to peace and stability and security in this part of the world, so I look forward to conversations here in the next couple of days with the senior leaders of Japan.”
Even before he landed in Tokyo, Hagel initiated and hosted in Honolulu an informal meeting of defense ministers of the 10 countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. The meeting was the first ever held in the United States.
“The ASEAN defense ministers conference was an important first step in what I’m doing here in the region because it represented the initial effort we have been working on as we continue to collaborate and coordinate with and strengthen our relationships in the Asia-Pacific,” Hagel said.
As President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Hagel himself have said many times, ASEAN is an important organization now and will continue to be important, the secretary said, because it represents the collective interests of the region.
ASEAN member countries are Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
“When you add to [this] the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting-Plus members [which consists of the 10 ASEAN defense ministers and defense ministers from the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, New Zealand and Russia] … that’s a significant representation of this part of the world,” Hagel observed.
The U.S. strategy of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region “is very much based on these relationships and all their variances and dimensions,” the secretary said, “so to start [his fourth trip to the region in less than 12 months] spending a couple of days with ASEAN members was important.”
Hagel landed here today at Yokota Air Base, whose host unit is the 374th Airlift Wing, and his first visit was with 200 U.S. service members and Japanese Self-Defense Forces troops.
In a hangar on a stage in front of giant flags of the United States and Japan, the secretary brought greetings from President Obama and thanked those from U.S. Forces Japan and their families for their service and sacrifice.
Hagel also thanked those from Japan’s Self-Defense Forces “for what you do for your country and for our partnership, and for helping keep peace and stability in this part of the world.”
In Hagel’s discussions with Japanese leaders, a senior defense official traveling with the secretary said Hagel will have an opportunity to maintain the positive forward motion initiated in Tokyo last fall during the historic Two Plus Two meeting he attended with Kerry.
That progress, the official said, involved work on the bilateral U.S.-Japan alliance to revise the defense guidelines, move forward with the realignment of U.S. military forces in Japan, and strengthen and orient the alliance to focus on 21st century challenges.
Hagel and the Japanese leaders also will discuss building a common understanding of the regional and global security environment.
“Here the secretary will … share perspectives with the Japanese prime minister and defense minister on what they’re seeing on the Korean Peninsula, in the East China Sea and in the South China Sea,” the official said, and conduct important alliance consultations on opportunities and challenges of the international security order.
The senior defense official said Hagel and Japanese officials also would discuss Japan’s relationships with other countries in the region.
“The president and Prime Minister Abe and South Korean President Park had a historic trilateral summit on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit at the Hague recently,” the official said, “and there will be an opportunity to continue underscoring the importance … we see in greater trilateral cooperation among the United States, Japan and South Korea, and the United States, Japan and Australia, and how to move those relationships forward.”
In Washington on April 17-18 the United States, South Korea and Japan will hold a sixth round of Defense Trilateral Talks, the official said, and in late April President Obama will visit Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia.
\
SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Afghanistan Elections
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
April 5, 2014
Millions of Afghan men and women took to the polls today with courage and commitment. This is their moment. The Afghan people secured this election. They ran this election, and most importantly, they voted in this election.
Today’s vote demonstrates how committed the Afghan people are to protecting and advancing their democracy. The fierce determination of the millions of voters undeterred by violence and threats of violence has been remarkable.
Now, we need to give the Afghan electoral bodies the time they need to do their work in processing the outcome of these elections.
The United States remains ready to work with the next president of Afghanistan. We will continue to stand with the people of Afghanistan as they work to build a democratic future.
Today’s vote demonstrates how committed the Afghan people are to protecting and advancing their democracy. The fierce determination of the millions of voters undeterred by violence and threats of violence has been remarkable.
Now, we need to give the Afghan electoral bodies the time they need to do their work in processing the outcome of these elections.
The United States remains ready to work with the next president of Afghanistan. We will continue to stand with the people of Afghanistan as they work to build a democratic future.
PRESIDENT'S WEEKLY ADDRESS FOR APRIL 5, 2014
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Weekly Address: The President’s Budget Ensures Opportunity for All Hard-Working Americans
WASHINGTON, DC — In this week’s address, the President highlighted the important differences between the budget he’s put forward – built on opportunity for all – and the budget House Republicans are advocating for, which stacks the deck against the middle class. While the President is focused on building lasting economic security and ensuring that hard-working Americans have the opportunity to get ahead, Republicans are advancing the same old top-down approach of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and slashing important investments in education, infrastructure, and research and development.
The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online atwww.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, Saturday, April 5, 2014.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
April 5, 2014
Weekly Address
The White House
April 5, 2014
Hi, everybody.
Today, our economy is growing and our businesses are consistently generating new jobs. But decades-long trends still threaten the middle class. While those at the top are doing better than ever, too many Americans are working harder than ever, but feel like they can’t get ahead.
That’s why the budget I sent Congress earlier this year is built on the idea of opportunity for all. It will grow the middle class and shrink the deficits we’ve already cut in half since I took office.
It’s an opportunity agenda with four goals. Number one is creating more good jobs that pay good wages. Number two is training more Americans with the skills to fill those jobs. Number three is guaranteeing every child access to a great education. And number four is making work pay – with wages you can live on, savings you can retire on, and health care that’s there for you when you need it.
This week, the Republicans in Congress put forward a very different budget. And it does just the opposite: it shrinks opportunity and makes it harder for Americans who work hard to get ahead.
The Republican budget begins by handing out massive tax cuts to households making more than $1 million a year. Then, to keep from blowing a hole in the deficit, they’d have to raise taxes on middle-class families with kids. Next, their budget forces deep cuts to investments that help our economy create jobs, like education and scientific research.
Now, they won’t tell you where these cuts will fall. But compared to my budget, if they cut everything evenly, then within a few years, about 170,000 kids will be cut from early education programs. About 200,000 new mothers and kids will be cut off from programs to help them get healthy food. Schools across the country will lose funding that supports 21,000 special education teachers. And if they want to make smaller cuts to one of these areas, that means larger cuts in others.
Unsurprisingly, the Republican budget also tries to repeal the Affordable Care Act – even though that would take away health coverage from the more than seven million Americans who’ve done the responsible thing and signed up to buy health insurance. And for good measure, their budget guts the rules we put in place to protect the middle class from another financial crisis like the one we’ve had to fight so hard to recover from.
Policies that benefit a fortunate few while making it harder for working Americans to succeed are not what we need right now. Our economy doesn’t grow best from the top-down; it grows best from the middle-out. That’s what my opportunity agenda does – and it’s what I’ll keep fighting for. Thanks. And have a great weekend.
STATE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL BRIEFING ON P5+1 TALKS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on the Upcoming P5+1 Talks on Iran's Nuclear Program
Senior Administration Official
Via Teleconference
April 4, 2014
MODERATOR: Thank you so much, and welcome, everyone, to today’s conference call backgrounder. We have a Senior Administration Official with us. For your knowledge, it’s [Senior Administration Official]. From now on, just will be referred to as a Senior Administration Official. Again, all of this is on background. So [Senior Administration Official] will make some opening remarks, and then we will open it up to folks for question per the instructions the operator just gave.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good afternoon, everybody, and happy Friday. Thank you for calling into this backgrounder today. We thought it made sense, as we did last time, to do this prior to landing in Vienna to ensure that we can get more of you on the line and sort of tee up what’s upcoming. I’ll start with a few words about this third round of talks in the comprehensive negotiations, and then, of course, take your questions as usual.
We head back to Vienna for this round of talks clear-eyed about the challenges ahead and determined to keep making progress on these very difficult issues. We will have more topical discussions like we had in March, with both sides laying out their positions and trying to better understand where each of us are on the various issues. This process has been helpful in setting the table as we prepare to dive much more deeply into what a comprehensive agreement might actually look like on paper and what everyone might be able to agree to.
As always, these political director conversations follow on the tremendous work of our experts, who have been and are still now in Vienna meeting with their counterparts and will be doing so through probably mid-day on Saturday. And they have had quite intense, and from the initial readouts I’ve gotten, continue to be productive and constructive conversations. As we’ve said, putting this agreement together will really be like solving a Rubik’s cube. We can’t look at any one issue in isolation, but rather will have to consider what package we can all agree to that will meet the objectives that we have.
We are looking to ensure we have the right combination of measures in place to ensure Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon and that it’s program is exclusively peaceful. As we work to bridge the gaps that exist to see if we can find that right combination, the pace of our work will intensify even more than it is today.
And with that, I will be glad to take your questions.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Looks like our first question is from Indira with Bloomberg News.
QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to ask you two things. First off, about the reports that have resurfaced of a possible Iran-Russia $20 billion oil-for-goods deal. And in the past, the White House and other senior Administration officials have expressed concern that this would be a serious concern, but they have also said that there is no sign of Russia or anyone else violating the oil sanctions. So could we find out from you what is your latest on that? What information do you have about that deal possibly going ahead?
And related to that, has the problems – have the problems with Russia over Crimea bled over into the Iran negotiations at any level? We’ve seen some remarks from Sergei Ryabkov, that suggested that in the aftermath of the last talks that Russia might play the Iran card against the U.S. in this Crimea-Ukraine issue.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Indira. On the Russia-Iran oil-for-goods, we’ve seen reports that you all have written on the purported deal or potential for a deal between Russia and Iran. We do not have any information to suggest this deal has been culminated or implemented or begun to be executed or finalized. We’ve been very clear about our concerns with both parties regarding this or any similar deal. If such a deal were to happen, it appears it would be inconsistent with the terms of the P5+1 plus European Union Joint Plan of Action and could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions against the entity and individuals involved in any related transaction. But we have conveyed this directly to all parties, as we do in any situation that we see developing where there might be concerns of sanctionable activity.
Regarding Russia and its illegitimate action in Crimea, which we still do not and the international community does not recognize as legal and legitimate – we believe in the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, including Crimea. It has not had any appreciable or substantive impact on the negotiations. As I said at the end of the last round, Sergei Ryabkov was constructive, professional, and very much focused, as were all the members of the P5+1 and the European Union on our work. My understanding is in the experts talks that have been ongoing the same is true. And I’m aware of the remarks, obviously, that Sergei made after the last round. We have all understood privately that we have to be very mindful of the tremendous responsibility that the United Nations has given to the P5+1 and the European Union to try to reach an agreement with Iran, and that has to be the focus of our attention.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thanks. It looks like our next question is from Elise Labott of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you for doing this one, Senior Administration Official. (Laughter.) I’m just wondering – I mean, I know that there’s been this goal to do it within a year, but I mean, how far along do you really think you are in terms of – I know you say it’s a Rubik’s cube, you’ll need to fit all the pieces together. But do you find that you’re making progress towards that goal? And I mean, are you confident that you’re going to be able to finish it within the year? I guess that’s my main question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, thank you, CNN. (Laughter.) Elise, we are committed to – all of the parties are committed to not finishing this in a year but finishing this in the six-month frame of the Joint Plan of Action by July 20th. And I’m absolutely convinced that we can, though the real issue is not about whether you can write the words on paper, do the drafting; it’s about the choices that Iran has to make, and some of them are very difficult. And in order to ensure that they will not obtain a nuclear weapon and that the international community has the assurances it needs that their program is entirely and exclusively peaceful, they will have to make some significant changes and some significant choices. So this will be about the decisions that Iran makes, but the drafting is certainly doable.
QUESTION: But how close are you? Not – I don’t expect at this point in the process that you would be close to a deal. But in terms of how the negotiations are progressing, do you see --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have – we set out a work plan of how we were going to proceed to get to a comprehensive agreement, and we are on pace with the work plan that was set out. We were very conscious that we were going to use the March and April rounds to go over every single issue that we believed had to be addressed in a comprehensive agreement and make sure we understood each other on those issues, both at a macro level as well as at a technical level, because this is a highly, highly, highly technical agreement. And that’s why – pardon me while I take a sip of water, the allergy season has gotten to me. That is why it’s so critical that our experts spend quite a bit of time in conversation going through the technical details of what each other means by what they are saying.
So we are on pace with that work plan, looking toward beginning drafting in May and as we get through this month and begin to start to work that process. So we’re on pace with the work plan that we all set out with each other.
MODERATOR: Great, thanks. Our next question is from Lou Charbonneau of Reuters.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this. I wanted to follow up on the question that the – that CNN asked. And the fact that you just said that you’re not going to start drafting until May, I mean, my understanding is that there are still some pretty serious fundamental disagreements on some of the main things expected from the beginning would be difficult, namely enrichment, R&D, the scope of that, how much uranium they’re going to be able to keep and what level at that to keep at any given time. How much progress have you made in the last few weeks in overcoming the differences on those very difficult issues which are going to be the ones that ultimately decide success or failure of this whole process?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think I’ve told you all before so you won’t be surprised to hear me say again that I’m not going to negotiate in public. What I will say is that we understand each other very well. We know where we can see points of agreement. We know where the gaps are that have to be bridged. But I’ve also said this is a Rubik’s cube, and where one makes progress on one element may mean there’s more trade space on another element. So it’s very – it’s literally impossible to say okay, I can see a way forward here without understanding its impact on the way forward there. So it has to be looked at in its entirety, not just element by element.
QUESTION: But if I can just follow up quickly, even though – I mean, stepping away from the Rubik’s cube analogy for a moment, what percentage of the issues would you say that you’ve managed to reach some kind of understanding and what percentage remains difficult? And I realize that some – there could be 2 percent of the issues that are unresolved, and those could ultimately break the deal.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think you’ve answered your own question, which is the percentages don’t matter, even if I could give you a percentage, which I can’t. But the percentages don’t matter because the Joint Plan of Action says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and I would add to that nothing is agreed till everyone agrees to it.
So it doesn’t matter, exactly as you said. Even if you got agreement on everything but there were two last sticking points, you have to resolve those two last sticking points. As we finished the Joint Plan of Action, there were a handful of brackets, and until you resolved all of those brackets, there was no agreement, even though you’d resolved a great deal of the text. So it only matters when you get to an agreement.
MODERATOR: Great. Thanks, Lou. Our next question is from Barak Ravid of Haaretz.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks. I was wondering – the last round of talks the U.S. negotiations team didn’t go to Israel after the talks to brief, while that usually used to be the case. I was wondering if there’s any plan to do it now.
And the second question: There was – there were reports that the U.S. gave Iran some kind of a proposal about transforming the Arak reactor from a heavy-water reactor to a light-water reactor. Can you say anything about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So we maintain very close consultations with a number of partners and countries of interest all around the world, including Israel. And sometimes that means that I’ve traveled with my team to brief. Sometimes that means we do it by a video conference or phone or meetings here in Washington. So there are a variety ways, but that close consultation with Israel and with a number of other countries continues on a regular basis, and will for this round as well.
In terms of proposals about the Arak reactor, I’m not going to discuss any specifics in these briefings, as you can imagine. This is a negotiation, and that means it has to stay in the room.
MODERATOR: Great. Thanks. Our next question is from Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post.
QUESTION: Hi. I think this is sort of a variation on the theme that others have spoken on before. The Iranians said at the close of the last negotiations that we’ve done the framework planning, we’ve done the technical stuff, and the next time we’re going to get down to real issues. But it doesn’t sound, from what you’re saying, that that’s necessarily the case, that you’re still – at least until the first of May, you’re still kind of laying the table. Is that – would that be a fair assessment?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. Well, Karen, when you lay the table, you get down to real and serious issues. I think Minister Zarif laid out the issues that we held discussions on in the last round, and believe me, they were quite substantive discussions, quite detailed, quite technical. And in those discussions, one begins to – in fact begin to see the areas of agreement and the areas where there are still gaps that have to be overcome.
So I would say we’ve been getting down to the serious business even in the last round. We will do that on all of the remaining issues as well as revisit some of the issues from the last round, because we sent our experts away with a set of work products that we wanted from them to try to be able to advance our discussions further. So all of this work is quite substantive, quite detailed, quite technical, and meant to make the actual drafting an easier process.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that for a second? The Iranians have made several comments over the past couple of weeks basically saying under no circumstances will we give up the Arak reactor and things along those lines. Are those things that you just consider part of the chaff as the negotiations go on, or to what extent do you feel that you have to clarify those issues with the negotiators when you sit down?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We’re quite direct and quite straightforward with each other, so I don’t think there’s any mystery about positions. And what we are focused on is what is discussed in the room, not what anyone says on the outside.
MODERATOR: Great. Thanks. Our next question is from Michael Adler.
QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. Just – I don’t want to beat this to death, but – (laughter) – but when you say you’re getting down to drafting, does that mean that that’s when the give-and-take of finding out how much
concessions people are willing to make is going on, or will that be more in June than in May?
And a second question: What is your assessment at this point about how the sanctions regime overall is holding up? And do you see any signs that the Iranians might be using the time you’re taking to lay the table to determine just how much they’re going to have to give in terms of where the sanctions regime is in May or June?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So what I would say, Michael, is from day one, we were already testing each other, looking at assumptions, seeing where there might be areas of agreement, areas that had to be bridged. So that give-and-take starts the moment you begin a discussion. The negotiations have been going on since before the Joint Plan of Action over the comprehensive agreement, and the Joint Plan of Action, in fact, laid a framework for the comprehensive agreement. So give-and-take has been going on for months now. So we’re not talking about, all of a sudden, this is going to start one day. It began many months ago. And all of it set a frame and all of it set the conditions for a comprehensive agreement.
So I don’t think you can say we’re going to wait until May or going to wait until June or going to wait until July. It is constant. It is constant. And it’ll get refined and refined and refined until we hope we can reach a comprehensive agreement that ensures that Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon and that the international community is assured that its program is entirely and exclusively peaceful.
As far as the sanctions regime is holding up, I think that it is. We gave limited, targeted relief for the six-month period of the Joint Plan of Action. We have fulfilled our commitments in that regard. And that is all moving forward in the way that had been agreed to. And so Iran is getting that limited targeted relief, and I’m sure that Iran is assessing what it needs for the future, how it needs it, and what impact that has on getting to a comprehensive agreement, just as we are assessing it from the other side of the table.
QUESTION: Can I just – a quick follow-up? If the give-and-take has started, do you already have an idea about how likely it is that you’re going to get an acceptable package and get compromise on those key terms that make up the Rubik’s Cube?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I go back to what I said a moment ago: Until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question is from Elliot Waldman of Tokyo Broadcasting.
QUESTION: Hello, hi. Thanks for doing this. I have just a couple questions, one on levels of Iranian oil exports. There are reports that those export levels are rising, have been rising rapidly the past few months. Is it still your understanding that this level is within what’s allowed by the JPOA? And what are you – are you coordinating not only with China but also countries like Japan and the ROK and India, who have shown quite an appetite for Iranian oil?
And then also, how do you expect this issue of the Iranian ambassadorial nomination to the UN, Mr. Aboutalebi, to impact the nomination – the negotiations? I know Marie has said that they’re separate, but realistically, given the importance of congressional involvement and the fact that so many members of Congress have expressed outrage about this, what’s your level of concern that this could be an issue going forward? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In terms of the oil exports, as we have always said, we expect there to be fluctuations. They go up and down month to month. What we care about is the aggregate over the period of time that’s agreed to. We have had teams talk to each of the remaining importers of Iranian oil, and we feel comfortable that in fact, they will meet the target that we have, and there’s nothing to lead us to believe otherwise at this time. We, of course, keep continuous eye on this and in continuous discussion with all of the importers.
In terms of the report that there is a possible nomination for the Iranian permanent representative at the United Nations, we of course have seen these reports. If in fact this possible nomination were in fact the person nominated, it would be extremely troubling, as both our deputy spokesperson has said and as the White House spokesperson has said. We are taking a close look at this case now and we have raised our serious concerns about this possible nomination with the Government of Iran through a variety of channels that we use to convey our concerns.
QUESTION: All right. Do you expect it to have any specific impact on the P5+1 negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All I can say at this time regarding this is that if this possible nomination were the nomination, it would be extremely troubling, and we have raised those concerns with the Iranians.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Great, thanks. Our next question is from Kasra Naji of BBC.
QUESTION: Yes. I just wondered – I’ve got two or three questions, actually. The first one: In recent days in Washington, there have been suggestions that there should be some kind of a threat of use of force by President – by the President of the United States to strengthen any kind of agreement that is going to be reached, hopefully. Is that a new development? Is that going to change attitudes in Iran, do you think? A.
B, on the issue of Russia and how they’re going to play this Iranian card or not playing the Iranian card, I just wondered, you said, if they do come with – on that agreement about this huge deal on oil exports and so on, you said it would be inconsistent with Iran +5 talks and its aims. If that happens, what will be the position of the United States within the P5+1?
And a third question: The third question is about these reports from Iran that Iran is actually having trouble getting its hands on the money that was supposed to be released under the Geneva agreement. Have you heard that? Can you confirm that? And do you know why that – there’s a problem there? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. I think you’re referring to a report about a Brookings Institution publication, and we very much value all of the think tanks in Washington, D.C. Obviously, members of Congress, leaders and thinkers all over the world who have suggested things to us in the negotiation have put down on paper their ideas about how things go forward, and all of this is a very valuable input to our thinking through this negotiation. I would point out, just for a factual matter, I think the way that particular report is written, as you said, is that Congress would take such action if Iran pulled out of a negotiated agreement. So it’s really something that I think they were discussing down the road. But regardless, we listen to all variety of voices with very, very different positions because this is tough, this is difficult, and we’re happy to hear everybody’s ideas.
In terms of the Russia for oil deal, if it – a Russia-Iran oil deal, if it happened, we would take a look at the deal, and if it in fact was sanctionable, we would take the appropriate action. All of the members – rest of the members of the P5+1 and the European Union are well aware of the implications if such an agreement were to occur.
And third, your question about Iran having trouble getting their hands – you’ll have to ask the Iranians for their comments on that. The United States, the European Union, we have done everything that we made a commitment to do in the Joint Plan of Action and our teams have been working very hard to facilitate everything that was required in the JPOA.
MODERATOR: Great, thank you. And I think we have time for one more question from Hannah Kaviani of Radio Free Europe.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Hi. I have a question about a few reports which we’re seeing there about Congress going to move towards a new set of sanctions, non-nuclear terrorism related, on Iran. Al-Monitor also reported on this first. And I wanted to see if the – you’re aware of this move, and if yes, how do you think or how the Administration think it’s going to affect the talks with Iran?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We’ve seen reports that folks are considering some additional legislation that are non-nuclear related. I can’t comment on legislative proposals that I haven’t seen.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. I think --
QUESTION: Wait.
MODERATOR: Oops, sorry. Did you have a quick follow-up, or did you say thank you?
QUESTION: No, it’s okay. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. Well, thanks to everyone for jumping on the phone on a Friday afternoon. As always, this was on background, Senior Administration Official. We’ll send the transcript out, and we will see hopefully many of you very soon in Vienna.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good afternoon, everybody, and happy Friday. Thank you for calling into this backgrounder today. We thought it made sense, as we did last time, to do this prior to landing in Vienna to ensure that we can get more of you on the line and sort of tee up what’s upcoming. I’ll start with a few words about this third round of talks in the comprehensive negotiations, and then, of course, take your questions as usual.
We head back to Vienna for this round of talks clear-eyed about the challenges ahead and determined to keep making progress on these very difficult issues. We will have more topical discussions like we had in March, with both sides laying out their positions and trying to better understand where each of us are on the various issues. This process has been helpful in setting the table as we prepare to dive much more deeply into what a comprehensive agreement might actually look like on paper and what everyone might be able to agree to.
As always, these political director conversations follow on the tremendous work of our experts, who have been and are still now in Vienna meeting with their counterparts and will be doing so through probably mid-day on Saturday. And they have had quite intense, and from the initial readouts I’ve gotten, continue to be productive and constructive conversations. As we’ve said, putting this agreement together will really be like solving a Rubik’s cube. We can’t look at any one issue in isolation, but rather will have to consider what package we can all agree to that will meet the objectives that we have.
We are looking to ensure we have the right combination of measures in place to ensure Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon and that it’s program is exclusively peaceful. As we work to bridge the gaps that exist to see if we can find that right combination, the pace of our work will intensify even more than it is today.
And with that, I will be glad to take your questions.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Looks like our first question is from Indira with Bloomberg News.
QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to ask you two things. First off, about the reports that have resurfaced of a possible Iran-Russia $20 billion oil-for-goods deal. And in the past, the White House and other senior Administration officials have expressed concern that this would be a serious concern, but they have also said that there is no sign of Russia or anyone else violating the oil sanctions. So could we find out from you what is your latest on that? What information do you have about that deal possibly going ahead?
And related to that, has the problems – have the problems with Russia over Crimea bled over into the Iran negotiations at any level? We’ve seen some remarks from Sergei Ryabkov, that suggested that in the aftermath of the last talks that Russia might play the Iran card against the U.S. in this Crimea-Ukraine issue.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Indira. On the Russia-Iran oil-for-goods, we’ve seen reports that you all have written on the purported deal or potential for a deal between Russia and Iran. We do not have any information to suggest this deal has been culminated or implemented or begun to be executed or finalized. We’ve been very clear about our concerns with both parties regarding this or any similar deal. If such a deal were to happen, it appears it would be inconsistent with the terms of the P5+1 plus European Union Joint Plan of Action and could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions against the entity and individuals involved in any related transaction. But we have conveyed this directly to all parties, as we do in any situation that we see developing where there might be concerns of sanctionable activity.
Regarding Russia and its illegitimate action in Crimea, which we still do not and the international community does not recognize as legal and legitimate – we believe in the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, including Crimea. It has not had any appreciable or substantive impact on the negotiations. As I said at the end of the last round, Sergei Ryabkov was constructive, professional, and very much focused, as were all the members of the P5+1 and the European Union on our work. My understanding is in the experts talks that have been ongoing the same is true. And I’m aware of the remarks, obviously, that Sergei made after the last round. We have all understood privately that we have to be very mindful of the tremendous responsibility that the United Nations has given to the P5+1 and the European Union to try to reach an agreement with Iran, and that has to be the focus of our attention.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thanks. It looks like our next question is from Elise Labott of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you for doing this one, Senior Administration Official. (Laughter.) I’m just wondering – I mean, I know that there’s been this goal to do it within a year, but I mean, how far along do you really think you are in terms of – I know you say it’s a Rubik’s cube, you’ll need to fit all the pieces together. But do you find that you’re making progress towards that goal? And I mean, are you confident that you’re going to be able to finish it within the year? I guess that’s my main question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, thank you, CNN. (Laughter.) Elise, we are committed to – all of the parties are committed to not finishing this in a year but finishing this in the six-month frame of the Joint Plan of Action by July 20th. And I’m absolutely convinced that we can, though the real issue is not about whether you can write the words on paper, do the drafting; it’s about the choices that Iran has to make, and some of them are very difficult. And in order to ensure that they will not obtain a nuclear weapon and that the international community has the assurances it needs that their program is entirely and exclusively peaceful, they will have to make some significant changes and some significant choices. So this will be about the decisions that Iran makes, but the drafting is certainly doable.
QUESTION: But how close are you? Not – I don’t expect at this point in the process that you would be close to a deal. But in terms of how the negotiations are progressing, do you see --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have – we set out a work plan of how we were going to proceed to get to a comprehensive agreement, and we are on pace with the work plan that was set out. We were very conscious that we were going to use the March and April rounds to go over every single issue that we believed had to be addressed in a comprehensive agreement and make sure we understood each other on those issues, both at a macro level as well as at a technical level, because this is a highly, highly, highly technical agreement. And that’s why – pardon me while I take a sip of water, the allergy season has gotten to me. That is why it’s so critical that our experts spend quite a bit of time in conversation going through the technical details of what each other means by what they are saying.
So we are on pace with that work plan, looking toward beginning drafting in May and as we get through this month and begin to start to work that process. So we’re on pace with the work plan that we all set out with each other.
MODERATOR: Great, thanks. Our next question is from Lou Charbonneau of Reuters.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this. I wanted to follow up on the question that the – that CNN asked. And the fact that you just said that you’re not going to start drafting until May, I mean, my understanding is that there are still some pretty serious fundamental disagreements on some of the main things expected from the beginning would be difficult, namely enrichment, R&D, the scope of that, how much uranium they’re going to be able to keep and what level at that to keep at any given time. How much progress have you made in the last few weeks in overcoming the differences on those very difficult issues which are going to be the ones that ultimately decide success or failure of this whole process?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think I’ve told you all before so you won’t be surprised to hear me say again that I’m not going to negotiate in public. What I will say is that we understand each other very well. We know where we can see points of agreement. We know where the gaps are that have to be bridged. But I’ve also said this is a Rubik’s cube, and where one makes progress on one element may mean there’s more trade space on another element. So it’s very – it’s literally impossible to say okay, I can see a way forward here without understanding its impact on the way forward there. So it has to be looked at in its entirety, not just element by element.
QUESTION: But if I can just follow up quickly, even though – I mean, stepping away from the Rubik’s cube analogy for a moment, what percentage of the issues would you say that you’ve managed to reach some kind of understanding and what percentage remains difficult? And I realize that some – there could be 2 percent of the issues that are unresolved, and those could ultimately break the deal.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think you’ve answered your own question, which is the percentages don’t matter, even if I could give you a percentage, which I can’t. But the percentages don’t matter because the Joint Plan of Action says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and I would add to that nothing is agreed till everyone agrees to it.
So it doesn’t matter, exactly as you said. Even if you got agreement on everything but there were two last sticking points, you have to resolve those two last sticking points. As we finished the Joint Plan of Action, there were a handful of brackets, and until you resolved all of those brackets, there was no agreement, even though you’d resolved a great deal of the text. So it only matters when you get to an agreement.
MODERATOR: Great. Thanks, Lou. Our next question is from Barak Ravid of Haaretz.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks. I was wondering – the last round of talks the U.S. negotiations team didn’t go to Israel after the talks to brief, while that usually used to be the case. I was wondering if there’s any plan to do it now.
And the second question: There was – there were reports that the U.S. gave Iran some kind of a proposal about transforming the Arak reactor from a heavy-water reactor to a light-water reactor. Can you say anything about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So we maintain very close consultations with a number of partners and countries of interest all around the world, including Israel. And sometimes that means that I’ve traveled with my team to brief. Sometimes that means we do it by a video conference or phone or meetings here in Washington. So there are a variety ways, but that close consultation with Israel and with a number of other countries continues on a regular basis, and will for this round as well.
In terms of proposals about the Arak reactor, I’m not going to discuss any specifics in these briefings, as you can imagine. This is a negotiation, and that means it has to stay in the room.
MODERATOR: Great. Thanks. Our next question is from Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post.
QUESTION: Hi. I think this is sort of a variation on the theme that others have spoken on before. The Iranians said at the close of the last negotiations that we’ve done the framework planning, we’ve done the technical stuff, and the next time we’re going to get down to real issues. But it doesn’t sound, from what you’re saying, that that’s necessarily the case, that you’re still – at least until the first of May, you’re still kind of laying the table. Is that – would that be a fair assessment?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. Well, Karen, when you lay the table, you get down to real and serious issues. I think Minister Zarif laid out the issues that we held discussions on in the last round, and believe me, they were quite substantive discussions, quite detailed, quite technical. And in those discussions, one begins to – in fact begin to see the areas of agreement and the areas where there are still gaps that have to be overcome.
So I would say we’ve been getting down to the serious business even in the last round. We will do that on all of the remaining issues as well as revisit some of the issues from the last round, because we sent our experts away with a set of work products that we wanted from them to try to be able to advance our discussions further. So all of this work is quite substantive, quite detailed, quite technical, and meant to make the actual drafting an easier process.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that for a second? The Iranians have made several comments over the past couple of weeks basically saying under no circumstances will we give up the Arak reactor and things along those lines. Are those things that you just consider part of the chaff as the negotiations go on, or to what extent do you feel that you have to clarify those issues with the negotiators when you sit down?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We’re quite direct and quite straightforward with each other, so I don’t think there’s any mystery about positions. And what we are focused on is what is discussed in the room, not what anyone says on the outside.
MODERATOR: Great. Thanks. Our next question is from Michael Adler.
QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. Just – I don’t want to beat this to death, but – (laughter) – but when you say you’re getting down to drafting, does that mean that that’s when the give-and-take of finding out how much
concessions people are willing to make is going on, or will that be more in June than in May?
And a second question: What is your assessment at this point about how the sanctions regime overall is holding up? And do you see any signs that the Iranians might be using the time you’re taking to lay the table to determine just how much they’re going to have to give in terms of where the sanctions regime is in May or June?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So what I would say, Michael, is from day one, we were already testing each other, looking at assumptions, seeing where there might be areas of agreement, areas that had to be bridged. So that give-and-take starts the moment you begin a discussion. The negotiations have been going on since before the Joint Plan of Action over the comprehensive agreement, and the Joint Plan of Action, in fact, laid a framework for the comprehensive agreement. So give-and-take has been going on for months now. So we’re not talking about, all of a sudden, this is going to start one day. It began many months ago. And all of it set a frame and all of it set the conditions for a comprehensive agreement.
So I don’t think you can say we’re going to wait until May or going to wait until June or going to wait until July. It is constant. It is constant. And it’ll get refined and refined and refined until we hope we can reach a comprehensive agreement that ensures that Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon and that the international community is assured that its program is entirely and exclusively peaceful.
As far as the sanctions regime is holding up, I think that it is. We gave limited, targeted relief for the six-month period of the Joint Plan of Action. We have fulfilled our commitments in that regard. And that is all moving forward in the way that had been agreed to. And so Iran is getting that limited targeted relief, and I’m sure that Iran is assessing what it needs for the future, how it needs it, and what impact that has on getting to a comprehensive agreement, just as we are assessing it from the other side of the table.
QUESTION: Can I just – a quick follow-up? If the give-and-take has started, do you already have an idea about how likely it is that you’re going to get an acceptable package and get compromise on those key terms that make up the Rubik’s Cube?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I go back to what I said a moment ago: Until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question is from Elliot Waldman of Tokyo Broadcasting.
QUESTION: Hello, hi. Thanks for doing this. I have just a couple questions, one on levels of Iranian oil exports. There are reports that those export levels are rising, have been rising rapidly the past few months. Is it still your understanding that this level is within what’s allowed by the JPOA? And what are you – are you coordinating not only with China but also countries like Japan and the ROK and India, who have shown quite an appetite for Iranian oil?
And then also, how do you expect this issue of the Iranian ambassadorial nomination to the UN, Mr. Aboutalebi, to impact the nomination – the negotiations? I know Marie has said that they’re separate, but realistically, given the importance of congressional involvement and the fact that so many members of Congress have expressed outrage about this, what’s your level of concern that this could be an issue going forward? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In terms of the oil exports, as we have always said, we expect there to be fluctuations. They go up and down month to month. What we care about is the aggregate over the period of time that’s agreed to. We have had teams talk to each of the remaining importers of Iranian oil, and we feel comfortable that in fact, they will meet the target that we have, and there’s nothing to lead us to believe otherwise at this time. We, of course, keep continuous eye on this and in continuous discussion with all of the importers.
In terms of the report that there is a possible nomination for the Iranian permanent representative at the United Nations, we of course have seen these reports. If in fact this possible nomination were in fact the person nominated, it would be extremely troubling, as both our deputy spokesperson has said and as the White House spokesperson has said. We are taking a close look at this case now and we have raised our serious concerns about this possible nomination with the Government of Iran through a variety of channels that we use to convey our concerns.
QUESTION: All right. Do you expect it to have any specific impact on the P5+1 negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All I can say at this time regarding this is that if this possible nomination were the nomination, it would be extremely troubling, and we have raised those concerns with the Iranians.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Great, thanks. Our next question is from Kasra Naji of BBC.
QUESTION: Yes. I just wondered – I’ve got two or three questions, actually. The first one: In recent days in Washington, there have been suggestions that there should be some kind of a threat of use of force by President – by the President of the United States to strengthen any kind of agreement that is going to be reached, hopefully. Is that a new development? Is that going to change attitudes in Iran, do you think? A.
B, on the issue of Russia and how they’re going to play this Iranian card or not playing the Iranian card, I just wondered, you said, if they do come with – on that agreement about this huge deal on oil exports and so on, you said it would be inconsistent with Iran +5 talks and its aims. If that happens, what will be the position of the United States within the P5+1?
And a third question: The third question is about these reports from Iran that Iran is actually having trouble getting its hands on the money that was supposed to be released under the Geneva agreement. Have you heard that? Can you confirm that? And do you know why that – there’s a problem there? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. I think you’re referring to a report about a Brookings Institution publication, and we very much value all of the think tanks in Washington, D.C. Obviously, members of Congress, leaders and thinkers all over the world who have suggested things to us in the negotiation have put down on paper their ideas about how things go forward, and all of this is a very valuable input to our thinking through this negotiation. I would point out, just for a factual matter, I think the way that particular report is written, as you said, is that Congress would take such action if Iran pulled out of a negotiated agreement. So it’s really something that I think they were discussing down the road. But regardless, we listen to all variety of voices with very, very different positions because this is tough, this is difficult, and we’re happy to hear everybody’s ideas.
In terms of the Russia for oil deal, if it – a Russia-Iran oil deal, if it happened, we would take a look at the deal, and if it in fact was sanctionable, we would take the appropriate action. All of the members – rest of the members of the P5+1 and the European Union are well aware of the implications if such an agreement were to occur.
And third, your question about Iran having trouble getting their hands – you’ll have to ask the Iranians for their comments on that. The United States, the European Union, we have done everything that we made a commitment to do in the Joint Plan of Action and our teams have been working very hard to facilitate everything that was required in the JPOA.
MODERATOR: Great, thank you. And I think we have time for one more question from Hannah Kaviani of Radio Free Europe.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Hi. I have a question about a few reports which we’re seeing there about Congress going to move towards a new set of sanctions, non-nuclear terrorism related, on Iran. Al-Monitor also reported on this first. And I wanted to see if the – you’re aware of this move, and if yes, how do you think or how the Administration think it’s going to affect the talks with Iran?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We’ve seen reports that folks are considering some additional legislation that are non-nuclear related. I can’t comment on legislative proposals that I haven’t seen.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. I think --
QUESTION: Wait.
MODERATOR: Oops, sorry. Did you have a quick follow-up, or did you say thank you?
QUESTION: No, it’s okay. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. Well, thanks to everyone for jumping on the phone on a Friday afternoon. As always, this was on background, Senior Administration Official. We’ll send the transcript out, and we will see hopefully many of you very soon in Vienna.
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT PEACE CORPS SWEARING-IN CEREMONY IN RABAT, MOROCCO
 |
| Credit: U.S. Government |
Remarks at Peace Corps Swearing-in Ceremony
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ministry of Youth and Sports
Rabat, Morocco
April 4, 2014
Chris, thank you very much. Thanks for your service, and thank you for the introduction. And Minister Ouzzine, it’s a great pleasure to be here with you. Thank you very, very much for being part of this. And all of our guests, distinguished guests – oh, there’s President Kennedy over here. I’m just looking over there. (Laughter.)
This is really cool. I want you to know I’m really excited about this. I’m thrilled that somehow it coincided and we were able to work out that I have the privilege of swearing you in. And when I heard I was swearing in 101 Peace Corps volunteers, I immediately thought of 101 Dalmatians. (Laughter.) I couldn’t help it. Sorry about that. That has nothing to do with anything, all right? (Laughter.) And you certainly don’t think of yourselves that way.
There are a lot of reasons why this is special. I am old enough to have been old enough at the time that it meant something to me when President Kennedy made the announcement about the Peace Corps and appointed his brother-in-law Sargent Shriver to be the first head of it. And I remember that very distinctly, the sense of excitement. I had the privilege of meeting President Kennedy, because I was then 18 years old and just out of high school, working full time for somebody who was to become my colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, then a candidate for senator in Massachusetts. And I was just a kid in the summer, and I happened to be in a place where the President was during that period of time. And we chatted a bit, and he chastised me for my choice of college, but – (laughter) – he was very funny about sort of the commonality of some of the interests at any rate. And he made an impression on me – a lifetime-lasting impression.
And the Peace Corps itself has always embodied really the best aspirations of America in terms of our reach in the world – our efforts to help people to do better in life, our efforts to try to create stability and opportunity and prosperity, our efforts to give people a sense of what makes a difference in terms of the values which will guide them as they grow and become, hopefully, public citizens themselves at some point in time. And so your willingness to stand up and say, “I’m going to serve,” in this capacity is really, really special, particularly at a time when so many people are sort of pressured and enticed towards a more lucrative undertaking, particularly in their immediate post-college years, where you’re saddled with college debt and other career pressures and choices.
You’re joining one of the proudest traditions that there is. As Chris mentioned, the 5,000-some people who have served here, it includes Ambassador Chris Stevens, whom we lost, as you all know, in Benghazi. It includes a fellow by the name of Ambassador Robert Ford, who has been our special – really, he’s been the ambassador to Syria, but because he hasn’t been in Syria, he’s been our special envoy, so to speak, to the Syrian opposition, and has worked diligently these past years to be able to help the people of Syria do better. But his commitment began right here, like yours. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, one of our distinguished diplomats, a man who went on to help broker peace accords at Dayton and dealt with so many difficult issues, began as a Peace Corps volunteer.
So you’re following in the footsteps of accomplished, distinguished diplomats who made a difference as they went on in life, and I’m confident that you will, those of you who choose to go on in that way. And I have no doubt that perhaps sometime in the future, when a next secretary is standing up and swearing people, one or more of your names will be the examples that will then be given to people.
You’re joining the Peace Corps at a very, very important time. I can’t emphasize enough to you how critical it is. And obviously, it has its challenges. The world is changing unbelievably rapidly. And to some degree, that’s creating the counterforce that we see in certain places. It’s a reaction against modernity, against change, against the invasion of the rest of the world into people’s lives because of the media and because of communication that’s sometimes unwanted and unwitting.
And so whether you like it or not – and we talked about this in our security dialogue a few moments ago with our Moroccan friends – that everything that’s happening everywhere invades everywhere all the time. And the result of this is a sense of invasion, really, of sometimes unwanted values, unwanted principles. And it forces a transition, no matter what. So in places that are particularly tribal or particularly insular, and where there’s a more conservative strain, that can be difficult. And we have to acknowledge that. We have to honor that. People need to be able to do things at their pace and in their way, but still, we have to remain committed to fundamental values – freedom, human rights, democracy, and tolerance, things that you will be practicing and teaching every day in your efforts as Peace Corps volunteers.
And when you look at the population of Morocco, it’s really a reflection of what is happening in the rest of the world – 60 percent of a population under the age of 30, and 50 percent of the population under the age of 25 – 50 percent. That’s a lot of jobs to find and create. That’s a lot of educating to do. That’s a lot of opportunity to create. So it’s a big task. It’s a complicated world. And I admire enormously those who have chosen to go out into this world and help to make a difference.
Now, I will tell you that what you do could help shape the economy of this country in the future. It will certainly shape lives. Individual lives will be touched by the multiples for those people that you come into contact with and make a difference for. And it seems to me that this is what makes this adventure you’re about to embark on so meaningful, is that when you help a young Moroccan develop a skill to be able to build their community or to build their own career, when you help somebody to learn English or help somebody to start a business or to learn some valuable lesson as simple as playing sports and being a part of a team, you are investing in a safer region and a stronger world.
So the 101 of you are going to match your diverse talents with your expertise, and you’re going to go out there and have an opportunity to be able to learn a lot about the perspectives of the young men and women that you’re going to meet. And as you do, you’re going to strengthen the friendship between Morocco and the United States, a friendship that is older than the Constitution of the United States of America. I remind you that Morocco was the first country in the world to recognize the United States in 1777.
So before I ask you to join me up here on the stage to take the oath, I just want to leave you with one reminder and perhaps one prediction. The reminder is this: In every intersection that you have with any individual Moroccan, anyone you meet, you may be the only American that that person has met that day, that week, that year, perhaps, or that lifetime. So you represent the United States in every single thing that you do. And I ask you to remember that the ambassador who is presenting his credentials today may have the fancy title of ambassador, but every single one of you are an ambassador. And that was something that Sargent Shriver said more than 50 years ago when he returned from Africa at the beginning of this journey. He said that the manner in which volunteers carry out their work is just as important as the quality of their work. And believe me, that is still true today.
So that’s my reminder. My prediction is this: You’re going to find that this journey means as much to you as it will mean to the people and the communities that you’re going to serve. It goes both ways. That’s the beauty of it. And in the same message that I just mentioned Sargent Shriver gave when he came back from Africa, you know what he said? He said, “Go in a spirit of humility, seeking to learn as much as to teach.”
So I’ve got every bit of confidence that you all are going to do that. It’s my honor now to administer to you the very same oath that I took, the very same oath that the President takes and that all of us have taken since the time of George Washington. So please, if you will join me up here on the stage, I will deliver your oath that will make you official Peace Corps volunteers.
(The oath was administered.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)