CFTC CHAIRMAN CHILTON'S SPEECH ON FINANCIAL REFORM

Photo:  CBOT.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Speech of Commissioner Bart Chilton before Americans for Financial Reform, Washington, DC
May 9, 2012
Introduction
Thank you for the introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to discuss cost/benefit analysis (CBAs). As we know, this has been the matter of lawsuits and countless meetings in the wake of the passage of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank. It is an important topic.
Load of Compromisin’

For me, most things that are resolved in this town result from an appropriate equilibrium. The truth or answer isn’t found on the outskirts of issues; they reside on the inside, in the medium. Most things I’ve worked upon or have seen worked upon seem to resolve themselves better when there is cooperation and compromise. That usually means some level of concession from all parties. When something is approved and everyone is grumbling a bit, that typically indicates it is legitimately worthy, in general. At least, that is what I’ve found.

The thing is: in order to reach an agreement, to reach that balance, sometimes it is sort of like that oldRhinestone Cowboy lyric, “There’ll be a load of compromisin’ on the road to my horizon.” For those of you who were too young, or don’t recall the song, made famous by country singer Glen Campbell, it is your loss. It was a huge hit. By the way, I saw a neat tee shirt last weekend. On it was written, “I’m old, but I got to see all the cool bands.” Nevertheless, for most things good to get done in this town, the fact of the matter is that there is a load of compromisin’ on the road to that horizon.
The D.C. Quadrakill

My experience, however, is once upon a time in a faraway land when and where people actually wanted to get some things done. There is a contingent now that simply wishes to take the Nancy Reagan approach to a lot of things and “Just say no.” (By the way, one is getting old when a lot of your references seem like they need references, or foot notes). Not gonna do it on that one. She was a great First Lady. If you don’t know “Just say no,” that’s why we have Google. Nowadays, there are a lot of people who just say “no” to a lot of things. There is no load of compromisin’ going on. There is no compromisin’ period. And, that’s why precious little legislation is coming from the Hill these days and why frustration with Washington is rampant.

I do have a point. We are working toward cost/benefit analysis. Hang on my brothers and sisters. There is a little-articulated Washington play book section. I call it the D.C. Quadrakill. It isn’t an innovative thing, and it is a tried and true strategy, for sure. First, if you don’t like a bill, amendment or provision thereof, you try to defeat it with a vote. Just say, then vote, no (or nay, or whatever). If that fails, go to stage two. You can try to defund it through the appropriations process. If that doesn’t work, there is stage three. This is where you can try to stop it, change it or delay it through the regulatory rulemaking process. If all of those things fail, you can go to DEFCON four: litigation. That’s the D.C. Quadrakill: 1. kill bill; 2. defund it; 3. regulate it; and, 4. litigate it.

There is no shame in availing yourself of this Quadrakill strategy, although not everyone can do the full meal Quadrakill deal. Sure people can lobby their Representatives and Senators regarding voting for, or funding of, some legislation. Maybe they will get some gallery chamber passes, too. Perhaps they will have a quick photo op. That stuff takes place all the time. But the thing is: the other two stages of the Quadrakill—regulate and litigate—those are for serious societies—the class of folks who have some buckaroos. No lobbyist wants a tour of the CFTC or a photo with a Commissioner. It is all work. And as far as litigation, watch out. That’s long, laborious and lavish—only those with the big bucks can do stage four Quadrakill: litigation.

This brings me to my point, and I do have one, despite those that questioned it. The thing is: we are seeing a lot of stage four Quadrakill dialogue and action out there. There is more trash talk and more action regarding litigation related to financial regulation than ever before. Frankly, it has become an unprecedented problem and a dilemma for regulators. Unfortunately, the thing is: that is part of the purpose of those that talk about or live to litigate.

More Perfect Regulation 
I think we all need to take a step back and think about Quadrakill stage four a little more. Let’s take a breath and think thoughtfully, and a little more calmly than seems to me to have been done in the last several months. This event is the perfect venue to do just that.
In the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, there is this wonderful aspirational language:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“In order to form a more perfect union.”   Those words, “in order to”—they meant that our forefathers were working toward, hoping, aspiring, to form a more perfect union. It wasn’t perfect, and it might not reach perfection, but they were trying to get there.  Here’s something to think about:  those wonderful “planks” toward making that “more perfect union”—establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare—each one of those distinct factors didn’t in and of themselves create “The More Perfect Union.”  Rather, each facet was a building block that the Founding Fathers intended to use to “get there,” to get to that “More Perfect Union.”   In other words, “providing for the common defense,” wasn’t the be all and end all, but instead it was one of the important pieces used to get to the ultimate goal:  a more perfect union.

 In a similar approach, cost/benefit analyses in regulatory rulemaking are analogous to those discrete building block factors in the Constitution’s preamble.  The thing is: a CBA is not the ultimate goal of rulemaking, although if you listen to some you might think it so.  A CBA is an important piece of reaching the ultimate goal:  a “more perfect regulation.”  Like the framers of our Constitution, regulators aspire to reach objectives that protect the common weal.  That’s our job.  In the recent past, however, our jobs have been made significantly more difficult by a contortion. The thing is: we have seen an obnoxious bastardization of the conduct and use of CBAs in regulatory rulemaking.

This by no means is a new phenomenon. It isn’t a paranormal event.  It has cropped up over the years, time and again, as a convenient tool to scuttle regulatory initiatives.  Its’ use at this moment in history is, however, particularly rampant and greatly galling, given the focus of the regulations that are being decelerated and the harm that was caused to the public as a result of the economic crisis of 2008.

There are a bevy of bellowers booing about the “costs” of regulation.  To those catcalls, I’d simply ask, what were the complete “costs” of the $414 billion taxpayer funded bailout?  What are the “costs” of families losing their homes or of folks who can’t get a job?  What are the “costs” to our economy of skyrocketing oil and gas prices, fueled by unbridled excessive speculative activity?  What could be the added “costs” if regulations that Congress and the President have required are not put in place? My view is that there is not a single benefit to not doing these regulations, but there are unacceptable costs if we don’t go forward. Without these rules and regulations, there will be unacceptable costs to consumers, to businesses, to markets, to our economy and our country.

I wouldn’t go so far as paraphrasing Samuel Johnson and saying that litigation is the last refuge for scoundrels. But, the cost-benefit bellowers are openly trying to impose a discredited economic philosophy (that just happens to serve their financial interests) on regulators by beseeching the courts to adopt their extreme interpretation of our statutory duty to “consider” the costs and benefits of our regulations. This economic philosophy is, in short, that the financial markets work just fine on their own and there’s no need for regulators to ensure a minimum level of safety in these markets or a maximum level of speculation. The market can police itself, thank you very much. They want us to write off the 2008 financial crisis as an aberration and ignore countless reputable scholars who’ve found that the costs of opaque, unregulated derivatives markets are borne by the public. The truth is speculation without limits can fuel bubbles, and left unaccountable, the captains of finance may veer the economy into dangerous waters in search of bigger and riskier profits. In short, these bellowers want us to go beyond a “consideration” of costs and benefits to making their narrow conception of costs (discounting the social costs to the public of deregulation) and benefits (discounting the social benefits of the public of smart regulation), the crucible for judging all financial regulations.

The thing is: CBAs are being used, as I have said before, as a Sword of Damocles over regulatory agencies.  We are virtually paralyzed by intimidation—or, indeed, the reality—of lawsuits brought (haphazardly, in my assessment) on the foundations of allegedly poor CBAs.  When this occurs, regulators are sort of like those ghost hunters seen on television, looking for the scary litigation risk in every corner or closet. Did you hear what it said? “Wha, wha, wha.” We used an especially sensitive machine and after analysis in the lab, it appears that what the voice said was this: “If you regulate, we will litigate,” or perhaps “Ready for stage four Quadrakill.” Hmm, because I thought it just sounded like “Wha, wha, wha.” The thing is: either way, the rulemaking action slows, or slogs to a stop—and that is the clear-cut intent of some of those who threaten, design, and bring, these lawsuits.

Take this example: our position limits rule took up 81 pages in the Federal Register. Guest how much of the text was cost/benefit analysis? 19 pages. Yup, almost a fourth—and yet we’re still getting sued.

At the same time, American citizens and businesses and our economy endure more than is fair for a gallon of gas and the resultant impact on our Gross Domestic Product. We continue to see devalued homes, and continue to face higher-than-they-could-be unemployment rates. The potential for further damage due to a still yet unimplemented new regulatory regime is out there. How do we measure those harsh “costs?”  If those costs are not more scary than the threat of litigation due to cost/benefit analysis, then regulators should seek a new line of work.

So today, I’m suggesting that CBAs be expanded to include not just the quantitative, quantifiable elements of a rule but its qualitative aspects as well. In other words the social costs and benefits need to be taken into account. I by no means want to slow the rulemaking process down in any way but I really believe some of the most important cost-benefit effects of rules go beyond P & L statements, so I’ll ask my colleagues to consider painting a more complete picture of what—without these rules—the societal cost might be. Memories fade with time and we need to be mindful of the costs of not doing these things right in the context of the colossal calamity of late ’08.

The thing is: it’s time to put some sense (and cents) back into CBAs, and to criticisms of rules.  By that I mean, I’d like to see reasonable, accurate, and well-supported analyses, and those who criticize our CBAs should berequired to provide, not “masked data,” with no clear or hard figures, but real, verifiable dollars and cents to rebut our analyses.  If we are all held to the same reasonable standards, not just trying to create ghastly ghosts in an effort to slow the process down, CBAs might actually be useful as they were intended:  as a factor in forming “more perfect regulations.”
Conclusion

Look, I understand that people have to represent themselves and take advantage of the opportunities which exist to make their case, on the Hill, in the agencies, or in court. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. It seems to me this has gone too far. They may mean well. I’m just not sure they are well.

The thing is: we had, and have, an economic mess created by lax or non-existent regulations in our financial markets. That isn’t a joke or a scary story for millions of people. It is an unfortunate and seemingly unforgiving reality. We need to do all we can to appropriately implement the Dodd-Frank rules to not only protect consumers, businesses, and markets alike, but to fuel inject the economic engine of our democracy. This new law—and the regulations that go with it if done properly—are the blueprints for how our economy can thrive. If we all work together as honest partners in the rulemaking process, I am confident we not only can, but will move our nation forward.
Thank you.

BACKGROUND NOTES: REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS

Photo:  Souillac.  Credit:  Wikipedia.
FROM;  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT  
Geography 
Area: 2,040 sq. km. (787 sq. mi.); 500 miles east of Madagascar, in the Indian Ocean.
Dependencies: Rodrigues Island, the Agalega Islands and Cargados Carajos Shoals; Mauritius also claims sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, where U.S. Naval Support Facility at Diego Garcia is located.

Cities: Capital--Port Louis (pop. 148,638). Other cities--Beau Bassin and Rose Hill (110,687), Vacoas-Phoenix (108,186), Curepipe (84,487), Quatre Bornes (81,773).
Terrain: Volcanic island surrounded by coral reefs. A central plateau is rimmed by mountains.
Climate: Tropical; cyclone season mid-December-April.

HISTORY
While Arab and Malay sailors knew of Mauritius as early as the 10th century AD and Portuguese sailors first visited in the 16th century, the island remained uninhabited until colonized in 1638 by the Dutch. Mauritius was populated over the next few centuries by waves of traders, planters and their slaves, indentured laborers, merchants, and artisans. The island was named in honor of Prince Maurice of Nassau by the Dutch, who abandoned the colony in 1710.

The French claimed Mauritius in 1715 and renamed it Ile de France. It became a prosperous colony under the French East India Company. The French Government took control in 1767, and the island served as a naval and privateer base during the Napoleonic wars. In 1810, Mauritius was captured by the British, whose possession of the island was confirmed 4 years later by the Treaty of Paris. French institutions, including the Napoleonic code of law, were maintained. The French language is still used more widely than English.

Mauritian Creoles trace their origins to the plantation owners and slaves who were brought to work the sugar fields. Indo-Mauritians (primarily Hindus, but also Muslims and Christians) are descended from immigrants who arrived in the 19th century from the Indian subcontinent to work as indentured laborers after slavery was abolished in 1835. Franco-Mauritians still control most of the large sugar estates and are active in business and banking. As the Indo-Mauritian population became numerically dominant and the voting franchise was extended, political power shifted from the Franco-Mauritians and their Creole allies to the Indo-Mauritian Hindus.

Elections in 1947 for the newly created Legislative Assembly marked Mauritius' first steps toward self-rule. An independence campaign gained momentum after 1961, when the British agreed to permit additional self-government and eventual independence. A coalition composed of the Mauritian Labor Party (MLP), the Muslim Committee of Action (CAM), and the Independent Forward Bloc (IFB)--a traditionalist Hindu party--won a majority in the 1967 Legislative Assembly election, despite opposition from Franco-Mauritian and Creole supporters of Gaetan Duval's Mauritian Social Democratic Party (PMSD). The contest was interpreted locally as a referendum on independence. Following a period of communal strife, brought under control with assistance from British troops, Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, MLP leader and chief minister in the colonial government, became the first prime minister at independence, on March 12, 1968.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS
Mauritian politics are vibrant and characterized by coalition and alliance building. All parties are centrist and reflect a national consensus that supports democratic politics and a relatively open economy with a strong private sector. Mauritius became a republic on March 12, 1992. The most immediate result was that a Mauritian-born president became head of state, replacing Queen Elizabeth II. Under the amended constitution, political power remained with parliament, with the office of the president being largely ceremonial. The National Assembly elects the president. The Council of Ministers (cabinet), responsible for the direction and control of the government, consists of the prime minister (head of government, who is also the leader of the majority party in the legislature), and about 24 ministers. The unicameral National Assembly has up to 70 deputies. Sixty-two are elected by universal suffrage, and as many as eight "best losers" are chosen from the runners-up by the Electoral Supervisory Commission using a formula designed to give at least minimal representation to minority ethnic communities. Elections are scheduled at least every 5 years. Parliamentary elections were last held in May 2010. The next elections are expected to be held in 2015.

Mauritian law is an amalgam of French and British legal traditions. The Supreme Court--a chief justice and 18 other judges--is the highest judicial authority. There is an additional right of appeal to the Queen's Privy Council in London. Local government has nine administrative divisions, with municipal and town councils in urban areas and district and village councils in rural areas. The island of Rodrigues forms the country's 10th administrative division.

Alone or in coalition, the Mauritius Labor Party (MLP) ruled from 1947 through 1982, returning to power from 1995 to 2000, and again regaining power in 2005. From 1982 through 1995, power was in the hands of the Mauritian Militant Movement (MMM), the Mauritian Socialist Party (PSM), and the Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) in various combinations and alliances. In December 1995, the MLP returned to power, this time in coalition with the MMM. Labor's Navinchandra Ramgoolam, son of the country's first prime minister, became prime minister himself. Ramgoolam dismissed his MMM coalition partners in mid-1997, leaving Labor in power with several small parties allied with it. Elections in September 2000 saw the re-emergence of the MSM-MMM as a winning alliance, and Anerood Jugnauth once again became the prime minister with the caveat that mid-term, the leader of the MMM party would take over as prime minister and Prime Minister Jugnauth would become the next President of the Republic. In September 2003, in keeping with the campaign promise which forged the coalition, Jugnauth stepped down as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Paul Raymond Berenger became Prime Minister. One month later, the Berenger-led National Assembly elected Anerood Jugnauth as President of the Republic. Berenger became the first Catholic, Franco-Mauritian to head the government. The move created a historic precedent of having a non-Hindu, non-majority member head the national government. The 2005 parliamentary elections returned Navinchandra Ramgoolam to office as prime minister, and he retained that position following the 2010 elections. President Jugnauth resigned his office on March 31, 2012. Vice President Monique Ohsan Bellepeau became acting President. The Mauritian constitution provides that in the event of a vacancy in the office of president, the vice president assumes the office, but only until such time as the prime minister appoints, and the National Assembly concurs, in the appointment of a new president.

Mauritius ranked first among all African countries in the 2011 Ibrahim Index, a product of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation that measures the effective delivery of public goods and services to citizens in Africa. The index ranked 53 African countries according to four overarching dimensions: safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity, and human development.

FOREIGN RELATIONS
Mauritius has strong and friendly relations with the international community, including with India and the countries of southern and eastern Africa. It is a member of the African Union (AU), World Trade Organization (WTO), the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Indian Ocean Commission, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and the Indian Ocean Rim Association.

Trade, commitment to democracy, colonial and cultural ties, and the country's small size are driving forces behind Mauritian foreign policy. The country's political history and dependence on Western markets have led to close ties with the European Union and its member states, particularly the United Kingdom and France, which exercises sovereignty over neighboring Reunion.

Considered part of Africa geographically, Mauritius has friendly relations with other African states in the region, particularly South Africa, by far its largest continental trading partner. Mauritian investors have gradually begun entering African markets, such as nearby Madagascar and Mozambique (though the pace of investment in Madagascar has cooled considerably since the 2009 coup d’etat in that country). Mauritius coordinates much of its foreign policy with the Southern African Development Community and the African Union.

Relations with India are strong for both historical/cultural and commercial reasons. Foreign embassies in Mauritius include Australia, China, Egypt, France, India, Libya, Madagascar, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

DEFENSE
Mauritius does not have a standing army. All military, police, and security functions are carried out by approximately 10,000 active-duty personnel under the command of the Commissioner of Police. The 8,000-member National Police is responsible for domestic law enforcement. The roughly 1,200-member Special Mobile Force (SMF) and the roughly 740-member National Coast Guard are the only two paramilitary units in Mauritius. Both units are composed of police officers on lengthy rotations to those services.

The SMF is organized as a ground infantry unit and engages extensively in civic works projects. The Coast Guard, led by a detailee from the Indian Navy, has four patrol craft for search-and-rescue missions and surveillance of territorial waters, and 41 small craft for coastal surveillance and search and rescue. The Coast Guard is also equipped with three aircraft (two Dornier and one Defender aircraft). A 90-member police helicopter squadron assists in search-and-rescue operations. There also is a special supporting unit of nearly 400 personnel trained in riot control.

Military advisers from the United Kingdom and India work with the SMF, the Coast Guard, and the Police Helicopter Unit, and Mauritian police officers are trained in the United Kingdom, India, and France. The United States provides training to Mauritian security officers in such fields as counterterrorism methods, forensics, seamanship, and maritime law enforcement. In May 2010, the U.S. Government donated three Safeboat Harbor Patrol boats with an estimated value of $1.1 million to the Government of Mauritius.

U.S.-MAURITIAN RELATIONS
Official U.S. representation in Mauritius dates from the end of the 18th century. An American consulate established in 1794 closed in 1911. It was reopened in 1967 and elevated to embassy status upon the country's independence in 1968. Since 1970, the mission has been directed by a resident U.S. ambassador.

Relations between the United States and Mauritius are cordial and revolve largely around trade and investment. The United States is Mauritius' third-largest market but ranks 13th in terms of exports to Mauritius. Principal imports from the United States include plastic articles, agricultural/construction/industrial machinery and equipment, medical and surgical instruments, precious stones and jewelry, aircraft parts (for Air Mauritius), automatic data processing machines, casino slot machines, outboard motors, books and encyclopedias, and industrial chemicals.

Mauritian exports to the United States include apparel, sugar, non-industrial diamonds, jewelry articles, live animals, sunglasses, processed specialty foods, rum, and cut flowers. Mauritian products that meet the rules of origin are eligible for duty- and quota-free entry into the U.S. market under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. In September 2006, the Governments of Mauritius and the United States signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement to remove impediments and further enhance trade and investment relations between the two countries. Negotiations for a Bilateral Investment Treaty are ongoing.

More than 200 U.S. companies are represented in Mauritius. About 25 have offices in Mauritius, serving the domestic and/or the regional market, mainly in the information technology, textile, fast food, express courier, and financial services sectors. U.S. brands are sold widely. Several U.S. franchises, notably Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, and McDonald's have been operating for a number of years in Mauritius.

The United States funds a small military assistance program. The embassy also manages development assistance funds, special self-help funds for community groups and nongovernmental organizations, and a democracy and human rights fund.

U.S. ARMY PFC AND AFGHAN SECURITY GUARD PULL SECURITY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. Army Pfc. Jeffery Penning and an Afghan security guard pull security during a roving patrol on Observation Post Mustang in Afghanistan's Kunar province, May 3, 2012. Penning is assigned to the 4th Infantry Division's Company C, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jenny Luince, May 3, 2012.

U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MEETS WITH CROWN PRINCE OF BAHRAIN

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, right, escorts Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa to a meeting at the Pentagon, May 11, 2012. The two leaders discussed issues of mutual concern. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo. 

Panetta, Bahraini Crown Prince Meet at Pentagon
WASHINGTON, May 11, 2012 - Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and Bahraini Crown Prince Salman Bin Hamad Al Khalifa met today at the Pentagon to discuss regional and bilateral issues, a senior DOD official said.

Panetta affirmed the long-standing commitment of the United States to a strong partnership with both the people and the government of Bahrain, said Navy Capt. John Kirby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations.

The two leaders discussed the full range of regional and bilateral issues, including Bahrain's support of United States Naval Forces Central Command, Kirby said.

They also discussed the Bahraini government's ongoing efforts to implement the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry report, Kirby said. The commission was established by the King of Bahrain in late June 2011 to investigate the civil unrest that had occurred in Bahrain in February and March of that year.

The defense secretary noted the steps already taken to implement the report's recommendations, Kirby said. But Panetta, he added, also expressed his belief that work remains to fully address ongoing human rights issues, including individual cases.

Panetta also acknowledged the release of previously requested items and services that will help Bahrain maintain its external defense capabilities, Kirby said. The United States government, he added, will continue to withhold materials that are predominantly intended for use by police and other internal security forces.

MEMBER OF HIGH PEACE COUNCIL MURDERED IN AFGHANISTAN

Photo:  Sunset in Afghanistan. Credit:  U.S. Air Force
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
ISAF: Murdered Afghan Official Rejected Insurgents' Agenda
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release
KABUL, Afghanistan, May 13, 2012 - An influential member of Afghanistan's High Peace Council and Islamic Council member, Moulavi Arsala Rahmani, was murdered while reportedly riding in a vehicle on his way to work today, International Security Assistance Force officials reported.

The ISAF offers its condolences and prayers to Rahmani's family and loved ones, officials said.

Rahmani, a former Taliban member, chose to make a positive contribution to his nation by turning his back on an insurgent movement that continues to be wholly detrimental to the future of Afghanistan, officials said.

Rahmani's decision to help make the future brighter for Afghans serves as an inspiration to all, and his contributions will be missed, officials said.

The only possible aim of this attack is to intimidate those, who like Rahmani, want to help make Afghanistan a better place for its citizens and the region, officials said. This attack is clear evidence that those who oppose the legitimate government of Afghanistan have absolutely no interest in supporting the peace process on any level but through murder, thuggery, and intimidation.

No one is underestimating the challenges in Afghanistan, or the desires of the enemies of peace to continue threatening the Afghan people and their government, officials said. The entire coalition is steadfast in its resolve, officials added, and remains ever-more confident that the government of Afghanistan is up to the tasks that lie ahead.

The ISAF and Afghan National Security Forces remain committed to stop acts of terror in order to build a secure environment that promotes lasting peace and prosperity for the Afghan people, officials said

AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES ATTACKS ON ISAF TRAINERS DEEMED AS "INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF GRIEVANCE"

Photo:  Afghan Military Personnel in Firefight.  Credit:  U.S. Army.
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Most 'Green on Blue' Attacks Individually Motivated
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.

WASHINGTON, May 11, 2012 - The Defense Department believes recent incidents in which members of the Afghan National Security Forces have attacked their coalition trainers are individual acts of grievance, a senior DOD spokesman said today.
"It's often difficult to determine the exact motivation behind an attacker's crime because they are, very often, killed in the act," Navy Capt. John Kirby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, told reporters at the Pentagon.

Kirby said these types of attacks have only been tracked since 2007. Between 55 and 60 such attacks, he added, have occurred during this time.

"Based on the limited evidence that we have been able to collect, we believe that less than half, somewhere in the neighborhood of three to four out of every 10 [attacks] is inspired, or resourced, or planned or executed by the Taliban or Taliban sympathizers," he said. "In other words, that it's related to an infiltration attempt."

Kirby said it may not even be a deliberate infiltration, but a "legitimate soldier or police officer [who] turned Taliban."

Yet, the majority of attacks, he said, are acts of individual grievance.
"You know how seriously affairs of honor are to the Afghan people," Kirby said. "We believe, again, that most of these [attacks] are acted out as an act of honor for most of them representing a grievance of some sort."

The spokesman said Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, believes the recent video of U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of Taliban inspired at least one attack.

Regardless of the motivations, Kirby emphasized the attacks leave lasting impressions on the families of the service members who've been killed.

"We believe the majority of all of them are individual acts of grievance, but look, that doesn't lessen the pain for family members who suffer from this," he said. "It doesn't lessen the importance of it whether it's an act of infiltration or not.

"It's an issue that we're taking very, very seriously," Kirby added. "But we don't believe the majority of them are Taliban inspired, resource planned [or] executed."

British Army Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, ISAF's deputy commander, told Pentagon reporters during a May 9 video teleconference from Kabul that Afghanistan's National Army and police force are working to "root out this problem with great determination."
"We've had several hundred National Directorate of Security counterintelligence operatives now join the Afghan National Army on attachment," Bradshaw told reporters. "They are embedded down to battalion level, and they are carrying out rigorous counterintelligence operations. The commanders are taking great note of where their people go on leave [and] whether their families have come under pressure."

The British general said the vetting process for Afghan army and police recruits has been refined and there's also "retrospective vetting of people in the force" with a "ruthless" approach to those members displaying signs of enemy complicity. "So a number of effective measures have been taken, and we continue to bear down on this problem very seriously indeed," Bradshaw said.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED WITH SITUATION IN MALI

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

The Political and Security Situation in Mali

Press Statement

Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

May 11, 2012

The United States is deeply concerned about the deteriorating political situation in Mali. We call on the junta leader Sanogo and the CNRD to step aside and allow for the return of full civilian rule. The CNRD’s continued interference in the government has undermined democracy in Mali, led to the de facto partition of the country, and crippled the ability of the country to respond to a developing humanitarian crisis in northern Mali.

We hold the CNRD directly responsible for the increasing suffering of the Malian people. The military needs to stand aside completely in order to let the interim administration led by President Dioncounda Traoré and Prime Minister Cheick Modibo Diarra govern freely and to organize presidential elections as expeditiously as possible. A strong, stable democratic government in Mali is essential in order for the country to deal successfully with its multiple economic, social, and security challenges.

The U.S. will maintain its targeted sanctions against Captain Sanogo and other CNRD leaders as well as the Malian government until the military stands down and democracy is returned to Mali.

SAILORS FROM USS UNDERWOOD RESCUE PERUVIAN FISHERMEN

FROM:  U.S. NAVY 

PACIFIC OCEAN (May 10, 2012) Sailors assigned to the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate USS Underwood (FFG 36) assist a disabled Peruvian fishing vessel in the Pacific Ocean. The fishermen were stranded at sea for ten days after their transmission failed. Underwood is deployed to Central and South America and the Caribbean in support of Southern Seas 2012. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Stuart Phillips/Released) 


Underwood Rescues Peruvian Fishermen
By Lt. Stephanie Homick, Southern Seas 2012 Public Affairs
USS UNDERWOOD, At Sea (NNS) -- Sailors assigned to the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Underwood (FFG 36) rescued six Peruvian fishermen drifting in a disabled vessel off the coast of Peru, May 10.


The fishermen were isolated at sea for ten days after developing mechanical problems with their vessel. They were unable to radio for help after their 12-volt batteries died.


The fishermen signaled Underwood as the ship passed by. Underwood Sailors then boarded a rigid-hulled inflatable boat (RHIB) and approached the vessel.


"When we got there, [we saw] it was this small, broken down fishing boat," said Gas System Turbine (Mechanical) 3rd Class (SW) Brian Stankowitz. "There was a kid who was about 11 years old and he was using a manual bilge pump because they were taking on a lot of water. They were basically sinking." 


After providing food and water to the fishermen, the Sailors returned to Underwood to recharge the fishermen's 12-volt batteries so they would not have to rely on the manual bilge pump to keep afloat. 


"There was a language barrier for me because I don't speak Spanish, but when we gave them food and water, I could see the thanks in their eyes," said Stankowitz. "They ate all the food and drank all the water immediately and they were laughing."


After resupplying the fishermen, the RHIB was kept in the water on standby to assist as necessary until the Peruvian coast guard arrived. 


"We were out there for about five hours and then we came back and did a crew swap so the RHIB could go back out and take care of any needs that might come up," said Engineman 2nd Class (EXW) Zachary White, who was sent to evaluate the condition of the boat's outboard motor and assist with repairs if possible. "We swapped in a fresh crew so we could stay by their side until they got help."


White and Stankowitz expressed how good it felt to be in the RHIB, assisting fellow mariners in a significant way.


"We sometimes forget the big picture of what we do when we deploy," said White. "We get worn out and we get tired, but when we actually go out and help people that need help and it's a matter of life or death, it opens your eyes to what we're doing while we're out here. It's a very, very good feeling." 


"I think the biggest thing for me is that it was a great way to start a deployment," said Stankowitz. "We're just giving and helping people."


Underwood is deployed to Central and South America and the Caribbean in support of Southern Seas 2012.


U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command and U.S. 4th Fleet (COMUSNAVSO/C4F) supports U.S. Southern Command joint and combined full-spectrum military operations by providing principally sea-based, forward presence to ensure freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain, to foster and sustain cooperative relationships with international partners and to fully exploit the sea as maneuver space in order to enhance regional security and promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the Caribbean, Central and South American regions.

CDC SAYS SUNBURNS, TANNING BEDS ARE COMMON HIGH-RISK BEHAVIORS CAUSING SKIN CANCER

Photo:  Credit NASA  
FROM:  U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
High-risk behaviors for skin cancer common among young adults
Half of adults younger than age 30 report being sunburned; indoor tanning rates highest among white womenYoung adults are increasing their risk for developing skin cancer, according to two studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute.

One study, of people aged 18-29, found that 50 percent reported at least one sunburn in the past year, despite an increase in protective behaviors such as sunscreen use, seeking shade, and wearing long clothing to the ankles. Another report found that indoor tanning is common among young adults, with the highest rates of indoor tanning among white women aged 18-21 years (32 percent) and 22-25 years (30 percent). Both reports evaluated data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Cancer Control Supplement. They are published in today’s issue of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“More public health efforts, including providing shade and sunscreen in recreational settings, are needed to raise awareness of the importance of sun protection and sunburn prevention to reduce the burden of skin cancer,” said Marcus Plescia, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. “We must accelerate our efforts to educate young adults about the dangers of indoor tanning to prevent melanoma as this generation ages.”

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, and melanoma is the most deadly type of skin cancer.  Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and from indoor tanning equipment is the most important preventable risk factor for skin cancer. Indoor tanning before age 35 increases a person’s risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent. Sunburn indicates too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

“Efforts to shape public policies awareness regarding indoor tanning generally have been targeted toward adolescents rather than young adults to help change behavior of minors,” said Anne Hartman, study coauthor from the Applied Research Program of NCI’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences.  “This study suggests that as adolescents mature into young adults, they may continue to need environmental support to develop and maintain healthy behaviors and to change their perspectives about tanning.”
Findings from the two studies:
Among adults aged 18-29 years, whites reported the highest sunburn prevalence (66 percent in 2010) whereas the lowest rates were among blacks (11 percent in 2010). Although sunburn is not as common among blacks as compared to whites, blacks can get sunburned.
The most common sun protective behaviors reported among women aged 18-29 years in 2010 were using sunscreen (37 percent) and staying in the shade (35 percent).  White women were less likely to stay in the shade, and black women were less likely to use sunscreen compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Among men aged 18-29 years, the most common sun protective behaviors reported in 2010 were wearing long clothing to the ankles (33 percent) and staying in the shade (26 percent).

Among white women aged 18-21 years who reported indoor tanning, an average of 28 visits occurred in the past year. White women aged 18-21 years were the most common users of indoor tanning.

The highest prevalence of indoor tanning was reported among white women aged 18-21 years residing in the Midwest (44 percent), and those aged 22-25 years in the South (36 percent).

Among white adults who reported indoor tanning, 58 percent of women and 40 percent of men used one 10 or more times in the previous year.

People should take these steps to protect themselves from ultraviolet light exposure that could lead to skin cancer by:
Seeking shade, especially during midday hours (10 a.m. to 2 p.m.).
Wearing clothing to protect exposed skin.
Wearing a wide-brimmed hat to shade the face, head, ears, and neck.
Wearing wrap-around sunglasses that block as close to 100 percent of ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) rays as possible.  Sunglasses safeguard your eyes from UVA and UVB rays, protect the tender skin around your eyes from sun exposure, and reduce the risk of cataracts and ocular melanoma.
Using sunscreen with sun protective factor 15 or higher, and both UVA and UVB protection.
Avoiding indoor tanning.

LT. BEN. ADRIAN BRADSHAW OF BRITISH ARMY SAYS CAMPAIGN ON TRACK IN AFGHANISTAN

Photo:  U.S. Navy Convoy In Afghanistan.  Credit:  U.S. Navy

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Afghanistan Campaign on Track, Deputy Commander Says

By Karen Parrish

WASHINGTON, May 9, 2012 - The message from coalition commanders in Afghanistan is loud and clear that the campaign is "in a good place right now," the deputy commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said today.

Lt. Gen. Adrian J. Bradshaw of the British army told Pentagon reporters today via video link from Kabul that Afghan forces are gaining depth, and their partnered operations with ISAF troops in 2011 and this year have reversed Taliban and Haqqani network momentum.

"Across the theater, [we've seen] Afghan national security forces increasing in strength, capability and confidence," Bradshaw said. Meanwhile, he added, coalition commanders get reliable reporting of Taliban commanders feeling under pressure with lack of weapons, equipment and money.

Afghan army and police forces are coordinating with civil authorities to plan, lead and carry out sophisticated, brigade-level operations, the general said.

"ISAF troops [are] more and more ... providing advice and assistance, but letting the Afghans get to grips with the major combat operations," he said. "They have surprised us, and I think they've surprised themselves, with how well they've performed in a whole range of different sorts of operations across the theater."

Bradshaw said he has witnessed partnered operations teaming Afghan and Italian, U.S. and British forces over recent weeks. In all cases, he added, he's seen "high morale, an awareness of the threat, but a confidence that we are on track."

The strategic agreement President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed last week, leading up to NATO's summit in Chicago later this month, enhances Afghan confidence that the coalition will support security efforts beyond 2014, the general said.

"It sets a very good baseline for the Chicago conference, where we hope and expect that nations will come forward and commit funding to the Afghan forces for beyond 2014," Bradshaw said. "And so it's a major achievement."

Rebuilding the security relationship with Pakistan is important to future Afghan security, the general noted.

"We've got a common interest in addressing the terrorist insurgent problem that crosses the Pakistan-Afghanistan border," he said. NATO and Pakistani officials are in talks, Bradshaw added, "and things are moving in the right direction there."

Pakistan is also important to the long-term defeat of the Taliban, he said.

"As long as [insurgents] can operate with relative impunity from sanctuaries outside the country, it's quite difficult to defeat them militarily," he said. "I would argue that in a counterinsurgency campaign, it's got to be a combination of military, economic, political and other measures anyway to effect a total elimination of this problem."

The deputy commander said coalition and Afghan leaders take very seriously the issue of "green on blue" incidents, in which Afghan army and police attack and sometimes kill coalition members. Bradshaw said the number of attacks is small, considering the Afghan force has grown to a third of a million very rapidly in recent years. "Nevertheless," he added, "we treat every one with extreme seriousness, and I can tell you that our Afghan partners do as well."

Afghan commanders are aggressively pursuing green-on-blue countermeasures, including embedding counterintelligence operatives down to the battalion level, where they are carrying out rigorous counterintelligence operations, the general said. Commanders also regularly vet new recruits and their established troops, he added.

"The commander of the Afghan National Army has told his people who have family in Pakistan that they need to get their families into country," he said, "and that his commanders are to take note of any possible linkages with insurgents [so they know] if people have come under pressure when they go on leave. And if there are doubts, ... then they're asked to leave the service," he added.

Overall, the campaign in Afghanistan aims to keep "ruthless pressure" on insurgents, Bradshaw said.

"We've got plenty of work still to do," he acknowledged. "We've got to continue building the capability, the institutional depth, I would say, of the Afghan national security forces."

Coalition leaders believe Afghan forces will take on the counterinsurgency mission by the end of 2014 and execute it to good effect, the general said.

"By that time, we expect to have considerably enhanced their logistics capabilities, their leadership, their capabilities across a range of areas which are being built right now," Bradshaw added. "We have great confidence that they'll be able to take on the job and maintain security for the government of Afghanistan."

SEC CHARGES FORMER OIL COMPANY EXECUTIVE WITH INSIDER TRADING

Photo:  NYSE.  Credit:  Wikimedia
FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
May 11, 2012
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a former executive at a Bakersfield, Calif.-based oil and gas production company for insider trading in his company’s stock using confidential information received while he was the CEO and chairman of the board.

The Commission alleges that Frank Lynn Blystone received e-mail updates prior to his March 5, 2010, retirement from Tri-Valley Corporation that contained confidential information about the company’s ongoing efforts to raise capital and problems it had encountered in a securities offering. Based on the non-public information he received, Blystone liquidated stock he held in a brokerage account shortly before a Tri-Valley announcement on April 6, 2010, that it had entered into an agreement with six institutional investors to sell its securities at a deep discount from the prevailing market price. Blystone avoided losses of approximately $36,000 when the company’s stock price fell 38 percent after the announcement.

Blystone has agreed to pay $75,000 to settle the Commission’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations.

According to the Commission’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, based on the confidential information he received, Blystone concluded that the terms of a contemplated securities offering by Tri-Valley would be onerous. He foresaw that either the company’s securities would be sold at a discount to the market price or additional securities would be issued if the price of the stock fell, which would dilute the value of Tri-Valley’s stock. After leaving the company, Blystone’s concerns about Tri-Valley’s securities offering were reinforced when he learned of plans to sell two oil drilling leases in what he characterized in an e-mail to a friend as a “fire sale.” Therefore, Blystone liquidated 50,100 shares of Tri-Valley stock that he held in a brokerage account. He sold 90 percent of those shares on April 5, the day before Tri-Valley’s public announcement.

The complaint charges Blystone with violating Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. Blystone agreed to pay disgorgement of $36,267, prejudgment interest of $2,493, and a penalty of $36,267. He also agreed to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The settlement is subject to court approval.

WISCONSIN NATIONAL GUARD AND CANADIAN IN WARFIGHTER EXERCISE

FROM:  WISCONSIN ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD
NEWS: Canadian military training with Red Arrow Brigade
Col. Martin Seifer, 32nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team commander, briefs Canadian Brig. Gen. Paul Bury, deputy commander of Land Force Western Area/Joint Task Force West, and Canadian Area Reserve Chief Warrant Officer Gordon Crossley, in the brigade tactical operations center during a visit to the brigade's Warfighter Exercise at Fort McCoy, Wis., on Wednesday (May 9). The Canadian delegation visited Canadian troops who are participating in the exercise by developing the brigade's defensive measures. The Canadian delegation also visited Joint Force Headquarters in Madison, Wis.; the 426th Regional Training Institute at Fort McCoy, and Volk Field, Wis. Wisconsin National Guard photo by 1st Sgt. Vaughn R. Larson 

Date: May 11, 2012
By 1st Sgt. Vaughn R. Larson
Wisconsin National Guard
The Wisconsin Army National Guard is training with its northern neighbors - Soldiers of the Canadian Land Force Command - as part of a joint Warfighter Exercise being held at Fort McCoy, Wis., May 7-18.

Soldiers of the 32nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team are fully engaged in the Warfighter Exercise - which tests the Brigade's ability to use available units and equipment to respond to battle situations and meet different threats.

Warrant Officer Dan Merlin, a platoon sergeant with the 38th Canadian Brigade Group Artillery Tactical Group, has seen and done many things in his 35-year military career. He has served two tours in Germany, one tour in England, three tours in Bosnia as part of the 10-year NATO Stabilization Force effort, one U.N. peacekeeping tour in Cyprus, and two tours in Afghanistan. His time in service is almost evenly split between the active duty and reserve components of the Canadian Army, referred to as the Land Force Command. He has served in a joint environment in Afghanistan.

Still, he described the past week serving with the 32nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team during its Warfighter exercise at Fort McCoy, as "a real learning experience."
"This is the first time I've ever worked with the National Guard in a warfighting environment," Merlin said. "That's brand new to me."

Merlin is one of seven Canadian soldiers who volunteered for the opportunity to train with the 32nd IBCT. The group consists of four officers and three enlisted, with skills ranging from artillery, infantry, logistics and armor. They originally had intended to serve individually in units with matching skill sets, but an issue with security clearances prevented the Canadians from using proprietary U.S. military equipment. Instead, they are serving as a "Canadian cell" tasked with planning the brigade's defense during the exercise.
"It's been a good experience," Merlin said. "There's definitely some points to improve on, but it's only going to get better. We understand that there are some issues to iron out for the next group to come down here."

Lt. Col. Dave Fraser, who works with the 38th Brigade Headquarters in Canada, said that most of the Canadian cell has never worked in a joint environment.
"Just going through the acronyms has been an experience," he said. "All in all, it's very value-added."

Canadian Brig. Gen. Paul Bury, deputy commander of Land Force Western Area, visited his troops at Fort McCoy on Wednesday (May 9), accompanied by Area Reserve Chief Warrant Officer Gordon Crossley, the equivalent to a sergeant major. Bury acknowledged the mission change for the Canadian soldiers.

"The processes are there for a reason," he said. "I'm glad you're integrated as much as possible."

"At least we found these things out right away," Fraser added.
Bury asked Col. Martin Seifer, 32nd Brigade commander, about future joint training opportunities.

"They're outstanding soldiers and individuals," Seifer said of the Canadians. "They bring a lot to the fight. It's good to have them on the team.
"I'm not averse to inviting them to the National Training Center with us next summer," he continued. "I think that would be a great opportunity for both."
Seifer noted that the Wisconsin Army National Guard may also have an opportunity to join in an upcoming Canadian exercise in the western provinces.
Planning for Canadian participation in the 32nd Brigade's Warfighter exercise began in January with the Wisconsin National Guard's Joint Staff. That discussion with the Canadian Army reserve led to a five-man squad from the 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry taking part in a one-day military skills competition March 17 in Winnepeg, Manitoba, as well as the Warfighter exercise.

"We should have been doing this many, many years ago," Merlin said. "But this is the start of building a greater relationship with the Wisconsin Army National Guard. I couldn't have met a better group of people."

HERBAL COMPANY FOUND IN CONTEMPT

Photo:  North Carolina Botanical Gardens
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, May 11, 2012
Rhode Island-based Sellers of Herbal Products Held in Contempt
  A U.S. district court judge has held Daniel Chapter One, an herbal products company located in Portsmouth, R.I., and its officers, James and Patricia Feijo, in civil contempt of court for violating the terms of a preliminary injunction order, the Justice Department announced today.

In 2008, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged Daniel Chapter One and James Feijo with making deceptive claims that shark cartilage and certain other herbal formulations prevent, treat, and cure cancer, and lessen the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation.   The lawsuit was part of Operation False Cures, a law enforcement sweep conducted by the FTC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Competition Bureau Canada aimed at peddlers of phony cancer remedies.

Following an administrative hearing and appeal, in January 2010 the FTC ordered defendants to send a letter notifying purchasers that the FTC had found the advertising claims for the products deceptive because they were unsubstantiated.   The FTC further ordered defendants to stop making health claims about their products unless the claims were substantiated by scientific evidence.

Defendants refused to comply with the FTC’s Order.   At the FTC’s request, the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch sued Daniel Chapter One and James Feijo in federal district court seeking civil penalties for the violations of the FTC’s order and a court order requiring compliance with the FTC order The District Court entered a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to comply with the FTC Order.

Nevertheless, Daniel Chapter One, James Feijo, and his wife, Patricia Feijo, continued to tell consumers that their products could treat and cure cancer, and refused to send the corrective notice to past purchasers.   The United States then sought civil contempt sanctions against the defendants.

Following a hearing on May 9, 2012, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that Daniel Chapter One, James Feijo, and Patricia Feijo were violating the preliminary injunction through statements on their radio show, statements on their websites, and by failing to send the corrective notice.

The court has provided the defendants with two weeks to remove the offending statements from their websites, send the corrective notice, and make a sufficient representation to the court that they will cease making the offending statements on their radio show.   If they fail to do so, they will begin accruing fines and face imprisonment for their contempt of court.

“Those who make unsubstantiated claims that their products can cure cancer are taking advantage of extremely vulnerable Americans,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.   “In today’s online world, it can be hard to identify where the truth ends and the scam begins.   The Department of Justice is committed to protecting consumers from bogus cancer cures.”

Marketers of phony cancer treatments tend to use tactics like the following:

                      Claiming that the same treatment will work for everybody and every type of cancer;
                      Advising customers to avoid surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and other conventional treatments;
                      Using customer testimonials to “prove” the effectiveness of the treatment;
                      Offering “miracle” treatments for serious illnesses;
                      Discrediting scientific studies, the Food and Drug Administration, and doctors.

Additional information on how to spot a scam or bogus cancer cure is available on the Federal Trade Commission’s website at: www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/curious/index.shtml.     The corrective notice defendants must send their customers states that it is important for consumers to talk to their doctor or health care provider before deciding to take any herbal product instead of taking cancer treatments that have been scientifically proven to be safe and effective in humans.

STABILITY AND MISSILE DEFENSE

Photo:  Missile Interceptor Test.  Credit:  U.S. Navy
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Reinforcing Stability through Missile Defense
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
National Defense University Congressional Breakfast Seminar
Washington, DC
May 11, 2012
Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today. I attended a number of these breakfasts as a Congressional Hill staffer myself, so I’m very pleased to be on the opposite side of the podium today.

At the State Department, I am responsible for overseeing a wide range of defense policy issues, including missile defense. In that capacity, it was my responsibility to negotiate the details of the BMD agreements with Poland, Romania, and Turkey that will enable the United States to implement the European Phased Adaptive Approach. I will touch more on this later in my presentation, but suffice to say that I have been focused over the last couple of years on ensuring that we are able to meet the vision the President laid out in his 2009 announcement regarding the European Phased Adaptive Approach.

Missile Defense Policy
Today, the threat from short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles to our deployed forces, allies, and partners is growing. This regional threat is likely to increase in both quantitative and qualitative terms in the coming years, as some states are increasing their inventories, and making their ballistic missiles more accurate, reliable, mobile, and survivable.

Recognizing the seriousness of the ballistic missile threat, the United States seeks to create an environment, based on strong cooperation with allies and partners, which will eliminate an adversary’s confidence in the effectiveness of ballistic missile attacks. This will devalue and provide a disincentive for the development, acquisition, deployment, and use of ballistic missiles. To that end, President Obama has made international cooperation on missile defense a key priority, and we are pursuing a region-by-region approach based on the following three principles:

1) First, the United States will deter adversaries through strong regional deterrence architectures built upon solid cooperative relationships with an eye toward efficiently incorporating assets and structures that our partners already have today or are seeking.

2) Second, the United States will pursue Phased Adaptive Approaches (PAAs) within key regions that are tailored to their unique deterrence requirements and threats, including the scale, scope, and pace of their development, and the capabilities available and most suited for deployment. We will phase in and implement the best available technology to meet existing and evolving threats, and adapt to situations that evolve in an unforeseen manner.

3) Third, recognizing that our supply of missile defense assets cannot meet the global demand we face, the United States is developing mobile capabilities that can be relocated to adapt to a changing threat and provide surge defense capabilities where they are most needed.

Missile defense plays an important role in the broader U.S. international security strategy, supporting both deterrence and diplomacy. Missile defense assures our allies and partners that the United States has the will and the means to deter and, if necessary, defeat a limited ballistic missile attack against the U.S. homeland and regional ballistic missile attacks against our forward deployed troops, allies, and partners.

NATO and European Missile Defense
I’d like to focus today on our work in Europe, which continues to receive a great deal of attention. In order to augment the defense of the United States and a future long-range threat and provide more comprehensive and more rapid protection to our deployed forces and European Allies against the current threat, the President outlined a four-phase approach for European missile defense called the European Phased Adaptive Approach or EPAA. Through the EPAA, the United States will deploy increasingly capable BMD assets to defend Europe against a ballistic missile threat from the Middle East that is increasing both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The EPAA will protect our deployed forces and our allies and partners in Europe, as well as augment the defense of the U.S. homeland against a potential by ICBMs from the Middle East in several ways. As part of Phase 1, we have deployed to Turkey missile defense radar, referred to as the AN/TPY-2 radar, which will provide data earlier in the engagement of an incoming ballistic missile from the Middle East. This radar enhances the homeland missile defense coverage of the United States provided by our Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) capabilities in Alaska and California.

A year ago last week, we concluded negotiations with Romania to host a U.S. land-based SM-3 BMD interceptor site, designed to provide protection against medium-range ballistic missiles. The land-based SM-3 system to be deployed to Romania is anticipated to become operational in the 2015 timeframe. We also reached an agreement with Poland to place a similar U.S. BMD interceptor site there in the 2018 timeframe.

Defense of the homeland will be further augmented by the basing in Poland of the SM-3 IIB interceptor, which is a future evolution of the SM-3 series of interceptors. The SM-3 IIB interceptor will provide us an opportunity for an early-intercept against potential long-range missile launched from the Middle East. It is important for everyone to know that we are already protected from limited ICBM attacks by the GBIs we have deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg, California.

The EPAA will eventually provide us with additional protection, ensuring that we can take multiple shots at a long-range missile heading to the United States. The EPAA – in all of its phases – also provides protection to for the thousands of U.S. military personnel based in Europe.

The Obama Administration is implementing the EPAA within the NATO context. At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government approved a new Strategic Concept and decided to develop the capability to defend NATO European populations and territory against the growing threat from ballistic missile proliferation. The Allies also welcomed the EPAA as a U.S. national contribution to the new NATO territorial missile defense capability, in support of our commitment to the collective defense of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. At the Lisbon Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government also decided to expand the scope of the NATO Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program to serve as the command, control, and communications network to support this new capability. NATO allies have committed to investing over $1 billion for command, control, and communications infrastructure to support NATO missile defense.

These decisions have created a framework for Allies to contribute and optimize their own BMD assets for our collective defense. Our Allies possess land- and sea-based sensors that could be linked into the system, as well as lower tier systems that can be integrated and used to provide point defense. For example, Germany and the Netherlands each have Patriot PAC-3s while Spain and Greece have Patriot PAC-2s. Turkey is also considering Patriot PAC-3s to address its air defense and BMD requirements. On the sea-based side, the Dutch announced in September 2011, their intention to upgrade the SMART-L air search radars on their De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates with an extended long-range (ELR) mode. In December 2006, the Dutch frigate Tromp participated in an Aegis BMD test during which it demonstrated the capability of a modified radar to track ballistic missiles.

Germany also has the SMART-L and Active Phased Array Radars (APARs) on its F-124 frigates and may decide to pursue a BMD capability in the future, while Spain has frigates equipped with a version of the SPY-1 radar used on our Aegis BMD ships. In June 2007, the Spanish frigate Méndez Núñez, participated in a BMD test off of Kaui, Hawaii, during which it was able to detect and track a ballistic missile with a minor modification to its Aegis Weapon System. Italy and Germany are also working with the United States to develop a Proof of Concept for MEADS, which will allow all three nations to harvest the advanced technologies of MEADS for follow-on systems.

Later this month on May 20-21, the NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Chicago for the NATO Summit. Our goal is to declare an interim NATO MD capability at the Summit. What this means is that the United States could transfer select missile defense assets to NATO operational control should conditions warrant which results in a limited NATO missile defense capability. Over time, through additional contributions by the United States and other Allies, NATO missile defense will become even more capable.
Separate from the EPAA, it is important to note that our European allies are contributing directly to the defense of the United States today. The United Kingdom and Denmark each host an Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Fylingdales and Thule, Greenland, respectively. These radars are critical to the defense of the United States against a potential long-range missile threat from the Middle East. I would also note that U.S. EPAA capabilities will provide protection for these important assets. Therefore, I think it’s fair to say that the defense of the U.S. homeland is linked to the defense of Europe.


Russia
An update on missile defense cooperation with Europe should also include a discussion of our efforts to pursue cooperation with Russia. Missile defense cooperation with Russia is a Presidential priority, as it has been for several Administrations going back to President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

When President Obama announced his new vision for missile defense in Europe in September 2009, he stated that “we welcome Russia’s cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.” Missile defense cooperation with Russia will not only strengthen our bilateral and NATO-Russia relationships, but also could enhance NATO’s missile defense capabilities. Successful missile defense cooperation would provide concrete benefits to Russia, our NATO Allies, and the United States and will strengthen – not weaken – strategic stability over the long term.
This means it is important to get Russia inside the missile defense tent now, working alongside the United States and NATO, while we are in the early stages of our efforts. Close cooperation between Russia and the United States and NATO is the best and most enduring way for Russia to gain the assurance that European missile defenses cannot and do not undermine its strategic deterrent.

Through this cooperation, Russia would see firsthand that this system is designed for the ballistic missile threat from outside the Euro-Atlantic area, and that NATO missile defense systems will not threaten Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities. Cooperation will also allow Russia to see that the EPAA is designed to be flexible. Should the ballistic missile threat from nations like Iran change, our missile defense system can be adapted accordingly. Working together on missile defense would also send a strong message to proliferators that the United States, NATO, and Russia are working to counter their efforts.

That said, Russia has raised the issue of a legal guarantee with a set of “military-technical criteria” that could, in effect, create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional ballistic missile threats such as those presented by Iran and North Korea. We have also made it clear to Russia that we cannot and will not accept limitations on our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners, including where we deploy our Aegis ships. These are multi-mission ships that are used for a variety of purposes around the world, not just for missile defense.

The United States cannot accept any Russian proposal that limits the operational areas of U.S. or allied ships. Such limits are contrary to international law on navigational rights and freedom of the sea. We also will not accept limitations on the capabilities and numbers of our missile defense systems. Let me be clear, our missile defense capabilities are critical to our ability to counter a growing threat to our deployed forces, allies, and partners; therefore, no nation or group of nations will have veto power over U.S. missile defense efforts.

And while we seek to develop ways to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it is important to remember that under the terms of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO alone will bear responsibility for defending the Alliance from the ballistic missile threat. This is why the United States and NATO cannot agree to Russia’s proposal for “sectoral” missile defense. Just as Russia must ensure the defense of Russian territory, NATO must ensure the defense of NATO territory.

We would, however, be willing to agree to a political framework including a statement that our missile defenses are not directed at Russia. Any such statement would be politically binding and would publicly proclaim our intent to work together and chart the direction for cooperation, not limitations. Our bottom line is that missile defense cooperation with Russia will not come at the expense of our plans to defend against regional ballistic missile threats or our plans for the defense of the U.S. homeland.

Conclusion
Today’s ballistic missile threats continue to increase in number and sophistication. This increasing threat reinforces the importance of our collaborative missile defense efforts with partners around the world, which not only strengthen regional stability, but also provide protection for our forces serving abroad and augment the defense of the United States.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your questions.

HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS SETTLE HIV DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS

Photo:  Lady Justice.  Credit Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, May 11, 2012
Health Care Providers Settle with Justice Department Over Complaints of HIV Discrimination

The Justice Department announced that it has reached two settlements today resolving claims that health care providers refused to serve people with HIV in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The first complaint was filed by a man with HIV who went to the Mercy Medical Group Midtown Clinic in Sacramento, Calif.   After meeting with the patient and examining him, a podiatrist at the clinic informed the patient of his treatment options.   Although surgery was one of the treatment options, the podiatrist incorrectly told the patient that he could not perform the surgery because of a risk that he would contract HIV from the patient during surgery.   The United States determined that the podiatrist’s actions violated the ADA by denying the patient the full and equal enjoyment of the services offered at the clinic on the basis of his disability.

The second complaint was filed by a man with HIV who went to the Knoxville Chiropractic Clinic North in Knoxville, Tenn., for chiropractic treatment following an automobile accident.   After examining him, the doctor determined that the patient required 24 subsequent appointments to treat his injuries.   On his third visit to the clinic, however, the receptionist informed him that the doctor would not see him because they could not treat people “like him.”   The United States determined that Knoxville Chiropractic Centers had a blanket policy of refusing treatment to persons with HIV in violation of the ADA.

“It is critical that people with disabilities, including HIV, not be denied equal access to goods and services, especially to health care services.   The Civil Rights Division takes discrimination based on unfounded fears and stereotypes about HIV very seriously,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.   “We applaud Mercy Medical Group and CHW Medical Foundation, as well as Knoxville Chiropractic Centers, for working cooperatively with the Justice Department to resolve these matters quickly and fairly.”

The settlement agreements require the entities to develop and implement a non-discrimination policy and to train staff on the requirements of the ADA.   In addition, Mercy Medical Group and CHW Medical Foundation are required to pay $60,000 to the complainant and $25,000 as a civil penalty, and Knoxville Chiropractic Centers is required to pay $10,000 as a civil penalty.

The ADA requires public accommodations, like doctors’ offices, medical clinics, hospitals and other health care providers, to provide individuals with disabilities, including people with HIV, equal access to goods, services, privileges, accommodations, facilities, advantages and accommodations.

The Department of Justice provides a webpage specifically dedicated to information about the ADA and HIV at www.ada.gov/aids.   Those interested in finding out more about these settlements or the obligations of public accommodations under the ADA may call the Justice Department’s toll-free ADA information line at 800-514-0301 or 800-514-0383 (TDD), or access its ADA website at www.ada.gov.  ADA complaints may be filed by email toada.complaint@usdoj.gov.

FIRST LADY AT WHITE HOUSE MOTHER'A DAY TEA

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
First Lady Michelle Obama greets guests during a Mother’s Day Tea in the East Room of the White House, May 10, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Sonya N. Hebert)


White House Women's Update: Happy Mother's Day!
Friends --
Happy Mother's Day to you and yours!


Yesterday, the President released a presidential proclamation to celebrate the special role mothers play as cornerstones of our families and our communities, and on Thursday, First Lady, Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden hosted a Mother's Day Tea for military families in the East Room of the White House and we hosted a Twitter Chat with the leadership of MomsRising.org, Mocha Moms, and Mamiverse – who were joined by their children and parents.

Additionally, please take a moment to read a new post by Lynn Rosenthal, the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and Senior Policy Director for Immigration, Felicia Escobar on the risk of Rolling Back Protections for Domestic Violence Victims.

We hope that you took a moment to watch the President's interview with ABC News on Wednesday, where he said that, "I think same sex couples should be able to get married." He made it clear that he believes that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships from getting married.
Happy Mother's Day and thank you for all that you do!
The White House Council on Women & Girls