Wednesday, August 1, 2012

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING REGULATION

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer at Public Hearing on Potential Regulation to Strengthen Anti-Money Laundering Safeguards WASHINGTON, D.C. ~ Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Thank you, Jamal. I am delighted to be here and want to thank my friend, Under Secretary David Cohen, for inviting me to this important event. The proposed rulemaking we are here to discuss is critically important, and I am here to tell you that the Department of Justice strongly and unequivocally supports it. We believe that this rule will assist us in preventing criminals from using the United States financial system to commit crimes.

A public hearing such as this one on the proposed regulation is very valuable. We want to advance an effective rule, so having representatives from the financial industry here today is so very important. Indeed, financial institutions are often law enforcement’s first line of defense. Protecting the financial system requires close collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector, and the proposed customer due diligence rulemaking would also require working closely together.

I am aware that there may be some concern in this room about the potential burdens of the proposed rulemaking. So I want to take this opportunity to explain why the rule is so important to law enforcement.

We know that a key way in which criminals launder the proceeds of their crimes is through the use of shell companies. They open bank accounts in the name of a shell company, for example, and then use that shell company to conduct business transactions that appear legitimate. In short, these individuals use the United States financial system to commit, or facilitate, crimes.

We have seen this occur with respect to corrupt officials, health care fraudsters, organized criminal groups in the United States and abroad, Mexican drug cartel members, and many others. And without access to the shell company account’s beneficial ownership information, law enforcement is often stymied in what it can accomplish. If financial institutions were required to collect beneficial ownership information, however, that would go a long way toward helping us to fight money laundering.

In the Criminal Division, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section is at the forefront of our anti-money laundering efforts and has been a strong advocate for the proposed rulemaking. One area in particular in which we have seen very extensive use of shell companies is that of kleptocracy.

Over the past two years, we in the Criminal Division have been building up our Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, through which we bring civil suits to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption.

We have recently had our first successes in this area, each of which involved the use of shell companies. Last month, we announced that we had forfeited over $400,000 in assets traceable to Diepreye Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha, or DSP, a former governor of the oil-producing Bayelsa State in Nigeria. We allege that DSP’s official salary for the entire period that he was governor was approximately $81,000, and that he had a total declared income during that period of approximately $248,000, but that he nevertheless accumulated millions of dollars in wealth at the same time – through corruption. We allege that DSP used shell companies to launder his corruption proceeds and, indeed, he pleaded guilty in Nigeria to money laundering violations on behalf of certain of those shell companies. In addition to the money that we recently forfeited, we are also seeking to forfeit, in a separate action, $600,000 worth of property held in the name of one of his shell companies.

A second example involves James Onanefe Ibori, the former governor of the oil-producing Delta State in Nigeria. Last week, we announced that we had secured a restraining order against more than $3 million in corruption proceeds related to Ibori. Ibori was convicted in the United Kingdom on money laundering and fraud charges and sentenced to 13 years in prison. We allege that he used shell companies and bank accounts in the United Kingdom and the United States to hide his money.

There are many more examples of criminals using shell companies to hide their illicit gains outside the kleptocracy area. For example, last month, we announced charges against seven individuals and four check cashing businesses for schemes to violate the Bank Secrecy Act. A key aspect of our allegations with respect to those charges is that certain defendants allegedly used shell companies that appeared to be health care related in order to conceal their illegal activity.

For every shell company scheme that we uncover, however, there are many we of course never find out about. In part, that is because financial institutions are not routinely collecting beneficial ownership information as part of their customer due diligence programs. This has significant effects on our domestic law enforcement efforts because it deprives us of critical information.

The lack of beneficial ownership information also affects our ability to provide information in response to requests from our foreign allies, who are conducting their own investigations.

The proposed customer due diligence rulemaking under consideration will help us to address these challenges, and hopefully discourage criminals from using the United States financial system to commit crimes.

The concerns some of you may have about the proposed rulemaking should be considered as the rule is finalized. But we should not let those concerns obscure the key point – that the collection of beneficial ownership information will help law enforcement bring money launderers to justice.

This rulemaking presents an important opportunity to close a gap in our financial regulations that makes it easier for criminals to move illicit proceeds through the United States financial system. Today’s hearing is an important step in the rulemaking process.

Thank you for having me here. I wish you a productive hearing today and look forward to working with my colleagues at the Treasury Department and others as this rulemaking progresses

NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN AUGUST 1, 2012

Photo:  Patroling Afghanistan.  Credit:  U.S. Army.
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Combined Force Detains 2 Taliban Insurgents
Compiled from International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Releases

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2012 - An Afghan and coalition security force detained two suspected Taliban insurgents and seized explosives during an operation in the Pul-e Khurmi district of Afghanistan's Baghlan province today, military officials reported.

During the operation, officials said, the Afghan and coalition troops found improvised explosive device-making components and ammunition while searching a compound for a suspected Taliban leader.

In other operations today:

-- A combined force detained two suspects during an operation to arrest a Haqqani network leader in the Muhammad Aghah district of Logar province.

-- A combined force detained numerous suspects during a search for a Haqqani leader in the Sabari district of Khost province. The Haqqani leader purchases weapons and coordinates attacks against Afghan and coalition forces throughout the district.

-- A combined force killed several insurgents and detained multiple suspects during an operation to arrest a Taliban leader in the Zharay district of Kandahar province.

In July 31 operations:

-- A combined force arrested a senior Taliban leader in the Tarnak wa Jaldak district of Zabul province. The Taliban leader organized an IED network responsible for multiple attacks in the region. He was also responsible for directing suicide bombings and for planning and executing attacks against Afghan security forces and civilians.

-- In the Chimtal district of Balkh province, coalition-supported Afghan commandos detained several suspects during an operation to arrest a senior Taliban leader. The sought-after insurgent is responsible for attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.

-- In the Shorabak district of Kandahar province, a combined force seized and destroyed 2,381 pounds of hashish and detained two suspected narcotics traffickers.

-- In the Muhammad Aghah district of Logar province, a combined force-directed airstrike killed several armed insurgents during a search for a Haqqani leader. The airstrike did not injure any civilians or damage any civilian property.

-- A combined force discovered IED-making materials in Ghazni province's Andar district.

-- A coalition airstrike killed two insurgents who were emplacing IEDs in Ghazni province's Andar district.

-- In Khost province, a combined force found and cleared two IEDs in the Sabari district, one IED in the Terezayi district and another in the Khost district.

-- A combined force found and cleared an IED in Laghman province's Mehtar Lam district.

-- A combined force detained an insurgent while investigating a weapons cache in Laghman province's Dowlat Shah district. The cache contained mines and mortar rounds.

-- A combined force detained two insurgents who possessed IED-making materials in Logar province's Muhammad Aghah district.

-- In Paktia province, a combined force found and cleared an IED in the Dzadran district.

-- A combined force found and cleared an IED in Wardak province's Sayyidabad district.

JOINT U.S.-ISRAEL PRESS CONFERENCE

FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, right center, meets with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, left center, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Aug. 1, 2012. Panetta is on a five-day trip to the region to meet with leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo
 

Joint Press Conference with Secretary Panetta and Minister Barak in Israel

STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, hi. And the Minister of Defense will start with a short statement.

ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER EHUD BARAK: Defense Secretary Panetta, welcome to Iron Dome Ashkelon.

I would like to thank the United States administration for its generous assistance, and in particular its latest investment in Iron Dome project.

The relationship between our defense establishments is extraordinary. Much of the credit for this genuinely special relationship must be given to my friend and counterpart, Secretary Leon Panetta, and of course to President Obama.

Our ties with the United States have extended in a range of areas, including intelligence, high-tech, and securing the qualitative military edge of Israel. The defense relationship underpins greater and wider cooperation between the two countries. It also highlights the undeniable mutual commitment that exists between Israel and America.

The American administration recently allocated additional $70 million to equip Israel with more of Iron Dome. During the recent (inaudible) the Iron Dome system has been proven to be an extremely successful technological and operational project, extremely effective intercepting more than 80 percent of incoming missiles, neglecting those who are not going to hit real targets, and already intercepted more than 100 real missiles and rockets from the Gaza Strip.

We want to thank the administration for these funds that have already been transferred to Israel defense establishment. The region, our region, the Middle East is subject to dynamic changes (inaudible). Israel and America are vigilantly monitoring all of the regional developments.

Like any relationship, from time to time there are disagreements and differences of opinion. However, with true friendship these disagreements can never alter the fundamental depth and special nature of the United States-Israel relationship. We are determined to keep it this way.

Thank you very much, Secretary Panetta, and have a successful visit here. Thank you.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA: Thank you very much, Minister Barak, my good friend Ehud, and good morning everyone. It's a real pleasure to be here on my second visit to Israel as Secretary of Defense. This is about my fifth visit to the country since joining the Obama administration in 2009.

It's also a great honor to be standing here alongside my friend Ehud, who I deeply respect as a leader, as a statesman and as a warrior.

The first call I received from a foreign counterpart after I was sworn in as Secretary of Defense was from Ehud, and I have met with him more than any other Minister of Defense.

I agree with what he has said. The U.S.-Israel defense relationship is stronger than it has ever been before. And I share his commitment to strengthening that relationship even further.

Let me begin by publicly expressing my condolences to the people of Israel for the five Israeli citizens who were murdered this month while vacationing in Bulgaria, and the many others who were injured in that attack.

The attack is a reminder that both the United States and Israel continue to be threatened by violent extremism simply because of the values that we share.

The Israeli people should know that the United States stands with them in this fight and in the fight to ensure peace in this region, and that we have a rock-solid commitment to Israel's security and the security of its citizens.

This commitment, this partnership is more important than ever because of the real security challenges that we see emanating from this region, which are a focus of my discussions with Israeli leaders during this visit and a focus of this trip to the region.

On Israel's northern shore, its northern border, the Assad regime is engaged in brutal violence against its citizens, which is both an affront to our values and a threat to regional stability.

At the same time, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities and its destabilizing activities, including its support for Assad, for Hezbollah and for international terrorism, poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire region.

The United States is also a focus of that threat as indeed the rest of the world.

On Syria, we firmly believe that a political transition is the best way forward, and we are urgently working with like-minded nations to pressure Assad and find a political solution in order to bring the violence, terrible violence, as well as the regime to an end.

On Iran, the United States and Israel share the same goal: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. The most effective way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is for the international community to be united, proving to Iran that it will only make itself less secure if it continues to try to pursue a nuclear weapon.

We have been steadily applying more and more pressure against Tehran, focusing on diplomatic and economic sanctions, and I believe these steps are having an effect. But it is clear that we need to continue to apply maximum pressure. And make no mistake, we will.

Just yesterday, President Obama announced additional sanctions to further penalize and isolate Iran, building on the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever faced.

It's my responsibility as Secretary of Defense to provide the president with a full range of options, including military options, should diplomacy fail. President Obama has made clear that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is a top national security priority by the United States and that all options -- all options -- are on the table.

The United States has made an enduring commitment to Israel's security, backed not only by our words, but by our deeds. The Iron Dome facility that you see behind me is one example of that commitment. Since Iron Dome has been deployed, it has been a game-changer for Israel's security. It has saved Israeli lives and it has achieved a better than 80 percent success rate against rockets fired on Israeli population centers.

Last March, there were 12 rocket attacks in this area -- 12 -- and this battery successfully intercepted every one of them, saving lives and preventing further escalation of conflict.

When I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington last March, he told me something that I think makes the point: These missile shields do not start wars, they prevent wars. I strongly agree with the prime minister, and for that reason I'm proud of the Obama administration's strong record of support for Iron Dome and other rocket and missile defense systems.

We've already provided more than $200 million for Israel to acquire additional batteries. And last week the president announced an additional $70 million is being transferred to Israel for the current fiscal year.

We will seek additional funding in the years ahead, based on an annual assessment that we will make together of Israel's security requirements against this threat. My goal is to ensure -- to ensure that Israel has the funding it needs each year in order to produce these batteries that protect its citizens.

This cooperation on Iron Dome is only one part of our commitment to preserving and enhancing Israel's qualitative military edge, the bedrock principle guiding our defense relationship.

One other very important way that we are -- that we are involved with is through Israel's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program. Israel is the only country, the only country in the Middle East participating in this program. And DoD's Joint Strike Fighter programs is working closely with Israel and Lockheed Martin on a package of enhancements to their Joint Strike Fighter. This will ensure Israel's unquestioned air superiority for years to come.

Let me close by noting that I am coming to the end of a trip that has also taken me to Tunisia and Egypt. This is clearly a time of dramatic change and upheaval in the Middle East and in Africa.

This time of change is also a time of opportunity -- opportunity for Israel to benefit from the development of other democracies in the region. The challenge for the United States is to try to help the people of this region achieve their goal of greater freedom and greater prosperity and to ensure the security of Israel and the region.

One important way to do that is to work towards a sustainable, comprehensive Middle East peace with a two-state solution.

Each time I visit Israel, I come away inspired by the extraordinary challenges the Jewish people have overcome in establishing this state and sustaining it in the face of war and in the face of other threats. There should be no doubt about the commitment of the United States to Israel's future security and to our deepening defense partnership.

Thank you once again, Ehud, for your partnership and for your friendship.

MIN. BARAK: Thank you. I will give you words in Hebrew with your permission.

(SPEAKING IN HEBREW)

Q: -- (inaudible) -- from Israeli Channel 10.

Mr. Secretary, you've made it clear time and again that you see no U.S. interest in Israel launching a military strike on Iran this year. Still, the Israel leadership is counting on U.S. support, diplomatic and military, should it decide to launch a strike in the coming weeks.

Can they count on it? Would the U.S. provide Israel with the required military and diplomatic umbrella if it launches a strike on Iran?

SEC. PANETTA: Look, I think we've said very clearly that we respect Israel's sovereignty and their independence, and the, you know, the -- their -- their effort to decide what is in their national security interest is something that must be left up to the Israelis.

As to future contingencies and future hypotheticals, I -- I don't -- I just don't want to engage in speculating what we will or won't do. I guess my hope is that, working together, since we have a common cause here, we are both interested in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and we have been working together and we will continue, hopefully, to work together to ensure that that never happens.

Q: Hello. Kevin Baron from Foreign Policy magazine.

Both of you today have expressed the closeness of the military relationship, and, Mr. Secretary, you said there should be no doubt about the U.S. commitment to Israel's security.

But there are doubts. And Governor Romney, representing large parts of the U.S. electorate, was just here saying that the U.S. should be doing more to protect Israel and more with its military to put pressure on Iran.

So for Mr. Barak, do you agree with those characterizations? Is the U.S. doing enough in your eyes or would you like to see more?

And since I'm pretty sure I know the answer from Mr. Panetta, why is the military not doing more? What are the reasons in your mind for -- for holding the line like you have?

MIN. BARAK: I noticed, I believe that you mentioned the candidate for presidency as well as the administration. And following the American code, I would not recommend on the different positions of competitors running -- people for -- for election in America.

I think that we have a long tradition of friendship with America running many administrations. I can count probably eight of them since Carter where I've been exposed to it personally and have seen it going deeper and deeper along the year, no matter which part of the -- which side of the political aisle in America was in power.

But (inaudible) that the relationship now with regard to our security is extremely deep and strong. Of course we expect it to be continued by the next administration upon the American election results. And we -- we strongly believe that it stems out of a deep background of shared values by our peoples and stems out from the very feeling of the American people. And I can witness here or bring my witness that it's the same on this side of the Atlantic. We also feel the same.

And I think that we are extremely thankful to the administration and to Secretary Panetta for what they are doing now. And we keep looking and watching developments all around the area, and as the Secretary said, Israel is always seeing the very crucial issues of its security and future as something that ultimately the Israeli government and only the Israeli government has to make decisions upon.

But we are not blind. We -- we are looking around. We watch all developments and try to predict most of the consequences. And of course taking into account the -- the American views, the -- the European views and the views of our neighborhood. But always (inaudible) to keep on and making sure that Iran will not turn nuclear. And when we say all the options are on the table, when the American's say all the options are on the table, we mean it and I believe that Americans means -- means it as well.

SEC. PANETTA: I think -- I think Minister Barak has said it. The United States and Israel have the strongest relationship when it comes to the military area that we have ever had. And that's true in a number of areas. We -- we continue to have very strong communications between the Defense Minister and I on almost every issue that is confronting this region, and beyond that, that is confronting the world. And we continue to have discussions not only with us, but between our military and the Israeli military.

We continue to have assistance, military aid that continues to be -- and financing that has -- that continues to be provided to the Israelis. We continue to strengthen their quality area in terms of their equipment to ensure that they always have a qualitative edge, and that -- that is made clear by the fact that they're purchasing the Joint Strike Fighter and the only country to be doing that in this region.

In addition to that, we've provided additional funding on Iron Dome and we will continue to provide funding for that so that Israel can develop its missile defenses. And in addition to that, we continue to have joint exercises between our militaries that -- that strengthen both sides.

So this is -- this is the strongest alliance that we have. They are -- they are a friend. We are Israel's friend. And we will continue to strengthen the military relationship, particularly at a time when we face so many threats abroad.

Q: Hello. (Inaudible) from the (inaudible) Daily, Israel. I would like to ask Secretary Panetta about Pollard. After 27 years in jail, Israeli spy Pollard (inaudible) U.S. security, if he will be released?

And I would like to ask both of you about talks with Iran. Isn't it time to declare that the talks of the P-5-plus-1 with Iran has failed?

Thank you.

SEC. PANETTA: With regards to the first issue, obviously that -- that rests with the -- with the administration to make a judgment as to what will or will not happen with regards to that individual. There's been a great deal of opposition about him being released because of what he did. But again that -- that decision rests with the -- with the White House as to what will or will not happen.

With regards to the issue of -- of -- of the effort to bring pressure on Iran and to try to draw them to the -- the table in order to negotiate a resolution, I think -- I think we have to exhaust -- and the prime minister has made this point -- we have to exhaust every -- every option, every effort, you know, before we resort to military action. I think that's important.

And to do that, you know, we have -- we have applied, the international community has applied very strong sanctions against them. We are ratcheting up those sanctions, as -- as made clear by the president's executive order and made clear by the European countries and others that are applying additional sanctions on Iran.

It's biting. It's having an impact there. And the result is that we did initiate the P-5-plus-1 negotiations. We have not, obviously, been able to reach any kind of agreement. But the key here is to keep putting the pressure on them to negotiate.

They have a choice. They have a choice to make. They can either negotiate in a way that tries to resolve these issues and has them abiding by international rules and requirements and -- and giving up on their effort to develop their -- their nuclear capability. That -- that's an effort we would be interested in working with them to try to negotiate.

But if they don't, and if they continue, and if they make the decision to proceed with a nuclear weapon, as the minister has pointed out, we have options that we are prepared to implement to ensure that that does not happen.

MIN. BARAK: We see both the sanctions and diplomacy going further than in the past and they have clearly certain impacts.

But to tell you the truth, we in Israel see the probability that it will lead the ayatollahs to gather around the table, look at each other eyes and tell each other that -- that the game is over, we have to give up our nuclear military program, the probability of this happening is very, extremely low.

And it's important to -- to notice that while sanctions are taking place and diplomacy takes -- takes place, it takes time, and in the meantime the Iranians are keeping enriching daily uranium, not just to -- to enlarge the -- the amount of (inaudible) enriched uranium they have, they are coming very close to having uranium enriched to 20 percent in an amount that comes closer to -- to the amount needed for a weapon. And they're continuing every day.

So it's not just a -- a -- a kind of passive symmetry. We are trying. We have nothing to lose. We have clearly something to lose by this stretched time upon which sanctions and diplomacy takes place because the Iranians are moving forward not -- not just in enrichment.

Thank you.

Q: Hello, (inaudible) with BBC News.

Secretary Panetta, is there an obligation, an understood obligation on the part of the U.S., if Israel were attacked by Iran?

And Minister Barak, Naftali Bennett has said to the BBC this morning that it seems like the Obama administration is more concerned with stopping Israel than stopping an Iranian bomb and only a credible U.S. threat would prevent an attack and Israel hasn't seen that yet. Can you respond?

SEC. PANETTA: Let me make clear that -- that we're committed to -- to the defense of Israel and to their security. And beyond that, I'm not going to discuss what contingencies we would or would not engage in were that to happen.

MIN. BARAK: I made it clear that the government of Israel and only the government of Israel will make the decisions about any issue that -- that touches the very core of our security interests and our future. I think that that's the way it should be run and that's the way we are going to run it. And beyond, -- (inaudible) Naftali Bennett?

That's it. Before we are delayed late.

DOD News Briefing with Brig. Gen. Putt from the Pentagon

DOD News Briefing with Brig. Gen. Putt from the Pentagon

U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON'S REMARKS AT ISTANBUL PRESS ROUNDTABLE

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Istanbul Press Roundtable
Remarks
Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Istanbul, Turkey
July 30, 2012

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thanks so much. Let me just start by saying it’s great to be back not just in Turkey, but in Istanbul.

I’ll just say a word about what I’m doing and maybe focusing on. It’s actually a quick trip to the region. I was last week in the Balkans, in Cyprus. I didn’t have a chance to visit Greece and wanted to pay a visit to Greece to see for the first time the new government there and to express to Greece our support for the difficult economic reforms that they’re undertaking. So I spent the end of last week in Greece, and then we have such a huge agenda with Turkey, I wanted to come, even if briefly, to Istanbul where I’ll have a chance to meet with senior Turkish officials during the day to cover the full range of issues that we deal with with Turkey, which, as always, is an enormous agenda. So I’ll do that throughout the day today. I’ll have a chance to visit the Halki Seminary this afternoon, and then for the first time to attend an iftar dinner tonight, which I very much look forward to.

When I say I’ll cover the full range of issues with our Turkish counterparts, as I say with Turkey that list is always very long and there’s never enough time, but we have a good and healthy discussion on all the critical issues of the day. Here I might just flag a few, and I would start with Syria given the dramatic situation unfolding there and the degree to which it’s a huge priority, both for Turkey and the United States, and I would simply say I think we are coordinating very well on the question of Syria. I think we have very similar interests -- both Turkey and the United States some time ago came to the conclusion that you could not have stability in Syria under the Assad regime, and that that regime needs to go. We are working very well together and with other members of the international community to increase pressure on the regime, to ensure a political transition, which is our objective, and to coordinate our efforts and assistance to the opposition so that when Assad does go -- and we’re confident that he will -- we can help ensure a stable and inclusive democratic Syria in its wake, and that’s one of our top priorities and something we’re coordinating very closely with the Turkish Government on.

I can also mention Iran, which has been another major area of coordination with Turkey. We appreciate the efforts Turkey has undertaken to enforce Security Council Resolution 1929 and other efforts to do what we believe is necessary to keep financial and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime until it meets its obligations to the international community on the nuclear issue. You know we support a dual track policy: we’re pursuing the pressure, but we’re also pursuing the talks, and we believe this can be resolved and should be resolved diplomatically. But I think again, it’s fair to say that we share an interest with Turkey in ensuring that Iran does meet its obligations to the international community and does not develop nuclear weapons.

I’ll express my strong support for Turkey on the question of the PKK, another common challenge. The United States stands strongly with Turkey and works very closely with Turkey on counterterrorism efforts and specifically the challenge from the PKK. We’ll discuss how best to do that.

We’ll talk about regional issues. I mentioned I was just last week in the Balkans and Cyprus -- these are also issues that we speak regularly about, coordinate closely on; the Caucasus as well; Turkish-Armenian normalization, which is something that we’re interested in seeing advance; Turkey-Greece, again I was just in Greece. Again, as always, Turkey plays a major role throughout the region and this will be an opportunity to cover some of those issues. I’ll be interested in hearing more about constitutional developments and discussions in Turkey, both with private sector people that I will see on this short visit and also with the government.

Finally, let me just mention the question of the economy. It’s been a priority for leaders, I think, in Ankara and in Washington, to expand economic and commercial ties. Turkey is obviously one of the more rapidly growing economies in the world -- it’s a big economy, it’s an important partner of the United States. We have a strong trading and investment relationship, but we’re convinced it could be even stronger, and I always try to take the opportunity, especially in Istanbul, to think about and talk to people about ways we might strengthen that relationship.

So you can see: a short visit but a big agenda, as always. I’m sure the day will end with me being aware that there’s so much more to be said, but that will just give me an excuse to come back, hopefully in the near future. Why don’t I stop with that, and I look forward to any questions you might have.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Syria. I think a lot of people are curious to know how the U.S. explains its inaction in Syria compared to Libya. When I say that, of course, I’m aware of the complexities in the region. But the public, the operation in Libya was explained as a humanitarian one, and I have Obama’s speech from March 2011 saying that the United States couldn’t watch because [inaudible] only 8,000 people; here in Syria we have 20,000 people killed so far. So what’s the explanation for the U.S. inaction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I wouldn’t accept the notion that there’s been inaction. In fact, we have been very active in doing what I described as the two main things, which is increasing financial and diplomatic pressure on the regime and enhancing our support for the opposition.

You know you can -- Every situation is different, and to simply say the international community did one thing in Libya and therefore why isn’t it doing exactly the same thing in Syria, I mean, the President was clear about why and how we intervened in Libya, and if you recall that series of developments, you had Qadhafi threatening to go in and kill, to be blunt about it, large numbers of people; you had the Arab League calling for an intervention, a no-fly zone; you had the UN Security Council passing a Chapter 7 Resolution calling for all necessary measures; and you had a NATO consensus that using military force would be effective and necessary in order to implement that UN Security Council Resolution. So you had regional support, you had international law, and you had a military assessment that the most effective way to deal with the challenge was through a NATO intervention.

The situation in Syria is just different, and so we continue to study the best and most effective ways to achieve our objectives -- which include seeing a political transition to get rid of Assad -- but you just can’t extrapolate and say that if in one case you use NATO military force, or any sort of military force, that every other conflict in the world lends itself to the same sort of solution.

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s almost exactly the same situation. Look at it, except for the UN and NATO support. And there the U.S. enabled that support to begin with. So --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: It’s not actually.

QUESTION: -- it’s almost exactly the same. You have –[inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Again, we don’t have the same view of whether it’s almost exactly the same. I think I’ve described a number of very significant differences ranging from the UN Security Council Resolution to the regional support to the military situation on the ground, to the assessment of military leaders as to what could be done at what cost. So again, I think it’s important not to assume that everything is exactly the same.

QUESTION: You just mentioned political transition in Syria. So what we understand is that the U.S. administration at the moment, as we speak, is not really considering a military action because of the conditions you just referred to, but more concentrating on assisting and strengthening the opposition.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Yes.

QUESTION: Last week there were important guests in Ankara, and we understand the modalities of how that transition will be is being discussed in several places around the world. Do you consider having elements of the Assad regime, now we see them as a way to form this transition, collating with SNC and the Free Syrian Army on the ground. Are you discussing this modality with the elements of the regime who just turned their faces to Assad?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: You mean elements of the regime who have left, not the ones --

QUESTION: Exactly.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON:
There are two aspects to the role of elements of the regime. As you recall in the Geneva Action Group meeting, which was May 30th or June 30th, it was the end of -- June 30th, right? We supported Kofi Annan’s proposal and conclusion -- and the countries that were around the table which is the permanent members of the Security Council and critical neighbors -- that a transitional body could include members of the regime, members of the opposition, but it would have to be agreed by mutual consent and it was clear to us that there would not be mutual consent -- for example, Mr. Assad himself and those closest to him -- so that aspect of including elements of the regime remains on the table. The United States and other members of the Action Group supported that, again with the clear proviso that anyone participating would have to be acceptable to the opposition.

Now that wasn’t directly addressing those who have turned on the regime -- former members of the regime who turned on it -- but I think the same principle might be kept in mind of mutual consent. If there are people whose participation would undermine the credibility and practicality and effectiveness of any transitional regime, then it’s difficult to see how their inclusion could be successful. But ultimately, you know this will be not something for the United States to decide but for members of the Syrian opposition to decide what’s most effective and viable for them.

QUESTION: You mentioned about the Annan plan and the diplomatic efforts. Do you think the Annan plan is still on the table?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: The Annan plan is still on the table. It’s no secret that we’re disappointed about the lack of implementation, the most critical point of which, of course, is the cease-fire and the government ceasing to use its heavy weapons in attacks on civilians and cities, and so long as that piece of it is not being implemented, obviously we’re not getting to where we need to be. But the Annan plan is on the table, and we still look to the regime and the parties to implement it.

QUESTION: Could we have another one related to Syria? Actually I would like to put this question, because you also mentioned PKK in the long list of important topics. The developments in Syria, especially in the north of Syria, we know that in five or six cities now the control is with the Kurds, they are controlling the areas. They are not really fighting, but we know that they have, they are actually a branch of PKK as we know [inaudible]. They are talking about autonomy, and they are talking about a model similar to the Northern Iraq example. We know that this has caused concern and disturbance on this side of the border. I’m sure you’re going to discuss it with the Turkish authorities, but what is the U.S. stance on the Kurdish issue inside Syria? Do you find their position on autonomy acceptable?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think the United States can be clear on several things regarding the Kurds. When we say that the Syrian opposition needs to be inclusive, needs to give a voice to all of the groups in Syria that have a legitimate voice and are fighting against -- for a political transition against -- the Assad regime, and that includes Kurds. There’s no question about that, and as we seek to work with and coordinate the opposition, that includes Kurdish voices.

But we are equally clear that we don’t see for the future of Syria an autonomous Kurdish area or territory; we want to see a Syria that remains united. We’ve been clear both with the Kurds of Syria and our counterparts in Turkey that we don’t support any movement towards autonomy or separatism, which we think would be a slippery slope. So we’re very clear about that.

QUESTION: We’ve had a lot of debate about the recent [inaudible] in American [inaudible] in Washington. We hear that [inaudible] is not very happy about some of the recent leaks in Wall Street Journal and lately Reuters last week. He is saying apparently that it’s deliberate.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: That it’s what?

QUESTION: That it’s deliberate [inaudible] in the Obama administration are not happy with them, and they keep saying they are negative. Is that realistic? Is that true? And is it a coincidence that we have three major leaks in [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: As you might imagine, I don’t have any comments on leaks other than to say that we denounce them. To put it in context, who knows who these voices are -- when you read in the paper sometimes an administration official said this or that, what can we say? Who’s passing themselves off as an official, what the source is -- we don’t know anything about it. We do everything we can to prevent people from disclosing unauthorized things, but again, I would really encourage you not to take at face value some of the things you read because we just don’t know what the source is.

QUESTION: Yeah, but we had the Reuters article from the other day, we had the August 11th phone call between Obama and [inaudible] word by word almost. It has to be someone who is very familiar with the administration.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Again, I can’t give any credence to anything that you read based on these unofficial alleged sources -- again, it’s certainly not our policy -- we do everything we can to prevent it. I would encourage people not to take at face value everything that they read.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on that one, but not about the leaks, actually about the Turkish plane which was hit in the Mediterranean? There is still not really a clear picture of what happened. We know that there is an investigation going on on the Turkish side, and the Turkish side has confirmed that the American side has shared information, all the information that you have. They are in parallel with the Turkish view that what they received from your side and from the British side and the Russians are confirming what they had, I don’t know the technical term, but what is coming from the radars, different radars. But what she was actually referring to, that one of the stories was about a U.S. official talking about yes, we know what happened but we are not going to talk about it publicly. Can you confirm that line, that you shared information with the Turkish side but you are not sharing it with the Turkish public?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: No, I wouldn’t put it that way at all. I can confirm that we’ve shared information with the Turkish side -- of course when we have a NATO ally involved in something like this it’s important to us to share views and information. I won’t comment on leaks about what people say we have and haven’t done. I’ve seen such contradictory things cited in the press that it’s almost proof that you can’t believe everything you read.

We’ve been pretty clear about this incident. I think it was just two days after the incident that Secretary Clinton put out a statement with what our view is, which is we stand by our NATO ally in solidarity. We denounced this act of the Syrian regime of shooting a plane down and killing two Turkish pilots. That’s that.

QUESTION: And do you have -- When you denounce it, it’s a violent act from the Syrian side. This is what you confirm?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Everything we know is that it was a violent act from the Syrian side -- Look, we’re never probably going to have 100 percent information about exactly what happened in a situation like this. What we do understand to be the case is that without warning Syria shot down a Turkish plane. That much we’re pretty clear about. That would be one more example of the regime’s disregard for human life and willingness to kill, and that’s why we were so clear in our statement of support for Turkey.

QUESTION: I want to change the subject. There are some cases about [inaudible] in Turkey. You may know about them, the Ergenekon case and some other cases. In this issue, the officials from the European Union made clear statements against those people who are planning to overthrow the government. But from the American side, we didn’t hear any sharp statement for supporting the cases and for denouncing the other groups. Do you agree with this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I won’t comment on specific pending court cases. I would just say as a general rule that we’ve encouraged our partners in Turkey, as anywhere, to make sure there is due process and transparency and rule of law. These are difficult, complicated cases. We don’t have full information, so I would stick to those basic principles.

QUESTION: For the last, until [inaudible] coup there was a general view in Turkey that the United States supported the generals during the coup [inaudible], so without making any comments about the last [inaudible], this is strengthening the idea of the Turkish people that the United States is not supporting Turkish democracy rights. Supporting the other side [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that, but again, we do strongly support Turkish democracy. Indeed, that was my very point: that we want to see transparency, accountability, rule of law, due process, and let the judicial system based on those principles, perform justice.

QUESTION: Every time there is the question of freedom of press in Turkey and [inaudible] we hear that Secretary Clinton is following very closely and that she is talking about it with her counterparts. What exactly is she saying? How exactly is the U.S. worried about the [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: She is following it very closely and I think she addressed it pretty clearly even when she was in Turkey. She has said publicly that Turkey, like any country, can’t fulfill its democratic promise unless there is free flow of information, that countries are stronger when there’s free expression, and both for the media and for individuals, that’s what the United States system is based on. We don’t always fulfill all of these ideals, but those are the principles that we like to believe in, and we encourage others and we believe that democracies are most successful, economies are most successful, when there’s full and free expression for individuals, business people and the media, and I think she was very clear about that in Turkey. She’s clear about it in private with Turkish counterparts, and it’s a strong belief of the U.S. administration and the U.S. public.

QUESTION: I have a question more related to your hot agenda today about the Halki and your trip to Greece. You just said it was about visiting Greece after the elections for the first time and having detailed conversation with your counterparts. Also I’m just wondering what really is being [inaudible] about Halki these days? I don’t imagine that your visit is just a coincidence. We know the U.S., the firm U.S. stance on this one already. But coming from Greece, and we know Turkey has been working on different formulas to open Halki. But that was always the notion of reciprocity with Greece on opening Halki. So what is the latest on that one? And can we take your visit as a signal that something is going to happen soon?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I would say a couple of things. The answer to most of your questions will come from the Turkish government and the Patriarchate. It’s certainly not for me to say under what laws different options might be considered for reopening Halki and the timetable as well. I’d defer to Turkish authorities and the Patriarchate.

The U.S. position has been consistent for quite some time, we’ve long advocated the opening of Halki. My visit, in some ways, is a personal one. I’ve been following this issue, interested in this issue for a very long time. I worked in the Clinton White House when Bill Clinton was interested in working with Turkey to open Halki, and he visited Halki himself, and I was with him on the trip to Istanbul in 1999. After all that work and following the issue for so long, I’ve never personally had the opportunity to go, so I very much look forward myself on this beautiful day to actually see what I understand is a beautiful site. But I wouldn’t read into it any more than that. I had the opportunity coming to Istanbul; I’ve long been interested in doing it.

It is true that there seems to be increasing discussion of opening Halki in Turkey, which we welcome and encourage, and we very much hope to see that come to fulfillment after all these years -- it would be a real positive gesture on religious tolerance and inclusion. So I very much would reiterate what we’ve said many times: We would very much like to see the school reopened. But the details that you asked about, that’s not for us -- that’s for the Turkish Government.

QUESTION: I want to ask about Iran. There is an economic embargo against Iran but they are still doing something. There was a report in the Israeli papers yesterday, the papers about the attack plan to Iran. Do you know about that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I’ve read the papers, but I don’t have any comments on other alleged comments by different officials that, according to my reading of the papers the next day, were then retracted by some of the same people, so I really don’t have a comment on that.

I think I already addressed what our policy on Iran is, and it’s clear and it’s important, because we believe that Iran is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and in violation of its commitments to the international community. We believe an Iranian nuclear weapon would be destabilizing for the region. We believe that Iran has been involved in international acts of terrorism that are destabilizing and that’s why we are so committed with the rest of the international community. This is not some unilateral U.S. thing, but look at the global support for increasing pressure on Iran because of its violations of its international commitments. We think this is having an effect, the EU oil embargo, the increasing international pressure. It’s really a vote by the international community that says Iran really needs to come into compliance. That pressure will continue until Iran does fulfill its obligations.

We believe that this increasing pressure is responsible for getting Iran back to the table to talk about nuclear issues and so that’s why we’re convinced it needs to continue and we welcome Turkey’s support for that approach.

QUESTION: We don’t seem to find an answer to this one. Is [inaudible] an American air base? Well, not an air base [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t have an answer for you.

QUESTION: [inaudible]

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Okay, thank you.




DOD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Lyon from the Pentagon

DOD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Lyon from the Pentagon

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL SITES UNINTENDED EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION

FROM: U.S. DELPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Carter Describes Possible Unintended Effects of Sequestration Law

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2012 - While the Defense Department can foresee the harmful effects of sequestration, the nature of the legislative mechanism makes it impossible to devise a plan that eliminates or substantially mitigates those effects, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said here today.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Carter explained the law's effect on the defense budget and overall strategy.

Sequestration refers to a mechanism built into the Budget Control Act that would trigger an additional $500 billion across-the-board cut in defense spending over the next decade if Congress doesn't identify alternative spending cuts by January.

"We're working with [the Office of Management and Budget] to understand this complex legislation, and we are, as I described, assessing impacts," Carter said. "But we're still five months from January. I'm hoping, to quote [Defense] Secretary [Leon E.] Panetta, that Congress -- both Republicans and Democrats -- will exercise the necessary leadership to make sure that sequestration is de-triggered. In the unfortunate event that sequestration is actually triggered, we will work with OMB, and like all the federal agencies affected by this law, we will be ready to implement it."

Carter also discussed the unintentional effects of the mechanism if it isn't "de-triggered" in a reasonable amount of time.

"While we'll not fail to prepare for sequestration, we're equally worried about a different type of error," he said. "This would occur if sequestration does not happen, but we end up triggering some of its bad effects anyway.

"For example, we do not want to unnecessarily alarm employees by announcing adverse personnel actions or by suggesting that such actions are likely," he continued. "For efficiency reasons, we do not want to hold back on the obligation of funds, either for weapons projects or operating programs, that would have been obligated in the absence of a possible sequestration."

The deputy defense secretary also noted the department doesn't want to cut back on training, which would harm military readiness as the nation faces a complex array of national security challenges. Also, Carter said, private companies that serve DOD and constitute "important members of our national security team" also need to make decisions on issues related to sequestration.

Carter said a number of these private companies have expressed alarm at "such a wasteful and disruptive way" of managing taxpayers' money and their employees' talent.

"We will continue to consult closely with them, along with the OMB, and other government departments," Carter said. "The best thing that can happen to our industry partners, as well as the department, is for the Congress to enact a balanced deficit reduction plan that halts implementation of this inflexible law."

After outlining his thoughts on sequestration's potentially "devastating" impacts, Carter re-emphasized the Defense Department's position.

"Secretary Panetta and I strongly believe that we need to deal with the debt and deficit problems in a balanced way and avoid sequestration," he said. "This will require legislation that both houses of Congress can approve and that the president can sign."

Carter said Americans, the nation's allies, and even its enemies, need to know the U.S. government has the political will to implement the defense strategy that has been put forth.

"The men and women of our department, and their families, need to know with certainty that we'll meet our commitments to them," he said. "Our partners in defense industry, and their employees, need to know that we're going to have the resources to procure the world-class capabilities they can provide, and that we can do so efficiently."

Childhood neglect, adult skin cancer

Childhood neglect, adult skin cancer

SEC. OF DEFENSE PANETTA'S VISIT TO ISRAEL


U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, right, has a private dinner with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem, July 31, 2012. Panetta is on a five-day trip to the region to meet with leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo
 

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Iron Dome System Demonstrates U.S-Israeli Partnership
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

ASHKELON, Israel, Aug. 1, 2012 - After passing through an orchard of fruit-laden apple trees and passing fields of corn and vegetables, it's jarring to come across a rocket launcher.

But that's the scene near this southern Israeli city.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited with Israeli air force personnel protecting Ashkelon from terrorist attacks. The city is less than 10 miles away from Gaza, and terrorists there have launched hundreds of missiles and mortar rounds into Israel.

The rocket launcher, radar and battle management and control module in this pasture are part of the Iron Dome network designed to track and shoot down missiles fired at Israeli cities.

This is a country constantly on its guard, even as regular workaday life continues. About 200 meters from the battery are apartment buildings with wash hanging off the balconies and a beautifully appointed playground. Farmers work in the fields, and cars whiz by on the Israeli version of an interstate. These are targets for the terrorists who use Gaza as a launching point.

The system has shot down scores of missiles that would have killed Israeli citizens since it was fielded in April 2011. During a joint news conference with Barak at the battery, Panetta said Iron Dome "has been a game changer for Israel's security. It has saved Israeli lives." Barak said it has a more than 80 percent success rate.

The battery also is a concrete example of how the U.S.-Israeli defense partnership works. The Israelis developed Iron Dome, and the United States has committed more than $205 million to fielding the system. Last week, President Barack Obama signed a law providing another $70 million to field more batteries this fiscal year. Panetta said his goal is to ensure Israel has the funding it needs in coming fiscal years to complete fielding the system.

But the defense relationship is more than just one system. Panetta said the defense relationship -- based on shared values and goals -- "is stronger than it has ever been before."

The partnership between the two nations is more important today because of the security challenges arising from the region, the secretary said. Syria, Iran and the threats of terrorism and nuclear and missile proliferation are just some of the challenges facing the region and the world.

"Our ties with the United States have expanded in a range of areas including intelligence, high-tech and securing the qualitative military edge of Israel," the Israeli defense minister said. "The defense relationship underpins greater and wider cooperation between the two countries."

Another example of the U.S. commitment to Israel is Israel's involvement in the joint strike fighter program, the secretary said.

"Israel is the only country in the Middle East participating in this program," Panetta said. "This will ensure Israel's air superiority for years to come."

STUDY FINDS PROSTRATE SURGERY MAY NOT INCREASE LONGEVITY


FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Men Treated Surgically Have No Greater Lifespan in 15-Year Follow-Up
WASHINGTON -- A major federal study led by the Department of Veterans Affairs found no difference in survival between men with early-stage prostate cancer who had their prostate surgically removed and those who were simply watched by their doctors, with treatment only as needed to address symptoms if they occurred.

"The study results have significant implications for a great number of Veterans in our care," said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki. "This study is a prime example of how VA’s research program is advancing medical knowledge in areas that are top priorities for Veterans."

The findings appeared in the July 19 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Our data show that observation provides equivalent length of life, with no difference in death from prostate cancer, and avoids the harms of early surgical treatment," said lead author Dr. Timothy Wilt. Wilt is with the Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and the University of Minnesota.

The randomized trial involved 731 men and took place at 44 VA sites and eight academic medical centers nationwide. Eligible trial participants voluntarily agreed beforehand that to take part in the study they would be randomly assigned to one treatment or the other.

Known as the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, or PIVOT, the study was conducted and funded by VA’s Cooperative Studies Program, with additional funding from the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The first trial group had a radical prostatectomy—surgical removal of the walnut-sized prostate. Surgery is generally performed in the belief it can lower the risk of prostate cancer spreading and causing death. Evidence had been lacking as to the treatment’s effectiveness, especially for men whose cancer was initially detected only on the basis of a blood test—the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. In most cases, these tumors are not large enough to be felt during a doctor’s exam and do not cause any symptoms.

The second trial group was the "observation group." In this approach, physicians generally do not provide immediate surgical or radiation therapy. Rather, they carefully follow men and provide treatments aimed at relieving symptoms, such as painful or difficult urination, if and when the cancer progresses and causes bothersome health problems.

The trial followed patients between eight and 15 years.

When Wilt and colleagues analyzed the results, they found no difference in death rates between the two groups, either from any cause whatsoever or specifically from prostate cancer.

In terms of quality of life for men in the study, the surgery group experienced nearly double the rate of erectile dysfunction—81 percent versus 44 percent—and roughly three times the rate of urinary incontinence—17 percent versus 6 percent. Bowel dysfunction was similar between the groups, 12 percent versus 11 percent.

Dr. Robert A. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health, said the trial "provides crucial information that will help physicians and patients make informed decisions on how best to treat prostate cancer, which affects so many Veterans who rely on VA health care."

Dr. Joel Kupersmith, VA’s Chief Research and Development Officer, added: "This trial, the largest ever comparing these two treatments, provides definitive evidence on a subject that affects millions of Veterans and all men above a certain age."

While PIVOT found no difference in overall mortality or prostate cancer deaths between the two groups for men who had cancers with a PSA value of 10 or less, the authors say there may be a survival benefit to surgery for men with PSA scores above 10, or other clinical results indicating more aggressive, higher-risk tumors.

Only about one in five men in PIVOT had tumors classified as high-risk. Wilt said this proportion is representative of U.S. men with an early-stage prostate cancer diagnosis based on PSA testing and follow-up biopsy. Prostate cancer is usually slow-growing, and most men with PSA-detected prostate cancer do not die from the disease or develop health problems related to it, even if it is not treated with surgery or radiation.

For more information on the Cooperative Studies Program and VA research overall, visit www.research.va.gov.

EPA'S QUEST FOR SAFER FIRE RETARDANTS

Photo Credit:  U.S. Air Force.
FROM: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 30, 2012

WASHINGTON - In its quest to identify possible substitutes for a toxic flame retardant chemical known as decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a draft report on alternatives. This comprehensive assessment, developed with public participation under EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) program, profiles the environmental and human health hazards on 30 alternatives to decaBDE, which will be phased out of production by December 2013.

DecaBDE is a common flame retardant used in electronics, vehicles, and building materials. It can cause adverse developmental effects, can persist in the environment and can bioaccumulate in people and animals. This technical assessment can help manufacturers identify alternatives to decaBDE. In addition, EPA will continue to work with manufacturers to investigate both chemical and non-chemical alternatives for flame retardants.

"EPA is using all of its tools to reduce the use of hazardous flame retardant chemicals like decaBDE and identify safer, functional substitutes to protect people’s health and the environment," said Jim Jones, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). "Virtually everyone agrees that EPA needs updated authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to more effectively assess and regulate potentially harmful chemicals like flame retardants. As EPA continues to stress the need for comprehensive legislative reform to TSCA, we are also targeting actions on a broader group of flame retardants to reduce human and environmental risks."

Today’s draft report is the latest in a series of actions the agency is taking to address flame retardants made with bromine. Other actions include:

- On June 1, 2012, EPA released a TSCA work plan of 18 chemicals which the agency intends to review and use to develop risk assessments in 2013 and 2014, including three flame retardant chemicls. EPA is currently developing a strategy, scheduled for completion by the end of this year, that will address these three and a broader set of flame retardant chemicals. This effort will aid the agency in focusing risk assessments on those flame retardant chemicals that pose the greatest potential concerns. EPA anticipates initiating the risk assessments on this category of chemicals in 2013.

- On April 2, 2012, EPA proposed actions under TSCA that will require manufacturers, importers, and processors of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants to submit information to the agency for review before initiating any new uses of PBDEs after December 31, 2013. Those who continue to manufacture, import, or process after December 31, 2013, would be subject to a testing requirement under TSCA. EPA is accepting comments on this proposal until July 31, 2012.

- In 2009, EPA developed action plans on PBDEs (including pentaBDE, octaBDE, and decaBDE) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) that summarized available hazard, exposure and use information; outlined potential risks; and identifided the specifc steps the agency is pursuing under TSCA. The alternatives analysis for decaBDE was included in the action plan.

The alternatives to decaBDE characterized in the report are already on the market and will be used increasingly as decaBDE is phased out. The alternatives have differing hazard characteristics and are associated with trade-offs. For example, some alternatives that appear to have a relatively positive human health profile may be more persistent in the environment. Some alternatives appear to be less toxic than decaBDE. Preliminary data suggests that these flame retardants may have a lower potential for bioaccumulation in people and the environment. It is important to understand that these health and environmental profiles are largely based on computer-model generated estimates, and that the models are limited in their ability to predict concern. Laboratory testing and ongoing environmental monitoring is necessary to fully understand the potential for concern associated with these chemicals.

EPA’s Design for the Environment Alternatives Assessment Program helps industries choose safer chemicals and offers a basis for informed decision-making by providing a detailed comparison of the potential public health and environmental impacts of chemical alternatives. Throughout the partnership, stakeholders, including chemical suppliers, product manufacturers, and non-government organizations have provided valuable information to support the development of these draft reports. EPA is seeking stakeholder and public input on this draft report for 60 days.

SEC CHARGES MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES FOR MISCONDUCT IN CONNECTION WITH CHINESE REVERSE MERGER COMPANY

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONThe Securities and Exchange Commission today filed settled fraud charges, among others, against New York-based fund adviser Peter Siris (Siris) in connection with its investigation into China Yingxia International, Inc. (China Yingxia), a now defunct Chinese reverse merger company. The illicit conduct by Siris and/or his associated entities — Guerrilla Capital Management, LLC (Guerrilla Capital), and Hua Mei 21st Century, LLC (Hua Mei) — included insider trading, trading in violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M, fraudulent representations in a securities purchase agreement, misstatements to investors in pooled investment vehicles, acting as an unregistered securities broker, and unregistered sales of securities.

In a separate action, the SEC charged Ren Hu (Hu), former chief financial officer of China Yingxia, for fraudulent representations in Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) certifications, lying to auditors, failure to implement internal accounting controls, and aiding and abetting China Yingxia’s failure to implement internal controls; and Alan Sheinwald (Sheinwald), and his investor relations firm Alliance Advisors, LLC (Alliance), for acting as unregistered securities brokers.

Additionally, the SEC reached settlements with several other individuals connected to China Yingxia, including Peter Dong Zhou (Zhou) for insider trading, unregistered sales of securities, and aiding and abetting unregistered broker activity; Steve Mazur (Mazur) for acting as an unregistered securities broker; and James Fuld, Jr. (Fuld) for unregistered sales of securities.

Siris and His Entities
The SEC alleges that Siris, a well-known fund manager and active investor in Chinese companies, engaged in a broad range of misconduct. Siris, who has authored one book concerning investing, and until recently was a financial columnist for a New York publication, manages two New York-based hedge funds through which he invested $1.5 million in China Yingxia. Along with being one of three "consultants" that raised money for China Yingxia, Siris and his consulting firm Hua Mei, acted as advisers to China Yingxia, which included review of China Yingxia’s Commission filings and press releases, among other things. Hua Mei received cash and shares, which were received from the CEO’s father and were improperly sold without any registration statement in effect.

Further, in February and March 2009, Siris sold China Yingxia stock while in possession of material, non-public information centered on its CEO’s illegal activity, status of operations at China Yingxia, and a press release concerning the same. Siris, on behalf of his funds, sold over 1.1 million shares in a matter of weeks before China Yingxia’s press release, realizing more than $172,000 in ill-gotten gains. Siris also omitted material information and made material misrepresentations to investors in his funds concerning his role with China Yingxia, depriving his investors of information material to their continued investment decisions with Siris’s funds.

In addition, after agreeing to go "over-the-wall" in connection with ten confidentially marketed offerings for Chinese companies, Siris engaged in insider trading in breach of his duty to not trade on the information. And Siris sold short the securities of two Chinese companies prior to participating in firm-commitment offerings in violation of Rule 105. Further, Siris fraudulently represented in one securities purchase agreement that he had not traded the issuer’s securities, but he had in fact sold short the issuer’s stock. As a result of these violations, Siris generated almost $289,000 in ill-gotten gains

The SEC filed action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Siris and his entities, alleging violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Rule 105 of Regulation M, and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, these defendants have agreed to pay disgorgement in the amount of $592,942.39, prejudgment interest of $70,488.83, and Siris has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $464,011.93. Defendants Siris, Guerrilla Capital, and Hua Mei, also have consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violations of the respective provisions of the Securities Act, Exchange Act, and Advisers Act. The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court.

Hu, Sheinwald, and Alliance Advisors
The SEC also filed fraud charges against China Yingxia’s former CFO, Hu, for material misrepresentations concerning his role in designing disclosure and internal controls. In several SOX certifications, the SEC alleges that Hu misrepresented that he had designed or caused to be designed such controls, when he had not done so. The SEC also alleges that Hu knowingly failed to implement internal accounting controls, aided and abetted China Yingxia’s failure to do so, and lied to auditors concerning controls and fraud by the CEO, who has reportedly been convicted by Chinese authorities for illegal fundraising activities, similar to a Ponzi scheme.

In addition, the SEC alleges that Sheinwald and his investor relations firm Alliance Advisors, who were also retained as "consultants," acted as unregistered securities brokers in connection with raising money for China Yingxia and at least one other issuer.

The SEC filed action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hu alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, and 13b2-2 thereunder, and further aided and abetted violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. The SEC’s action against Sheinwald and Alliance Advisors alleges violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.

Administrative and/or Cease-and-Desist Proceedings
Finally, today the SEC issued administrative and cease-and-desist orders against Zhou and Mazur, and a cease-and-desist order against Fuld. The order against Zhou, who assisted China Yingxia with its reverse merger and virtually all of its public company tasks, finds that he willfully engaged in insider trading in the securities of China Yingxia, unregistered sales of securities, and aided and abetted unregistered broker-dealer activity. Zhou agreed to pay disgorgement in the amount of $20,900, prejudgment interest of $2,463.39, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $50,000. Zhou further agreed to a collateral bar, penny stock bar, and investment company bar, with the right to apply for reentry after three years. The order involving Mazur, whose firm was also retained as a "consultant" to China Yingxia, finds that he willfully acted as an unregistered broker by selling away from the firm with which he was associated in connection with China Yingxia and at least one other issuer. Mazur agreed to pay disgorgement in the amount of $126,800, prejudgment interest of $25,550.01, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $25,000. Mazur further agreed to a collateral bar, penny stock bar, and investment company bar, with the right to apply for reentry after two years. The cease-and-desist order against Fuld finds that he engaged in unregistered sales of securities, and he agreed to pay disgorgement of $178,594.85, and $38,096.70 in prejudgment interest.

The New York Regional Office’s Celeste A. Chase, Eduardo A. Santiago-Acevedo, and Osman E. Nawaz conducted the investigation, which is continuing, with assistance from Frank Milewski. The SEC thanks the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for its assistance in this matter.

AFGHANISTAN'S MINERAL WEALTH EXPLOITATION


FROM: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Using the HyMap data, two surface materials maps of Afghanistan were produced: one that shows carbonates, phyllosilicates, sulfates, altered minerals, and other materials spatial distribution of minerals with diagnostic absorption features in the shortwave infrared wavelengths and another that depicts iron-bearing minerals and other materials having diagnostic absorption features at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. The 31 classes in the list of materials comprising each map key represent a necessary compromise between striving for the highly focused level of detail achievable in the best calibrated flight lines and seeking identifications that were reliably detected across the entire country and present in large enough areas to be perceptible at the scale of a national map.


Surface Materials Map of Afghanistan: Carbonates, Phyllosilicates, Sulfates, Altered Minerals, and Other Materials 


FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DOD, U.S. Agencies Help Afghanistan Exploit Mineral Wealth
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 30, 2012 - Officials from the Defense Department and the U.S. Geological Survey gathered this month at Afghanistan's U.S. Embassy to unveil what the director of a DOD task force called a "treasure map" of the nation's mineral resources.

At the event, James Bullion of the Defense Department's Task Force for Business and Stability Operations, or TFBSO, shared the podium with USGS Director Marcia McNutt, who described a new remote-sensing technology that has made it possible, for the first time, she said, to map more than 70 percent of the country's surface and identify potential high-value deposits of copper, gold, iron, and other minerals.

DOD officials and USGS scientists work as partners in this initiative with the Afghanistan government and scientists and engineers from the Afghan Ministry of Mines and the Afghan Geological Survey.

"The task force is a Defense Department organization charged to help spur and grow the private-sector economy in Afghanistan, ... and clearly, the mineral and oil and gas extractive areas are critical to that effort," Bullion said.

Since 2009, the DOD task force has funded work there by USGS, including the effort to operate, with help from NASA, an airborne instrument called a hyperspectral imager to map surface indicators of natural resources below Afghanistan's rugged mountainous terrain.

"The work that the U.S. Geological Survey has done has been critical to the whole process," Bullion said. "In essence, what they've done is built a treasure map for Afghanistan, which is full of these hidden mineral and oil and gas treasures."

Scientists from USGS began working in Afghanistan in 2004, when the agency was asked to help rebuild the nation's natural resource sector, McNutt said. The geological data USGS scientists found was 50 to 75 years old, originating from the late 1960s when a Soviet mission for about 10 years helped the Afghan government with geological mapping.

From August to October 2007, NASA contributed its mid-wing, long-range WB-57 aircraft to fly the USGS hyperspectral instrument over Afghanistan, mapping more than 70 percent of the country. In 2009, USGS and the DOD task force became partners and worked closely, Bullion said, to help to get the hyperspectral data into a format that mining companies could use to evaluate opportunities in the mineral sector.

"Hyperspectral data uses the reflectance of light and uses the fact that different minerals reflect light in different wavelength bands," McNutt explained. "Every mineral has its own signature or fingerprint."

Hyperspectral imaging characterizes minerals only on the surface of the Earth, not underground where the minerals are mined. The technology wouldn't work well in countries where forests, grasses and soil cover the ground, but it's perfect for Afghanistan. Over 50 million years, the slow-motion collision of Iran and Eurasian tectonic plates beneath Afghanistan formed rugged, rocky mountains out of what used to be mineral-laden subsurface rock.

The hyperspectral instrument "can be used in a place where there's no vegetative cover, and Afghanistan happens to have almost no vegetation and it is resource-laden," McNutt explained. "And because of plate tectonic properties, ... it has been tectonically uplifted and tectonically unroofed to reveal at the surface the mother lode of resources."

Over 43 days and 23 flights, USGS flew nearly 23,000 miles, collecting data that covered 170,000 square miles.

When compared with conventional ground mapping, McNutt added, hyperspectral technology has accelerated by decades the ability to identify the most promising areas for Afghan economic development.

In December, supported by the DOD task force, officials from Afghanistan's Ministry of Mines opened tender processes, or auctions, for exploration and later exploitation of four project areas in the country.

The Badakhshan gold project is in Badakhshan province, the Zarkashan copper and gold project is in Ghazni province, the Balkhab copper project spans Sar-I-Pul and Balkh provinces, and the Shaida copper project is in Herat province.

Bids for the Balkhab project were opened July 24, and a preferred bidder will be announced when the evaluations are complete, ministry officials said in a statement.

At the Afghan embassy event, a USGS official characterized the value of Afghanistan's mineral and other deposits.

"We have identified somewhere between 10 and 12 world-class copper, gold, iron ore [and] rare earth deposits that no one knew were there," Jack Medlin, regional specialist for the Asia-Pacific region in the USGS international programs office, told the audience.

"In our 2007 publication, we gave an estimate of undiscovered mineral resources for the country, and ... you can add up the tonnages of copper, lead, gold, iron, silver and so forth. ... But this country has many more world-class mineral deposits than most countries in the world, if not more than any country," he said.

That doesn't mean it will be easy to turn these resources into national income, Medlin told American Forces Press Service.

Once a company wins a bid for an Afghan site, it will gather all information about the site, including the hyperspectral data and any geologic, geochemical and geophysical information, he said. It will also send its own geologists to the site to do detailed mapping and arrange for detailed airborne gravity and magnetic studies, Medlin said, which gives the company a subsurface three-dimensional picture of the ore deposit.

The company checks the absolute grade and tonnage of the ore deposit by drilling through the ore body, collecting a rock core and sending it to a chemical laboratory for analysis. If the results are positive, he added, the company creates a mine plan and determines the mining method.

"You're talking about a capital investment of billions of dollars up front before you've even mined a pound of ore," Medlin said. "It's the reason companies want well-defined mining laws ... and they want all the legal and regulatory requirements spelled out."

In the Afghan mining brochure, Minister of Mines Wahidulla Shahrani describes major road and rail development and ongoing work on electric transmission lines, a favorable legal and fiscal regime, stable mineral laws and regulations, and physical security for working mines.

A mine protection unit has 1,500 security personnel at the Aynak copper mine in Logar province, according to the Ministry of Mines, and the Afghan government plans to increase the number of personnel to 7,000 for future mining projects.

At the embassy event, Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States Eklil Hakimi thanked DOD and the USGS for their help with the mining enterprise and discussed the potential economic benefits.

"The estimated direct revenue to be generated by royalties and taxes from the extractive industries could reach up to $1.5 billion by 2016 and exceed $3.7 billion by 2026," Hakimi said, "and will become a major source of employment, with 165,000 jobs anticipated by 2016 and up to half a million by 2026.

"As we recently stressed at the Tokyo Conference [on Afghanistan in July]," he continued, "a peaceful future for Afghanistan rests in development and a sustainable economy, one that's not dependent on international assistance and can provide jobs for the people."

In response to a question from the audience, McNutt said the Afghans are eager to embrace modern geophysical techniques and technology and to be responsible for their own success.

"The word that I hear is [the Afghans] want to do this themselves," the USGS director added. "They ... are eager to take leadership and ownership of these projects and learn how to do it because they're excited about rebuilding."

SUBSIDIARY OF TRW AUTOMOTIVE AGREES TO PAY $5.1 MILLION FINE FOR PRICE FIXING

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Monday, July 30, 2012
German Subsidiary of TRW Automotive Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price Fixing on Automobile Parts Installed in U.S. Cars

WASHINGTON – TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH, a Koblenz, Germany-based subsidiary of U.S.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., has agreed to plead guilty for its involvement in a conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels sold to two German automobile manufacturers, and installed in cars sold in the United States , the Department of Justice announced today. This is the second case filed relating to occupant safety systems sold to auto manufacturers as part of the department’s ongoing antitrust auto parts investigation.

TRW Deutschland has agreed to pay a $5.1 million criminal fine and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation. The plea agreement is subject to court approval.

"By agreeing to fix the prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels, the conspirators eliminated competition for occupant safety parts in cars sold to U.S. consumers," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. "As a result of the division’s close work with its law enforcement partners, more than $785 million in criminal fines have been imposed in this ongoing investigation.


According to a one-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, TRW Deutschland engaged in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels sold to automakers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to court documents, the defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels lasted from January 2008 until at least June 2011. The department said that the TRW Automotive subsidiary and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by agreeing, during meetings and conversations, to allocate the supply of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels and sold the occupant safety parts at noncompetitive prices to automakers in the United States and elsewhere.

Including TRW Deutschland, seven companies and 10 individuals have been charged in the department’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and bid rigging in the auto parts industry. Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd, DENSO Corp., Yazaki Corp., G.S. Electech Inc., Fujikura Ltd. and Autoliv Inc. pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay a total of more than $785 million in criminal fines. Additionally, seven of the individuals – Junichi Funo, Hirotsugu Nagata, Tetsuya Ukai, Tsuneaki Hanamura, Ryoki Kawai, Shigeru Ogawa and Hisamitsu Takada – have been sentenced to pay criminal fines and to serve jail sentences ranging from a year and a day to two years each. Makoto Hattori and Norihiro Imai have pleaded guilty and await sentencing. Kazuhiko Kashimoto is scheduled to plead guilty on Aug. 22, 2012.

TRW Deutschland is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine for corporations. 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.

Today’s prosecution arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the FBI’s Detroit Field Office with the assistance of the FBI headquarters’ International Corruption Unit.

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed