FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, November 4, 2013
Two Florida Residents Arrested in Connection with International Lottery Scam
Two individuals charged in connection with the operation of a fraudulent lottery scheme were arrested today in south Florida following their indictment by a federal grand jury in Miami on Oct. 31, 2013, the Justice Department, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Marshals Service announced. Althea Angela Peart and Charmaine Anne King were arrested on charges that they and their co-conspirators, some of whom operated from outside of the U.S., participated in a fraudulent lottery scheme. As alleged in the indictment, co-conspirators induced elderly victims in the U.S. to send thousands of dollars to Peart and King to cover fees for lottery winnings that victims had not won. The indictment, unsealed with Peart’s and King’s arrests, is part of the government’s crackdown on fraudulent international lottery schemes.
“Operators of foreign lottery schemes often cannot succeed without the assistance of co-conspirators in the United States,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “These schemes can cause devastating financial harm to their victims, and the Department of Justice is committed to prosecuting those who engage in this criminal activity.”
From March 2012, Peart’s and King’s co-conspirators are alleged to have contacted victims in the U.S. and falsely informed them that they had won more than a million dollars in a lottery. According to the indictment, the co-conspirators sent letters to the victims from a purported sweepstakes company in the U.S. and included false and fraudulent cashier’s checks made out to the victims for thousands of dollars. As alleged in the indictment, these letters told victims to call “claims agents” who were actually co-conspirators, and when the victims called the purported claims agents, the agents informed the victims that they had to pay several thousand dollars in order to collect their purported lottery winnings. The claims agents allegedly told the victims to deposit the cashier’s checks in the victims’ bank accounts in order to purportedly cover the money they had to pay. The co-conspirators allegedly instructed the victims on how to send and wire this money to Peart and King.
The indictment charges that Peart and King each kept a percentage of the money they received from victims and sent the rest of the money to their co-conspirators. According to the indictment, because the cashier’s checks were false and fraudulent and had no value, any payments the victims sent to Peart and King were funded by their own money, and victims never received any lottery winnings.
“As fraudsters from outside of the United States seek to take advantage of some of the most vulnerable in our community, they rely on co-conspirators in the United States for help,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Wifredo A. Ferrer. “As I have previously stated, we will continue to vigorously pursue and prosecute those responsible for these illegal schemes.”
Peart is charged with conspiracy, eight counts of mail fraud and three counts of wire fraud and with committing these offenses via telemarketing. King is charged with conspiracy, four counts of mail fraud and three counts of wire fraud and with committing these offenses via telemarketing.
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is committed to investigating fraudulent lottery schemes designed to defraud innocent victims,” said U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge in Miami Ronald Verrochio. “Combating international lottery fraud is a priority of the Postal Inspection Service given that a significant amount of the money in these frauds is sent through the U.S. mail. We are actively taking steps to educate Americans about the dangers of lottery frauds.”
“These arrests show that HSI is committed to stopping individuals who prey on our senior citizens,” said Special Agent in Charge of HSI Miami Alysa D. Erichs. “We will continue to work with our international partners and other law enforcement agencies to put an end to these criminal organizations.”
“The U.S. Marshals Service is proud to be part of the team bringing scam artists such as these to justice,” said Acting U.S. Marshal Neil DeSousa. “These international lottery scams that prey on our elderly cannot be allowed to continue. The arrests of these two perpetrators are a testament to federal law enforcement’s dedication to protecting our citizens against all types of crimes.”
Assistant Attorney General Delery and U.S. Attorney Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Marshals Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Director Jeffrey Steger and Trial Attorney Kathryn Drenning with the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, Consumer Protection Branch.
An indictment is merely an allegation, and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
VIEW FROM SPACE OF THE RETREAT OF UPSALA GLACIER
 |
| Image Credit: NASA Caption: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs at NASA-Johnson Space Center |
FROM: NASA
Upsala Glacier Retreat
This photograph by an astronaut on the International Space Station highlights the snout of the Upsala Glacier (49.88°S, 73.3°W) on the Argentine side of the North Patagonian Icefield. Ice flow in this glacier comes from the north (right in this rotated image). Dark lines of rocky debris (moraine) within the ice give a sense of the slow ice flow from right to left.
A smaller, side glacier joins Upsala at the present-day ice front -- the wall from which masses of ice periodically collapse into Lago (Lake) Argentino. In this image, the 2.7 kilometer-wide ice front casts a thin, dark shadow. The surface of Lago Argentino is whitened by a mass of debris from a recent collapse of the ice wall. Larger icebergs appear as white dots on the lake surface at image left.
Remotely sensed data, including astronaut images, have recorded the position of the ice front over the years. A comparison of this October 2013 image with older data (January 2004 and January 2001, as well as October 2009) indicates that the ice front has moved backwards -- upstream -- about 3 kilometers (2 miles). This retreat is believed by scientists to indicate climate warming in this part of South America. The warming not only causes the ice mass to retreat, but also to thin. A study of 63 glaciers by Rignot et al has shown that this is a general trend in Patagonia.
The water color in Lago Argentino is related to the glacier flow. The lake receives most of the ice from the glacier and thus receives most of the “rock flour” -- rocks ground to white powder by the ice scraping against the rock floor of the valley. Glacial flour turns the lake a gray-green hue in this image. The darker blue of the smaller lakes (image bottom) indicates that they are receiving much less rock flour.
This image was taken on Oct. 2, 2013, with a Nikon D3 digital camera using a 300 millimeter lens, and is provided by the ISS Crew Earth Observations experiment and Image Science & Analysis Laboratory, Johnson Space Center. It has been cropped and enhanced to improve contrast, and lens artifacts have been removed.
NEW VIRGINIA-CLASS ATTACK SUBMARINE TO BE COMMISSIONED IN EARLY 2014
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Story Number: NNS131102-02Release Date: 11/2/2013 6:16:00 PM
By Lt. Timothy Hawkins, Submarine Group 2 Public Affairs
GROTON, Conn. (NNS) -- The Navy's 11th Virginia-class attack submarine was christened in Groton, Conn., Nov. 2, during a late-morning ceremony at the General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) shipyard.
The ceremony marked the official naming of Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) North Dakota (SSN 784). The ship is currently under construction by both GDEB and Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, through a teaming arrangement.
Ship sponsor Katie Fowler, wife of retired Vice Adm. Jeff Fowler, was on hand to officially christen the submarine by breaking a bottle of sparkling wine against the back of the boat's sail.
"In the name of the United States, I christen thee North Dakota. May God bless her and all that sail in her," said Mrs. Fowler just before giving the bottle a brisk swing.
During keynote remarks, Commander Submarine Forces Vice Adm. Michael Connor told more than 4,500 dignitaries, Sailors, and shipyard personnel in attendance that the Navy needs the nuclear-powered attack submarine as soon as "practical."
"The Submarine Force eagerly awaits the day when USS North Dakota will assume the watch and establish a legendary reputation worthy of the name North Dakota," said Connor. "There's still much to be done, and there is not a moment to lose."
PCU North Dakota is the second Navy ship named after the 39th state. The first was a Delaware-class dreadnought battleship that served in World War II.
SSN 784's name was chosen in honor of North Dakota's proud military heritage. Seventeen North Dakotans have been awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in combat.
In future years, the attack submarine will deliver speed, agility, stealth, endurance and firepower to combatant commanders directing U.S. military operations around the globe.
Virginia-class subs have improved stealth and sophisticated surveillance capabilities. Their special warfare enhancements enable them to meet multiple mission requirements.
North Dakota will be able to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, littoral waters or other sea-based forces. Its reactor plant is designed so that it will not require refueling during the planned life of the ship, reducing lifecycle costs while increasing time at sea.
North Dakota's construction will continue during the next few months as its 138 crewmembers prepare to evaluate the ship's seaworthiness and operational performance during sea trials.
"The Navy and the nation count on our submarine force to deliver relevant and powerful capabilities where and when it matters, and nothing is more important to meeting that commitment than building the most capable submarines in the world," said Rear Adm. Ken Perry, commander, Submarine Group 2.
In addition to surveillance missions, North Dakota will be able to perform anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare; deliver and support special forces; and conduct mine delivery and minefield mapping operations.
"Every phase of submarine construction requires world-class expertise and close partnership, and today's christening at Electric Boat signifies a key milestone in that partnership toward delivering North Dakota to the fleet," Perry added.
PCU North Dakota is scheduled officially join the Navy fleet once commissioned in early 2014.
The submarine measures 377 feet in length and has a beam of 34 feet. It will displace 7,800 tons and be capable of operating at more than 25 knots under water.
 |
131102-N-SF554-009 GROTON, Conn (Nov. 2, 2013) Pre-Commissioning Unit North Dakota (SSN 784) sits moored at the graving dock of General Dynamics Electric Boat prior to its christening ceremony in Groton, Conn., Nov. 2. North Dakota is the 11th Virginia-class attack submarine and is scheduled to be commissioned in early 2014. (U.S. Navy Photo by Lt. j.g. Phillip Chitty/Released)
Submarine North Dakota Christened in Groton
|
By Lt. Timothy Hawkins, Submarine Group 2 Public Affairs
GROTON, Conn. (NNS) -- The Navy's 11th Virginia-class attack submarine was christened in Groton, Conn., Nov. 2, during a late-morning ceremony at the General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) shipyard.
The ceremony marked the official naming of Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) North Dakota (SSN 784). The ship is currently under construction by both GDEB and Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, through a teaming arrangement.
Ship sponsor Katie Fowler, wife of retired Vice Adm. Jeff Fowler, was on hand to officially christen the submarine by breaking a bottle of sparkling wine against the back of the boat's sail.
"In the name of the United States, I christen thee North Dakota. May God bless her and all that sail in her," said Mrs. Fowler just before giving the bottle a brisk swing.
During keynote remarks, Commander Submarine Forces Vice Adm. Michael Connor told more than 4,500 dignitaries, Sailors, and shipyard personnel in attendance that the Navy needs the nuclear-powered attack submarine as soon as "practical."
"The Submarine Force eagerly awaits the day when USS North Dakota will assume the watch and establish a legendary reputation worthy of the name North Dakota," said Connor. "There's still much to be done, and there is not a moment to lose."
PCU North Dakota is the second Navy ship named after the 39th state. The first was a Delaware-class dreadnought battleship that served in World War II.
SSN 784's name was chosen in honor of North Dakota's proud military heritage. Seventeen North Dakotans have been awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in combat.
In future years, the attack submarine will deliver speed, agility, stealth, endurance and firepower to combatant commanders directing U.S. military operations around the globe.
Virginia-class subs have improved stealth and sophisticated surveillance capabilities. Their special warfare enhancements enable them to meet multiple mission requirements.
North Dakota will be able to attack targets ashore with highly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles and conduct covert long-term surveillance of land areas, littoral waters or other sea-based forces. Its reactor plant is designed so that it will not require refueling during the planned life of the ship, reducing lifecycle costs while increasing time at sea.
North Dakota's construction will continue during the next few months as its 138 crewmembers prepare to evaluate the ship's seaworthiness and operational performance during sea trials.
"The Navy and the nation count on our submarine force to deliver relevant and powerful capabilities where and when it matters, and nothing is more important to meeting that commitment than building the most capable submarines in the world," said Rear Adm. Ken Perry, commander, Submarine Group 2.
In addition to surveillance missions, North Dakota will be able to perform anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare; deliver and support special forces; and conduct mine delivery and minefield mapping operations.
"Every phase of submarine construction requires world-class expertise and close partnership, and today's christening at Electric Boat signifies a key milestone in that partnership toward delivering North Dakota to the fleet," Perry added.
PCU North Dakota is scheduled officially join the Navy fleet once commissioned in early 2014.
The submarine measures 377 feet in length and has a beam of 34 feet. It will displace 7,800 tons and be capable of operating at more than 25 knots under water.
U.S. OFFICIAL'S REMARKS AT PUGWASH CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND WORLD SECURITY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Sixtieth Pugwash Conference on Science and World Security
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Istanbul, Turkey
November 1, 2013
Thank you for that kind introduction, Sergio. I am pleased to be here at 60th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs and I want to thank Pugwash for organizing this conference.
Today, I would like to provide an update on our work, which the President laid out nearly four years ago in Prague, when he committed the United States to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal that he reaffirmed in his speech in Berlin this past June.
As President Obama noted in Prague and repeated in Berlin, this will not be easy. It will require persistence and patience, and may not happen in his lifetime. Still, over the last four years we have succeeded in moving closer to this goal.
In 2010, the Administration concluded a Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, which outlines the President’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers, as well as advancing the broader security interests of the United States and its allies. As the NPR states, the international security environment has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War: the threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased. The traditional concept of nuclear deterrence — the idea that a country would not initiate a nuclear war for fear of nuclear retaliation — does not apply to terrorists. While our nuclear arsenal has little relevance in deterring this threat, concerted action by all states to uphold their NPT obligations – including those related to disarmament – is important for building a sense of common purpose that helps maintain support from partners around the world to uphold and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Securing sensitive nuclear materials worldwide will also make it harder for terrorists to acquire those materials.
For instance, the downblending of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) by Russia that was required by the 1993 U.S.-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement has now been completed. The final delivery of the resultant LEU to the United States is scheduled for early December. Upon the successful completion of the Agreement, 500 metric tons of HEU from dismantled Russian weapons will have been converted into LEU and delivered to the United States to fuel U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The HEU that was converted by downblending was enough to produce approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads.
In the United States, 374 metric tons of U.S. HEU has been declared excess to nuclear weapons; most of which will be downblended or used as fuel in naval or research reactors. In 2011, the United States and Russia brought into force the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and its 2006 and 2010 protocols, which require each side to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium – enough in total for about 17,000 nuclear weapons – and thus permanently remove this material from military programs. Russia has also been an essential partner in the U.S. Global Threat Reduction Initiative efforts to convert research reactors worldwide from HEU to LEU and repatriate those reactors’ HEU to the country of origin. These efforts have now converted or verified the shutdown of over 88 research and test reactors and isotope production facilities, and removed over 5,017 kg of HEU for secure storage, downblending and disposition.
In addition to working on the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, we have taken steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy. We are not developing new nuclear weapons or pursuing new nuclear missions; we have committed not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations; and we have clearly stated that it is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the 68-year record of nonuse of nuclear weapons be extended forever.
In June of 2013, in conjunction with his Berlin speech, President Obama issued new guidance that aligns U.S. nuclear policies to the 21st century security environment. This was the latest concrete step the President has taken to advance his Prague agenda and the long-term goal of achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. After a comprehensive review, the President determined that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty.
Let me now address what we believe our next steps should be.
The United States and Russia still possess the vast majority of nuclear weapons in the world, and we have a shared responsibility to continue the process of reducing our nuclear arms. With that in mind, we have a great example in the New START Treaty. The implementation of New START, now in its third year, is going well. When New START is fully implemented, the United States and the Russian Federation will each have no more than 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads – the lowest levels since the 1950s. Our overall nuclear stockpile is 85% below Cold War levels.
Going forward, the United States has made it clear that we are committed to continuing a step-by-step process to further reduce nuclear arsenals.
To this end, we are engaged in a bilateral dialogue with Russia to promote strategic stability and increase transparency on a reciprocal basis. We are hopeful our dialogue will lead to greater reciprocal transparency and negotiation of even further nuclear weapons reductions.
The President also said in Berlin, that we will work with our NATO Allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Europe. The NPR underscores the U.S. position that decision on NATO’s nuclear posture should be made by consensus among Allies. The role of nuclear weapons in NATO was examined as part of the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review. As you may know, NATO has already dramatically reduced its holdings of, and reliance on, nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. Allies made clear in the DDPR that NATO is prepared to consider further reducing its requirement for nonstrategic nuclear weapons assigned to the Alliance in the context of reciprocal steps by Russia, taking into account the greater Russian stockpiles of nonstrategic nuclear weapons stationed in the Euro-Atlantic area. Allies have also affirmed their desire to work with Russia on reciprocal transparency steps regarding NSNW. While seeking to create the conditions for further nuclear reductions, NATO will continue to ensure that the Alliance’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective, as NATO is committed to remaining a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist.
There are still further initiatives that are part of this Administration’s nuclear agenda. In Berlin, President Obama called on all nations to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty or FMCT would codify an end to the production of weapons-grade fissile material needed to create nuclear weapons, cap stockpiles worldwide, and provide the basis for further, deeper, reductions in nuclear arsenals.
Beginning multilateral negotiations on the FMCT is a priority objective for the United States and for the vast majority of states, and we have been working to initiate such negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. An overwhelming majority of nations support the immediate commencement of FMCT negotiations. The United States is consulting with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, as well as others, including India and Pakistan, to find a way to commence negotiations of an FMCT.
In 2009, the five nuclear-weapon states, or “P5,” began to meet regularly for discussions on issues of transparency, mutual confidence, and verification. Since the 2010 NPT Review Conference, these discussions have expanded to address P5 implementation of our commitments under the NPT and the 2010 Review Conference Action Plan. Russia hosted the most recent P5 conference in Geneva, Switzerland in April 2013, where the P5 reviewed progress towards fulfilling the commitments made at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and continued discussions on issues related to all three pillars of the NPT: nonproliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including confidence-building, transparency, and verification experiences. We are looking forward to continued discussions at a fifth P5 conference in 2014.
In addition to providing a senior level policy forum for discussion and coordination among the P5, this process has spawned a series of discussions among policymakers and government experts on a variety of issues. China is leading a P5 working group on nuclear definitions and terminology. The P5 are discussing approaches to a common format for NPT reporting, and we are also beginning to engage at expert levels on some important verification and transparency issues. As we proceed, we would like the P5 conferences and intersessional meetings to develop further practical transparency measures that build confidence and predictability.
I should add at this point that when discussing areas to broaden and deepen our cooperation and to advance our common interests, it’s necessary to address the question of missile defense. Over the past twenty years, both Democratic and Republicans have seen the benefits of missile defense cooperation with Russia.
While we have our differences on this issue, the United States remains convinced that missile defense cooperation between the United States and Russia (and between NATO and Russia) is in the national security interests of all countries involved. For that reason, the United States remains open to missile defense cooperation with Russia. To be clear, U.S. missile defense efforts are focused on defending our homeland as well as our European, Middle Eastern, and Asian allies and partners against ballistic missile threats coming from regional actors. These are threats that are growing, and must be met.
In meeting those threats, it is important to note that U.S. missile defenses are not designed for, or capable of, undermining the Russian or Chinese strategic deterrents. For its part, Russia has been insistent on legally binding guarantees that our missile defenses will not threaten its strategic deterrent. Rather than legal guarantees, we believe that the best way for Russia to see that U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Europe do not undermine its strategic deterrent would be for it to cooperate with us and to engage in mutual transparency measures. In addition to making all of us safer, cooperation would send a strong message to proliferators that the United States, NATO, and Russia are working together to counter proliferation. With regard to China, the United States welcomes the opportunity to engage in a more robust dialogue about strategic stability, including missile defense.
As our work together with Russia over the past four years has shown, we can produce significant results that benefit both countries. As mentioned earlier, the New START Treaty is a great example of this.
None of this will be easy, but the policies the Administration is pursuing are suited for our security needs and tailored for the global security threats of the 21st century. By maintaining and supporting a safe, secure and effective stockpile — sufficient to deter any adversary and guarantee the defense of our allies — at the same time that we pursue responsible verifiable reductions through arms control, we will make this world a safer place.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Sixtieth Pugwash Conference on Science and World Security
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Istanbul, Turkey
November 1, 2013
Thank you for that kind introduction, Sergio. I am pleased to be here at 60th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs and I want to thank Pugwash for organizing this conference.
Today, I would like to provide an update on our work, which the President laid out nearly four years ago in Prague, when he committed the United States to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal that he reaffirmed in his speech in Berlin this past June.
As President Obama noted in Prague and repeated in Berlin, this will not be easy. It will require persistence and patience, and may not happen in his lifetime. Still, over the last four years we have succeeded in moving closer to this goal.
In 2010, the Administration concluded a Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, which outlines the President’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers, as well as advancing the broader security interests of the United States and its allies. As the NPR states, the international security environment has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War: the threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased. The traditional concept of nuclear deterrence — the idea that a country would not initiate a nuclear war for fear of nuclear retaliation — does not apply to terrorists. While our nuclear arsenal has little relevance in deterring this threat, concerted action by all states to uphold their NPT obligations – including those related to disarmament – is important for building a sense of common purpose that helps maintain support from partners around the world to uphold and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Securing sensitive nuclear materials worldwide will also make it harder for terrorists to acquire those materials.
For instance, the downblending of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) by Russia that was required by the 1993 U.S.-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement has now been completed. The final delivery of the resultant LEU to the United States is scheduled for early December. Upon the successful completion of the Agreement, 500 metric tons of HEU from dismantled Russian weapons will have been converted into LEU and delivered to the United States to fuel U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The HEU that was converted by downblending was enough to produce approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads.
In the United States, 374 metric tons of U.S. HEU has been declared excess to nuclear weapons; most of which will be downblended or used as fuel in naval or research reactors. In 2011, the United States and Russia brought into force the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and its 2006 and 2010 protocols, which require each side to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium – enough in total for about 17,000 nuclear weapons – and thus permanently remove this material from military programs. Russia has also been an essential partner in the U.S. Global Threat Reduction Initiative efforts to convert research reactors worldwide from HEU to LEU and repatriate those reactors’ HEU to the country of origin. These efforts have now converted or verified the shutdown of over 88 research and test reactors and isotope production facilities, and removed over 5,017 kg of HEU for secure storage, downblending and disposition.
In addition to working on the prevention of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, we have taken steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy. We are not developing new nuclear weapons or pursuing new nuclear missions; we have committed not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations; and we have clearly stated that it is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the 68-year record of nonuse of nuclear weapons be extended forever.
In June of 2013, in conjunction with his Berlin speech, President Obama issued new guidance that aligns U.S. nuclear policies to the 21st century security environment. This was the latest concrete step the President has taken to advance his Prague agenda and the long-term goal of achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. After a comprehensive review, the President determined that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty.
Let me now address what we believe our next steps should be.
The United States and Russia still possess the vast majority of nuclear weapons in the world, and we have a shared responsibility to continue the process of reducing our nuclear arms. With that in mind, we have a great example in the New START Treaty. The implementation of New START, now in its third year, is going well. When New START is fully implemented, the United States and the Russian Federation will each have no more than 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads – the lowest levels since the 1950s. Our overall nuclear stockpile is 85% below Cold War levels.
Going forward, the United States has made it clear that we are committed to continuing a step-by-step process to further reduce nuclear arsenals.
To this end, we are engaged in a bilateral dialogue with Russia to promote strategic stability and increase transparency on a reciprocal basis. We are hopeful our dialogue will lead to greater reciprocal transparency and negotiation of even further nuclear weapons reductions.
The President also said in Berlin, that we will work with our NATO Allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Europe. The NPR underscores the U.S. position that decision on NATO’s nuclear posture should be made by consensus among Allies. The role of nuclear weapons in NATO was examined as part of the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review. As you may know, NATO has already dramatically reduced its holdings of, and reliance on, nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. Allies made clear in the DDPR that NATO is prepared to consider further reducing its requirement for nonstrategic nuclear weapons assigned to the Alliance in the context of reciprocal steps by Russia, taking into account the greater Russian stockpiles of nonstrategic nuclear weapons stationed in the Euro-Atlantic area. Allies have also affirmed their desire to work with Russia on reciprocal transparency steps regarding NSNW. While seeking to create the conditions for further nuclear reductions, NATO will continue to ensure that the Alliance’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective, as NATO is committed to remaining a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist.
There are still further initiatives that are part of this Administration’s nuclear agenda. In Berlin, President Obama called on all nations to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty or FMCT would codify an end to the production of weapons-grade fissile material needed to create nuclear weapons, cap stockpiles worldwide, and provide the basis for further, deeper, reductions in nuclear arsenals.
Beginning multilateral negotiations on the FMCT is a priority objective for the United States and for the vast majority of states, and we have been working to initiate such negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. An overwhelming majority of nations support the immediate commencement of FMCT negotiations. The United States is consulting with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, as well as others, including India and Pakistan, to find a way to commence negotiations of an FMCT.
In 2009, the five nuclear-weapon states, or “P5,” began to meet regularly for discussions on issues of transparency, mutual confidence, and verification. Since the 2010 NPT Review Conference, these discussions have expanded to address P5 implementation of our commitments under the NPT and the 2010 Review Conference Action Plan. Russia hosted the most recent P5 conference in Geneva, Switzerland in April 2013, where the P5 reviewed progress towards fulfilling the commitments made at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and continued discussions on issues related to all three pillars of the NPT: nonproliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including confidence-building, transparency, and verification experiences. We are looking forward to continued discussions at a fifth P5 conference in 2014.
In addition to providing a senior level policy forum for discussion and coordination among the P5, this process has spawned a series of discussions among policymakers and government experts on a variety of issues. China is leading a P5 working group on nuclear definitions and terminology. The P5 are discussing approaches to a common format for NPT reporting, and we are also beginning to engage at expert levels on some important verification and transparency issues. As we proceed, we would like the P5 conferences and intersessional meetings to develop further practical transparency measures that build confidence and predictability.
I should add at this point that when discussing areas to broaden and deepen our cooperation and to advance our common interests, it’s necessary to address the question of missile defense. Over the past twenty years, both Democratic and Republicans have seen the benefits of missile defense cooperation with Russia.
While we have our differences on this issue, the United States remains convinced that missile defense cooperation between the United States and Russia (and between NATO and Russia) is in the national security interests of all countries involved. For that reason, the United States remains open to missile defense cooperation with Russia. To be clear, U.S. missile defense efforts are focused on defending our homeland as well as our European, Middle Eastern, and Asian allies and partners against ballistic missile threats coming from regional actors. These are threats that are growing, and must be met.
In meeting those threats, it is important to note that U.S. missile defenses are not designed for, or capable of, undermining the Russian or Chinese strategic deterrents. For its part, Russia has been insistent on legally binding guarantees that our missile defenses will not threaten its strategic deterrent. Rather than legal guarantees, we believe that the best way for Russia to see that U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Europe do not undermine its strategic deterrent would be for it to cooperate with us and to engage in mutual transparency measures. In addition to making all of us safer, cooperation would send a strong message to proliferators that the United States, NATO, and Russia are working together to counter proliferation. With regard to China, the United States welcomes the opportunity to engage in a more robust dialogue about strategic stability, including missile defense.
As our work together with Russia over the past four years has shown, we can produce significant results that benefit both countries. As mentioned earlier, the New START Treaty is a great example of this.
None of this will be easy, but the policies the Administration is pursuing are suited for our security needs and tailored for the global security threats of the 21st century. By maintaining and supporting a safe, secure and effective stockpile — sufficient to deter any adversary and guarantee the defense of our allies — at the same time that we pursue responsible verifiable reductions through arms control, we will make this world a safer place.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TO PAY OVER $2.2 BILLION TO RESOLVE ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO DOCTOR KICKBACK SCHEME
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, November 4, 2013
Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations
Allegations Include Off-label Marketing and Kickbacks to Doctors and Pharmacists
WASHINGTON - Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.
“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud. And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people.”
The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.
“When companies put profit over patients’ health and misuse taxpayer dollars, we demand accountability,” said Associate Attorney General Tony West. “In addition to significant monetary sanctions, we will ensure that non-monetary measures are in place to facilitate change in corporate behavior and help ensure the playing field is level for all market participants.”
In addition to imposing substantial monetary sanctions, the resolution will subject J&J to stringent requirements under a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). This agreement is designed to increase accountability and transparency and prevent future fraud and abuse.
“As patients and consumers, we have a right to rely upon the claims drug companies make about their products,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “And, as taxpayers, we have a right to ensure that federal health care dollars are spent appropriately. That is why this Administration has continued to pursue aggressively – with all of our available law enforcement tools -- those companies that corrupt our health care system.”
J&J Subsidiary Janssen Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Antipsychotic Drug
In a criminal information filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the government charged that, from March 3, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2003, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, introduced the antipsychotic drug Risperdal into interstate commerce for an unapproved use, rendering the product misbranded. For most of this time period, Risperdal was approved only to treat schizophrenia. The information alleges that Janssen’s sales representatives promoted Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion. The information alleges that the company created written sales aids for use by Janssen’s ElderCare sales force that emphasized symptoms and minimized any mention of the FDA-approved use, treatment of schizophrenia. The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion and intended use by basing sales representatives’ bonuses on total sales of Risperdal in their sales areas, not just sales for FDA-approved uses.
In a plea agreement resolving these charges, Janssen admitted that it promoted Risperdal to health care providers for treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behavioral disturbances exhibited by elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Janssen will pay a total of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $334 million and forfeiture of $66 million. Janssen’s guilty plea will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring, among other things, that drugs intended for use in humans are safe and effective for their intended uses and that the labeling of such drugs bear true, complete and accurate information. Under the FDCA, a pharmaceutical company must specify the intended uses of a drug in its new drug application to the FDA. Before approval, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for those specified uses. Once the drug is approved, if the company intends a different use and then introduces the drug into interstate commerce for that new, unapproved use, the drug becomes misbranded. The unapproved use is also known as an “off-label” use because it is not included in the drug’s FDA-approved labeling.
“When pharmaceutical companies interfere with the FDA’s mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective for the American public, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship and put the health and safety of patients at risk,” said Director of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations John Roth. “Today’s settlement demonstrates the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical companies that put profits ahead of the public’s health. The FDA will continue to devote resources to criminal investigations targeting pharmaceutical companies that disregard the drug approval process and recklessly promote drugs for uses that have not been proven to be safe and effective.”
J&J and Janssen Settle Civil Allegations of Targeting Vulnerable Patients with the Drugs Risperdal and Invega for Off-Label Uses
In a related civil complaint filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States alleges that Janssen marketed Risperdal to control the behaviors and conduct of the nation’s most vulnerable patients: elderly nursing home residents, children and individuals with mental disabilities. The government alleges that J&J and Janssen caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs by promoting Risperdal for off-label uses that federal health care programs did not cover, making false and misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of Risperdal and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe Risperdal.
“J&J’s promotion of Risperdal for unapproved uses threatened the most vulnerable populations of our society – children, the elderly and those with developmental disabilities,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane Memeger. “This historic settlement sends the message that drug manufacturers who place profits over patient care will face severe criminal and civil penalties.”
In its complaint, the government alleges that the FDA repeatedly advised Janssen that marketing Risperdal as safe and effective for the elderly would be “misleading.” The FDA cautioned Janssen that behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients were not necessarily manifestations of psychotic disorders and might even be “appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed, thus raising an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.”
The complaint further alleges that J&J and Janssen were aware that Risperdal posed serious health risks for the elderly, including an increased risk of strokes, but that the companies downplayed these risks. For example, when a J&J study of Risperdal showed a significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in elderly dementia patients, the complaint alleges that Janssen combined the study data with other studies to make it appear that there was a lower overall risk of adverse events. A year after J&J had received the results of a second study confirming the increased safety risk for elderly patients taking Risperdal, but had not published the data, one physician who worked on the study cautioned Janssen that “[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed … we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”
The complaint also alleges that Janssen knew that patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but nonetheless promoted Risperdal as “uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes).” When Janssen received the initial results of studies indicating that Risperdal posed the same diabetes risk as other antipsychotics, the complaint alleges that the company retained outside consultants to re-analyze the study results and ultimately published articles stating that Risperdal was actually associated with a lower risk of developing diabetes.
The complaint alleges that, despite the FDA warnings and increased health risks, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen aggressively marketed Risperdal to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients through an “ElderCare sales force” designed to target nursing homes and doctors who treated the elderly. In business plans, Janssen’s goal was to “[m]aximize and grow RISPERDAL’s market leadership in geriatrics and long term care.” The company touted Risperdal as having “proven efficacy” and “an excellent safety and tolerability profile” in geriatric patients.
In addition to promoting Risperdal for elderly dementia patients, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen allegedly promoted the antipsychotic drug for use in children and individuals with mental disabilities. The complaint alleges that J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal posed certain health risks to children, including the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that can stimulate breast development and milk production. Nonetheless, one of Janssen’s Key Base Business Goals was to grow and protect the drug’s market share with child/adolescent patients. Janssen instructed its sales representatives to call on child psychiatrists, as well as mental health facilities that primarily treated children, and to market Risperdal as safe and effective for symptoms of various childhood disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and autism. Until late 2006, Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose, and the FDA repeatedly warned the company against promoting it for use in children.
The government’s complaint also contains allegations that Janssen paid speaker fees to doctors to influence them to write prescriptions for Risperdal. Sales representatives allegedly told these doctors that if they wanted to receive payments for speaking, they needed to increase their Risperdal prescriptions.
In addition to allegations relating to Risperdal, today’s settlement also resolves allegations relating to Invega, a newer antipsychotic drug also sold by Janssen. Although Invega was approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, the government alleges that, from 2006 through 2009, J&J and Janssen marketed the drug for off-label indications and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.
As part of the global resolution, J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay a total of $1.391 billion to resolve the false claims allegedly resulting from their off-label marketing and kickbacks for Risperdal and Invega. This total includes $1.273 billion to be paid as part of the resolution announced today, as well as $118 million that J&J and Janssen paid to the state of Texas in March 2012 to resolve similar allegations relating to Risperdal. Because Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, J&J’s conduct caused losses to both the federal and state governments. The additional payment made by J&J as part of today’s settlement will be shared between the federal and state governments, with the federal government recovering $749 million, and the states recovering $524 million. The federal government and Texas each received $59 million from the Texas settlement.
Kickbacks to Nursing Home Pharmacies
The civil settlement also resolves allegations that, in furtherance of their efforts to target elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients. In a complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts in January 2010, the United States alleged that J&J paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare under the guise of market share rebate payments, data-purchase agreements, “grants” and “educational funding.” These kickbacks were intended to induce Omnicare and its hundreds of consultant pharmacists to engage in “active intervention programs” to promote the use of Risperdal and other J&J drugs in nursing homes. Omnicare’s consultant pharmacists regularly reviewed nursing home patients’ medical charts and made recommendations to physicians on what drugs should be prescribed for those patients. Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent” recommendations based on their clinical judgment, J&J viewed the pharmacists as an “extension of [J&J’s] sales force.”
J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay $149 million to resolve the government’s contention that these kickbacks caused Omnicare to submit false claims to federal health care programs. The federal share of this settlement is $132 million, and the five participating states’ total share is $17 million. In 2009, Omnicare paid $98 million to resolve its civil liability for claims that it accepted kickbacks from J&J and Janssen, along with certain other conduct.
“Consultant pharmacists can play an important role in protecting nursing home residents from the use of antipsychotic drugs as chemical restraints,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz. “This settlement is a reminder that the recommendations of consultant pharmacists should be based on their independent clinical judgment and should not be the product of money paid by drug companies.”
Off-Label Promotion of the Heart Failure Drug Natrecor
The civil settlement announced today also resolves allegations that J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc., caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs for the heart failure drug Natrecor. In August 2001, the FDA approved Natrecor to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity. This approval was based on a study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of Natrecor over an average 36-hour period.
In a civil complaint filed in 2009 in the Northern District of California, the government alleged that, shortly after Natrecor was approved, Scios launched an aggressive campaign to market the drug for scheduled, serial outpatient infusions for patients with less severe heart failure – a use not included in the FDA-approved label and not covered by federal health care programs. These infusions generally involved visits to an outpatient clinic or doctor’s office for four- to six-hour infusions one or two times per week for several weeks or months.
The government’s complaint alleged that Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting the medical necessity of these outpatient infusions and misleadingly used a small pilot study to encourage the serial outpatient use of the drug. Among other things, Scios sponsored an extensive speaker program through which doctors were paid to tout the purported benefits of serial outpatient use of Natrecor. Scios also urged doctors and hospitals to set up outpatient clinics specifically to administer the serial outpatient infusions, in some cases providing funds to defray the costs of setting up the clinics, and supplied providers with extensive resources and support for billing Medicare for the outpatient infusions.
As part of today’s resolution, J&J and Scios have agreed to pay the federal government $184 million to resolve their civil liability for the alleged false claims to federal health care programs resulting from their off-label marketing of Natrecor. In October 2011, Scios pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor FDCA violation and paid a criminal fine of $85 million for introducing Natrecor into interstate commerce for an off-label use.
“This case is an example of a drug company encouraging doctors to use a drug in a way that was unsupported by valid scientific evidence,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Brian Stretch. “We are committed to ensuring that federal health care programs do not pay for such inappropriate uses, and that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs only for uses that have been proven safe and effective.”
Non-Monetary Provisions of the Global Resolution and Corporate Integrity Agreement
In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, J&J has executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA includes provisions requiring J&J to implement major changes to the way its pharmaceutical affiliates do business. Among other things, the CIA requires J&J to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and other long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. J&J may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and from those who have left the company. The CIA also requires J&J’s pharmaceutical businesses to implement and maintain transparency regarding their research practices, publication policies and payments to physicians. On an annual basis, management employees, including senior executives and certain members of J&J’s independent board of directors, must certify compliance with provisions of the CIA. J&J must submit detailed annual reports to HHS-OIG about its compliance program and its business operations.
“OIG will work aggressively with our law enforcement partners to hold companies accountable for marketing and promotion that violate laws intended to protect the public,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. "Our compliance agreement with Johnson & Johnson increases individual accountability for board members, sales representatives, company executives and management. The agreement also contains strong monitoring and reporting provisions to help ensure that the public is protected from future unlawful and potentially harmful off-label marketing."
Coordinated Investigative Effort Spans Federal and State Law Enforcement
This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive, coordinated investigation by federal and state law enforcement partners that is the hallmark of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which fosters government collaborations to fight fraud. Announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the HEAT initiative has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.
The criminal cases against Janssen and Scios were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California and the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. The civil settlements were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch. Assistance was provided by the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
This matter was investigated by HHS-OIG, the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, TRICARE Program Integrity, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Office of the Inspector General and the FBI.
One of the most powerful tools in the fight against Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The department enforces the FDCA by prosecuting those who illegally distribute unapproved, misbranded and adulterated drugs and medical devices in violation of the Act. Since 2009, fines, penalties and forfeitures that have been imposed in connection with such FDCA violations have totaled more than $6 billion.
The civil settlements described above resolve multiple lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. From the federal government’s share of the civil settlements announced today, the whistleblowers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will receive $112 million, the whistleblowers in the District of Massachusetts will receive $27.7 million and the whistleblower in the Northern District of California will receive $28 million. Except to the extent that J&J subsidiaries have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges discussed above, the claims settled by the civil settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations
Allegations Include Off-label Marketing and Kickbacks to Doctors and Pharmacists
WASHINGTON - Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.
“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud. And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people.”
The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.
“When companies put profit over patients’ health and misuse taxpayer dollars, we demand accountability,” said Associate Attorney General Tony West. “In addition to significant monetary sanctions, we will ensure that non-monetary measures are in place to facilitate change in corporate behavior and help ensure the playing field is level for all market participants.”
In addition to imposing substantial monetary sanctions, the resolution will subject J&J to stringent requirements under a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). This agreement is designed to increase accountability and transparency and prevent future fraud and abuse.
“As patients and consumers, we have a right to rely upon the claims drug companies make about their products,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “And, as taxpayers, we have a right to ensure that federal health care dollars are spent appropriately. That is why this Administration has continued to pursue aggressively – with all of our available law enforcement tools -- those companies that corrupt our health care system.”
J&J Subsidiary Janssen Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Antipsychotic Drug
In a criminal information filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the government charged that, from March 3, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2003, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, introduced the antipsychotic drug Risperdal into interstate commerce for an unapproved use, rendering the product misbranded. For most of this time period, Risperdal was approved only to treat schizophrenia. The information alleges that Janssen’s sales representatives promoted Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion. The information alleges that the company created written sales aids for use by Janssen’s ElderCare sales force that emphasized symptoms and minimized any mention of the FDA-approved use, treatment of schizophrenia. The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion and intended use by basing sales representatives’ bonuses on total sales of Risperdal in their sales areas, not just sales for FDA-approved uses.
In a plea agreement resolving these charges, Janssen admitted that it promoted Risperdal to health care providers for treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behavioral disturbances exhibited by elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Janssen will pay a total of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $334 million and forfeiture of $66 million. Janssen’s guilty plea will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring, among other things, that drugs intended for use in humans are safe and effective for their intended uses and that the labeling of such drugs bear true, complete and accurate information. Under the FDCA, a pharmaceutical company must specify the intended uses of a drug in its new drug application to the FDA. Before approval, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for those specified uses. Once the drug is approved, if the company intends a different use and then introduces the drug into interstate commerce for that new, unapproved use, the drug becomes misbranded. The unapproved use is also known as an “off-label” use because it is not included in the drug’s FDA-approved labeling.
“When pharmaceutical companies interfere with the FDA’s mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective for the American public, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship and put the health and safety of patients at risk,” said Director of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations John Roth. “Today’s settlement demonstrates the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical companies that put profits ahead of the public’s health. The FDA will continue to devote resources to criminal investigations targeting pharmaceutical companies that disregard the drug approval process and recklessly promote drugs for uses that have not been proven to be safe and effective.”
J&J and Janssen Settle Civil Allegations of Targeting Vulnerable Patients with the Drugs Risperdal and Invega for Off-Label Uses
In a related civil complaint filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States alleges that Janssen marketed Risperdal to control the behaviors and conduct of the nation’s most vulnerable patients: elderly nursing home residents, children and individuals with mental disabilities. The government alleges that J&J and Janssen caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs by promoting Risperdal for off-label uses that federal health care programs did not cover, making false and misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of Risperdal and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe Risperdal.
“J&J’s promotion of Risperdal for unapproved uses threatened the most vulnerable populations of our society – children, the elderly and those with developmental disabilities,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane Memeger. “This historic settlement sends the message that drug manufacturers who place profits over patient care will face severe criminal and civil penalties.”
In its complaint, the government alleges that the FDA repeatedly advised Janssen that marketing Risperdal as safe and effective for the elderly would be “misleading.” The FDA cautioned Janssen that behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients were not necessarily manifestations of psychotic disorders and might even be “appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed, thus raising an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.”
The complaint further alleges that J&J and Janssen were aware that Risperdal posed serious health risks for the elderly, including an increased risk of strokes, but that the companies downplayed these risks. For example, when a J&J study of Risperdal showed a significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in elderly dementia patients, the complaint alleges that Janssen combined the study data with other studies to make it appear that there was a lower overall risk of adverse events. A year after J&J had received the results of a second study confirming the increased safety risk for elderly patients taking Risperdal, but had not published the data, one physician who worked on the study cautioned Janssen that “[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed … we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”
The complaint also alleges that Janssen knew that patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but nonetheless promoted Risperdal as “uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes).” When Janssen received the initial results of studies indicating that Risperdal posed the same diabetes risk as other antipsychotics, the complaint alleges that the company retained outside consultants to re-analyze the study results and ultimately published articles stating that Risperdal was actually associated with a lower risk of developing diabetes.
The complaint alleges that, despite the FDA warnings and increased health risks, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen aggressively marketed Risperdal to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients through an “ElderCare sales force” designed to target nursing homes and doctors who treated the elderly. In business plans, Janssen’s goal was to “[m]aximize and grow RISPERDAL’s market leadership in geriatrics and long term care.” The company touted Risperdal as having “proven efficacy” and “an excellent safety and tolerability profile” in geriatric patients.
In addition to promoting Risperdal for elderly dementia patients, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen allegedly promoted the antipsychotic drug for use in children and individuals with mental disabilities. The complaint alleges that J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal posed certain health risks to children, including the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that can stimulate breast development and milk production. Nonetheless, one of Janssen’s Key Base Business Goals was to grow and protect the drug’s market share with child/adolescent patients. Janssen instructed its sales representatives to call on child psychiatrists, as well as mental health facilities that primarily treated children, and to market Risperdal as safe and effective for symptoms of various childhood disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and autism. Until late 2006, Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose, and the FDA repeatedly warned the company against promoting it for use in children.
The government’s complaint also contains allegations that Janssen paid speaker fees to doctors to influence them to write prescriptions for Risperdal. Sales representatives allegedly told these doctors that if they wanted to receive payments for speaking, they needed to increase their Risperdal prescriptions.
In addition to allegations relating to Risperdal, today’s settlement also resolves allegations relating to Invega, a newer antipsychotic drug also sold by Janssen. Although Invega was approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, the government alleges that, from 2006 through 2009, J&J and Janssen marketed the drug for off-label indications and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.
As part of the global resolution, J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay a total of $1.391 billion to resolve the false claims allegedly resulting from their off-label marketing and kickbacks for Risperdal and Invega. This total includes $1.273 billion to be paid as part of the resolution announced today, as well as $118 million that J&J and Janssen paid to the state of Texas in March 2012 to resolve similar allegations relating to Risperdal. Because Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, J&J’s conduct caused losses to both the federal and state governments. The additional payment made by J&J as part of today’s settlement will be shared between the federal and state governments, with the federal government recovering $749 million, and the states recovering $524 million. The federal government and Texas each received $59 million from the Texas settlement.
Kickbacks to Nursing Home Pharmacies
The civil settlement also resolves allegations that, in furtherance of their efforts to target elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients. In a complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts in January 2010, the United States alleged that J&J paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare under the guise of market share rebate payments, data-purchase agreements, “grants” and “educational funding.” These kickbacks were intended to induce Omnicare and its hundreds of consultant pharmacists to engage in “active intervention programs” to promote the use of Risperdal and other J&J drugs in nursing homes. Omnicare’s consultant pharmacists regularly reviewed nursing home patients’ medical charts and made recommendations to physicians on what drugs should be prescribed for those patients. Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent” recommendations based on their clinical judgment, J&J viewed the pharmacists as an “extension of [J&J’s] sales force.”
J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay $149 million to resolve the government’s contention that these kickbacks caused Omnicare to submit false claims to federal health care programs. The federal share of this settlement is $132 million, and the five participating states’ total share is $17 million. In 2009, Omnicare paid $98 million to resolve its civil liability for claims that it accepted kickbacks from J&J and Janssen, along with certain other conduct.
“Consultant pharmacists can play an important role in protecting nursing home residents from the use of antipsychotic drugs as chemical restraints,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz. “This settlement is a reminder that the recommendations of consultant pharmacists should be based on their independent clinical judgment and should not be the product of money paid by drug companies.”
Off-Label Promotion of the Heart Failure Drug Natrecor
The civil settlement announced today also resolves allegations that J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc., caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs for the heart failure drug Natrecor. In August 2001, the FDA approved Natrecor to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity. This approval was based on a study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of Natrecor over an average 36-hour period.
In a civil complaint filed in 2009 in the Northern District of California, the government alleged that, shortly after Natrecor was approved, Scios launched an aggressive campaign to market the drug for scheduled, serial outpatient infusions for patients with less severe heart failure – a use not included in the FDA-approved label and not covered by federal health care programs. These infusions generally involved visits to an outpatient clinic or doctor’s office for four- to six-hour infusions one or two times per week for several weeks or months.
The government’s complaint alleged that Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting the medical necessity of these outpatient infusions and misleadingly used a small pilot study to encourage the serial outpatient use of the drug. Among other things, Scios sponsored an extensive speaker program through which doctors were paid to tout the purported benefits of serial outpatient use of Natrecor. Scios also urged doctors and hospitals to set up outpatient clinics specifically to administer the serial outpatient infusions, in some cases providing funds to defray the costs of setting up the clinics, and supplied providers with extensive resources and support for billing Medicare for the outpatient infusions.
As part of today’s resolution, J&J and Scios have agreed to pay the federal government $184 million to resolve their civil liability for the alleged false claims to federal health care programs resulting from their off-label marketing of Natrecor. In October 2011, Scios pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor FDCA violation and paid a criminal fine of $85 million for introducing Natrecor into interstate commerce for an off-label use.
“This case is an example of a drug company encouraging doctors to use a drug in a way that was unsupported by valid scientific evidence,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Brian Stretch. “We are committed to ensuring that federal health care programs do not pay for such inappropriate uses, and that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs only for uses that have been proven safe and effective.”
Non-Monetary Provisions of the Global Resolution and Corporate Integrity Agreement
In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, J&J has executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA includes provisions requiring J&J to implement major changes to the way its pharmaceutical affiliates do business. Among other things, the CIA requires J&J to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and other long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. J&J may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and from those who have left the company. The CIA also requires J&J’s pharmaceutical businesses to implement and maintain transparency regarding their research practices, publication policies and payments to physicians. On an annual basis, management employees, including senior executives and certain members of J&J’s independent board of directors, must certify compliance with provisions of the CIA. J&J must submit detailed annual reports to HHS-OIG about its compliance program and its business operations.
“OIG will work aggressively with our law enforcement partners to hold companies accountable for marketing and promotion that violate laws intended to protect the public,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. "Our compliance agreement with Johnson & Johnson increases individual accountability for board members, sales representatives, company executives and management. The agreement also contains strong monitoring and reporting provisions to help ensure that the public is protected from future unlawful and potentially harmful off-label marketing."
Coordinated Investigative Effort Spans Federal and State Law Enforcement
This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive, coordinated investigation by federal and state law enforcement partners that is the hallmark of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which fosters government collaborations to fight fraud. Announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the HEAT initiative has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.
The criminal cases against Janssen and Scios were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California and the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. The civil settlements were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch. Assistance was provided by the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
This matter was investigated by HHS-OIG, the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, TRICARE Program Integrity, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Office of the Inspector General and the FBI.
One of the most powerful tools in the fight against Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The department enforces the FDCA by prosecuting those who illegally distribute unapproved, misbranded and adulterated drugs and medical devices in violation of the Act. Since 2009, fines, penalties and forfeitures that have been imposed in connection with such FDCA violations have totaled more than $6 billion.
The civil settlements described above resolve multiple lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. From the federal government’s share of the civil settlements announced today, the whistleblowers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will receive $112 million, the whistleblowers in the District of Massachusetts will receive $27.7 million and the whistleblower in the Northern District of California will receive $28 million. Except to the extent that J&J subsidiaries have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges discussed above, the claims settled by the civil settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Monday, November 4, 2013
U.S. DOD CONTRACTS FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2013
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CONTRACTS
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Pacific Unlimited Inc., Barrigada, Guam, has been awarded a maximum $262,500,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for prime vendor subsistence support. This is a sixty-four month base contract with no option periods. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and three offers were received. Location of performance is Guam with a March 3, 2019 performance completion date. Using military services are Navy, Air Force, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM300-14-D-3735).
Labatt Food Service, San Antonio, Texas, has been awarded a maximum $18,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract for prime vendor full line food distribution. This is a one-year base contract. This contract is a sole-source acquisition. Location of performance is Texas with a Nov. 8, 2014, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Air Force, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM300-14-D-3715).
Government Services Corp.,* Moscow, Idaho, has been awarded a maximum $13,830,840 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for winter grade ultra-low sulfur diesel. This is a two-year base contract with no option periods. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and four offers were received. Location of performance is Idaho with an Oct., 31, 2016 performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va., (SP0600-14-D-8501).
NAVY
BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc. - Electronic Solutions, Wayne, N.J., is being awarded a $48,000,000 modification with cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00039-10-D-0060) for systems engineering and integration of the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVTs). Corresponding delivery order 0015 shall procure MIDS-LVT Block Upgrade 2 software and test equipment on behalf of the United States, France, Italy, Germany and Spain. Work will be performed in Wayne, N.J., and is expected to be completed by March 2017. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation contract funds in the amount of $1,651,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-4 International Agreement, 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(4). The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
ViaSat, Carlsbad, Calif., is being awarded a $39,182,647 modification with cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00039-10-D-0032) for Block Upgrade 2 (BU2) development and retrofits. The existing contract is for Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) production and engineering services. Corresponding delivery order 0035 shall procure MIDS-LVT BU2 design and development on behalf of the United States. Work will be performed in Carlsbad, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2016. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation contract funds in the amount of $1,318,017 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements and 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Data Link Solutions LLC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $32,874,867 contract modification with cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing under a previously indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00039-10-D-0031) for Block Upgrade 2 (BU2) development and retrofits of Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) production and engineering services. Corresponding delivery order 0043 shall procure MIDS-LVT BU2 design and development on behalf of the United States. Work will be performed in Wayne, N.J. (50 percent), and Cedar Rapids, Iowa (50 percent), and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2016. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation contract funds in the amount of $1,500,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and these funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 and 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded an $18,195,519 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-12-C-2100) for reactor plant planning yard services for nuclear-powered submarines and support yard services for the Navy’s moored training ships. The contractor will furnish, fabricate, or acquire such materials, supplies and services as may be necessary to perform the functions of the planning yard for reactor plants and associated portions of the propulsion plants for nuclear powered submarines. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn. (95 percent), and Charleston, S.C. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funds in the amount of $17,964,812 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) - only one or limited number of sources and no other suppliers will satisfy the requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Thales Communication Inc., Clarksburg, Md., is being awarded $8,815,933 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 7002 against previously awarded contract (N00383-13-G-003F) for the repair of six items for the airborne low frequency sonar system for the H-60 helicopter. Work will be performed at Clarksburg, Md. (28 percent); Brest, France (54 percent); and Johnstown, Pa. (18 percent), and work is expected to be completed Nov. 1, 2015. Fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds in the amount of $6,611,949 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $6,539,431 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-priced contract (N00019-09-C-0069) to exercise an option for the procurement of AN/ARC-210(V) electronic radios and ancillary equipment for a variety of aircraft. Equipment being procured includes 63 MT-6567/ARC, four RT-1990(C)/ARC, and 70 RT-1990(C)/ARC. Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is expected to be completed in October 2014. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement Navy contract funds in the amount of $6,539,431 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Navistar Defense LLC, Lisle, Ill., was awarded a $7,260,077 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering, logistic and travel support for the acquisition of the contract data requirements list and program and logistics support management for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro M1235A3 Dash with MaxxPro Survivability Upgrade (MSU). The contractor shall include MSU content as well as variation in vehicle content for both the objective gunner protection kit and common remotely operated weapon system. Work will be performed in Lisle, Ill., with an expected completion date of December 2014. Fiscal 2013 procurement funds in the amount of $7,260,077 are being obligated at the time of the award. One bid was solicited and one received. Army Contracting Command, Tank and Automotive, Warren, Mich., is the contracting agency (W56HZV-10-C-0011).
*Small, In HubZone, Disadvantaged Business
CONTRACTS
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Pacific Unlimited Inc., Barrigada, Guam, has been awarded a maximum $262,500,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for prime vendor subsistence support. This is a sixty-four month base contract with no option periods. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and three offers were received. Location of performance is Guam with a March 3, 2019 performance completion date. Using military services are Navy, Air Force, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM300-14-D-3735).
Labatt Food Service, San Antonio, Texas, has been awarded a maximum $18,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract for prime vendor full line food distribution. This is a one-year base contract. This contract is a sole-source acquisition. Location of performance is Texas with a Nov. 8, 2014, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Air Force, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM300-14-D-3715).
Government Services Corp.,* Moscow, Idaho, has been awarded a maximum $13,830,840 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for winter grade ultra-low sulfur diesel. This is a two-year base contract with no option periods. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and four offers were received. Location of performance is Idaho with an Oct., 31, 2016 performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va., (SP0600-14-D-8501).
NAVY
BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc. - Electronic Solutions, Wayne, N.J., is being awarded a $48,000,000 modification with cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00039-10-D-0060) for systems engineering and integration of the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVTs). Corresponding delivery order 0015 shall procure MIDS-LVT Block Upgrade 2 software and test equipment on behalf of the United States, France, Italy, Germany and Spain. Work will be performed in Wayne, N.J., and is expected to be completed by March 2017. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation contract funds in the amount of $1,651,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-4 International Agreement, 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(4). The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
ViaSat, Carlsbad, Calif., is being awarded a $39,182,647 modification with cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00039-10-D-0032) for Block Upgrade 2 (BU2) development and retrofits. The existing contract is for Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) production and engineering services. Corresponding delivery order 0035 shall procure MIDS-LVT BU2 design and development on behalf of the United States. Work will be performed in Carlsbad, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2016. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation contract funds in the amount of $1,318,017 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements and 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Data Link Solutions LLC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $32,874,867 contract modification with cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing under a previously indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00039-10-D-0031) for Block Upgrade 2 (BU2) development and retrofits of Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) production and engineering services. Corresponding delivery order 0043 shall procure MIDS-LVT BU2 design and development on behalf of the United States. Work will be performed in Wayne, N.J. (50 percent), and Cedar Rapids, Iowa (50 percent), and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2016. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation contract funds in the amount of $1,500,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and these funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 and 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded an $18,195,519 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-12-C-2100) for reactor plant planning yard services for nuclear-powered submarines and support yard services for the Navy’s moored training ships. The contractor will furnish, fabricate, or acquire such materials, supplies and services as may be necessary to perform the functions of the planning yard for reactor plants and associated portions of the propulsion plants for nuclear powered submarines. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn. (95 percent), and Charleston, S.C. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funds in the amount of $17,964,812 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) - only one or limited number of sources and no other suppliers will satisfy the requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Thales Communication Inc., Clarksburg, Md., is being awarded $8,815,933 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 7002 against previously awarded contract (N00383-13-G-003F) for the repair of six items for the airborne low frequency sonar system for the H-60 helicopter. Work will be performed at Clarksburg, Md. (28 percent); Brest, France (54 percent); and Johnstown, Pa. (18 percent), and work is expected to be completed Nov. 1, 2015. Fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds in the amount of $6,611,949 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Office, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $6,539,431 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-priced contract (N00019-09-C-0069) to exercise an option for the procurement of AN/ARC-210(V) electronic radios and ancillary equipment for a variety of aircraft. Equipment being procured includes 63 MT-6567/ARC, four RT-1990(C)/ARC, and 70 RT-1990(C)/ARC. Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is expected to be completed in October 2014. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement Navy contract funds in the amount of $6,539,431 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Navistar Defense LLC, Lisle, Ill., was awarded a $7,260,077 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering, logistic and travel support for the acquisition of the contract data requirements list and program and logistics support management for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro M1235A3 Dash with MaxxPro Survivability Upgrade (MSU). The contractor shall include MSU content as well as variation in vehicle content for both the objective gunner protection kit and common remotely operated weapon system. Work will be performed in Lisle, Ill., with an expected completion date of December 2014. Fiscal 2013 procurement funds in the amount of $7,260,077 are being obligated at the time of the award. One bid was solicited and one received. Army Contracting Command, Tank and Automotive, Warren, Mich., is the contracting agency (W56HZV-10-C-0011).
*Small, In HubZone, Disadvantaged Business
REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND ARABIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AL-FAISAL
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Riyadh Air Base
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
November 4, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary John Kerry and his delegation in Saudi Arabia. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques received Secretary Kerry this afternoon. In the meeting, they discussed bilateral relations and the developments in the region.
I’d like to take this opportunity to address the recent media reports about Saudi-U.S. relations, which went so far as to describe them as dramatically deteriorating. The fact of the matter is that the historic relationship between the two countries has always been based on independence, mutual respect, common interest, and constructive cooperation on regional and international issues to serve global peace and security.
A true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor, and frankness rather than mere courtesy. Within this perspective, it’s only natural that our policies and views might see agreement in some areas and disagreement in others. That’s perfectly normal in any serious relationship that spans a wide range of issues.
I’d also like to point out that the Kingdom’s declination of membership in the Security Council in no way, shape, or form amounts to withdrawing from the United Nations. The Kingdom appreciates the efforts of the UN’s various humanitarian, developmental, economic and health organizations, among others.
The problem, however, lies in the UN’s failure to deal with political issues, crises, especially those in the Middle East. The reason is the Security Council’s apparent inability to handle them. It should be remembered that the Security Council wasn’t established just to manage international crises, but to solve them once and for all, and thus to maintain international peace and security. This failure is obvious in the Palestinian issue, which went nowhere in more than 60 years. Also, reducing the Syrian crisis to merely destroying chemical weapons – which is but a small aspect of it – won’t help put an end to one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in our times. And then there’s the international community’s failure to be decisive in making the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, which kept the region living in fear of this ticking bomb that could go off at any time. This time bomb cannot be defused by only dealing with its ramifications or maneuvering around it.
These and many other issues and unrest in the region and its various countries are and always have been of utmost concern to the Kingdom and the focus of its efforts. They have always been a point of discussion with the U.S. and all other international players, at both bilateral and multilateral levels. International legitimacy, agreements, treaties, and international law should help put an end to these crises without having to resort to political maneuvers and bargaining, which is exactly the reason why many of these issues left the UN’s realm to seek solutions elsewhere.
The Kingdom fully realizes the importance of negotiations in resolving any given crisis. Yet, negotiations shouldn’t just go on indefinitely, taking into account that we are facing some grave crises for which partial solutions just won’t do. These grave issues desperately need decisive and resolute intervention that should put an end to the human tragedies they produced. Nowhere is this clearer than the international community’s failure to stop the war against the Syrian people, even though the moral choice between war and peace is clear-cut, with no room to second-guess a choice between stopping the bloodshed and looking the other way.
Finally, I’d like to underline the fact that our two friendly countries are extremely busy in dealing with these issues in all seriousness and transparency. There is no room for emotion or anger here, but rather, for policies of common sense and levelheadedness based on mutual trust. That is how we solve any problem.
Again, I welcome Secretary Kerry, and he now has the floor.
SECRETARY KERRY: Your Royal Highness, thank you very much. (Inaudible.) I’m very honored to be here and I’m very grateful to you and to His Majesty particularly for the very generous, very warm welcome, but also importantly, for the very candid and friendly discussion that we have had regarding issues of enormous importance to our countries, to the region, and even to the world. It’s a privilege for me to be here again in Saudi Arabia and particularly to be with my good friend Prince Saud al-Faisal. We have gotten to know each other better and better, and we’ve spent a lot of time talking in these last weeks, and I am always impressed by his judgment and his wisdom about the region and the good counsel that he shares with me and with President Obama.
The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is many things, and I am particularly grateful for the comments that His Royal Highness has just made about some media speculation versus the reality of the friendship that we share. Our relationship is strategic, it is enduring, and it covers a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. I want to remind everyone of President Obama’s statement at the United Nations. The President said that he will use all elements of U.S. power, including force, to secure the core interests of the United States in the Middle East. He said the United States will confront external aggression against our partners, as we did for Kuwait in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from this region to the world. We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. We will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. These are core U.S. interests, and we share these interests with Saudi Arabia, and we intend to work on these with Saudi Arabia.
We also pursue together – Saudi Arabia and the United States have an incredible deep relationship. It goes way beyond one or two countries and one or two efforts. We do joint work in military planning; in enhancing renewable energy supplies; in energy stability and security; in counterterrorism; in critical infrastructure protection; in trade and investment; in science and technology; in enhancing and dealing with and addressing the medical attention to health pandemics; in agriculture and food security; in education and student exchanges. This is a deep relationship and it has endured now for more than 70 years and it will endure well into the future.
Time and again, Saudi Arabia has proven to be an indispensable partner, but an indispensable partner that obviously has independent and important views of its own, and we respect that. We look forward to continuing this collaboration to advance our shared security and our shared prosperity.
Today, in addition to our bilateral agenda, His Royal Highness and I discussed a number of these regional concerns, and I have just heard the views of His Majesty King Abdullah, who was very clear to me about the importance of many of these issues – Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Middle East peace process.
First, on Syria, the United States appreciates Saudi Arabia’s leadership supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its strong commitment to achieving a political solution to the crisis, which, as we have always said, really has only one solution, and that is a negotiated political solution. This crisis will not end through military force, in our judgment. A negotiated political settlement as laid out in the Geneva communique, we believe is the best way to end the bloodshed, respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, to counter the violent extremist groups that we both agree are growing in their threat to all of us and which must be stopped, and also to recognize the full challenge of the humanitarian disaster that we all see. Together, we believe we must avert further instability. That’s why it is imperative that we hold the Geneva 2 conference as soon as possible so the representatives of the people of Syria can work towards a transition to a new Syria.
We also believe very strongly that we must continue to consult with Saudi Arabia as well as with the Syrian coalition leadership and our international partners, including Special Representative Brahimi and the Government of Russia in order to prepare for the Geneva conference. But I will make it clear: We will continue to support the opposition in the meantime and we will not stand idly by while Assad continues to use weapons enormously disproportionate to those in the possession of the opposition in order to kill innocent men, women, and children.
We appreciate the strong Arab League communique that was issued last night, encouraging the Syrian Opposition Coalition to go to Geneva to negotiate. And I want to underscore the importance that we, and all of our regional partners, feel about continuing our very close coordination on our common objectives in Syria. There is no difference about our mutually agreed upon objective in Syria. As I have said many times before, Assad has lost all legitimacy and Assad must go. There must be a new transitional governing body in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace and an end to the human suffering, and we do not believe that there is a way or see how that war can end or that suffering will be ended as long as Assad is there.
I’ve come to Riyadh from Cairo. Yesterday, I met with Egypt’s interim leaders and importantly with other leaders, too, of the civil society. The United States is committed to supporting Egypt as it moves forward with its democratic transition. We encourage credible progress on Egypt’s political roadmap as set forth and efforts to address the Egyptian people’s political aspirations to establish the conditions for a stronger and more prosperous economy in Egypt. The Egyptian people desperately need economic transformation, and we have agreed, with our friends in Saudi Arabia and with others, to work as hard as we can to help effect this economic transformation so that a difference in the quality of life can quickly, hopefully come to the people of Egypt. We want to see Egypt pursue a transition to a stable, inclusive, and democratic civilian-led government that respects and protects the rights and freedoms of all Egyptians.
Regarding Yemen, we discussed the importance of concluding the national dialogue now, and to moving the constitutional drafting process where regional issues can be addressed. On Lebanon, we also discussed the importance of our strong support for responsible moderates who will still work for government formation without Hezbollah intimidation, and we think it’s important that Hezbollah not be allowed to define that future.
In addition, we talked about Iraq and the increased violence in Iraq, and the absolute imperative with Prime Minister Maliki, whom we just met with in Washington, that he reach out to all people in Iraq and help to end the sectarian violence and provide opportunity for all Iraqis.
Finally, on Iran, let me reiterate the position that President Obama has made clear many times: The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. That policy has not changed. President Obama has stated again and again that our preference is to resolve this challenge peacefully, through diplomacy, and we are committed to giving diplomacy a real chance to succeed. And while this window is open, while we are testing whether Iran is willing to take the steps required to satisfy the international community’s concerns, the burden remains squarely on Iran to demonstrate through credible and verifiable action that its nuclear program is indeed, in fact, peaceful and only peaceful.
We state clearly: Words will not satisfy this. It’s only actions that will speak to our concerns. We believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. That won’t change. And I want to emphasize, President Obama will not take any option off the table in this process, but we do seek to put to test the reality of the possibility of a diplomatic solution.
So again, I believe on the issues of most importance to Saudi Arabia and the United States in this region and elsewhere that we are in close agreement. I believe that we have the ability to cooperate together; we have for many, many years. And when we may differ once or twice on a tactic here or there, the bonds of our friends are much stronger than any of those differences at that moment in time.
I want to thank His Majesty King Abdullah for the significant amount of time that he gave to this discussion today, for the strength of the and quality of the conversation that we had. I will relate to President Obama that he can count on the fact that he has a strong and supportive and candid friend in King Abdullah, and that we, as two countries, have the ability to accomplish a lot in the days ahead together and we look forward to continuing to work in a cooperative way.
And finally, my profound gratitude to His Royal Highness Prince Saud al-Faisal for his continued friendship and for his wonderful hospitality. Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.
QUESTION: I have a question for the Foreign Minister and for Secretary Kerry. For the Foreign Minister: Yesterday in Cairo, Secretary Kerry acknowledged, as he did today, that there are tactical differences, as he put it, between the Obama Administration and Saudi Arabia on how to end the war in Syria and bring about a transitional government without Bashar al-Assad, and how to negotiate with Iran, and how best to respond to events in Egypt.
Sir, how would you explain – since you think the media has been exaggerating these issues, how would you explain to us the nature of these differences on Syria, Iran, and Egypt? And what progress, if any, have you made in resolving these differences today?
And to Secretary Kerry: In Cairo yesterday, you made the point that the United States is deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process. There have been reports in the Israeli and Palestinian press that the United States has informed both sides that if progress is not made in the next two months, the United States will present its own plan in January on how to deal with the core issues. Is the Obama Administration prepared to present its own plan for advancing the talks if no progress is made? And when would you do that? And since you said that violence in Syria is unacceptable – and clearly, the framework agreement and the chemical weapons initiative hasn’t stopped that – what specific steps are you now proposing to end the violence and reduce it there beyond the peace conference?
Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: I would answer that these differences have two different kind of differences – differences in objective and differences in tactic. Some of these differences are in objective, very few. Most of the differences are in tactics. On Syria, for instance, we both agree that the Geneva 2 has the sole purpose of implementing Geneva 1. That’s a clear agreement on objective. We both agree that Bashar al-Assad has no role to play. That’s a key decision. We agree that the representative of the Syrian people are the coalition. That’s a clear objective.
Now, the tactic we had differences on, but differences that don’t go beyond what they are – tactical differences. The United States thinks it’s best to do that through the strengthening the coalition and working for their success in Syria. So the differences you mentioned are mostly differences in tactics, I would say. We don’t have any differences in objective.
In Iran, we both want a region free of atomic weapons. In the Middle East, unfortunately, every time a weapon has been introduced to it, it has been used, and that is a threat that it exists under. So we both agree that this region, important as it is to the world economy, if we can have it free of atomic weapons, it would be good. And we accept the assurance of the Secretary that they will not allow the development of weapons – of atomic weapons in Iran.
SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, with respect to the question of whatever rumor or whatever speculation this article has been written off, let me categorically dispel any notion that there is anything other than the track that is formally engaged in between Israel and the Palestinians. And the only plan we have at this point in time is to pursue that discussion and the discussion track that we’ve always talked about, which is the leaders track, which is the discussions between President Obama, myself, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas. So it’s just incorrect. There is no other plan at this point in time.
With respect to the violence in Syria, we believe that the sooner we can get to Geneva and engage the international community in the possibilities of peace, the sooner we try to get nations coming together around the common goal of implementing Geneva 1. The Geneva 1 communique sets out a transition government requirement with full executive authority by mutual consent of the parties.
That means both parties actually have a veto, which makes it complicated. It means both parties are going to have to find people respected by all who will protect the rights of Syrians while they transition to an election to choose their future leadership. And that is the way you can most rapidly, most effectively end the violence. Absent a negotiated solution, we don’t see a lot of ways to end the violence, certainly, that are implementable or palatable to us because we don’t have the legal authority or the justification or the desire at this point to get in the middle of a civil war. And I think that’s been made very clear.
So our hope is that we can bring the parties together. It won’t be the first very complicated conflict where very emotional, highly separated entities are brought together by the international community and ultimately find a way forward. Obviously, the Balkans – Kosovo is an example. Serbia, the Dayton Accords. There are other examples through history, and that’s what international multilateral organizations are meant to do. I share Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal’s and Saudi Arabia’s frustration sometimes that the efforts to get an entity like the Security Council of the United Nations that is supposed to be non-ideological and separated from global politics and urge solution to these things has been stymied over the last few years by more – by a kind of polarization that has entered into that entity.
And so our hope is that we can find and summon the will at the international level to try to make peace here. And I think there is among a lot of parties a readiness for it and a willingness for it. And what will happen in Geneva, if we get there, is that will will be put to the test of good faith under the international spotlight for all to see. And it will quickly become evident who is serious about seeking a solution and who isn’t, and that in itself can create its own dynamic that can begin to change the order of things.
So that is our plan, that’s our strategy, that’s what we’re pursuing. We know it’s not easy. We have no illusions about the complications in the road ahead of us, which is why we will continue to support the moderate opposition in the meantime in its efforts to be able to defend the interests of the vast majority of the people of Syria.
MODERATOR: Mr. Talay.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Hassan Talay, Al Arabiya. My first question is to Mr. Kerry. During your visit, did you give any reassurances to Saudi Arabia concerning what’s going on between EU and Iran, whether openly or behind closed doors?
The other question is for both sides concerning Iran’s intervention in the region. Does it include the 5+1? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t understand the question about intervention. Does it include the 5+1? Oh, you’re talking – I understand what you mean. Does the 5+1 refer to or involve any of Iran’s other activities? Is that the question?
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, first question – did I give some assurances with respect to Iran? Yes, absolutely. Of course I did. We talked about Iran, and I shared with His Majesty King Abdullah, as well as with Prince Saud al-Faisal on a number of occasions, precisely what the American view is with respect to the P5+1 approach. And it is a shared view.
Nothing that we are doing with respect to this negotiation will alter or upset or get in the way the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the relationship in this region, which is why President Obama asked me to reaffirm, while I am here, the statement that he made at the United Nations regarding his willingness, and the United States’, to defend our friends in this region from any external attack and to continue to work with Saudi Arabia and others in the way that we have in our military-to-military and intelligence cooperation. So nothing will interfere with that, number one.
Number two: We made it clear that we enter this negotiation in the P5+1 with very open eyes, with a strong understanding – as I said in my opening comments a few minutes ago – that words will not satisfy us. It is only specific actions on which countries will be able to measure an outcome, and the outcome must be one that allows all of us to know that every day that we wake up we know that what is happening in Iran is a peaceful program and not one where they can be secretly moving towards a weapon that could threaten the stability of this region.
Now, Iran has insisted that its program is peaceful, and we will work closely in the process of negotiations to make certain that that can be done, laid out, and proven in a transparent, accountable manner. We have said publicly – and I reassured the – His Majesty and Prince Faisal – that no deal is better than a bad deal. A bad deal could allow you to have hidden efforts go on. A good deal lets you know what’s happening. And so we will continue to cooperate. We made it clear we will consult and we will reach out and engage in ongoing deliberation and discussion. And we will very much brief our friends here on a regular basis so that there are no surprises and there is a clarity to the road ahead. And I think that, hopefully, is a welcome process.
With respect to the question of Iran’s interests in the region, et cetera, the first topic is nuclear. We are well aware of Iran’s activities in the region. Obviously, we Americans have never forgotten what happened with Khobar Towers. We know that there were plots involving the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States. We are well aware of other activities, and they concern us. It concerns us that Iran has personnel on the ground in Syria. It concerns us that Hezbollah is active in conjunction with Iran’s support. But the first step is the nuclear step, which we hope will open the door to the possibility to be able to deal with those. And that can happen over the next months, because none of this is going to happen, obviously, very quickly. But one of the things we’ve made clear to our friends in the region is we’re not going to do this in a vacuum. We’re going to do this in cooperation with our friends in ways that everybody has an understanding of exactly what is being discussed and so people have confidence that the outcome will not have negative impacts in ways that are unanticipated or are surprising. And we think that’s a very important part of our relationship.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) Actually, it’s an important question because it ties into the negotiations, the 5+1 negotiations. It points to intentions, and the 5+1 negotiations are based on good intentions, and they – good will is that – it means that you are doing things that are positive for the negotiations. I believe that it will bolster the proposal of the 5+1 towards Iran. If it includes Iran’s presence in Syria, that’s conclusive proof of the intentions of Iran’s neighboring countries.
I consider Syria an occupied land. Iran’s forces did not come in to protect Syria from an external occupation. They went there to help the regime hurt the Syrian people. How can a neighboring country that’s supposed to uphold good relationships, to go – to get involved into a civil war and help one side over the other? That’s – if there is no law to – it’s necessary to have – to have law against that in the international laws. Iran’s good intentions are being tested right now, and right now the most important step it can take to prove its good intentions is to get out of Syria and get its ally, its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, out of there too.
MS. PSAKI: Lesley Wroughton from Reuters.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is a question for His Highness. I was wondering: Saudi – you’ve spoken about your frustration with regard to the Security Council actions on Syria. You’ve heard Secretary Kerry say that the U.S. does not have a desire to get in the middle of the civil war, wants peaceful – unless it’s through peace talks. What is it that you are doing and that you are – or there have been reports that you’re increasing your support for the opposition militarily. Is that true? And how much further are you prepared to go to ensure that the civil war is ended? Also, what is the redline with regard to Iraq’s participation in the peace talks?
And for Secretary Kerry, on Pakistan: Pakistan believes, while recognizing that you won’t discuss the CIA drone strikes, that the killing recently of the Taliban leader Mehsud was an attempt to thwart the peace talks. And again, they’re threatening to close the supply routes into Afghanistan. I was wondering what you can say to Pakistan’s government to convince them that this was not an attempt to get in the middle of those peace talks with the Taliban. And just a follow-up: I was wondering what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: Why didn’t you ask me that question? (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: The – what the Iranians can do and cannot do in Syria is a very intriguing question. Syria has now more than 140,000 casualties, more than two million refugees. It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium. If that isn’t reason enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don’t know what is. If one is choosing a moral choice between – to intervene or not to intervene, what is that choice going to be? Do I let this fighting continue, or do I help if I can? And the people are not dying only of weapons, all kind of weapons – weapons of mass destruction like the chemical weapons and weapons of high destructive capability like the ballistic missiles that have been used against cities of Syria.
Aside from the human loss and the tragedy of the human loss, Syria is part of the cultural history of the world. It has been a city it has (inaudible) the city, Damascus. For longer than any other city in the world, it has been considered a city, and resided by people of culture, by people of education. It is being destroyed by carpet bombing. If that isn’t a disregard of human values, I don’t know what is.
Now the United Nations is supposed to be an organization established after the destructiveness of the Second World War to prevent such destructiveness to happen again. Three years now, almost three years, they have been looking at this tragedy with apparent unconcern. How can this be? Is this the role of the Security Council? It is not that this is happening in Syria, which is an Arab country. If it is happening anywhere in the world, it would be a great tragedy. If we can’t face tragedy of this sort, how can we say that we want to be – to establish a civilization based on social equality and justice? We can’t assume these high moral values if we don’t do something about Syria. We can’t really say that we are taking the high road and establishing our humanity if we let this tragedy continue unabated.
SECRETARY KERRY: You didn’t ask me, but let me just – I want to associate myself with the strong comments of Prince Saud al-Faisal regarding the tragedy and the level of devastation in Syria, and the need for the international community to respond, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard now to get to the table, but also why the United States has brought this issue to the Security Council on several occasions, only to be stymied in deadlock. So we certainly agree that we need to respond to it.
Now with respect to Hakimullah Mehsud in Pakistan, without commenting on what may or may not have happened, obviously he has been reported to have been killed. And I will just say very clearly that this is a man who absolutely is known to have targeted and killed many Americans, many Afghans, and many Pakistanis. A huge number of Pakistanis have died at the hands of Hakimullah Mehsud and his terrorist organization. And the Tehrik-e Taliban has been devastating Pakistan in terms of its stability and opportunities to be able to respond to many needs of its people.
Obviously, the relationship between us and Pakistan is a very important one. We just had Nawaz Sharif in Washington for a period of time. We work very, very closely. We’re closely engaged with the government in Pakistan. We have a strong ongoing dialogue with them regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and we have very important shared interests, and we intend to continue to work together with them through the Strategic Dialogue that we have established, in order to work through these kinds of challenges.
But I think it’s very, very clear that Pakistan has been deeply threatened by this insurgency in Pakistan. I think somewhere upwards of 50,000 troops and civilians have died in the last few years at the hands of the insurgency in Pakistan, and this man is one of those insurgents. So while we will welcome any discussions, we are sensitive to the concerns of the country, and we look forward to working very closely with the Government of Pakistan.
With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia, it’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification. But it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there’s a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch. There’s a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue.
QUESTION: I am Hamad from Herat newspaper. Your Highness, now that we know that there is enthusiasm for having – holding Geneva 2, and yet there’s a refusal by the fighting forces in Syria to hold a Geneva 2, how can you – how can the conference be held when the fighters on the ground refuse to hold it?
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) It’s not as clear-cut as you said. There is talk and there are people talking about this. One is saying we have to go, the other is saying we shouldn’t go. And yet there – and really, there is a dialogue going on among Syrians over the benefit of attending Geneva 2. The fact of the matter is that the decision at the end is going to be – for these people, the coalition, because they are the ones who represent Syria, and they are the ones who will decide whether or not to attend.
If they don’t attend, it’s not going to go anywhere. But I think they will accurately evaluate the situation because their presence in Geneva 2 will reinforce that they are – the fact that they are the representatives of the Syrian people, and will make the world understand that they are the ones who have given a chance to peace. And they will make the world understand that they did not refuse at any time to hold a hand of peace in negotiations. So in the end, they are the ones who will decide, and their desire is – whether to attend or not – is what will decide. I don’t think the Geneva 2 will happen without their presence.
We thank you for your attendance. The Secretary is going to go to Poland, and I’m going to go home and have dinner. (Laughter.)
Remarks with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Riyadh Air Base
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
November 4, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary John Kerry and his delegation in Saudi Arabia. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques received Secretary Kerry this afternoon. In the meeting, they discussed bilateral relations and the developments in the region.
I’d like to take this opportunity to address the recent media reports about Saudi-U.S. relations, which went so far as to describe them as dramatically deteriorating. The fact of the matter is that the historic relationship between the two countries has always been based on independence, mutual respect, common interest, and constructive cooperation on regional and international issues to serve global peace and security.
A true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor, and frankness rather than mere courtesy. Within this perspective, it’s only natural that our policies and views might see agreement in some areas and disagreement in others. That’s perfectly normal in any serious relationship that spans a wide range of issues.
I’d also like to point out that the Kingdom’s declination of membership in the Security Council in no way, shape, or form amounts to withdrawing from the United Nations. The Kingdom appreciates the efforts of the UN’s various humanitarian, developmental, economic and health organizations, among others.
The problem, however, lies in the UN’s failure to deal with political issues, crises, especially those in the Middle East. The reason is the Security Council’s apparent inability to handle them. It should be remembered that the Security Council wasn’t established just to manage international crises, but to solve them once and for all, and thus to maintain international peace and security. This failure is obvious in the Palestinian issue, which went nowhere in more than 60 years. Also, reducing the Syrian crisis to merely destroying chemical weapons – which is but a small aspect of it – won’t help put an end to one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in our times. And then there’s the international community’s failure to be decisive in making the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, which kept the region living in fear of this ticking bomb that could go off at any time. This time bomb cannot be defused by only dealing with its ramifications or maneuvering around it.
These and many other issues and unrest in the region and its various countries are and always have been of utmost concern to the Kingdom and the focus of its efforts. They have always been a point of discussion with the U.S. and all other international players, at both bilateral and multilateral levels. International legitimacy, agreements, treaties, and international law should help put an end to these crises without having to resort to political maneuvers and bargaining, which is exactly the reason why many of these issues left the UN’s realm to seek solutions elsewhere.
The Kingdom fully realizes the importance of negotiations in resolving any given crisis. Yet, negotiations shouldn’t just go on indefinitely, taking into account that we are facing some grave crises for which partial solutions just won’t do. These grave issues desperately need decisive and resolute intervention that should put an end to the human tragedies they produced. Nowhere is this clearer than the international community’s failure to stop the war against the Syrian people, even though the moral choice between war and peace is clear-cut, with no room to second-guess a choice between stopping the bloodshed and looking the other way.
Finally, I’d like to underline the fact that our two friendly countries are extremely busy in dealing with these issues in all seriousness and transparency. There is no room for emotion or anger here, but rather, for policies of common sense and levelheadedness based on mutual trust. That is how we solve any problem.
Again, I welcome Secretary Kerry, and he now has the floor.
SECRETARY KERRY: Your Royal Highness, thank you very much. (Inaudible.) I’m very honored to be here and I’m very grateful to you and to His Majesty particularly for the very generous, very warm welcome, but also importantly, for the very candid and friendly discussion that we have had regarding issues of enormous importance to our countries, to the region, and even to the world. It’s a privilege for me to be here again in Saudi Arabia and particularly to be with my good friend Prince Saud al-Faisal. We have gotten to know each other better and better, and we’ve spent a lot of time talking in these last weeks, and I am always impressed by his judgment and his wisdom about the region and the good counsel that he shares with me and with President Obama.
The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is many things, and I am particularly grateful for the comments that His Royal Highness has just made about some media speculation versus the reality of the friendship that we share. Our relationship is strategic, it is enduring, and it covers a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. I want to remind everyone of President Obama’s statement at the United Nations. The President said that he will use all elements of U.S. power, including force, to secure the core interests of the United States in the Middle East. He said the United States will confront external aggression against our partners, as we did for Kuwait in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from this region to the world. We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. We will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. These are core U.S. interests, and we share these interests with Saudi Arabia, and we intend to work on these with Saudi Arabia.
We also pursue together – Saudi Arabia and the United States have an incredible deep relationship. It goes way beyond one or two countries and one or two efforts. We do joint work in military planning; in enhancing renewable energy supplies; in energy stability and security; in counterterrorism; in critical infrastructure protection; in trade and investment; in science and technology; in enhancing and dealing with and addressing the medical attention to health pandemics; in agriculture and food security; in education and student exchanges. This is a deep relationship and it has endured now for more than 70 years and it will endure well into the future.
Time and again, Saudi Arabia has proven to be an indispensable partner, but an indispensable partner that obviously has independent and important views of its own, and we respect that. We look forward to continuing this collaboration to advance our shared security and our shared prosperity.
Today, in addition to our bilateral agenda, His Royal Highness and I discussed a number of these regional concerns, and I have just heard the views of His Majesty King Abdullah, who was very clear to me about the importance of many of these issues – Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Middle East peace process.
First, on Syria, the United States appreciates Saudi Arabia’s leadership supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its strong commitment to achieving a political solution to the crisis, which, as we have always said, really has only one solution, and that is a negotiated political solution. This crisis will not end through military force, in our judgment. A negotiated political settlement as laid out in the Geneva communique, we believe is the best way to end the bloodshed, respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, to counter the violent extremist groups that we both agree are growing in their threat to all of us and which must be stopped, and also to recognize the full challenge of the humanitarian disaster that we all see. Together, we believe we must avert further instability. That’s why it is imperative that we hold the Geneva 2 conference as soon as possible so the representatives of the people of Syria can work towards a transition to a new Syria.
We also believe very strongly that we must continue to consult with Saudi Arabia as well as with the Syrian coalition leadership and our international partners, including Special Representative Brahimi and the Government of Russia in order to prepare for the Geneva conference. But I will make it clear: We will continue to support the opposition in the meantime and we will not stand idly by while Assad continues to use weapons enormously disproportionate to those in the possession of the opposition in order to kill innocent men, women, and children.
We appreciate the strong Arab League communique that was issued last night, encouraging the Syrian Opposition Coalition to go to Geneva to negotiate. And I want to underscore the importance that we, and all of our regional partners, feel about continuing our very close coordination on our common objectives in Syria. There is no difference about our mutually agreed upon objective in Syria. As I have said many times before, Assad has lost all legitimacy and Assad must go. There must be a new transitional governing body in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace and an end to the human suffering, and we do not believe that there is a way or see how that war can end or that suffering will be ended as long as Assad is there.
I’ve come to Riyadh from Cairo. Yesterday, I met with Egypt’s interim leaders and importantly with other leaders, too, of the civil society. The United States is committed to supporting Egypt as it moves forward with its democratic transition. We encourage credible progress on Egypt’s political roadmap as set forth and efforts to address the Egyptian people’s political aspirations to establish the conditions for a stronger and more prosperous economy in Egypt. The Egyptian people desperately need economic transformation, and we have agreed, with our friends in Saudi Arabia and with others, to work as hard as we can to help effect this economic transformation so that a difference in the quality of life can quickly, hopefully come to the people of Egypt. We want to see Egypt pursue a transition to a stable, inclusive, and democratic civilian-led government that respects and protects the rights and freedoms of all Egyptians.
Regarding Yemen, we discussed the importance of concluding the national dialogue now, and to moving the constitutional drafting process where regional issues can be addressed. On Lebanon, we also discussed the importance of our strong support for responsible moderates who will still work for government formation without Hezbollah intimidation, and we think it’s important that Hezbollah not be allowed to define that future.
In addition, we talked about Iraq and the increased violence in Iraq, and the absolute imperative with Prime Minister Maliki, whom we just met with in Washington, that he reach out to all people in Iraq and help to end the sectarian violence and provide opportunity for all Iraqis.
Finally, on Iran, let me reiterate the position that President Obama has made clear many times: The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. That policy has not changed. President Obama has stated again and again that our preference is to resolve this challenge peacefully, through diplomacy, and we are committed to giving diplomacy a real chance to succeed. And while this window is open, while we are testing whether Iran is willing to take the steps required to satisfy the international community’s concerns, the burden remains squarely on Iran to demonstrate through credible and verifiable action that its nuclear program is indeed, in fact, peaceful and only peaceful.
We state clearly: Words will not satisfy this. It’s only actions that will speak to our concerns. We believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. That won’t change. And I want to emphasize, President Obama will not take any option off the table in this process, but we do seek to put to test the reality of the possibility of a diplomatic solution.
So again, I believe on the issues of most importance to Saudi Arabia and the United States in this region and elsewhere that we are in close agreement. I believe that we have the ability to cooperate together; we have for many, many years. And when we may differ once or twice on a tactic here or there, the bonds of our friends are much stronger than any of those differences at that moment in time.
I want to thank His Majesty King Abdullah for the significant amount of time that he gave to this discussion today, for the strength of the and quality of the conversation that we had. I will relate to President Obama that he can count on the fact that he has a strong and supportive and candid friend in King Abdullah, and that we, as two countries, have the ability to accomplish a lot in the days ahead together and we look forward to continuing to work in a cooperative way.
And finally, my profound gratitude to His Royal Highness Prince Saud al-Faisal for his continued friendship and for his wonderful hospitality. Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.
QUESTION: I have a question for the Foreign Minister and for Secretary Kerry. For the Foreign Minister: Yesterday in Cairo, Secretary Kerry acknowledged, as he did today, that there are tactical differences, as he put it, between the Obama Administration and Saudi Arabia on how to end the war in Syria and bring about a transitional government without Bashar al-Assad, and how to negotiate with Iran, and how best to respond to events in Egypt.
Sir, how would you explain – since you think the media has been exaggerating these issues, how would you explain to us the nature of these differences on Syria, Iran, and Egypt? And what progress, if any, have you made in resolving these differences today?
And to Secretary Kerry: In Cairo yesterday, you made the point that the United States is deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process. There have been reports in the Israeli and Palestinian press that the United States has informed both sides that if progress is not made in the next two months, the United States will present its own plan in January on how to deal with the core issues. Is the Obama Administration prepared to present its own plan for advancing the talks if no progress is made? And when would you do that? And since you said that violence in Syria is unacceptable – and clearly, the framework agreement and the chemical weapons initiative hasn’t stopped that – what specific steps are you now proposing to end the violence and reduce it there beyond the peace conference?
Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: I would answer that these differences have two different kind of differences – differences in objective and differences in tactic. Some of these differences are in objective, very few. Most of the differences are in tactics. On Syria, for instance, we both agree that the Geneva 2 has the sole purpose of implementing Geneva 1. That’s a clear agreement on objective. We both agree that Bashar al-Assad has no role to play. That’s a key decision. We agree that the representative of the Syrian people are the coalition. That’s a clear objective.
Now, the tactic we had differences on, but differences that don’t go beyond what they are – tactical differences. The United States thinks it’s best to do that through the strengthening the coalition and working for their success in Syria. So the differences you mentioned are mostly differences in tactics, I would say. We don’t have any differences in objective.
In Iran, we both want a region free of atomic weapons. In the Middle East, unfortunately, every time a weapon has been introduced to it, it has been used, and that is a threat that it exists under. So we both agree that this region, important as it is to the world economy, if we can have it free of atomic weapons, it would be good. And we accept the assurance of the Secretary that they will not allow the development of weapons – of atomic weapons in Iran.
SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, with respect to the question of whatever rumor or whatever speculation this article has been written off, let me categorically dispel any notion that there is anything other than the track that is formally engaged in between Israel and the Palestinians. And the only plan we have at this point in time is to pursue that discussion and the discussion track that we’ve always talked about, which is the leaders track, which is the discussions between President Obama, myself, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas. So it’s just incorrect. There is no other plan at this point in time.
With respect to the violence in Syria, we believe that the sooner we can get to Geneva and engage the international community in the possibilities of peace, the sooner we try to get nations coming together around the common goal of implementing Geneva 1. The Geneva 1 communique sets out a transition government requirement with full executive authority by mutual consent of the parties.
That means both parties actually have a veto, which makes it complicated. It means both parties are going to have to find people respected by all who will protect the rights of Syrians while they transition to an election to choose their future leadership. And that is the way you can most rapidly, most effectively end the violence. Absent a negotiated solution, we don’t see a lot of ways to end the violence, certainly, that are implementable or palatable to us because we don’t have the legal authority or the justification or the desire at this point to get in the middle of a civil war. And I think that’s been made very clear.
So our hope is that we can bring the parties together. It won’t be the first very complicated conflict where very emotional, highly separated entities are brought together by the international community and ultimately find a way forward. Obviously, the Balkans – Kosovo is an example. Serbia, the Dayton Accords. There are other examples through history, and that’s what international multilateral organizations are meant to do. I share Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal’s and Saudi Arabia’s frustration sometimes that the efforts to get an entity like the Security Council of the United Nations that is supposed to be non-ideological and separated from global politics and urge solution to these things has been stymied over the last few years by more – by a kind of polarization that has entered into that entity.
And so our hope is that we can find and summon the will at the international level to try to make peace here. And I think there is among a lot of parties a readiness for it and a willingness for it. And what will happen in Geneva, if we get there, is that will will be put to the test of good faith under the international spotlight for all to see. And it will quickly become evident who is serious about seeking a solution and who isn’t, and that in itself can create its own dynamic that can begin to change the order of things.
So that is our plan, that’s our strategy, that’s what we’re pursuing. We know it’s not easy. We have no illusions about the complications in the road ahead of us, which is why we will continue to support the moderate opposition in the meantime in its efforts to be able to defend the interests of the vast majority of the people of Syria.
MODERATOR: Mr. Talay.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Hassan Talay, Al Arabiya. My first question is to Mr. Kerry. During your visit, did you give any reassurances to Saudi Arabia concerning what’s going on between EU and Iran, whether openly or behind closed doors?
The other question is for both sides concerning Iran’s intervention in the region. Does it include the 5+1? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t understand the question about intervention. Does it include the 5+1? Oh, you’re talking – I understand what you mean. Does the 5+1 refer to or involve any of Iran’s other activities? Is that the question?
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, first question – did I give some assurances with respect to Iran? Yes, absolutely. Of course I did. We talked about Iran, and I shared with His Majesty King Abdullah, as well as with Prince Saud al-Faisal on a number of occasions, precisely what the American view is with respect to the P5+1 approach. And it is a shared view.
Nothing that we are doing with respect to this negotiation will alter or upset or get in the way the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the relationship in this region, which is why President Obama asked me to reaffirm, while I am here, the statement that he made at the United Nations regarding his willingness, and the United States’, to defend our friends in this region from any external attack and to continue to work with Saudi Arabia and others in the way that we have in our military-to-military and intelligence cooperation. So nothing will interfere with that, number one.
Number two: We made it clear that we enter this negotiation in the P5+1 with very open eyes, with a strong understanding – as I said in my opening comments a few minutes ago – that words will not satisfy us. It is only specific actions on which countries will be able to measure an outcome, and the outcome must be one that allows all of us to know that every day that we wake up we know that what is happening in Iran is a peaceful program and not one where they can be secretly moving towards a weapon that could threaten the stability of this region.
Now, Iran has insisted that its program is peaceful, and we will work closely in the process of negotiations to make certain that that can be done, laid out, and proven in a transparent, accountable manner. We have said publicly – and I reassured the – His Majesty and Prince Faisal – that no deal is better than a bad deal. A bad deal could allow you to have hidden efforts go on. A good deal lets you know what’s happening. And so we will continue to cooperate. We made it clear we will consult and we will reach out and engage in ongoing deliberation and discussion. And we will very much brief our friends here on a regular basis so that there are no surprises and there is a clarity to the road ahead. And I think that, hopefully, is a welcome process.
With respect to the question of Iran’s interests in the region, et cetera, the first topic is nuclear. We are well aware of Iran’s activities in the region. Obviously, we Americans have never forgotten what happened with Khobar Towers. We know that there were plots involving the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States. We are well aware of other activities, and they concern us. It concerns us that Iran has personnel on the ground in Syria. It concerns us that Hezbollah is active in conjunction with Iran’s support. But the first step is the nuclear step, which we hope will open the door to the possibility to be able to deal with those. And that can happen over the next months, because none of this is going to happen, obviously, very quickly. But one of the things we’ve made clear to our friends in the region is we’re not going to do this in a vacuum. We’re going to do this in cooperation with our friends in ways that everybody has an understanding of exactly what is being discussed and so people have confidence that the outcome will not have negative impacts in ways that are unanticipated or are surprising. And we think that’s a very important part of our relationship.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) Actually, it’s an important question because it ties into the negotiations, the 5+1 negotiations. It points to intentions, and the 5+1 negotiations are based on good intentions, and they – good will is that – it means that you are doing things that are positive for the negotiations. I believe that it will bolster the proposal of the 5+1 towards Iran. If it includes Iran’s presence in Syria, that’s conclusive proof of the intentions of Iran’s neighboring countries.
I consider Syria an occupied land. Iran’s forces did not come in to protect Syria from an external occupation. They went there to help the regime hurt the Syrian people. How can a neighboring country that’s supposed to uphold good relationships, to go – to get involved into a civil war and help one side over the other? That’s – if there is no law to – it’s necessary to have – to have law against that in the international laws. Iran’s good intentions are being tested right now, and right now the most important step it can take to prove its good intentions is to get out of Syria and get its ally, its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, out of there too.
MS. PSAKI: Lesley Wroughton from Reuters.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is a question for His Highness. I was wondering: Saudi – you’ve spoken about your frustration with regard to the Security Council actions on Syria. You’ve heard Secretary Kerry say that the U.S. does not have a desire to get in the middle of the civil war, wants peaceful – unless it’s through peace talks. What is it that you are doing and that you are – or there have been reports that you’re increasing your support for the opposition militarily. Is that true? And how much further are you prepared to go to ensure that the civil war is ended? Also, what is the redline with regard to Iraq’s participation in the peace talks?
And for Secretary Kerry, on Pakistan: Pakistan believes, while recognizing that you won’t discuss the CIA drone strikes, that the killing recently of the Taliban leader Mehsud was an attempt to thwart the peace talks. And again, they’re threatening to close the supply routes into Afghanistan. I was wondering what you can say to Pakistan’s government to convince them that this was not an attempt to get in the middle of those peace talks with the Taliban. And just a follow-up: I was wondering what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: Why didn’t you ask me that question? (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: The – what the Iranians can do and cannot do in Syria is a very intriguing question. Syria has now more than 140,000 casualties, more than two million refugees. It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium. If that isn’t reason enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don’t know what is. If one is choosing a moral choice between – to intervene or not to intervene, what is that choice going to be? Do I let this fighting continue, or do I help if I can? And the people are not dying only of weapons, all kind of weapons – weapons of mass destruction like the chemical weapons and weapons of high destructive capability like the ballistic missiles that have been used against cities of Syria.
Aside from the human loss and the tragedy of the human loss, Syria is part of the cultural history of the world. It has been a city it has (inaudible) the city, Damascus. For longer than any other city in the world, it has been considered a city, and resided by people of culture, by people of education. It is being destroyed by carpet bombing. If that isn’t a disregard of human values, I don’t know what is.
Now the United Nations is supposed to be an organization established after the destructiveness of the Second World War to prevent such destructiveness to happen again. Three years now, almost three years, they have been looking at this tragedy with apparent unconcern. How can this be? Is this the role of the Security Council? It is not that this is happening in Syria, which is an Arab country. If it is happening anywhere in the world, it would be a great tragedy. If we can’t face tragedy of this sort, how can we say that we want to be – to establish a civilization based on social equality and justice? We can’t assume these high moral values if we don’t do something about Syria. We can’t really say that we are taking the high road and establishing our humanity if we let this tragedy continue unabated.
SECRETARY KERRY: You didn’t ask me, but let me just – I want to associate myself with the strong comments of Prince Saud al-Faisal regarding the tragedy and the level of devastation in Syria, and the need for the international community to respond, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard now to get to the table, but also why the United States has brought this issue to the Security Council on several occasions, only to be stymied in deadlock. So we certainly agree that we need to respond to it.
Now with respect to Hakimullah Mehsud in Pakistan, without commenting on what may or may not have happened, obviously he has been reported to have been killed. And I will just say very clearly that this is a man who absolutely is known to have targeted and killed many Americans, many Afghans, and many Pakistanis. A huge number of Pakistanis have died at the hands of Hakimullah Mehsud and his terrorist organization. And the Tehrik-e Taliban has been devastating Pakistan in terms of its stability and opportunities to be able to respond to many needs of its people.
Obviously, the relationship between us and Pakistan is a very important one. We just had Nawaz Sharif in Washington for a period of time. We work very, very closely. We’re closely engaged with the government in Pakistan. We have a strong ongoing dialogue with them regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and we have very important shared interests, and we intend to continue to work together with them through the Strategic Dialogue that we have established, in order to work through these kinds of challenges.
But I think it’s very, very clear that Pakistan has been deeply threatened by this insurgency in Pakistan. I think somewhere upwards of 50,000 troops and civilians have died in the last few years at the hands of the insurgency in Pakistan, and this man is one of those insurgents. So while we will welcome any discussions, we are sensitive to the concerns of the country, and we look forward to working very closely with the Government of Pakistan.
With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia, it’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification. But it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there’s a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch. There’s a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue.
QUESTION: I am Hamad from Herat newspaper. Your Highness, now that we know that there is enthusiasm for having – holding Geneva 2, and yet there’s a refusal by the fighting forces in Syria to hold a Geneva 2, how can you – how can the conference be held when the fighters on the ground refuse to hold it?
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) It’s not as clear-cut as you said. There is talk and there are people talking about this. One is saying we have to go, the other is saying we shouldn’t go. And yet there – and really, there is a dialogue going on among Syrians over the benefit of attending Geneva 2. The fact of the matter is that the decision at the end is going to be – for these people, the coalition, because they are the ones who represent Syria, and they are the ones who will decide whether or not to attend.
If they don’t attend, it’s not going to go anywhere. But I think they will accurately evaluate the situation because their presence in Geneva 2 will reinforce that they are – the fact that they are the representatives of the Syrian people, and will make the world understand that they are the ones who have given a chance to peace. And they will make the world understand that they did not refuse at any time to hold a hand of peace in negotiations. So in the end, they are the ones who will decide, and their desire is – whether to attend or not – is what will decide. I don’t think the Geneva 2 will happen without their presence.
We thank you for your attendance. The Secretary is going to go to Poland, and I’m going to go home and have dinner. (Laughter.)
2013 COMMODITY LOAN DISBURSEMENTS RESUME
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency Announces the Resumption of 2013 Crop Commodity Loan Disbursements
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2013 — U.S Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Juan Garcia announced today that the processing and disbursement of 2013 crop commodity loans has resumed.The commodity loan programs provide interim financing to producers for agricultural commodities stored after harvest and then sold throughout the year. Crop year 2013 commodity loan-making was suspended Oct. 1, 2013, to make changes necessary to accommodate the automatic funding reductions known as sequester. Sequestration is mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
“We must comply with the laws established by Congress in accordance with sequestration policy,” said Garcia. “We regret the delay this has created in USDA issuing marketing assistance loans because we know how critical the loans are to farmers’ cash flows at this time of year.”
Producers requesting 2013 crop commodity loans on their harvested commodities will have a 5.1 percent reduction to the loan amount upon its disbursement, due to the sequestration. Commodity loans issued by marketing associations and loan servicing agents are also subject to the sequestration reduction.
During the period that loan-making was suspended, producers were still able to submit loan applications to their county FSA offices, marketing associations and loan servicing agents.
Farm Service Agency Announces the Resumption of 2013 Crop Commodity Loan Disbursements
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2013 — U.S Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Juan Garcia announced today that the processing and disbursement of 2013 crop commodity loans has resumed.The commodity loan programs provide interim financing to producers for agricultural commodities stored after harvest and then sold throughout the year. Crop year 2013 commodity loan-making was suspended Oct. 1, 2013, to make changes necessary to accommodate the automatic funding reductions known as sequester. Sequestration is mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
“We must comply with the laws established by Congress in accordance with sequestration policy,” said Garcia. “We regret the delay this has created in USDA issuing marketing assistance loans because we know how critical the loans are to farmers’ cash flows at this time of year.”
Producers requesting 2013 crop commodity loans on their harvested commodities will have a 5.1 percent reduction to the loan amount upon its disbursement, due to the sequestration. Commodity loans issued by marketing associations and loan servicing agents are also subject to the sequestration reduction.
During the period that loan-making was suspended, producers were still able to submit loan applications to their county FSA offices, marketing associations and loan servicing agents.
JUDICIAL REFORMS IN PANAMA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Amid Challenges, INL Helps Judicial Reform in Panama Take Hold
In 2011, with assistance from INL and the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative’s “Culture of Lawfulness” program, Panama began a phased transition to a U.S.-style accusatory justice system, to accelerate case processing and enhance transparency. Prior to the transition, Panama operated an inquisitorial criminal justice system based on a Napoleonic procedural code. To date, Panama has implemented the new system in four of its nine provinces.
Panamanian police, prosecutors, and judges are generally united in their support for the new accusatory system, with some calling the transition an unqualified success in improving speed and transparency in the criminal justice system. According to prosecutors, the changeover to public oral hearings has resulted in a substantially faster turnover of cases. Moreover, judges are saying that “the only way anyone can oppose the system is because they don’t know anything about it.” Meanwhile, police officers are calling the new system the “future of the country.”
In addition to being popular among justice sector professionals and civil society activists, the transition has sped up the cumbersome process to access justice. Pre-trial detention rates are dropping, and case processing times have been reduced by 85 percent, with 95 percent of new cases being resolved before trial through mediation, alternative sentencing, and plea bargaining. Judges are granting pre-trial release on bond for approximately two thirds of new defendants. Under the prior system, virtually all defendants were held in preventive detention for the duration of their case processing, often up to two years.
The reform process still has significant challenges to overcome. Nearly 70 percent of prisoners in Panamanian jails are in pre-trial detention. Panamanian justice sector institutions suffer from underfunding, resulting in personnel shortages, uncompetitive pay, and inadequate facilities. Some judicial institutions have less than half of the funding they need to run effectively. Due to funding and other concerns, the reform effort’s expansion to Panama’s remaining provinces – originally planned to be completed by spring 2014 – has been pushed back to 2016. Implementation of the new legal system in these high-population, high-crime provinces will be challenging and costly, but the reforms will yield concrete improvements to the Panamanian criminal justice system providing more rapid access to justice for Panamanians.
Amid Challenges, INL Helps Judicial Reform in Panama Take Hold
In 2011, with assistance from INL and the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative’s “Culture of Lawfulness” program, Panama began a phased transition to a U.S.-style accusatory justice system, to accelerate case processing and enhance transparency. Prior to the transition, Panama operated an inquisitorial criminal justice system based on a Napoleonic procedural code. To date, Panama has implemented the new system in four of its nine provinces.
Panamanian police, prosecutors, and judges are generally united in their support for the new accusatory system, with some calling the transition an unqualified success in improving speed and transparency in the criminal justice system. According to prosecutors, the changeover to public oral hearings has resulted in a substantially faster turnover of cases. Moreover, judges are saying that “the only way anyone can oppose the system is because they don’t know anything about it.” Meanwhile, police officers are calling the new system the “future of the country.”
In addition to being popular among justice sector professionals and civil society activists, the transition has sped up the cumbersome process to access justice. Pre-trial detention rates are dropping, and case processing times have been reduced by 85 percent, with 95 percent of new cases being resolved before trial through mediation, alternative sentencing, and plea bargaining. Judges are granting pre-trial release on bond for approximately two thirds of new defendants. Under the prior system, virtually all defendants were held in preventive detention for the duration of their case processing, often up to two years.
The reform process still has significant challenges to overcome. Nearly 70 percent of prisoners in Panamanian jails are in pre-trial detention. Panamanian justice sector institutions suffer from underfunding, resulting in personnel shortages, uncompetitive pay, and inadequate facilities. Some judicial institutions have less than half of the funding they need to run effectively. Due to funding and other concerns, the reform effort’s expansion to Panama’s remaining provinces – originally planned to be completed by spring 2014 – has been pushed back to 2016. Implementation of the new legal system in these high-population, high-crime provinces will be challenging and costly, but the reforms will yield concrete improvements to the Panamanian criminal justice system providing more rapid access to justice for Panamanians.
OSHA CITES ETHANOL COMPANY AFTER WORKER ENGULFED IN CORN BIN
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
US Labor Department's OSHA cites United Ethanol for 15 violations after
worker fatally engulfed in corn bin at Milton, Wis., ethanol facility
Company placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program
MILTON, Wis. – United Ethanol LLC has been cited for 15 health and safety violations by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration after a worker was fatally engulfed in corn inside a grain storage bin on April 19 at the Milton ethanol manufacturing facility.
"This was a terrible, preventable tragedy that underscores the importance of safety compliance," said Kim Stille, OSHA's area director in Madison. "Engulfment is one of the six major hazards present in grain bin handling facilities. Employers are responsible for identifying hazards and ensuring workers follow proper procedures to prevent injury or death."
The worker entered the grain bin in an attempt to unclog the floor chute and became engulfed when corn began to flow. The commercial grain bin held about 140,000 bushels of corn at the time of the incident.
One willful violation was cited under OSHA's grain handling regulations for failing to lockout conveyors used to empty grain bins, which exposed the now-deceased worker to the engulfment hazard. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for, or plain indifference to, employee safety and health.
Five serious violations of OSHA's grain handling standards include failing to guard floor chute openings; prevent exposure to moving grain hazards; prevent workers from entering bins when engulfment hazards exist; and failure to have an observer oversee entry procedures and to certify that all bin entry requirements had been implemented.
In 2010, following the deaths of at least 26 U.S. workers in grain bin entrapments-the highest number on record-OSHA focused its enforcement efforts on the grain and feed industry's six major danger areas. These include engulfment, falls, auger entanglement, struck-by, combustible dust and electrocution hazards. OSHA area offices in 25 states, including Wisconsin, have developed a local emphasis program dealing with grain.
US Labor Department's OSHA cites United Ethanol for 15 violations after
worker fatally engulfed in corn bin at Milton, Wis., ethanol facility
Company placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program
MILTON, Wis. – United Ethanol LLC has been cited for 15 health and safety violations by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration after a worker was fatally engulfed in corn inside a grain storage bin on April 19 at the Milton ethanol manufacturing facility.
"This was a terrible, preventable tragedy that underscores the importance of safety compliance," said Kim Stille, OSHA's area director in Madison. "Engulfment is one of the six major hazards present in grain bin handling facilities. Employers are responsible for identifying hazards and ensuring workers follow proper procedures to prevent injury or death."
The worker entered the grain bin in an attempt to unclog the floor chute and became engulfed when corn began to flow. The commercial grain bin held about 140,000 bushels of corn at the time of the incident.
One willful violation was cited under OSHA's grain handling regulations for failing to lockout conveyors used to empty grain bins, which exposed the now-deceased worker to the engulfment hazard. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for, or plain indifference to, employee safety and health.
Five serious violations of OSHA's grain handling standards include failing to guard floor chute openings; prevent exposure to moving grain hazards; prevent workers from entering bins when engulfment hazards exist; and failure to have an observer oversee entry procedures and to certify that all bin entry requirements had been implemented.
In 2010, following the deaths of at least 26 U.S. workers in grain bin entrapments-the highest number on record-OSHA focused its enforcement efforts on the grain and feed industry's six major danger areas. These include engulfment, falls, auger entanglement, struck-by, combustible dust and electrocution hazards. OSHA area offices in 25 states, including Wisconsin, have developed a local emphasis program dealing with grain.
DISA CONSOLIDATES DATA CENTER OPERATIONS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) closed data center operations at Dayton, Ohio, and Chambersburg, Pa., and transferred the functions of these centers to other Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECCs) Oct. 1.
The reallocation of operations from Dayton and Chambersburg enables the agency to consolidate and converge existing information technology infrastructures to gain financial and operational efficiencies across the enterprise. It also supports the adoption of the Joint Information Environment (JIE), a major Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to provide a consolidated, collaborative, and secure JIE that enables end-to-end information sharing and interdependent enterprise services across the department. JIE will enable secure, seamless access to information regardless of computing device or location.
DISA and the military departments are aggressively consolidating their data centers and information technology infrastructure. This consolidation will establish a core computing infrastructure that provides assured and ubiquitous access to vital enterprise services and aggregates computing services and infrastructure requirements to gain economic efficiencies of scale.
About 30 civilian employees were affected by these closures. All were reassigned to other positions within DoD or elected to retire from federal service.
Through a diverse portfolio of information technology capabilities, DISA's DECCs provide a common platform that enhances operational effectiveness and facilitates increased collaboration for the DoD.
DISA remains focused on providing standardized, robustly interconnected data centers that are available to support the combatant commands, military services, and agency requirements as needed. DISA is also committed to providing cutting-edge, secure, and globally accessible technologies in support of mission partners, regardless of agency or military service affiliation.
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) closed data center operations at Dayton, Ohio, and Chambersburg, Pa., and transferred the functions of these centers to other Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECCs) Oct. 1.
The reallocation of operations from Dayton and Chambersburg enables the agency to consolidate and converge existing information technology infrastructures to gain financial and operational efficiencies across the enterprise. It also supports the adoption of the Joint Information Environment (JIE), a major Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to provide a consolidated, collaborative, and secure JIE that enables end-to-end information sharing and interdependent enterprise services across the department. JIE will enable secure, seamless access to information regardless of computing device or location.
DISA and the military departments are aggressively consolidating their data centers and information technology infrastructure. This consolidation will establish a core computing infrastructure that provides assured and ubiquitous access to vital enterprise services and aggregates computing services and infrastructure requirements to gain economic efficiencies of scale.
About 30 civilian employees were affected by these closures. All were reassigned to other positions within DoD or elected to retire from federal service.
Through a diverse portfolio of information technology capabilities, DISA's DECCs provide a common platform that enhances operational effectiveness and facilitates increased collaboration for the DoD.
DISA remains focused on providing standardized, robustly interconnected data centers that are available to support the combatant commands, military services, and agency requirements as needed. DISA is also committed to providing cutting-edge, secure, and globally accessible technologies in support of mission partners, regardless of agency or military service affiliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)