FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Opening Remarks at Meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies
SEC Chair Mary Jo White
March 4, 2015
Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I will be very brief so that you can get to the business at hand.
I, too, would like to welcome Michael Pieciak who will be serving as the committee’s observer representative from NASAA. Mike is the Deputy Commissioner of the Vermont Securities Division, and I am very pleased he is here on behalf of the state securities regulators to bring that knowledgeable and important voice to your discussions.
Today’s agenda addresses several important topics, including Regulation A+, secondary market liquidity, and recommendations regarding the definition of accredited investor, all of which are quite timely topics for the Commission’s ongoing work in these areas. As you know, our Regulation A+ and crowdfunding rulemakings are designed to facilitate smaller companies’ ability to access capital and to provide investors with additional investment opportunities. In making investment decisions, investors may naturally consider whether they will have the ability to resell their shares in the future; there is no doubt that secondary market liquidity is an important factor impacting the availability of capital for small businesses as well as investor protection.
SEC staff in the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Trading and Markets have been looking at various means to facilitate the secondary market trading of securities issued by small businesses. Among a number of other possible avenues, the staff is considering whether the development of appropriately structured venture exchanges could provide more liquidity for the securities of smaller companies. Some earlier exchanges have not been successful; the reasons for that need to be carefully studied along with other issues. Smaller companies are important to our economy, and it is important to support appropriately a market structure that promotes the capital formation of smaller companies, while also providing robust investor protections.
More generally, as I have emphasized on several occasions, one market structure may not fit all and that the Commission must concretely focus on how to enhance the market structure for smaller companies. I look forward to perspectives and ideas from your committee on what obstacles and possible solutions you see to the development of secondary market liquidity venues for privately-issued securities.
As promised, I will stop to let you get down to business. As always, we very much appreciate your expertise and efforts. Facilitating small business capital formation is a priority we all share. It is our job, with your help, to convert the supportive words into workable and effective actions.
Thank you.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
FTC, STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL MOVE AGAINST POLITICAL SURVEY ROBOCALLERS WHO OFFER BAHAMAS VACATION
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
FTC and Ten State Attorneys General Take Action Against Political Survey Robocallers Pitching Cruise Line Vacations to the Bahamas
Settling Defendants to Pay More Than $500,000 in Penalties for Billions of Illegal Robocalls
The Federal Trade Commission and 10 state attorneys general have taken action against a Florida-based cruise line company and seven other companies that assisted a massive telemarketing campaign resulting in billions of robocalls. The FTC and state partners allege that that the companies illegally sold cruise vacations using political survey robocalls.
Although the FTC’s do-not-call and robocall rules do not prohibit political survey robocalls, the defendants’ robocalls violated federal law because they incorporated a sales pitch for a cruise to the Bahamas. The robocalls generated millions of dollars for the cruise line.
“Marketers who know the ropes understand you can’t steer clear of the do not call rules by tacking a political or survey call onto a sales pitch,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. She added: “Anyone who assists in making illegal calls is also on the hook.”
According to the joint complaint filed by the FTC and the states, the defendants’ robocall campaign ran from October 2011 through July 2012 and averaged approximately 12 to 15 million illegal sales calls a day. Consumers who answered these calls typically heard a pre-recorded message supposedly from “John from Political Opinions of America,” who told them they had been “carefully selected” to participate in a 30-second research survey, after which they could “press one” to receive a two-day cruise to the Bahamas.
Consumers who completed the survey and pressed one for their cruise were connected to a live telemarketer working on behalf of Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (CCL), to market its cruise vacations. In addition to the cruise, these telemarketers also sold pre-boarding hotels, cruise excursions, enhanced accommodations, and other travel packages.
The complaint charges CCL with violating the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by using robocalls to sell cruise vacations. The complaint also alleges that two other companies, Linked Service Solutions, LLC and Economic Strategy LLC, violated the TSR by placing the robocalls that generated leads for CCL.
The complaint also charges a group of five interrelated companies, and their owner, Fred Accuardi, with assisting and facilitating the illegal cruise calls. The complaint alleges that these defendants provided robocallers with hundreds of telephone numbers to use when making calls, made it possible for robocallers to choose and change the names that would appear on consumers’ caller ID devices, and hid the robocallers’ identities from authorities.
In addition, the Accuardi defendants helped fund the robocallers by sharing fees generated by accessing caller ID names. The five companies charged with assisting and facilitating the robocall violations are: Telephone Management Corporation, T M Caller ID, LLC, Pacific Telecom Communications Group, International Telephone Corporation and International Telephone, LLC.
The FTC was joined in this action by the attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington and appreciates their assistance in bringing this case.
The following defendants have agreed to court orders settling the charges against them: CCL; Linked Service Solutions, LLC and its owners, Scott Broomfield and Jason Birkett (LSS); Economic Strategy LLC, and its owner, Jacob deJongh; and Steve Hamilton.
The proposed settlement orders bar CCL and the other settling defendants from engaging in abusive telemarketing practices, including calling consumers whose phone numbers are on the DNC Registry, calling anyone that has previously said they don’t want to be called again, failing to transmit accurate caller ID information, and placing illegal robocalls. The orders also require CCL to monitor its lead generators on an ongoing basis and Hamilton to terminate any clients placing telephone calls that would violate the TSR.
The proposed settlement orders also impose: 1) a civil penalty of $7.73 million against CCL, which will be partially suspended after CCL pays $500,000; 2) a partially suspended civil penalty of $5 million against LSS and its owners, upon payment of $25,000; 3) a partially suspended civil penalty of $295,000 against Economic Strategy and its owner, upon the payment of $2,000; and 4) a partially suspended civil penalty of $750,000 against Steve Hamilton, one of the owners of Pacific Telecom Communication Group, upon payment of $2,000. The penalties are partially suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay.
Litigation continues against Fred Accuardi and the five companies charged with assisting and facilitating the illegal conduct alleged in the complaint.
Information for Consumers
The FTC has a range of information for consumers who would like to learn more about the Do Not Call Registry, robocalls, and travel fraud in general. Please see the travel scams feature page and Limiting Unwanted Calls & Emails.
The Commission vote approving the complaint and each of the four proposed stipulated final orders was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
FTC and Ten State Attorneys General Take Action Against Political Survey Robocallers Pitching Cruise Line Vacations to the Bahamas
Settling Defendants to Pay More Than $500,000 in Penalties for Billions of Illegal Robocalls
The Federal Trade Commission and 10 state attorneys general have taken action against a Florida-based cruise line company and seven other companies that assisted a massive telemarketing campaign resulting in billions of robocalls. The FTC and state partners allege that that the companies illegally sold cruise vacations using political survey robocalls.
Although the FTC’s do-not-call and robocall rules do not prohibit political survey robocalls, the defendants’ robocalls violated federal law because they incorporated a sales pitch for a cruise to the Bahamas. The robocalls generated millions of dollars for the cruise line.
“Marketers who know the ropes understand you can’t steer clear of the do not call rules by tacking a political or survey call onto a sales pitch,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. She added: “Anyone who assists in making illegal calls is also on the hook.”
According to the joint complaint filed by the FTC and the states, the defendants’ robocall campaign ran from October 2011 through July 2012 and averaged approximately 12 to 15 million illegal sales calls a day. Consumers who answered these calls typically heard a pre-recorded message supposedly from “John from Political Opinions of America,” who told them they had been “carefully selected” to participate in a 30-second research survey, after which they could “press one” to receive a two-day cruise to the Bahamas.
Consumers who completed the survey and pressed one for their cruise were connected to a live telemarketer working on behalf of Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (CCL), to market its cruise vacations. In addition to the cruise, these telemarketers also sold pre-boarding hotels, cruise excursions, enhanced accommodations, and other travel packages.
The complaint charges CCL with violating the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by using robocalls to sell cruise vacations. The complaint also alleges that two other companies, Linked Service Solutions, LLC and Economic Strategy LLC, violated the TSR by placing the robocalls that generated leads for CCL.
The complaint also charges a group of five interrelated companies, and their owner, Fred Accuardi, with assisting and facilitating the illegal cruise calls. The complaint alleges that these defendants provided robocallers with hundreds of telephone numbers to use when making calls, made it possible for robocallers to choose and change the names that would appear on consumers’ caller ID devices, and hid the robocallers’ identities from authorities.
In addition, the Accuardi defendants helped fund the robocallers by sharing fees generated by accessing caller ID names. The five companies charged with assisting and facilitating the robocall violations are: Telephone Management Corporation, T M Caller ID, LLC, Pacific Telecom Communications Group, International Telephone Corporation and International Telephone, LLC.
The FTC was joined in this action by the attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington and appreciates their assistance in bringing this case.
The following defendants have agreed to court orders settling the charges against them: CCL; Linked Service Solutions, LLC and its owners, Scott Broomfield and Jason Birkett (LSS); Economic Strategy LLC, and its owner, Jacob deJongh; and Steve Hamilton.
The proposed settlement orders bar CCL and the other settling defendants from engaging in abusive telemarketing practices, including calling consumers whose phone numbers are on the DNC Registry, calling anyone that has previously said they don’t want to be called again, failing to transmit accurate caller ID information, and placing illegal robocalls. The orders also require CCL to monitor its lead generators on an ongoing basis and Hamilton to terminate any clients placing telephone calls that would violate the TSR.
The proposed settlement orders also impose: 1) a civil penalty of $7.73 million against CCL, which will be partially suspended after CCL pays $500,000; 2) a partially suspended civil penalty of $5 million against LSS and its owners, upon payment of $25,000; 3) a partially suspended civil penalty of $295,000 against Economic Strategy and its owner, upon the payment of $2,000; and 4) a partially suspended civil penalty of $750,000 against Steve Hamilton, one of the owners of Pacific Telecom Communication Group, upon payment of $2,000. The penalties are partially suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay.
Litigation continues against Fred Accuardi and the five companies charged with assisting and facilitating the illegal conduct alleged in the complaint.
Information for Consumers
The FTC has a range of information for consumers who would like to learn more about the Do Not Call Registry, robocalls, and travel fraud in general. Please see the travel scams feature page and Limiting Unwanted Calls & Emails.
The Commission vote approving the complaint and each of the four proposed stipulated final orders was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS IN MONTREUX, SWITZERLAND
FROM: THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks in Montreux, Switzerland
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Montreux, Switzerland
March 4, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: So good afternoon to all, and thank you very, very much for your patience. We’ve been involved in some long discussions over the past few days, and even well before that. And before I leave Montreux, I wanted to quickly share with you where we are.
From the beginning, these negotiations have been tough and intense, and they remain so. And we’ve made some progress from where we were, but there are still significant gaps and important choices that need to be made. The purpose of these negotiations is not to get any deal; it’s to get the right deal, one that can withstand scrutiny – the scrutiny of experts on nuclear affairs all around the world, the scrutiny of other governments, the scrutiny of people, the scrutiny of the Congress of the United States, people in America, and the scrutiny of countries in the region that are affected by it. And so we know that. We approach these negotiations with a full understanding of the test that will be applied to this and of the expectations that exist.
We also want an agreement that is sustainable over time, and particularly that achieves the singular goal of proving that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain peaceful. We aren’t going to be distracted by external factors or politics. We will continue to be guided by our experts, our scientists, our national interests and those of our partners and allies.
Now, for all the objections that any country has to Iranian activities in the region – and believe me, we have objections and others in the world have objections – the first step is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And we know that absent a deal, Iran will have the ability to move ahead with its nuclear program; that we know for sure, because that’s exactly what’s happened to date. We also know that any deal that we would agree to would significantly increase the breakout time, leaving Iran further – far further than it is today – from producing enough fissile material for a weapon, while it undertakes the effort of proving to the world that the program is, in fact, peaceful.
Clearly, increased breakout time makes any nation in the vicinity or any nation of concern safer. We also know that any deal that we reach would give us the intrusive access and verification measures necessary to confirm that Iran’s nuclear facilities are indeed on a peaceful path. And that would allow us to promptly detect any attempt to cheat or to break out, and then to respond appropriately. And contrary to some public reports, we are only contemplating a deal in which important access and verification measures will endure.
We also know that the international sanctions, which many want to simply hang their hats on – they may have gotten Iran to the table, but to date they haven’t stopped Iran from advancing its nuclear program. In fact, the first and only thing that had stopped their program from progressing in almost a decade was the Joint Plan of Action that we negotiated and we reached in November of 2013, and that has been adhered to in every single respect since then.
And most importantly, as President Obama said yesterday, we know that no one has presented a more viable, lasting alternative for how you actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So folks, simply demanding that Iran capitulate is not a plan, and nor would any of our P5+1 partners support us in that position. And it’s very important to remember we have partners in this effort – France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia – all of whom have similar feelings about the importance of what must be done here.
So we continue to be focused on reaching a good deal, the right deal, that closes off any paths that Iran could have towards fissile material for a weapon and that protects the world from the enormous threat that we all know a nuclear-armed Iran would pose.
Now, we still don’t know whether we will get there, and it is certainly possible that we won’t. It may be that Iran simply can’t say yes to the type of deal that the international community requires. But we do know that we owe it to the American people in my case, people in the world, to try to find out. And we will return to these talks on the 15th of March, recognizing that time is of the essence, the days are ticking by, and important decisions need to be made. Thank you.
Remarks in Montreux, Switzerland
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Montreux, Switzerland
March 4, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: So good afternoon to all, and thank you very, very much for your patience. We’ve been involved in some long discussions over the past few days, and even well before that. And before I leave Montreux, I wanted to quickly share with you where we are.
From the beginning, these negotiations have been tough and intense, and they remain so. And we’ve made some progress from where we were, but there are still significant gaps and important choices that need to be made. The purpose of these negotiations is not to get any deal; it’s to get the right deal, one that can withstand scrutiny – the scrutiny of experts on nuclear affairs all around the world, the scrutiny of other governments, the scrutiny of people, the scrutiny of the Congress of the United States, people in America, and the scrutiny of countries in the region that are affected by it. And so we know that. We approach these negotiations with a full understanding of the test that will be applied to this and of the expectations that exist.
We also want an agreement that is sustainable over time, and particularly that achieves the singular goal of proving that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain peaceful. We aren’t going to be distracted by external factors or politics. We will continue to be guided by our experts, our scientists, our national interests and those of our partners and allies.
Now, for all the objections that any country has to Iranian activities in the region – and believe me, we have objections and others in the world have objections – the first step is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And we know that absent a deal, Iran will have the ability to move ahead with its nuclear program; that we know for sure, because that’s exactly what’s happened to date. We also know that any deal that we would agree to would significantly increase the breakout time, leaving Iran further – far further than it is today – from producing enough fissile material for a weapon, while it undertakes the effort of proving to the world that the program is, in fact, peaceful.
Clearly, increased breakout time makes any nation in the vicinity or any nation of concern safer. We also know that any deal that we reach would give us the intrusive access and verification measures necessary to confirm that Iran’s nuclear facilities are indeed on a peaceful path. And that would allow us to promptly detect any attempt to cheat or to break out, and then to respond appropriately. And contrary to some public reports, we are only contemplating a deal in which important access and verification measures will endure.
We also know that the international sanctions, which many want to simply hang their hats on – they may have gotten Iran to the table, but to date they haven’t stopped Iran from advancing its nuclear program. In fact, the first and only thing that had stopped their program from progressing in almost a decade was the Joint Plan of Action that we negotiated and we reached in November of 2013, and that has been adhered to in every single respect since then.
And most importantly, as President Obama said yesterday, we know that no one has presented a more viable, lasting alternative for how you actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So folks, simply demanding that Iran capitulate is not a plan, and nor would any of our P5+1 partners support us in that position. And it’s very important to remember we have partners in this effort – France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia – all of whom have similar feelings about the importance of what must be done here.
So we continue to be focused on reaching a good deal, the right deal, that closes off any paths that Iran could have towards fissile material for a weapon and that protects the world from the enormous threat that we all know a nuclear-armed Iran would pose.
Now, we still don’t know whether we will get there, and it is certainly possible that we won’t. It may be that Iran simply can’t say yes to the type of deal that the international community requires. But we do know that we owe it to the American people in my case, people in the world, to try to find out. And we will return to these talks on the 15th of March, recognizing that time is of the essence, the days are ticking by, and important decisions need to be made. Thank you.
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON SUPPORTING THE ALLIANCE FOR PROSPERITY IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
March 03, 2015
FACT SHEET: Support for the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle
Vice President Biden traveled to Guatemala March 2-3 for two days of meetings with the Presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno, to advance implementation of the “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle” announced last November in Washington, DC. The Vice President was accompanied by State Department Counselor Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, Under Secretary of Commerce Stefan Selig, USAID Associate Administrator Mark Feierstein, Southcom Commander General John Kelly, and Inter-American Development Bank U.S. Executive Director Mark Lopes.
This week's meetings provided an opportunity for the leaders to discuss steps to stimulate economic growth, reduce inequality, promote educational opportunities, target criminal networks responsible for human trafficking, and help create governance and institutions that are transparent and accountable.
During working group meetings on March 3, Northern Triangle leaders committed in a Joint Statement to specific actions to advance implementation of the Alliance for Prosperity, in cooperation with the United States and the Inter-American Development Bank.
Specific commitments made by the leaders included the following:
- The United States and Northern Triangle governments agreed to hold a regional security dialogue in May 2015;
- The Northern Triangle governments agreed to expand centers in high-crime neighborhoods for at-risk youth to acquire job and life skills and participate in recreational activities in a safe environment;
- They agreed to create independent governmental auditing mechanisms by the end of 2015 to help combat corruption;
- Honduras will introduce a plan for police service reform by June 2015;
- Honduras will recruit, train, and deploy an additional 6,000 police over the next three years;
- El Salvador will present a bill criminalizing bulk cash smuggling by June 2015;
- Guatemala will introduce legislation to transition from an inquisitorial to an accusatorial judicial system by December 2015;
- The Northern Triangle countries agreed to diversify their energy matrix in 2015, to include promoting the completion of a gas pipeline from Mexico to Central America;
- They agreed to promote an integrated, efficient energy market by modifying the regulations governing the regional electricity market by 2016;
- The leaders agreed to hold advisory meetings by Summer 2015 to promote private investment;
- Guatemala and Honduras agreed to implement their recently announced Customs Union by December 2015;
- The Northern Triangle governments agreed to establish a government “single window” for foreign investors by December 2015;
- They agreed to develop public investment plans for the areas of greatest economic need by April 2015;
- They agreed to develop education investment plans focusing on pre-school, secondary, and vocational schools by the end of 2016;
- The Northern Triangle leaders agreed to develop specific strategies for women’s economic empowerment by 2016;
- Guatemala will create specialized anti-money laundering, asset forfeiture, and cybercrime units by June 2015;
- The three Northern Triangle countries agreed to develop a plan to professionalize civil services beginning in 2015;
- They committed to strengthen their tax base through better tax administration, more robust tax authorities, and tax code simplification.
Foreign Ministers from the three countries also agreed to present a detailed implementation roadmap for the Alliance for Prosperity at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington on March 16, 2015. The leaders also agreed to meet during the first half of 2015 with private sector and civil society stakeholders to receive feedback on the roadmap.
In addition to the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request which included $1 billion for Central America, the Vice President announced that the Administration would work with Congress to increase assistance to the region in Fiscal Year 2015.
March 03, 2015
FACT SHEET: Support for the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle
Vice President Biden traveled to Guatemala March 2-3 for two days of meetings with the Presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno, to advance implementation of the “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle” announced last November in Washington, DC. The Vice President was accompanied by State Department Counselor Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, Under Secretary of Commerce Stefan Selig, USAID Associate Administrator Mark Feierstein, Southcom Commander General John Kelly, and Inter-American Development Bank U.S. Executive Director Mark Lopes.
This week's meetings provided an opportunity for the leaders to discuss steps to stimulate economic growth, reduce inequality, promote educational opportunities, target criminal networks responsible for human trafficking, and help create governance and institutions that are transparent and accountable.
During working group meetings on March 3, Northern Triangle leaders committed in a Joint Statement to specific actions to advance implementation of the Alliance for Prosperity, in cooperation with the United States and the Inter-American Development Bank.
Specific commitments made by the leaders included the following:
- The United States and Northern Triangle governments agreed to hold a regional security dialogue in May 2015;
- The Northern Triangle governments agreed to expand centers in high-crime neighborhoods for at-risk youth to acquire job and life skills and participate in recreational activities in a safe environment;
- They agreed to create independent governmental auditing mechanisms by the end of 2015 to help combat corruption;
- Honduras will introduce a plan for police service reform by June 2015;
- Honduras will recruit, train, and deploy an additional 6,000 police over the next three years;
- El Salvador will present a bill criminalizing bulk cash smuggling by June 2015;
- Guatemala will introduce legislation to transition from an inquisitorial to an accusatorial judicial system by December 2015;
- The Northern Triangle countries agreed to diversify their energy matrix in 2015, to include promoting the completion of a gas pipeline from Mexico to Central America;
- They agreed to promote an integrated, efficient energy market by modifying the regulations governing the regional electricity market by 2016;
- The leaders agreed to hold advisory meetings by Summer 2015 to promote private investment;
- Guatemala and Honduras agreed to implement their recently announced Customs Union by December 2015;
- The Northern Triangle governments agreed to establish a government “single window” for foreign investors by December 2015;
- They agreed to develop public investment plans for the areas of greatest economic need by April 2015;
- They agreed to develop education investment plans focusing on pre-school, secondary, and vocational schools by the end of 2016;
- The Northern Triangle leaders agreed to develop specific strategies for women’s economic empowerment by 2016;
- Guatemala will create specialized anti-money laundering, asset forfeiture, and cybercrime units by June 2015;
- The three Northern Triangle countries agreed to develop a plan to professionalize civil services beginning in 2015;
- They committed to strengthen their tax base through better tax administration, more robust tax authorities, and tax code simplification.
Foreign Ministers from the three countries also agreed to present a detailed implementation roadmap for the Alliance for Prosperity at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington on March 16, 2015. The leaders also agreed to meet during the first half of 2015 with private sector and civil society stakeholders to receive feedback on the roadmap.
In addition to the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request which included $1 billion for Central America, the Vice President announced that the Administration would work with Congress to increase assistance to the region in Fiscal Year 2015.
THE QUEST FOR ECO-FRIENDLY PLASTICS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
From tea bags to Miatas, bioplastics are on the rise
Chemists and other researchers are working up new formulas for greener plastic
March 3, 2015
It's no longer common to hear, "Paper or plastic?" at the supermarket. In many jurisdictions, the plastic option is curbed. Hundreds of local governments around the world--even entire countries, such as China and India--ban or tax lightweight, single-use plastic bags.
Every year in the United States, more governments enact such restrictions, which are part of a larger shift away from petroleum-based plastic. As people grow more concerned about throwaways destined for landfills (or worse, for the open ocean) and the problems associated with fossil fuels, businesses of all sizes are looking beyond "traditional," petroleum-based plastics to alternatives derived from plants, or even synthesized by microorganisms.
The bioplastic revolution
Bioplastics are made wholly or in part from renewable biomass sources such as sugarcane and corn, or from the digest of microbes such as yeast. Some bioplastics are biodegradable or even compostable, under the right conditions.
These new, more eco-friendly plastics are cropping up in all sorts of places, from tea bags to 3D printing media to medical implants.
In Finland, for example, consumers can now buy milk in cartons, made by Tetra Pak, that are 100 percent plant-based. In the United States, a small company called Iris Industries used Kickstarter to get off the ground with "Denimite," a marbleized blue composite made of recycled denim and a thermoset resin binding agent that is partially bio-based. And NSF-funded Ecovative makes a packing material called "Myco Foam" that's designed to replace polystyrene packaging, that bane of environmentally aware consumers who nevertheless buy take-out meals.
The bioplastic revolution
Bio-based plastics are on the rise. The thriving European market for bioplastics is growing by more than 20 percent per year. Global demand is expected to rise by 19 percent annually through 2017, according to market research group Freedonia. Global production capacities are set to increase by 400 percent by 2018, with most bioplastics being produced in Asia, according to European Bioplastics (EUBP), an association that represents the interests of the industry in Europe.
Packaging has been, and still is, one of the most common uses for bioplastics, but there is growth in other areas, such as textiles and automotive applications.
"From functional sports garments with enhanced breathability to fuel lines, bioplastics are constantly spreading into new markets," said EUBP chairman François de Bie.
Even the sports-car market appreciates bioplastics. Mazda announced late last year that it would use a new bioplastic in the interior (and, eventually, exterior) of its MX5 Miata. In a December 2014 press release, the company says the plant-based plastic it developed with Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. can be dyed and has a higher-quality, less-toxic finish than traditional painted surfaces.
Likewise, the Ford Motor Co. said last July that it will work with Heinz to make plastic out of leftover tomato skins, for use in car wiring brackets and storage bins.
How plastics are born
All of this activity is exciting, but most of today's plastic still comes from a nonrenewable resource: crude oil deposits in the earth. The oil is extracted and sent to a refinery to be distilled and yield an intermediate product called naphtha. Intense heat helps "crack" the naphtha into smaller hydrocarbon molecules such as ethylene and propylene. These chemicals are combined with a catalyst and polymerized to form chains of many linked molecules--the materials we know as plastics.
Different kinds of plastic will have varying polymer structures and distinct properties (toughness, stiffness, strength, transparency, etc.). Manufacturers then buy those bulk polymer pellets, granules or liquids for creating plastic in different shapes using processes such as extrusion or injection molding.
The push to use alternative, more renewable feed stocks rests on increasing concerns about the impact of petrochemicals on health and the environment, as well as the wariness people feel about relying on finite fossil-fuel resources. Many petroleum-based plastics don't break down for hundreds, or even thousands, of years--the carbon-carbon bonds that form the polymers are that durable. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2012, the U.S. generated almost 32 million tons of plastic waste, but only 9 percent of that was recovered for recycling, leaving about 29 million tons. Much of the rest ends up in landfills, as ground litter or in the ocean.
In addition, petro-based plastics have been linked to health concerns such as endocrine disruption, and studies show some potentially harmful plastic chemicals accumulate in the human body.
Planting the next plastic crop
To spur solutions, some governments are promoting global and national bio-based economies or so-called bioeconomies. In 2012, the Obama administration released a National Bioeconomy Blueprint that calls for increased research and development, technology transfer, training and other steps to drive the nation's bioeconomy. Businesses are interested in following that lead--in fact, they may actually be ahead of consumers, some of whom aren't willing to pay a premium for greener plastics.
"The consumers want these materials, and they want to be more sustainable," said Marc Hillmyer, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Sustainable Polymers (CSP). "But they're generally not going to do it at a cost. What we hear from industry is, 'Yes, we obviously have businesses that rely on petrochemical feed stocks, and we obviously want to be profitable in those businesses. But we want to be part of the future as well," Hillmyer added.
Nearly three dozen company affiliates support the CSP's work, including 3M, Ashland, BASF, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Henkel, Kimberly-Clark, Natureworks and Schlumberger, which make up the center's Industrial Advisory Board.
Coca-Cola has been one of the big-business leaders in bioplastics development, with a recyclable "PlantBottle" that is made partially from PET (polyethylene terephthalate) derived from sugarcane. PlantBottle packaging accounts for 30 percent of the company's packaging in North America and 7 percent globally, "making Coke the world's largest bioplastics end user," the company has said. The company has also said it wants its bottles to be 100 percent made of plant-based plastic by 2020.
Alternative plastics also show up in niche products. For example, last year, wine cork maker Nomacorc released a recyclable cork made of renewable plant-based polyethylene, and a Finnish company called Ahlstrom sells tea bags made of polylactic acid (PLA), which is derived from resources such as corn starch and sugarcane, and is one of the most commonly used bioplastics.
The cost of green
Researchers working with businesses are challenged to make a material that will not only be biodegradable and nontoxic, but also cost-effective.
"Many people, including us, are very good at making expensive polymers that help us advance basic science but that are not economically all that viable," Hillmyer said. "And so, what we're really trying to emphasize in the center, again with industrial input, is how do we do it economically?"
To date, Hillmyer and his colleagues have had several success stories:
The center developed a biodegradable adhesive, made from PLA and a menthol-based polymer, which could one day make sticky-note recycling more efficient and environmentally friendly. (Most sticky notes are petroleum-based and tend to gum up recycling equipment.)
The center has identified a way to use additives to improve the toughness of PLA by a factor of more than 10.
They've discovered a new high-performance bio-based elastomer (an elastic polymer resembling rubber) that could be an economic, drop-in replacement for current petroleum-based materials.
There are many other challenges in developing new materials and getting them from the lab to the market.
"Our undergraduates, graduate students and postdocs all regularly hear from industry about the challenges that [companies] face when trying to introduce a new material into the marketplace," said CSP Managing Director Laura Seifert. "Can it be scaled up to an industrial process in an economically viable way? Can the material be used in existing infrastructure, or do we have to build an entirely new plant in order to adopt this new technology? And at the end of life … is it going to cause more harm than good to introduce this into our recycling stream?"
"These are hard problems," said Hillmyer. "If it was easy, somebody would have done it."
While the polymer industry is not going to shift overnight, in the long run change is inevitable, he added. "The graduate students and postdoctoral researchers and undergraduates...in the center, they're driven by these principles. So we are not having a hard time convincing them that this is something they should do. They're growing up in this world [asking] 'How do we make our world more sustainable?'"
-- Jacqueline Conciatore, National Science Foundation jconciat@associates.nsf.gov
Investigators
Marc Hillmyer
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
From tea bags to Miatas, bioplastics are on the rise
Chemists and other researchers are working up new formulas for greener plastic
March 3, 2015
It's no longer common to hear, "Paper or plastic?" at the supermarket. In many jurisdictions, the plastic option is curbed. Hundreds of local governments around the world--even entire countries, such as China and India--ban or tax lightweight, single-use plastic bags.
Every year in the United States, more governments enact such restrictions, which are part of a larger shift away from petroleum-based plastic. As people grow more concerned about throwaways destined for landfills (or worse, for the open ocean) and the problems associated with fossil fuels, businesses of all sizes are looking beyond "traditional," petroleum-based plastics to alternatives derived from plants, or even synthesized by microorganisms.
The bioplastic revolution
Bioplastics are made wholly or in part from renewable biomass sources such as sugarcane and corn, or from the digest of microbes such as yeast. Some bioplastics are biodegradable or even compostable, under the right conditions.
These new, more eco-friendly plastics are cropping up in all sorts of places, from tea bags to 3D printing media to medical implants.
In Finland, for example, consumers can now buy milk in cartons, made by Tetra Pak, that are 100 percent plant-based. In the United States, a small company called Iris Industries used Kickstarter to get off the ground with "Denimite," a marbleized blue composite made of recycled denim and a thermoset resin binding agent that is partially bio-based. And NSF-funded Ecovative makes a packing material called "Myco Foam" that's designed to replace polystyrene packaging, that bane of environmentally aware consumers who nevertheless buy take-out meals.
The bioplastic revolution
Bio-based plastics are on the rise. The thriving European market for bioplastics is growing by more than 20 percent per year. Global demand is expected to rise by 19 percent annually through 2017, according to market research group Freedonia. Global production capacities are set to increase by 400 percent by 2018, with most bioplastics being produced in Asia, according to European Bioplastics (EUBP), an association that represents the interests of the industry in Europe.
Packaging has been, and still is, one of the most common uses for bioplastics, but there is growth in other areas, such as textiles and automotive applications.
"From functional sports garments with enhanced breathability to fuel lines, bioplastics are constantly spreading into new markets," said EUBP chairman François de Bie.
Even the sports-car market appreciates bioplastics. Mazda announced late last year that it would use a new bioplastic in the interior (and, eventually, exterior) of its MX5 Miata. In a December 2014 press release, the company says the plant-based plastic it developed with Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. can be dyed and has a higher-quality, less-toxic finish than traditional painted surfaces.
Likewise, the Ford Motor Co. said last July that it will work with Heinz to make plastic out of leftover tomato skins, for use in car wiring brackets and storage bins.
How plastics are born
All of this activity is exciting, but most of today's plastic still comes from a nonrenewable resource: crude oil deposits in the earth. The oil is extracted and sent to a refinery to be distilled and yield an intermediate product called naphtha. Intense heat helps "crack" the naphtha into smaller hydrocarbon molecules such as ethylene and propylene. These chemicals are combined with a catalyst and polymerized to form chains of many linked molecules--the materials we know as plastics.
Different kinds of plastic will have varying polymer structures and distinct properties (toughness, stiffness, strength, transparency, etc.). Manufacturers then buy those bulk polymer pellets, granules or liquids for creating plastic in different shapes using processes such as extrusion or injection molding.
The push to use alternative, more renewable feed stocks rests on increasing concerns about the impact of petrochemicals on health and the environment, as well as the wariness people feel about relying on finite fossil-fuel resources. Many petroleum-based plastics don't break down for hundreds, or even thousands, of years--the carbon-carbon bonds that form the polymers are that durable. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2012, the U.S. generated almost 32 million tons of plastic waste, but only 9 percent of that was recovered for recycling, leaving about 29 million tons. Much of the rest ends up in landfills, as ground litter or in the ocean.
In addition, petro-based plastics have been linked to health concerns such as endocrine disruption, and studies show some potentially harmful plastic chemicals accumulate in the human body.
Planting the next plastic crop
To spur solutions, some governments are promoting global and national bio-based economies or so-called bioeconomies. In 2012, the Obama administration released a National Bioeconomy Blueprint that calls for increased research and development, technology transfer, training and other steps to drive the nation's bioeconomy. Businesses are interested in following that lead--in fact, they may actually be ahead of consumers, some of whom aren't willing to pay a premium for greener plastics.
"The consumers want these materials, and they want to be more sustainable," said Marc Hillmyer, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Sustainable Polymers (CSP). "But they're generally not going to do it at a cost. What we hear from industry is, 'Yes, we obviously have businesses that rely on petrochemical feed stocks, and we obviously want to be profitable in those businesses. But we want to be part of the future as well," Hillmyer added.
Nearly three dozen company affiliates support the CSP's work, including 3M, Ashland, BASF, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Henkel, Kimberly-Clark, Natureworks and Schlumberger, which make up the center's Industrial Advisory Board.
Coca-Cola has been one of the big-business leaders in bioplastics development, with a recyclable "PlantBottle" that is made partially from PET (polyethylene terephthalate) derived from sugarcane. PlantBottle packaging accounts for 30 percent of the company's packaging in North America and 7 percent globally, "making Coke the world's largest bioplastics end user," the company has said. The company has also said it wants its bottles to be 100 percent made of plant-based plastic by 2020.
Alternative plastics also show up in niche products. For example, last year, wine cork maker Nomacorc released a recyclable cork made of renewable plant-based polyethylene, and a Finnish company called Ahlstrom sells tea bags made of polylactic acid (PLA), which is derived from resources such as corn starch and sugarcane, and is one of the most commonly used bioplastics.
The cost of green
Researchers working with businesses are challenged to make a material that will not only be biodegradable and nontoxic, but also cost-effective.
"Many people, including us, are very good at making expensive polymers that help us advance basic science but that are not economically all that viable," Hillmyer said. "And so, what we're really trying to emphasize in the center, again with industrial input, is how do we do it economically?"
To date, Hillmyer and his colleagues have had several success stories:
The center developed a biodegradable adhesive, made from PLA and a menthol-based polymer, which could one day make sticky-note recycling more efficient and environmentally friendly. (Most sticky notes are petroleum-based and tend to gum up recycling equipment.)
The center has identified a way to use additives to improve the toughness of PLA by a factor of more than 10.
They've discovered a new high-performance bio-based elastomer (an elastic polymer resembling rubber) that could be an economic, drop-in replacement for current petroleum-based materials.
There are many other challenges in developing new materials and getting them from the lab to the market.
"Our undergraduates, graduate students and postdocs all regularly hear from industry about the challenges that [companies] face when trying to introduce a new material into the marketplace," said CSP Managing Director Laura Seifert. "Can it be scaled up to an industrial process in an economically viable way? Can the material be used in existing infrastructure, or do we have to build an entirely new plant in order to adopt this new technology? And at the end of life … is it going to cause more harm than good to introduce this into our recycling stream?"
"These are hard problems," said Hillmyer. "If it was easy, somebody would have done it."
While the polymer industry is not going to shift overnight, in the long run change is inevitable, he added. "The graduate students and postdoctoral researchers and undergraduates...in the center, they're driven by these principles. So we are not having a hard time convincing them that this is something they should do. They're growing up in this world [asking] 'How do we make our world more sustainable?'"
-- Jacqueline Conciatore, National Science Foundation jconciat@associates.nsf.gov
Investigators
Marc Hillmyer
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
AG HOLDER'S REMARKS ON FERGUSON, MISSOURI INVESTIGATIONS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Attorney General Holder Delivers Update on Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri
Washington, DC United States ~ Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Good afternoon.
I would like to take the next few moments to address the two investigations that the Justice Department has been conducting in Ferguson, Missouri, these last several months. The matter that we are here to discuss is significant not only because of the conclusions the Department of Justice is announcing today, but also because of the broader conversations and the initiatives that those conversations have inspired across the country on the local and national level. Those initiatives have included extensive and vital efforts to examine the causes of misunderstanding and mistrust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve; to support and strengthen our public safety institutions as a whole; and to rebuild confidence wherever it has eroded.
Nearly seven months have passed since the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. That tragic incident provoked widespread demonstrations and stirred strong emotions from those in the Ferguson area and around our nation. It also prompted a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, with the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Missouri and the FBI seeking to determine whether this shooting violated federal civil rights law.
The promise I made when I went to Ferguson and at the time that we launched our investigation was not that we would arrive at a particular outcome, but rather that we would pursue the facts, wherever they led. Our investigation has been both fair and rigorous from the start. It has proceeded independently of the local investigation that concluded in November. And it has been thorough: as part of a wide-ranging examination of the evidence, federal investigators interviewed and re-interviewed eyewitnesses and other individuals claiming to have relevant information and independently canvassed more than 300 residences to locate and interview additional witnesses.
This morning, the Justice Department announced the conclusion of our investigation and released a comprehensive, 87-page report documenting our findings and conclusions that the facts do not support the filing of criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson in this case. Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer Wilson.
This conclusion represents the sound, considered, and independent judgment of the expert career prosecutors within the Department of Justice. I have been personally briefed on multiple occasions about these findings. I concur with the investigative team’s judgment and the determination about our inability to meet the required federal standard.
This outcome is supported by the facts we have found – but I also know these findings may not be consistent with some people’s expectations. To all those who have closely followed this case, and who have engaged in the important national dialogue it has inspired, I urge you to read this report in full.
I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired. I want to emphasize that the strength and integrity of America’s justice system has always rested on its ability to deliver impartial results in precisely these types of difficult circumstances – adhering strictly to the facts and the law, regardless of assumptions. Yet it remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily.
A possible explanation for this discrepancy was uncovered during the course of our second federal investigation, conducted by the Civil Rights Division to determine whether Ferguson Police officials have engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
As detailed in our searing report – also released by the Justice Department today – this investigation found a community that was deeply polarized; a community where deep distrust and hostility often characterized interactions between police and area residents.
A community where local authorities consistently approached law enforcement not as a means for protecting public safety, but as a way to generate revenue. A community where both policing and municipal court practices were found to disproportionately harm African American residents. A community where this harm frequently appears to stem, at least in part, from racial bias – both implicit and explicit. And a community where all of these conditions, unlawful practices, and constitutional violations have not only severely undermined the public trust, eroded police legitimacy, and made local residents less safe – but created an intensely charged atmosphere where people feel under assault and under siege by those charged to serve and protect them.
Of course, violence is never justified. But seen in this context – amid a highly toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment, stoked by years of bad feelings, and spurred by illegal and misguided practices – it is not difficult to imagine how a single tragic incident set off the city of Ferguson like a powder keg. In a sense, members of the community may not have been responding only to a single isolated confrontation, but also to a pervasive, corrosive, and deeply unfortunate lack of trust – attributable to numerous constitutional violations by their law enforcement officials including First Amendment abuses, unreasonable searches and seizures, and excessive and dangerous use of force; exacerbated by severely disproportionate use of these tactics against African Americans; and driven by overriding pressure from the city to use law enforcement not as a public service, but as a tool for raising revenue.
According to our investigation, this emphasis on revenue generation through policing has fostered unconstitutional practices – or practices that contribute to constitutional violations – at nearly every level of Ferguson’s law enforcement system. Ferguson police officers issued nearly 50 percent more citations in the last year than they did in 2010 – an increase that has not been driven, or even accompanied, by a rise in crime.
As a result of this excessive reliance on ticketing, today, the city generates a significant amount of revenue from the enforcement of code provisions. Along with taxes and other revenue streams, in 2010, the city collected over $1.3 million in fines and fees collected by the court. For fiscal year 2015, Ferguson’s city budget anticipates fine revenues to exceed $3 million – more than double the total from just five years prior. Our review of the evidence, and our conversations with police officers, have shown that significant pressure is brought to bear on law enforcement personnel to deliver on these revenue increases. Once the system is primed for maximizing revenue – starting with fines and fine enforcement – the city relies on the police force to serve, essentially, as a collection agency for the municipal court rather than a law enforcement entity focused primarily on maintaining and promoting public safety. And a wide variety of tactics, including disciplinary measures, are used to ensure certain levels of ticketing by individual officers, regardless of public safety needs.
As a result, it has become commonplace in Ferguson for officers to charge multiple violations for the same conduct. Three or four charges for a single stop is considered fairly routine. Some officers even compete to see who can issue the largest number of citations during a single stop – a total that, in at least one instance, rose as high as 14. And we’ve observed that even minor code violations can sometimes result in multiple arrests, jail time and payments that exceed the cost of the original ticket many times over.
For example, in 2007, one woman received two parking tickets that – together – totaled $152. To date, she has paid $550 in fines and fees to the city of Ferguson. She’s been arrested twice for having unpaid tickets, and spent six days in jail. Yet she still – inexplicably – owes Ferguson $541. And her story is only one of dozens of similar accounts that our investigation uncovered.
Over time, it’s clear that this culture of enforcement actions being disconnected from the public safety needs of the community – and often to the detriment of community residents – has given rise to a disturbing and unconstitutional pattern or practice. Our investigation showed that Ferguson police officers routinely violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force against them. According to the Police Department’s own records, its officers frequently infringe on residents’ First Amendment rights. They interfere with the right to record police activities. And they make enforcement decisions based on the way individuals express themselves.
Many of these constitutional violations have become routine. For instance, even though it’s illegal for police officers to detain a person – even briefly – without reasonable suspicion, it’s become common practice for officers in Ferguson to stop pedestrians and request identification for no reason at all. And even in cases where police encounters start off as constitutionally defensible, we found that they frequently and rapidly escalate – and end up blatantly and unnecessarily crossing the line.
During the summer of 2012, one Ferguson police officer detained a 32-year-old African American man who had just finished playing basketball at a park. The officer approached while the man was sitting in his car and resting. The car’s windows appeared to be more heavily tinted than Ferguson’s code allowed, so the officer did have legitimate grounds to question him. But, with no apparent justification, the officer proceeded to accuse the man of being a pedophile. He prohibited the man from using his cell phone and ordered him out of his car for a pat-down search, even though he had no reason to suspect that the man was armed. And when the man objected – citing his constitutional rights – the police officer drew his service weapon, pointed it at the man’s head, and arrested him on eight different counts. The arrest caused the man to lose his job.
Unfortunately, this event appears to have been anything but an isolated incident. Our investigation showed that members of Ferguson’s police force frequently escalate, rather than defuse, tensions with the residents they encounter. And such actions are sometimes accompanied by First Amendment violations – including arresting people for talking back to officers, recording their public activities, or engaging in other conduct that is constitutionally protected.
This behavior not only exacerbates tensions in its own right; it has the effect of stifling community confidence that’s absolutely vital for effective policing. And this, in turn, deepens the widespread distrust provoked by the department’s other unconstitutional exercises of police power – none of which is more harmful than its pattern of excessive force.
Among the incidents of excessive force discovered by our comprehensive review, some resulted from stops or arrests that had no legal basis to begin with. Others were punitive or retaliatory in nature. The police department’s routine use of Tasers was found to be not merely unconstitutional, but abusive and dangerous. Records showed a disturbing history of using unnecessary force against people with mental illness. And our findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of force – almost 90 percent – is directed against African Americans.
This deeply alarming statistic points to one of the most pernicious aspects of the conduct our investigation uncovered: that these policing practices disproportionately harm African American residents. In fact, our review of the evidence found no alternative explanation for the disproportionate impact on African American residents other than implicit and explicit racial bias.
Between October 2012 and October 2014, despite making up only 67 percent of the population, African Americans accounted for a little over 85 percent of all traffic stops by the Ferguson Police Department. African Americans were twice as likely as white residents to be searched during a routine traffic stop, even though they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. Between October 2012 and July 2014, 35 black individuals – and zero white individuals – received five or more citations at the same time. During the same period, African Americans accounted for fully 85 percent of the total charges brought by the Ferguson Police Department. African Americans made up over 90 percent of those charged with a highly-discretionary offense described as “Manner of Walking Along Roadway.” And the use of dogs by Ferguson police appears to have been exclusively reserved for African Americans; in every case in which Ferguson police records recorded the race of a person bit by a police dog, that person was African American.
The evidence of racial bias comes not only from statistics, but also from remarks made by police, city and court officials. A thorough examination of the records – including a large volume of work emails – shows a number of public servants expressing racist comments or gender discrimination; demonstrating grotesque views and images of African Americans in which they were seen as the “other,” called “transient” by public officials, and characterized as lacking personal responsibility.
I want to emphasize that all of these examples, statistics and conclusions are drawn directly from the exhaustive Findings Report that the Department of Justice has released. Clearly, these findings – and others included in the report – demonstrate that, although some community perceptions of Michael Brown’s tragic death may not have been accurate, the widespread conditions that these perceptions were based upon, and the climate that gave rise to them, were all too real.
This is a reality that our investigators repeatedly encountered in their interviews of police and city officials, their conversations with local residents, and their review of thousands of pages of records and documents. This evidence pointed to an unfortunate and unsustainable situation that has not only severely damaged relationships between law enforcement and members of the community, but made professional policing vastly more difficult – and unnecessarily placed officers at increased risk. And today – now that our investigation has reached its conclusion – it is time for Ferguson’s leaders to take immediate, wholesale and structural corrective action. Let me be clear: the United States Department of Justice reserves all its rights and abilities to force compliance and implement basic change.
The report from the Justice Department presents two sets of immediate recommendations – for the Ferguson Police Department and the Municipal Court. These recommendations include the implementation of a robust system of true community policing; increased tracking, review and analysis of Ferguson Police Department stop, search, ticketing and arrest practices; increased civilian involvement in police decision-making; and the development of mechanisms to effectively respond to allegations of officer misconduct. They also involve changes to the municipal court system including modifications to bond amounts and detention procedures; an end to the use of arrest warrants as a means of collecting owed fines and fees; and compliance with due process requirements. Ensuring meaningful, sustainable and verifiable reform will require that these and other measures be part of a court-enforceable remedial process that includes involvement from community stakeholders as well as independent oversight in order to remedy the conduct we have identified, to address the underlying culture we have uncovered, and to restore and rebuild the trust that has been so badly eroded.
As the brother of a retired police officer, I know that the overwhelming majority of America’s brave men and women in law enforcement do their jobs honorably, with integrity, and often at great personal risk. I have immense regard for the vital role that they play in all of America’s communities – and the sacrifices that they and their families are too often called to make on behalf of their country. It is in great part for their sake – and for their safety – that we must seek to rebuild trust and foster mutual understanding in Ferguson and in all communities where suspicion has been allowed to fester. Negative practices by individual law enforcement officers and individual departments present a significant danger not only to their communities, but also to committed and hard-working public safety officials around the country who perform incredibly challenging jobs with unwavering professionalism and uncommon valor. Clearly, we owe it to these brave men and women to ensure that all law enforcement officials have the tools, training and support they need to do their jobs with maximum safety and effectiveness.
Over the last few months, these goals have driven President Obama and me to announce a series of Administration proposals that will enable us to help heal mistrust wherever it is found – from a National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, to a historic new Task Force on 21st Century Policing – which will provide strong, federal support to law enforcement at every level, on a scale not seen since the Johnson Administration. These aims have also led me to travel throughout the country – to Atlanta, Cleveland, Memphis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland and San Francisco – to convene a series of roundtable discussions dedicated to building trust and engagement between law enforcement, civil rights, youth and community leaders from coast to coast.
As these discussions have unfolded, I have repeatedly seen that – although the concerns we are focused on today may be particularly acute in Ferguson – they are not confined to any one city, state, or geographic region. They implicate questions about fairness and trust that are national in scope. And they point not to insurmountable divides between people of different perspectives, but to the shared values – and the common desire for peace, for security, and for public safety – that binds together police as well as protestors.
Although dialogue, by itself, will not be sufficient to address these issues – because concrete action is needed – initiating a broad, frank, and inclusive conversation is a necessary and productive first step. In all of the Civil Rights Division’s activities in Ferguson – as in every pattern-or-practice investigation the Division has launched over the last six years – our aim is to help facilitate and inform this conversation; to make certain it leads to concrete action; and to ensure that law enforcement officers in every part of the United States live up to the same high standards of professionalism. It is clear from our work throughout the country—particularly the work of our Civil Rights Division—that the prospect of police accountability and criminal justice reform is an achievable goal; one that we can reach with law enforcement and community members at the table as full partners.
Last August, when I visited Ferguson to meet with concerned citizens and community leaders, I made a solemn commitment: that the United States Department of Justice would continue to stand with the people there long after the national headlines had faded. This week, with the conclusion of our investigations into these matters, I again commit to the people of Ferguson that we will continue to stand with you and to work with you to ensure that the necessary reforms are implemented. And even as we issue our findings in today’s report, our work will go on.
It will go on as we engage with the city of Ferguson – and surrounding municipalities – to reform their law enforcement practices and establish a public safety effort that protects and serves all members of the community. It will go on as we broaden this work, and extend the assistance of the Justice Department to other communities around the country. And it will go on as we join together with all Americans to ensure that public safety is not a burden undertaken by the brave few, but a positive collaboration between everyone in this nation. The report we have issued and the steps we have taken are only the beginning of a necessarily resource intensive and inclusive process to promote reconciliation, to reduce and eliminate bias, and to bridge gaps and build understanding. And in the days ahead, the Department of Justice will stay true to my promise, vigilant in its execution, and determined in the pursuit of justice—in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community across the United States.
Thank you.
Attorney General Holder Delivers Update on Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri
Washington, DC United States ~ Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Good afternoon.
I would like to take the next few moments to address the two investigations that the Justice Department has been conducting in Ferguson, Missouri, these last several months. The matter that we are here to discuss is significant not only because of the conclusions the Department of Justice is announcing today, but also because of the broader conversations and the initiatives that those conversations have inspired across the country on the local and national level. Those initiatives have included extensive and vital efforts to examine the causes of misunderstanding and mistrust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve; to support and strengthen our public safety institutions as a whole; and to rebuild confidence wherever it has eroded.
Nearly seven months have passed since the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. That tragic incident provoked widespread demonstrations and stirred strong emotions from those in the Ferguson area and around our nation. It also prompted a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, with the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Missouri and the FBI seeking to determine whether this shooting violated federal civil rights law.
The promise I made when I went to Ferguson and at the time that we launched our investigation was not that we would arrive at a particular outcome, but rather that we would pursue the facts, wherever they led. Our investigation has been both fair and rigorous from the start. It has proceeded independently of the local investigation that concluded in November. And it has been thorough: as part of a wide-ranging examination of the evidence, federal investigators interviewed and re-interviewed eyewitnesses and other individuals claiming to have relevant information and independently canvassed more than 300 residences to locate and interview additional witnesses.
This morning, the Justice Department announced the conclusion of our investigation and released a comprehensive, 87-page report documenting our findings and conclusions that the facts do not support the filing of criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson in this case. Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer Wilson.
This conclusion represents the sound, considered, and independent judgment of the expert career prosecutors within the Department of Justice. I have been personally briefed on multiple occasions about these findings. I concur with the investigative team’s judgment and the determination about our inability to meet the required federal standard.
This outcome is supported by the facts we have found – but I also know these findings may not be consistent with some people’s expectations. To all those who have closely followed this case, and who have engaged in the important national dialogue it has inspired, I urge you to read this report in full.
I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired. I want to emphasize that the strength and integrity of America’s justice system has always rested on its ability to deliver impartial results in precisely these types of difficult circumstances – adhering strictly to the facts and the law, regardless of assumptions. Yet it remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily.
A possible explanation for this discrepancy was uncovered during the course of our second federal investigation, conducted by the Civil Rights Division to determine whether Ferguson Police officials have engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
As detailed in our searing report – also released by the Justice Department today – this investigation found a community that was deeply polarized; a community where deep distrust and hostility often characterized interactions between police and area residents.
A community where local authorities consistently approached law enforcement not as a means for protecting public safety, but as a way to generate revenue. A community where both policing and municipal court practices were found to disproportionately harm African American residents. A community where this harm frequently appears to stem, at least in part, from racial bias – both implicit and explicit. And a community where all of these conditions, unlawful practices, and constitutional violations have not only severely undermined the public trust, eroded police legitimacy, and made local residents less safe – but created an intensely charged atmosphere where people feel under assault and under siege by those charged to serve and protect them.
Of course, violence is never justified. But seen in this context – amid a highly toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment, stoked by years of bad feelings, and spurred by illegal and misguided practices – it is not difficult to imagine how a single tragic incident set off the city of Ferguson like a powder keg. In a sense, members of the community may not have been responding only to a single isolated confrontation, but also to a pervasive, corrosive, and deeply unfortunate lack of trust – attributable to numerous constitutional violations by their law enforcement officials including First Amendment abuses, unreasonable searches and seizures, and excessive and dangerous use of force; exacerbated by severely disproportionate use of these tactics against African Americans; and driven by overriding pressure from the city to use law enforcement not as a public service, but as a tool for raising revenue.
According to our investigation, this emphasis on revenue generation through policing has fostered unconstitutional practices – or practices that contribute to constitutional violations – at nearly every level of Ferguson’s law enforcement system. Ferguson police officers issued nearly 50 percent more citations in the last year than they did in 2010 – an increase that has not been driven, or even accompanied, by a rise in crime.
As a result of this excessive reliance on ticketing, today, the city generates a significant amount of revenue from the enforcement of code provisions. Along with taxes and other revenue streams, in 2010, the city collected over $1.3 million in fines and fees collected by the court. For fiscal year 2015, Ferguson’s city budget anticipates fine revenues to exceed $3 million – more than double the total from just five years prior. Our review of the evidence, and our conversations with police officers, have shown that significant pressure is brought to bear on law enforcement personnel to deliver on these revenue increases. Once the system is primed for maximizing revenue – starting with fines and fine enforcement – the city relies on the police force to serve, essentially, as a collection agency for the municipal court rather than a law enforcement entity focused primarily on maintaining and promoting public safety. And a wide variety of tactics, including disciplinary measures, are used to ensure certain levels of ticketing by individual officers, regardless of public safety needs.
As a result, it has become commonplace in Ferguson for officers to charge multiple violations for the same conduct. Three or four charges for a single stop is considered fairly routine. Some officers even compete to see who can issue the largest number of citations during a single stop – a total that, in at least one instance, rose as high as 14. And we’ve observed that even minor code violations can sometimes result in multiple arrests, jail time and payments that exceed the cost of the original ticket many times over.
For example, in 2007, one woman received two parking tickets that – together – totaled $152. To date, she has paid $550 in fines and fees to the city of Ferguson. She’s been arrested twice for having unpaid tickets, and spent six days in jail. Yet she still – inexplicably – owes Ferguson $541. And her story is only one of dozens of similar accounts that our investigation uncovered.
Over time, it’s clear that this culture of enforcement actions being disconnected from the public safety needs of the community – and often to the detriment of community residents – has given rise to a disturbing and unconstitutional pattern or practice. Our investigation showed that Ferguson police officers routinely violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force against them. According to the Police Department’s own records, its officers frequently infringe on residents’ First Amendment rights. They interfere with the right to record police activities. And they make enforcement decisions based on the way individuals express themselves.
Many of these constitutional violations have become routine. For instance, even though it’s illegal for police officers to detain a person – even briefly – without reasonable suspicion, it’s become common practice for officers in Ferguson to stop pedestrians and request identification for no reason at all. And even in cases where police encounters start off as constitutionally defensible, we found that they frequently and rapidly escalate – and end up blatantly and unnecessarily crossing the line.
During the summer of 2012, one Ferguson police officer detained a 32-year-old African American man who had just finished playing basketball at a park. The officer approached while the man was sitting in his car and resting. The car’s windows appeared to be more heavily tinted than Ferguson’s code allowed, so the officer did have legitimate grounds to question him. But, with no apparent justification, the officer proceeded to accuse the man of being a pedophile. He prohibited the man from using his cell phone and ordered him out of his car for a pat-down search, even though he had no reason to suspect that the man was armed. And when the man objected – citing his constitutional rights – the police officer drew his service weapon, pointed it at the man’s head, and arrested him on eight different counts. The arrest caused the man to lose his job.
Unfortunately, this event appears to have been anything but an isolated incident. Our investigation showed that members of Ferguson’s police force frequently escalate, rather than defuse, tensions with the residents they encounter. And such actions are sometimes accompanied by First Amendment violations – including arresting people for talking back to officers, recording their public activities, or engaging in other conduct that is constitutionally protected.
This behavior not only exacerbates tensions in its own right; it has the effect of stifling community confidence that’s absolutely vital for effective policing. And this, in turn, deepens the widespread distrust provoked by the department’s other unconstitutional exercises of police power – none of which is more harmful than its pattern of excessive force.
Among the incidents of excessive force discovered by our comprehensive review, some resulted from stops or arrests that had no legal basis to begin with. Others were punitive or retaliatory in nature. The police department’s routine use of Tasers was found to be not merely unconstitutional, but abusive and dangerous. Records showed a disturbing history of using unnecessary force against people with mental illness. And our findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of force – almost 90 percent – is directed against African Americans.
This deeply alarming statistic points to one of the most pernicious aspects of the conduct our investigation uncovered: that these policing practices disproportionately harm African American residents. In fact, our review of the evidence found no alternative explanation for the disproportionate impact on African American residents other than implicit and explicit racial bias.
Between October 2012 and October 2014, despite making up only 67 percent of the population, African Americans accounted for a little over 85 percent of all traffic stops by the Ferguson Police Department. African Americans were twice as likely as white residents to be searched during a routine traffic stop, even though they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. Between October 2012 and July 2014, 35 black individuals – and zero white individuals – received five or more citations at the same time. During the same period, African Americans accounted for fully 85 percent of the total charges brought by the Ferguson Police Department. African Americans made up over 90 percent of those charged with a highly-discretionary offense described as “Manner of Walking Along Roadway.” And the use of dogs by Ferguson police appears to have been exclusively reserved for African Americans; in every case in which Ferguson police records recorded the race of a person bit by a police dog, that person was African American.
The evidence of racial bias comes not only from statistics, but also from remarks made by police, city and court officials. A thorough examination of the records – including a large volume of work emails – shows a number of public servants expressing racist comments or gender discrimination; demonstrating grotesque views and images of African Americans in which they were seen as the “other,” called “transient” by public officials, and characterized as lacking personal responsibility.
I want to emphasize that all of these examples, statistics and conclusions are drawn directly from the exhaustive Findings Report that the Department of Justice has released. Clearly, these findings – and others included in the report – demonstrate that, although some community perceptions of Michael Brown’s tragic death may not have been accurate, the widespread conditions that these perceptions were based upon, and the climate that gave rise to them, were all too real.
This is a reality that our investigators repeatedly encountered in their interviews of police and city officials, their conversations with local residents, and their review of thousands of pages of records and documents. This evidence pointed to an unfortunate and unsustainable situation that has not only severely damaged relationships between law enforcement and members of the community, but made professional policing vastly more difficult – and unnecessarily placed officers at increased risk. And today – now that our investigation has reached its conclusion – it is time for Ferguson’s leaders to take immediate, wholesale and structural corrective action. Let me be clear: the United States Department of Justice reserves all its rights and abilities to force compliance and implement basic change.
The report from the Justice Department presents two sets of immediate recommendations – for the Ferguson Police Department and the Municipal Court. These recommendations include the implementation of a robust system of true community policing; increased tracking, review and analysis of Ferguson Police Department stop, search, ticketing and arrest practices; increased civilian involvement in police decision-making; and the development of mechanisms to effectively respond to allegations of officer misconduct. They also involve changes to the municipal court system including modifications to bond amounts and detention procedures; an end to the use of arrest warrants as a means of collecting owed fines and fees; and compliance with due process requirements. Ensuring meaningful, sustainable and verifiable reform will require that these and other measures be part of a court-enforceable remedial process that includes involvement from community stakeholders as well as independent oversight in order to remedy the conduct we have identified, to address the underlying culture we have uncovered, and to restore and rebuild the trust that has been so badly eroded.
As the brother of a retired police officer, I know that the overwhelming majority of America’s brave men and women in law enforcement do their jobs honorably, with integrity, and often at great personal risk. I have immense regard for the vital role that they play in all of America’s communities – and the sacrifices that they and their families are too often called to make on behalf of their country. It is in great part for their sake – and for their safety – that we must seek to rebuild trust and foster mutual understanding in Ferguson and in all communities where suspicion has been allowed to fester. Negative practices by individual law enforcement officers and individual departments present a significant danger not only to their communities, but also to committed and hard-working public safety officials around the country who perform incredibly challenging jobs with unwavering professionalism and uncommon valor. Clearly, we owe it to these brave men and women to ensure that all law enforcement officials have the tools, training and support they need to do their jobs with maximum safety and effectiveness.
Over the last few months, these goals have driven President Obama and me to announce a series of Administration proposals that will enable us to help heal mistrust wherever it is found – from a National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, to a historic new Task Force on 21st Century Policing – which will provide strong, federal support to law enforcement at every level, on a scale not seen since the Johnson Administration. These aims have also led me to travel throughout the country – to Atlanta, Cleveland, Memphis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland and San Francisco – to convene a series of roundtable discussions dedicated to building trust and engagement between law enforcement, civil rights, youth and community leaders from coast to coast.
As these discussions have unfolded, I have repeatedly seen that – although the concerns we are focused on today may be particularly acute in Ferguson – they are not confined to any one city, state, or geographic region. They implicate questions about fairness and trust that are national in scope. And they point not to insurmountable divides between people of different perspectives, but to the shared values – and the common desire for peace, for security, and for public safety – that binds together police as well as protestors.
Although dialogue, by itself, will not be sufficient to address these issues – because concrete action is needed – initiating a broad, frank, and inclusive conversation is a necessary and productive first step. In all of the Civil Rights Division’s activities in Ferguson – as in every pattern-or-practice investigation the Division has launched over the last six years – our aim is to help facilitate and inform this conversation; to make certain it leads to concrete action; and to ensure that law enforcement officers in every part of the United States live up to the same high standards of professionalism. It is clear from our work throughout the country—particularly the work of our Civil Rights Division—that the prospect of police accountability and criminal justice reform is an achievable goal; one that we can reach with law enforcement and community members at the table as full partners.
Last August, when I visited Ferguson to meet with concerned citizens and community leaders, I made a solemn commitment: that the United States Department of Justice would continue to stand with the people there long after the national headlines had faded. This week, with the conclusion of our investigations into these matters, I again commit to the people of Ferguson that we will continue to stand with you and to work with you to ensure that the necessary reforms are implemented. And even as we issue our findings in today’s report, our work will go on.
It will go on as we engage with the city of Ferguson – and surrounding municipalities – to reform their law enforcement practices and establish a public safety effort that protects and serves all members of the community. It will go on as we broaden this work, and extend the assistance of the Justice Department to other communities around the country. And it will go on as we join together with all Americans to ensure that public safety is not a burden undertaken by the brave few, but a positive collaboration between everyone in this nation. The report we have issued and the steps we have taken are only the beginning of a necessarily resource intensive and inclusive process to promote reconciliation, to reduce and eliminate bias, and to bridge gaps and build understanding. And in the days ahead, the Department of Justice will stay true to my promise, vigilant in its execution, and determined in the pursuit of justice—in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community across the United States.
Thank you.
AIRSTRIKES CONTINUE DURING OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Coalition Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 4, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted three airstrikes near Kobani, which struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq:
-- Near Fallujah, five airstrikes struck a roadside bomb factory, an ISIL vehicle bomb factory, and a ISIL weapons storage facility, and also destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Ramadi, an airstrike on ISIL fighters was reported as ineffective.
-- Near Sinjar, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle and three ISIL vehicles.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Coalition Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 4, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted three airstrikes near Kobani, which struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq:
-- Near Fallujah, five airstrikes struck a roadside bomb factory, an ISIL vehicle bomb factory, and a ISIL weapons storage facility, and also destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Ramadi, an airstrike on ISIL fighters was reported as ineffective.
-- Near Sinjar, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle and three ISIL vehicles.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
SUSAN E. RICE'S REMARKS AT AIPAC
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Remarks As Prepared for Delivery at AIPAC Annual Meeting by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice
February 2, 2015
Good evening everyone. It’s great to be back at AIPAC. Rosy, thank you so much for your warm introduction.
I want to thank Bob Cohen, Michael Kassen, Lillian Pinkus, my old friend Lee Rosenberg, and all of AIPAC’s board and members for welcoming me tonight. I want to thank all the Members of Congress who represent America’s strong bipartisan support for the State of Israel; and all the young people here today, some 3,000, who represent the bright future of the U.S.-Israel special relationship.
I brought one of those young people with me, my seventeen year-old son Jake, who insisted he had to come to AIPAC. But, I want to take a moment before I begin, to remember three young men who aren’t with us today. I want to call us back to those terrible days last summer, when we were united in grief over the horrifying kidnapping and murder of Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah. As a mother, my heart breaks for such unspeakable loss. Those boys were our boys, and we all continue to mourn their tragic loss.
The last time I spoke at AIPAC, it was to the synagogue initiative lunch. This group tonight is… a little larger. But, when I finished that speech, more than 400 rabbis sang to me. In Hebrew. Now, that is something I will never forget. And the words of their song reflect the spirit that brings me here tonight. Hinei ma’tov uma-nayim, shevet achim gam yachad. “How good it is and how pleasant when we sit together in brotherhood.” It’s a great psalm—though I will admit that where I first encountered it – in church – it was not in the original Hebrew. That psalm always reminds me how much we can do together when we unite in common purpose. And, it goes to the heart of what AIPAC is all about—what the relationship between Israel and the United States is all about. Brotherhood. Togetherness. Unity.
That’s because the U.S.-Israel alliance is not just rooted in our mutual interests, vital as they are. It’s also rooted in the values of freedom and democracy that we share. It’s in the friendship and fellowship between ordinary Israelis and Americans. And, for me personally, it’s a warmth that’s rooted in my very first visit to Israel. I was just 14, traveling with my younger brother and my beloved late father. My Dad was on the Board of TWA – some of you are old enough to remember that once-great airline. We arrived on one of the first-ever flights from Egypt to Israel, just after the Camp David Accords were signed. We had an unforgettable visit, the power of which has stayed with me all my life. We bowed our heads in sorrow at Yad Vashem. We walked the lanes of the Old City, climbed Masada, floated in the Dead Sea, and picked fruit at a kibbutz. I learned by heart the words of the sh’ma. My first memories of Israel remain etched in my soul.
Put simply, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is not just one between states. It is between two peoples and the millions of intimate, personal connections that bind us. Our relationship has deepened and grown through different presidents and prime ministers for nearly 70 years.
It was President Truman, a Democrat, who—just 11 minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence—made the United States the first country to recognize the State of Israel.
It was President Nixon, a Republican, who made sure America stood with Israel as it fought for survival one terrible Yom Kippur, so that its people could declare am Yisrael Chai --“the people of Israel live.”
It was President Carter who helped Israel forge an historic peace with Egypt that endures to this day. And, it was President Clinton and President George W. Bush who backed Israel as it took more brave steps for peace, and as it endured terrorist attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.
The relationship between the United States and the State of Israel is not a partnership between individual leaders, or political parties. It’s an alliance between two nations, rooted in the unbreakable friendship between our two peoples. It is not negotiable. And it never will be.
Our alliance grows l’dor va’dor, from generation to generation. That’s what counts. That’s what we have to protect. As John F. Kennedy said, back in 1960, “friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment.”
No one knows this better than all of you. For decades, AIPAC has built bipartisan support for America’s special relationship with Israel. That’s why every President—from Harry Truman to Barack Obama—has begun from a fundamental, unshakable premise: strengthening the security of Israel is in the national interest of the United States of America.
President Obama’s commitment to Israel is deep and personal. I know, because I see it every day. I first saw it when I accompanied then-Senator Obama to Israel in 2008. I saw it when he surveyed with horror the stacks of charred rockets that Hamas had fired on Israel, and when he walked through the hollowed out homes of Sderot.
That same year, President Obama came to this conference, still a senator, and he made a promise. He said, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct.” And, each day, over the past six years, President Obama has kept that promise. The President is profoundly committed to ensuring that Israel is never alone. That’s why, today, security cooperation between our countries is not just strong. It’s stronger than it has ever been. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have called it “unprecedented.” And that’s the way it’s going to stay.
President Obama has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more times than with almost any other world leader. As national security advisor, I am in nearly constant communication with Yossi Cohen, my friend and my Israeli counterpart, who I am so pleased is here tonight. Thank you, Yossi. Together, we host the U.S.-Israel consultative group to ensure we’re working closely across the highest levels of our governments. Our armed forces conduct extensive exercises together, and our military and intelligence leaders consult continually.
Under this Administration, in times of tight budgets, our security assistance to Israel has increased. Since President Obama took office, the United States has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in foreign military financing. Last year, we provided Israel with the largest package of security assistance ever. That’s money well spent, because it goes directly to bolstering Israel’s ability to defend itself in a very tough neighborhood, to protecting Israeli citizens, and to strengthening a vital American ally.
We are maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge with new defense technologies and access to the most advanced military equipment in the world. President Obama is determined to ensure that Israel can defend itself, by itself. So, when Israel receives the F-35 joint strike fighter next year, it will be the only nation in the Middle East with a fifth-generation aircraft.
Since 2009, we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and producing the David’s Sling missile defense program and the Arrow anti-missile system. We’ve invested more than $1 billion dollars in the Iron Dome system. When I visited Israel last May, I saw this technology first-hand at Palmachim air force base. And, last summer, as Hamas’ terrorist rockets rained down on Israeli cities, the world saw how Iron Dome saved lives, literally, every day.
During the height of that conflict—with sirens wailing and Israeli civilians huddling in bomb shelters—the United States stood up for Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks, even as we worked with the Israeli government to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. And, when the Israeli government made an urgent request for an additional $225 million to support Iron Dome’s batteries, President Obama’s response was immediate and clear: “Let’s do it.” Within days, legislation was drafted, passed through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and President Obama signed it into law. At that critical moment, we replenished Israel’s arsenal of Iron Dome interceptor missiles. That’s what it means to be an ally.
Our unwavering commitment to Israel’s lasting security is why we will also never give up on a just and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It will require hard decisions, but the United States will remain a steadfast partner. Like past administrations, Republican and Democratic, we believe that a truly lasting peace can only be forged by direct talks between the two parties. Like past administrations, we are concerned by unilateral actions that erode trust or assault Israel’s legitimacy. Like every administration, Republican and Democratic, since the Six Day War, we oppose Israeli settlement activity—and we oppose Palestinian steps that throw up further obstacles to peace, including actions against Israel at the International Criminal Court. The only path to ensure Israel’s long-term security is to bring about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with a democratic, Jewish State of Israel.
Israel’s security—our mutual security—is also at the heart of one of President Obama’s most important foreign policy objectives: ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. As President Obama has repeated many times: we are keeping all options on the table to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. As he said in Jerusalem: “Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. This is not a danger that can be contained.” And he added, “America will do what we must to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.”
President Obama said it. He meant it. And those are his orders to us all.
That is still the way we see the danger of a nuclear Iran today. Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, an Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel – it’s an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.
We understand the unique concerns of our Israeli friends and partners. In Jerusalem, President Obama made plain: “when I consider Israel’s security, I also think about a people who have a living memory of the Holocaust, faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iranian government that has called for Israel’s destruction. It’s no wonder Israelis view this as an existential threat. But this is not simply a challenge for Israel; it is a danger for the entire world, including the United States.”
I want to be very clear: a bad deal is worse than no deal. And, if that is the choice, there will be no deal.
Negotiations continue. And, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. As of today, significant gaps remain between the international community and Iran. I’m not going to get into details about ongoing negotiations – nor should sensitive details of an ongoing negotiation be discussed in public. But, I do want to make five key points about our approach to the negotiation.
First, with the Joint Plan of Action, we have already succeeded in halting Iran’s nuclear program and rolling it back in key areas. Let’s recall what has been achieved over the last year. Iran is doing away with its existing stockpile of its most highly enriched uranium. Iran has capped its stockpile of low enriched uranium. Iran has not constructed additional enrichment facilities. Iran has not installed or operated new centrifuges, including its next-generation models. Iran has stopped construction at its potential plutonium reactor at Arak. In short, Iran is further away from a nuclear weapon than it was a year ago—and that makes the world safer, including Israel.
Moreover, we’re not taking anything on trust. What matters are Iran’s actions, not its words. That’s why, as part of the Joint Plan of Action, we’ve insisted upon—and achieved—unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program. Before the Joint Plan, inspections happened only every few weeks, sometimes every few months. Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency has daily access at Iran’s key nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow, verifying that Iran is meeting its commitments. If I can paraphrase, President Reagan, with a twist, our approach is “distrust and verify.”
Second, we’ve kept the pressure on Iran. I know this firsthand because, when I was U.N. ambassador, President Obama personally directed me to make sure that the Security Council’s sanctions had bite—and they do. Today, even with limited sanctions relief, Iran’s economy remains isolated from the international finance system and cut off from the vast majority of its foreign currency reserves. Iran’s oil exports have dropped almost 60 percent since 2012. The rial has depreciated by more than 50 percent. And, Iran’s overall GDP has shrunk by almost 10 percent. All told, sanctions have deprived Iran of more than $200 billion in lost oil revenues.
But sanctions are a tool, not an end in themselves. The question now, after the pressure that we and our partners have brought to bear, is whether we can verify that Iran cannot pursue a nuclear weapon. The question now is whether we can achieve a comprehensive deal. A good deal.
This is my third point—a good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Every single one.
Any deal must prevent Iran from developing weapons-grade plutonium at Arak, or anywhere else.
Any deal must prevent Iran from enriching uranium at its nuclear facility at Fordow—a site we uncovered buried deep underground and revealed to the world in 2009.
Any deal must increase the time it takes Iran to reach breakout capacity—the time it would take to produce a single bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium. Today, experts suggest Iran’s breakout window is just two to three months. We seek to extend that to at least one year.
Any deal must ensure frequent and intrusive inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites—including the uranium mills that produce the material fed into Iran’s enrichment and conversion facilities—to create a multi-layered transparency regime that provides the international community with the confidence it demands. That’s the best way to prevent Iran from pursuing a covert path to a nuclear weapon—to stop Iran from working toward a bomb in secret.
Any deal must address the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. And, going forward, we will not accept a deal that fails to provide the access we need to ensure that Iran’s program is peaceful.
And, any deal must last more than a decade—with additional provisions ensuring greater transparency into Iran’s program for an even longer period of time.
That’s what we’re working toward—a good, long-term, comprehensive deal that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
This brings me to my fourth point —we cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal. I know that some of you will be urging Congress to insist that Iran forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely. But, as desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable. Even our closest international partners in the P5+1 do not support denying Iran the ability ever to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. If that is our goal, our partners will abandon us, undermining the sanctions we have imposed so effectively together. Simply put, that is not a viable negotiating position. Nor is it even attainable. The plain fact is, no one can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses.
We must also understand what will happen if these negotiations collapse. I know that some argue we should just impose sanctions and walk away. But let’s remember that sanctions have never stopped Iran from advancing its program. So here’s what’s likely to happen without a deal. Iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges. Iran will seek to fuel its reactor in Arak. Iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile. And, we'll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today.
Congress has played a hugely important role in helping to build our sanctions on Iran, but they shouldn’t play the spoiler now. Additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiation would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the United States to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal—putting us in a much weaker position and endangering the sanctions regime itself. Meanwhile, the Iranians are well aware that if they walk away from a deal, Congress will pass new sanctions immediately—and President Obama will support them.
So, if Iran refuses to resolve this matter diplomatically—and is clearly to blame for that failure—its isolation will only increase. The costs will continue to grow.
Finally, I know that some question a deal of any duration. But, it has always been clear that the pursuit of an agreement of indefinite duration would result in no agreement at all. The question is, what is the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? A deal that extends for a decade or more would accomplish this goal better than any other course of action – longer, by far, than military strikes, which would only set back Iran’s program for a fraction of the time. And, at the end of any deal, Iran would still be required to offer comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities and to provide the international community the assurance that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons. And, if it failed to do so, we would have the ability to make our own decisions about how to move forward, just as we do today. There’s simply no alternative that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon better—or longer—than the type of deal we seek.
We can always bring consequences to bear for the sake of our shared security—harsh consequences. But, precisely because this is such a serious issue, we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one. Sound bites won’t stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Strong diplomacy – backed by pressure – can. And, if diplomacy fails, let’s make it clear to the world that it is Iran’s responsibility.
One final word on Iran: even if we succeed in neutralizing the nuclear threat from Iran, we will still face other threats—Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its gross violations of human rights, its efforts to destabilize neighboring states, its support for Assad and Hamas and Hezbollah, its intolerable threats against Israel. Our sanctions against Iran on these issues will remain in place. We will continue to counter Iran and the full range of threats it poses. Tehran must understand—the United States will never, ever waver in the defense of our security or the security of our allies and partners, including Israel.
The bottom line is simple: we have Israel’s back, come hell or high water—and I’ve been right there with you all through some pretty high waters. I was proud to fight again and again for Israel’s security and its basic legitimacy at the United Nations – from leading the charge against the deeply flawed Goldstone report to casting this administration’s only veto in the Security Council to block a counter-productive resolution.
As Ambassador Power described to you this morning, when it comes to combating the shameful bias against Israel at the U.N., Israel has no better friend than the United States. Last March, we were the only ‘no’ vote in the Human Rights Council against anti-Israel measures five separate times. Earlier today, Secretary Kerry told the Human Rights Council in Geneva, point blank, that its obsession with Israel risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization. And last month, with Israel and the European Union, the U.S. organized the first U.N. General Assembly meeting to combat anti-Semitism.
No country is immune from criticism—take it from a former U.N. Ambassador. But when criticism singles out one country unfairly, bitterly, viciously, over and over—that’s just wrong, and we all know it. When one democracy’s legitimacy is attacked, over and over, uniquely among the U.N.’s member states, that’s ugly, and we all know it. And, when anti-Semitism rears its head around the world, when Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris are singled out and murdered by terrorists, when synagogues are attacked and cemeteries defaced, we have to call it by name. It’s hate. It’s anti-Semitism. It reminds us of the most terrible chapters of human history. It has no place in a civilized world, and we have to fight it.
These are big challenges. But the United States and Israel have mastered plenty of big challenges before. Israel and the United States are sister democracies built on the bedrock value that we are all created b’tzelem elokim—in the image of God. And, like the Psalm says, how good it is when we sit in brotherhood together. But God calls us to do more than sit. God calls us to stand up. To act.
This weekend, President Obama will travel to Selma, Alabama, to mark the 50th anniversary of the historic marches there. He’ll pay tribute to those brave souls who took enormous risks for civil rights, including Jews and rabbis from across the country—from St. Louis and San Francisco; the Northeast and the Deep South. They faced tear gas and billy clubs, Torahs in hand. They were jailed. They conducted Shabbat services behind bars, and they sang “Adon Olam” to the tune of “We Shall Overcome.” They broke the fast of Esther in prison. They even started a trend. Some black marchers, moved by the solidarity of their Jewish brethren, started wearing yarmulkes—they called them “freedom caps.”
As you recalled last night, one of those on the front lines in Selma was the great teacher, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. After marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with Dr. King, he reflected, “our legs uttered songs. Even without words, our march was worship.” Our march was our worship.
The Jewish community amplified the rightness and the urgency of the civil rights movement with its own unassailable moral compass—guided by the basic principle that people should be free in their own land. And, I stand before you knowing that I and many others would not be where we are today without all those who fought for equal rights – African Americans and white Americans, including so many Jewish Americans. As we mark that Selma anniversary, as we gather here to celebrate an improbable dream that grew into the great State of Israel, we remember what we can accomplish together, when we’re at our best.
In a spirit of brotherhood, we have overcome so many trials to reach where we are—as nations, as peoples. In a spirit of brotherhood, inspired by all those who marched and struggled and sacrificed before us, let us continue the work. Let us never succumb to hopelessness or cynicism, to division or despair. Let our legs utter songs, and let our hands reach out together. That is how we fulfill our common commitment to mend our imperfect world, to do the holy work of tikkun olam. And, as we do, at home and around the world, the United States will always stand with our Israeli friends and allies.
That’s our enduring commitment. That’s our sacred duty. That’s the hope and the future for our children. So, let us keep marching arm in arm together.
Thank you.
Remarks As Prepared for Delivery at AIPAC Annual Meeting by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice
February 2, 2015
Good evening everyone. It’s great to be back at AIPAC. Rosy, thank you so much for your warm introduction.
I want to thank Bob Cohen, Michael Kassen, Lillian Pinkus, my old friend Lee Rosenberg, and all of AIPAC’s board and members for welcoming me tonight. I want to thank all the Members of Congress who represent America’s strong bipartisan support for the State of Israel; and all the young people here today, some 3,000, who represent the bright future of the U.S.-Israel special relationship.
I brought one of those young people with me, my seventeen year-old son Jake, who insisted he had to come to AIPAC. But, I want to take a moment before I begin, to remember three young men who aren’t with us today. I want to call us back to those terrible days last summer, when we were united in grief over the horrifying kidnapping and murder of Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah. As a mother, my heart breaks for such unspeakable loss. Those boys were our boys, and we all continue to mourn their tragic loss.
The last time I spoke at AIPAC, it was to the synagogue initiative lunch. This group tonight is… a little larger. But, when I finished that speech, more than 400 rabbis sang to me. In Hebrew. Now, that is something I will never forget. And the words of their song reflect the spirit that brings me here tonight. Hinei ma’tov uma-nayim, shevet achim gam yachad. “How good it is and how pleasant when we sit together in brotherhood.” It’s a great psalm—though I will admit that where I first encountered it – in church – it was not in the original Hebrew. That psalm always reminds me how much we can do together when we unite in common purpose. And, it goes to the heart of what AIPAC is all about—what the relationship between Israel and the United States is all about. Brotherhood. Togetherness. Unity.
That’s because the U.S.-Israel alliance is not just rooted in our mutual interests, vital as they are. It’s also rooted in the values of freedom and democracy that we share. It’s in the friendship and fellowship between ordinary Israelis and Americans. And, for me personally, it’s a warmth that’s rooted in my very first visit to Israel. I was just 14, traveling with my younger brother and my beloved late father. My Dad was on the Board of TWA – some of you are old enough to remember that once-great airline. We arrived on one of the first-ever flights from Egypt to Israel, just after the Camp David Accords were signed. We had an unforgettable visit, the power of which has stayed with me all my life. We bowed our heads in sorrow at Yad Vashem. We walked the lanes of the Old City, climbed Masada, floated in the Dead Sea, and picked fruit at a kibbutz. I learned by heart the words of the sh’ma. My first memories of Israel remain etched in my soul.
Put simply, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is not just one between states. It is between two peoples and the millions of intimate, personal connections that bind us. Our relationship has deepened and grown through different presidents and prime ministers for nearly 70 years.
It was President Truman, a Democrat, who—just 11 minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence—made the United States the first country to recognize the State of Israel.
It was President Nixon, a Republican, who made sure America stood with Israel as it fought for survival one terrible Yom Kippur, so that its people could declare am Yisrael Chai --“the people of Israel live.”
It was President Carter who helped Israel forge an historic peace with Egypt that endures to this day. And, it was President Clinton and President George W. Bush who backed Israel as it took more brave steps for peace, and as it endured terrorist attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.
The relationship between the United States and the State of Israel is not a partnership between individual leaders, or political parties. It’s an alliance between two nations, rooted in the unbreakable friendship between our two peoples. It is not negotiable. And it never will be.
Our alliance grows l’dor va’dor, from generation to generation. That’s what counts. That’s what we have to protect. As John F. Kennedy said, back in 1960, “friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment.”
No one knows this better than all of you. For decades, AIPAC has built bipartisan support for America’s special relationship with Israel. That’s why every President—from Harry Truman to Barack Obama—has begun from a fundamental, unshakable premise: strengthening the security of Israel is in the national interest of the United States of America.
President Obama’s commitment to Israel is deep and personal. I know, because I see it every day. I first saw it when I accompanied then-Senator Obama to Israel in 2008. I saw it when he surveyed with horror the stacks of charred rockets that Hamas had fired on Israel, and when he walked through the hollowed out homes of Sderot.
That same year, President Obama came to this conference, still a senator, and he made a promise. He said, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct.” And, each day, over the past six years, President Obama has kept that promise. The President is profoundly committed to ensuring that Israel is never alone. That’s why, today, security cooperation between our countries is not just strong. It’s stronger than it has ever been. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have called it “unprecedented.” And that’s the way it’s going to stay.
President Obama has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more times than with almost any other world leader. As national security advisor, I am in nearly constant communication with Yossi Cohen, my friend and my Israeli counterpart, who I am so pleased is here tonight. Thank you, Yossi. Together, we host the U.S.-Israel consultative group to ensure we’re working closely across the highest levels of our governments. Our armed forces conduct extensive exercises together, and our military and intelligence leaders consult continually.
Under this Administration, in times of tight budgets, our security assistance to Israel has increased. Since President Obama took office, the United States has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in foreign military financing. Last year, we provided Israel with the largest package of security assistance ever. That’s money well spent, because it goes directly to bolstering Israel’s ability to defend itself in a very tough neighborhood, to protecting Israeli citizens, and to strengthening a vital American ally.
We are maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge with new defense technologies and access to the most advanced military equipment in the world. President Obama is determined to ensure that Israel can defend itself, by itself. So, when Israel receives the F-35 joint strike fighter next year, it will be the only nation in the Middle East with a fifth-generation aircraft.
Since 2009, we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing and producing the David’s Sling missile defense program and the Arrow anti-missile system. We’ve invested more than $1 billion dollars in the Iron Dome system. When I visited Israel last May, I saw this technology first-hand at Palmachim air force base. And, last summer, as Hamas’ terrorist rockets rained down on Israeli cities, the world saw how Iron Dome saved lives, literally, every day.
During the height of that conflict—with sirens wailing and Israeli civilians huddling in bomb shelters—the United States stood up for Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks, even as we worked with the Israeli government to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. And, when the Israeli government made an urgent request for an additional $225 million to support Iron Dome’s batteries, President Obama’s response was immediate and clear: “Let’s do it.” Within days, legislation was drafted, passed through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and President Obama signed it into law. At that critical moment, we replenished Israel’s arsenal of Iron Dome interceptor missiles. That’s what it means to be an ally.
Our unwavering commitment to Israel’s lasting security is why we will also never give up on a just and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It will require hard decisions, but the United States will remain a steadfast partner. Like past administrations, Republican and Democratic, we believe that a truly lasting peace can only be forged by direct talks between the two parties. Like past administrations, we are concerned by unilateral actions that erode trust or assault Israel’s legitimacy. Like every administration, Republican and Democratic, since the Six Day War, we oppose Israeli settlement activity—and we oppose Palestinian steps that throw up further obstacles to peace, including actions against Israel at the International Criminal Court. The only path to ensure Israel’s long-term security is to bring about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with a democratic, Jewish State of Israel.
Israel’s security—our mutual security—is also at the heart of one of President Obama’s most important foreign policy objectives: ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. As President Obama has repeated many times: we are keeping all options on the table to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. As he said in Jerusalem: “Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. This is not a danger that can be contained.” And he added, “America will do what we must to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.”
President Obama said it. He meant it. And those are his orders to us all.
That is still the way we see the danger of a nuclear Iran today. Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, an Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel – it’s an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.
We understand the unique concerns of our Israeli friends and partners. In Jerusalem, President Obama made plain: “when I consider Israel’s security, I also think about a people who have a living memory of the Holocaust, faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iranian government that has called for Israel’s destruction. It’s no wonder Israelis view this as an existential threat. But this is not simply a challenge for Israel; it is a danger for the entire world, including the United States.”
I want to be very clear: a bad deal is worse than no deal. And, if that is the choice, there will be no deal.
Negotiations continue. And, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. As of today, significant gaps remain between the international community and Iran. I’m not going to get into details about ongoing negotiations – nor should sensitive details of an ongoing negotiation be discussed in public. But, I do want to make five key points about our approach to the negotiation.
First, with the Joint Plan of Action, we have already succeeded in halting Iran’s nuclear program and rolling it back in key areas. Let’s recall what has been achieved over the last year. Iran is doing away with its existing stockpile of its most highly enriched uranium. Iran has capped its stockpile of low enriched uranium. Iran has not constructed additional enrichment facilities. Iran has not installed or operated new centrifuges, including its next-generation models. Iran has stopped construction at its potential plutonium reactor at Arak. In short, Iran is further away from a nuclear weapon than it was a year ago—and that makes the world safer, including Israel.
Moreover, we’re not taking anything on trust. What matters are Iran’s actions, not its words. That’s why, as part of the Joint Plan of Action, we’ve insisted upon—and achieved—unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program. Before the Joint Plan, inspections happened only every few weeks, sometimes every few months. Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency has daily access at Iran’s key nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow, verifying that Iran is meeting its commitments. If I can paraphrase, President Reagan, with a twist, our approach is “distrust and verify.”
Second, we’ve kept the pressure on Iran. I know this firsthand because, when I was U.N. ambassador, President Obama personally directed me to make sure that the Security Council’s sanctions had bite—and they do. Today, even with limited sanctions relief, Iran’s economy remains isolated from the international finance system and cut off from the vast majority of its foreign currency reserves. Iran’s oil exports have dropped almost 60 percent since 2012. The rial has depreciated by more than 50 percent. And, Iran’s overall GDP has shrunk by almost 10 percent. All told, sanctions have deprived Iran of more than $200 billion in lost oil revenues.
But sanctions are a tool, not an end in themselves. The question now, after the pressure that we and our partners have brought to bear, is whether we can verify that Iran cannot pursue a nuclear weapon. The question now is whether we can achieve a comprehensive deal. A good deal.
This is my third point—a good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Every single one.
Any deal must prevent Iran from developing weapons-grade plutonium at Arak, or anywhere else.
Any deal must prevent Iran from enriching uranium at its nuclear facility at Fordow—a site we uncovered buried deep underground and revealed to the world in 2009.
Any deal must increase the time it takes Iran to reach breakout capacity—the time it would take to produce a single bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium. Today, experts suggest Iran’s breakout window is just two to three months. We seek to extend that to at least one year.
Any deal must ensure frequent and intrusive inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites—including the uranium mills that produce the material fed into Iran’s enrichment and conversion facilities—to create a multi-layered transparency regime that provides the international community with the confidence it demands. That’s the best way to prevent Iran from pursuing a covert path to a nuclear weapon—to stop Iran from working toward a bomb in secret.
Any deal must address the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. And, going forward, we will not accept a deal that fails to provide the access we need to ensure that Iran’s program is peaceful.
And, any deal must last more than a decade—with additional provisions ensuring greater transparency into Iran’s program for an even longer period of time.
That’s what we’re working toward—a good, long-term, comprehensive deal that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
This brings me to my fourth point —we cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal. I know that some of you will be urging Congress to insist that Iran forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely. But, as desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable. Even our closest international partners in the P5+1 do not support denying Iran the ability ever to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. If that is our goal, our partners will abandon us, undermining the sanctions we have imposed so effectively together. Simply put, that is not a viable negotiating position. Nor is it even attainable. The plain fact is, no one can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses.
We must also understand what will happen if these negotiations collapse. I know that some argue we should just impose sanctions and walk away. But let’s remember that sanctions have never stopped Iran from advancing its program. So here’s what’s likely to happen without a deal. Iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges. Iran will seek to fuel its reactor in Arak. Iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile. And, we'll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today.
Congress has played a hugely important role in helping to build our sanctions on Iran, but they shouldn’t play the spoiler now. Additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiation would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the United States to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal—putting us in a much weaker position and endangering the sanctions regime itself. Meanwhile, the Iranians are well aware that if they walk away from a deal, Congress will pass new sanctions immediately—and President Obama will support them.
So, if Iran refuses to resolve this matter diplomatically—and is clearly to blame for that failure—its isolation will only increase. The costs will continue to grow.
Finally, I know that some question a deal of any duration. But, it has always been clear that the pursuit of an agreement of indefinite duration would result in no agreement at all. The question is, what is the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? A deal that extends for a decade or more would accomplish this goal better than any other course of action – longer, by far, than military strikes, which would only set back Iran’s program for a fraction of the time. And, at the end of any deal, Iran would still be required to offer comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities and to provide the international community the assurance that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons. And, if it failed to do so, we would have the ability to make our own decisions about how to move forward, just as we do today. There’s simply no alternative that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon better—or longer—than the type of deal we seek.
We can always bring consequences to bear for the sake of our shared security—harsh consequences. But, precisely because this is such a serious issue, we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one. Sound bites won’t stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Strong diplomacy – backed by pressure – can. And, if diplomacy fails, let’s make it clear to the world that it is Iran’s responsibility.
One final word on Iran: even if we succeed in neutralizing the nuclear threat from Iran, we will still face other threats—Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its gross violations of human rights, its efforts to destabilize neighboring states, its support for Assad and Hamas and Hezbollah, its intolerable threats against Israel. Our sanctions against Iran on these issues will remain in place. We will continue to counter Iran and the full range of threats it poses. Tehran must understand—the United States will never, ever waver in the defense of our security or the security of our allies and partners, including Israel.
The bottom line is simple: we have Israel’s back, come hell or high water—and I’ve been right there with you all through some pretty high waters. I was proud to fight again and again for Israel’s security and its basic legitimacy at the United Nations – from leading the charge against the deeply flawed Goldstone report to casting this administration’s only veto in the Security Council to block a counter-productive resolution.
As Ambassador Power described to you this morning, when it comes to combating the shameful bias against Israel at the U.N., Israel has no better friend than the United States. Last March, we were the only ‘no’ vote in the Human Rights Council against anti-Israel measures five separate times. Earlier today, Secretary Kerry told the Human Rights Council in Geneva, point blank, that its obsession with Israel risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization. And last month, with Israel and the European Union, the U.S. organized the first U.N. General Assembly meeting to combat anti-Semitism.
No country is immune from criticism—take it from a former U.N. Ambassador. But when criticism singles out one country unfairly, bitterly, viciously, over and over—that’s just wrong, and we all know it. When one democracy’s legitimacy is attacked, over and over, uniquely among the U.N.’s member states, that’s ugly, and we all know it. And, when anti-Semitism rears its head around the world, when Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris are singled out and murdered by terrorists, when synagogues are attacked and cemeteries defaced, we have to call it by name. It’s hate. It’s anti-Semitism. It reminds us of the most terrible chapters of human history. It has no place in a civilized world, and we have to fight it.
These are big challenges. But the United States and Israel have mastered plenty of big challenges before. Israel and the United States are sister democracies built on the bedrock value that we are all created b’tzelem elokim—in the image of God. And, like the Psalm says, how good it is when we sit in brotherhood together. But God calls us to do more than sit. God calls us to stand up. To act.
This weekend, President Obama will travel to Selma, Alabama, to mark the 50th anniversary of the historic marches there. He’ll pay tribute to those brave souls who took enormous risks for civil rights, including Jews and rabbis from across the country—from St. Louis and San Francisco; the Northeast and the Deep South. They faced tear gas and billy clubs, Torahs in hand. They were jailed. They conducted Shabbat services behind bars, and they sang “Adon Olam” to the tune of “We Shall Overcome.” They broke the fast of Esther in prison. They even started a trend. Some black marchers, moved by the solidarity of their Jewish brethren, started wearing yarmulkes—they called them “freedom caps.”
As you recalled last night, one of those on the front lines in Selma was the great teacher, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. After marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with Dr. King, he reflected, “our legs uttered songs. Even without words, our march was worship.” Our march was our worship.
The Jewish community amplified the rightness and the urgency of the civil rights movement with its own unassailable moral compass—guided by the basic principle that people should be free in their own land. And, I stand before you knowing that I and many others would not be where we are today without all those who fought for equal rights – African Americans and white Americans, including so many Jewish Americans. As we mark that Selma anniversary, as we gather here to celebrate an improbable dream that grew into the great State of Israel, we remember what we can accomplish together, when we’re at our best.
In a spirit of brotherhood, we have overcome so many trials to reach where we are—as nations, as peoples. In a spirit of brotherhood, inspired by all those who marched and struggled and sacrificed before us, let us continue the work. Let us never succumb to hopelessness or cynicism, to division or despair. Let our legs utter songs, and let our hands reach out together. That is how we fulfill our common commitment to mend our imperfect world, to do the holy work of tikkun olam. And, as we do, at home and around the world, the United States will always stand with our Israeli friends and allies.
That’s our enduring commitment. That’s our sacred duty. That’s the hope and the future for our children. So, let us keep marching arm in arm together.
Thank you.
ASTROTERRY TWEETS PHOTOGRAPH FROM ISS
FROM: NASA
On Sunday, March 1, Expedition 42 Flight Engineer Terry Virts and Commander Barry "Butch" Wilmore ventured outside the International Space Station for their third spacewalk in eight days. Virts and Wilmore completed installing 400 feet of cable and several antennas associated with the Common Communications for Visiting Vehicles system known as C2V2. Boeing’s Crew Transportation System (CST)-100 and the SpaceX Crew Dragon will use the system in the coming years to rendezvous with the orbital laboratory and deliver crews to the space station. Virts (@AstroTerry) tweeted this photograph and wrote, "Out on the P3 truss. #AstroButch handing me his cable to install on the new antenna. #spacewalk" Image Credit: NASA.
SEAFOOD COMPANY OWNER SENT TO PRISON FOR DEALING IN ILLEGAL OYSTERS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT I
Monday, March 2, 2015
Delaware Seafood Wholesaler and Company Fined and Owner Sentenced to 26 Months in Prison for Illegally Trafficking in Oysters
Mark Bryan, 59, of New Market, Maryland, and his Delaware-based seafood wholesale business, Harbor House Seafood, were sentenced on Friday in federal court in Camden, New Jersey, for trafficking in illegally possessed oysters, creating false health and safety records, and conspiracy charges.
Bryan was sentenced to serve 26 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Bryan was also ordered to pay a $62,500 fine and to pay New Jersey $140,000 for the restoration of oyster beds in Delaware Bay. Harbor House was ordered to pay a $250,000 fine and was sentenced to five years of probation. Friday’s sentences, in addition to the previous sentencing of Bryan’s co-conspirators and suppliers, brings the total fines and forfeitures in this matter to over $625,000, along with $194,000 of restoration costs..
Bryan and Harbor House were convicted in 2012 of multiple felony crimes related to dealings in illegal oysters from 2004 to 2007. The evidence showed that for more than four years, Bryan conspired with New Jersey oystermen Thomas Reeves and Todd Reeves to cover up the Reeves’ overharvest of oysters from the Delaware Bay. Bryan, through his company, Harbor House Seafood, purchased the illegal oysters from the Reeves, then assisted in covering up the Reeves’ overharvest by maintaining double-books, providing federal agents with false records, and by falsifying his FDA-mandated health and safety logs. The jury saw numerous instances of late-night faxes between Bryan and the Reeves which were used to coordinate their conspiracy and hide their wrong-doing from investigators. Bryan was also shown to have purchased illegal oysters from oyster harvester Kenneth Bailey of New Jersey. During the course of his crimes, Bryan moved, purchased and sold over $1.2 million worth of illegal oysters.
The Reeves and Bailey were previously sentenced on Feb. 11, 2015, to 26 months, 16 months, and 12 months in prison, respectively, for their roles.
“The defendants’ actions provided a market for dishonest oystermen who were willing to place natural resources at risk in the name of profit,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden of the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Today’s sentences send the message that those who knowingly deal in illegal natural resources will be held accountable.”
“Today's sentence underscores the value that state partnerships add to NOAA Office of Law Enforcement’s ability to complete its mission,” said Assistant Director Logan Gregory for NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. “In this case, our partnership with New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife was crucial in protecting the oyster resource in New Jersey and leveling the playing field across multiple industry sectors throughout the mid-Atlantic Region.”
The Lacey Act prohibits creating or submitting false records for fish or wildlife moving in interstate commerce and also prohibits trafficking in fish or wildlife known to be illegally taken or possessed. The FDA and state health agencies require that oyster purchasers and sellers maintain accurate records of the amounts and locations of oyster harvest for all oysters they buy and sell in order to protect public health and minimize the impact of any oyster-borne outbreak of disease.
The case was investigated by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Fish and Wildlife. The case was prosecuted by Assistant Chief Wayne D. Hettenbach and Trial Attorney Patrick M. Duggan of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section, with assistance from Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew T. Smith of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Delaware Seafood Wholesaler and Company Fined and Owner Sentenced to 26 Months in Prison for Illegally Trafficking in Oysters
Mark Bryan, 59, of New Market, Maryland, and his Delaware-based seafood wholesale business, Harbor House Seafood, were sentenced on Friday in federal court in Camden, New Jersey, for trafficking in illegally possessed oysters, creating false health and safety records, and conspiracy charges.
Bryan was sentenced to serve 26 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Bryan was also ordered to pay a $62,500 fine and to pay New Jersey $140,000 for the restoration of oyster beds in Delaware Bay. Harbor House was ordered to pay a $250,000 fine and was sentenced to five years of probation. Friday’s sentences, in addition to the previous sentencing of Bryan’s co-conspirators and suppliers, brings the total fines and forfeitures in this matter to over $625,000, along with $194,000 of restoration costs..
Bryan and Harbor House were convicted in 2012 of multiple felony crimes related to dealings in illegal oysters from 2004 to 2007. The evidence showed that for more than four years, Bryan conspired with New Jersey oystermen Thomas Reeves and Todd Reeves to cover up the Reeves’ overharvest of oysters from the Delaware Bay. Bryan, through his company, Harbor House Seafood, purchased the illegal oysters from the Reeves, then assisted in covering up the Reeves’ overharvest by maintaining double-books, providing federal agents with false records, and by falsifying his FDA-mandated health and safety logs. The jury saw numerous instances of late-night faxes between Bryan and the Reeves which were used to coordinate their conspiracy and hide their wrong-doing from investigators. Bryan was also shown to have purchased illegal oysters from oyster harvester Kenneth Bailey of New Jersey. During the course of his crimes, Bryan moved, purchased and sold over $1.2 million worth of illegal oysters.
The Reeves and Bailey were previously sentenced on Feb. 11, 2015, to 26 months, 16 months, and 12 months in prison, respectively, for their roles.
“The defendants’ actions provided a market for dishonest oystermen who were willing to place natural resources at risk in the name of profit,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden of the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Today’s sentences send the message that those who knowingly deal in illegal natural resources will be held accountable.”
“Today's sentence underscores the value that state partnerships add to NOAA Office of Law Enforcement’s ability to complete its mission,” said Assistant Director Logan Gregory for NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. “In this case, our partnership with New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife was crucial in protecting the oyster resource in New Jersey and leveling the playing field across multiple industry sectors throughout the mid-Atlantic Region.”
The Lacey Act prohibits creating or submitting false records for fish or wildlife moving in interstate commerce and also prohibits trafficking in fish or wildlife known to be illegally taken or possessed. The FDA and state health agencies require that oyster purchasers and sellers maintain accurate records of the amounts and locations of oyster harvest for all oysters they buy and sell in order to protect public health and minimize the impact of any oyster-borne outbreak of disease.
The case was investigated by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Fish and Wildlife. The case was prosecuted by Assistant Chief Wayne D. Hettenbach and Trial Attorney Patrick M. Duggan of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section, with assistance from Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew T. Smith of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
SNOWFLAKE IMAGING TECHNOLOGY BEING APPLIED TO MAKE ROADS SAFER
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Road safety through snowflake imaging
Technology that delivers incredible mid-air snowflake images may now help improve road safety
March 2, 2015
The technology behind the camera that revealed the intricate, imperfect beauty of snowflakes can now expose their potential danger.
About three years ago, a new high-speed camera system captured freefalling ice crystals so well it might as well be yelling "freeze!". Developed at the University of Utah with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the system arose from scientific curiosity about snow.
Now, a less expensive, hardier version is headed to the marketplace to help improve safety.
This next-generation model has the same incredible capability, but is designed for use by departments of transportation to anticipate road conditions.
"Right now the problem in the transportation safety sector is to understand exactly what's falling out of the sky," says engineer Cale Fallgatter, who has an award from the NSF Small Business Technology Transfer program to commercialize the system. "Our goal was to come up with a game-changing instrument based on new technology to compete with what is currently out there."
Free falling
Transportation departments nationwide use camera and sensor systems to collect and analyze data from weather stations to gauge road conditions.
There may be 50 to 150 of these systems, called road weather information system stations, in any given state. They help determine snow plow routes and preventative salting decisions.
"There are a lot of weather detection sensors that differentiate between rain and snow," says Ralph Patterson, a consultant meteorologist in Utah. "But you need pretty sophisticated visibility sensors and/or present weather detectors to get snowfall rates. With this camera you get the resolution of snow crystal type and the density."
The types of precipitation falling have serious implications for traffic safety, as anyone who has driven in sleet rather than flurries can attest.
But instruments in use now often don't provide enough detail for authorities to get a firm grasp on conditions, especially when temperatures hover near the freezing point.
The new system promises to send the snow diagnoses needed.
Using fundamental precipitation research from atmospheric scientist Timothy Garrett, who developed the original multi-angle snowflake camera with Fallgatter, the technology can resolve falling particles down to the diameter of a human hair and also measure the speed at which they fall. The first images produced by the team revealed the surprising diversity of snowflakes.
"Personally, it's really exciting, because not only did we build something that will reach a wider market, but the instrument is a big advance scientifically," Garrett says. "The trick is to develop existing technology and sell it for one-tenth the price."
From the lab to the roadside
For a roadside application, Fallgatter had to engineer a new prototype that would preserve the original camera system's amazing functionality while making it affordable for state transportation departments.
He did this in part by using off-the-shelf products instead of custom-made pieces. The new camera system, called the present weather imager, has 1.3 megapixels, is industrial grade and is priced to compete.
"It's the same high-level technology, but designed for roadside deployment," Fallgatter says.
It also has a revamped lighting system. While the original version used motion-activated LED lighting, the new prototype has a xenon-based lighting system with an infrared filter, which doesn't interfere with people's vision on roads at night.
The new imager includes a built-in computer that analyzes each picture and classifies the precipitation.
"The funding to Fallgatter Technologies will allow them to demonstrate an important new tool to better understand weather conditions in real-time," says Ben Schrag, NSF Small Business Innovation Research program director. "And will hopefully help local authorities and meteorologists to make better decisions with regards to severe weather."
The researchers plan to include an option for either a single camera or two-camera system, the latter of which would produce 3-D images, and give users an even more comprehensive view of each flake.
"Everything is falling into place," Garrett says.
-- Sarah Bates
Investigators
Cale Fallgatter
Timothy Garrett
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Utah
Fallgatter Technologies, Inc.
Locations
University of Utah , Utah
Road safety through snowflake imaging
Technology that delivers incredible mid-air snowflake images may now help improve road safety
March 2, 2015
The technology behind the camera that revealed the intricate, imperfect beauty of snowflakes can now expose their potential danger.
About three years ago, a new high-speed camera system captured freefalling ice crystals so well it might as well be yelling "freeze!". Developed at the University of Utah with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the system arose from scientific curiosity about snow.
Now, a less expensive, hardier version is headed to the marketplace to help improve safety.
This next-generation model has the same incredible capability, but is designed for use by departments of transportation to anticipate road conditions.
"Right now the problem in the transportation safety sector is to understand exactly what's falling out of the sky," says engineer Cale Fallgatter, who has an award from the NSF Small Business Technology Transfer program to commercialize the system. "Our goal was to come up with a game-changing instrument based on new technology to compete with what is currently out there."
Free falling
Transportation departments nationwide use camera and sensor systems to collect and analyze data from weather stations to gauge road conditions.
There may be 50 to 150 of these systems, called road weather information system stations, in any given state. They help determine snow plow routes and preventative salting decisions.
"There are a lot of weather detection sensors that differentiate between rain and snow," says Ralph Patterson, a consultant meteorologist in Utah. "But you need pretty sophisticated visibility sensors and/or present weather detectors to get snowfall rates. With this camera you get the resolution of snow crystal type and the density."
The types of precipitation falling have serious implications for traffic safety, as anyone who has driven in sleet rather than flurries can attest.
But instruments in use now often don't provide enough detail for authorities to get a firm grasp on conditions, especially when temperatures hover near the freezing point.
The new system promises to send the snow diagnoses needed.
Using fundamental precipitation research from atmospheric scientist Timothy Garrett, who developed the original multi-angle snowflake camera with Fallgatter, the technology can resolve falling particles down to the diameter of a human hair and also measure the speed at which they fall. The first images produced by the team revealed the surprising diversity of snowflakes.
"Personally, it's really exciting, because not only did we build something that will reach a wider market, but the instrument is a big advance scientifically," Garrett says. "The trick is to develop existing technology and sell it for one-tenth the price."
From the lab to the roadside
For a roadside application, Fallgatter had to engineer a new prototype that would preserve the original camera system's amazing functionality while making it affordable for state transportation departments.
He did this in part by using off-the-shelf products instead of custom-made pieces. The new camera system, called the present weather imager, has 1.3 megapixels, is industrial grade and is priced to compete.
"It's the same high-level technology, but designed for roadside deployment," Fallgatter says.
It also has a revamped lighting system. While the original version used motion-activated LED lighting, the new prototype has a xenon-based lighting system with an infrared filter, which doesn't interfere with people's vision on roads at night.
The new imager includes a built-in computer that analyzes each picture and classifies the precipitation.
"The funding to Fallgatter Technologies will allow them to demonstrate an important new tool to better understand weather conditions in real-time," says Ben Schrag, NSF Small Business Innovation Research program director. "And will hopefully help local authorities and meteorologists to make better decisions with regards to severe weather."
The researchers plan to include an option for either a single camera or two-camera system, the latter of which would produce 3-D images, and give users an even more comprehensive view of each flake.
"Everything is falling into place," Garrett says.
-- Sarah Bates
Investigators
Cale Fallgatter
Timothy Garrett
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Utah
Fallgatter Technologies, Inc.
Locations
University of Utah , Utah
READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MEETING WITH TECHNOLOGY CEO COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE TECHNOLOGY
March 02, 2015
Readout of the President's Meeting with Members of the Technology CEO Council
Today, President Obama met with members of the Technology CEO Council to discuss 21st century economic and security issues including trade, cybersecurity, immigration and tax reform. Growing U.S. exports to support new opportunities for our workers and businesses is a top priority for the President and the members of the Council, who reiterated their commitment to building bipartisan support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) as a critical first step towards strong new trade agreements with high standards in critical areas such as labor, environment, and technology services.
The President also highlighted our continued progress towards fixing our broken immigration system -- including a final rule announced last week that gives U.S. work authorization to spouses of certain high-skilled immigrant workers who are approved for a green card and waiting for one to become available. The President and the Tech CEO Council agreed that immigration reform remains an imperative for our nation and high tech sector, and that we should continue striving for comprehensive reform that will fix our broken immigration system once and for all.
The group also shared concerns on cybersecurity and agreed to work with the Administration and Congress to develop better methods to help protect our critical infrastructure and privacy. The President and the executives also discussed a shared desire to work with Congress to enact pro-growth, business tax reform.
Participants Included:
Ursula Burns, Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corp.; Chair of Tech CEO Council
Michael Dell, Chairman and CEO, Dell Inc.
Mark Durcan, CEO and Director, Micron Technology Inc.
Steve Mollenkopf, CEO, Qualcomm Inc.
Ginni Rometty, Chairman, President and CEO, IBM Corp.
Joe Tucci, Chairman and CEO, EMC Corp.
White House Participants:
Valerie Jarrett, White House Senior Advisor
Jeff Zients, Director of the White House National Economic Council
Megan Smith, Chief Technology Officer
March 02, 2015
Readout of the President's Meeting with Members of the Technology CEO Council
Today, President Obama met with members of the Technology CEO Council to discuss 21st century economic and security issues including trade, cybersecurity, immigration and tax reform. Growing U.S. exports to support new opportunities for our workers and businesses is a top priority for the President and the members of the Council, who reiterated their commitment to building bipartisan support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) as a critical first step towards strong new trade agreements with high standards in critical areas such as labor, environment, and technology services.
The President also highlighted our continued progress towards fixing our broken immigration system -- including a final rule announced last week that gives U.S. work authorization to spouses of certain high-skilled immigrant workers who are approved for a green card and waiting for one to become available. The President and the Tech CEO Council agreed that immigration reform remains an imperative for our nation and high tech sector, and that we should continue striving for comprehensive reform that will fix our broken immigration system once and for all.
The group also shared concerns on cybersecurity and agreed to work with the Administration and Congress to develop better methods to help protect our critical infrastructure and privacy. The President and the executives also discussed a shared desire to work with Congress to enact pro-growth, business tax reform.
Participants Included:
Ursula Burns, Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corp.; Chair of Tech CEO Council
Michael Dell, Chairman and CEO, Dell Inc.
Mark Durcan, CEO and Director, Micron Technology Inc.
Steve Mollenkopf, CEO, Qualcomm Inc.
Ginni Rometty, Chairman, President and CEO, IBM Corp.
Joe Tucci, Chairman and CEO, EMC Corp.
White House Participants:
Valerie Jarrett, White House Senior Advisor
Jeff Zients, Director of the White House National Economic Council
Megan Smith, Chief Technology Officer
WHISTLEBLOWER RECEIVING APPROXIMATELY $500K FROM SEC PROGRAM
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
03/02/2015 02:50 PM EST
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a whistleblower award payout between $475,000 and $575,000 to a former company officer who reported original, high-quality information about a securities fraud that resulted in an SEC enforcement action with sanctions exceeding $1 million.
Officers, directors, trustees, or partners who learn about a fraud through another employee reporting the misconduct generally aren’t eligible for an award under the SEC’s whistleblower program. However, there is an exception to this exclusion that makes an officer eligible if he or she reports the information to the SEC more than 120 days after other responsible compliance personnel possessed the information and failed to adequately address the issue. This is the first SEC whistleblower award to an officer under these circumstances.
“Corporate officers have front-row seats overseeing the activities of their companies, and this particular officer should be commended for stepping up to report a securities law violation when it became apparent that the company’s internal compliance system was not functioning well enough to address it,” said Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
The SEC has now awarded 15 whistleblowers since its whistleblower program began more than three years ago. Payouts have totaled nearly $50 million out of an investor protection fund established by Congress. The fund is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators, and no money is taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards.
Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected in a case. By law, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose information that might directly or indirectly reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
“Receiving information and cooperation from company insiders is particularly useful in the early detection of securities fraud, and we will continue to leverage whistleblower information to help combat securities law violations and better protect investors and the marketplace,” said Sean McKessy, Chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. “Meanwhile, companies must have rigorous internal compliance programs that adequately address and remedy potential violations voiced by their employees as well as by their officers, directors, or other individuals.”
03/02/2015 02:50 PM EST
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a whistleblower award payout between $475,000 and $575,000 to a former company officer who reported original, high-quality information about a securities fraud that resulted in an SEC enforcement action with sanctions exceeding $1 million.
Officers, directors, trustees, or partners who learn about a fraud through another employee reporting the misconduct generally aren’t eligible for an award under the SEC’s whistleblower program. However, there is an exception to this exclusion that makes an officer eligible if he or she reports the information to the SEC more than 120 days after other responsible compliance personnel possessed the information and failed to adequately address the issue. This is the first SEC whistleblower award to an officer under these circumstances.
“Corporate officers have front-row seats overseeing the activities of their companies, and this particular officer should be commended for stepping up to report a securities law violation when it became apparent that the company’s internal compliance system was not functioning well enough to address it,” said Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
The SEC has now awarded 15 whistleblowers since its whistleblower program began more than three years ago. Payouts have totaled nearly $50 million out of an investor protection fund established by Congress. The fund is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators, and no money is taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards.
Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected in a case. By law, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose information that might directly or indirectly reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
“Receiving information and cooperation from company insiders is particularly useful in the early detection of securities fraud, and we will continue to leverage whistleblower information to help combat securities law violations and better protect investors and the marketplace,” said Sean McKessy, Chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. “Meanwhile, companies must have rigorous internal compliance programs that adequately address and remedy potential violations voiced by their employees as well as by their officers, directors, or other individuals.”
SECRETARY KERRY URGES CONCLUSION OF CONFLICT WITH SOUTH SUDAN NEGOTIATIONS
FROM: U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
Secretary Kerry on South Sudan Negotiations
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 2, 2015
The warring parties in South Sudan must seize the current and final round of negotiations to deliver a sustainable peace. We are well past the point where enough is enough. Leaders must put the interests of their people above their own. The violence must end. A negotiated conclusion to this conflict is required now.
Legitimacy is not a presumed right of any government. It is conferred by the people, and it is sustained only by demonstrating leadership to protect and serve all citizens—responsibilities the government has neglected. The opposition has likewise failed to choose peace or make the hard choices required of leaders. Both President Kiir and Riek Machar have promised time and again that they would negotiate a transitional government under the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) process, but have failed to make the compromises needed.
The world is watching to see what the leaders of South Sudan will do. IGAD has outlined the way forward to a transitional government and necessary reforms, but the two sides continue to obfuscate and delay. The parties have until March 5 to secure an agreement that is inclusive, that initiates a broad range of transitional reforms and that ensures those responsible for human rights abuses are held to account.
The United States will work with our international partners, including in the region, the UN Security Council, and beyond, to take further concerted action against those who do not demonstrate a willingness to make the difficult decisions needed for peace.
Leaders can choose to do the hard work of implementing peace—or they can all too easily drift back into the nightmare of war. The choice is clear, and for the sake of all the people of South Sudan, I urge them to choose peace.
Secretary Kerry on South Sudan Negotiations
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 2, 2015
The warring parties in South Sudan must seize the current and final round of negotiations to deliver a sustainable peace. We are well past the point where enough is enough. Leaders must put the interests of their people above their own. The violence must end. A negotiated conclusion to this conflict is required now.
Legitimacy is not a presumed right of any government. It is conferred by the people, and it is sustained only by demonstrating leadership to protect and serve all citizens—responsibilities the government has neglected. The opposition has likewise failed to choose peace or make the hard choices required of leaders. Both President Kiir and Riek Machar have promised time and again that they would negotiate a transitional government under the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) process, but have failed to make the compromises needed.
The world is watching to see what the leaders of South Sudan will do. IGAD has outlined the way forward to a transitional government and necessary reforms, but the two sides continue to obfuscate and delay. The parties have until March 5 to secure an agreement that is inclusive, that initiates a broad range of transitional reforms and that ensures those responsible for human rights abuses are held to account.
The United States will work with our international partners, including in the region, the UN Security Council, and beyond, to take further concerted action against those who do not demonstrate a willingness to make the difficult decisions needed for peace.
Leaders can choose to do the hard work of implementing peace—or they can all too easily drift back into the nightmare of war. The choice is clear, and for the sake of all the people of South Sudan, I urge them to choose peace.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES CONTINUATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCIES WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINE AND ZIMBABWE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
March 03, 2015
Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Ukraine
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, is to continue in effect beyond March 6, 2015.
The actions and policies of persons that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, as well as the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation, including its purported annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 with respect to Ukraine.
BARACK OBAMA
March 03, 2015
Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Zimbabwe
NOTICE
- - - - - - -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO ZIMBABWE
On March 6, 2003, by Executive Order 13288, the President declared a national emergency and blocked the property of certain persons, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions. These actions and policies had contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region.
On November 22, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13391 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 by ordering the blocking of the property of certain persons who undermine democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.
On July 25, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13469, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 and authorized the blocking of the property of certain persons determined to have engaged in actions or policies to undermine democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe, to commit acts of violence and other human rights abuses against political opponents, and to engage in public corruption.
The actions and policies of these persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on March 6, 2003, and the measures adopted on that date, on November 22, 2005, and on July 25, 2008, to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond March 6, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
BARACK OBAMA
March 03, 2015
Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Ukraine
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, is to continue in effect beyond March 6, 2015.
The actions and policies of persons that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, as well as the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation, including its purported annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 with respect to Ukraine.
BARACK OBAMA
March 03, 2015
Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Zimbabwe
NOTICE
- - - - - - -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO ZIMBABWE
On March 6, 2003, by Executive Order 13288, the President declared a national emergency and blocked the property of certain persons, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions. These actions and policies had contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region.
On November 22, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13391 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 by ordering the blocking of the property of certain persons who undermine democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.
On July 25, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13469, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 and authorized the blocking of the property of certain persons determined to have engaged in actions or policies to undermine democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe, to commit acts of violence and other human rights abuses against political opponents, and to engage in public corruption.
The actions and policies of these persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on March 6, 2003, and the measures adopted on that date, on November 22, 2005, and on July 25, 2008, to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond March 6, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
BARACK OBAMA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)