Saturday, August 31, 2013
SOLDIER PLEADS GUILTY TO BRIBERY
FROM: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Army Soldier Pleads Guilty in Kentucky to Bribery Charges for Facilitating Thefts of Fuel in Afghanistan
U.S. Army Sergeant Kevin Bilal Abdullah pleaded guilty today to bribery charges for his role in the theft of fuel at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Fenty, near Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
The guilty plea was announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky David J. Hale.
Abdullah, 30, of Fort Campbell, Ky., pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in the Western District of Kentucky to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and one substantive count of bribery.
According to court documents, in approximately May and June 2010, Abdullah was involved in overseeing the delivery of fuel from FOB Fenty to other military bases. As part of this process, documents generally described as “transportation movement requests” (TMRs or mission sheets) were created to authorize the movement of fuel.
According to court documents, Abdullah created fraudulent TMRs that purported to authorize the transport of fuel from FOB Fenty to other military bases, even though no legitimate fuel transportation was required. After the trucks were filled with fuel, the fraudulent TMRs were used by the drivers of the fuel trucks at FOB Fenty’s departure checkpoint in order to justify the trucks’ departures from FOB Fenty. In truth, the fuel was simply stolen.
Abdullah pleaded guilty to receiving payments from a representative of the trucking company in exchange for facilitating the theft of approximately 25 truckloads of fuel. According to court documents, the loss to the United States as a result of the theft was in excess of $400,000.
Abdullah’s plea is the third guilty plea arising from this investigation of fuel thefts at FOB Fenty. On Aug. 3, 2012, Jonathan Hightower, a civilian employee of a military contractor who had conspired with Abdullah, pleaded guilty to similar charges. On Oct. 10, 2012, Christopher Weaver also pleaded guilty to fuel theft charges. A fourth individual, Stephanie Charboneau, was indicted April 9, 2013, and is pending trial on fuel theft-related charges.
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Mark H. Dubester of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Bennett of the Western District of Kentucky. This case was investigated by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Department of the Army, Criminal Investigations Division; Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and FBI.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Army Soldier Pleads Guilty in Kentucky to Bribery Charges for Facilitating Thefts of Fuel in Afghanistan
U.S. Army Sergeant Kevin Bilal Abdullah pleaded guilty today to bribery charges for his role in the theft of fuel at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Fenty, near Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
The guilty plea was announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky David J. Hale.
Abdullah, 30, of Fort Campbell, Ky., pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in the Western District of Kentucky to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and one substantive count of bribery.
According to court documents, in approximately May and June 2010, Abdullah was involved in overseeing the delivery of fuel from FOB Fenty to other military bases. As part of this process, documents generally described as “transportation movement requests” (TMRs or mission sheets) were created to authorize the movement of fuel.
According to court documents, Abdullah created fraudulent TMRs that purported to authorize the transport of fuel from FOB Fenty to other military bases, even though no legitimate fuel transportation was required. After the trucks were filled with fuel, the fraudulent TMRs were used by the drivers of the fuel trucks at FOB Fenty’s departure checkpoint in order to justify the trucks’ departures from FOB Fenty. In truth, the fuel was simply stolen.
Abdullah pleaded guilty to receiving payments from a representative of the trucking company in exchange for facilitating the theft of approximately 25 truckloads of fuel. According to court documents, the loss to the United States as a result of the theft was in excess of $400,000.
Abdullah’s plea is the third guilty plea arising from this investigation of fuel thefts at FOB Fenty. On Aug. 3, 2012, Jonathan Hightower, a civilian employee of a military contractor who had conspired with Abdullah, pleaded guilty to similar charges. On Oct. 10, 2012, Christopher Weaver also pleaded guilty to fuel theft charges. A fourth individual, Stephanie Charboneau, was indicted April 9, 2013, and is pending trial on fuel theft-related charges.
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Mark H. Dubester of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Bennett of the Western District of Kentucky. This case was investigated by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Department of the Army, Criminal Investigations Division; Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and FBI.
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS ON U.S. RESPONSE TO SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Statement on Syria
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
August 30, 2013
President Obama has spent many days now consulting with Congress and talking with leaders around the world about the situation in Syria. And last night, the President asked all of us on his national security team to consult with the leaders of Congress as well, including the leadership of the Congressional national security committees. And he asked us to consult about what we know regarding the horrific chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs last week. I will tell you that as someone who has spent nearly three decades in the United States Congress, I know that that consultation is the right way for a president to approach a decision of when and how and if to use military force. And it’s important to ask the tough questions and get the tough answers before taking action, not just afterwards.
And I believe, as President Obama does, that it is also important to discuss this directly with the American people. That’s our responsibility, to talk with the citizens who have entrusted all of us in the Administration and the Congress with the responsibility for their security. That’s why this morning’s release of our government’s unclassified estimate of what took place in Syria is so important. Its findings are as clear as they are compelling. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Read for yourself, everyone, those listening. All of you, read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already publicly available, and read for yourselves the verdict reached by our intelligence community about the chemical weapons attack the Assad regime inflicted on the opposition and on opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs on the early morning of August 21st.
Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack, and I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment. Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves. But still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know we can’t talk about publicly.
So what do we really know that we can talk about? Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons program in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year and has used them on a smaller scale, but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday’s attack happened. We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition, and it was frustrated that it hadn’t succeeded in doing so.
We know that for three days before the attack the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations. And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. We know that these were specific instructions. We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. We know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.
And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness and death.
And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors. And just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them didn’t report – not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a cut, not a gunshot wound. We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood. Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad’s gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.
The United States Government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children. Even the first responders, the doctors, nurses, and medics who tried to save them, they became victims themselves. We saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger.
This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.
We also know many disturbing details about the aftermath. We know that a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact, and actually was afraid that they would be discovered. We know this.
And we know what they did next. I personally called the Foreign Minister of Syria and I said to him, “If, as you say, your nation has nothing to hide, then let the United Nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access so they have the opportunity to tell your story.” Instead, for four days they shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after block at a rate four times higher than they had over the previous 10 days. And when the UN inspectors finally gained access, that access, as we now know, was restricted and controlled.
In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.
So the primary question is really no longer: What do we know? The question is: What are we – we collectively – what are we in the world going to do about it?
As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most. Our choices then in history had great consequences and our choice today has great consequences. It matters that nearly a hundred years ago, in direct response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I, that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again.
That was the world’s resolve then, and that began nearly a century of effort to create a clear redline for the international community. It matters today that we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons. That’s why we signed agreements like the START Treaty, the New START Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which more than 180 countries, including Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, have signed on to.
It matters to our security and the security of our allies. It matters to Israel. It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon – all of whom live just a stiff breeze away from Damascus. It matters to all of them where the Syrian chemical weapons are. And if unchecked, they can cause even greater death and destruction to those friends. And it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies.
It matters because a lot of other countries, whose polices challenges these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say. It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.
And make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security. Some cite the risk of doing things, but we need to ask, what is the risk of doing nothing?
It matters because if we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will.
This matters also beyond the limits of Syria’s borders. It is about whether Iran, which itself has been a victim of chemical weapons attacks, will now feel emboldened, in the absence of action, to obtain nuclear weapons. It is about Hezbollah, and North Korea, and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Will they remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons’ current or future use, or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?
So our concern is not just about some far off land oceans away. That’s not what this is about. Our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of Syria is about choices that will directly affect our role in the world and our interests in the world. It is also profoundly about who we are. We are the United States of America. We are the country that has tried, not always successfully, but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations. This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us. And it matters to who we are. And it matters to leadership and to our credibility in the world. My friends, it matters here if nothing is done. It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens.
America should feel confident and gratified that we are not alone in our condemnation, and we are not alone in our will to do something about it and to act. The world is speaking out, and many friends stand ready to respond. The Arab League pledged, quote, “to hold the Syrian regime fully responsible for this crime.” The Organization for Islamic Cooperation condemned the regime and said we needed, quote, “to hold the Syrian Government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime.” Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible. Our oldest ally, the French, said the regime, quote, “committed this vile action, and it is an outrage to use weapons that the community has banned for the last 90 years in all international conventions.” The Australian Prime Minister said he didn’t want history to record that we were, quote, “a party to turning such a blind eye.”
So now that we know what we know, the question we must all be asking is: What will we do? Let me emphasize – President Obama, we in the United States, we believe in the United Nations. And we have great respect for the brave inspectors who endured regime gunfire and obstructions to their investigation. But as Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General, has said again and again, the UN investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the UN investigation. They will only affirm whether such weapons were used. By the definition of their own mandate, the UN can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you this afternoon or that we don’t already know. And because of the guaranteed Russian obstructionism of any action through the UN Security Council, the UN cannot galvanize the world to act as it should.
So let me be clear. We will continue talking to the Congress, talking to our allies, and most importantly, talking to the American people. President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines based on our values and our interests.
Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about. And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency. These things we do know.
We also know that we have a President who does what he says that he will do. And he has said very clearly that whatever decision he makes in Syria, it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open-ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway. The President has been clear: Any action that he might decide to take will be a limited and tailored response to ensure that a despot’s brutal and flagrant use of chemical weapons is held accountable. And ultimately, ultimately, we are committed – we remain committed, we believe it’s the primary objective – is to have a diplomatic process that can resolve this through negotiation, because we know there is no ultimate military solution. It has to be political. It has to happen at the negotiating table, and we are deeply committed to getting there.
So that is what we know. That’s what the leaders of Congress now know. And that’s what the American people need to know. And that is at the core of the decisions that must now be made for the security of our country and for the promise of a planet where the world’s most heinous weapons must never again be used against the world’s most vulnerable people.
Thank you very much.
Statement on Syria
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
August 30, 2013
President Obama has spent many days now consulting with Congress and talking with leaders around the world about the situation in Syria. And last night, the President asked all of us on his national security team to consult with the leaders of Congress as well, including the leadership of the Congressional national security committees. And he asked us to consult about what we know regarding the horrific chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs last week. I will tell you that as someone who has spent nearly three decades in the United States Congress, I know that that consultation is the right way for a president to approach a decision of when and how and if to use military force. And it’s important to ask the tough questions and get the tough answers before taking action, not just afterwards.
And I believe, as President Obama does, that it is also important to discuss this directly with the American people. That’s our responsibility, to talk with the citizens who have entrusted all of us in the Administration and the Congress with the responsibility for their security. That’s why this morning’s release of our government’s unclassified estimate of what took place in Syria is so important. Its findings are as clear as they are compelling. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Read for yourself, everyone, those listening. All of you, read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already publicly available, and read for yourselves the verdict reached by our intelligence community about the chemical weapons attack the Assad regime inflicted on the opposition and on opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs on the early morning of August 21st.
Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack, and I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment. Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves. But still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know we can’t talk about publicly.
So what do we really know that we can talk about? Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons program in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year and has used them on a smaller scale, but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday’s attack happened. We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition, and it was frustrated that it hadn’t succeeded in doing so.
We know that for three days before the attack the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations. And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. We know that these were specific instructions. We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. We know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.
And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness and death.
And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors. And just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them didn’t report – not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a cut, not a gunshot wound. We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood. Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad’s gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.
The United States Government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children. Even the first responders, the doctors, nurses, and medics who tried to save them, they became victims themselves. We saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger.
This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.
We also know many disturbing details about the aftermath. We know that a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact, and actually was afraid that they would be discovered. We know this.
And we know what they did next. I personally called the Foreign Minister of Syria and I said to him, “If, as you say, your nation has nothing to hide, then let the United Nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access so they have the opportunity to tell your story.” Instead, for four days they shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after block at a rate four times higher than they had over the previous 10 days. And when the UN inspectors finally gained access, that access, as we now know, was restricted and controlled.
In all of these things that I have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the American intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. This is common sense. This is evidence. These are facts.
So the primary question is really no longer: What do we know? The question is: What are we – we collectively – what are we in the world going to do about it?
As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most. Our choices then in history had great consequences and our choice today has great consequences. It matters that nearly a hundred years ago, in direct response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I, that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again.
That was the world’s resolve then, and that began nearly a century of effort to create a clear redline for the international community. It matters today that we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons. That’s why we signed agreements like the START Treaty, the New START Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which more than 180 countries, including Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, have signed on to.
It matters to our security and the security of our allies. It matters to Israel. It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon – all of whom live just a stiff breeze away from Damascus. It matters to all of them where the Syrian chemical weapons are. And if unchecked, they can cause even greater death and destruction to those friends. And it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies.
It matters because a lot of other countries, whose polices challenges these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say. It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.
And make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security. Some cite the risk of doing things, but we need to ask, what is the risk of doing nothing?
It matters because if we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will.
This matters also beyond the limits of Syria’s borders. It is about whether Iran, which itself has been a victim of chemical weapons attacks, will now feel emboldened, in the absence of action, to obtain nuclear weapons. It is about Hezbollah, and North Korea, and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Will they remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons’ current or future use, or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?
So our concern is not just about some far off land oceans away. That’s not what this is about. Our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of Syria is about choices that will directly affect our role in the world and our interests in the world. It is also profoundly about who we are. We are the United States of America. We are the country that has tried, not always successfully, but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations. This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us. And it matters to who we are. And it matters to leadership and to our credibility in the world. My friends, it matters here if nothing is done. It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens.
America should feel confident and gratified that we are not alone in our condemnation, and we are not alone in our will to do something about it and to act. The world is speaking out, and many friends stand ready to respond. The Arab League pledged, quote, “to hold the Syrian regime fully responsible for this crime.” The Organization for Islamic Cooperation condemned the regime and said we needed, quote, “to hold the Syrian Government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime.” Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible. Our oldest ally, the French, said the regime, quote, “committed this vile action, and it is an outrage to use weapons that the community has banned for the last 90 years in all international conventions.” The Australian Prime Minister said he didn’t want history to record that we were, quote, “a party to turning such a blind eye.”
So now that we know what we know, the question we must all be asking is: What will we do? Let me emphasize – President Obama, we in the United States, we believe in the United Nations. And we have great respect for the brave inspectors who endured regime gunfire and obstructions to their investigation. But as Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General, has said again and again, the UN investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the UN investigation. They will only affirm whether such weapons were used. By the definition of their own mandate, the UN can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you this afternoon or that we don’t already know. And because of the guaranteed Russian obstructionism of any action through the UN Security Council, the UN cannot galvanize the world to act as it should.
So let me be clear. We will continue talking to the Congress, talking to our allies, and most importantly, talking to the American people. President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines based on our values and our interests.
Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about. And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency. These things we do know.
We also know that we have a President who does what he says that he will do. And he has said very clearly that whatever decision he makes in Syria, it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open-ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway. The President has been clear: Any action that he might decide to take will be a limited and tailored response to ensure that a despot’s brutal and flagrant use of chemical weapons is held accountable. And ultimately, ultimately, we are committed – we remain committed, we believe it’s the primary objective – is to have a diplomatic process that can resolve this through negotiation, because we know there is no ultimate military solution. It has to be political. It has to happen at the negotiating table, and we are deeply committed to getting there.
So that is what we know. That’s what the leaders of Congress now know. And that’s what the American people need to know. And that is at the core of the decisions that must now be made for the security of our country and for the promise of a planet where the world’s most heinous weapons must never again be used against the world’s most vulnerable people.
Thank you very much.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL NOTES STRONG U.S.-PHILIPPINE RELATIONSHIP
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel Praises 'Unbreakable' U.S.-Philippine Alliance
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Aug. 30, 2013 - On the last stop of what he called a "very productive" trip to four countries in Southeast Asia, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met today with Philippine government and defense leaders and later paid his respects to U.S. troops laid to rest at the Manila American Cemetery.
The secretary left Washington, D.C., Aug. 22 and visited his counterparts in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei before arriving today in Manila.
In Brunei on Aug. 28 he attended a meeting of defense ministers from 10 countries that belong to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. The 10 member states are Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Yesterday, he attended the second-ever meeting of the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting-Plus, a group made up of the 10 ASEAN defense ministers and eight dialogue partners: defense ministers from the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, New Zealand and Russia.
Today in Manila, after meeting with President Benigno S. Aquino III at the Malacanang Palace, Hagel and National Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin held a press conference there.
"In my meeting with President Aquino I noted that the deep and unbreakable alliance between the United States and the Philippines is an anchor for peace and stability and prosperity in this region," Hagel said.
"Our close ties to the Philippines have been forged through a history of shared sacrifice and common purpose," he added, "and continuing to strengthen the close partnership between our nations is an important part of America's long-term strategy of rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific."
An important topic of discussion among the three men and Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario involved ongoing negotiations for a Framework Agreement that would allow U.S. forces to operate on Philippine military bases and in Philippine territory and waters to help build Philippine armed forces capacity in maritime security and maritime domain awareness.
The last time the United States and the Philippines signed a mutual defense treaty was in 1951, and the new Framework Agreement would update the agreement for routine troop rotations and related activities, according to a senior defense official traveling with the secretary.
"The visit of U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to the Philippines coincides with an important date for Philippines-U.S. defense relations," Gazmin said at the press conference. "For it was on 30 Aug. 1951 that the mutual defense treaty was signed. Today is the 62nd anniversary."
"In the spirit of that [early] treaty and its continuing relevance today, President Aquino and I reaffirmed the progress being made in the ongoing discussions for our Framework Agreement," Hagel said.
Hagel said the Framework Agreement will strengthen cooperation between the two militaries and help them work together more effectively. He noted that the negotiating teams are working hard to finish the agreement.
"The United States does not seek permanent bases in the Philippines," Hagel said. "That would represent a return to an outdated Cold War mentality. Instead, we are using a new model of military-to-military cooperation befitting two great allies and friends."
Increasing the United States' rotational presence in the Philippines as it has done recently in Singapore and Australia will benefit the U.S. and Philippine militaries, Hagel said, by increasing their ability to train and operate together and support President Aquino's defense modernization agenda.
The United States has a great deal of experience in building a modern military, the secretary said.
"And we would like to share what we've learned with our Philippine allies," Hagel added.
The leaders also discussed the situation in the South China Sea, where many countries have overlapping claims on the area that could lead to tensions in the maritime domain.
Hagel called this "an issue the United States, our allies, partners and friends in this part of the world hope will be resolved peacefully and without coercion."
The United States supports ASEAN efforts to negotiate a South China Sea Code of Conduct, which Hagel said would help peacefully manage disagreements and disputes that arise from competing territorial and maritime claims.
"In the meantime," the secretary said, "we encourage nations to peacefully resolve their disputes through internationally accepted mechanisms in accordance with international law, including the Law of the Sea."
Later in the afternoon, Hagel took time from his schedule to honor 17,202 fallen troops from World War II, Americans and some Filipinos who fought shoulder to shoulder, buried at the Manila American Cemetery here on 152 acres of elegantly designed green space settled on gently rising ground.
On the rise is a simple tower that contains a small chapel and altar. On a regular schedule, a carillon plays the national songs of the Philippines and the United States, then Taps.
Flaring from each side like parentheses are two long narrow structures formed into a series of open rooms. Some rooms have stone benches but most have nothing except maps or names on the walls.
On some walls are drawn colorful maps that detail different World War II battles -- the defense of Luzon, 8 Dec. 1941 to 6 May 1942, for example, or the defense of Southeast Asia, December 1941 to May 1942.
Most walls contain the names and details of 36,286 of the missing. According to literature from the cemetery, 16,919 are from the U.S. Army and Army Air Force, 17,582 are from the U.S. Navy, 1,727 from the U.S. Marine Corps, and 58 are Coast Guard.
The Manila American Cemetery is located within the boundaries of the old U.S. Army reservation of Fort William McKinley.
Those resting forever in the cemetery here represent 40 percent of the burials made originally in temporary cemeteries in New Guinea, the Philippines and other islands of the Southwest Pacific, and in the Palau Islands of the Central Pacific, according to the cemetery booklet.
Most of these troops fell in the epic defense of the Philippines and East Indies in 1941 and 1942 or in the long but victorious return of the American forces through the vast island chain, the book said. The cemetery and memorial were finished in 1960. The cemetery was dedicated on Dec. 8, 1960.
At the cemetery, Hagel walked from the motorcade to an area across from the chapel and tower that was covered against the tropical sun. A large display of flowers filled the chapel doorway. He and a small group stood at attention while the carillon played through its songs to Taps.
The secretary approached the chapel and climbed the few steps. He stood for a moment before the display honoring the troops, then offered a quick salute and turned to walk down the stairs.
The graves area is divided into 11 curved lettered plots forming concentric bands around the high ground of the memorial. After examining the chapel, Hagel spent time walking among some of the cemetery's 17,097 white-cross headstones.
Hagel Praises 'Unbreakable' U.S.-Philippine Alliance
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Aug. 30, 2013 - On the last stop of what he called a "very productive" trip to four countries in Southeast Asia, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met today with Philippine government and defense leaders and later paid his respects to U.S. troops laid to rest at the Manila American Cemetery.
The secretary left Washington, D.C., Aug. 22 and visited his counterparts in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei before arriving today in Manila.
In Brunei on Aug. 28 he attended a meeting of defense ministers from 10 countries that belong to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. The 10 member states are Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Yesterday, he attended the second-ever meeting of the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting-Plus, a group made up of the 10 ASEAN defense ministers and eight dialogue partners: defense ministers from the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, New Zealand and Russia.
Today in Manila, after meeting with President Benigno S. Aquino III at the Malacanang Palace, Hagel and National Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin held a press conference there.
"In my meeting with President Aquino I noted that the deep and unbreakable alliance between the United States and the Philippines is an anchor for peace and stability and prosperity in this region," Hagel said.
"Our close ties to the Philippines have been forged through a history of shared sacrifice and common purpose," he added, "and continuing to strengthen the close partnership between our nations is an important part of America's long-term strategy of rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific."
An important topic of discussion among the three men and Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario involved ongoing negotiations for a Framework Agreement that would allow U.S. forces to operate on Philippine military bases and in Philippine territory and waters to help build Philippine armed forces capacity in maritime security and maritime domain awareness.
The last time the United States and the Philippines signed a mutual defense treaty was in 1951, and the new Framework Agreement would update the agreement for routine troop rotations and related activities, according to a senior defense official traveling with the secretary.
"The visit of U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to the Philippines coincides with an important date for Philippines-U.S. defense relations," Gazmin said at the press conference. "For it was on 30 Aug. 1951 that the mutual defense treaty was signed. Today is the 62nd anniversary."
"In the spirit of that [early] treaty and its continuing relevance today, President Aquino and I reaffirmed the progress being made in the ongoing discussions for our Framework Agreement," Hagel said.
Hagel said the Framework Agreement will strengthen cooperation between the two militaries and help them work together more effectively. He noted that the negotiating teams are working hard to finish the agreement.
"The United States does not seek permanent bases in the Philippines," Hagel said. "That would represent a return to an outdated Cold War mentality. Instead, we are using a new model of military-to-military cooperation befitting two great allies and friends."
Increasing the United States' rotational presence in the Philippines as it has done recently in Singapore and Australia will benefit the U.S. and Philippine militaries, Hagel said, by increasing their ability to train and operate together and support President Aquino's defense modernization agenda.
The United States has a great deal of experience in building a modern military, the secretary said.
"And we would like to share what we've learned with our Philippine allies," Hagel added.
The leaders also discussed the situation in the South China Sea, where many countries have overlapping claims on the area that could lead to tensions in the maritime domain.
Hagel called this "an issue the United States, our allies, partners and friends in this part of the world hope will be resolved peacefully and without coercion."
The United States supports ASEAN efforts to negotiate a South China Sea Code of Conduct, which Hagel said would help peacefully manage disagreements and disputes that arise from competing territorial and maritime claims.
"In the meantime," the secretary said, "we encourage nations to peacefully resolve their disputes through internationally accepted mechanisms in accordance with international law, including the Law of the Sea."
Later in the afternoon, Hagel took time from his schedule to honor 17,202 fallen troops from World War II, Americans and some Filipinos who fought shoulder to shoulder, buried at the Manila American Cemetery here on 152 acres of elegantly designed green space settled on gently rising ground.
On the rise is a simple tower that contains a small chapel and altar. On a regular schedule, a carillon plays the national songs of the Philippines and the United States, then Taps.
Flaring from each side like parentheses are two long narrow structures formed into a series of open rooms. Some rooms have stone benches but most have nothing except maps or names on the walls.
On some walls are drawn colorful maps that detail different World War II battles -- the defense of Luzon, 8 Dec. 1941 to 6 May 1942, for example, or the defense of Southeast Asia, December 1941 to May 1942.
Most walls contain the names and details of 36,286 of the missing. According to literature from the cemetery, 16,919 are from the U.S. Army and Army Air Force, 17,582 are from the U.S. Navy, 1,727 from the U.S. Marine Corps, and 58 are Coast Guard.
The Manila American Cemetery is located within the boundaries of the old U.S. Army reservation of Fort William McKinley.
Those resting forever in the cemetery here represent 40 percent of the burials made originally in temporary cemeteries in New Guinea, the Philippines and other islands of the Southwest Pacific, and in the Palau Islands of the Central Pacific, according to the cemetery booklet.
Most of these troops fell in the epic defense of the Philippines and East Indies in 1941 and 1942 or in the long but victorious return of the American forces through the vast island chain, the book said. The cemetery and memorial were finished in 1960. The cemetery was dedicated on Dec. 8, 1960.
At the cemetery, Hagel walked from the motorcade to an area across from the chapel and tower that was covered against the tropical sun. A large display of flowers filled the chapel doorway. He and a small group stood at attention while the carillon played through its songs to Taps.
The secretary approached the chapel and climbed the few steps. He stood for a moment before the display honoring the troops, then offered a quick salute and turned to walk down the stairs.
The graves area is divided into 11 curved lettered plots forming concentric bands around the high ground of the memorial. After examining the chapel, Hagel spent time walking among some of the cemetery's 17,097 white-cross headstones.
WOMAN SENTENCED FOR LYING ABOUT INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER LAB TESTING RESULTS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Laboratory Operator Sentenced to 40 Months for Fabricating Industrial Wastewater Results
Tennie White, the owner and operator of an environmental laboratory located in Jackson, Miss., was sentenced in federal court late yesterday to 40 months in prison in connection with her conviction for faking laboratory testing results and lying to federal investigators, announced Gregory K. Davis, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, and Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
White also was sentenced to three years of supervised release to follow her prison sentence and was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. White was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate at the federal courthouse in Jackson, where he also presided over the May 2013 trial of the case.
“Independent laboratories play a critical role in assisting businesses to accurately monitor and report discharges of industrial pollutants that may adversely affect the environment,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Dreher. “Businesses cannot fulfill this important responsibility if these laboratories are not honest brokers and falsify test results and monitoring reports. This prosecution shows that fraudulent testing and reporting by laboratories will not be tolerated.”
“Americans expect their public water supply to be clean and safe to use,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s criminal enforcement program in Mississippi. “In order to safeguard public health it is absolutely essential that governments receive accurate test results and measurements. This case demonstrates that individuals who falsify environmental records and try to mislead the government will be prosecuted and held accountable.”
White, owner, operator and manager of Mississippi Environmental Analytical Laboratories Inc., was found guilty in May 2013 of two false statement counts and one count of obstructing proceedings. Evidence at trial established that White was hired to perform laboratory testing of a manufacturer’s industrial process waste water samples and then to use those results to complete monthly discharge monitoring reports for submission to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. However, for the months October to December 2008, White created discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) that falsely represented that laboratory testing had been performed on samples when, in fact, such testing had not been done. White further created a fictitious laboratory report and presented it to her client for use in preparing another DMR for January 2009. White made false statements to a federal agent during a subsequent criminal investigation.
The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Richard J. Powers of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gaines Cleveland of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Laboratory Operator Sentenced to 40 Months for Fabricating Industrial Wastewater Results
Tennie White, the owner and operator of an environmental laboratory located in Jackson, Miss., was sentenced in federal court late yesterday to 40 months in prison in connection with her conviction for faking laboratory testing results and lying to federal investigators, announced Gregory K. Davis, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, and Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
White also was sentenced to three years of supervised release to follow her prison sentence and was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. White was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate at the federal courthouse in Jackson, where he also presided over the May 2013 trial of the case.
“Independent laboratories play a critical role in assisting businesses to accurately monitor and report discharges of industrial pollutants that may adversely affect the environment,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Dreher. “Businesses cannot fulfill this important responsibility if these laboratories are not honest brokers and falsify test results and monitoring reports. This prosecution shows that fraudulent testing and reporting by laboratories will not be tolerated.”
“Americans expect their public water supply to be clean and safe to use,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s criminal enforcement program in Mississippi. “In order to safeguard public health it is absolutely essential that governments receive accurate test results and measurements. This case demonstrates that individuals who falsify environmental records and try to mislead the government will be prosecuted and held accountable.”
White, owner, operator and manager of Mississippi Environmental Analytical Laboratories Inc., was found guilty in May 2013 of two false statement counts and one count of obstructing proceedings. Evidence at trial established that White was hired to perform laboratory testing of a manufacturer’s industrial process waste water samples and then to use those results to complete monthly discharge monitoring reports for submission to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. However, for the months October to December 2008, White created discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) that falsely represented that laboratory testing had been performed on samples when, in fact, such testing had not been done. White further created a fictitious laboratory report and presented it to her client for use in preparing another DMR for January 2009. White made false statements to a federal agent during a subsequent criminal investigation.
The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Richard J. Powers of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gaines Cleveland of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi.
U.S, RUSSIA TO BUILD ON SUCCESS OF VIGILANT EAGLE 13
 |
| A Russian air force Su-27 Sukhois intercepts a simulated hijacked aircraft entering Russian airspace Aug. 27, 2013, at Exercise Vigilant Eagle 13. This exercise is the fifth in a series of cooperative exercises that provide an opportunity for Russia, Canada, and United States military personnel to enhance their international partnership and to cooperatively detect, track, identify, and follow a hijacked aircraft as it proceeds across international boundaries. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jason Robertson |
NORAD, Russia Hope to Build on Vigilant Eagle 13 Successes
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Aug. 29, 2013 - Just concluding the most ambitious Vigilant Eagle exercise yet, senior military officials from the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the Russian Federation told reporters today they're ready to take the lessons learned to make next year's exercise even more challenging.
Canadian Maj. Gen. Andre Viens, NORAD's operations director, and Russian Gen. Maj. Dmitry Gomenkov, commander of the Eastern Military District of Russia's Air and Space Defense Brigade, declared the Vigilant Eagle 13 exercise a major success.
The exercise kicked off Aug. 26, with scenarios that required the United States, Canada and Russia to respond to simulated terrorist hijackings of commercial aircraft. Both NORAD, a binational command that includes the United States and Canada, and Russia had to scramble fighter jets and track and intercept the "hijacked aircraft."
Throughout the exercise series, the participants have developed tactics, techniques and procedures to effectively notify, coordinate, and conduct positive handoff of a hijacked aircraft flying through Russian, Canadian and American airspace, Viens told reporters during a teleconference today.
Vigilant Eagle 13 offered the opportunity to take principles proven in a simulated environment during last year's command post exercise, and to validate them during the third "live-fly" exercise since the exercise series began in 2008, Viens and Gomenkov reported.
This year's Vigilant Eagle was the first time Canadian fighter jets participated, with Canadian CF-18 Hornets and Russian Federation Su-27 Sukhois aircraft following and intercepting the "hijacked" aircraft, Gomenkov noted.
But the exercise delivered another first, with a visual fighter-to-fighter handoff of escort responsibilities in a live-fly situation as the "track of interest" moved from one country's airspace to another's.
"During previous Vigilant Eagle events, Russian or NORAD fighters would escort the simulated aircraft to a point in the sky where airborne or ground sensors would take over the monitoring of the hijacked aircraft," Viens explained. "Later on the route, the fighters of the other nation would intercept the hijacked aircraft and assume escort responsibilities for that track of interest.
"So at no time in the past did we exercise having the Russian, Canadian or American fighters all joining up together to have a positive handoff of escort responsibility on a track of interest," he said. "This is what we did for the first time this year."
That crucial step forward in the Vigilant Eagle series required extensive planning and coordination to ensure a safe, successful transfer, he said.
"We have never done this together in the past, and it went off without a hitch," Viens said. "What this has enabled us to do is have 100 percent control over an aircraft in trouble that is flying between Russian, American and Canadian airspace. Working together as partners in the air and on the ground, we were able to ensure the safety of the civilians in the aircraft, our collective citizens and the safe landing of the aircraft at its destination."
Gomenkov praised the professionalism of all three countries' militaries throughout the exercise planning and said he looks forward to seeing the Vigilant Eagle series continue to build in complexity.
Viens said he, too, sees opportunities to refine the tactics, techniques and procedures being advanced through the exercise, hinting that some new "curve balls" could be introduced in the future.
Planning for Vigilant Eagle 14 is scheduled to begin in November, Gomenkov said, noting that both Russia and NORAD will offer suggestions on how to build on this year's exercise.
Exercising together builds confidence and understanding that enables the United States, Canada and Russia to operate together more effectively, Viens said. "So clearly from a NORAD perspective, there is a great deal of interest to continue this tradition of Vigilant Eagle exercises to further promote cooperation – especially when it comes to air-space activities that require the attention of both Russia and NORAD," he said.
Friday, August 30, 2013
RISK MAKERS AND/OR TAKERS: PROPOSED RULE REVISION
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
JOINT RELEASE
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
Securities and Exchange Commission
Six federal agencies issued a notice revising a proposed rule requiring sponsors of securitization transactions to retain risk in those transactions. The new proposal revises a proposed rule the agencies issued in 2011 to implement the risk retention requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
This proposal is being issued jointly by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. As provided under the statute, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Chairperson of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, played a coordinating role in the rulemaking. The rule would provide asset-backed securities (ABS) sponsors with several options to satisfy the risk retention requirements. The original proposal generally measured compliance with the risk retention requirements based on the par value of securities issued in a securitization transaction and included a so-called premium capture provision. The agencies are now proposing that risk retention generally be based on fair value measurements without a premium capture provision.
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the proposal would define “qualified residential mortgage” (QRM) and exempt securitizations of QRMs from risk retention. The new proposal would define QRMs to have the same meaning as the term qualified mortgages as defined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new proposal also requests comment on an alternative definition of QRM that would include certain underwriting standards in addition to the qualified mortgage criteria.
Similar to the original proposal, under the new proposal, securitizations of commercial loans, commercial mortgages, or automobile loans of low credit risk would not be subject to risk retention. Further, the rule would recognize the full guarantee on payments of principal and interest provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their residential mortgage-backed securities as meeting the risk retention requirements while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in conservatorship or receivership and have capital support from the U.S. government. This provision also is unchanged from the original proposal.
The agencies are requesting comment on the revised proposed rule by Oct. 30, 2013.
JOINT RELEASE
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
Securities and Exchange Commission
Six federal agencies issued a notice revising a proposed rule requiring sponsors of securitization transactions to retain risk in those transactions. The new proposal revises a proposed rule the agencies issued in 2011 to implement the risk retention requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
This proposal is being issued jointly by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. As provided under the statute, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Chairperson of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, played a coordinating role in the rulemaking. The rule would provide asset-backed securities (ABS) sponsors with several options to satisfy the risk retention requirements. The original proposal generally measured compliance with the risk retention requirements based on the par value of securities issued in a securitization transaction and included a so-called premium capture provision. The agencies are now proposing that risk retention generally be based on fair value measurements without a premium capture provision.
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the proposal would define “qualified residential mortgage” (QRM) and exempt securitizations of QRMs from risk retention. The new proposal would define QRMs to have the same meaning as the term qualified mortgages as defined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new proposal also requests comment on an alternative definition of QRM that would include certain underwriting standards in addition to the qualified mortgage criteria.
Similar to the original proposal, under the new proposal, securitizations of commercial loans, commercial mortgages, or automobile loans of low credit risk would not be subject to risk retention. Further, the rule would recognize the full guarantee on payments of principal and interest provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their residential mortgage-backed securities as meeting the risk retention requirements while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in conservatorship or receivership and have capital support from the U.S. government. This provision also is unchanged from the original proposal.
The agencies are requesting comment on the revised proposed rule by Oct. 30, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)