FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
US and Colombia agree to additional meetings on
Colombian Labor Action Plan commitments
WASHINGTON — In a meeting on Monday, Nov. 11, during the Inter-American Conference of Ministries of Labor held in Medellín, Colombia, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor Seth Harris and Colombian Minister of Labor Rafael Pardo Rueda agreed to continue bilateral meetings on the commitments in the Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights through at least 2014. Both sides recognized advances made by Colombia under the Action Plan to date, while underscoring several areas of mutual concern. These areas of concern include: the collection of fines imposed for labor violations; targeted inspections in the five identified priority sectors (palm oil, sugar, mines, ports and flowers); the investigation and sanction of all forms of abusive contracting; the status of hiring labor inspectors in line with Action Plan commitments; and violence and threats against trade unionists and continued impunity for the perpetrators.
"The agreement to continue meeting on Action Plan obligations reflects the joint commitment of the United States and Colombia to full implementation of the Action Plan," said Harris. "Together, we must fulfill the commitments agreed upon in 2011. We look forward to continuing to work with Colombia to make these promises a reality for workers."
The agreement reached specifies two technical-level meetings and one meeting of senior officials in 2014, with any future meetings to be agreed upon mutually. President Obama and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos Calderón signed the Action Plan in April 2011.
Friday, November 15, 2013
CDC FINDS CLUSTER OF NEWBORNS WITH BRAIN, GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING
FROM: U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
CDC finds cluster of newborns in Tennessee with bleeding disorder
Report highlights importance of vitamin K shot at birth
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified a cluster of newborns in Tennessee with late vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). VKDB is a serious, but preventable bleeding disorder that can cause bleeding in the brain. In each case, the newborn’s parents declined vitamin K injection at birth, mainly because they were unaware of the health benefits of vitamin K at birth. Preliminary findings of CDC’s investigation, in collaboration with the Tennessee Department of Health, were published today in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
“Not giving vitamin K at birth is an emerging trend that can have devastating outcomes for infants and their families,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “Ensuring that every newborn receives a Vitamin K injection at birth is critical to protect infants.”
Between February and September, 2013, four cases of late VKDB were diagnosed at a hospital in Nashville, Tennessee. Three of the infants had bleeding within the brain and the fourth had gastrointestinal bleeding. None of the infants received a vitamin K injection at birth.
“Fortunately all of the infants survived,” said Lauren Marcewicz, MD, EIS officer with CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. “It is important for health professionals to educate parents about the health benefits of vitamin K at birth.”
In the United States, a vitamin K injection at birth has been a standard practice since it was first recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1961. A dose of vitamin K at birth prevents VKDB. The late form of VKDB can develop in infants two weeks to 6 months of age who did not receive the vitamin K injection at birth and do not have enough vitamin K dependent proteins in their bodies to allow normal blood clotting. Untreated, this can cause bleeding in the brain, which may lead to neurological problems and can even be fatal. The risk for developing late VKDB has been estimated at 81 times greater among infants who do not receive a vitamin K injection at birth than in infants who do receive it.
CDC continues to work with Tennessee Department of Health to determine if other cases of late VKDB occurred in the state in recent years. Also, a case-control study is under way to assess whether any additional risk factors might contribute to the development of late VKDB in children who do not receive vitamin K at birth.
CDC finds cluster of newborns in Tennessee with bleeding disorder
Report highlights importance of vitamin K shot at birth
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified a cluster of newborns in Tennessee with late vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). VKDB is a serious, but preventable bleeding disorder that can cause bleeding in the brain. In each case, the newborn’s parents declined vitamin K injection at birth, mainly because they were unaware of the health benefits of vitamin K at birth. Preliminary findings of CDC’s investigation, in collaboration with the Tennessee Department of Health, were published today in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
“Not giving vitamin K at birth is an emerging trend that can have devastating outcomes for infants and their families,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “Ensuring that every newborn receives a Vitamin K injection at birth is critical to protect infants.”
Between February and September, 2013, four cases of late VKDB were diagnosed at a hospital in Nashville, Tennessee. Three of the infants had bleeding within the brain and the fourth had gastrointestinal bleeding. None of the infants received a vitamin K injection at birth.
“Fortunately all of the infants survived,” said Lauren Marcewicz, MD, EIS officer with CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. “It is important for health professionals to educate parents about the health benefits of vitamin K at birth.”
In the United States, a vitamin K injection at birth has been a standard practice since it was first recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1961. A dose of vitamin K at birth prevents VKDB. The late form of VKDB can develop in infants two weeks to 6 months of age who did not receive the vitamin K injection at birth and do not have enough vitamin K dependent proteins in their bodies to allow normal blood clotting. Untreated, this can cause bleeding in the brain, which may lead to neurological problems and can even be fatal. The risk for developing late VKDB has been estimated at 81 times greater among infants who do not receive a vitamin K injection at birth than in infants who do receive it.
CDC continues to work with Tennessee Department of Health to determine if other cases of late VKDB occurred in the state in recent years. Also, a case-control study is under way to assess whether any additional risk factors might contribute to the development of late VKDB in children who do not receive vitamin K at birth.
NEARLY $ 9 MILLION IN GRANTS APPROVED BY VA FOR TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING OF HOMELESS VETS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
VA Approves $8.8 Million in Grants to Provide Transportation and Renovated Housing for Homeless Veterans
November 12, 2013
WASHINGTON—The Department of Veterans Affairs has approved $8.8 million in grants to fund 164 projects in 37 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to rehabilitate currently operational transitional housing projects and acquire vans to facilitate the transportation needs of homeless Veterans.
“President Obama has made eliminating Veterans’ homelessness a national priority,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki. “We want every Veteran who faces homelessness to know that VA is here to help. The Grant and Per Diem Program provides significant assistance to those who need it.”
The grants awarded through the Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program are for currently operational grantees, who will use this funding to rehabilitate their current project locations to enhance safety, security and privacy for the homeless Veterans they serve. Additionally, funding for these organizations to acquire vans will assist homeless Veterans with transportation to medical appointments and employment opportunities, as well as enable grantees to conduct outreach within their communities.
GPD helps close gaps in available housing for the nation’s most vulnerable homeless Veterans, including men and women with children, Indian tribal populations, and Veterans with substance use and mental health issues. Community-based programs funded by GPD provide homeless Veterans with support services and housing. GPD grants are offered annually as funding is available by VA’s homeless Veterans programs.
Lisa Pape, National Director of Homeless Programs, which oversees GPD, said, “These grant awards are a reinvestment in the community that will strengthen community services around the country so that homeless Veterans have access to safe and secure housing and receive quality support and services.
“The 2013 GPD grant awards represent an ongoing commitment to VA’s community partners. These awards will make community-based GPD facilities safer and secure, ensuring that our community partners continue to provide excellent mental health support, employment assistance and job training with the essential component of housing,” Pape added. “Whether it is aid in overcoming substance use or finding a job, a community helping hand is exactly what these Veterans need to lead a better quality of life.”
Since 2009, homelessness among Veteran has decreased more than 17 percent. As part of President Obama’s and Shinseki’s five-year plan to eliminate Veteran homelessness by 2015, VA has committed over $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 to strengthen programs that prevent and treat the many issues that can lead to Veteran homelessness.
More information about VA’s homeless programs is available at www.va.gov/homeless. Details about the GPD Program are online at www.va.gov/homeless/GPD.asp.
VA Approves $8.8 Million in Grants to Provide Transportation and Renovated Housing for Homeless Veterans
November 12, 2013
WASHINGTON—The Department of Veterans Affairs has approved $8.8 million in grants to fund 164 projects in 37 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to rehabilitate currently operational transitional housing projects and acquire vans to facilitate the transportation needs of homeless Veterans.
“President Obama has made eliminating Veterans’ homelessness a national priority,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki. “We want every Veteran who faces homelessness to know that VA is here to help. The Grant and Per Diem Program provides significant assistance to those who need it.”
The grants awarded through the Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program are for currently operational grantees, who will use this funding to rehabilitate their current project locations to enhance safety, security and privacy for the homeless Veterans they serve. Additionally, funding for these organizations to acquire vans will assist homeless Veterans with transportation to medical appointments and employment opportunities, as well as enable grantees to conduct outreach within their communities.
GPD helps close gaps in available housing for the nation’s most vulnerable homeless Veterans, including men and women with children, Indian tribal populations, and Veterans with substance use and mental health issues. Community-based programs funded by GPD provide homeless Veterans with support services and housing. GPD grants are offered annually as funding is available by VA’s homeless Veterans programs.
Lisa Pape, National Director of Homeless Programs, which oversees GPD, said, “These grant awards are a reinvestment in the community that will strengthen community services around the country so that homeless Veterans have access to safe and secure housing and receive quality support and services.
“The 2013 GPD grant awards represent an ongoing commitment to VA’s community partners. These awards will make community-based GPD facilities safer and secure, ensuring that our community partners continue to provide excellent mental health support, employment assistance and job training with the essential component of housing,” Pape added. “Whether it is aid in overcoming substance use or finding a job, a community helping hand is exactly what these Veterans need to lead a better quality of life.”
Since 2009, homelessness among Veteran has decreased more than 17 percent. As part of President Obama’s and Shinseki’s five-year plan to eliminate Veteran homelessness by 2015, VA has committed over $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 to strengthen programs that prevent and treat the many issues that can lead to Veteran homelessness.
More information about VA’s homeless programs is available at www.va.gov/homeless. Details about the GPD Program are online at www.va.gov/homeless/GPD.asp.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IMPLIMENTATION
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the President on the Affordable Care Act
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:02 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to update the American people on our efforts to implement and improve the Affordable Care Act, and I’ll take a couple of your questions. But before I do, I just want to say a few words about the tragedy that's unfolded in the Philippines.
Over the past few days, I think all of us have been shaken by the images of the devastation wrought by Typhoon Haiyan. It’s a heartbreaking reminder of how fragile life is, and among the dead are several Americans. So our prayers are with the Filipino people, and with Filipino Americans across our country who are anxious about their family and friends back home.
One of our core principles is, when friends are in trouble, America helps. As I told President Aquino earlier this week, the United States will continue to offer whatever assistance we can. Our military personnel and USAID team do this better than anybody in the world, and they’ve been already on the ground working tirelessly to deliver food, water, medicine, shelter, and to help with airlift. Today, the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and other ships arrived to help with search- and-rescue, as well as supplies, medical care and logistical support. And more help is on the way.
America’s strength, of course, has always been more than just about what our government can do –- it’s also about what our citizens can do. It’s about the big-heartedness of the American people when they see other folks in trouble. So today, I would encourage everybody who wants to help, to visit WhiteHouse.gov/typhoon -- that's WhiteHouse.gov/typhoon -- and that will offer you links to organizations that are working on the ground and ways that you can support their efforts. Our friends in the Philippines will face a long, hard road ahead, but they’ll continue to have a friend and partner in the United States of America.
Now, switching gears, it has now been six weeks since the Affordable Care Act’s new marketplace has opened for business. I think it's fair to say that the rollout has been rough so far. And I think everybody understands that I'm not happy about the fact that the rollout has been wrought with a whole range of problems that I've been deeply concerned about. But today I want to talk about what we know after these first few weeks and what we're doing to implement and improve the law.
Yesterday, the White House announced that in the first month, more than 100,000 Americans successfully enrolled in new insurance plans. Is that as high a number as we’d like? Absolutely not. But it does mean that people want affordable health care. The problems of the website have prevented too many Americans from completing the enrollment process. And that’s on us, not on them. But there is no question that there’s real demand for quality, affordable health insurance.
In the first month, nearly a million people successfully completed an application for themselves or their families. Those applications represent more than 1.5 million people. Of those 1.5 million people, 106,000 of them have successfully signed up to get covered.
Another 396,000 have the ability to gain access to Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. That’s been less reported on, but it shouldn’t be. Americans who are having a difficult time, who are poor, many of them working, may have a disability; they're Americans like everybody else, and the fact that they are now able to get insurance is going to be critically important.
Later today, I’ll be in Ohio, where Governor Kasich, a Republican, has expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. And as many as 275,000 Ohioans will ultimately be better off because of it. And if every governor followed suit, another 5.4 million Americans could gain access to health care next year.
So bottom line is, in just one month, despite all the problems that we've seen with the website, more than 500,000 Americans could know the security of health care by January 1st -- many of them for the first time in their lives. And that’s life-changing and it's significant.
That still leaves about 1 million Americans who successfully made it through the website, and now qualify to buy insurance, but haven’t picked a plan yet. And there’s no question that if the website were working as it’s supposed to, that number would be much higher of people who have actually enrolled. So that’s problem number one –- making sure that the website works the way it's supposed to. It’s gotten a lot better over the last few weeks than it was on the first day, but we’re working 24/7 to get it working for the vast majority of Americans in a smooth, consistent way.
The other problem that has received a lot of attention
concerns Americans who have received letters from their insurers that they may be losing the plans they bought in the old individual market, often because they no longer meet the law’s requirements to cover basic benefits like prescription drugs or doctors’ visits.
Now, as I indicated earlier, I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked, they could keep it. And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I'm offering an idea that will help do it.
Already, people who have plans that predate the Affordable Care Act can keep those plans if they haven’t changed. That was already in the law. That's what's called a grandfather clause. It was included in the law. Today, we're going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law took effect, and to people who bought plans since the law took effect.
So state insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans can and can’t be sold in their states. But the bottom line is, insurers can extend current plans that would otherwise be canceled into 2014, and Americans whose plans have been canceled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.
We’re also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers about two things. One, that protections -- what protections these renewed plans don’t include. And number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.
So if you’ve received one of these letters, I’d encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. Even if the website isn’t working as smoothly as it should be for everybody yet, the plan comparison tool that lets you browse costs for new plans near you is working just fine.
Now, this fix won’t solve every problem for every person. But it’s going to help a lot of people. Doing more will require work with Congress. And I’ve said from the beginning, I’m willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to fix problems as they arise. This is an example of what I was talking about. We can always make this law work better.
It is important to understand, though, that the old individual market was not working well. And it’s important that we don’t pretend that somehow that’s a place worth going back to. Too often, it works fine as long as you stay healthy; it doesn’t work well when you’re sick. So year after year, Americans were routinely exposed to financial ruin, or denied coverage due to minor preexisting conditions, or dropped from coverage altogether -- even if they paid their premiums on time.
That’s one of the reasons we pursued this reform in the first place. And that’s why I will not accept proposals that are just another brazen attempt to undermine or repeal the overall law and drag us back into a broken system. We will continue to make the case, even to folks who choose to keep their own plans, that they should shop around in the new marketplace because there’s a good chance that they’ll be able to buy better insurance at lower cost.
So we’re going to do everything we can to help the Americans who have received these cancellation notices. But I also want everybody to remember there are still 40 million Americans who don’t have health insurance at all. I’m not going to walk away from 40 million people who have the chance to get health insurance for the first time. And I’m not going to walk away from something that has helped the cost of health care grow at its slowest rate in 50 years.
So we’re at the opening weeks of the project to build a better health care system for everybody -- a system that will offer real financial security and peace of mind to millions of Americans. It is a complex process. There are all kinds of challenges. I’m sure there will be additional challenges that come up. And it’s important that we’re honest and straightforward in terms of when we come up with a problem with these reforms and these laws, that we address them. But we’ve got to move forward on this.
It took 100 years for us to even get to the point where we could start talking about and implementing a law to make sure everybody has got health insurance. And my pledge to the American people is, is that we’re going to solve the problems that are there, we’re going to get it right, and the Affordable Care Act is going to work for the American people.
So with that, I’m going to take your questions, and I’m going to start with Julie Pace of AP.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. The combination of the website problems and the concerns over the policy cancellations has sparked a lot of worry within your own party, and polls also show that you’re taking some hits with the public on both your overall job approval rating and also on factors like trust and honesty. Do you feel as though the flawed health care rollout has led to a breach in the public trust and confidence in government? And if so, how do you plan to resolve that?
THE PRESIDENT: There is no doubt that people are frustrated. We just came out of a shutdown and the possibility that for the first time in over 200 years, we wouldn’t pay our bills. And people breathed a sigh of relief when that finally got done, and the next thing they know is, is that the President’s health care reform can’t get the website to work and that there are these other problems with respect to cancellation notices.
And I understand why folks are frustrated. I would be, too. Because sometimes people look at what’s taking place in Washington and they say, not enough is getting done that helps me with my life. And regardless of what Congress does, ultimately I’m the President of the United States and they expect me to do something about it.
So in terms of how I intend to approach it, I’m just going to keep on working as hard as I can around the priorities that the American people care about. And I think it’s legitimate for them to expect me to have to win back some credibility on this health care law in particular, and on a whole range of these issues in general.
And that’s on me. I mean, we fumbled the rollout on this health care law. There are a whole bunch of things about it that are working really well which people didn’t notice because they weren’t controversial -- so making sure kids could stay on their parents’ plans until they were -- through the age of 25, and making sure that seniors got more discounts on their prescription drugs. There were a whole bunch of stuff that we did well over the first three years.
But we always knew that these marketplaces, creating a place where people can shop and through competition get a better deal for the health insurance that their families need, we always knew that that was going to be complicated and everybody was going to be paying a lot of attention to it. And we should have done a better job getting that right on day one -- not on day 28 or on day 40.
I am confident that by the time we look back on this next year, that people are going to say this is working well, and it’s helping a lot of people. But my intention in terms of winning back the confidence of the American people is just to work as hard as I can; identify the problems that we’ve got, make sure that we’re fixing them. Whether it’s a website, whether it is making sure that folks who got these cancellation notices get help, we’re just going to keep on chipping away at this until the job is done.
Major Garrett.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said while the law was being debated, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” You said after the law was implemented or signed, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” Americans believed you, sir, when you said that to them over and over. Do you not believe, sir, the American people deserve a deeper, more transparent accountability from you as to why you said that over and over when your own statistic published in the Federal Register alerted your policy staff -- and I presume you -- to the fact that millions of Americans would, in fact, probably fall into the very gap you’re trying to administratively fix now?
That's one question. Second question. (Laughter.) You were informed, or several people in this building were informed two weeks before the launch of the website that it was failing the most basic tests internally, and yet a decision was made to launch the website on October 1st. Did you, sir, make that test? And if so, did you regret that?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, on the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great.
I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don't think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. So clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website. Even a week into it, the thinking was that these were some glitches that would be fixed with patches, as opposed to some broader systemic problems that took much longer to fix and we’re still working on them.
So that doesn't excuse the fact that they just don't work. But I think it’s fair to say that, no, Garrett -- Major, we would not have rolled out something knowing very well that it wasn’t going to work the way it was supposed, given all the scrutiny that we knew was going to be on the website.
With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan, you can keep it, I think -- and I’ve said in interviews -- that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate. It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.
Keep in mind that the individual market accounts for 5 percent of the population. So when I said you can keep your health care, I’m looking at folks who’ve got employer-based health care; I’m looking at folks who’ve got Medicare and Medicaid -- and that accounts for the vast majority of Americans. And then for people who don't have any health insurance at all, obviously that didn't apply. My commitment to them was, you're going to be able to get affordable health care for the first time.
You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population. And our working assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower costs or the same costs in the marketplaces, and that the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them. And it didn't. And again, that's on us. Which is why we’re -- that's on me. And that's why I’m trying to fix it.
And as I said earlier, I guess last week, and I will repeat, that's something I deeply regret because it’s scary getting a cancellation notice.
Now, it is important to understand that out of that population, typically there is constant churn in that market. This market is not very stable and reliable for people. So people have a lot of complaints when they're in that marketplace. As long as you're healthy, things seem to be going pretty good. And so a lot of people think, I’ve got pretty good insurance -- until they get sick -- and then suddenly they look at the fine print, and they’ve got a $50,000 out-of-pocket expense that they can't pay.
We know that on average over the last decade, each year, premiums in that individual market would go up an average of 15 percent a year. I know that because when we were talking about health care reform, one of the complaints was: I bought health care in the individual market and I just got a notice from the insurer, they dropped me after I had an illness; or my premium skyrocketed by 20 or 30 percent, why aren’t we doing something about this?
So part of what our goal has been is to make sure that that individual market is stable and fair, and has the kind of consumer protections that make sure that people don’t get a rude surprise when they really need health insurance. But if you just got a cancellation notice, and so far you’re thinking, my prices are pretty good, you haven’t been sick, and it fits your budget, and now you get this notice -- you’re going to be worried about it. And if the insurer is saying the reason you’re getting this notice is because of the Affordable Care Act, then you’re going to be understandably aggravated about it.
Now, for a big portion of those people, the truth is they might have gotten a notice saying, we’re jacking up your rates by 30 percent. They might have said, from here on out, we’re not going to cover X, Y and Z illnesses, we’re changing the -- because these were all 12-month policies. The insurance companies were under no obligation to renew the exact same policies that you had before.
But, look, one of the things I understood when we decided to reform that health insurance market, part of the reason why it hasn’t been done before and it’s very difficult to do, is that anything that’s going on that’s tough in the health care market, if you initiated a reform, can be attributed to your law. And so what we want to do is to be able to say to these folks, you know what, the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the reason why insurers have to cancel your plan.
Now, what folks may find is the insurance companies may still come back and say, we want to charge you 20 percent more than we did last year; or we’re not going to cover prescription drugs now. But that’s in the nature of the market that existed earlier.
Q Did you decide, sir, that the simple declaration was something the American people could handle, but this nuanced answer you just gave now was something that you couldn’t handle and you didn’t trust the American people with a fuller truth?
THE PRESIDENT: No. I think, as I said earlier, Major, my expectation was that for 98 percent of the American people, either it genuinely wouldn't change at all, or they'd be pleasantly surprised with the options in the marketplace, and that the grandfather clause would cover the rest.
That proved not to be the case. And that's on me. And the American people -- those who got cancellation notices do deserve and have received an apology from me. But they don't want just words. What they want is whether we can make sure that they are in a better place, and that we meet that commitment.
And, by the way, I think it's very important for me to note that there are a whole bunch of folks up in Congress and others who made this statement, and they were entirely sincere about it. And the fact that you've got this percentage of people who have had this impact -- I want them to know that their senator or congressman, they were making representations based on what I told them and what this White House and our administrative staff told them. And so it's not on them. It's on us. But it is something that we intend to fix.
Steve Collinson.
Q Do you have reason to believe that Iran would walk away from nuclear talks if Congress draws up new sanctions? And would a diplomatic breakdown at this stage leave you no option but military action? And how do you respond to your critics on the Hill who say that it was only tough sanctions that got Iran to the table, but only tougher sanctions will make it capitulate?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me make a couple of points. Number one, I've said before and I will repeat: We do not want Iran having nuclear weapons. And it would be not only dangerous to us and our allies, but it would be destabilizing to the entire region, and could trigger a nuclear arms race that would make life much more dangerous for all of us. So our policy is Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. And I'm leaving all options on the table to make sure that we meet that goal.
Point number two: The reason we've got such vigorous sanctions is because I and my administration put in place, when I came into office, the international structure to have the most effective sanctions ever. And so I think it's fair to say that I know a little bit about sanctions, since we've set them up, and made sure that we mobilize the entire international community so that there weren't a lot of loopholes and they really had bite.
And the intention in setting up those sanctions always was to bring the Iranians to the table so that we could resolve this issue peacefully, because that is my preference. That's my preference because any armed conflict has cost to it, but it's also my preference because the best way to assure that a country does not have nuclear weapons is that they are making a decision not to have nuclear weapons, and we're in a position to verify that they don't have nuclear weapons.
So as a consequence of the sanctions that we put in place -- and I appreciate all the help, bipartisan help, that we received from Congress in making that happen -- Iran's economy has been crippled. They had a -5 percent growth rate last year. Their currency plummeted. They're having significant problems in just the day-to-day economy on the ground in Iran. And President Rouhani made a decision that he was prepared to come and have a conversation with the international community about what they could do to solve this problem with us.
We've now had a series of conversations, and it has never been realistic that we would resolve the entire problem all at once. What we have done is seen the possibility of an agreement in which Iran would halt advances on its program; that it would dilute some of the highly enriched uranium that makes it easier for them to potentially produce a weapon; that they are subjecting themselves to much more vigorous inspections so that we know exactly what they’re doing at all their various facilities; and that that would then provide time and space for us to test, over a certain period of months, whether or not they are prepared to actually resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the international community -- making us confident that, in fact, they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
In return, the basic structure of what’s been talked about, although not completed, is that we would provide very modest relief at the margins of the sanctions that we’ve set up. But importantly, we would leave in place the core sanctions that are most effective and have most impact on the Iranian economy, specifically oil sanctions and sanctions with respect to banks and financing. And what that gives us is the opportunity to test how serious are they, but it also gives us an assurance that if it turns out six months from now that they’re not serious, we can crank -- we can dial those sanctions right back up.
So my message to Congress has been that, let’s see if this short-term, phase-one deal can be completed to our satisfaction where we’re absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program. We can buy some additional months in terms of their breakout capacity. Let’s test how willing they are to actually resolve this diplomatically and peacefully.
We will have lost nothing if, at the end of the day, it turns out that they are not prepared to provide the international community the hard proof and assurances necessary for us to know that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon. And if that turns out to be the case, then not only is our entire sanctions infrastructure still in place, not only are they still losing money from the fact that they can’t sell their oil and get revenue from their oil as easily, even throughout these talks, but other options remain.
But what I’ve said to members of Congress is that if, in fact, we’re serious about trying to resolve this diplomatically -- because no matter how good our military is, military options are always messy, they’re always difficult, always have unintended consequences, and in this situation are never complete in terms of making us certain that they don’t then go out and pursue even more vigorously nuclear weapons in the future -- if we’re serious about pursuing diplomacy, then there’s no need for us to add new sanctions on top of the sanctions that are already very effective and that brought them to the table in the first place.
Now, if it turns out they can’t deliver, they can’t come to the table in a serious way and get this issue resolved, the sanctions can be ramped back up. And we’ve got that option.
All right. Roger Runningen. Roger, it’s his birthday, by the way. So that’s not the reason you got a question, but I thought it was important to note that.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Happy birthday.
Q Back to health care. Can you guarantee for the American people that the health care website is going to be fully operational for all people, not just the vast majority, by November 30? And second, more broadly, this is your signature domestic piece of legislation. You hear criticism on the Hill that you and your White House team are too insular. Is that how this mess came to be?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there is going to be a lot of evaluation of how we got to this point. And I assure you that I’ve been asking a lot of questions about that. The truth is that this is, number one, very complicated. The website itself is doing a lot of stuff. There aren’t a lot of websites out there that have to help people compare their possible insurance options, verify income to find out what kind of tax credits they might get, communicate with those insurance companies so they can purchase, make sure that all of it’s verified. So there’s just a bunch of pieces to it that made it challenging.
And you combine that with the fact that the federal government does a lot of things really well. One of the things it does not do well is information technology procurement. This is kind of a systematic problem that we have across the board. And it is not surprising then that there were going to be some problems.
Now, I think we have to ask ourselves some hard questions inside the White House as opposed to why we didn't see more of these problems coming earlier on -- A, so we could set expectations; B, so that we could look for different ways for people to end up applying.
So ultimately, you’re right. This is something that's really important to me, and it’s really important to millions of Americans who have been waiting for a really long time to try to get health care because they don't have it. And I am very frustrated, but I’m also somebody who, if I fumbled the ball, I’m going to wait until I get the next play, and then I’m going to try to run as hard as I can and do right by the team. So ultimately, I’m the head of this team. We did fumble the ball on it, and what I’m going to do is make sure that we get it fixed.
In terms of what happens on November 30th or December 1st, I think it’s fair to say that the improvement will be marked and noticeable. The website will work much better on November 30th, December 1st than it worked certainly on October 1st. That's a pretty low bar. It will be working a lot better than it is -- it was last week, and it will be working better than it was this week, which means that the majority of people who go to the website will see a website that is working the way it’s supposed to.
I think it is not possible for me to guarantee that 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time going on this website will have a perfectly seamless, smooth experience. We’re going to have to continue to improve it even after November 30th, December 1st. But the majority of people who use it will be able to see it operate the way it was supposed to.
One thing that we’ve discovered, though, that I think is worth noting: A lot of focus has been on the website and the technology, and that's partly because that's how we initially identified it -- these are glitches. What we’re discovering is that part of the problem has been technology -- hardware and software -- and that's being upgraded. But even if we get the hardware and software working exactly the way it’s supposed to with relatively minor glitches, what we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.
And another mistake that we made I think was underestimating the difficulties of people purchasing insurance online and shopping for a lot of options with a lot of costs and a lot of different benefits and plans, and somehow expecting that that would be very smooth. And then they’ve also got to try apply for tax credits on the website.
So what we’re doing even as we’re trying to solve the technical problems is also what can we do to make the application a little bit simpler; what can we do to make it in English as opposed to bureaucratese; are there steps that we can skip while still getting the core information that people need
And part of what we’re realizing is that they are going to be a certain portion of people who are just going to need more help and more handholding in the application process. And so I guess part of the continuous improvement that I’m looking at is not just a technical issue. It’s also, can we streamline the application process; what are we doing to give people more assistance in the application process; how do the call centers and the people who are helping folks in-person; how are they trained so that things can go more smoothly.
Because the bottom line ultimately is, I just want people to know what their options are in a clear way. And buying health insurance is never going to be like buying a song on iTunes. It’s just a much more complicated transaction. But I think we can continue to make it better -- all of which is to say that on December 1st, November 30th, it will be a lot better, but there will still be some problems. Some of those will not be because of technological problems -- although I’m sure that there will still be some glitches that have to be smoothed out. Some of it’s going to be how are we making this application process more user-friendly for folks.
And one good example of this, by the way, just to use an analogy -- when we came into office, we heard a lot of complaints about the financial aid forms that families have to fill out to get federal financial aid. And I actually remember applying for some of that stuff and remember how difficult and confusing it was. And Arne Duncan over at Education worked with a team to see what we could do to simplify it, and it made a big difference.
And that's part of the process that we’ve got to go through. And in fact, if we can get some focus groups and we sit down with actual users and see how well is this working, what would improve it, what part of it didn't you understand -- that all I think is part of what we’re going to be working on in the weeks ahead.
Q What about the insularity criticism that you hear on the Hill?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ve got to say I meet with an awful lot of folks, and I talk to an awful lot of folks every day. And I have lunches with CEOs and IT venture capitalists and labor leaders and pretty much folks from all walks of life on a whole bunch of topics. And if you looked at my schedule on any given day, we’re interacting with a whole lot of people.
And I think it’s fair to say that we have a pretty good track record of working with folks on technology and IT from our campaign where, both in 2008 and 2012, we did a pretty darn good job on that. So it’s not -- the idea that somehow we didn't have access or were interested in people’s ideas, I think isn’t accurate. What is true is that, as I said before, our IT systems, how we purchase technology in the federal government is cumbersome, complicated, and outdated.
And so this isn’t a situation where on my campaign I could simply say, who are the best folks out there; let’s get them around a table, let’s figure out what we’re doing, and we’re just going to continue to improve it and refine it and work on our goals. If you're doing it at the federal government level, you're going through 40 pages of specs and this and that and the other, and there are all kinds of laws involved, and it makes it more difficult. It's part of the reason why, chronically, federal IT programs are over budget, behind schedule.
And one of the -- when I do some Monday morning quarterbacking on myself, one of the things that I do recognize is -- since I know that the federal government has not been good at this stuff in the past -- two years ago, as we were thinking about this, we might have done more to make sure that we were breaking the mold on how we were going to be setting this up. But that doesn't help us now. We've got to move forward.
Jeff Mason.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today's fix that you just announced leaves it up to state insurance commissioners and insurance companies to ultimately decide whether to allow old policies to be renewed for a year. How confident are you that they will do that? And secondly, how concerned are you that this flawed rollout may hurt Democrats' chances in next year's midterm elections, and your ability to advance other priorities such as immigration reform?
THE PRESIDENT: On the first question, traditionally, state insurance commissioners make decisions about what plans can be or cannot be sold, how they interact with insurers. What we're essentially saying is the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the factor in what happens with folks in the individual market. And my guess is right away you're going to see a number of state insurance commissioners exercise it.
Part of the challenge is the individual markets are different in different states. There are some states that have individual insurance markets that already have almost all the consumer protections that the Affordable Care Act does. They match up pretty good. It's not some big jump for folks to move into the marketplace. In others, they're pretty low standards, so you can sell pretty substandard plans in those markets. And that's where people might see a bigger jump in their premiums.
So I think there's going to be some state-by-state evaluation on how this is handled. But the key point is, is that it allows us to be able to say to the folks who received these notices: Look, I, the President of the United States and the insurance –- that the insurance model, the Affordable Care Act, is not going to be getting in the way of you shopping in the individual market that you used to have. As I said, there are still going to be some folks who over time, I think, are going to find that the marketplaces are better.
One way I described this to -- I met with a group of senators when this issue first came up -- and it's not a perfect analogy -- but we made a decision as a society that every car has to have a seatbelt or airbags. And so you pass a regulation. And there are some additional costs, particularly at the start of increasing the safety and protections, but we make a decision as a society that the costs are outweighed by the benefits of all the lives that are saved. So what we're saying now is if you're buying a new car, you got to have a seatbelt.
Well, the problem with the grandfather clause that we put in place is it's almost like we said to folks, you got to buy a new car, even if you can't afford it right now. And sooner or later, folks are going to start trading in their old cars. But we don't need -- if their life circumstance is such where, for now at least, they want to keep the old car, even if the new car is better, we should be able to give them that option. And that's what we want to do.
And, by the way, that's what we should have been able to do in drafting the rules in the first place. So, again, these are two fumbles on something that -- on a big game, which -- but the game is not over.
With respect to the politics of it, I'll let you guys do a lot of the work on projecting what this means for various political scenarios. There is no doubt that our failure to roll out the ACA smoothly has put a burden on Democrats, whether they're running or not, because they stood up and supported this effort through thick and thin. And I feel deeply responsible for making it harder for them rather than easier for them to continue to promote the core values that I think led them to support this thing in the first place -- which is, in this country, as wealthy as we are, everybody should be able to have the security of affordable health care. And that's why I feel so strongly about fixing it.
My first and foremost obligation is the American people, to make sure that they can get what's there -- if we can just get the darn website working and smooth this thing out -- which is plans that are affordable, and allow them to take advantage of tax credits and give them a better deal.
But I also do feel an obligation to everybody out there who supported this effort. When we don't do a good job on the rollout, we're letting them down. And I don't like doing that. So my commitment to them is, we're going to just keep on doing better every day until we get it done.
And in terms of the impact on me -- I think to some extent I addressed it when I talked to Julie -- there are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency. And I think I said early on when I was running -- I am not a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect President, but I'll wake up every single day working as hard as I can on behalf of Americans out there from every walk of life who are working hard, meeting their responsibilities, but sometimes are struggling because the way the system works isn't giving them a fair shot.
And that pledge I haven't broke. That commitment, that promise, continues to be -- continues to hold -- the promise that I wouldn't be perfect, number one, but also the promise that as long as I've got the honor of having this office, I'm just going to work as hard as I can to make things better for folks. And what that means specifically in this health care arena is we can't go back to the status quo.
I mean, right now everybody is properly focused on us not doing a good job on the rollout, and that’s legitimate and I get it. There have been times where I thought we were kind of slapped around a little bit unjustly. This one is deserved. Right? It’s on us.
But we can’t lose sight of the fact that the status quo before the Affordable Care Act was not working at all. If the health care system had been working fine, and everybody had high-quality health insurance at affordable prices, I wouldn’t have made it a priority; we wouldn’t have been fighting this hard to get it done -- which is why, when I see sometimes folks up on Capitol Hill, and Republicans in particular, who have been suggesting repeal, repeal, let’s get rid of this thing, I keep on asking what is it that you want to do? Are you suggesting that the status quo was working? Because it wasn’t, and everybody knows it. It wasn’t working in the individual market and it certainly wasn’t working for the 41 million people who didn’t have health insurance.
And so what we did was we chose a path that was the least disruptive, to try to finally make sure that health care is treated in this country like it is in every other advanced country -- that it’s not some privilege that just a certain portion of people can have, but it’s something that everybody has some confidence about. And we didn’t go far left and choose an approach that would have been much more disruptive. We didn’t adopt some more conservative proposals that would have been much more disruptive. We tried to choose a way that built off the existing system. But it is complicated, it is hard, but I make no apologies for us taking this on -- because somebody sooner or later had to do it. I do make apologies for not having executed better over the last several months.
Q And do you think that execution and the flaws in the rollout will affect your ability to do other things, like immigration reform and other policy priorities?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if it comes to immigration reform, there is no reason for us not to do immigration reform. And we’ve already got strong bipartisan support for immigration reform out of the Senate. You’ve got -- I met with a number of traditionally very conservative clergy who are deeply committed to immigration reform. We’ve got the business community entirely behind immigration reform. So you’ve got a bunch of constituencies that are traditionally much more -- have leaned much more heavily towards the Republicans who are behind this.
So if people are looking for an excuse not to do the right thing on immigration reform, they can always find an excuse -- we’ve run out of time, or this is hard, or the list goes on and on. But my working assumption is people should want to do the right thing. And when you’ve got an issue that would strengthen borders, make sure that the legal immigration system works the way it’s supposed to, that would go after employers who have been doing the wrong thing when it comes to hiring undocumented workers, and would allow folks who are here illegally to get right with the law and pay a fine, and learn English and get to the back of the line, but ultimately join fully our American community -- when you’ve got a law that makes sense, you shouldn’t be looking for an excuse not to do it. And I’m going to keep on pushing to make sure it gets done.
Am I going to have to do some work to rebuild confidence around some of our initiatives? Yes. But part of this job is the things that go right, you guys aren’t going to write about; the things that go wrong get prominent attention. That’s how it has always been. That’s not unique to me as President. And I’m up to the challenge. We’re going to get this done.
All right? Thank you, everybody.
END
Statement by the President on the Affordable Care Act
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:02 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to update the American people on our efforts to implement and improve the Affordable Care Act, and I’ll take a couple of your questions. But before I do, I just want to say a few words about the tragedy that's unfolded in the Philippines.
Over the past few days, I think all of us have been shaken by the images of the devastation wrought by Typhoon Haiyan. It’s a heartbreaking reminder of how fragile life is, and among the dead are several Americans. So our prayers are with the Filipino people, and with Filipino Americans across our country who are anxious about their family and friends back home.
One of our core principles is, when friends are in trouble, America helps. As I told President Aquino earlier this week, the United States will continue to offer whatever assistance we can. Our military personnel and USAID team do this better than anybody in the world, and they’ve been already on the ground working tirelessly to deliver food, water, medicine, shelter, and to help with airlift. Today, the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and other ships arrived to help with search- and-rescue, as well as supplies, medical care and logistical support. And more help is on the way.
America’s strength, of course, has always been more than just about what our government can do –- it’s also about what our citizens can do. It’s about the big-heartedness of the American people when they see other folks in trouble. So today, I would encourage everybody who wants to help, to visit WhiteHouse.gov/typhoon -- that's WhiteHouse.gov/typhoon -- and that will offer you links to organizations that are working on the ground and ways that you can support their efforts. Our friends in the Philippines will face a long, hard road ahead, but they’ll continue to have a friend and partner in the United States of America.
Now, switching gears, it has now been six weeks since the Affordable Care Act’s new marketplace has opened for business. I think it's fair to say that the rollout has been rough so far. And I think everybody understands that I'm not happy about the fact that the rollout has been wrought with a whole range of problems that I've been deeply concerned about. But today I want to talk about what we know after these first few weeks and what we're doing to implement and improve the law.
Yesterday, the White House announced that in the first month, more than 100,000 Americans successfully enrolled in new insurance plans. Is that as high a number as we’d like? Absolutely not. But it does mean that people want affordable health care. The problems of the website have prevented too many Americans from completing the enrollment process. And that’s on us, not on them. But there is no question that there’s real demand for quality, affordable health insurance.
In the first month, nearly a million people successfully completed an application for themselves or their families. Those applications represent more than 1.5 million people. Of those 1.5 million people, 106,000 of them have successfully signed up to get covered.
Another 396,000 have the ability to gain access to Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. That’s been less reported on, but it shouldn’t be. Americans who are having a difficult time, who are poor, many of them working, may have a disability; they're Americans like everybody else, and the fact that they are now able to get insurance is going to be critically important.
Later today, I’ll be in Ohio, where Governor Kasich, a Republican, has expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. And as many as 275,000 Ohioans will ultimately be better off because of it. And if every governor followed suit, another 5.4 million Americans could gain access to health care next year.
So bottom line is, in just one month, despite all the problems that we've seen with the website, more than 500,000 Americans could know the security of health care by January 1st -- many of them for the first time in their lives. And that’s life-changing and it's significant.
That still leaves about 1 million Americans who successfully made it through the website, and now qualify to buy insurance, but haven’t picked a plan yet. And there’s no question that if the website were working as it’s supposed to, that number would be much higher of people who have actually enrolled. So that’s problem number one –- making sure that the website works the way it's supposed to. It’s gotten a lot better over the last few weeks than it was on the first day, but we’re working 24/7 to get it working for the vast majority of Americans in a smooth, consistent way.
The other problem that has received a lot of attention
concerns Americans who have received letters from their insurers that they may be losing the plans they bought in the old individual market, often because they no longer meet the law’s requirements to cover basic benefits like prescription drugs or doctors’ visits.
Now, as I indicated earlier, I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked, they could keep it. And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I'm offering an idea that will help do it.
Already, people who have plans that predate the Affordable Care Act can keep those plans if they haven’t changed. That was already in the law. That's what's called a grandfather clause. It was included in the law. Today, we're going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law took effect, and to people who bought plans since the law took effect.
So state insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans can and can’t be sold in their states. But the bottom line is, insurers can extend current plans that would otherwise be canceled into 2014, and Americans whose plans have been canceled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.
We’re also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers about two things. One, that protections -- what protections these renewed plans don’t include. And number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.
So if you’ve received one of these letters, I’d encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. Even if the website isn’t working as smoothly as it should be for everybody yet, the plan comparison tool that lets you browse costs for new plans near you is working just fine.
Now, this fix won’t solve every problem for every person. But it’s going to help a lot of people. Doing more will require work with Congress. And I’ve said from the beginning, I’m willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to fix problems as they arise. This is an example of what I was talking about. We can always make this law work better.
It is important to understand, though, that the old individual market was not working well. And it’s important that we don’t pretend that somehow that’s a place worth going back to. Too often, it works fine as long as you stay healthy; it doesn’t work well when you’re sick. So year after year, Americans were routinely exposed to financial ruin, or denied coverage due to minor preexisting conditions, or dropped from coverage altogether -- even if they paid their premiums on time.
That’s one of the reasons we pursued this reform in the first place. And that’s why I will not accept proposals that are just another brazen attempt to undermine or repeal the overall law and drag us back into a broken system. We will continue to make the case, even to folks who choose to keep their own plans, that they should shop around in the new marketplace because there’s a good chance that they’ll be able to buy better insurance at lower cost.
So we’re going to do everything we can to help the Americans who have received these cancellation notices. But I also want everybody to remember there are still 40 million Americans who don’t have health insurance at all. I’m not going to walk away from 40 million people who have the chance to get health insurance for the first time. And I’m not going to walk away from something that has helped the cost of health care grow at its slowest rate in 50 years.
So we’re at the opening weeks of the project to build a better health care system for everybody -- a system that will offer real financial security and peace of mind to millions of Americans. It is a complex process. There are all kinds of challenges. I’m sure there will be additional challenges that come up. And it’s important that we’re honest and straightforward in terms of when we come up with a problem with these reforms and these laws, that we address them. But we’ve got to move forward on this.
It took 100 years for us to even get to the point where we could start talking about and implementing a law to make sure everybody has got health insurance. And my pledge to the American people is, is that we’re going to solve the problems that are there, we’re going to get it right, and the Affordable Care Act is going to work for the American people.
So with that, I’m going to take your questions, and I’m going to start with Julie Pace of AP.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. The combination of the website problems and the concerns over the policy cancellations has sparked a lot of worry within your own party, and polls also show that you’re taking some hits with the public on both your overall job approval rating and also on factors like trust and honesty. Do you feel as though the flawed health care rollout has led to a breach in the public trust and confidence in government? And if so, how do you plan to resolve that?
THE PRESIDENT: There is no doubt that people are frustrated. We just came out of a shutdown and the possibility that for the first time in over 200 years, we wouldn’t pay our bills. And people breathed a sigh of relief when that finally got done, and the next thing they know is, is that the President’s health care reform can’t get the website to work and that there are these other problems with respect to cancellation notices.
And I understand why folks are frustrated. I would be, too. Because sometimes people look at what’s taking place in Washington and they say, not enough is getting done that helps me with my life. And regardless of what Congress does, ultimately I’m the President of the United States and they expect me to do something about it.
So in terms of how I intend to approach it, I’m just going to keep on working as hard as I can around the priorities that the American people care about. And I think it’s legitimate for them to expect me to have to win back some credibility on this health care law in particular, and on a whole range of these issues in general.
And that’s on me. I mean, we fumbled the rollout on this health care law. There are a whole bunch of things about it that are working really well which people didn’t notice because they weren’t controversial -- so making sure kids could stay on their parents’ plans until they were -- through the age of 25, and making sure that seniors got more discounts on their prescription drugs. There were a whole bunch of stuff that we did well over the first three years.
But we always knew that these marketplaces, creating a place where people can shop and through competition get a better deal for the health insurance that their families need, we always knew that that was going to be complicated and everybody was going to be paying a lot of attention to it. And we should have done a better job getting that right on day one -- not on day 28 or on day 40.
I am confident that by the time we look back on this next year, that people are going to say this is working well, and it’s helping a lot of people. But my intention in terms of winning back the confidence of the American people is just to work as hard as I can; identify the problems that we’ve got, make sure that we’re fixing them. Whether it’s a website, whether it is making sure that folks who got these cancellation notices get help, we’re just going to keep on chipping away at this until the job is done.
Major Garrett.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said while the law was being debated, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” You said after the law was implemented or signed, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” Americans believed you, sir, when you said that to them over and over. Do you not believe, sir, the American people deserve a deeper, more transparent accountability from you as to why you said that over and over when your own statistic published in the Federal Register alerted your policy staff -- and I presume you -- to the fact that millions of Americans would, in fact, probably fall into the very gap you’re trying to administratively fix now?
That's one question. Second question. (Laughter.) You were informed, or several people in this building were informed two weeks before the launch of the website that it was failing the most basic tests internally, and yet a decision was made to launch the website on October 1st. Did you, sir, make that test? And if so, did you regret that?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, on the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great.
I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don't think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. So clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website. Even a week into it, the thinking was that these were some glitches that would be fixed with patches, as opposed to some broader systemic problems that took much longer to fix and we’re still working on them.
So that doesn't excuse the fact that they just don't work. But I think it’s fair to say that, no, Garrett -- Major, we would not have rolled out something knowing very well that it wasn’t going to work the way it was supposed, given all the scrutiny that we knew was going to be on the website.
With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan, you can keep it, I think -- and I’ve said in interviews -- that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate. It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.
Keep in mind that the individual market accounts for 5 percent of the population. So when I said you can keep your health care, I’m looking at folks who’ve got employer-based health care; I’m looking at folks who’ve got Medicare and Medicaid -- and that accounts for the vast majority of Americans. And then for people who don't have any health insurance at all, obviously that didn't apply. My commitment to them was, you're going to be able to get affordable health care for the first time.
You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population. And our working assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower costs or the same costs in the marketplaces, and that the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them. And it didn't. And again, that's on us. Which is why we’re -- that's on me. And that's why I’m trying to fix it.
And as I said earlier, I guess last week, and I will repeat, that's something I deeply regret because it’s scary getting a cancellation notice.
Now, it is important to understand that out of that population, typically there is constant churn in that market. This market is not very stable and reliable for people. So people have a lot of complaints when they're in that marketplace. As long as you're healthy, things seem to be going pretty good. And so a lot of people think, I’ve got pretty good insurance -- until they get sick -- and then suddenly they look at the fine print, and they’ve got a $50,000 out-of-pocket expense that they can't pay.
We know that on average over the last decade, each year, premiums in that individual market would go up an average of 15 percent a year. I know that because when we were talking about health care reform, one of the complaints was: I bought health care in the individual market and I just got a notice from the insurer, they dropped me after I had an illness; or my premium skyrocketed by 20 or 30 percent, why aren’t we doing something about this?
So part of what our goal has been is to make sure that that individual market is stable and fair, and has the kind of consumer protections that make sure that people don’t get a rude surprise when they really need health insurance. But if you just got a cancellation notice, and so far you’re thinking, my prices are pretty good, you haven’t been sick, and it fits your budget, and now you get this notice -- you’re going to be worried about it. And if the insurer is saying the reason you’re getting this notice is because of the Affordable Care Act, then you’re going to be understandably aggravated about it.
Now, for a big portion of those people, the truth is they might have gotten a notice saying, we’re jacking up your rates by 30 percent. They might have said, from here on out, we’re not going to cover X, Y and Z illnesses, we’re changing the -- because these were all 12-month policies. The insurance companies were under no obligation to renew the exact same policies that you had before.
But, look, one of the things I understood when we decided to reform that health insurance market, part of the reason why it hasn’t been done before and it’s very difficult to do, is that anything that’s going on that’s tough in the health care market, if you initiated a reform, can be attributed to your law. And so what we want to do is to be able to say to these folks, you know what, the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the reason why insurers have to cancel your plan.
Now, what folks may find is the insurance companies may still come back and say, we want to charge you 20 percent more than we did last year; or we’re not going to cover prescription drugs now. But that’s in the nature of the market that existed earlier.
Q Did you decide, sir, that the simple declaration was something the American people could handle, but this nuanced answer you just gave now was something that you couldn’t handle and you didn’t trust the American people with a fuller truth?
THE PRESIDENT: No. I think, as I said earlier, Major, my expectation was that for 98 percent of the American people, either it genuinely wouldn't change at all, or they'd be pleasantly surprised with the options in the marketplace, and that the grandfather clause would cover the rest.
That proved not to be the case. And that's on me. And the American people -- those who got cancellation notices do deserve and have received an apology from me. But they don't want just words. What they want is whether we can make sure that they are in a better place, and that we meet that commitment.
And, by the way, I think it's very important for me to note that there are a whole bunch of folks up in Congress and others who made this statement, and they were entirely sincere about it. And the fact that you've got this percentage of people who have had this impact -- I want them to know that their senator or congressman, they were making representations based on what I told them and what this White House and our administrative staff told them. And so it's not on them. It's on us. But it is something that we intend to fix.
Steve Collinson.
Q Do you have reason to believe that Iran would walk away from nuclear talks if Congress draws up new sanctions? And would a diplomatic breakdown at this stage leave you no option but military action? And how do you respond to your critics on the Hill who say that it was only tough sanctions that got Iran to the table, but only tougher sanctions will make it capitulate?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me make a couple of points. Number one, I've said before and I will repeat: We do not want Iran having nuclear weapons. And it would be not only dangerous to us and our allies, but it would be destabilizing to the entire region, and could trigger a nuclear arms race that would make life much more dangerous for all of us. So our policy is Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. And I'm leaving all options on the table to make sure that we meet that goal.
Point number two: The reason we've got such vigorous sanctions is because I and my administration put in place, when I came into office, the international structure to have the most effective sanctions ever. And so I think it's fair to say that I know a little bit about sanctions, since we've set them up, and made sure that we mobilize the entire international community so that there weren't a lot of loopholes and they really had bite.
And the intention in setting up those sanctions always was to bring the Iranians to the table so that we could resolve this issue peacefully, because that is my preference. That's my preference because any armed conflict has cost to it, but it's also my preference because the best way to assure that a country does not have nuclear weapons is that they are making a decision not to have nuclear weapons, and we're in a position to verify that they don't have nuclear weapons.
So as a consequence of the sanctions that we put in place -- and I appreciate all the help, bipartisan help, that we received from Congress in making that happen -- Iran's economy has been crippled. They had a -5 percent growth rate last year. Their currency plummeted. They're having significant problems in just the day-to-day economy on the ground in Iran. And President Rouhani made a decision that he was prepared to come and have a conversation with the international community about what they could do to solve this problem with us.
We've now had a series of conversations, and it has never been realistic that we would resolve the entire problem all at once. What we have done is seen the possibility of an agreement in which Iran would halt advances on its program; that it would dilute some of the highly enriched uranium that makes it easier for them to potentially produce a weapon; that they are subjecting themselves to much more vigorous inspections so that we know exactly what they’re doing at all their various facilities; and that that would then provide time and space for us to test, over a certain period of months, whether or not they are prepared to actually resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the international community -- making us confident that, in fact, they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
In return, the basic structure of what’s been talked about, although not completed, is that we would provide very modest relief at the margins of the sanctions that we’ve set up. But importantly, we would leave in place the core sanctions that are most effective and have most impact on the Iranian economy, specifically oil sanctions and sanctions with respect to banks and financing. And what that gives us is the opportunity to test how serious are they, but it also gives us an assurance that if it turns out six months from now that they’re not serious, we can crank -- we can dial those sanctions right back up.
So my message to Congress has been that, let’s see if this short-term, phase-one deal can be completed to our satisfaction where we’re absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program. We can buy some additional months in terms of their breakout capacity. Let’s test how willing they are to actually resolve this diplomatically and peacefully.
We will have lost nothing if, at the end of the day, it turns out that they are not prepared to provide the international community the hard proof and assurances necessary for us to know that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon. And if that turns out to be the case, then not only is our entire sanctions infrastructure still in place, not only are they still losing money from the fact that they can’t sell their oil and get revenue from their oil as easily, even throughout these talks, but other options remain.
But what I’ve said to members of Congress is that if, in fact, we’re serious about trying to resolve this diplomatically -- because no matter how good our military is, military options are always messy, they’re always difficult, always have unintended consequences, and in this situation are never complete in terms of making us certain that they don’t then go out and pursue even more vigorously nuclear weapons in the future -- if we’re serious about pursuing diplomacy, then there’s no need for us to add new sanctions on top of the sanctions that are already very effective and that brought them to the table in the first place.
Now, if it turns out they can’t deliver, they can’t come to the table in a serious way and get this issue resolved, the sanctions can be ramped back up. And we’ve got that option.
All right. Roger Runningen. Roger, it’s his birthday, by the way. So that’s not the reason you got a question, but I thought it was important to note that.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Happy birthday.
Q Back to health care. Can you guarantee for the American people that the health care website is going to be fully operational for all people, not just the vast majority, by November 30? And second, more broadly, this is your signature domestic piece of legislation. You hear criticism on the Hill that you and your White House team are too insular. Is that how this mess came to be?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there is going to be a lot of evaluation of how we got to this point. And I assure you that I’ve been asking a lot of questions about that. The truth is that this is, number one, very complicated. The website itself is doing a lot of stuff. There aren’t a lot of websites out there that have to help people compare their possible insurance options, verify income to find out what kind of tax credits they might get, communicate with those insurance companies so they can purchase, make sure that all of it’s verified. So there’s just a bunch of pieces to it that made it challenging.
And you combine that with the fact that the federal government does a lot of things really well. One of the things it does not do well is information technology procurement. This is kind of a systematic problem that we have across the board. And it is not surprising then that there were going to be some problems.
Now, I think we have to ask ourselves some hard questions inside the White House as opposed to why we didn't see more of these problems coming earlier on -- A, so we could set expectations; B, so that we could look for different ways for people to end up applying.
So ultimately, you’re right. This is something that's really important to me, and it’s really important to millions of Americans who have been waiting for a really long time to try to get health care because they don't have it. And I am very frustrated, but I’m also somebody who, if I fumbled the ball, I’m going to wait until I get the next play, and then I’m going to try to run as hard as I can and do right by the team. So ultimately, I’m the head of this team. We did fumble the ball on it, and what I’m going to do is make sure that we get it fixed.
In terms of what happens on November 30th or December 1st, I think it’s fair to say that the improvement will be marked and noticeable. The website will work much better on November 30th, December 1st than it worked certainly on October 1st. That's a pretty low bar. It will be working a lot better than it is -- it was last week, and it will be working better than it was this week, which means that the majority of people who go to the website will see a website that is working the way it’s supposed to.
I think it is not possible for me to guarantee that 100 percent of the people 100 percent of the time going on this website will have a perfectly seamless, smooth experience. We’re going to have to continue to improve it even after November 30th, December 1st. But the majority of people who use it will be able to see it operate the way it was supposed to.
One thing that we’ve discovered, though, that I think is worth noting: A lot of focus has been on the website and the technology, and that's partly because that's how we initially identified it -- these are glitches. What we’re discovering is that part of the problem has been technology -- hardware and software -- and that's being upgraded. But even if we get the hardware and software working exactly the way it’s supposed to with relatively minor glitches, what we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.
And another mistake that we made I think was underestimating the difficulties of people purchasing insurance online and shopping for a lot of options with a lot of costs and a lot of different benefits and plans, and somehow expecting that that would be very smooth. And then they’ve also got to try apply for tax credits on the website.
So what we’re doing even as we’re trying to solve the technical problems is also what can we do to make the application a little bit simpler; what can we do to make it in English as opposed to bureaucratese; are there steps that we can skip while still getting the core information that people need
And part of what we’re realizing is that they are going to be a certain portion of people who are just going to need more help and more handholding in the application process. And so I guess part of the continuous improvement that I’m looking at is not just a technical issue. It’s also, can we streamline the application process; what are we doing to give people more assistance in the application process; how do the call centers and the people who are helping folks in-person; how are they trained so that things can go more smoothly.
Because the bottom line ultimately is, I just want people to know what their options are in a clear way. And buying health insurance is never going to be like buying a song on iTunes. It’s just a much more complicated transaction. But I think we can continue to make it better -- all of which is to say that on December 1st, November 30th, it will be a lot better, but there will still be some problems. Some of those will not be because of technological problems -- although I’m sure that there will still be some glitches that have to be smoothed out. Some of it’s going to be how are we making this application process more user-friendly for folks.
And one good example of this, by the way, just to use an analogy -- when we came into office, we heard a lot of complaints about the financial aid forms that families have to fill out to get federal financial aid. And I actually remember applying for some of that stuff and remember how difficult and confusing it was. And Arne Duncan over at Education worked with a team to see what we could do to simplify it, and it made a big difference.
And that's part of the process that we’ve got to go through. And in fact, if we can get some focus groups and we sit down with actual users and see how well is this working, what would improve it, what part of it didn't you understand -- that all I think is part of what we’re going to be working on in the weeks ahead.
Q What about the insularity criticism that you hear on the Hill?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ve got to say I meet with an awful lot of folks, and I talk to an awful lot of folks every day. And I have lunches with CEOs and IT venture capitalists and labor leaders and pretty much folks from all walks of life on a whole bunch of topics. And if you looked at my schedule on any given day, we’re interacting with a whole lot of people.
And I think it’s fair to say that we have a pretty good track record of working with folks on technology and IT from our campaign where, both in 2008 and 2012, we did a pretty darn good job on that. So it’s not -- the idea that somehow we didn't have access or were interested in people’s ideas, I think isn’t accurate. What is true is that, as I said before, our IT systems, how we purchase technology in the federal government is cumbersome, complicated, and outdated.
And so this isn’t a situation where on my campaign I could simply say, who are the best folks out there; let’s get them around a table, let’s figure out what we’re doing, and we’re just going to continue to improve it and refine it and work on our goals. If you're doing it at the federal government level, you're going through 40 pages of specs and this and that and the other, and there are all kinds of laws involved, and it makes it more difficult. It's part of the reason why, chronically, federal IT programs are over budget, behind schedule.
And one of the -- when I do some Monday morning quarterbacking on myself, one of the things that I do recognize is -- since I know that the federal government has not been good at this stuff in the past -- two years ago, as we were thinking about this, we might have done more to make sure that we were breaking the mold on how we were going to be setting this up. But that doesn't help us now. We've got to move forward.
Jeff Mason.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today's fix that you just announced leaves it up to state insurance commissioners and insurance companies to ultimately decide whether to allow old policies to be renewed for a year. How confident are you that they will do that? And secondly, how concerned are you that this flawed rollout may hurt Democrats' chances in next year's midterm elections, and your ability to advance other priorities such as immigration reform?
THE PRESIDENT: On the first question, traditionally, state insurance commissioners make decisions about what plans can be or cannot be sold, how they interact with insurers. What we're essentially saying is the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the factor in what happens with folks in the individual market. And my guess is right away you're going to see a number of state insurance commissioners exercise it.
Part of the challenge is the individual markets are different in different states. There are some states that have individual insurance markets that already have almost all the consumer protections that the Affordable Care Act does. They match up pretty good. It's not some big jump for folks to move into the marketplace. In others, they're pretty low standards, so you can sell pretty substandard plans in those markets. And that's where people might see a bigger jump in their premiums.
So I think there's going to be some state-by-state evaluation on how this is handled. But the key point is, is that it allows us to be able to say to the folks who received these notices: Look, I, the President of the United States and the insurance –- that the insurance model, the Affordable Care Act, is not going to be getting in the way of you shopping in the individual market that you used to have. As I said, there are still going to be some folks who over time, I think, are going to find that the marketplaces are better.
One way I described this to -- I met with a group of senators when this issue first came up -- and it's not a perfect analogy -- but we made a decision as a society that every car has to have a seatbelt or airbags. And so you pass a regulation. And there are some additional costs, particularly at the start of increasing the safety and protections, but we make a decision as a society that the costs are outweighed by the benefits of all the lives that are saved. So what we're saying now is if you're buying a new car, you got to have a seatbelt.
Well, the problem with the grandfather clause that we put in place is it's almost like we said to folks, you got to buy a new car, even if you can't afford it right now. And sooner or later, folks are going to start trading in their old cars. But we don't need -- if their life circumstance is such where, for now at least, they want to keep the old car, even if the new car is better, we should be able to give them that option. And that's what we want to do.
And, by the way, that's what we should have been able to do in drafting the rules in the first place. So, again, these are two fumbles on something that -- on a big game, which -- but the game is not over.
With respect to the politics of it, I'll let you guys do a lot of the work on projecting what this means for various political scenarios. There is no doubt that our failure to roll out the ACA smoothly has put a burden on Democrats, whether they're running or not, because they stood up and supported this effort through thick and thin. And I feel deeply responsible for making it harder for them rather than easier for them to continue to promote the core values that I think led them to support this thing in the first place -- which is, in this country, as wealthy as we are, everybody should be able to have the security of affordable health care. And that's why I feel so strongly about fixing it.
My first and foremost obligation is the American people, to make sure that they can get what's there -- if we can just get the darn website working and smooth this thing out -- which is plans that are affordable, and allow them to take advantage of tax credits and give them a better deal.
But I also do feel an obligation to everybody out there who supported this effort. When we don't do a good job on the rollout, we're letting them down. And I don't like doing that. So my commitment to them is, we're going to just keep on doing better every day until we get it done.
And in terms of the impact on me -- I think to some extent I addressed it when I talked to Julie -- there are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency. And I think I said early on when I was running -- I am not a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect President, but I'll wake up every single day working as hard as I can on behalf of Americans out there from every walk of life who are working hard, meeting their responsibilities, but sometimes are struggling because the way the system works isn't giving them a fair shot.
And that pledge I haven't broke. That commitment, that promise, continues to be -- continues to hold -- the promise that I wouldn't be perfect, number one, but also the promise that as long as I've got the honor of having this office, I'm just going to work as hard as I can to make things better for folks. And what that means specifically in this health care arena is we can't go back to the status quo.
I mean, right now everybody is properly focused on us not doing a good job on the rollout, and that’s legitimate and I get it. There have been times where I thought we were kind of slapped around a little bit unjustly. This one is deserved. Right? It’s on us.
But we can’t lose sight of the fact that the status quo before the Affordable Care Act was not working at all. If the health care system had been working fine, and everybody had high-quality health insurance at affordable prices, I wouldn’t have made it a priority; we wouldn’t have been fighting this hard to get it done -- which is why, when I see sometimes folks up on Capitol Hill, and Republicans in particular, who have been suggesting repeal, repeal, let’s get rid of this thing, I keep on asking what is it that you want to do? Are you suggesting that the status quo was working? Because it wasn’t, and everybody knows it. It wasn’t working in the individual market and it certainly wasn’t working for the 41 million people who didn’t have health insurance.
And so what we did was we chose a path that was the least disruptive, to try to finally make sure that health care is treated in this country like it is in every other advanced country -- that it’s not some privilege that just a certain portion of people can have, but it’s something that everybody has some confidence about. And we didn’t go far left and choose an approach that would have been much more disruptive. We didn’t adopt some more conservative proposals that would have been much more disruptive. We tried to choose a way that built off the existing system. But it is complicated, it is hard, but I make no apologies for us taking this on -- because somebody sooner or later had to do it. I do make apologies for not having executed better over the last several months.
Q And do you think that execution and the flaws in the rollout will affect your ability to do other things, like immigration reform and other policy priorities?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if it comes to immigration reform, there is no reason for us not to do immigration reform. And we’ve already got strong bipartisan support for immigration reform out of the Senate. You’ve got -- I met with a number of traditionally very conservative clergy who are deeply committed to immigration reform. We’ve got the business community entirely behind immigration reform. So you’ve got a bunch of constituencies that are traditionally much more -- have leaned much more heavily towards the Republicans who are behind this.
So if people are looking for an excuse not to do the right thing on immigration reform, they can always find an excuse -- we’ve run out of time, or this is hard, or the list goes on and on. But my working assumption is people should want to do the right thing. And when you’ve got an issue that would strengthen borders, make sure that the legal immigration system works the way it’s supposed to, that would go after employers who have been doing the wrong thing when it comes to hiring undocumented workers, and would allow folks who are here illegally to get right with the law and pay a fine, and learn English and get to the back of the line, but ultimately join fully our American community -- when you’ve got a law that makes sense, you shouldn’t be looking for an excuse not to do it. And I’m going to keep on pushing to make sure it gets done.
Am I going to have to do some work to rebuild confidence around some of our initiatives? Yes. But part of this job is the things that go right, you guys aren’t going to write about; the things that go wrong get prominent attention. That’s how it has always been. That’s not unique to me as President. And I’m up to the challenge. We’re going to get this done.
All right? Thank you, everybody.
END
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR NOVEMBER 14. 2013
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NAVY
CONTRACTS
NAVY
Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $46,582,848 modification to previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-13-C-0004) to exercise an option for the manufacture and installation of two Block I modification aircraft kits including Internet Protocol Bandwidth Expansion Phase III and very low frequency transmit terminals (VTT) for the E-6B aircraft. In addition, this contract includes the manufacture and installation of four VTT retrofit modification kits in support of the Low Rate Initial Production E-6B aircraft, field support, differences training, software licenses and agreements, and updates to an operational flight trainer. Work will be performed in Richardson, Texas (56 percent); Oklahoma City, Okla. (43 percent); and San Antonio, Texas (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in May 2015. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $46,582,848 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $22,484,873 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-2128) for continued procurement of common missile compartment prototype material, manufacturing and test. This contract supports foreign military sales to the United Kingdom (100 percent). Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., and is scheduled to be completed by October 2015. FMS funding in the amount of $22,484,873 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding Conversion and Repair, Groton, Conn., is the contracting activity.
General Electric Aviation, Grand Rapids, Mich., is being awarded a $13,587,842 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the repair of various avionics components of the tactical moving map capability, and the AN-ASQ-215 mission data loader systems used in support of multiple platforms: F-18, AV-8B, V-22, and the H-60 aircraft. Work will be performed in Grand Rapids, Mich., and work is expected to be completed by Nov. 15, 2018. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. No funds will expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Supply Systems Support, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Hurst, Texas, is being awarded an $8,266,644 firm-fixed-price contract for the manufacturing and delivery of three Bell 407 analog helicopters in support of the endurance upgrade of the vertical take-off and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle MQ-8C Fire Scout. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (52 percent); Mirabel, Canada (46 percent); and Ozark, Ala. (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in June 2014. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $8,266,644 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-14-C-0022).
AIR FORCE
UES Inc, Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a $46,200,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the Molecular Signatures program to develop technologies to discover, characterize, detect, and analyze complex biosignatures in order to provide tools for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and human performance assessment. Multiple sensing modalities will be used to qualitatively and quantitatively measure molecular signatures for increased situational awareness of the operational environment and performance of the human (operator and analyst) in that environment. The program is charged with leading identification and characterization of the molecular attributes present in humans, the environment and pathogen biology for the purposes of developing human-centric ISR solutions. Work will be performed at Dayton, Ohio and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be complete by May 15, 2020. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, and three offers were received. Fiscal 2013 research and development funds in the amount of $200,000 are being obligated at time of award for the first task order (0001). Air Force Research Laboratory/RQKHB, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-14-D-6516).
ARMY
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $16,800,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the design, development, production, and fielding of a mobile capability outside the continental United States reconstitution of PAC-3 four-pack assemblies (four missiles in each Patriot canister). Estimated completion date is Nov. 30, 2015. Work location is Grand Prairie, Texas. Fiscal 2014 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $4,200,000 were obligated at the time of the award. One bid was solicited and one received. Army Contracting Command Redstone Arsenal (Missile), Ala., is the contracting agency (W31P4Q-14-C-0022).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
ExxonMobile Fuels Marketing Company, Fairfax, Va., has been awarded a maximum $29,276,108 modification (P00003) adding line items to contract (SP0600-13-D-0451) for Navy distillate fuel. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is Virginia with a Dec. 31, 2013 performance completion date. Using service is DLA Energy. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va. (Awarded Nov. 8, 2013)
Bremen-Bowdon Investments*, Bowdon, Ga., has been awarded a maximum $13,033,800 modification (P00009) exercising the third one-year option period on a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-10-D-1090) with four one-year option periods for men’s Army blue dress coats. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Location of performance is Georgia with a Nov. 14, 2014, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
*Small Business
CONTRACTS
NAVY
Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $46,582,848 modification to previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-13-C-0004) to exercise an option for the manufacture and installation of two Block I modification aircraft kits including Internet Protocol Bandwidth Expansion Phase III and very low frequency transmit terminals (VTT) for the E-6B aircraft. In addition, this contract includes the manufacture and installation of four VTT retrofit modification kits in support of the Low Rate Initial Production E-6B aircraft, field support, differences training, software licenses and agreements, and updates to an operational flight trainer. Work will be performed in Richardson, Texas (56 percent); Oklahoma City, Okla. (43 percent); and San Antonio, Texas (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in May 2015. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $46,582,848 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $22,484,873 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-13-C-2128) for continued procurement of common missile compartment prototype material, manufacturing and test. This contract supports foreign military sales to the United Kingdom (100 percent). Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., and is scheduled to be completed by October 2015. FMS funding in the amount of $22,484,873 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding Conversion and Repair, Groton, Conn., is the contracting activity.
General Electric Aviation, Grand Rapids, Mich., is being awarded a $13,587,842 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the repair of various avionics components of the tactical moving map capability, and the AN-ASQ-215 mission data loader systems used in support of multiple platforms: F-18, AV-8B, V-22, and the H-60 aircraft. Work will be performed in Grand Rapids, Mich., and work is expected to be completed by Nov. 15, 2018. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. No funds will expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Supply Systems Support, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Hurst, Texas, is being awarded an $8,266,644 firm-fixed-price contract for the manufacturing and delivery of three Bell 407 analog helicopters in support of the endurance upgrade of the vertical take-off and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle MQ-8C Fire Scout. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (52 percent); Mirabel, Canada (46 percent); and Ozark, Ala. (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in June 2014. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $8,266,644 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-14-C-0022).
AIR FORCE
UES Inc, Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a $46,200,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the Molecular Signatures program to develop technologies to discover, characterize, detect, and analyze complex biosignatures in order to provide tools for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and human performance assessment. Multiple sensing modalities will be used to qualitatively and quantitatively measure molecular signatures for increased situational awareness of the operational environment and performance of the human (operator and analyst) in that environment. The program is charged with leading identification and characterization of the molecular attributes present in humans, the environment and pathogen biology for the purposes of developing human-centric ISR solutions. Work will be performed at Dayton, Ohio and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be complete by May 15, 2020. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, and three offers were received. Fiscal 2013 research and development funds in the amount of $200,000 are being obligated at time of award for the first task order (0001). Air Force Research Laboratory/RQKHB, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-14-D-6516).
ARMY
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $16,800,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the design, development, production, and fielding of a mobile capability outside the continental United States reconstitution of PAC-3 four-pack assemblies (four missiles in each Patriot canister). Estimated completion date is Nov. 30, 2015. Work location is Grand Prairie, Texas. Fiscal 2014 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $4,200,000 were obligated at the time of the award. One bid was solicited and one received. Army Contracting Command Redstone Arsenal (Missile), Ala., is the contracting agency (W31P4Q-14-C-0022).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
ExxonMobile Fuels Marketing Company, Fairfax, Va., has been awarded a maximum $29,276,108 modification (P00003) adding line items to contract (SP0600-13-D-0451) for Navy distillate fuel. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is Virginia with a Dec. 31, 2013 performance completion date. Using service is DLA Energy. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va. (Awarded Nov. 8, 2013)
Bremen-Bowdon Investments*, Bowdon, Ga., has been awarded a maximum $13,033,800 modification (P00009) exercising the third one-year option period on a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-10-D-1090) with four one-year option periods for men’s Army blue dress coats. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Location of performance is Georgia with a Nov. 14, 2014, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
*Small Business
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION OFFERS TO SELL RECENT SUGAR ACQUISITION FOR USE IN BIO-ENERGY PRODUCTION
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
USDA Solicits New Bids under the Feedstock Flexibility Program
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2013 The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced that the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is offering to sell its recently acquired sugar inventory for use as a feedstock for bio-energy production using the authority of the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP). CCC successfully sold 143,143 short tons under its previous FFP tenders.
CCC acquired 296,500 short tons of sugar on Oct. 1, 2013, in lieu of cash repayments on its remaining 2012 crop year sugar loans. The forfeiture of sugar, which was pledged as collateral by processors that receive nonrecourse commodity loans from CCC, was due to a severe reduction in sugar prices in FY 2013. This was caused by the U.S./Mexican sugar supply far exceeding demand in our common sugar market. CCC is prohibited by the 2008 Farm Bill from selling its sugar inventory for domestic human consumption unless there is an emergency sugar shortage.
CCC is increasing the minimum FFP bid to 50,000 short tons (100 million pounds) to provide the opportunity for commercial-scale sugar use in bio-energy production.
The Farm Service Agency’s invitation to purchase CCC sugar, as well as the results of earlier USDA sugar actions, can be found on the FSA Commodity Operations website at: www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=coop&topic=pas-sa.
USDA Solicits New Bids under the Feedstock Flexibility Program
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2013 The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced that the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is offering to sell its recently acquired sugar inventory for use as a feedstock for bio-energy production using the authority of the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP). CCC successfully sold 143,143 short tons under its previous FFP tenders.
CCC acquired 296,500 short tons of sugar on Oct. 1, 2013, in lieu of cash repayments on its remaining 2012 crop year sugar loans. The forfeiture of sugar, which was pledged as collateral by processors that receive nonrecourse commodity loans from CCC, was due to a severe reduction in sugar prices in FY 2013. This was caused by the U.S./Mexican sugar supply far exceeding demand in our common sugar market. CCC is prohibited by the 2008 Farm Bill from selling its sugar inventory for domestic human consumption unless there is an emergency sugar shortage.
CCC is increasing the minimum FFP bid to 50,000 short tons (100 million pounds) to provide the opportunity for commercial-scale sugar use in bio-energy production.
The Farm Service Agency’s invitation to purchase CCC sugar, as well as the results of earlier USDA sugar actions, can be found on the FSA Commodity Operations website at: www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=coop&topic=pas-sa.
AG HOLDER MAKES REMARKS AT WHITE HOUSE TRIBAL NATIONS CONFERENCE
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks at the White House Tribal Nations Conference
~ Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Good morning – and thank you all for such a warm welcome. I want to thank David [Gipp] for those kind words. And I’d particularly like to thank Secretary [Sally] Jewell and her colleagues at the Department of the Interior for hosting this important Conference.
It’s a pleasure to join them, President [Barack] Obama, my fellow Cabinet members, and leaders throughout the Administration in welcoming such a distinguished group to Washington. And it’s a privilege to stand with so many good friends, passionate advocates, dedicated tribal leaders, and essential Indian Country partners in reinforcing the ties that bind us to one another; renewing our commitment to working – with mutual trust and mutual respect – to address shared challenges; and reaffirming our dedication to fulfilling the great promise of our government’s relationships with sovereign tribes.
I want to personally commend every participant in this year’s Tribal Nations Conference for taking the time to be here – and moving our nation closer to its most treasured ideals: of equality, opportunity, and justice under law. Especially in recent years, countless tribal leaders – both in and beyond this room – have stepped to the forefront of our efforts to preserve cultural values, to enforce treaty obligations, and to secure the rights and benefits to which all American Indians and Alaska Natives must always be entitled.
Together, through many generations, you and your predecessors have faced down tremendous adversity – standing up to those who once sought to terminate the federal government’s relationships with tribes. You’ve galvanized support for the rights of American Indians to maintain tribal governments – and to have a seat at the table before major reforms are enacted. You’ve mobilized tribal nations to win passage of long-overdue laws not simply to regulate tribal affairs, but to allow all Native peoples to fulfill their own promise and chart their own paths. As the ranks of your partners have grown, you’ve raised awareness about obstacles to tribal sovereignty. And – with the assistance and support of public servants like my distinguished predecessor, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – you’ve ushered in a new era of tribal self-determination that is now half a century old, and growing stronger every day.
As we gather for this year’s Tribal Nations Conference – here in our nation’s capital, during American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month – it’s appropriate that we celebrate these and other momentous achievements.
But it’s also necessary that we acknowledge that our relationships have not always been so constructive. Far too much of our history has been defined by violence and deprivation. Far too many promises have been broken. Far too many tribes have been told that their lands, religions, cultures, and languages were somehow not theirs to keep. That their rights could be abridged or denied without the guarantee of due process. That they could not vote. And that the only course of action available to them would be to move on, to give up, and – quite simply – to forget.
Today, we declare that we must never forget. We must never deny the injustice that – for decades upon decades – was inflicted on Native peoples. And we affirm that this painful past has informed, and given rise to, a sustained period of cooperation and self-determination – a period that began in a moment of national challenge, when the nation confronted a New Frontier.
Fifty years ago – in Bismarck, North Dakota – Attorney General Kennedy addressed the National Congress of American Indians. At the time – just as it is today – NCAI was the largest intertribal organization in the country, a leading voice for tribal sovereignty, and a key partner to the Justice Department. Robert Kennedy spoke of the vision that he and his brother, President John F. Kennedy, harbored for a more free, more just, and more equal nation. And, in what would become known as a historic speech, he told the assembled crowd that he stood before them at “a turning in the tide”:
“America,” he said, “. . . is moving forward, more rapidly and in more ways than ever before – moving toward the fulfillment of its destiny as the land of the free, a nation in which neither Indians nor any other racial or religious minority will live in underprivilege.”
Half a century later, it’s clear that this vision has yet to be fully realized. But it’s equally apparent that the last few decades – and especially the last five years – have been marked by significant steps forward: to keep a nation’s promise. To reclaim the brighter future that all of our citizens deserve. To confront urgent challenges. To move toward shared aspirations. And to bring about the remarkable, once-unimaginable progress for which so many have been fighting for so long. That which began in the New Frontier must continue, with increased vigor, into this new era for which we are all responsible.
For President Obama – and for me – this has always been more than a professional obligation. It’s a personal priority. As you heard during the video presentation, when I returned to the Justice Department as Attorney General in 2009, my colleagues and I made it a priority to listen to, to learn from, and to partner with tribal leaders. And this renewed commitment to cooperation has yielded results we can all be proud of.
Since January 2009, the Department’s Civil Rights Division, working with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, has prosecuted numerous defendants for victimizing Native Americans through sex trafficking, hate crimes, and police brutality. The Division has also been active in enforcing the voting rights of American Indians across the country – including the right, in some jurisdictions, to access voter information in Native languages.
Alongside our counterparts at other federal agencies, we have prioritized the protection of tribal resources and the resolution of longstanding legal disputes. Four years ago, the Departments of Justice and the Interior reached a historic settlement – totaling more than $3 billion, and approved by Congress as well as a federal court – which resolved the Cobell litigation, a class-action lawsuit that had been pending for a decade and a half.
More broadly, we’ve worked to protect water rights and natural resources on tribal lands. And we’ve vastly expanded our outreach to – and cooperation with – Indian tribes across the continent, institutionalizing ways to seek input on new policies; holding extensive training and listening sessions; and targeting precious resources to the areas where they’re needed most.
Through our Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation, we’ve streamlined the process allowing tribes to secure federal assistance – awarding nearly $440 million in grants to help address an array of tribal justice issues. These funds are supporting efforts to intervene in the lives of at-risk youth and prevent violence against women; to improve community policing and explore alternatives to incarceration.
But they’re only the beginning – because, as a former United States Attorney, I know from experience that it takes more than financial support to combat crime. Our ability to ensure just outcomes will always depend upon the sustained efforts of prosecutors, investigators, and victim services professionals on the ground – who work closely with, and genuinely understand, the communities they serve. Leaders like U.S. Attorney Tim Purdon; his predecessor as Chair of the Native American Issues Subcommittee, Brendan Johnson; and other U.S. Attorneys whose districts include Indian Country exemplify our commitment to this work. And this commitment is being strengthened every day by the tribal liaisons who have been appointed in each of the 48 U.S. Attorney’s Offices in districts that span Indian Country; by our dedicated FBI agents and victims specialists working full-time on tribal lands; and by the Tribal Nations Leadership Council we launched to advise me – and future Attorneys General – on issues of concern.
In July 2010, President Obama bolstered these efforts when he signed the Tribal Law and Order Act – which has strengthened tribal law enforcement, improved substance abuse prevention and treatment efforts, and enhanced our ability to prosecute crimes committed on tribal lands. It also ensured that the Office of Tribal Justice will be a permanent part of the Justice Department.
Taken together, these changes – along with programs like our National Indian Country Training Initiative, which has trained thousands of federal and tribal criminal justice professionals – have resulted in significant advances. And our prioritization of close cooperation between U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and tribal leaders has brought about a notable increase in overall law enforcement in Indian Country. In fact, in just the last three years, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices with responsibility for Indian Country prosecutions have seen their caseload of prosecutions for crimes committed on tribal lands increase by more than 54 percent.
This is an extremely promising indication. Yet there’s no denying that a great deal of work remains to be done. And if we are to seize this opportunity to build on the progress we’ve seen, every person in this room must resolve here and now – as Robert Kennedy and his contemporaries once did – to mark this event not merely as an occasion for reflection, but as a moment of renewal, a time for action and positive change.
We must recommit ourselves to collaboration on an unprecedented scale – no matter the obstacles we face. And we must declare – together – that, despite everything that’s been achieved, we will not rest as long as crime rates in so many tribal communities continue to exceed the national average.
We will not accept the shameful fact that American Indians are disproportionately likely to become victims of crime and violence.
And we will not tolerate a world in which nearly half of all Indian women and girls have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. And where Indian women are murdered at a rate that – in some places – is more than ten times the national average.
We simply cannot stand for such an unjust and unacceptable status quo any longer. And, as our record proves, we will not stand for it.
Last year, I was proud to join President Obama at a ceremony where he signed the newly-reauthorized Violence Against Women Act into law. Thanks to the hard work – and fierce advocacy – of many of the people in this room, this reauthorization included tribal jurisdiction provisions to help tribal authorities combat violence against Native women – whether the perpetrators are Indian or non-Indian. Those provisions were drafted and publicly proposed by the Justice Department, but they never could have become law without your staunch and strenuous support. For that, I applaud you. As the President noted, VAWA 2013 represented a historic step forward for tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction. And all of us will keep moving forward together.
In August, I announced that – on the recommendation of the National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence – the Department has launched a brand-new Task Force dedicated to addressing the unique challenges faced by children in Indian Country. Since then, the Task Force’s working group of federal officials has made real progress in improving educational and programmatic services in youth detention facilities in Indian Country. And today, I am pleased to announce that I have selected the Advisory Committee members who will help lead this new Task Force – including its distinguished co-chairs, former U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan and Grammy-winner, and member of the Iroquois Nation, Joanne Shenandoah, both of whom are here with us today. Preparations are currently underway for the Advisory Committee’s first public hearing, which will be held on December 9th in Bismarck, North Dakota. As the Task Force moves ahead, they’ll continue to work closely with a range of federal leaders to support and strengthen the work you are leading throughout tribal lands.
As a result of these partnerships – and the efforts of everyone here – our nation is poised to open a new era in our government-to-government relationships with sovereign tribes. Fifty years after Robert Kennedy stood before a similar group of leaders, I have the great honor to join you in pledging to take this work to a new level. And I am proud to announce today that the Justice Department will adopt a new Statement of Principles to guide all of the actions we take in working with federally recognized Indian tribes.
This proposed Statement will codify our determination to serve not as a patron – but as a partner – in fighting crime and enforcing the law in Indian Country. And it will institutionalize our commitment to Indian tribes – serving as a blueprint for reinforcing relationships, reforming the criminal justice system, and aggressively enforcing federal laws and civil rights protections.
Of course, this Statement of Principles will be meaningful only to the extent that it is crafted in consultation with leaders like you. That’s why we’ll make our draft available – today – on the Justice Department’s website, “justice.gov.” We’ll share it directly with the leaders of all 566 federally-recognized tribes – so we can gain the benefit of your insights, your expertise, and your goals and aspirations. Then, and only then, will we be in a position to finalize the Statement and publish it – by early next year – thereby establishing a set of core principles by which we can chart our future course.
Ultimately, however, I realize that our future will be shaped – and our progress determined – not merely by the values that guide us, but by the individual men and women who work to translate these values into action. Men and women who choose not to accept the world as it is, but fight to make real their vision of the world as it should be.
In order to support this work – and to inspire and cultivate a new generation of public servants to carry it forward – it is also my privilege to announce the creation of a new component of the Attorney General’s Honors Program – known as the Attorney General’s Indian Country Fellowship.
As some of you may know, I first joined the Justice Department – more than 35 years ago – as a young attorney in this same Honors Program. Throughout my career, I’ve seen just how important, and effective, it can be when it comes to attracting skilled lawyers to careers in public service – and developing leaders at every level of the Justice Department.
Under our new Indian Country Fellowship, highly-qualified law school graduates will have the chance to spend three years working on Indian Country cases – primarily in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, but also with opportunities to be detailed to the offices of tribal prosecutors. This will create a new pipeline of legal talent with expertise and deep experience in federal Indian law, tribal law, and Indian Country issues. And it will help to build capacity, combat violent crime, and bolster public safety in each of the jurisdictions represented here.
This, after all, is our chief obligation: not to deny our past, but to rise above it. Not to minimize our tumultuous history, but to write a new chapter. Not to accept a reality that’s short of the ideal we envision, and the justice our citizens deserve – but to stand together, and speak with one voice, in order to bring about the changes we seek.
As I look around this room today – at so many passionate leaders and dedicated advocates from across the country – I can’t help but feel confident in our ability to do just that. To fulfill the commitments we’ve made. To ensure that good words are backed up by good deeds. And, above all, to keep moving forward together – in common cause, with mutual respect, and with shared purpose.
I am grateful, and humbled, to count you not merely as colleagues – but as essential partners – in the considerable work that lies ahead. I will always be proud to stand with you, and fight alongside you, in the struggle for tribal sovereignty, self-government, self-determination, civil rights, and equal justice. And I look forward to all that we will do – and achieve – in the months and years to come. This is my pledge. This must be our common endeavor.
Thank you.
Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks at the White House Tribal Nations Conference
~ Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Good morning – and thank you all for such a warm welcome. I want to thank David [Gipp] for those kind words. And I’d particularly like to thank Secretary [Sally] Jewell and her colleagues at the Department of the Interior for hosting this important Conference.
It’s a pleasure to join them, President [Barack] Obama, my fellow Cabinet members, and leaders throughout the Administration in welcoming such a distinguished group to Washington. And it’s a privilege to stand with so many good friends, passionate advocates, dedicated tribal leaders, and essential Indian Country partners in reinforcing the ties that bind us to one another; renewing our commitment to working – with mutual trust and mutual respect – to address shared challenges; and reaffirming our dedication to fulfilling the great promise of our government’s relationships with sovereign tribes.
I want to personally commend every participant in this year’s Tribal Nations Conference for taking the time to be here – and moving our nation closer to its most treasured ideals: of equality, opportunity, and justice under law. Especially in recent years, countless tribal leaders – both in and beyond this room – have stepped to the forefront of our efforts to preserve cultural values, to enforce treaty obligations, and to secure the rights and benefits to which all American Indians and Alaska Natives must always be entitled.
Together, through many generations, you and your predecessors have faced down tremendous adversity – standing up to those who once sought to terminate the federal government’s relationships with tribes. You’ve galvanized support for the rights of American Indians to maintain tribal governments – and to have a seat at the table before major reforms are enacted. You’ve mobilized tribal nations to win passage of long-overdue laws not simply to regulate tribal affairs, but to allow all Native peoples to fulfill their own promise and chart their own paths. As the ranks of your partners have grown, you’ve raised awareness about obstacles to tribal sovereignty. And – with the assistance and support of public servants like my distinguished predecessor, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – you’ve ushered in a new era of tribal self-determination that is now half a century old, and growing stronger every day.
As we gather for this year’s Tribal Nations Conference – here in our nation’s capital, during American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month – it’s appropriate that we celebrate these and other momentous achievements.
But it’s also necessary that we acknowledge that our relationships have not always been so constructive. Far too much of our history has been defined by violence and deprivation. Far too many promises have been broken. Far too many tribes have been told that their lands, religions, cultures, and languages were somehow not theirs to keep. That their rights could be abridged or denied without the guarantee of due process. That they could not vote. And that the only course of action available to them would be to move on, to give up, and – quite simply – to forget.
Today, we declare that we must never forget. We must never deny the injustice that – for decades upon decades – was inflicted on Native peoples. And we affirm that this painful past has informed, and given rise to, a sustained period of cooperation and self-determination – a period that began in a moment of national challenge, when the nation confronted a New Frontier.
Fifty years ago – in Bismarck, North Dakota – Attorney General Kennedy addressed the National Congress of American Indians. At the time – just as it is today – NCAI was the largest intertribal organization in the country, a leading voice for tribal sovereignty, and a key partner to the Justice Department. Robert Kennedy spoke of the vision that he and his brother, President John F. Kennedy, harbored for a more free, more just, and more equal nation. And, in what would become known as a historic speech, he told the assembled crowd that he stood before them at “a turning in the tide”:
“America,” he said, “. . . is moving forward, more rapidly and in more ways than ever before – moving toward the fulfillment of its destiny as the land of the free, a nation in which neither Indians nor any other racial or religious minority will live in underprivilege.”
Half a century later, it’s clear that this vision has yet to be fully realized. But it’s equally apparent that the last few decades – and especially the last five years – have been marked by significant steps forward: to keep a nation’s promise. To reclaim the brighter future that all of our citizens deserve. To confront urgent challenges. To move toward shared aspirations. And to bring about the remarkable, once-unimaginable progress for which so many have been fighting for so long. That which began in the New Frontier must continue, with increased vigor, into this new era for which we are all responsible.
For President Obama – and for me – this has always been more than a professional obligation. It’s a personal priority. As you heard during the video presentation, when I returned to the Justice Department as Attorney General in 2009, my colleagues and I made it a priority to listen to, to learn from, and to partner with tribal leaders. And this renewed commitment to cooperation has yielded results we can all be proud of.
Since January 2009, the Department’s Civil Rights Division, working with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, has prosecuted numerous defendants for victimizing Native Americans through sex trafficking, hate crimes, and police brutality. The Division has also been active in enforcing the voting rights of American Indians across the country – including the right, in some jurisdictions, to access voter information in Native languages.
Alongside our counterparts at other federal agencies, we have prioritized the protection of tribal resources and the resolution of longstanding legal disputes. Four years ago, the Departments of Justice and the Interior reached a historic settlement – totaling more than $3 billion, and approved by Congress as well as a federal court – which resolved the Cobell litigation, a class-action lawsuit that had been pending for a decade and a half.
More broadly, we’ve worked to protect water rights and natural resources on tribal lands. And we’ve vastly expanded our outreach to – and cooperation with – Indian tribes across the continent, institutionalizing ways to seek input on new policies; holding extensive training and listening sessions; and targeting precious resources to the areas where they’re needed most.
Through our Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation, we’ve streamlined the process allowing tribes to secure federal assistance – awarding nearly $440 million in grants to help address an array of tribal justice issues. These funds are supporting efforts to intervene in the lives of at-risk youth and prevent violence against women; to improve community policing and explore alternatives to incarceration.
But they’re only the beginning – because, as a former United States Attorney, I know from experience that it takes more than financial support to combat crime. Our ability to ensure just outcomes will always depend upon the sustained efforts of prosecutors, investigators, and victim services professionals on the ground – who work closely with, and genuinely understand, the communities they serve. Leaders like U.S. Attorney Tim Purdon; his predecessor as Chair of the Native American Issues Subcommittee, Brendan Johnson; and other U.S. Attorneys whose districts include Indian Country exemplify our commitment to this work. And this commitment is being strengthened every day by the tribal liaisons who have been appointed in each of the 48 U.S. Attorney’s Offices in districts that span Indian Country; by our dedicated FBI agents and victims specialists working full-time on tribal lands; and by the Tribal Nations Leadership Council we launched to advise me – and future Attorneys General – on issues of concern.
In July 2010, President Obama bolstered these efforts when he signed the Tribal Law and Order Act – which has strengthened tribal law enforcement, improved substance abuse prevention and treatment efforts, and enhanced our ability to prosecute crimes committed on tribal lands. It also ensured that the Office of Tribal Justice will be a permanent part of the Justice Department.
Taken together, these changes – along with programs like our National Indian Country Training Initiative, which has trained thousands of federal and tribal criminal justice professionals – have resulted in significant advances. And our prioritization of close cooperation between U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and tribal leaders has brought about a notable increase in overall law enforcement in Indian Country. In fact, in just the last three years, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices with responsibility for Indian Country prosecutions have seen their caseload of prosecutions for crimes committed on tribal lands increase by more than 54 percent.
This is an extremely promising indication. Yet there’s no denying that a great deal of work remains to be done. And if we are to seize this opportunity to build on the progress we’ve seen, every person in this room must resolve here and now – as Robert Kennedy and his contemporaries once did – to mark this event not merely as an occasion for reflection, but as a moment of renewal, a time for action and positive change.
We must recommit ourselves to collaboration on an unprecedented scale – no matter the obstacles we face. And we must declare – together – that, despite everything that’s been achieved, we will not rest as long as crime rates in so many tribal communities continue to exceed the national average.
We will not accept the shameful fact that American Indians are disproportionately likely to become victims of crime and violence.
And we will not tolerate a world in which nearly half of all Indian women and girls have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. And where Indian women are murdered at a rate that – in some places – is more than ten times the national average.
We simply cannot stand for such an unjust and unacceptable status quo any longer. And, as our record proves, we will not stand for it.
Last year, I was proud to join President Obama at a ceremony where he signed the newly-reauthorized Violence Against Women Act into law. Thanks to the hard work – and fierce advocacy – of many of the people in this room, this reauthorization included tribal jurisdiction provisions to help tribal authorities combat violence against Native women – whether the perpetrators are Indian or non-Indian. Those provisions were drafted and publicly proposed by the Justice Department, but they never could have become law without your staunch and strenuous support. For that, I applaud you. As the President noted, VAWA 2013 represented a historic step forward for tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction. And all of us will keep moving forward together.
In August, I announced that – on the recommendation of the National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence – the Department has launched a brand-new Task Force dedicated to addressing the unique challenges faced by children in Indian Country. Since then, the Task Force’s working group of federal officials has made real progress in improving educational and programmatic services in youth detention facilities in Indian Country. And today, I am pleased to announce that I have selected the Advisory Committee members who will help lead this new Task Force – including its distinguished co-chairs, former U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan and Grammy-winner, and member of the Iroquois Nation, Joanne Shenandoah, both of whom are here with us today. Preparations are currently underway for the Advisory Committee’s first public hearing, which will be held on December 9th in Bismarck, North Dakota. As the Task Force moves ahead, they’ll continue to work closely with a range of federal leaders to support and strengthen the work you are leading throughout tribal lands.
As a result of these partnerships – and the efforts of everyone here – our nation is poised to open a new era in our government-to-government relationships with sovereign tribes. Fifty years after Robert Kennedy stood before a similar group of leaders, I have the great honor to join you in pledging to take this work to a new level. And I am proud to announce today that the Justice Department will adopt a new Statement of Principles to guide all of the actions we take in working with federally recognized Indian tribes.
This proposed Statement will codify our determination to serve not as a patron – but as a partner – in fighting crime and enforcing the law in Indian Country. And it will institutionalize our commitment to Indian tribes – serving as a blueprint for reinforcing relationships, reforming the criminal justice system, and aggressively enforcing federal laws and civil rights protections.
Of course, this Statement of Principles will be meaningful only to the extent that it is crafted in consultation with leaders like you. That’s why we’ll make our draft available – today – on the Justice Department’s website, “justice.gov.” We’ll share it directly with the leaders of all 566 federally-recognized tribes – so we can gain the benefit of your insights, your expertise, and your goals and aspirations. Then, and only then, will we be in a position to finalize the Statement and publish it – by early next year – thereby establishing a set of core principles by which we can chart our future course.
Ultimately, however, I realize that our future will be shaped – and our progress determined – not merely by the values that guide us, but by the individual men and women who work to translate these values into action. Men and women who choose not to accept the world as it is, but fight to make real their vision of the world as it should be.
In order to support this work – and to inspire and cultivate a new generation of public servants to carry it forward – it is also my privilege to announce the creation of a new component of the Attorney General’s Honors Program – known as the Attorney General’s Indian Country Fellowship.
As some of you may know, I first joined the Justice Department – more than 35 years ago – as a young attorney in this same Honors Program. Throughout my career, I’ve seen just how important, and effective, it can be when it comes to attracting skilled lawyers to careers in public service – and developing leaders at every level of the Justice Department.
Under our new Indian Country Fellowship, highly-qualified law school graduates will have the chance to spend three years working on Indian Country cases – primarily in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, but also with opportunities to be detailed to the offices of tribal prosecutors. This will create a new pipeline of legal talent with expertise and deep experience in federal Indian law, tribal law, and Indian Country issues. And it will help to build capacity, combat violent crime, and bolster public safety in each of the jurisdictions represented here.
This, after all, is our chief obligation: not to deny our past, but to rise above it. Not to minimize our tumultuous history, but to write a new chapter. Not to accept a reality that’s short of the ideal we envision, and the justice our citizens deserve – but to stand together, and speak with one voice, in order to bring about the changes we seek.
As I look around this room today – at so many passionate leaders and dedicated advocates from across the country – I can’t help but feel confident in our ability to do just that. To fulfill the commitments we’ve made. To ensure that good words are backed up by good deeds. And, above all, to keep moving forward together – in common cause, with mutual respect, and with shared purpose.
I am grateful, and humbled, to count you not merely as colleagues – but as essential partners – in the considerable work that lies ahead. I will always be proud to stand with you, and fight alongside you, in the struggle for tribal sovereignty, self-government, self-determination, civil rights, and equal justice. And I look forward to all that we will do – and achieve – in the months and years to come. This is my pledge. This must be our common endeavor.
Thank you.
STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING BRIEFING ON TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DESIGNATIONS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on Designation of Boko Haram and Ansaru as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
November 13, 2013
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today’s call. Our participants today are [Senior Administration Official One]. And also briefing today is [Senior Administration Official Two]. This is just a reminder, this call is on background, so please be sure to use the described attributions when referencing our briefers. With that, I’ll turn it over to our Administration – senior Administration officials to make a few remarks and then we’ll open it up for questions.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Good morning. We view today’s designation of Boko Haram and Ansaru as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the Secretary of State as part of our efforts to help Nigeria succeed in adopting a comprehensive approach to address its domestic terrorist threat. Nigeria’s comprehensive approach must include enhancing security force professionalism, building confidence in the people of northern Nigeria, by meeting their legitimate economic needs, and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and accountability. All of our assistance to Nigeria stresses the importance of protecting civilians, adhering to the rule of law, and respecting human rights.
So why have we taken this step? Nigeria is a strategic partner of the United States. It is Africa’s most populous country, with about 170 million people. It provides over 4,880 soldiers and police for peacekeeping missions, and it is a global supplier of oil – crucial global supplier. We consistently engage with Nigerian leaders at all levels to advance our mutual interests. President Obama met with President Jonathan on the margins of this year’s UN General Assembly. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman led a delegation to Abuja in mid-August of this year. And we also have regular senior interaction in Washington and in Nigeria with Nigerian officials, including federal, state, and local officials, as well as members of civil society.
We want to see an even stronger Nigeria that fulfills its ambitions to be a regional and a global leader. To that end, Nigeria must strengthen its democratic institutions, advance economic reform, control corruption, professionalize its security forces, and effectively counter the threat of terrorism, while respecting the human rights of all its citizens. I’d like (inaudible).
MODERATOR: Senior Administration Official Number Two will now make remarks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: The designation to Boko Haram and Ansaru are an important step in supporting the Government of Nigeria’s efforts to counter violent extremism and address the security challenges in northern Nigeria. Boko Haram is a Nigeria-based violent extremist organization with links to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM. It’s responsible for thousands of deaths since its conception in 2009, including large-scale attacks against Muslim and Christian religious communities, and women and children.
Since 2009, Boko Haram has been conducting an ongoing and brutal campaign against Nigerian military government and civilian targets. Within the last year, Boko Haram has been behind numerous attacks on Nigerian schools, and was also responsible for the August 2011 suicide bombing of the UN building in Abuja that killed 21 people and injured dozens more.
Ansaru splintered from Boko Haram in January of 2012. Since its inception, Ansaru has committed multiple attacks of violence against civilians and Nigerian government officials and is responsible for the deaths of countless civilians and Nigerian security personnel. Ansaru also has links to AQIM.
The consequences of these designations include an asset freeze against Boko Haram and Ansaru, and a prohibition against knowingly providing material support to either organization. In addition to denying both groups access to the U.S. financial system, these designations will assist law enforcement efforts to pursue these groups and investigate and prosecute individuals associated with Boko Haram and Ansaru’s terror. These designations notify the world that the United States and Nigeria are jointly combatting the extremist violence of Boko Haram and Ansaru.
MODERATOR: Okay. And with that we are ready to turn our call over and take your questions.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you do wish to ask a question please press * and then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating that you’ve been placed in queue, and you may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. And if you are using a speaker phone, please pick up the handset before pressing the number. So again for your questions, please press * and then 1 at this time.
And our first question will come from Karen DeYoung with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you. Two things: I wonder if – excuse me – could you tell us what – I’m sorry – what the specific links are to AQIM that you’re aware of. And also, do either of these groups pose a threat to the U.S. homeland or U.S. persons? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yes. So while we believe that Boko Haram remains primarily a Nigerian organization with its principle objectives in Nigeria, and that is true also of Ansaru, as I said in my opening remarks that it does – both these groups have links to AQIM.
Our assessment is that AQIM has helped provide some training to the groups and has provided limited financing.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And as far as its – the relationship to Americans – to U.S. security, there is a very large American population in Nigeria, as you probably are aware, and a lot of U.S. investment – economic investment in Nigeria. So threats to Nigeria automatically impact U.S. economic and American citizen interests.
QUESTION: Can I – if I could just follow-up, do you have any indication that there are specific threats against U.S. persons or U.S. economic interests in Nigeria?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We -- the United States recently designated at least one of Boko Haram’s leaders on a – in a Rewards for Justice program, and there are three other members of Boko Haram that have been also designated. And they have made threats to Westerners in Nigeria and Westerners in the region. So we consider ourselves to be part of that target group, and they are a security threat to American citizens that are in and about Nigeria.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: And of course, you’re aware of the attack on the UN facility in 2011 that killed 21 people and injured scores, others.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from Deb Riechmann with the Associated Press. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, I can’t pick up my handset, it seems to be broken. But I hope you can hear me. Can you hear me?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions. One: Why did it take so long to designate these two? They’ve been pretty brutal terrorist groups for quite a long time. And then I have another question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. Well, as was just stated – I’ll just flag for you – that the State Department designated three of the organizations’ leaders in – more than a year ago in June of 2012 – Abubakar Shekau, Khalid al-Barnawi, and Abubakur Kambar. And then following that, of course, we have conducted an extensive process of review and research to determine the effectiveness of designating the groups Boko Haram and Ansaru as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This is a process that takes a long time, and only after that review and consultations with the Nigerian Government and other partners, we determined that designating these groups is both appropriate and effective in helping advance our larger strategy.
QUESTION: Okay. And secondly, the Nigerian Government, I think so far, has taken a pretty heavy-handed kind of approach to these groups. It doesn’t really seem to be working. Is there a more effective way that the U.S. sees that could be used to control the groups?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We have continued to talk to the Nigerian Government and urge the Nigerian Government to take a comprehensive approach to insecurity in northern Nigeria. And that approach, in our view, has to include addressing the region’s legitimate political, economic, and social needs, as well as implementing a professional security response that respects human rights.
We have repeatedly engaged senior Nigerian officials to offer our guidance to them on how best to fight Boko Haram through appropriate use of counterinsurgency doctrine. Our AFRICOM commander, General Rodriguez, and the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield, plan to travel to Nigeria in – later on this year to discuss this and some other issues. And we’ve also had meetings between the Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led a delegation to Abuja for the U.S.-Nigeria Bi-National Commission working group on regional security, dealing with information leading to the – it was the security working group.
The point being that in all of our discussions with Nigerian authorities, we have been stressing that you have to have a comprehensive approach, you have to address the way they’re handling the security measures.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from the line of Jo Biddle with AFP. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you very much for doing the call. Can I just go back to the issue of why now? I mean, I believe one of the reasons given over the last past months for not designating Boko Haram as a FTO was because of fears of recruitment. Do you believe this is now not the case, that this designation will push more people to join Boko Haram’s ranks? And also, in your conversations with the Nigerian Government, are they on board with this decision, or were they still a bit wary of it? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: So with respect to the recruitment question, I think that this designation sends an important signal to those who would be interested in – who are interested in becoming part of the organization or supporting the organization because it imposes a prohibition on knowingly providing material support to the organization. So in that respect, we think it is an important tool to add to our toolkit in countering violent extremism in northern Nigeria.
With respect to the Nigerian Government --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: -- we did have consultations with them in advance of the designation.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, we have. We did have – and as you know, the – or you may know – the Nigerian Government itself declared Boko Haram a terrorist group earlier this year, I believe in the summer, probably around August.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Last year.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let’s see. It was the – anyway, so the short answer to that second question is yes, the Nigerian Government would be on board, is on board with this – with our designation.
QUESTION: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And we do have a follow-up from Karen DeYoung with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Thank you. Do you know of any assets of either of these groups in this country that you are now freezing as a result of this designation?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think you’d have to – I’d have to refer that question to the Treasury Department, but by and large we first have to have the FTO sanction in place before we can make that sort of determination.
OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, I’ll turn the call back over to our hosts for any closing comments.
MODERATOR: Oh, I think that – let’s be sure that there are no more follow-up questions or any – that there are no more questions. And if there aren’t, we can go ahead and wrap up the call.
OPERATOR: Certainly. As a reminder, to queue up you may press * and then 1 at this time. Once again, *1 for any questions.
And we have a follow-up from Jo Biddle. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you very much. I just wanted to follow up a bit more on the notion that – of the links of AQIM. I wonder if one of the reasons why – despite the fact that this is a long process, one of the reasons why you’re going ahead with the designation now is because of concerns that increasingly, they are developing links with AQIM. Would that be a fair assessment?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think it would be fair to say that we conducted an extensive process of review to determine the effectiveness of the designation, and it was only after that process was completed that we went forward with the – that we’ve gone forward with the designation now. And as I mentioned earlier, we do know about the – we do assess the assistance to AQIM – we do assess AQIM as provided assistance in the form of training and some limited financing.
QUESTION: But is that increasing, or is it something that’s at a stable kind of level, the amount of assistance that comes from AQIM?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I don’t have anything more for you on levels on that.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from Margaret Brennan with CBS News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for doing this. When we hear a lot about U.S. officials and their views on Africa right now, they often point to a – somewhat of a blind spot for the U.S. in terms of military assets, in terms of U.S. presence on a security basis. So what kind of training – can you go into more specifics about what the U.S. is actually trying to do now to counter the threat, beyond this designation? I mean, is there more government-to-government coordination, more military-to-military coordination, multinational efforts? Can you give us a bit more?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you for that question. We are really working very closely with the Nigerian Government and with the – and its neighbors in the region to address the threat specifically of Boko Haram and Ansaru, but we’re doing it – and we’re doing it in a comprehensive manner. In the – with Nigeria, we’re working to enhance security force professionalism, as I mentioned before; also to improve Nigeria’s forensics and investigative capacity, and to strengthen their criminal justice system. Our assistance also stresses the importance of protecting civilians in a manner that ensures that human rights are protected and respected.
In the region also we have the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism program, which deals also – we’re working with civil society as well as military and police or national security forces in the countries in the region, particularly in Niger and in Chad, to develop their professionalism, to work on civilian military communication, and also to strengthen cross-border collaboration, Chadian, Nigerien, and Nigerian cooperation.
So, we – this is one of the tools in our – designation is one of the tools in our tool chest, but it does not exempt or any way – in any way – it complements the other kinds of active activities – other kinds of projects that we have going on in the region that deal with countering terrorism, countering violent extremism, and empowering civil society and governments to work together in order to counter the threat of terrorism.
QUESTION: When you mentioned cross-border collaboration there, I mean, where do you find these groups sort of taking haven? Is this really a cross-border issue, or are you just talking about the response being not just for the Nigerians to respond but other governments?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: As I think my colleague said a couple minutes ago, Boko Haram we assess to be primarily a Nigeria-focused terrorist group. When we say that there are links, however, obviously to AQIM, there’s got to be communication some way. So the entire region looks at – the entire region, particularly the border states to Nigeria -look at Boko Haram as a potential threat. And there have been instances, of course, of them perhaps transiting the Nigerian border to get to Mali or transiting – going into Chad. We know that Boko Haram or elements that then befriended Boko Haram were involved with the kidnapping of that French family in Cameroon, for example.
So the governments in the – of the region, the border states – let’s narrow it to the border states to Nigeria – have been in discussions and are in discussions with each other as to how to strengthen their own border security and what to do about – should there be arrests on one side or the other of the border, what to do about transferring or discussion of who these people are and finding out more about who these are. And we consider that collaboration to be positive, the information sharing among – in that region, because they need better collaboration in general.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And at this time, I’ll turn the call back over to [Moderator] for any closing comments.
MODERATOR: All right. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I certainly hope that this is very helpful to you. And with that, have a great afternoon.
Background Briefing on Designation of Boko Haram and Ansaru as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
November 13, 2013
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today’s call. Our participants today are [Senior Administration Official One]. And also briefing today is [Senior Administration Official Two]. This is just a reminder, this call is on background, so please be sure to use the described attributions when referencing our briefers. With that, I’ll turn it over to our Administration – senior Administration officials to make a few remarks and then we’ll open it up for questions.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Good morning. We view today’s designation of Boko Haram and Ansaru as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the Secretary of State as part of our efforts to help Nigeria succeed in adopting a comprehensive approach to address its domestic terrorist threat. Nigeria’s comprehensive approach must include enhancing security force professionalism, building confidence in the people of northern Nigeria, by meeting their legitimate economic needs, and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and accountability. All of our assistance to Nigeria stresses the importance of protecting civilians, adhering to the rule of law, and respecting human rights.
So why have we taken this step? Nigeria is a strategic partner of the United States. It is Africa’s most populous country, with about 170 million people. It provides over 4,880 soldiers and police for peacekeeping missions, and it is a global supplier of oil – crucial global supplier. We consistently engage with Nigerian leaders at all levels to advance our mutual interests. President Obama met with President Jonathan on the margins of this year’s UN General Assembly. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman led a delegation to Abuja in mid-August of this year. And we also have regular senior interaction in Washington and in Nigeria with Nigerian officials, including federal, state, and local officials, as well as members of civil society.
We want to see an even stronger Nigeria that fulfills its ambitions to be a regional and a global leader. To that end, Nigeria must strengthen its democratic institutions, advance economic reform, control corruption, professionalize its security forces, and effectively counter the threat of terrorism, while respecting the human rights of all its citizens. I’d like (inaudible).
MODERATOR: Senior Administration Official Number Two will now make remarks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: The designation to Boko Haram and Ansaru are an important step in supporting the Government of Nigeria’s efforts to counter violent extremism and address the security challenges in northern Nigeria. Boko Haram is a Nigeria-based violent extremist organization with links to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM. It’s responsible for thousands of deaths since its conception in 2009, including large-scale attacks against Muslim and Christian religious communities, and women and children.
Since 2009, Boko Haram has been conducting an ongoing and brutal campaign against Nigerian military government and civilian targets. Within the last year, Boko Haram has been behind numerous attacks on Nigerian schools, and was also responsible for the August 2011 suicide bombing of the UN building in Abuja that killed 21 people and injured dozens more.
Ansaru splintered from Boko Haram in January of 2012. Since its inception, Ansaru has committed multiple attacks of violence against civilians and Nigerian government officials and is responsible for the deaths of countless civilians and Nigerian security personnel. Ansaru also has links to AQIM.
The consequences of these designations include an asset freeze against Boko Haram and Ansaru, and a prohibition against knowingly providing material support to either organization. In addition to denying both groups access to the U.S. financial system, these designations will assist law enforcement efforts to pursue these groups and investigate and prosecute individuals associated with Boko Haram and Ansaru’s terror. These designations notify the world that the United States and Nigeria are jointly combatting the extremist violence of Boko Haram and Ansaru.
MODERATOR: Okay. And with that we are ready to turn our call over and take your questions.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you do wish to ask a question please press * and then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating that you’ve been placed in queue, and you may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. And if you are using a speaker phone, please pick up the handset before pressing the number. So again for your questions, please press * and then 1 at this time.
And our first question will come from Karen DeYoung with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you. Two things: I wonder if – excuse me – could you tell us what – I’m sorry – what the specific links are to AQIM that you’re aware of. And also, do either of these groups pose a threat to the U.S. homeland or U.S. persons? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yes. So while we believe that Boko Haram remains primarily a Nigerian organization with its principle objectives in Nigeria, and that is true also of Ansaru, as I said in my opening remarks that it does – both these groups have links to AQIM.
Our assessment is that AQIM has helped provide some training to the groups and has provided limited financing.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And as far as its – the relationship to Americans – to U.S. security, there is a very large American population in Nigeria, as you probably are aware, and a lot of U.S. investment – economic investment in Nigeria. So threats to Nigeria automatically impact U.S. economic and American citizen interests.
QUESTION: Can I – if I could just follow-up, do you have any indication that there are specific threats against U.S. persons or U.S. economic interests in Nigeria?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We -- the United States recently designated at least one of Boko Haram’s leaders on a – in a Rewards for Justice program, and there are three other members of Boko Haram that have been also designated. And they have made threats to Westerners in Nigeria and Westerners in the region. So we consider ourselves to be part of that target group, and they are a security threat to American citizens that are in and about Nigeria.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: And of course, you’re aware of the attack on the UN facility in 2011 that killed 21 people and injured scores, others.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from Deb Riechmann with the Associated Press. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, I can’t pick up my handset, it seems to be broken. But I hope you can hear me. Can you hear me?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. I have two questions. One: Why did it take so long to designate these two? They’ve been pretty brutal terrorist groups for quite a long time. And then I have another question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. Well, as was just stated – I’ll just flag for you – that the State Department designated three of the organizations’ leaders in – more than a year ago in June of 2012 – Abubakar Shekau, Khalid al-Barnawi, and Abubakur Kambar. And then following that, of course, we have conducted an extensive process of review and research to determine the effectiveness of designating the groups Boko Haram and Ansaru as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This is a process that takes a long time, and only after that review and consultations with the Nigerian Government and other partners, we determined that designating these groups is both appropriate and effective in helping advance our larger strategy.
QUESTION: Okay. And secondly, the Nigerian Government, I think so far, has taken a pretty heavy-handed kind of approach to these groups. It doesn’t really seem to be working. Is there a more effective way that the U.S. sees that could be used to control the groups?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We have continued to talk to the Nigerian Government and urge the Nigerian Government to take a comprehensive approach to insecurity in northern Nigeria. And that approach, in our view, has to include addressing the region’s legitimate political, economic, and social needs, as well as implementing a professional security response that respects human rights.
We have repeatedly engaged senior Nigerian officials to offer our guidance to them on how best to fight Boko Haram through appropriate use of counterinsurgency doctrine. Our AFRICOM commander, General Rodriguez, and the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield, plan to travel to Nigeria in – later on this year to discuss this and some other issues. And we’ve also had meetings between the Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led a delegation to Abuja for the U.S.-Nigeria Bi-National Commission working group on regional security, dealing with information leading to the – it was the security working group.
The point being that in all of our discussions with Nigerian authorities, we have been stressing that you have to have a comprehensive approach, you have to address the way they’re handling the security measures.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from the line of Jo Biddle with AFP. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you very much for doing the call. Can I just go back to the issue of why now? I mean, I believe one of the reasons given over the last past months for not designating Boko Haram as a FTO was because of fears of recruitment. Do you believe this is now not the case, that this designation will push more people to join Boko Haram’s ranks? And also, in your conversations with the Nigerian Government, are they on board with this decision, or were they still a bit wary of it? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: So with respect to the recruitment question, I think that this designation sends an important signal to those who would be interested in – who are interested in becoming part of the organization or supporting the organization because it imposes a prohibition on knowingly providing material support to the organization. So in that respect, we think it is an important tool to add to our toolkit in countering violent extremism in northern Nigeria.
With respect to the Nigerian Government --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: -- we did have consultations with them in advance of the designation.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, we have. We did have – and as you know, the – or you may know – the Nigerian Government itself declared Boko Haram a terrorist group earlier this year, I believe in the summer, probably around August.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Last year.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let’s see. It was the – anyway, so the short answer to that second question is yes, the Nigerian Government would be on board, is on board with this – with our designation.
QUESTION: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And we do have a follow-up from Karen DeYoung with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Thank you. Do you know of any assets of either of these groups in this country that you are now freezing as a result of this designation?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think you’d have to – I’d have to refer that question to the Treasury Department, but by and large we first have to have the FTO sanction in place before we can make that sort of determination.
OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, I’ll turn the call back over to our hosts for any closing comments.
MODERATOR: Oh, I think that – let’s be sure that there are no more follow-up questions or any – that there are no more questions. And if there aren’t, we can go ahead and wrap up the call.
OPERATOR: Certainly. As a reminder, to queue up you may press * and then 1 at this time. Once again, *1 for any questions.
And we have a follow-up from Jo Biddle. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you very much. I just wanted to follow up a bit more on the notion that – of the links of AQIM. I wonder if one of the reasons why – despite the fact that this is a long process, one of the reasons why you’re going ahead with the designation now is because of concerns that increasingly, they are developing links with AQIM. Would that be a fair assessment?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think it would be fair to say that we conducted an extensive process of review to determine the effectiveness of the designation, and it was only after that process was completed that we went forward with the – that we’ve gone forward with the designation now. And as I mentioned earlier, we do know about the – we do assess the assistance to AQIM – we do assess AQIM as provided assistance in the form of training and some limited financing.
QUESTION: But is that increasing, or is it something that’s at a stable kind of level, the amount of assistance that comes from AQIM?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I don’t have anything more for you on levels on that.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from Margaret Brennan with CBS News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for doing this. When we hear a lot about U.S. officials and their views on Africa right now, they often point to a – somewhat of a blind spot for the U.S. in terms of military assets, in terms of U.S. presence on a security basis. So what kind of training – can you go into more specifics about what the U.S. is actually trying to do now to counter the threat, beyond this designation? I mean, is there more government-to-government coordination, more military-to-military coordination, multinational efforts? Can you give us a bit more?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you for that question. We are really working very closely with the Nigerian Government and with the – and its neighbors in the region to address the threat specifically of Boko Haram and Ansaru, but we’re doing it – and we’re doing it in a comprehensive manner. In the – with Nigeria, we’re working to enhance security force professionalism, as I mentioned before; also to improve Nigeria’s forensics and investigative capacity, and to strengthen their criminal justice system. Our assistance also stresses the importance of protecting civilians in a manner that ensures that human rights are protected and respected.
In the region also we have the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism program, which deals also – we’re working with civil society as well as military and police or national security forces in the countries in the region, particularly in Niger and in Chad, to develop their professionalism, to work on civilian military communication, and also to strengthen cross-border collaboration, Chadian, Nigerien, and Nigerian cooperation.
So, we – this is one of the tools in our – designation is one of the tools in our tool chest, but it does not exempt or any way – in any way – it complements the other kinds of active activities – other kinds of projects that we have going on in the region that deal with countering terrorism, countering violent extremism, and empowering civil society and governments to work together in order to counter the threat of terrorism.
QUESTION: When you mentioned cross-border collaboration there, I mean, where do you find these groups sort of taking haven? Is this really a cross-border issue, or are you just talking about the response being not just for the Nigerians to respond but other governments?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: As I think my colleague said a couple minutes ago, Boko Haram we assess to be primarily a Nigeria-focused terrorist group. When we say that there are links, however, obviously to AQIM, there’s got to be communication some way. So the entire region looks at – the entire region, particularly the border states to Nigeria -look at Boko Haram as a potential threat. And there have been instances, of course, of them perhaps transiting the Nigerian border to get to Mali or transiting – going into Chad. We know that Boko Haram or elements that then befriended Boko Haram were involved with the kidnapping of that French family in Cameroon, for example.
So the governments in the – of the region, the border states – let’s narrow it to the border states to Nigeria – have been in discussions and are in discussions with each other as to how to strengthen their own border security and what to do about – should there be arrests on one side or the other of the border, what to do about transferring or discussion of who these people are and finding out more about who these are. And we consider that collaboration to be positive, the information sharing among – in that region, because they need better collaboration in general.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And at this time, I’ll turn the call back over to [Moderator] for any closing comments.
MODERATOR: All right. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I certainly hope that this is very helpful to you. And with that, have a great afternoon.
REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND PANAMANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER NUNEZ FABREGA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Panamanian Foreign Minister Nunez Fabrega Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 13, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. My great pleasure to welcome the Foreign Minister of Panama to the State Department and to the United States. He’s been having meetings for the last couple of days, and I’m happy to be able to meet with him, actually, for the first time. We are both looking forward to the visit of Vice President Biden to Panama in a few days – next week – and we are particularly grateful to Panama for its work with us on a number of important issues.
First of all, I want to thank Panama for recently establishing diplomatic relations with Kosovo, a very important step. We are particularly grateful to Panama for its cooperation on Syria chemical weapons. They’ve been important and supportive of that. We have also worked together closely on the issue of how to destroy some old World War II chemical weapons munitions that are on San Jose Island, and we’re working on that issue as well as cooperating on counter-narcotics initiatives.
So we have a lot of cooperative efforts with Panama, obviously a critical nation in terms of both its interests, its values, our work we do together, as well as its location – their very important interdiction of a North Korean ship with illicit cargo. Panama has been working hard to do the job, get the job done, and to be a cooperative partner, and we’re very grateful for that.
And as we look towards 2014, there are elections coming up in Panama. We obviously support their efforts to have a democratic process that people will know is accountable and transparent, and we are appreciative for all of their efforts. They’re a great partner and we’re happy to have them here to talk through some of these issues.
Welcome.
FOREIGN MINISTER FABREGA: Thank you very much. Well, I’m glad to be here. We’ve had a longstanding relationship with the United States. It has evolved after the transfer of the canal into a mutually rewarding relationship where we have the same goals and we have the same ideas on how to get and meet those goals. I think it’s important that we have a very good bilateral agenda that we have to run through, and of course, one of the major things is the visit of Vice President Biden, which will be arriving in Panama on the 18th at night, and we expect to show him the new locks of the new canal. And we continue to support all of the initiatives that jointly we have developed throughout these years, and I’m glad to be here.
SECRETARY KERRY: We’re happy to have you.
FOREIGN MINISTER FABREGA: Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Welcome. Thank you. We’re going to go have a conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Remarks With Panamanian Foreign Minister Nunez Fabrega Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 13, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. My great pleasure to welcome the Foreign Minister of Panama to the State Department and to the United States. He’s been having meetings for the last couple of days, and I’m happy to be able to meet with him, actually, for the first time. We are both looking forward to the visit of Vice President Biden to Panama in a few days – next week – and we are particularly grateful to Panama for its work with us on a number of important issues.
First of all, I want to thank Panama for recently establishing diplomatic relations with Kosovo, a very important step. We are particularly grateful to Panama for its cooperation on Syria chemical weapons. They’ve been important and supportive of that. We have also worked together closely on the issue of how to destroy some old World War II chemical weapons munitions that are on San Jose Island, and we’re working on that issue as well as cooperating on counter-narcotics initiatives.
So we have a lot of cooperative efforts with Panama, obviously a critical nation in terms of both its interests, its values, our work we do together, as well as its location – their very important interdiction of a North Korean ship with illicit cargo. Panama has been working hard to do the job, get the job done, and to be a cooperative partner, and we’re very grateful for that.
And as we look towards 2014, there are elections coming up in Panama. We obviously support their efforts to have a democratic process that people will know is accountable and transparent, and we are appreciative for all of their efforts. They’re a great partner and we’re happy to have them here to talk through some of these issues.
Welcome.
FOREIGN MINISTER FABREGA: Thank you very much. Well, I’m glad to be here. We’ve had a longstanding relationship with the United States. It has evolved after the transfer of the canal into a mutually rewarding relationship where we have the same goals and we have the same ideas on how to get and meet those goals. I think it’s important that we have a very good bilateral agenda that we have to run through, and of course, one of the major things is the visit of Vice President Biden, which will be arriving in Panama on the 18th at night, and we expect to show him the new locks of the new canal. And we continue to support all of the initiatives that jointly we have developed throughout these years, and I’m glad to be here.
SECRETARY KERRY: We’re happy to have you.
FOREIGN MINISTER FABREGA: Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Welcome. Thank you. We’re going to go have a conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)