FROM: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
CDC Report Documents Health Disparities
Highlights progress, challenges, and needs for stronger data
Income, education level, sex, race, ethnicity, employment status, and sexual orientation are all related to health and health outcomes for a number of Americans, according to a new Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Supplement released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The "CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report — United States, 2013," is the second CDC report that highlights differences in mortality and disease risk for multiple conditions related to behaviors, access to health care, and social determinants of health – the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, age, and work.
The latest report looks at disparities in deaths and illness, use of health care, behavioral risk factors for disease, environmental hazards, and social determinants of health. This year’s report contains 10 new topics including access to healthier foods, activity limitations due to chronic diseases, asthma attacks, fatal and nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses, health-related quality of life, periodontitis in adults, residential proximity to major highways, tuberculosis, and unemployment.
“Better health for all Americans depends on focusing our efforts where they’re needed most,” said CDC Director Tom. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H." This kind of information helps us target health programs and promotes accountability for improving health equity at the federal, state and local level."
Some of the report’s key findings include:
The overall birth rate for teens 15-19 years old fell dramatically -- by 18 percent -- from 2007 to 2010. Birth rate disparities also decreased because the rates fell by more among racial and ethnic minority populations that had higher rates. However, across states, there was wide variation, from no significant change to a 30 percent reduction in the rate from 2007 to 2010.
Working in a high risk occupation -- an occupation in which workers are more likely than average to be injured or become ill -- is more likely among those who are Hispanic, are low wage earners, were born outside of the United States, have no education beyond high school, or are male.
Binge drinking is more common among persons aged 18-34 years, men, non-Hispanic whites, and persons with higher household incomes.
While the number of new tuberculosis cases in the United States decreased 58 percent from 1992 to 2010, tuberculosis continues to disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, including foreign-born individuals.
The report also underscores the need for more consistent data on population characteristics that have often been lacking in health surveys, such as disability status and sexual orientation. To help ensure that such data are more available in the future, the Affordable Care Act required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to develop a set of uniform data collection standards for national population health surveys. These standards were published in 2011.
“It is clear that more needs to be done to address the gaps and to better assist Americans disproportionately impacted by the burden of poor health,” said Chesley Richards, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s Office of Public Health Scientific Services, which produced the report. “We hope that this report will lead to interventions that will allow all Americans, particularly those most harmed by health inequalities, to live healthier and more productive lives.”
The full "CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report — United States, 2013" and related information on the individual chapters is available at http://www.cdc.gov/DisparitiesAnalytics .
The Affordable Care Act can help to reduce health disparities in the United States. Through the Affordable Care Act, more Americans will qualify to get health care coverage that fits their needs and budget, including important preventive services that are covered with no additional costs. Reducing disparities in health insurance coverage and access to care will contribute to health equity and is a key strategy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. For those enrolled by December 15, 2013, coverage starts as early as January 1, 2014.
Friday, November 22, 2013
FTC TESTIFIES BEFORE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE REGARDING FRAUD AFFECTING MILITARY COMMUNITY
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Testifies Before Congress on Fraud Affecting Military Community
The Federal Trade Commission testified before a U.S. Senate Committee regarding the agency’s law enforcement and educational efforts to combat deceptive and unfair practices that impact servicemembers and their families.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Charles Harwood, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, said that although all consumers are potential targets for fraudsters, certain scams are more likely to affect the military community. The testimony describes the work the Commission has done to identify illegal conduct that impacts servicemembers and to stop it – including through a recent case against one of the nation’s largest refinancers of home loans for allegedly making misleading claims targeted at current and former servicemembers.
The testimony also highlights Military Sentinel, part of the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network that the Commission uses to collect complaints from consumers and other federal agencies and organizations. In 2012, the FTC received 42,200 fraud complaints from the military community. The top complaint categories were debt collection, imposter scams, fraud involving prize offers, sweepstakes or gifts, unlawful banking or lending practices, and scams that offer mortgage foreclosure relief or debt management services. Notably, these complaint categories overlap with some of the FTC’s highest consumer protection priorities – particularly its aggressive recent work to stop frauds related to consumer financial products and services.
The Commission is working with the DoD, VA, Departments of Education and Justice, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to collect feedback from the military community regarding education institutions that may not have lived up to the promises they made to their students. The agency also is coordinating with the Defense Department on possible amendments to DoD’s military lending rule.
In addition to its law enforcement efforts and coordinating with its partners on policy initiatives, the FTC uses a variety of resources to educate military families about their rights when dealing with certain consumer protection issues. Some of the FTC’s military specific resources include information on limiting the harm from identity theft, placing an active duty alert on a credit report, and understanding military protections with respect to payday loans.
Most recently, the FTC published Eight Questions to Ask When Choosing a College After Military Service. Last year, the agency launched its first Military Consumer Protection Day, an annual partnership campaign and new website to inform the military community and veterans about a variety of consumer issues from dealing with debt to avoiding fraud.
The Commission vote approving the testimony was 4-0.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
FTC Testifies Before Congress on Fraud Affecting Military Community
The Federal Trade Commission testified before a U.S. Senate Committee regarding the agency’s law enforcement and educational efforts to combat deceptive and unfair practices that impact servicemembers and their families.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Charles Harwood, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, said that although all consumers are potential targets for fraudsters, certain scams are more likely to affect the military community. The testimony describes the work the Commission has done to identify illegal conduct that impacts servicemembers and to stop it – including through a recent case against one of the nation’s largest refinancers of home loans for allegedly making misleading claims targeted at current and former servicemembers.
The testimony also highlights Military Sentinel, part of the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network that the Commission uses to collect complaints from consumers and other federal agencies and organizations. In 2012, the FTC received 42,200 fraud complaints from the military community. The top complaint categories were debt collection, imposter scams, fraud involving prize offers, sweepstakes or gifts, unlawful banking or lending practices, and scams that offer mortgage foreclosure relief or debt management services. Notably, these complaint categories overlap with some of the FTC’s highest consumer protection priorities – particularly its aggressive recent work to stop frauds related to consumer financial products and services.
The Commission is working with the DoD, VA, Departments of Education and Justice, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to collect feedback from the military community regarding education institutions that may not have lived up to the promises they made to their students. The agency also is coordinating with the Defense Department on possible amendments to DoD’s military lending rule.
In addition to its law enforcement efforts and coordinating with its partners on policy initiatives, the FTC uses a variety of resources to educate military families about their rights when dealing with certain consumer protection issues. Some of the FTC’s military specific resources include information on limiting the harm from identity theft, placing an active duty alert on a credit report, and understanding military protections with respect to payday loans.
Most recently, the FTC published Eight Questions to Ask When Choosing a College After Military Service. Last year, the agency launched its first Military Consumer Protection Day, an annual partnership campaign and new website to inform the military community and veterans about a variety of consumer issues from dealing with debt to avoiding fraud.
The Commission vote approving the testimony was 4-0.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2013
FROM: U.S. DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS
ARMY
Ahtna Engineering Services, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0005); Bristol Environmental Remediation Services LLC, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0006); Marsh Creek LLC, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0009); BSI-TLI, Joint Venture, Golden, Colo. (W911KB-14-D-0007); Chemtrack Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0008)*, were awarded a $180,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for environmental remediation services. Estimated completion date is Nov. 20, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with ten received. Funding and location will be determined with each order. Army Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf, Alaska, is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Co., Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., was awarded a $57,849,999 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of tube launched optically tracked wireless guided missiles. Estimated completion date is Nov. 30, 2015. One bid was solicited and one received. Fiscal 2014 other procurement army funds in the amount of $19,886,000 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 activity (W31P4Q-12-C-0265).
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Calif., was awarded a $56,591,679 cost-sharing contract for an extension and ceiling increase modification to maintain the Collaborative Biotechnologies (ICB) University Affiliated Research Center. Services include engineering and research capabilities focusing on research to enable biotechnology solutions that address Army needs through the application of the principles of cross-disciplinary bioengineering sciences. UCSB/ICB is dedicated to performing research at the interface between biotechnology and engineering in order to solve difficult problems in the areas of sensors, materials, and systems engineering. Estimated completion date is Nov. 30, 2016. One bid was solicited and one received. Funding and location will be determined by each order. Army Contracting Command, Research Triangle Park, N.C., is the contracting activity (W911NF-09-D-0001).
The Bedwell Co., West Chester, Pa., was awarded a $42,751,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Communications Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center Flight Activity Facility Joint Base project. Options will be exercised at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Sept. 15, 2015. Fiscal 2014 military construction funds in the amount of $42,751,000 were obligated at the time of the award. Bids were solicited via the Internet with five received. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, is the contracting activity (W912DS-14-C-0004).
Clark Construction Enterprises LLC, St. Martinsville, La., was awarded a $26,154,430 firm-fixed-price contract for a resilient features, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction system, Mississippi River levee, Mississippi River and tributaries, Belle Chasse to Oak Point, Plaquemines Parish, La. Estimated completion date is Oct. 7, 2013. Fiscal 2014 funds in the amount of $26,154,430 were obligated at the time of the award. Bids were solicited via the Internet with eight received. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, La., is the contracting agency (W912P8-14-C-0008).
AIR FORCE
CORRECTION: The contract number for the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control awarded contract announced Nov. 19, 2013 was incorrect. The correct number is FA8682-14-D-0091
NAVY
Silver Ships Inc.*, Theodore, Ala. (N00024-14-D-2205) and Gravois Aluminum Boats LLC*, doing business as Metal Shark Aluminum Boats LLC, Jeanerette, La. (N00024-14-D-2207), are each being awarded separate firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contracts for the construction of high speed maneuverable surface targets (HSMSTs). The U.S. Navy maintains an inventory of HSMSTs to be utilized mainly for weapon system test and evaluation and fleet training exercises at nine seaborne target operating activities (“ranges”). This effort also includes trailers, shipping cradles and spares for a total estimated ceiling value of $48,000,000 for both awards. Silver Ships Inc., is being awarded $11,683,129, and Gravois Aluminum Boats LLC is being awarded $13,782,379. Work will be performed in Theodore, Ala., and Jeanerette, La., and work is expected to be completed by November 2018. Fiscal 2013 other procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $25,465,508 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively solicited as a small business set aside via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with six offers received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Hurst, Texas, is being awarded a $13,929,461 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N61340-12-C-0030) to exercise an option to procure one AH-1Z Flight Training Device for the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Broken Arrow, Okla. (54 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (28 percent) and St. Louis, Mo. (18 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2017. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $13,929,461 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity.
G4S Government Solutions, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., is being awarded an $11,495,146 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N33191-11-D-0738) to exercise option two for base operating services at Naval Support Activity, Kingdom of Bahrain. The work to be performed provides for but is not limited to, all management, supervision, tools, materials, supplies, labor, and transportation services necessary to perform trouble calls, security, galley, facilities investment, custodial, pest control, integrated solid waste management grounds maintenance, wastewater, operate reverse osmosis water treatment system and base support vehicles and equipment at the Naval Support Activity in the Kingdom of Bahrain and its seven outlying areas. Work will be performed at the Naval Support Activity, Kingdom of Bahrain, and work is expected to be completed November 2014. Contract funds are fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy and fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds in the amount of $10,049,237 and the funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Europe Africa and Southwest Asia, Naples, Italy, is the contracting activity.
Onyx-Ace Joint Venture LLC*, Honolulu, Hawaii, is being awarded a $10,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for architect-engineer services for professional Geographic Information System services for activities at various locations primarily in the Pacific and Indian Ocean Areas. The maximum dollar value for the not-to-exceed 60-month period (including the base year and four one-year option periods) is $10,000,000. No task orders are being issued at this time. Work will be performed in the Pacific and Indian Ocean Areas. The term of the contract is not-to-exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of June 2018. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $10,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with four proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62742-14-D-0200).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Hess Corporation, Woodbridge, N.J., has been awarded a maximum $378,818,845 firm-fixed-price requirements contract utilizing block purchase for electricity. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and seven offers were received. Locations of performance are New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and District of Columbia with a June 30, 2019 performance completion date. This contract is a five year base contract. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2019 Army, Navy, and Air Force funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va., (SPE600-14-D-8000).
Sterling Foods LLC, San Antonio, Texas, has been awarded a maximum $32,785,593 modification (P00006) exercising the second one-year option period on a one-year base contract (SPM3S1-12-D-Z100) with four one-year option periods for bakery components used in the meal-ready-to-eat program. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Location of performance is Texas with a Dec. 31, 2014, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
*Small Business
CONTRACTS
ARMY
Ahtna Engineering Services, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0005); Bristol Environmental Remediation Services LLC, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0006); Marsh Creek LLC, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0009); BSI-TLI, Joint Venture, Golden, Colo. (W911KB-14-D-0007); Chemtrack Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska (W911KB-14-D-0008)*, were awarded a $180,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for environmental remediation services. Estimated completion date is Nov. 20, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with ten received. Funding and location will be determined with each order. Army Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf, Alaska, is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Co., Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., was awarded a $57,849,999 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of tube launched optically tracked wireless guided missiles. Estimated completion date is Nov. 30, 2015. One bid was solicited and one received. Fiscal 2014 other procurement army funds in the amount of $19,886,000 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 activity (W31P4Q-12-C-0265).
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Calif., was awarded a $56,591,679 cost-sharing contract for an extension and ceiling increase modification to maintain the Collaborative Biotechnologies (ICB) University Affiliated Research Center. Services include engineering and research capabilities focusing on research to enable biotechnology solutions that address Army needs through the application of the principles of cross-disciplinary bioengineering sciences. UCSB/ICB is dedicated to performing research at the interface between biotechnology and engineering in order to solve difficult problems in the areas of sensors, materials, and systems engineering. Estimated completion date is Nov. 30, 2016. One bid was solicited and one received. Funding and location will be determined by each order. Army Contracting Command, Research Triangle Park, N.C., is the contracting activity (W911NF-09-D-0001).
The Bedwell Co., West Chester, Pa., was awarded a $42,751,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Communications Electronics Research Development and Engineering Center Flight Activity Facility Joint Base project. Options will be exercised at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Sept. 15, 2015. Fiscal 2014 military construction funds in the amount of $42,751,000 were obligated at the time of the award. Bids were solicited via the Internet with five received. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, is the contracting activity (W912DS-14-C-0004).
Clark Construction Enterprises LLC, St. Martinsville, La., was awarded a $26,154,430 firm-fixed-price contract for a resilient features, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction system, Mississippi River levee, Mississippi River and tributaries, Belle Chasse to Oak Point, Plaquemines Parish, La. Estimated completion date is Oct. 7, 2013. Fiscal 2014 funds in the amount of $26,154,430 were obligated at the time of the award. Bids were solicited via the Internet with eight received. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, La., is the contracting agency (W912P8-14-C-0008).
AIR FORCE
CORRECTION: The contract number for the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control awarded contract announced Nov. 19, 2013 was incorrect. The correct number is FA8682-14-D-0091
NAVY
Silver Ships Inc.*, Theodore, Ala. (N00024-14-D-2205) and Gravois Aluminum Boats LLC*, doing business as Metal Shark Aluminum Boats LLC, Jeanerette, La. (N00024-14-D-2207), are each being awarded separate firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contracts for the construction of high speed maneuverable surface targets (HSMSTs). The U.S. Navy maintains an inventory of HSMSTs to be utilized mainly for weapon system test and evaluation and fleet training exercises at nine seaborne target operating activities (“ranges”). This effort also includes trailers, shipping cradles and spares for a total estimated ceiling value of $48,000,000 for both awards. Silver Ships Inc., is being awarded $11,683,129, and Gravois Aluminum Boats LLC is being awarded $13,782,379. Work will be performed in Theodore, Ala., and Jeanerette, La., and work is expected to be completed by November 2018. Fiscal 2013 other procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $25,465,508 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively solicited as a small business set aside via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with six offers received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Hurst, Texas, is being awarded a $13,929,461 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N61340-12-C-0030) to exercise an option to procure one AH-1Z Flight Training Device for the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Broken Arrow, Okla. (54 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (28 percent) and St. Louis, Mo. (18 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2017. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount of $13,929,461 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity.
G4S Government Solutions, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., is being awarded an $11,495,146 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N33191-11-D-0738) to exercise option two for base operating services at Naval Support Activity, Kingdom of Bahrain. The work to be performed provides for but is not limited to, all management, supervision, tools, materials, supplies, labor, and transportation services necessary to perform trouble calls, security, galley, facilities investment, custodial, pest control, integrated solid waste management grounds maintenance, wastewater, operate reverse osmosis water treatment system and base support vehicles and equipment at the Naval Support Activity in the Kingdom of Bahrain and its seven outlying areas. Work will be performed at the Naval Support Activity, Kingdom of Bahrain, and work is expected to be completed November 2014. Contract funds are fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy and fiscal 2014 Navy working capital funds in the amount of $10,049,237 and the funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Europe Africa and Southwest Asia, Naples, Italy, is the contracting activity.
Onyx-Ace Joint Venture LLC*, Honolulu, Hawaii, is being awarded a $10,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for architect-engineer services for professional Geographic Information System services for activities at various locations primarily in the Pacific and Indian Ocean Areas. The maximum dollar value for the not-to-exceed 60-month period (including the base year and four one-year option periods) is $10,000,000. No task orders are being issued at this time. Work will be performed in the Pacific and Indian Ocean Areas. The term of the contract is not-to-exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of June 2018. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $10,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with four proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62742-14-D-0200).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Hess Corporation, Woodbridge, N.J., has been awarded a maximum $378,818,845 firm-fixed-price requirements contract utilizing block purchase for electricity. This contract is a competitive acquisition, and seven offers were received. Locations of performance are New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and District of Columbia with a June 30, 2019 performance completion date. This contract is a five year base contract. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2019 Army, Navy, and Air Force funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va., (SPE600-14-D-8000).
Sterling Foods LLC, San Antonio, Texas, has been awarded a maximum $32,785,593 modification (P00006) exercising the second one-year option period on a one-year base contract (SPM3S1-12-D-Z100) with four one-year option periods for bakery components used in the meal-ready-to-eat program. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Location of performance is Texas with a Dec. 31, 2014, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
*Small Business
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT FOR WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 16, 2013
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending November 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 323,000, a decrease of 21,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 344,000. The 4-week moving average was 338,500, a decrease of 6,750 from the previous week's revised average of 345,250.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent for the week ending November 9, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending November 9 was 2,876,000, an increase of 66,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,810,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,856,750, an increase of 6,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,850,250.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 322,510 in the week ending November 16, a decrease of 40,996 from the previous week. There were 403,637 initial claims in the comparable week in 2012.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.0 percent during the week ending November 9, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,548,141, an increase of 44,428 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.3 percent and the volume was 2,945,515.
The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending November 2 was 3,875,295, a decrease of 32,376 from the previous week. There were 5,241,438 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2012.
No state was triggered "on" the Extended Benefits program during the week ending November 2.
Initial claims for UI benefits filed by former Federal civilian employees totaled 2,180 in the week ending November 9, an increase of 287 from the prior week. There were 2,439 initial claims filed by newly discharged veterans, an increase of 152 from the preceding week.
There were 19,974 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending November 2, a decrease of 1,869 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 30,864, a decrease of 1,379 from the prior week.
States reported 1,301,562 persons claiming Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits for the week ending November 2, a decrease of 32,147 from the prior week. There were 2,156,505 persons claiming EUC in the comparable week in 2012. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending November 9 were in Alaska (4.9), Puerto Rico (4.0), Virgin Islands (3.8), New Jersey (3.0), Connecticut (2.8), Pennsylvania (2.7), California (2.6), Oregon (2.5), Arkansas (2.4), District of Columbia (2.4), Illinois (2.4), Nevada (2.4), and New York (2.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending November 9 were in California (+4,737), New York (+2,853), Pennsylvania (+2,711), Michigan (+2,271), and New Jersey (+2,210), while the largest decreases were in Florida (-1,055), Kentucky (-580), Ohio (-409), Kansas (-169), and Puerto Rico (-144).
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending November 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 323,000, a decrease of 21,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 344,000. The 4-week moving average was 338,500, a decrease of 6,750 from the previous week's revised average of 345,250.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent for the week ending November 9, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending November 9 was 2,876,000, an increase of 66,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,810,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,856,750, an increase of 6,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,850,250.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 322,510 in the week ending November 16, a decrease of 40,996 from the previous week. There were 403,637 initial claims in the comparable week in 2012.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.0 percent during the week ending November 9, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,548,141, an increase of 44,428 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.3 percent and the volume was 2,945,515.
The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending November 2 was 3,875,295, a decrease of 32,376 from the previous week. There were 5,241,438 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2012.
No state was triggered "on" the Extended Benefits program during the week ending November 2.
Initial claims for UI benefits filed by former Federal civilian employees totaled 2,180 in the week ending November 9, an increase of 287 from the prior week. There were 2,439 initial claims filed by newly discharged veterans, an increase of 152 from the preceding week.
There were 19,974 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending November 2, a decrease of 1,869 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 30,864, a decrease of 1,379 from the prior week.
States reported 1,301,562 persons claiming Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits for the week ending November 2, a decrease of 32,147 from the prior week. There were 2,156,505 persons claiming EUC in the comparable week in 2012. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending November 9 were in Alaska (4.9), Puerto Rico (4.0), Virgin Islands (3.8), New Jersey (3.0), Connecticut (2.8), Pennsylvania (2.7), California (2.6), Oregon (2.5), Arkansas (2.4), District of Columbia (2.4), Illinois (2.4), Nevada (2.4), and New York (2.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending November 9 were in California (+4,737), New York (+2,853), Pennsylvania (+2,711), Michigan (+2,271), and New Jersey (+2,210), while the largest decreases were in Florida (-1,055), Kentucky (-580), Ohio (-409), Kansas (-169), and Puerto Rico (-144).
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE DISABILITIES TREATY
FROM: U.S.STATE DEPARTMENT
Opening Remarks at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC
November 21, 2013
Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee, thanks very, very much for welcoming me here to talk about the Disabilities Treaty, which I’m very anxious to do.
I’m mindful of the comments of the Ranking Member just now. I’d just start off by saying we are 100 percent prepared, as we have been, to work through what are known as RUDs – the Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations – in order to pass this treaty. That’s our goal. And as – we begin with a place that makes it clear that we don’t believe this has impact, but we’re happy to restate and reassert the law in ways that makes senators feel comfortable, obviously. We want to pass this.
It’s not lost on any of us that only 11 months ago the Senate fell just five votes short of approving this treaty. So more than 60 senators have already resolved in their minds many of the questions that are re-raised again and again. And we can go into them today, as I’m sure we will.
Obviously, that day when we fell those five votes short with a number of people who had previously been going to vote for it and then changed, so it’s even closer, that was a rough day for a lot of us who support the treaty, including Senator McCain, who is hardly a newcomer to this issue and is one of the strongest and most eloquent voices for why we ought to be doing this, for why – to put it bluntly – this treaty is in America’s interests.
In the after-action conversations that I had with many senators, both Republicans and Democrats alike, including a number who had voted against the treaty – yourself, Senator Corker, and others – I even heard some real regret about what had transpired and the unintended message that the outcome sent to Americans with disabilities as well as to other people around the world. And I heard from many not just a willingness but a hope that they would have the chance in a new congress to take up the treaty again and to demonstrate the important truth that senators from both sides of the aisle care deeply about the rights of people with disabilities.
So thank you, Chairman Menendez, for your comments this morning, for your leadership in bringing the round – the first hearing and being willing to come back at this important treaty. And thank you, Ranking Member Corker, for joining with him in a bipartisan way to do exactly what both of you have talked about trying to do here. And that is with an eye to trying to make certain that we air all of the concerns so that every senator can make up their own judgment in an atmosphere that is not clouded with procedural questions, as we unfortunately were last year.
I think we all approach this renewed discussion – we in the Administration, I mean, listen very carefully to all of you. And we recognize that while many senators voted yes, some senators were dissatisfied with the process last year and that several are not prepared to support the treaty until they feel that certain concerns are addressed. So again I repeat: I’m absolutely committed – I’ve said this to the Chairman in private conversations – we will work with you on an appropriate reservation or understanding or declaration, as appropriate, in order to try to clarify something, if indeed it really is begging for clarification and we’re not able to show adequately through legal cases, through precedent, through the reality of the treaty itself, that it is already addressed.
Now, I still believe what I believed the first time we tried to do this when I was Chair, that the ratification of the Disabilities Treaty will advance core American values, it will expand opportunities for our citizens and our businesses, and it will strengthen American leadership. And I am still convinced that we give up nothing but we get everything in return. I’ll say that again: We give up nothing but we get everything in return. Our ratification does not require a single change to American law, and it isn’t going to add a penny to our budget. But it will provide the leverage, the hook, that we need in order to push other countries to pass laws or improve their laws or raise their standards for the protection of people with disabilities up to the standard that we have already adopted in the United States of America, up to the standard that prompted President George H.W. Bush and Republican Leader Dole to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, and indeed to negotiate the treaty.
Now, I’m especially engaged now, obviously, as Secretary of State, because having traveled to a great number of countries these last nine months since you confirmed me, I have seen firsthand the need for this treaty in ways that I never had before. It’s not an abstract concept. This is not just a nice thing to do. It’s not something that’s sort of for the few. It really raises standards for the many. And there are countries where children with disabilities are warehoused from birth, denied even a birth certificate, not a real person, and treated as second-class citizens every single days of their life. The United States has the ability to impact that by the passage of this treaty. One hundred and thirty-eight countries have already signed up to this. In too many countries, what we did here at home with the Americans with Disabilities Act hasn’t even been remotely realized overseas. And in too many places, what we take for granted here hasn’t been granted at all.
Now, I’ll never forget my visit recently to a sport rehabilitation center for disabled veterans in Bogota a little while ago, a center that we support with funding from USAID. And I met police officers who were injured by grenades, soldiers wounded by IEDs, volunteers caught in the tragic shootouts that take place over their efforts to help us together to enforce global international narcotics objectives. These brave men and women have risked life and limb and they’ve lost friends in battle, and yet there’s a whole world that they are unable to access today because of their disabilities which they received as they undertook duties shared by our hopes and aspirations with respect to the enforcement of law.
Moments like this really clarify for me the work that we have to do to export our gold standard. The Americans with Disabilities Act is the global gold standard. We should be extraordinarily proud of it. We are. But I would hate to see us squander our credibility on this issue around the world because we’re unwilling to embrace what we actually began – this initiative. When I tell other countries that they ought to do what we’ve done, I’m often reminded that we haven’t done what we said we were going to do, we haven’t joined the treaty ourselves. It’s pretty hard to leverage people when you’re on the outside.
So those 138 parties to the treaty, when they convene, we miss out on the opportunity to use our expertise to leverage what we’ve done in America and put it on the table. We lose out on that. We’re not at the table. We can’t share our experience and use our experience to broaden theirs. When other countries come together to discuss issues like education, accessibility, and employment standards for people with disabilities, areas where the United States has developed the greatest expertise, we’ve been excluded because we’re not a party to the treaty. And the bottom line is that when we’re not there, other countries with a different and unfortunately often a lower standard, a lower threshold, wind up filling the void, and that’s the best that people get.
I don’t want to see us continue to take ourselves out of the game. No member of the Senate should want us to voluntarily take ourselves out of this. And remaining on the sidelines jeopardizes our role in shaping the future of disability rights in other countries, and we need to help push the door open for other countries to benefit, not just from our example but from our guidance and our expertise, our experience.
Joining the treaty is the most powerful step that we can take to gain all of those upsides. And don’t take my word for it. In a letter to this committee last month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best. He wrote, “If the Senate does not approve this treaty, the United States will continue to be excluded from the most important global platform for the implementation of best practices in disability rights abroad.”
So this is about something very real. Look at the numbers of people who were here today and the numbers of groups represented behind me here today. Every one of them represents thousands more people for whom this is very real. It’s about things that you can see and you can touch and that make a difference to people’s lives. I’m talking about sidewalks without curb cuts – try managing that; public buildings with no accessible bathrooms; restaurants, stores, hotels, and universities without ramps or elevator access; buses without lifts, train platforms with tactile strips that keep you from going over onto the tracks. We can’t afford to ignore these barriers as problems that somehow affect other countries but don’t affect us. They’re present all over the world, including some of the top destinations for Americans traveling abroad for work or for study or for pleasure. And we’re not using all of our power and influence to change things for the better if we don’t join this treaty.
Now, I’d ask you just to think about what this treaty could mean. It means something for everybody with disabilities. But I do particularly want to ask you to think about what it means to our veterans with disabilities.
Last year I met a fellow named Dan Berschinski. He is a West Point graduate, a retired U.S. Army captain, and he’s an Afghanistan war veteran. Like many of us, Dan never thought that he’d one day have a disability or be an advocate for people with disabilities. But his life changed instantly when he stepped on the trigger of an IED and he lost both of his legs. Dan speaks in absolutely clear, searing, stark terms about the difficulty, the fear, the embarrassment of negotiating obstacles abroad as a person with a disability. And he experienced those obstacles firsthand when he traveled to South Africa. And he told me last year – he told all of us, because he shared his testimony with this committee – quote, “The advantages that we take for granted here at home that allow people like to me to live fulfilling, independent lives don’t exist in much of the rest of the world.”
Now let me tell you the good news. Dan is now a student at Stanford Business School and he wants to be able to take advantage of every possible opportunity. He can do that in the United States because of the ADA and other disability rights laws. But Dan will tell you – not me, he will tell you, as he said last year – as he experienced on a trip abroad, his opportunities in the increasingly important international marketplace are hindered by his disability, and it’s a disability that he acquired while fighting overseas on our behalf. He’s asking us now to fight for him and a lot of folks like him on their behalf.
There are an estimated 5.5 million disabled veterans just like Dan, and many of the veterans and their beneficiaries on the Post-9/11 GI Bill have a disability. And many of them are unable to study abroad because of poor accessibility standards at schools overseas. Now, I’ve met with recovering veterans at home in Massachusetts. I’ve met with them at Walter Reed. They want, very simply, a world where they can be independent, go out and fend for themselves, where they can travel abroad to work or study or vacation. And they should never have to worry about whether the disabilities sustained fighting on our behalf are going to prevent them from accessing the classroom, a workplace, a hotel, or transportation overseas. Like all people with disabilities, they deserve a world where they can fully participate in the global economy on equal terms without fear of discrimination or loss of dignity.
Joining the Disabilities Treaty will also expand opportunities for American students with disabilities, who need to be able to study abroad to prepare themselves to compete in the global economy. I want you to take the example of Anais Keenon. She is one of the outstanding interns at the State Department. She’s here today. Anais is a graduate student with dreams of a career in Foreign Affairs. She happens to also be deaf.
Two years ago, she traveled to Ghana. It was the opportunity of a lifetime, but the obstacles she faced, from the absence of written directions on how to proceed through customs at the airport, to the absence of fire alarms with flashing lights in public buildings made the demands of everyday life much more difficult for her to sustain. And she managed to travel, despite the obstacles in her way that would stop others from traveling at all.
Anais is exceptional, but it shouldn’t be the exception. It ought to be the rule. And America has more students with disabilities in higher education than ever before, partly by virtue of what we’ve accomplished with the ADA. So students with disabilities participate in study abroad programs, unfortunately, less than half as often as those without disabilities. And our joining this treaty will help change those numbers.
I just ask you – very quickly, and then I’ll wrap up – consider just a few concrete examples. We’re talking about joining a treaty that will strengthen our hand as we push for fire alarms with flashing lights so people who are deaf or hard of hearing will know when there’s emergency or when they need to evacuate. We’re talking about joining a treaty that gives us leverage to push for other countries to have sidewalks with those curb cuts so people who use wheelchairs can safely cross the street, or the tactile strip at the train platform so people who are blind don’t fall into danger. Our joining the treaty means that we will lead the way for other countries to raise their standards, and it means that we will lead the way for other countries to adopt our standards for all of these things – accessible bathrooms, tactile strips, fire alarms, flashing lights, all of the advancements that have made an enormous difference in the lives of Americans with disabilities.
Now, I will admit to you change is not going to just happen with the passage of the treaty. It’s not going to happen overnight. When we passed the ADA, sidewalks with these curb cuts and bathrooms that were accessible didn’t appear the next day, nor did all of the businesses that make accessible products that serve people with disabilities. But the Disabilities Treaty, just like the ADA, is a process. And our joining the treaty, followed by a very important ingredient – we pass this treaty, I will send a message to every embassy in the world, and we will begin to engage a protocol that will have our people reaching out to every country and every government, and we will use our presence in this treaty to leverage these changes in these other countries, to encourage these changes, to use the voice that you will give us by actually joining it, a voice that we’re not able to exercise today for our absence as a member.
If we join, we can ensure that vets like Dan Berschinski and a lot of others like him have the same opportunities abroad as other Americans. That’s why the American Legion, our nation’s largest wartime veteran service organization, which I’m proud to be a lifetime member, and the VFW likewise, and many other veterans groups support the ratification of this.
If we join – I ask you to think about this – why is the American Chamber of Commerce supporting this? Why are so many businesses – Coca-Cola, which is, I think, in something like 198, 200 countries plus – why do they support it? Because this will open new markets. It’ll level the playing field for our businesses, who already meet accessibility standards. As other countries rise to meet our standards and need our expertise, guess what? They’re going to look to American companies that already produce these goods, and we’ll be able to help them fill the needs, and this means jobs here at home. And that’s why IBM and the Consumer Electronics Association and many other businesses support ratification.
So I think this is the single most important step that we can take today to expand opportunities abroad for the more than 50 million Americans with disabilities. This treaty is not about changing America. This treaty is about America changing the world.
And I hope that each of you will put yourselves in the situation if you were disabled today. One of our colleagues, Mark Kirk, as we all know, supports this treaty, has unfortunately found himself fighting back against things that happen unexpectedly. And so while our circumstances might change, our rights and our opportunities should never change. And with the passage of this treaty, we have an opportunity to guarantee that for all Americans. And we also have an opportunity to change lives for the better for a lot of people in the world. That’s what America is all about, and I’ll hope we’ll ratify this treaty.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Opening Remarks at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC
November 21, 2013
Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee, thanks very, very much for welcoming me here to talk about the Disabilities Treaty, which I’m very anxious to do.
I’m mindful of the comments of the Ranking Member just now. I’d just start off by saying we are 100 percent prepared, as we have been, to work through what are known as RUDs – the Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations – in order to pass this treaty. That’s our goal. And as – we begin with a place that makes it clear that we don’t believe this has impact, but we’re happy to restate and reassert the law in ways that makes senators feel comfortable, obviously. We want to pass this.
It’s not lost on any of us that only 11 months ago the Senate fell just five votes short of approving this treaty. So more than 60 senators have already resolved in their minds many of the questions that are re-raised again and again. And we can go into them today, as I’m sure we will.
Obviously, that day when we fell those five votes short with a number of people who had previously been going to vote for it and then changed, so it’s even closer, that was a rough day for a lot of us who support the treaty, including Senator McCain, who is hardly a newcomer to this issue and is one of the strongest and most eloquent voices for why we ought to be doing this, for why – to put it bluntly – this treaty is in America’s interests.
In the after-action conversations that I had with many senators, both Republicans and Democrats alike, including a number who had voted against the treaty – yourself, Senator Corker, and others – I even heard some real regret about what had transpired and the unintended message that the outcome sent to Americans with disabilities as well as to other people around the world. And I heard from many not just a willingness but a hope that they would have the chance in a new congress to take up the treaty again and to demonstrate the important truth that senators from both sides of the aisle care deeply about the rights of people with disabilities.
So thank you, Chairman Menendez, for your comments this morning, for your leadership in bringing the round – the first hearing and being willing to come back at this important treaty. And thank you, Ranking Member Corker, for joining with him in a bipartisan way to do exactly what both of you have talked about trying to do here. And that is with an eye to trying to make certain that we air all of the concerns so that every senator can make up their own judgment in an atmosphere that is not clouded with procedural questions, as we unfortunately were last year.
I think we all approach this renewed discussion – we in the Administration, I mean, listen very carefully to all of you. And we recognize that while many senators voted yes, some senators were dissatisfied with the process last year and that several are not prepared to support the treaty until they feel that certain concerns are addressed. So again I repeat: I’m absolutely committed – I’ve said this to the Chairman in private conversations – we will work with you on an appropriate reservation or understanding or declaration, as appropriate, in order to try to clarify something, if indeed it really is begging for clarification and we’re not able to show adequately through legal cases, through precedent, through the reality of the treaty itself, that it is already addressed.
Now, I still believe what I believed the first time we tried to do this when I was Chair, that the ratification of the Disabilities Treaty will advance core American values, it will expand opportunities for our citizens and our businesses, and it will strengthen American leadership. And I am still convinced that we give up nothing but we get everything in return. I’ll say that again: We give up nothing but we get everything in return. Our ratification does not require a single change to American law, and it isn’t going to add a penny to our budget. But it will provide the leverage, the hook, that we need in order to push other countries to pass laws or improve their laws or raise their standards for the protection of people with disabilities up to the standard that we have already adopted in the United States of America, up to the standard that prompted President George H.W. Bush and Republican Leader Dole to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, and indeed to negotiate the treaty.
Now, I’m especially engaged now, obviously, as Secretary of State, because having traveled to a great number of countries these last nine months since you confirmed me, I have seen firsthand the need for this treaty in ways that I never had before. It’s not an abstract concept. This is not just a nice thing to do. It’s not something that’s sort of for the few. It really raises standards for the many. And there are countries where children with disabilities are warehoused from birth, denied even a birth certificate, not a real person, and treated as second-class citizens every single days of their life. The United States has the ability to impact that by the passage of this treaty. One hundred and thirty-eight countries have already signed up to this. In too many countries, what we did here at home with the Americans with Disabilities Act hasn’t even been remotely realized overseas. And in too many places, what we take for granted here hasn’t been granted at all.
Now, I’ll never forget my visit recently to a sport rehabilitation center for disabled veterans in Bogota a little while ago, a center that we support with funding from USAID. And I met police officers who were injured by grenades, soldiers wounded by IEDs, volunteers caught in the tragic shootouts that take place over their efforts to help us together to enforce global international narcotics objectives. These brave men and women have risked life and limb and they’ve lost friends in battle, and yet there’s a whole world that they are unable to access today because of their disabilities which they received as they undertook duties shared by our hopes and aspirations with respect to the enforcement of law.
Moments like this really clarify for me the work that we have to do to export our gold standard. The Americans with Disabilities Act is the global gold standard. We should be extraordinarily proud of it. We are. But I would hate to see us squander our credibility on this issue around the world because we’re unwilling to embrace what we actually began – this initiative. When I tell other countries that they ought to do what we’ve done, I’m often reminded that we haven’t done what we said we were going to do, we haven’t joined the treaty ourselves. It’s pretty hard to leverage people when you’re on the outside.
So those 138 parties to the treaty, when they convene, we miss out on the opportunity to use our expertise to leverage what we’ve done in America and put it on the table. We lose out on that. We’re not at the table. We can’t share our experience and use our experience to broaden theirs. When other countries come together to discuss issues like education, accessibility, and employment standards for people with disabilities, areas where the United States has developed the greatest expertise, we’ve been excluded because we’re not a party to the treaty. And the bottom line is that when we’re not there, other countries with a different and unfortunately often a lower standard, a lower threshold, wind up filling the void, and that’s the best that people get.
I don’t want to see us continue to take ourselves out of the game. No member of the Senate should want us to voluntarily take ourselves out of this. And remaining on the sidelines jeopardizes our role in shaping the future of disability rights in other countries, and we need to help push the door open for other countries to benefit, not just from our example but from our guidance and our expertise, our experience.
Joining the treaty is the most powerful step that we can take to gain all of those upsides. And don’t take my word for it. In a letter to this committee last month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best. He wrote, “If the Senate does not approve this treaty, the United States will continue to be excluded from the most important global platform for the implementation of best practices in disability rights abroad.”
So this is about something very real. Look at the numbers of people who were here today and the numbers of groups represented behind me here today. Every one of them represents thousands more people for whom this is very real. It’s about things that you can see and you can touch and that make a difference to people’s lives. I’m talking about sidewalks without curb cuts – try managing that; public buildings with no accessible bathrooms; restaurants, stores, hotels, and universities without ramps or elevator access; buses without lifts, train platforms with tactile strips that keep you from going over onto the tracks. We can’t afford to ignore these barriers as problems that somehow affect other countries but don’t affect us. They’re present all over the world, including some of the top destinations for Americans traveling abroad for work or for study or for pleasure. And we’re not using all of our power and influence to change things for the better if we don’t join this treaty.
Now, I’d ask you just to think about what this treaty could mean. It means something for everybody with disabilities. But I do particularly want to ask you to think about what it means to our veterans with disabilities.
Last year I met a fellow named Dan Berschinski. He is a West Point graduate, a retired U.S. Army captain, and he’s an Afghanistan war veteran. Like many of us, Dan never thought that he’d one day have a disability or be an advocate for people with disabilities. But his life changed instantly when he stepped on the trigger of an IED and he lost both of his legs. Dan speaks in absolutely clear, searing, stark terms about the difficulty, the fear, the embarrassment of negotiating obstacles abroad as a person with a disability. And he experienced those obstacles firsthand when he traveled to South Africa. And he told me last year – he told all of us, because he shared his testimony with this committee – quote, “The advantages that we take for granted here at home that allow people like to me to live fulfilling, independent lives don’t exist in much of the rest of the world.”
Now let me tell you the good news. Dan is now a student at Stanford Business School and he wants to be able to take advantage of every possible opportunity. He can do that in the United States because of the ADA and other disability rights laws. But Dan will tell you – not me, he will tell you, as he said last year – as he experienced on a trip abroad, his opportunities in the increasingly important international marketplace are hindered by his disability, and it’s a disability that he acquired while fighting overseas on our behalf. He’s asking us now to fight for him and a lot of folks like him on their behalf.
There are an estimated 5.5 million disabled veterans just like Dan, and many of the veterans and their beneficiaries on the Post-9/11 GI Bill have a disability. And many of them are unable to study abroad because of poor accessibility standards at schools overseas. Now, I’ve met with recovering veterans at home in Massachusetts. I’ve met with them at Walter Reed. They want, very simply, a world where they can be independent, go out and fend for themselves, where they can travel abroad to work or study or vacation. And they should never have to worry about whether the disabilities sustained fighting on our behalf are going to prevent them from accessing the classroom, a workplace, a hotel, or transportation overseas. Like all people with disabilities, they deserve a world where they can fully participate in the global economy on equal terms without fear of discrimination or loss of dignity.
Joining the Disabilities Treaty will also expand opportunities for American students with disabilities, who need to be able to study abroad to prepare themselves to compete in the global economy. I want you to take the example of Anais Keenon. She is one of the outstanding interns at the State Department. She’s here today. Anais is a graduate student with dreams of a career in Foreign Affairs. She happens to also be deaf.
Two years ago, she traveled to Ghana. It was the opportunity of a lifetime, but the obstacles she faced, from the absence of written directions on how to proceed through customs at the airport, to the absence of fire alarms with flashing lights in public buildings made the demands of everyday life much more difficult for her to sustain. And she managed to travel, despite the obstacles in her way that would stop others from traveling at all.
Anais is exceptional, but it shouldn’t be the exception. It ought to be the rule. And America has more students with disabilities in higher education than ever before, partly by virtue of what we’ve accomplished with the ADA. So students with disabilities participate in study abroad programs, unfortunately, less than half as often as those without disabilities. And our joining this treaty will help change those numbers.
I just ask you – very quickly, and then I’ll wrap up – consider just a few concrete examples. We’re talking about joining a treaty that will strengthen our hand as we push for fire alarms with flashing lights so people who are deaf or hard of hearing will know when there’s emergency or when they need to evacuate. We’re talking about joining a treaty that gives us leverage to push for other countries to have sidewalks with those curb cuts so people who use wheelchairs can safely cross the street, or the tactile strip at the train platform so people who are blind don’t fall into danger. Our joining the treaty means that we will lead the way for other countries to raise their standards, and it means that we will lead the way for other countries to adopt our standards for all of these things – accessible bathrooms, tactile strips, fire alarms, flashing lights, all of the advancements that have made an enormous difference in the lives of Americans with disabilities.
Now, I will admit to you change is not going to just happen with the passage of the treaty. It’s not going to happen overnight. When we passed the ADA, sidewalks with these curb cuts and bathrooms that were accessible didn’t appear the next day, nor did all of the businesses that make accessible products that serve people with disabilities. But the Disabilities Treaty, just like the ADA, is a process. And our joining the treaty, followed by a very important ingredient – we pass this treaty, I will send a message to every embassy in the world, and we will begin to engage a protocol that will have our people reaching out to every country and every government, and we will use our presence in this treaty to leverage these changes in these other countries, to encourage these changes, to use the voice that you will give us by actually joining it, a voice that we’re not able to exercise today for our absence as a member.
If we join, we can ensure that vets like Dan Berschinski and a lot of others like him have the same opportunities abroad as other Americans. That’s why the American Legion, our nation’s largest wartime veteran service organization, which I’m proud to be a lifetime member, and the VFW likewise, and many other veterans groups support the ratification of this.
If we join – I ask you to think about this – why is the American Chamber of Commerce supporting this? Why are so many businesses – Coca-Cola, which is, I think, in something like 198, 200 countries plus – why do they support it? Because this will open new markets. It’ll level the playing field for our businesses, who already meet accessibility standards. As other countries rise to meet our standards and need our expertise, guess what? They’re going to look to American companies that already produce these goods, and we’ll be able to help them fill the needs, and this means jobs here at home. And that’s why IBM and the Consumer Electronics Association and many other businesses support ratification.
So I think this is the single most important step that we can take today to expand opportunities abroad for the more than 50 million Americans with disabilities. This treaty is not about changing America. This treaty is about America changing the world.
And I hope that each of you will put yourselves in the situation if you were disabled today. One of our colleagues, Mark Kirk, as we all know, supports this treaty, has unfortunately found himself fighting back against things that happen unexpectedly. And so while our circumstances might change, our rights and our opportunities should never change. And with the passage of this treaty, we have an opportunity to guarantee that for all Americans. And we also have an opportunity to change lives for the better for a lot of people in the world. That’s what America is all about, and I’ll hope we’ll ratify this treaty.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GROUP OF MARKETERS SETTLE FTC CHARGES OF SENDING DECEPTIVE SPAM TEXT MESSAGES
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Marketers Who Sent 'Gift Card' and 'Free iPhone' Text Spam Settle FTC Complaint
Defendants Permanently Barred From Further Scams
A group of affiliate marketers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they blasted consumers with more than 30 million deceptive spam text messages and directed recipients of the spam text messages to deceptive websites.
Cresta Pillsbury, Jan-Paul Diaz, Joshua Brewer and Daniel Stanitski, and their company Ecommerce Merchants, LLC, which did business as Superior Affiliate Management, were among the subjects of a series of FTC complaints filed in March against the senders of text message spam.
The FTC’s complaint alleged that the defendants sent spam text messages to consumers across the country, offering supposedly free iPhones, iPads, and $1000 gift cards to those who clicked on links in the messages. A typical message stated, “FREE MSG: You Have Been Chosen To Test & Keep The New iPad For Free Only Today!! Go To [scam website] And Enter 2244 And Your Zipcode To Claim It Now!”
Those who clicked on the links did not receive the promised items, but were taken instead to sites that requested personal information and required them to sign up for numerous additional offers – often involving other purchases or paid subscriptions.
The stipulated final order against Pillsbury, Diaz, Brewer and Stanitski permanently bans them from any involvement with sending unauthorized or unsolicited text messages. In addition, they are prohibited from deceptively presenting an offer as “free,” or misleading consumers about the use of personal information collected in the process of such an offer or the steps required and costs involved in redeeming it.
The defendants also allegedly operated a network of affiliates who blasted out spam text messages on their behalf. The stipulated final order prohibits defendants from operating an affiliate network for deceptive purposes, and requires them to inform members of any future affiliate network they operate of the terms of the order and to monitor the affiliates to prevent them from conducting deceptive or unfair activities.
The order also contains a monetary judgment of $356,950, which represents the full amount of money the defendants earned from the scam after paying their affiliates. The judgment is suspended due to their inability to pay. It also requires the defendants to cooperate with the FTC in any future investigations.
The court also entered a default judgment against the defendants’ company, Ecommerce Merchants, LLC.
This marks the third settlement in the FTC’s cases against the operators of massive text spam operations. Previous settlements have been entered with Henry Nolan Kelly and Rentbro, Inc.
The Commission’s vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the stipulated final order for permanent injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The District Court judge signed and approved the order, along with the default judgment, on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
Marketers Who Sent 'Gift Card' and 'Free iPhone' Text Spam Settle FTC Complaint
Defendants Permanently Barred From Further Scams
A group of affiliate marketers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they blasted consumers with more than 30 million deceptive spam text messages and directed recipients of the spam text messages to deceptive websites.
Cresta Pillsbury, Jan-Paul Diaz, Joshua Brewer and Daniel Stanitski, and their company Ecommerce Merchants, LLC, which did business as Superior Affiliate Management, were among the subjects of a series of FTC complaints filed in March against the senders of text message spam.
The FTC’s complaint alleged that the defendants sent spam text messages to consumers across the country, offering supposedly free iPhones, iPads, and $1000 gift cards to those who clicked on links in the messages. A typical message stated, “FREE MSG: You Have Been Chosen To Test & Keep The New iPad For Free Only Today!! Go To [scam website] And Enter 2244 And Your Zipcode To Claim It Now!”
Those who clicked on the links did not receive the promised items, but were taken instead to sites that requested personal information and required them to sign up for numerous additional offers – often involving other purchases or paid subscriptions.
The stipulated final order against Pillsbury, Diaz, Brewer and Stanitski permanently bans them from any involvement with sending unauthorized or unsolicited text messages. In addition, they are prohibited from deceptively presenting an offer as “free,” or misleading consumers about the use of personal information collected in the process of such an offer or the steps required and costs involved in redeeming it.
The defendants also allegedly operated a network of affiliates who blasted out spam text messages on their behalf. The stipulated final order prohibits defendants from operating an affiliate network for deceptive purposes, and requires them to inform members of any future affiliate network they operate of the terms of the order and to monitor the affiliates to prevent them from conducting deceptive or unfair activities.
The order also contains a monetary judgment of $356,950, which represents the full amount of money the defendants earned from the scam after paying their affiliates. The judgment is suspended due to their inability to pay. It also requires the defendants to cooperate with the FTC in any future investigations.
The court also entered a default judgment against the defendants’ company, Ecommerce Merchants, LLC.
This marks the third settlement in the FTC’s cases against the operators of massive text spam operations. Previous settlements have been entered with Henry Nolan Kelly and Rentbro, Inc.
The Commission’s vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the stipulated final order for permanent injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The District Court judge signed and approved the order, along with the default judgment, on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
FDIC ISSUES FINAL GUIDANCE ON DEPOSIT ADVANCE PRODUCTS
FROM: FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
FDIC Issues Final Guidance Regarding Deposit Advance Products
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today issued final supervisory guidance to FDIC-supervised financial institutions that offer or may consider offering deposit advance products. The guidance is intended to ensure that banks are aware of the credit, reputational, operational and compliance risks associated with deposit advance products and have taken steps to mitigate these risks effectively. This guidance supplements the FDIC's existing guidance on payday loans and subprime lending, as well as the FDIC's guidelines on small dollar loans.
FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said, "The final supervisory guidance released today aims to alert financial institutions to the risks posed by certain deposit advance products and to encourage institutions to meet the demand for small-dollar loans through affordable products that are prudently underwritten and designed."
Deposit advance products are a type of small-dollar, short-term credit product that some depository institutions offer to customers maintaining a deposit account, reloadable prepaid card, or similar deposit-related vehicle. The customer takes out a loan, which is to be repaid from the proceeds of their next direct deposit. Deposit advance products share a number of characteristics seen in traditional payday loans, including high fees; short, lump-sum repayment terms; and inadequate attention to the consumer's ability to repay. As such, banks need to be aware that deposit advance products can pose a variety of credit, reputational, operational, compliance and other risks.
The FDIC recognizes the demand for responsible small-dollar credit products for consumers that are underwritten with attention to the customer's ability to repay the loan without needing to borrow repeatedly to meet necessary expenses. The FDIC's 2007 Affordable Small-Dollar Loan Guidelines encourage insured institutions to offer small-dollar loan products that have affordable, reasonable interest rates with no or low fees and payments that reduce the principal balance of the loan. If structured properly, small-dollar loans can provide a safe and affordable means for borrowers to transition away from reliance on high-cost debt products. A number of banks are currently offering such small-dollar loans to their customers. The FDIC encourages banks to continue to offer these products, consistent with safety and soundness and other supervisory considerations. The FDIC also encourages banks to develop new or innovative programs to effectively meet the need for small-dollar credit.
FDIC Issues Final Guidance Regarding Deposit Advance Products
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today issued final supervisory guidance to FDIC-supervised financial institutions that offer or may consider offering deposit advance products. The guidance is intended to ensure that banks are aware of the credit, reputational, operational and compliance risks associated with deposit advance products and have taken steps to mitigate these risks effectively. This guidance supplements the FDIC's existing guidance on payday loans and subprime lending, as well as the FDIC's guidelines on small dollar loans.
FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said, "The final supervisory guidance released today aims to alert financial institutions to the risks posed by certain deposit advance products and to encourage institutions to meet the demand for small-dollar loans through affordable products that are prudently underwritten and designed."
Deposit advance products are a type of small-dollar, short-term credit product that some depository institutions offer to customers maintaining a deposit account, reloadable prepaid card, or similar deposit-related vehicle. The customer takes out a loan, which is to be repaid from the proceeds of their next direct deposit. Deposit advance products share a number of characteristics seen in traditional payday loans, including high fees; short, lump-sum repayment terms; and inadequate attention to the consumer's ability to repay. As such, banks need to be aware that deposit advance products can pose a variety of credit, reputational, operational, compliance and other risks.
The FDIC recognizes the demand for responsible small-dollar credit products for consumers that are underwritten with attention to the customer's ability to repay the loan without needing to borrow repeatedly to meet necessary expenses. The FDIC's 2007 Affordable Small-Dollar Loan Guidelines encourage insured institutions to offer small-dollar loan products that have affordable, reasonable interest rates with no or low fees and payments that reduce the principal balance of the loan. If structured properly, small-dollar loans can provide a safe and affordable means for borrowers to transition away from reliance on high-cost debt products. A number of banks are currently offering such small-dollar loans to their customers. The FDIC encourages banks to continue to offer these products, consistent with safety and soundness and other supervisory considerations. The FDIC also encourages banks to develop new or innovative programs to effectively meet the need for small-dollar credit.
REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AT OVERSEAS SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL'S ANNUAL MEETING
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the Overseas Security Advisory Council's 28th Annual Briefing
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013
Greg, thank you very much. Wow. Can’t we find seats for you folks? I feel badly. (Laughter.) But thank you for being here in such numbers.
I’m very, very pleased to be able to share a few thoughts with all of you, and I’m particularly glad to be here to emphasize this enormous agenda that we have and that we share together, which Greg Starr heads up for us here at the Department. He’s, as I know you know, a very experienced traveler along the road of trying to provide security for American citizens and for our embassies and facilities around the world and for all of you, having served from Kinshasa to Dakar and Tunis to Tel Aviv. This is a man who understands the threats. I meet with him regularly every week. We are beginning our meetings thinking about and working on and analyzing the latest threats and the challenges that we face in a very complicated, volatile world today.
And we saw that just yesterday with the tragic bombing in Beirut against the Iranian Embassy. We may have our significant differences with Iran and be working hard to try to resolve them, but nothing excuses bombings of anybody, any person, anywhere. This violent taking of life has to end, and we all have a huge obligation to work together to try to find a way to deal with it. Greg works at that every single day. We’re constantly reviewing, whether it’s Libya or Yemen or some part of the world – we’re working hard at it. And we’re very happy that he’s back at Foggy Bottom where he graduated from GW many years ago – I won’t say how many.
In a way, you can say that Greg has come a long way but not gone very far. (Laughter.) You work that out, okay? I don’t know if anybody recognizes you when you walk around the campus these days, Greg, but – he’s nodding his head, yes.
I’ll share with you a quick story. I am now no longer in elected politics, obviously, and – but I’ll tell you, when I was, you’ll understand why I’m thrilled with the job I have now. I was walking through an airport not too many months before I was asked to take on this job. And as I’m walking through the airport, you kind of have – you learn how to walk straight ahead and not get sidetracked by somebody who wants to grab you, and some – and this guy made himself very evident. He said, “Hey, hey! Hey you! You! You! Anybody ever tell you you like that Kerry guy we sent down to Washington?” (Laughter.) So I just – I said, “Yeah, they tell me that all the time.” (Laughter.) He says, “Kinda makes you mad, don’t it?” (Laughter.) So I’m glad to be where I am. It makes a difference.
The world, obviously, is getting smaller, and globalization is a force that, no matter how you react to it, nobody’s ever going to put it back in the bottle. I can remember when we rewrote the telecommunications law back in 1995, ’96. We were mostly focused, tragically, on telephony. And that’s what mostly had sort of risen to the surface in our efforts to try to manage this new world we live in. Within six months of passing the bill, it was obsolete. Why? Because, of course, it didn’t deal with data. It didn’t deal with what was suddenly emerging only in 1995 – think about it – and that’s the internet, which wasn’t designed for what it is. It was a military U.S. Government-sponsored initiative to deal with communications in the event of nuclear war. And then the commercial purposes evolved and came forward, and all of the sudden we have this totally connected, super-connected world in which more information is coming at people than many people are able to process. And with the advent of FaceTime and Facebook and tweeting and so forth, there is just never any absence of information. It also has created a new level of kind of citizen accountability and engagement.
I recently learned about a fellow who showed up in the newspapers with a photograph of him that showed him – it was a privately taken telephone photograph – that showed him with a pale area around where he had been wearing a watch, and he was a public official. And so people thought, that’s sort of odd, why is there no watch and there’s obviously a pale area there and he was wearing one. So they went back and found other pictures of him which showed him with a different watch almost every single day, and a very expensive watch, way beyond his capacity to have that watch in the position that he held and the salary that he had. And lo and behold, he was outed; he was caught and trapped for corruption, and thrown out of office as a consequence.
So there’s a new policeman on the block. There’s a new awareness of events and what’s happening. You go anywhere in the world and something happens and you’ll see it on YouTube and you can check it out at any point in time. You don’t even have to watch that night’s news to get it.
So this is the world that we are operating in, and there’s a lot of benefit from them. But there’s also risk from it, because there is a clash in certain parts of the world between culture, tradition, history, current mores, and the future, modernity. And as everybody in this room knows, some places are having a harder time managing that transition than others. That’s what we see in some of this emotion, particularly around religious extremism, which we see expressed in many of these suicide – individual suicide operations and other kinds of confrontations that take place.
The world is not going to stop for that, nor should it. But it remains a challenge for all of us going forward as to how we are going to be able to do business, go to school, travel, and engage in our normal lives as we go through this transition. And I’m confident, over time, we will. I believe that.
So this gathering – OSAC and what you represent – are a group of people who really understand these challenges and the opportunities that come at us from this interconnected world. I think there are 10,000 representatives from more than 4,600 American companies, educational institutions, religious groups, nongovernmental organizations, who are all part of this gathering. And it’s an important gathering, and that’s why I’m currently meeting upstairs with the Australians. We have the Defense Minister, the Foreign Minister of Australia here.
But I wanted to interrupt my participation in that to come and share a few thoughts with you, because the role you play in fostering two-way communication between the private and the public sector in order to promote security and create understanding between people about what it is we’re seeking to do and why people benefit from what we’re seeking to do is critical. And it’s even more important today than it was when Secretary George Shultz had the vision to found this organization nearly three decades ago.
And Secretary Shultz said the following. He said: “Risk is not something that you take or not take. It is something you analyze to mitigate properly and understand.” And I think he understood the risks that we face in the world, and they couldn’t be any more real for him way back then when he had to console the families of American diplomats who died alongside U.S. Marines in Beirut 30 years ago. Khobar Towers – we all remember it too well. These risks aren’t new. They’ve just grown to some degree in their intensity, and there are absolutely understandable reasons for that.
So make no mistake: The greatest danger to America, whether to our people or to our interests, doesn’t come from a rising rival. It comes from the risks that would arise in a world where American leadership ceases to be a driving force in order to be able to help people to be able to respond to this transition. It comes from the vacuum that the absence of leadership would create for autocrats and extremists to exploit.
All of us know that these risks are – they’re real and they’re unpredictable. Participating in OSAC, you all know them well, and that’s why you’re prepared against them. Just in the past year, there were 78 specific cases where the Department of State informed an American company or a faith-based group, or a nonprofit overseas of a specific, credible threat. And there are countless other times when larger information shared within OSAC, whether on the web portal or through the breakout sessions that you participate in today, has led to greater preparedness and awareness of the environment around you, the environment that you’re operating in. So some of OSAC’s greatest work comes from the threats that we actually never see and that never have a chance to be able to materialize because the information that is shared allows our people to be more prepared, and sometimes even to thwart the threat altogether.
So everyone here understands the risks; you know the dangers, and that’s why you’re here. But you also know – and this is what’s really important – you know that we need to be out there. You can’t retreat. There is no fortress. And nothing would work if we did, frankly, because now, more than ever, I believe we need to be engaged in the world to help move it forward in this transformation that has taken place. While there are instances, obviously, of this terrible violence – the blowing up of an embassy, the Westgate mall that took place recently in Kenya, and you could run a list of these things – a subway in London, a subway in Tokyo – I mean, these things are not new, unfortunately.
But I’ll tell you this: Believe it or not, notwithstanding the prominence of these events and the way that they do exactly what they’re meant to do, send terror down the spines of people everywhere, the fact remains we lose far less lives today to conflict and there is far less loss of life in war or violence anywhere in the world today than there was in the last century, even in the last half century. That’s a fact. We’re not seeing the kinds of wars and confrontations where millions of people are thrown at each other across the trenches or there’s firebombing of whole cities and we’re engaged in these larger kinds of conflicts. That doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, obviously, but it means that there’s a transformation taking place. More and more countries are gaining middle class populations, more and more people are traveling, more and more tourists, more and more people going to school, more and more people engaged. Not enough yet, and that’s the great challenge that we all face.
The fact is that in many parts of the world, our challenge is not the ideology per se. It’s the fact that we have huge populations of young people, 65 percent of a nation in the Middle East under the age of 30, 50 percent under the age of 21, 40 percent under the age of 18. And you can replicate that in country after country. And if they don’t have jobs and they don’t have an education, that’s when they are prone to being seduced by one extreme ideology or another extreme religious theory, and that’s really what’s happened. It’s a governance failure. It’s an absence of sufficient recognition of the challenge. It’s an absence of opportunity. And where you have opportunity, where you have democracy, where you have education, where you have growth, where you have decision making and full participation of citizens in a society, you tend to have much greater stability and much greater chance of beating the odds against that kind of violence. And you can look at that and see it anywhere at this point in time.
So the reasons we’ve got to be out there ought to be clear. Nobody else in the world at this moment – and I don’t say this with any arrogance; I say it with pride and I say it as a matter of reality – no one else comes close to what we are able to do to keep the peace or what we do to try to manage and tampen down old animosities and keep them at bay. I think we are – the best antidote to extremism, as I said, is opportunity.
That Tunis fruit vendor who self-immolated and started a revolution in Tunisia – there was no religion, nothing, no extremism and ideology behind it. And he got slapped around by a police officer, he was tired of corruption, and he wanted an opportunity to lead his life by being able to sell his wares. And those kids in Tahrir Square, they were not motivated by any religion or ideology. They were motivated by what they saw through this interconnected world, and they wanted a piece of the opportunity and a chance to get an education and have a job and have a future, and not have a corrupt government that deprived them of all of that and more. And they tweeted their ways and Facetimed their ways and talked to each other, and that’s what drove that revolution. And then it got stolen by the one single-most organized entity in the state, which was the Brotherhood.
Same thing in Syria. Syria didn’t start Sunni-Shia or anything else. It started with young people who wanted reform. And regrettably, Assad responded to their request for reform with bullets and bombs and violence. And that’s led to where we are today to an increasingly sectarian struggle.
So I say to you, it is vital. The antidote to extremism is opportunity, and nobody does more to promote education or entrepreneurship or public health around the world than the United States of America, proudly. We also need to be out there because the example of our universities and of our culture of innovation is more than just soft power. We know that the world is more secure and more prosperous when we bring students, professors, researchers from abroad, and when we bring that strength to the world. And we also need to be out there because for every billion dollars in goods and services that we export, we create 5,000 jobs here at home.
We also need to help countries stand on their own two feet. No country has done as much of that as we have. We create trading partners for your businesses. Eleven of 15 of our biggest trading partners used to be recipients of American foreign aid. Today, they’re donor countries. Look at South Korea – used to be 10, 15 years ago it was receiving aid from the United States. Now it’s giving aid to other countries. Japan – you can go through a long list.
So now more than ever before, economic policy, I believe, is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy. And we need to make sure that as we see the barriers coming down, we also do what we can to strengthen security. Security is not limited to a battlefield in today’s world.
So if you look at the attacks of the last century – the Naval base at Pearl Harbor, a Marine barracks, an embassy in Beirut, and our embassies in East Africa. At the beginning of the new century, terrorists attacked the USS Cole, they attacked the Pentagon, but they also attacked two office buildings in the heart of America’s financial capital. They attacked public transportation in London and Madrid. And just this fall, they attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi.
So when they don’t see a difference between military, diplomatic or economic assets around the world – if they don’t see it, neither can we. And that’s what this is all about. As we work together to protect America’s interests around the world, the importance of communicating across boundaries is more important than it ever was before.
And here at The State Department, we have people in some of the most far flung corners of the world. Some of your companies and organizations also have people in some of the most remote places on the planet, working in all kinds of fields – building schools, building roads, supplying water, often in places that we can’t reach. And if we don’t share information and communicate with each other, then none of us will have a complete picture of the risks that we face and that we take.
So the work of your organizations and the dedicated professionals here at the State Department is really essential in order to help us create shared prosperity. And we also have a shared responsibility to share that information and to communicate with one another.
So I – whatever else we do, the bottom line is the work of highly trained and highly dedicated professionals, working in both the public and private sector, is essential to our success and to our safety going forward. And their work will do as much to shape American prosperity as anything else out there, folks. Because if people feel they can’t be safe, then we are deterred from being able to help these countries, whether it’s in the pursuit of energy resources or helping people with respect to education and getting the information resources they need to buy into this different future.
Really, in many ways the men and women who are on the front lines of this security initiative are pioneers of this new global economy and the new global diplomacy. And we have to be able to meet that obligation. And Greg is dedicated to it. I’m dedicated to it. We’ll do everything in our power to help you so that we can continue to transform this world that we live in.
And I know that every one of you believe that this genie of globalization, which I’ve heard many of my former colleagues in politics rail against – pretty easy applause lines – I remember the fights we had over NAFTA and over the free trade agreements and all the rest of it. But in every case, our GDP has grown, our opportunities have grown, our job base has grown, our tax base has grown, America has gotten stronger. And we continue to be the envy of the world, believe me, in the capacity of our economy, which now, thanks to our innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, will make the United States of America energy independent by about the year 2025 or so, a remarkable turn which will have a profound impact on our ability to have an impact elsewhere in the world.
So you can’t put the genie of globalization back in the bottle. No demagogue, no politician, no opponent of this transformation can possibly do that. And all you have to do is look at what’s happened in a place like Abu Dhabi or Dubai or any other number of places around the world to understand how rapidly some people are grabbing a hold of this thing and how inexorable it really is.
So as the aspirations that we have really given birth to in so many places – and we can take pride in that – as those aspirations go global, with our work together and with good conferences like this and the good ideas that come forth at them, I am absolutely confident that we are going to be able to make the most of these opportunities, and in doing so we are going to ensure greater prosperity for our country, greater safety for our citizens, and frankly, a greater opportunity to share in both for the rest of the world. And that is what it takes to meet our obligations as citizens as well as individuals who care about our families and our children and our grandchildren and their future. That’s what we’re building here, and every single one of you are frontline ambassadors in that effort. So thank you very, very much. Appreciate it. (Applause.)
Remarks at the Overseas Security Advisory Council's 28th Annual Briefing
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013
Greg, thank you very much. Wow. Can’t we find seats for you folks? I feel badly. (Laughter.) But thank you for being here in such numbers.
I’m very, very pleased to be able to share a few thoughts with all of you, and I’m particularly glad to be here to emphasize this enormous agenda that we have and that we share together, which Greg Starr heads up for us here at the Department. He’s, as I know you know, a very experienced traveler along the road of trying to provide security for American citizens and for our embassies and facilities around the world and for all of you, having served from Kinshasa to Dakar and Tunis to Tel Aviv. This is a man who understands the threats. I meet with him regularly every week. We are beginning our meetings thinking about and working on and analyzing the latest threats and the challenges that we face in a very complicated, volatile world today.
And we saw that just yesterday with the tragic bombing in Beirut against the Iranian Embassy. We may have our significant differences with Iran and be working hard to try to resolve them, but nothing excuses bombings of anybody, any person, anywhere. This violent taking of life has to end, and we all have a huge obligation to work together to try to find a way to deal with it. Greg works at that every single day. We’re constantly reviewing, whether it’s Libya or Yemen or some part of the world – we’re working hard at it. And we’re very happy that he’s back at Foggy Bottom where he graduated from GW many years ago – I won’t say how many.
In a way, you can say that Greg has come a long way but not gone very far. (Laughter.) You work that out, okay? I don’t know if anybody recognizes you when you walk around the campus these days, Greg, but – he’s nodding his head, yes.
I’ll share with you a quick story. I am now no longer in elected politics, obviously, and – but I’ll tell you, when I was, you’ll understand why I’m thrilled with the job I have now. I was walking through an airport not too many months before I was asked to take on this job. And as I’m walking through the airport, you kind of have – you learn how to walk straight ahead and not get sidetracked by somebody who wants to grab you, and some – and this guy made himself very evident. He said, “Hey, hey! Hey you! You! You! Anybody ever tell you you like that Kerry guy we sent down to Washington?” (Laughter.) So I just – I said, “Yeah, they tell me that all the time.” (Laughter.) He says, “Kinda makes you mad, don’t it?” (Laughter.) So I’m glad to be where I am. It makes a difference.
The world, obviously, is getting smaller, and globalization is a force that, no matter how you react to it, nobody’s ever going to put it back in the bottle. I can remember when we rewrote the telecommunications law back in 1995, ’96. We were mostly focused, tragically, on telephony. And that’s what mostly had sort of risen to the surface in our efforts to try to manage this new world we live in. Within six months of passing the bill, it was obsolete. Why? Because, of course, it didn’t deal with data. It didn’t deal with what was suddenly emerging only in 1995 – think about it – and that’s the internet, which wasn’t designed for what it is. It was a military U.S. Government-sponsored initiative to deal with communications in the event of nuclear war. And then the commercial purposes evolved and came forward, and all of the sudden we have this totally connected, super-connected world in which more information is coming at people than many people are able to process. And with the advent of FaceTime and Facebook and tweeting and so forth, there is just never any absence of information. It also has created a new level of kind of citizen accountability and engagement.
I recently learned about a fellow who showed up in the newspapers with a photograph of him that showed him – it was a privately taken telephone photograph – that showed him with a pale area around where he had been wearing a watch, and he was a public official. And so people thought, that’s sort of odd, why is there no watch and there’s obviously a pale area there and he was wearing one. So they went back and found other pictures of him which showed him with a different watch almost every single day, and a very expensive watch, way beyond his capacity to have that watch in the position that he held and the salary that he had. And lo and behold, he was outed; he was caught and trapped for corruption, and thrown out of office as a consequence.
So there’s a new policeman on the block. There’s a new awareness of events and what’s happening. You go anywhere in the world and something happens and you’ll see it on YouTube and you can check it out at any point in time. You don’t even have to watch that night’s news to get it.
So this is the world that we are operating in, and there’s a lot of benefit from them. But there’s also risk from it, because there is a clash in certain parts of the world between culture, tradition, history, current mores, and the future, modernity. And as everybody in this room knows, some places are having a harder time managing that transition than others. That’s what we see in some of this emotion, particularly around religious extremism, which we see expressed in many of these suicide – individual suicide operations and other kinds of confrontations that take place.
The world is not going to stop for that, nor should it. But it remains a challenge for all of us going forward as to how we are going to be able to do business, go to school, travel, and engage in our normal lives as we go through this transition. And I’m confident, over time, we will. I believe that.
So this gathering – OSAC and what you represent – are a group of people who really understand these challenges and the opportunities that come at us from this interconnected world. I think there are 10,000 representatives from more than 4,600 American companies, educational institutions, religious groups, nongovernmental organizations, who are all part of this gathering. And it’s an important gathering, and that’s why I’m currently meeting upstairs with the Australians. We have the Defense Minister, the Foreign Minister of Australia here.
But I wanted to interrupt my participation in that to come and share a few thoughts with you, because the role you play in fostering two-way communication between the private and the public sector in order to promote security and create understanding between people about what it is we’re seeking to do and why people benefit from what we’re seeking to do is critical. And it’s even more important today than it was when Secretary George Shultz had the vision to found this organization nearly three decades ago.
And Secretary Shultz said the following. He said: “Risk is not something that you take or not take. It is something you analyze to mitigate properly and understand.” And I think he understood the risks that we face in the world, and they couldn’t be any more real for him way back then when he had to console the families of American diplomats who died alongside U.S. Marines in Beirut 30 years ago. Khobar Towers – we all remember it too well. These risks aren’t new. They’ve just grown to some degree in their intensity, and there are absolutely understandable reasons for that.
So make no mistake: The greatest danger to America, whether to our people or to our interests, doesn’t come from a rising rival. It comes from the risks that would arise in a world where American leadership ceases to be a driving force in order to be able to help people to be able to respond to this transition. It comes from the vacuum that the absence of leadership would create for autocrats and extremists to exploit.
All of us know that these risks are – they’re real and they’re unpredictable. Participating in OSAC, you all know them well, and that’s why you’re prepared against them. Just in the past year, there were 78 specific cases where the Department of State informed an American company or a faith-based group, or a nonprofit overseas of a specific, credible threat. And there are countless other times when larger information shared within OSAC, whether on the web portal or through the breakout sessions that you participate in today, has led to greater preparedness and awareness of the environment around you, the environment that you’re operating in. So some of OSAC’s greatest work comes from the threats that we actually never see and that never have a chance to be able to materialize because the information that is shared allows our people to be more prepared, and sometimes even to thwart the threat altogether.
So everyone here understands the risks; you know the dangers, and that’s why you’re here. But you also know – and this is what’s really important – you know that we need to be out there. You can’t retreat. There is no fortress. And nothing would work if we did, frankly, because now, more than ever, I believe we need to be engaged in the world to help move it forward in this transformation that has taken place. While there are instances, obviously, of this terrible violence – the blowing up of an embassy, the Westgate mall that took place recently in Kenya, and you could run a list of these things – a subway in London, a subway in Tokyo – I mean, these things are not new, unfortunately.
But I’ll tell you this: Believe it or not, notwithstanding the prominence of these events and the way that they do exactly what they’re meant to do, send terror down the spines of people everywhere, the fact remains we lose far less lives today to conflict and there is far less loss of life in war or violence anywhere in the world today than there was in the last century, even in the last half century. That’s a fact. We’re not seeing the kinds of wars and confrontations where millions of people are thrown at each other across the trenches or there’s firebombing of whole cities and we’re engaged in these larger kinds of conflicts. That doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, obviously, but it means that there’s a transformation taking place. More and more countries are gaining middle class populations, more and more people are traveling, more and more tourists, more and more people going to school, more and more people engaged. Not enough yet, and that’s the great challenge that we all face.
The fact is that in many parts of the world, our challenge is not the ideology per se. It’s the fact that we have huge populations of young people, 65 percent of a nation in the Middle East under the age of 30, 50 percent under the age of 21, 40 percent under the age of 18. And you can replicate that in country after country. And if they don’t have jobs and they don’t have an education, that’s when they are prone to being seduced by one extreme ideology or another extreme religious theory, and that’s really what’s happened. It’s a governance failure. It’s an absence of sufficient recognition of the challenge. It’s an absence of opportunity. And where you have opportunity, where you have democracy, where you have education, where you have growth, where you have decision making and full participation of citizens in a society, you tend to have much greater stability and much greater chance of beating the odds against that kind of violence. And you can look at that and see it anywhere at this point in time.
So the reasons we’ve got to be out there ought to be clear. Nobody else in the world at this moment – and I don’t say this with any arrogance; I say it with pride and I say it as a matter of reality – no one else comes close to what we are able to do to keep the peace or what we do to try to manage and tampen down old animosities and keep them at bay. I think we are – the best antidote to extremism, as I said, is opportunity.
That Tunis fruit vendor who self-immolated and started a revolution in Tunisia – there was no religion, nothing, no extremism and ideology behind it. And he got slapped around by a police officer, he was tired of corruption, and he wanted an opportunity to lead his life by being able to sell his wares. And those kids in Tahrir Square, they were not motivated by any religion or ideology. They were motivated by what they saw through this interconnected world, and they wanted a piece of the opportunity and a chance to get an education and have a job and have a future, and not have a corrupt government that deprived them of all of that and more. And they tweeted their ways and Facetimed their ways and talked to each other, and that’s what drove that revolution. And then it got stolen by the one single-most organized entity in the state, which was the Brotherhood.
Same thing in Syria. Syria didn’t start Sunni-Shia or anything else. It started with young people who wanted reform. And regrettably, Assad responded to their request for reform with bullets and bombs and violence. And that’s led to where we are today to an increasingly sectarian struggle.
So I say to you, it is vital. The antidote to extremism is opportunity, and nobody does more to promote education or entrepreneurship or public health around the world than the United States of America, proudly. We also need to be out there because the example of our universities and of our culture of innovation is more than just soft power. We know that the world is more secure and more prosperous when we bring students, professors, researchers from abroad, and when we bring that strength to the world. And we also need to be out there because for every billion dollars in goods and services that we export, we create 5,000 jobs here at home.
We also need to help countries stand on their own two feet. No country has done as much of that as we have. We create trading partners for your businesses. Eleven of 15 of our biggest trading partners used to be recipients of American foreign aid. Today, they’re donor countries. Look at South Korea – used to be 10, 15 years ago it was receiving aid from the United States. Now it’s giving aid to other countries. Japan – you can go through a long list.
So now more than ever before, economic policy, I believe, is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy. And we need to make sure that as we see the barriers coming down, we also do what we can to strengthen security. Security is not limited to a battlefield in today’s world.
So if you look at the attacks of the last century – the Naval base at Pearl Harbor, a Marine barracks, an embassy in Beirut, and our embassies in East Africa. At the beginning of the new century, terrorists attacked the USS Cole, they attacked the Pentagon, but they also attacked two office buildings in the heart of America’s financial capital. They attacked public transportation in London and Madrid. And just this fall, they attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi.
So when they don’t see a difference between military, diplomatic or economic assets around the world – if they don’t see it, neither can we. And that’s what this is all about. As we work together to protect America’s interests around the world, the importance of communicating across boundaries is more important than it ever was before.
And here at The State Department, we have people in some of the most far flung corners of the world. Some of your companies and organizations also have people in some of the most remote places on the planet, working in all kinds of fields – building schools, building roads, supplying water, often in places that we can’t reach. And if we don’t share information and communicate with each other, then none of us will have a complete picture of the risks that we face and that we take.
So the work of your organizations and the dedicated professionals here at the State Department is really essential in order to help us create shared prosperity. And we also have a shared responsibility to share that information and to communicate with one another.
So I – whatever else we do, the bottom line is the work of highly trained and highly dedicated professionals, working in both the public and private sector, is essential to our success and to our safety going forward. And their work will do as much to shape American prosperity as anything else out there, folks. Because if people feel they can’t be safe, then we are deterred from being able to help these countries, whether it’s in the pursuit of energy resources or helping people with respect to education and getting the information resources they need to buy into this different future.
Really, in many ways the men and women who are on the front lines of this security initiative are pioneers of this new global economy and the new global diplomacy. And we have to be able to meet that obligation. And Greg is dedicated to it. I’m dedicated to it. We’ll do everything in our power to help you so that we can continue to transform this world that we live in.
And I know that every one of you believe that this genie of globalization, which I’ve heard many of my former colleagues in politics rail against – pretty easy applause lines – I remember the fights we had over NAFTA and over the free trade agreements and all the rest of it. But in every case, our GDP has grown, our opportunities have grown, our job base has grown, our tax base has grown, America has gotten stronger. And we continue to be the envy of the world, believe me, in the capacity of our economy, which now, thanks to our innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, will make the United States of America energy independent by about the year 2025 or so, a remarkable turn which will have a profound impact on our ability to have an impact elsewhere in the world.
So you can’t put the genie of globalization back in the bottle. No demagogue, no politician, no opponent of this transformation can possibly do that. And all you have to do is look at what’s happened in a place like Abu Dhabi or Dubai or any other number of places around the world to understand how rapidly some people are grabbing a hold of this thing and how inexorable it really is.
So as the aspirations that we have really given birth to in so many places – and we can take pride in that – as those aspirations go global, with our work together and with good conferences like this and the good ideas that come forth at them, I am absolutely confident that we are going to be able to make the most of these opportunities, and in doing so we are going to ensure greater prosperity for our country, greater safety for our citizens, and frankly, a greater opportunity to share in both for the rest of the world. And that is what it takes to meet our obligations as citizens as well as individuals who care about our families and our children and our grandchildren and their future. That’s what we’re building here, and every single one of you are frontline ambassadors in that effort. So thank you very, very much. Appreciate it. (Applause.)
LANL RESEARCHERS STUDY HIV VIRUS SPREAD WITH COMPUTER MODELING
FROM: LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
HIV Virus Spread and Evolution Studied Through Computer Modeling
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., November 19, 2013—Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory are investigating the complex relationships between the spread of the HIV virus in a population (epidemiology) and the actual, rapid evolution of the virus (phylogenetics) within each patient’s body.
“We have developed novel ways of estimating epidemics dynamics such as who infected whom, and the true population incidence of infection versus mere diagnoses dates,” said Thomas Leitner, principal investigator. “Obviously, knowledge about these things is important for public health monitoring, decision making and intervention campaigns, and further to forensic investigations.”
The team models the uninfected population using traditional differential equations on the computer; this is done for computational speed, because an agent-based component is much more demanding. Once a person is infected, he/she becomes an “agent” in computer modeling terms, and the model starts following their behavior individually, as well as the viral HIV evolution within the person.
Agent-based Modeling Clarifies Infection History
This new modeling approach distinguishes between susceptible and infected individuals to capture the full infection history, including contact tracing data for infected individuals. The uninfected individuals are modeled at a population level and stratified by transmission risk and social group. The social network in this model forms – and can change – during the simulation. Thus, the model is much more realistic than traditional models.
The advantage of this epidemiological model, Leitner said, is that “it allows us to simulate many possible outcomes of epidemics with known parameters of human interactions, where social networks form as part of the agent interactions. It is a flexible system that has the ability to describe realistic human populations.”
Within a National Institutes of Health-supported project “Reconstructing HIV Epidemics from HIV Phylogenetics,” the team has published 10 papers describing new mathematical models and results from real data addressing these issues. Most recently, they published a Nature correspondence on the limitations of HIV forensics and the need for better standards.
Who Infected Whom
A key question is on the fundamental limitations to the inference of who infected whom, based on a concept known as the pre-transmission interval (which this group first described back in 1999). Another publication, published in Epidemics, developed a new hybrid model to simulate and analyze the spread of HIV or other pathogens spread in a human population. The work also appeared in PLoS-ONE Public Library of Science online publication.
As an example, the team modeled a Latvian HIV-1 epidemic, and they showed that injecting drug users fueled the heterosexual population, thereby sustaining the overall epidemic. The researchers are now expanding this hybrid model to also include HIV genetic evolution, which occurs in every infected individual.
The researchers have shown that in fast HIV epidemics – such as among individuals injecting themselves with drugs – HIV viral evolution is slow, resulting in little diversification at the population level. Meanwhile, slower-spreading epidemics display more HIV evolution over the same amount of time.
New Field of Phylodynamics Evolves
Understanding HIV’s genetic evolution will soon allow investigations of how accurately researchers can reconstruct different epidemiological scenarios using pathogen genetic materials, an important and growing field called phylodynamics.
The team also has developed a new mathematical model that facilitates estimation of when a person was infected with HIV based on a previously used biomarker (BED IgG).
“This is important because most HIV infected persons are not discovered shortly after infection rather, they are often discovered long after, often years after infection, said Leitner. “Thus, to estimate true incidence, that is when infections actually occurred, cannot be done based on diagnosis dates.”
Using Swedish surveillance data, the team has shown that the common assumption that infection occurred on average half way between last negative test and first positive test, is wrong. Instead, the actual infection is strongly skewed towards the first positive sample.
This finding should have large impact on epidemiological models used worldwide by public health organizations, Leitner says. “Currently, we have further developed this model to also correct for unknown cases, such as infected people not yet discovered but who contribute to new infections and thereby the true incidence of the disease.”
The Team Behind the Insights
Researchers include Frederik Graw, Thomas Leitner, Ruy M. Ribeiro, and Helena Skar (Los Alamos National Laboratory) and Jan Albert (Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital). The National Institutes of Health funded the research.
HIV Virus Spread and Evolution Studied Through Computer Modeling
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., November 19, 2013—Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory are investigating the complex relationships between the spread of the HIV virus in a population (epidemiology) and the actual, rapid evolution of the virus (phylogenetics) within each patient’s body.
“We have developed novel ways of estimating epidemics dynamics such as who infected whom, and the true population incidence of infection versus mere diagnoses dates,” said Thomas Leitner, principal investigator. “Obviously, knowledge about these things is important for public health monitoring, decision making and intervention campaigns, and further to forensic investigations.”
The team models the uninfected population using traditional differential equations on the computer; this is done for computational speed, because an agent-based component is much more demanding. Once a person is infected, he/she becomes an “agent” in computer modeling terms, and the model starts following their behavior individually, as well as the viral HIV evolution within the person.
Agent-based Modeling Clarifies Infection History
This new modeling approach distinguishes between susceptible and infected individuals to capture the full infection history, including contact tracing data for infected individuals. The uninfected individuals are modeled at a population level and stratified by transmission risk and social group. The social network in this model forms – and can change – during the simulation. Thus, the model is much more realistic than traditional models.
The advantage of this epidemiological model, Leitner said, is that “it allows us to simulate many possible outcomes of epidemics with known parameters of human interactions, where social networks form as part of the agent interactions. It is a flexible system that has the ability to describe realistic human populations.”
Within a National Institutes of Health-supported project “Reconstructing HIV Epidemics from HIV Phylogenetics,” the team has published 10 papers describing new mathematical models and results from real data addressing these issues. Most recently, they published a Nature correspondence on the limitations of HIV forensics and the need for better standards.
Who Infected Whom
A key question is on the fundamental limitations to the inference of who infected whom, based on a concept known as the pre-transmission interval (which this group first described back in 1999). Another publication, published in Epidemics, developed a new hybrid model to simulate and analyze the spread of HIV or other pathogens spread in a human population. The work also appeared in PLoS-ONE Public Library of Science online publication.
As an example, the team modeled a Latvian HIV-1 epidemic, and they showed that injecting drug users fueled the heterosexual population, thereby sustaining the overall epidemic. The researchers are now expanding this hybrid model to also include HIV genetic evolution, which occurs in every infected individual.
The researchers have shown that in fast HIV epidemics – such as among individuals injecting themselves with drugs – HIV viral evolution is slow, resulting in little diversification at the population level. Meanwhile, slower-spreading epidemics display more HIV evolution over the same amount of time.
New Field of Phylodynamics Evolves
Understanding HIV’s genetic evolution will soon allow investigations of how accurately researchers can reconstruct different epidemiological scenarios using pathogen genetic materials, an important and growing field called phylodynamics.
The team also has developed a new mathematical model that facilitates estimation of when a person was infected with HIV based on a previously used biomarker (BED IgG).
“This is important because most HIV infected persons are not discovered shortly after infection rather, they are often discovered long after, often years after infection, said Leitner. “Thus, to estimate true incidence, that is when infections actually occurred, cannot be done based on diagnosis dates.”
Using Swedish surveillance data, the team has shown that the common assumption that infection occurred on average half way between last negative test and first positive test, is wrong. Instead, the actual infection is strongly skewed towards the first positive sample.
This finding should have large impact on epidemiological models used worldwide by public health organizations, Leitner says. “Currently, we have further developed this model to also correct for unknown cases, such as infected people not yet discovered but who contribute to new infections and thereby the true incidence of the disease.”
The Team Behind the Insights
Researchers include Frederik Graw, Thomas Leitner, Ruy M. Ribeiro, and Helena Skar (Los Alamos National Laboratory) and Jan Albert (Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital). The National Institutes of Health funded the research.
REMARKS AT JOINT PRESS RELEASE ON AUSTRALIA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at Joint Press Availability With Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and Australian Defence Minister David Johnston
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I’m delighted to welcome Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston to Washington for what has been a very productive Australia-United States Ministerial meeting, or AUSMIN as we call it for short.
I think everybody understands that the relationship between the United States and Australia is really extraordinary, and though we live in different hemispheres and at opposite ends of the globe, the relationship between us really is as close as a relationship can get. To start with, Australia is a vital partner as we strengthen U.S. engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific, and together we are growing closer and closer to finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That will create jobs and investment on both of our shores, and it will also raise the standards of business transactions within that region and raise them to a higher level which we all aspire to. In addition, it will create, we think, a significant strengthening of the infrastructure between us, promoting democracy and good government and supporting gender equality throughout Southeast Asia.
As we meet today, the United States and Australia are working very closely on the emergency assistance efforts with respect to the Philippines, and we are together bringing significant relief to many, many Filipinos as a consequence of the super-typhoon that caused unspeakable devastation a few days ago.
We also work very closely to address the region’s security challenges, including the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and we spent some period of time discussing that today.
Just a few minutes ago, as you witnessed, my colleagues and I signed a nonbinding Statement of Principles that will help to guide us as we move to put together a force posture agreement which will strengthen further the U.S. and Australia relationship over the course of the years to come. And we are trying to see if we can accelerate those negotiations and complete that agreement as rapidly as possible.
Our partnership, important to note, extends well beyond Asia-Pacific. In September, I sat in the chamber of the UN Security Council to join the global community in putting an end to the appalling use of chemical weapons in Syria. Australia held the rotating presidency of the Security Council that particular month, and as we signed that resolution, I was particularly proud to look to my left and see where Ambassador Gary Quinlan was sitting to be able to thank Australia for its leadership of the Security Council during that important period of time.
Today, we discussed our shared efforts to reach a political solution with respect to the conflict in Syria. We both share the goal of realizing a peaceful resolution not just for the Syrian conflict through the Geneva discussions, but also for the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and our efforts – all of us – to try to reach a constructive and acceptable agreement with respect to the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. We agreed on each of these that diplomacy is always the preferred approach and that it’s important to exhaust the remedies and possibilities of diplomacy.
We have the best chance we’ve had in a decade, we believe, to halt progress and roll back Iran’s program. And I made clear to our friends from Australia, as I have made clear to my former colleagues in meetings on Capitol Hill over this last week, we will not allow this agreement, should it be reached – and I say “should it be reached” – to buy time or to allow for the acceptance of an agreement that does not properly address our core fundamental concerns.
In the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and around the world, the U.S.-Australia partnership contributes significantly to our mutual goal of our search for peace and stability and security on a broader basis. This is, I think for all of us, our first AUSMIN, certainly my first as Secretary of State. I’ve had the really good fortune to work with our friends from Australia over the years as a United States Senator, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I worked very closely with our Australian counterparts on a wide range of issues over that period of time. And when Secretary Hagel and I served in Vietnam, the both of us remember well that we fought alongside our Australian brothers. In fact, American and Australian men and women have fought together in every major conflict since World War I. And this morning, Secretary Hagel and I joined Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston for a moving ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. There we honored together the enormous sacrifice that our nations have endured together and in our – and we also paid tribute to our shared efforts now in Afghanistan and elsewhere to promote democracy and peace.
These sacrifices between our countries continue even to this day, and now we honor the remarkable service of all of our men and women in uniform and we reconfirm and restate our commitment to completing the transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by the end of 2014. I’m pleased to say that in a series of conversations with President Karzai in the course of this morning, even interrupting some of our conversations, that we reached an agreement as to the final language of the Bilateral Security Agreement that will be placed before the Loya Jirga tomorrow.
Now, when we open up trade and when we work on our mutual investment throughout the Asia-Pacific, I’m pleased to underscore that the United States and Australia work hand in hand, as closely as possible. When we’re providing relief to nations in need, our two nations are side by side. And when we’re taking historic steps to ensure that the world’s most heinous weapons are never used again, we are sitting and working side by side. And when we’re on the battlefield fighting to protect our shared values, we are standing side by side.
The United States could ask for no better friend and no closer ally than Australia. And it’s been a great pleasure for Secretary Hagel and me to host the Australian delegation, and we really look forward to continuing our work side-by-side over the years to come. Thank you.
Minister Bishop.
MINISTER BISHOP: First I’d like to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their gracious hospitality and for hosting this AUSMIN meeting here in Washington. Both Senator Johnston and I were deeply moved by the arrangements that were made to hold a ceremony at Arlington this morning as we paid tribute to the memories of those who have died in service of your country and reflecting on the fact that, as you say, Mr. Secretary, our forces have fought side-by-side in every conflict in which we have been engaged.
Senator Johnston and I took this opportunity to reaffirm the Australian Government’s commitment to the bilateral relationship and the ANZUS alliance, which is the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy. But as our wide-ranging discussion today made clear, our relationship is much more than just defense cooperation. We engage on every level, whether it be in education or scientific and research collaboration, whether it be tourism, whether it be the new frontiers of space, whether it be trade and investment.
Indeed, I’m reminded that when you take trade and investment together, the United States is Australia’s most important economic partner. And the considerable investment that we see from the United States in Australia and from Australia in the United States means that our economies are stronger, the job opportunities are greater, as our two countries work closely together on economic matters.
We took the opportunity today to discuss a range of issues regarding our region in particular, the Indian Ocean Asia-Pacific. We looked at the challenges – economic, security, strategic – that face the region. We support wholeheartedly the United States rebalance to our region. And it’s most certainly the case that countries in our region look forward to more United States leadership in the region, not less. We also focused on the Indian Ocean and the countries of the Indian Ocean, as well as the Pacific Ocean. We spoke more generally about global issues – about the Middle East, Syria, Egypt, Iran. We talked about the need for denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
Specifically, we spoke about our joint force posture initiatives, and I’ll ask Senator Johnston to say a little more about that. And we also recognize that the joint membership we have of the regional architecture, the global architecture, including the East Asia Summit, APEC, the G20, means that not only do we work bilaterally, but we also work regionally and globally as partners.
There is no doubt that the relationship we have, the friendship we have, the partnership, the alliance makes us both stronger countries. And I thank our American hosts for having us here. It has been our first AUSMIN. It certainly, I hope, will not be our last.
SECRETARY HAGEL: Secretary Kerry, thank you. Good afternoon. I very much appreciated the opportunity to host, with Secretary Kerry, our friends from Australia, Minister Bishop, Minister Johnston. For me, it also was a personal privilege. As Secretary Kerry noted, we – John and I served together in Vietnam with many Australians. I – as John served in the United States Senate and worked closely with our friends in Australia during those times and visited Australian a number of times. My father served in the South Pacific, including Australia, during World War II. And I celebrated my 22nd birthday in Sydney, Australia. So I am particularly personally grateful for this opportunity to participate in our consultations today.
AUSMIN, as has been noted, is really quite a unique forum, that demonstrates how much the United States values its close relationship with Australia and the continued vitality of this important alliance. Today’s meeting reflected not only the breadth of cooperation between our two countries, two old and good friends, but also the deep bonds we share – bonds of shared values, shared interests, and shared history. We were reminded of these common bonds earlier today as Secretary Kerry, Minister Bishop has noted, at the Arlington National Cemetery. Australians and Americans have fought side by side in every major conflict over the last 100 years and over this last decade. Australia has been the largest non-NATO troop contributor to the war in Afghanistan. The American people are grateful to the Australians for Australia’s continued commitment to that effort. And we deeply respect the great sacrifices made by the Australian defense forces.
Today we discussed America’s force posture initiative with Australia. That force posture was announced during President Obama’s trip to Canberra two years ago. These initiatives remain on track. Two companies of Marines have rotated through Darwin. And we have increased exercises between our air forces. Next year, our Marine rotational force near Darwin will expand to 1,100 Marines. We reaffirm plans for this rotating force to grow. These ongoing rotational deployments to Australia are important to making the U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and also politically sustainable.
Our relationships in the South Pacific are historic. The rebalance to this – to the Pacific Asia area that the President announced two years ago are based on our common interests with the nations of Asia-Pacific: trade, commerce, culture, education, stability, security. They’ll also help strengthen our capacity and the capacity of our partners in the region, like humanitarian assistance disaster relief efforts currently underway, as Secretary Kerry noted, in the Philippines. The United States and Australia are working side by side in support of the people of the Philippines.
As we continue to implement our force posture initiatives with Australia, we also agreed today on a Statement of Principles that we just signed that will ensure these efforts are closely aligned with both our nations’ shared regional security objectives and our future. Negotiations will begin next month on a binding agreement that will govern these force posture initiatives and further defense cooperation. As we adapt our alliance to an evolving security environment, we are also focused on new challenges, including those in space and cyber. We will continue to work closely together on the full range of cyber threats.
We also are continuing to implement previous agreements to expand our situational awareness in space. Earlier today, Defence Minister Johnston and I signed an agreement to relocate a unique advanced space surveillance telescope to western Australia. This telescope provides highly accurate detection, tracking, and identification of deep space objects, and will further strengthen our existing space cooperation.
All of these steps are helping strengthen our alliance as we continue to work together to face the challenges and opportunities of this new century. It has been an honor, again, to join Secretary Kerry in hosting Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston and the Australian delegation. And we thank the delegation – their ambassador to Washington D.C.; their former ambassador, General Hurley; and the rest of their very distinguished delegation. I look forward to continue working with all of them to advance our common interests, as I do with our partners in the Pacific Asia region. And I know I speak for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Locklear was here with us this morning, as other leaders of the defense institution. We look forward to advancing our common interests in our friendships, and a more secure and prosperous future for both our nations. Thank you very much.
MINISTER JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Can I adopt and support the remarks of my Foreign Minister Julie Bishop? Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, today is the third occasion I’ve had the opportunity to discuss Australia’s defense relationship with the United States with Secretary Hagel. And I thank him for his leadership and his friendship on this very important subject to my country.
I also thanked him during the course of the meetings for not just his leadership, but for the leadership of his senior commanders – General Dempsey; General Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; General Dunford, ISAF Commander; and of course, in the Pacific, Admiral Locklear. The leadership that is shown by the United States here and more broadly in our engagements across the world – and obviously, Afghanistan is a very important engagement for Australia – is simply splendid. And I thank him and I thank the United States for that.
This is, of course, the first AUSMIN for all of us. It has been, may I say, a very successful exchange. And I trust that Secretary Hagel feels as I do, that he can ring me at any time on any subject as a friend, and we can discuss important relationship matters as we bring Marines to Darwin, as we further explore interrelationships, interoperability, and of the vast number of contacts and technical operations we conduct together into the future.
This is Australia’s most important strategic alliance. The friendship and the demeanor by which we have conducted this has been a very effective, productive, and also a very happy relationship in frankly discussing all of the issues that we both consider to be very important. I want to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their hospitality, and it has been a delight to be here. I thank you again.
MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Jill Dougherty of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, thank you. I wanted to – now that you’ve mentioned that you’ve reached agreement on the final language for the BSA, the security agreement between the United States and Australia, I wanted to ask if you could clear up some of the confusion about this issue of a letter to be issued by the United States. We believe that that was your idea, and perhaps you can enlighten us. Some of the words that have been used are “appropriate assurances,” “express regret.” Susan Rice says there’s no apology. So is this – if it’s not an apology to the Afghans, what is it? Who would sign such a letter? And why is it necessary?
And then also, if there’s anything that you could add about details of this agreement, how long – especially how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Jill, thank you. First of all, let me comment that I can’t help but look out from this table with the four of us sitting here and see our two delegations facing each other, and I feel like we’re judges looking at a tag-team wrestling match or a dance contest or something. (Laughter.) General Dempsey versus General Hurley now. (Laughter.) We’ll score you. A diversion.
I don’t know where this idea – I honestly don’t know where the idea of an apology started, because I think someone in the chain of press or something said something to somebody over there, not here. But let me be clear: President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology. There will be – there is no – I mean, it’s just not even on the table. He didn’t ask for it. We’re not discussing it. And that is not the subject that we have been talking about.
What we’ve been talking about are the terms of the BSA itself, which provide the outline of the structure, the process by which ISAF, international forces, the United States forces themselves would be engaged going forward. As I think you know, it is a very limited role. It is entirely train, equip, and assist. There is no combat role for United States forces. And the Bilateral Security Agreement is an effort to try to clarify for Afghans and for United States military forces exactly what the rules are with respect to that ongoing relationship.
It’s very important for President Karzai to know that issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed, and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed. The agreement will speak for itself when the agreement is approved. And as we sit here tonight, we have agreed on the language that would be submitted to a Loya Jirga, but they have to pass it. So I think it’s inappropriate for me to comment at all on any of the details. It’s up to the people of Afghanistan.
When I left Kabul that late night when President Karzai and I had finished the major part of the negotiation, we both said it has to go to the Loya Jirga. There were some people who may have questioned or doubted whether that was going to happen. Well, it’s happening tomorrow, and it’s happening tomorrow with agreed-upon language between us. And I think it’s up to President Karzai to speak to the Loya Jirga, its process, and how it will work and what the results will be, and it’s up to President Obama and the White House to address any issues with respect to any possible communication between the President or President Karzai. So let’s see where we are.
But the important thing for people to understand is there has never been a discussion of or the word “apology” used in our discussions whatsoever.
MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Nick O’Malley of the Sydney Morning Herald.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, I was wondering, after the revelations that the NSA had conducted surveillance of the German leadership, the response from America was to seek to placate and reassure Germany.
SECRETARY KERRY: Sorry, I couldn’t hear your last – the response?
QUESTION: The response from America was to seek to placate German leadership. Do you think that would be a useful approach for Australia to be taking after revelations of Australian espionage against Indonesia?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say, fundamentally, each situation is its own situation. We have great respect, obviously, for the work we do together with our friends in Australia, as we’ve said here today. We have an unbreakable and a critical working relationship, and we have worked together in counterterrorism and many activities on a global basis, and will continue to.
Likewise, we have great respect and affection for Indonesia, we work with our friends in Indonesia on many different issues, and we will continue to do that. But whatever has been or not been released or being discussed in the papers, I believe – as I think our friends in Australia do – is a matter of intelligence and intelligence procedures, and we don’t discuss intelligence procedures in any sort of public way at this point in time, certainly, unless the President indicates otherwise. But that’s where we are.
MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Scott Stearns of VOA.
QUESTION: A question for Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Bishop: We understand where the international community is on Iran’s right to enrich uranium regarding the NPT. But can you foresee a resolution to this standoff that includes Iran in any way enriching uranium? Or does access to a civilian nuclear program on the part of Iran mean that it needs to access that uranium elsewhere? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, given that there is no stated right within the NPT, which we have reaffirmed again and again with respect to enrichment, whatever a country decides or doesn’t decide to do or is allowed to do and permitted under the rules depends on a negotiation, depends on a process. We’re not in that – we’re at the initial stage of determining whether or not there is a first step that can be taken. And that certainly will not be resolved in any first step, I can assure you.
So the President has said many times Iran, like other nations that are signatories to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, have a right to peaceful nuclear energy. Now, what that contains depends on the standing of that particular nation with respect to NPT requirements and the international community.
So that’s what the negotiation is about, and I’m not going to predetermine its outcome except to say to you that no right is recognized or granted within anything that I’ve seen in the early discussions. It is a subject of negotiation. It would have to be resolved in negotiation and subject to extraordinary standards and scrutiny and process, which is the heart of the negotiation. So there’s no way to suggest anything but that it’s important to get to a negotiation and see what can or cannot be reached.
MINISTER BISHOP: Australia is monitoring the P5+1 scenario very closely, and I’m grateful to Secretary Kerry for keeping us informed in the context of this AUSMIN meeting as to where the proposed negotiations are, where they’re likely to head. But we also reiterate that should a nation require nuclear aspects for the purposes of civilian purpose – for civilian uses, peaceful purposes, then of course, it’s subject to international safeguards, it’s subject to a range of protocols, and that would apply in this case. But we’re not at that stage. We’re not at a stage where Iran has convinced us that its use is for peaceful civilian purposes. Should it get to that point, then of course, the appropriate international safeguards and protocols would apply, as they would to any other country in that situation.
MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Jane Cowan of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
QUESTION: Foreign Minister Bishop, given the furor now over the revelations of Australian spying on Indonesia, have you registered Australia’s displeasure with those security lapses that gave rise to the Snowden leaks that have now caused so much discord in that relationship?
And Secretary Kerry, can you confirm that the spying was done at the request of the U.S.?
MINISTER BISHOP: As I have said on numerous occasions, and as the Prime Minister has said, we do not discuss intelligence matters, certainly not allegations. We do not discuss them publicly, and we will not do so. The Prime Minister has made two statements to the Parliament now on this issue, and I would refer you to those statements.
In regard to our discussions today, we had a very wide-ranging discussion about a whole raft of issues that affect our bilateral relationship, very productive and very fruitful discussions. And long may they continue.
SECRETARY KERRY: As Prime Minister Abbott has said and the comments that he has addressed, and as Minister Bishop has said here today and on many occasions, and as I have said in my previous comments, we just don’t talk about intelligence matters in public and we’re not about to begin now.
MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.
Remarks at Joint Press Availability With Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and Australian Defence Minister David Johnston
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I’m delighted to welcome Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston to Washington for what has been a very productive Australia-United States Ministerial meeting, or AUSMIN as we call it for short.
I think everybody understands that the relationship between the United States and Australia is really extraordinary, and though we live in different hemispheres and at opposite ends of the globe, the relationship between us really is as close as a relationship can get. To start with, Australia is a vital partner as we strengthen U.S. engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific, and together we are growing closer and closer to finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That will create jobs and investment on both of our shores, and it will also raise the standards of business transactions within that region and raise them to a higher level which we all aspire to. In addition, it will create, we think, a significant strengthening of the infrastructure between us, promoting democracy and good government and supporting gender equality throughout Southeast Asia.
As we meet today, the United States and Australia are working very closely on the emergency assistance efforts with respect to the Philippines, and we are together bringing significant relief to many, many Filipinos as a consequence of the super-typhoon that caused unspeakable devastation a few days ago.
We also work very closely to address the region’s security challenges, including the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and we spent some period of time discussing that today.
Just a few minutes ago, as you witnessed, my colleagues and I signed a nonbinding Statement of Principles that will help to guide us as we move to put together a force posture agreement which will strengthen further the U.S. and Australia relationship over the course of the years to come. And we are trying to see if we can accelerate those negotiations and complete that agreement as rapidly as possible.
Our partnership, important to note, extends well beyond Asia-Pacific. In September, I sat in the chamber of the UN Security Council to join the global community in putting an end to the appalling use of chemical weapons in Syria. Australia held the rotating presidency of the Security Council that particular month, and as we signed that resolution, I was particularly proud to look to my left and see where Ambassador Gary Quinlan was sitting to be able to thank Australia for its leadership of the Security Council during that important period of time.
Today, we discussed our shared efforts to reach a political solution with respect to the conflict in Syria. We both share the goal of realizing a peaceful resolution not just for the Syrian conflict through the Geneva discussions, but also for the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and our efforts – all of us – to try to reach a constructive and acceptable agreement with respect to the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. We agreed on each of these that diplomacy is always the preferred approach and that it’s important to exhaust the remedies and possibilities of diplomacy.
We have the best chance we’ve had in a decade, we believe, to halt progress and roll back Iran’s program. And I made clear to our friends from Australia, as I have made clear to my former colleagues in meetings on Capitol Hill over this last week, we will not allow this agreement, should it be reached – and I say “should it be reached” – to buy time or to allow for the acceptance of an agreement that does not properly address our core fundamental concerns.
In the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and around the world, the U.S.-Australia partnership contributes significantly to our mutual goal of our search for peace and stability and security on a broader basis. This is, I think for all of us, our first AUSMIN, certainly my first as Secretary of State. I’ve had the really good fortune to work with our friends from Australia over the years as a United States Senator, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I worked very closely with our Australian counterparts on a wide range of issues over that period of time. And when Secretary Hagel and I served in Vietnam, the both of us remember well that we fought alongside our Australian brothers. In fact, American and Australian men and women have fought together in every major conflict since World War I. And this morning, Secretary Hagel and I joined Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston for a moving ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. There we honored together the enormous sacrifice that our nations have endured together and in our – and we also paid tribute to our shared efforts now in Afghanistan and elsewhere to promote democracy and peace.
These sacrifices between our countries continue even to this day, and now we honor the remarkable service of all of our men and women in uniform and we reconfirm and restate our commitment to completing the transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by the end of 2014. I’m pleased to say that in a series of conversations with President Karzai in the course of this morning, even interrupting some of our conversations, that we reached an agreement as to the final language of the Bilateral Security Agreement that will be placed before the Loya Jirga tomorrow.
Now, when we open up trade and when we work on our mutual investment throughout the Asia-Pacific, I’m pleased to underscore that the United States and Australia work hand in hand, as closely as possible. When we’re providing relief to nations in need, our two nations are side by side. And when we’re taking historic steps to ensure that the world’s most heinous weapons are never used again, we are sitting and working side by side. And when we’re on the battlefield fighting to protect our shared values, we are standing side by side.
The United States could ask for no better friend and no closer ally than Australia. And it’s been a great pleasure for Secretary Hagel and me to host the Australian delegation, and we really look forward to continuing our work side-by-side over the years to come. Thank you.
Minister Bishop.
MINISTER BISHOP: First I’d like to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their gracious hospitality and for hosting this AUSMIN meeting here in Washington. Both Senator Johnston and I were deeply moved by the arrangements that were made to hold a ceremony at Arlington this morning as we paid tribute to the memories of those who have died in service of your country and reflecting on the fact that, as you say, Mr. Secretary, our forces have fought side-by-side in every conflict in which we have been engaged.
Senator Johnston and I took this opportunity to reaffirm the Australian Government’s commitment to the bilateral relationship and the ANZUS alliance, which is the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy. But as our wide-ranging discussion today made clear, our relationship is much more than just defense cooperation. We engage on every level, whether it be in education or scientific and research collaboration, whether it be tourism, whether it be the new frontiers of space, whether it be trade and investment.
Indeed, I’m reminded that when you take trade and investment together, the United States is Australia’s most important economic partner. And the considerable investment that we see from the United States in Australia and from Australia in the United States means that our economies are stronger, the job opportunities are greater, as our two countries work closely together on economic matters.
We took the opportunity today to discuss a range of issues regarding our region in particular, the Indian Ocean Asia-Pacific. We looked at the challenges – economic, security, strategic – that face the region. We support wholeheartedly the United States rebalance to our region. And it’s most certainly the case that countries in our region look forward to more United States leadership in the region, not less. We also focused on the Indian Ocean and the countries of the Indian Ocean, as well as the Pacific Ocean. We spoke more generally about global issues – about the Middle East, Syria, Egypt, Iran. We talked about the need for denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
Specifically, we spoke about our joint force posture initiatives, and I’ll ask Senator Johnston to say a little more about that. And we also recognize that the joint membership we have of the regional architecture, the global architecture, including the East Asia Summit, APEC, the G20, means that not only do we work bilaterally, but we also work regionally and globally as partners.
There is no doubt that the relationship we have, the friendship we have, the partnership, the alliance makes us both stronger countries. And I thank our American hosts for having us here. It has been our first AUSMIN. It certainly, I hope, will not be our last.
SECRETARY HAGEL: Secretary Kerry, thank you. Good afternoon. I very much appreciated the opportunity to host, with Secretary Kerry, our friends from Australia, Minister Bishop, Minister Johnston. For me, it also was a personal privilege. As Secretary Kerry noted, we – John and I served together in Vietnam with many Australians. I – as John served in the United States Senate and worked closely with our friends in Australia during those times and visited Australian a number of times. My father served in the South Pacific, including Australia, during World War II. And I celebrated my 22nd birthday in Sydney, Australia. So I am particularly personally grateful for this opportunity to participate in our consultations today.
AUSMIN, as has been noted, is really quite a unique forum, that demonstrates how much the United States values its close relationship with Australia and the continued vitality of this important alliance. Today’s meeting reflected not only the breadth of cooperation between our two countries, two old and good friends, but also the deep bonds we share – bonds of shared values, shared interests, and shared history. We were reminded of these common bonds earlier today as Secretary Kerry, Minister Bishop has noted, at the Arlington National Cemetery. Australians and Americans have fought side by side in every major conflict over the last 100 years and over this last decade. Australia has been the largest non-NATO troop contributor to the war in Afghanistan. The American people are grateful to the Australians for Australia’s continued commitment to that effort. And we deeply respect the great sacrifices made by the Australian defense forces.
Today we discussed America’s force posture initiative with Australia. That force posture was announced during President Obama’s trip to Canberra two years ago. These initiatives remain on track. Two companies of Marines have rotated through Darwin. And we have increased exercises between our air forces. Next year, our Marine rotational force near Darwin will expand to 1,100 Marines. We reaffirm plans for this rotating force to grow. These ongoing rotational deployments to Australia are important to making the U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and also politically sustainable.
Our relationships in the South Pacific are historic. The rebalance to this – to the Pacific Asia area that the President announced two years ago are based on our common interests with the nations of Asia-Pacific: trade, commerce, culture, education, stability, security. They’ll also help strengthen our capacity and the capacity of our partners in the region, like humanitarian assistance disaster relief efforts currently underway, as Secretary Kerry noted, in the Philippines. The United States and Australia are working side by side in support of the people of the Philippines.
As we continue to implement our force posture initiatives with Australia, we also agreed today on a Statement of Principles that we just signed that will ensure these efforts are closely aligned with both our nations’ shared regional security objectives and our future. Negotiations will begin next month on a binding agreement that will govern these force posture initiatives and further defense cooperation. As we adapt our alliance to an evolving security environment, we are also focused on new challenges, including those in space and cyber. We will continue to work closely together on the full range of cyber threats.
We also are continuing to implement previous agreements to expand our situational awareness in space. Earlier today, Defence Minister Johnston and I signed an agreement to relocate a unique advanced space surveillance telescope to western Australia. This telescope provides highly accurate detection, tracking, and identification of deep space objects, and will further strengthen our existing space cooperation.
All of these steps are helping strengthen our alliance as we continue to work together to face the challenges and opportunities of this new century. It has been an honor, again, to join Secretary Kerry in hosting Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston and the Australian delegation. And we thank the delegation – their ambassador to Washington D.C.; their former ambassador, General Hurley; and the rest of their very distinguished delegation. I look forward to continue working with all of them to advance our common interests, as I do with our partners in the Pacific Asia region. And I know I speak for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Locklear was here with us this morning, as other leaders of the defense institution. We look forward to advancing our common interests in our friendships, and a more secure and prosperous future for both our nations. Thank you very much.
MINISTER JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Can I adopt and support the remarks of my Foreign Minister Julie Bishop? Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, today is the third occasion I’ve had the opportunity to discuss Australia’s defense relationship with the United States with Secretary Hagel. And I thank him for his leadership and his friendship on this very important subject to my country.
I also thanked him during the course of the meetings for not just his leadership, but for the leadership of his senior commanders – General Dempsey; General Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; General Dunford, ISAF Commander; and of course, in the Pacific, Admiral Locklear. The leadership that is shown by the United States here and more broadly in our engagements across the world – and obviously, Afghanistan is a very important engagement for Australia – is simply splendid. And I thank him and I thank the United States for that.
This is, of course, the first AUSMIN for all of us. It has been, may I say, a very successful exchange. And I trust that Secretary Hagel feels as I do, that he can ring me at any time on any subject as a friend, and we can discuss important relationship matters as we bring Marines to Darwin, as we further explore interrelationships, interoperability, and of the vast number of contacts and technical operations we conduct together into the future.
This is Australia’s most important strategic alliance. The friendship and the demeanor by which we have conducted this has been a very effective, productive, and also a very happy relationship in frankly discussing all of the issues that we both consider to be very important. I want to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their hospitality, and it has been a delight to be here. I thank you again.
MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Jill Dougherty of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, thank you. I wanted to – now that you’ve mentioned that you’ve reached agreement on the final language for the BSA, the security agreement between the United States and Australia, I wanted to ask if you could clear up some of the confusion about this issue of a letter to be issued by the United States. We believe that that was your idea, and perhaps you can enlighten us. Some of the words that have been used are “appropriate assurances,” “express regret.” Susan Rice says there’s no apology. So is this – if it’s not an apology to the Afghans, what is it? Who would sign such a letter? And why is it necessary?
And then also, if there’s anything that you could add about details of this agreement, how long – especially how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Jill, thank you. First of all, let me comment that I can’t help but look out from this table with the four of us sitting here and see our two delegations facing each other, and I feel like we’re judges looking at a tag-team wrestling match or a dance contest or something. (Laughter.) General Dempsey versus General Hurley now. (Laughter.) We’ll score you. A diversion.
I don’t know where this idea – I honestly don’t know where the idea of an apology started, because I think someone in the chain of press or something said something to somebody over there, not here. But let me be clear: President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology. There will be – there is no – I mean, it’s just not even on the table. He didn’t ask for it. We’re not discussing it. And that is not the subject that we have been talking about.
What we’ve been talking about are the terms of the BSA itself, which provide the outline of the structure, the process by which ISAF, international forces, the United States forces themselves would be engaged going forward. As I think you know, it is a very limited role. It is entirely train, equip, and assist. There is no combat role for United States forces. And the Bilateral Security Agreement is an effort to try to clarify for Afghans and for United States military forces exactly what the rules are with respect to that ongoing relationship.
It’s very important for President Karzai to know that issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed, and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed. The agreement will speak for itself when the agreement is approved. And as we sit here tonight, we have agreed on the language that would be submitted to a Loya Jirga, but they have to pass it. So I think it’s inappropriate for me to comment at all on any of the details. It’s up to the people of Afghanistan.
When I left Kabul that late night when President Karzai and I had finished the major part of the negotiation, we both said it has to go to the Loya Jirga. There were some people who may have questioned or doubted whether that was going to happen. Well, it’s happening tomorrow, and it’s happening tomorrow with agreed-upon language between us. And I think it’s up to President Karzai to speak to the Loya Jirga, its process, and how it will work and what the results will be, and it’s up to President Obama and the White House to address any issues with respect to any possible communication between the President or President Karzai. So let’s see where we are.
But the important thing for people to understand is there has never been a discussion of or the word “apology” used in our discussions whatsoever.
MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Nick O’Malley of the Sydney Morning Herald.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, I was wondering, after the revelations that the NSA had conducted surveillance of the German leadership, the response from America was to seek to placate and reassure Germany.
SECRETARY KERRY: Sorry, I couldn’t hear your last – the response?
QUESTION: The response from America was to seek to placate German leadership. Do you think that would be a useful approach for Australia to be taking after revelations of Australian espionage against Indonesia?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say, fundamentally, each situation is its own situation. We have great respect, obviously, for the work we do together with our friends in Australia, as we’ve said here today. We have an unbreakable and a critical working relationship, and we have worked together in counterterrorism and many activities on a global basis, and will continue to.
Likewise, we have great respect and affection for Indonesia, we work with our friends in Indonesia on many different issues, and we will continue to do that. But whatever has been or not been released or being discussed in the papers, I believe – as I think our friends in Australia do – is a matter of intelligence and intelligence procedures, and we don’t discuss intelligence procedures in any sort of public way at this point in time, certainly, unless the President indicates otherwise. But that’s where we are.
MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Scott Stearns of VOA.
QUESTION: A question for Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Bishop: We understand where the international community is on Iran’s right to enrich uranium regarding the NPT. But can you foresee a resolution to this standoff that includes Iran in any way enriching uranium? Or does access to a civilian nuclear program on the part of Iran mean that it needs to access that uranium elsewhere? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, given that there is no stated right within the NPT, which we have reaffirmed again and again with respect to enrichment, whatever a country decides or doesn’t decide to do or is allowed to do and permitted under the rules depends on a negotiation, depends on a process. We’re not in that – we’re at the initial stage of determining whether or not there is a first step that can be taken. And that certainly will not be resolved in any first step, I can assure you.
So the President has said many times Iran, like other nations that are signatories to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, have a right to peaceful nuclear energy. Now, what that contains depends on the standing of that particular nation with respect to NPT requirements and the international community.
So that’s what the negotiation is about, and I’m not going to predetermine its outcome except to say to you that no right is recognized or granted within anything that I’ve seen in the early discussions. It is a subject of negotiation. It would have to be resolved in negotiation and subject to extraordinary standards and scrutiny and process, which is the heart of the negotiation. So there’s no way to suggest anything but that it’s important to get to a negotiation and see what can or cannot be reached.
MINISTER BISHOP: Australia is monitoring the P5+1 scenario very closely, and I’m grateful to Secretary Kerry for keeping us informed in the context of this AUSMIN meeting as to where the proposed negotiations are, where they’re likely to head. But we also reiterate that should a nation require nuclear aspects for the purposes of civilian purpose – for civilian uses, peaceful purposes, then of course, it’s subject to international safeguards, it’s subject to a range of protocols, and that would apply in this case. But we’re not at that stage. We’re not at a stage where Iran has convinced us that its use is for peaceful civilian purposes. Should it get to that point, then of course, the appropriate international safeguards and protocols would apply, as they would to any other country in that situation.
MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Jane Cowan of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
QUESTION: Foreign Minister Bishop, given the furor now over the revelations of Australian spying on Indonesia, have you registered Australia’s displeasure with those security lapses that gave rise to the Snowden leaks that have now caused so much discord in that relationship?
And Secretary Kerry, can you confirm that the spying was done at the request of the U.S.?
MINISTER BISHOP: As I have said on numerous occasions, and as the Prime Minister has said, we do not discuss intelligence matters, certainly not allegations. We do not discuss them publicly, and we will not do so. The Prime Minister has made two statements to the Parliament now on this issue, and I would refer you to those statements.
In regard to our discussions today, we had a very wide-ranging discussion about a whole raft of issues that affect our bilateral relationship, very productive and very fruitful discussions. And long may they continue.
SECRETARY KERRY: As Prime Minister Abbott has said and the comments that he has addressed, and as Minister Bishop has said here today and on many occasions, and as I have said in my previous comments, we just don’t talk about intelligence matters in public and we’re not about to begin now.
MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.
MODIS IMAGE SHOWS LARGE ICEBERG SEPARATING FROM PINE ISLAND GLACIER IN ANTARCTICA
FROM: NASA
Pine Island Glacier 2013: Nov. 10
This MODIS image taken by NASA’s Aqua satellite on Nov. 10, 2013, shows an iceberg that was part of the Pine Island Glacier and is now separating from the Antarctica continent. What appears to be a connection point on the top left portion of the iceberg is actually ice debris floating in the water.
The original rift that formed the iceberg was first observed in October 2011 but as the disconnection was not complete, the “birth” of the iceberg had not yet happened. It is believed the physical separation took place on or about July 10, 2013, however the iceberg persisted in the region, adjacent to the front of the glacier.
The iceberg is estimated to be 21 miles by 12 miles (35 km by 20 km) in size, roughly the size of Singapore. A team of scientists from Sheffield and Southampton universities will track it and try to predict its path using satellite data. Image credit: NASA
Pine Island Glacier 2013: Nov. 10
This MODIS image taken by NASA’s Aqua satellite on Nov. 10, 2013, shows an iceberg that was part of the Pine Island Glacier and is now separating from the Antarctica continent. What appears to be a connection point on the top left portion of the iceberg is actually ice debris floating in the water.
The original rift that formed the iceberg was first observed in October 2011 but as the disconnection was not complete, the “birth” of the iceberg had not yet happened. It is believed the physical separation took place on or about July 10, 2013, however the iceberg persisted in the region, adjacent to the front of the glacier.
The iceberg is estimated to be 21 miles by 12 miles (35 km by 20 km) in size, roughly the size of Singapore. A team of scientists from Sheffield and Southampton universities will track it and try to predict its path using satellite data. Image credit: NASA
MAN PLEADS GUILTY IN CASE INVOLVING THE SALE OF SEA TURTLE MEAT
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, November 18, 2013
Puerto Rico Man Pleads Guilty to Felony Violation of the Lacey Act for Illegal Sale of Sea Turtle Meat
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Manuel Garcia-Figueroa, a resident of Playa Añasco, Puerto Rico, pleaded guilty to a bill of information charging him with a felony violation of the Lacey Act for the illegal sale of sea turtle meat, the Justice Department announced today.
According to the information filed in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, Garcia-Figueroa knowingly sold more than $350 of meat and carapaces from endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) and meat from a threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), while knowing that the sea turtles had been taken in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The illegal sales took place on or about Dec.11, 2009, to on or about Jan. 4, 2010, in and around Playa Añasco. The case resulted from a joint-undercover operation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement (NOAA-OLE) and the FBI.
All species of sea turtles found in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and waters adjacent to the United States are protected by the ESA. Sea turtles are long-lived and slow to reach maturity. Pressures from habitat loss, fishing operations, pollution, illegal harvesting of eggs, and poaching of adults exacerbate the extinction risk faced by these animals. In Puerto Rico, the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is listed as “threatened” under the ESA; the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is listed as “endangered.”
The Lacey Act is the principal U.S. statute designed to reduce the role that wildlife poaching, selling, and smuggling plays in depleting protected species. Once an ESA-listed wildlife species is taken or possessed illegally, it is unlawful to “import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase” that species. A person commits a criminal violation of the Lacey Act if the illegal conduct involves the sale or purchase of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, while knowing that the wildlife was taken in violation of or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty, or regulation.
The waters around Puerto Rico are designated as a critical habitat for the hawksbill and the green sea turtle. The most significant nesting for the hawksbill within the U.S. occurs in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each year, about 500-1,000 hawksbill nests are laid on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. The green sea turtle population has declined by 48-65 percent over the past century. Puerto Rico is also home to nesting sites for the endangered leatherback sea turtle, the largest species of turtle in the world.
The commonwealth of Puerto Rico contains six national wildlife refuges (Cabo Rojo, Culebra, Desecheo, Laguna Cartagena, Navassa Island and Vieques) and is home to 25 endangered and threatened animal species, 21 of which are found nowhere else on earth
In 2013, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico announced the formation of the Puerto Rico Environmental Crimes Task Force to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes on the island. Under the new task force, federal investigative agencies are coordinating their efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing serious environmental crimes.
The cases are being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Christopher Hale of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carmen Márquez and Hector Ramirez of the District of Puerto Rico. If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2014.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Puerto Rico Man Pleads Guilty to Felony Violation of the Lacey Act for Illegal Sale of Sea Turtle Meat
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Manuel Garcia-Figueroa, a resident of Playa Añasco, Puerto Rico, pleaded guilty to a bill of information charging him with a felony violation of the Lacey Act for the illegal sale of sea turtle meat, the Justice Department announced today.
According to the information filed in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, Garcia-Figueroa knowingly sold more than $350 of meat and carapaces from endangered hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) and meat from a threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), while knowing that the sea turtles had been taken in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The illegal sales took place on or about Dec.11, 2009, to on or about Jan. 4, 2010, in and around Playa Añasco. The case resulted from a joint-undercover operation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement (NOAA-OLE) and the FBI.
All species of sea turtles found in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and waters adjacent to the United States are protected by the ESA. Sea turtles are long-lived and slow to reach maturity. Pressures from habitat loss, fishing operations, pollution, illegal harvesting of eggs, and poaching of adults exacerbate the extinction risk faced by these animals. In Puerto Rico, the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is listed as “threatened” under the ESA; the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is listed as “endangered.”
The Lacey Act is the principal U.S. statute designed to reduce the role that wildlife poaching, selling, and smuggling plays in depleting protected species. Once an ESA-listed wildlife species is taken or possessed illegally, it is unlawful to “import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase” that species. A person commits a criminal violation of the Lacey Act if the illegal conduct involves the sale or purchase of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, while knowing that the wildlife was taken in violation of or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty, or regulation.
The waters around Puerto Rico are designated as a critical habitat for the hawksbill and the green sea turtle. The most significant nesting for the hawksbill within the U.S. occurs in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each year, about 500-1,000 hawksbill nests are laid on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. The green sea turtle population has declined by 48-65 percent over the past century. Puerto Rico is also home to nesting sites for the endangered leatherback sea turtle, the largest species of turtle in the world.
The commonwealth of Puerto Rico contains six national wildlife refuges (Cabo Rojo, Culebra, Desecheo, Laguna Cartagena, Navassa Island and Vieques) and is home to 25 endangered and threatened animal species, 21 of which are found nowhere else on earth
In 2013, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico announced the formation of the Puerto Rico Environmental Crimes Task Force to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes on the island. Under the new task force, federal investigative agencies are coordinating their efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing serious environmental crimes.
The cases are being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Christopher Hale of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carmen Márquez and Hector Ramirez of the District of Puerto Rico. If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)