NSF ON BUILDING A BRAIN-MACHINE INTERFACE

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

How to build a brain-machine interface

New-generation brain technologies are now in use thanks to new body-compatible materials, smaller electronics and better sensors designed by engineers
Devices that tap directly into the nervous system can restore sensation, movement or cognitive function. These technologies, called brain-machine interfaces or BMIs, are on the rise, increasingly providing assistance to people who need it most.

But what exactly does it take to build a BMI?

To understand how (and why) BMIs are developed, the engineers who created the artifical retina can provide a kind of "how-to" guide for the curious and technically inclined.

While a greater understanding of biology has been essential to BMI development, advances in engineering and materials science have led to their design and performance. From creating new materials that are more compatible with the human body, to designing smaller electronics and better sensors, engineers are playing a major role in the development of existing and future brain technologies.

Like any other engineering challenge, building a BMI involves background research, feasibility testing, prototyping and production.

But building a BMI is unique in that engineers must design these devices to seamlessly interface with another complex system: the human nervous system.

The model: The bionic eye

In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Argus II® Retinal Prosthesis System for use in individuals who have lost their vision as a result of severe-to-profound retinitis pigmentosa. A genetic condition affecting one in every 4,000 individuals, early symptoms of retinitis pigmentosa often include night blindness, followed by gradual but progressive loss of peripheral vision and ultimately total blindness.

The system works by bypassing damaged photoreceptors, cells in the retina that normally convert light into electrical signals that the brain interprets as visual information. The Argus II® transmits images from a small camera to an implant in the back of the eye. Like the photoreceptors, the implant produces electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain.

"Seeing my grandmother go blind motivated me to pursue ophthalmology and biomedical engineering to develop a treatment for patients for whom there was no foreseeable cure," says the device's co-inventor, Mark Humayun, associate director of research at the Doheny Retina Institute at the University of Southern California.

Without this motivation, the daunting design challenges and constraints might have been enough to make even the most meticulous researcher think twice about tackling such a project.

"The artificial retina was a great engineering challenge under the interdisciplinary constraints of biology, enabling technology, [and] regulatory compliance" says Humayun's collaborator Wentai Liu, a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In addressing such a challenge, before researchers begin to worry about the technological details, they must first determine whether a BMI is the right fit.

Step one: Decide if a condition is a good candidate for a BMI

Like most engineering endeavors, the first step in building a BMI has more to do with understanding the system at hand than with cutting-edge design.

When it came to creating an artificial retina, this meant that researchers needed to determine which parts of the visual pathway were working and which were not.

"We needed to know there were enough neurons left in the eye to stimulate and still transmit nerve impulses and communicate with the vision center of the brain," Humayun says.

With initial funding in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the National Eye Institute, the National Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation and others, the researchers showed that neurons in the retina were still capable of responding to electrical stimulation--a sign that patients with this disease could potentially benefit from a BMI. If the nerves had been damaged, then signals would not have had a path to the brain, meaning that an artificial eye alone would not have solved the problem.

Step two: Determine if a fix is feasible

Once a condition is identified as a good candidate for a BMI, investigators need to determine whether the basic technologies needed to create such a device are even feasible.

For Humayun and colleagues, this meant tackling some tough engineering challenges, including how to mimic photoreceptor activity with artificial electrical stimulation, how to power the implant and enable real-time data transmission and how to integrate external components with the implant.

With early support from the National Science Foundation and others, the researchers set about answering each of these questions throughout the 1990s, meticulously developing prototypes of the miniature video camera and belt-worn computer that would capture and convert visual information, the integrated computer chip that would wirelessly receive the data and the tiny electrode array that would stand in for the damaged photoreceptors.

Step three: Consider the human factor

When designing a BMI, it's critical to remember that these devices must operate in concert with the human body. In addition to incorporating feedback from potential users throughout the design process, this means that the device must be designed in such a way that it can function effectively in the presence of body fluids and tissues.

Humayun and his collaborators addressed this challenge by creating a hermetically sealed packaging system that would allow the device to work in the gelatinous environment of the eye. They also carefully planned how they would implant the device to minimize the disruption to the body.

"The inside of the eye is a relatively immune-privileged site and the scarring reaction is minimal," Humayun says. "But, having said this, the surgery and the attachment of the device inside the eye has to be performed in the least invasive manner possible."

Step four: Optimize, shrink and integrate

Before a BMI reaches the end user, each component must be optimized, miniaturized and integrated with the rest of the device.

Unlike traditional design practices, which focus on optimizing each component, the artificial retina was developed by tweaking and streamlining the device as a whole, known as systems-level optimization.

The result?

A sleek, small system that packs a punch.

"The engine for the artificial retina is a 'system on a chip' of mixed voltages and mixed analog-digital design, which provides self-contained power and data management," Liu says.

Step five: Scale up and get the go-ahead

One of the final steps in building a BMI is getting it into the hands of those who need it. When the initial technology is developed in an academic research setting, this can often mean handing it off to a company that will facilitate manufacturing and manage clinical trials and commercial distribution to patients.

Founded in 1998 by Humayun's former graduate student Robert Greenberg, Second Sight Medical Products Inc., took the artificial retina from the laboratory bench to the marketplace. Clinical trials for the first-generation device (the Argus I) were conducted in 2002, and were followed by pilot studies and patient trials for the Argus II in 2006. On Feb. 14, 2013, the Argus II became the first visual prosthesis to receive market approval in the United States.

Step six: Rinse and repeat

Perhaps the most important aspect of building a BMI is recognizing that there is always room for improvement.

"While we are still at the earliest stages, people are already benefiting from these implants, through improved mobility," says James Weiland, former deputy director of the Biomimetic Microelectronic Systems (BMES) Engineering Research Center at the University of Southern California.

"Working on advanced technology projects convinces me that it is feasible to create the technology needed for better outcomes."

Led by Humayun, the BMES Engineering Research Center was founded in 2003 to continue to advance the development of this technology. The latest prototype features an ultra-miniature camera that can be implanted directly in the eye. The system also contains more than 15 times the number of electrodes in the Argus II, which the researchers anticipate will greatly improve image resolution.

-- Valerie Thompson, AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow, National Science Foundation vthompso@nsf.gov
Investigators
Wentai Liu
Gerald Loeb
Brian Justus
Mark Humayun
James Weiland
Related Institutions/Organizations
Doheny Eye Institute
Johns Hopkins University
North Carolina State University
University of Southern California
University of California-Santa Cruz

AG HOLDER'S REMARKS AT UKRAINE FORUM ON ASSET RECOVERY

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Attorney General Holder Delivers Remarks at the Ukraine Forum on Asset Recovery

~ Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Thank you for those kind words – and thank you all for such a warm welcome.  It’s an honor to join so many dedicated leaders, committed public servants, and distinguished policymakers from around the world for this important Forum.  It’s a pleasure, as always, to be back in London.  And it’s a great privilege to be here at Lancaster House – where history has brought others together many times before to address fundamental questions about the right of self-determination and the necessity for the rule of law.

 I would like to thank Her Majesty’s Government, Prime Minister [David] Cameron, my good friend and esteemed colleague Home Secretary [Theresa] May, and the British people for welcoming me, the entire U.S. delegation, our Ukrainian counterparts, and all of our foreign and agency partners to this beautiful city – and for co-hosting this week’s critical gathering.

The goals that bind together every nation represented here are, as ever, rooted in our long shared and defining values.  For well over a century, our mutual commitment to cooperation has played an indispensable role in ensuring stability, international security and bolstering global collaboration.  And today, once again, this community of nations stands as one – our ranks strengthened by partners, old and new, from around the world, and our peoples united by a joint and pressing obligation:  to respond to the challenges of this day, to help resolve the conflicts of this hour, and to stand with the people of Ukraine in this moment as they rightfully chart their own, independent course to safety, prosperity, and peace.

By our presence here today and participation in this vital Forum on Asset Recovery, we reaffirm our dedication to supporting Ukrainian leaders and citizens as they strengthen law enforcement efforts, reinforce key institutions, and build and improve systems that will help guarantee the economic stability, the vital political independence, and the national sovereignty of a strong and free Ukraine.  As President Obama said in the Oval Office early last month, the interests of the United States – and the interests of our friends and allies around the world – are squarely consistent with the overwhelming desire of the Ukrainian people, as with peoples around our world, to determine their own destiny.  Their desire is not a unique one and is as old as recorded time.  And today’s gathering should send a powerful message to those in every region of Ukraine – and others across the globe and in the region – who are striving to move their country forward:  that they have, and can continue to expect, the strong and unwavering support of every nation represented here.

Together, we are committed to providing much-needed aid and supporting economic reforms.  We’re determined to offer technical assistance to help ensure free and fair elections.  We will do all that we can to bolster investigative efforts to locate and return stolen assets coopted by members of the previous regime.  And wherever our partnership can make a positive difference, we will not hesitate to use every tool and resource at our disposal to enable Ukraine to rebuild, reform, and refocus on its future.

We gather this morning, in part, in recognition of the fact that this process will be anything but easy.  The challenges we face are both numerous and profound.  As the President said last month in Brussels, this is “[a time] of testing for Europe and the United States and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build.”  And the adversity we must confront is exacerbated in no small part by the rampant corruption of Ukraine’s previous regime, which deprived the country of vital resources and lined the pockets of unscrupulous leaders with ill-gotten gains.

This state of affairs underscores the reality that many of us have seen firsthand throughout our careers – including during my own service, decades ago, as a young prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice:  that official misconduct and corruption is acutely corrosive.  And I saw, as you all have seen, that the costs of this corruption can be both immense and long-lasting.

We now know that, worldwide, the cross-border flow of proceeds from criminal activity, including corruption, has been estimated to be as great as $1.6 trillion per year.  Corruption often serves as a gateway crime, paving the way for money laundering, transnational organized crime, and in some cases even terrorism.  It’s no exaggeration to say that it undermines the fundamental promise of democracy and legitimate self-rule.  It siphons precious resources away from those in need.  It imperils development, security, stability, and faith in financial markets.  And it profoundly weakens that which is the basis of the desired modern society – the rule of law.

Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions.  As you know, fighting corruption and retrieving stolen assets requires a great deal of patience and persistence.  Investigations of, and prosecutions against, corrupt officials are inherently complex and resource-intensive.  International corruption cases are even more so.  And all too often, the processes necessary to refine laws and law enforcement modalities are cumbersome at best – and arcane or even nonexistent at worst.

 These obstacles are real – and they can be daunting.  But I have been proud to work with my British counterparts to convene this Forum – and bring this community of nations together – precisely because I believe that we can, but more importantly must, create out of this significant challenge an even greater global opportunity:  to discuss our respective experiences, to share knowledge and expertise, to refine our understanding of best practices, and to seek new avenues for communication and cooperation, both in Ukraine and far beyond.

This effort will be bolstered by the great work we’ve already done, and the infrastructure we’re currently building, to carry similar efforts through to completion around the world.  Fourteen years ago, officials from many of the nations represented here gathered in Washington, D.C., for the very first Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity.  That meeting marked a groundbreaking new start – and the culmination of a growing international willingness to acknowledge corruption as a problem that every country, every region, and every people, must learn to confront.

In the decade and a half since, international leaders and luminaries have repeatedly come together – in a variety of ways – to foster widespread consensus on the need for collective action in the face of shared challenges.  And our nations have accomplished a great deal.

In recent years, we’ve worked together to draft and bring into force the United Nations Convention Against Corruption – the first-ever global anti-corruption treaty – which has transformed transnational cooperation on issues ranging from anticorruption to counterterrorism.  More recently – as the world watched winds of change sweep across the Middle East – we gathered in Doha and in Marrakech for the first and second Arab Forums on Asset Recovery.

In Colombia and other nations, the United States has helped set up vetted units within key government institutions to ensure that those very bodies tasked with rooting out crime and corruption are not themselves tainted.  These lessons are valuable ones and should be passed on to Ukraine and other countries seeking to cope with the legacy of endemic corruption.

And today, as we open the Ukraine Forum on Asset Recovery, we also reaffirm our enduring commitment to the ideals that characterized those earlier gatherings and endeavors.  And we assert our unyielding determination to fight corruption wherever it exists and in whatever form it exists – however long it may take.

 Of course, if this work is to be successful, each of us must be willing to meet our individual responsibilities – and to serve not as just productive partners, but as leaders, of our comprehensive global effort.  This is why, as my country’s Attorney General, I have made certain that anticorruption and asset forfeiture have consistently stood as top priorities for my colleagues across the U.S. Department of Justice.  I launched a Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative within the Department – in 2010 – to combat large-scale foreign official corruption and help recover funds for their proper and intended use:  ensuring the welfare and well-being of the citizens to which they rightly belong.

Through this initiative, my colleagues and I have assembled a team of highly-skilled prosecutors to enhance our anticorruption activities and deny corrupt officials the benefit of the funds they’ve stolen.  Already, our Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section has initiated a number of cases targeting hundreds of millions of dollars in corruption proceeds – including, most recently, over $550 million that was stolen by the Nigerian dictator and notorious kleptocrat Sani Abacha.

 As we turn our collective attention and resources to the situation in Ukraine, it’s clear that we face a variety of new dangers and unprecedented challenges.  The importance of our cooperative work has been brought into stark focus.  The untenable situation currently confronting the Ukrainian people clearly impels the international community to further action and engagement.  And that’s why, within days of the fall of President Yanukovych’s regime, the U.S. Department of Justice had a response team on the ground in Kyiv to assess the needs of Ukraine’s investigation into stolen assets belonging to its people; to provide assistance with document review and preservation; and to help initiate and coordinate any and all efforts required by further investigations.

We have also deployed significant resources from the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section; from our Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training; from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network – or FinCEN – to help gather information, analyze data, and look into potential leads.  This represents an extremely promising start.  But if we are to be successful in our effort to help the people of Ukraine realize their own destinies – and help create the basis for a more fair and more just society that they desire and that they deserve – the international community must stand together, once again, to do even more.  And today, just as we have in the past, the people and government of the United States are ready and willing to do our part.

Last week – at President Obama’s direction, and in order to build on the work that’s already ongoing – Vice President Biden announced that the United States is committing an additional $1 million in technical assistance to aid the Ukrainian investigation for equipment and other developing needs.  Among other things, these funds will place a Justice Department attorney on the ground in Kyiv to work exclusively with Ukraine and its partners on asset recovery and mutual legal assistance issues.  As we’ve learned from providing similar assistance and support to Arab Spring countries, this move will be critical to augmenting vital information-gathering and communications capabilities in order to enhance asset recovery in both the short and long term.

 Fortunately, this is just the beginning.  This morning, I am pleased to announce the creation of a dedicated Kleptocracy squad within the FBI.  This specialized unit will partner with our Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section to aggressively investigate and prosecute corruption cases – not only in Ukraine, but around the world.  The squad of about a dozen personnel will consist of case agents and forensic analysts who are capable of unraveling the intricate money laundering transactions commonly employed by kleptocrats.  Their sophisticated work will be supported by deputy marshals from the United States Marshals Service and analysts from FinCEN, which is our financial intelligence unit.  And this new initiative will provide the United States with increased capacity to respond rapidly to political crises as they arise – so we can help prevent stolen assets from being dissipated or secreted away by deposed regimes.

 I thank you all for your partnership, and your steadfast support, of this and other work that’s currently underway.  And I urge every nation to join the United States in helping to solidify and institutionalize the collaborative efforts of investigators, prosecutors, and other practitioners in tracing, freezing, confiscating, and repatriating proceeds of corruption and other financial crimes not only in Ukraine, but around the world.  We will need the leadership of both practitioners, sharing evidence and expertise, and policymakers, who hold the keys to unlock resources for these complex investigations – and the legislative remedies to remove obstacles to efficient cooperation in asset recovery.

This, after all, is the clear mission and the singular focus of this Forum: not to rest on our laurels or extol past achievements, but – through common cause and, primarily, collective action – to help sovereign nations chart their own courses for transparent and accountable government in order to secure the better and brighter futures that they and their citizens deserve.

It is only by working together, learning from one another, and striving to move forward as a community of nations – united by our means as well as our objectives – that we can help fulfill the promise of democracy, and ensure respect for the rule of law, throughout Europe and in every corner of the globe.  And today we declare once again – with one voice and one purpose – that we must not, and we shall not, settle for anything less.

The United States is proud to stand with you in taking up this charge.  We are fortunate to count each of you as a friend and ally in this vital effort.  We will continue to count on your partnership and leadership.  And we join millions around the world in expressing our admiration for the boundless courage and tenacity of the Ukrainian people – to speak out against corruption; to stand up for their right to be free from foreign intervention; and to insist on a government that’s committed to democracy and the rule of law.

We can all be encouraged by the swift action that’s being taken by a broad coalition of countries to strongly condemn unwarranted aggression and violations of international law.  And we pledge this morning that we will never stop fighting alongside Ukraine and its partners to make the progress we need – to ensure accountability, to strengthen transnational cooperation, and to meet instability and irresponsibility with resolve – and robust diplomacy.

 Thank you, once again, for all that you do.  I look forward to a most productive Forum, but caution you that – though our joint work begins here in London – our continuing efforts will take place in many venues around the world.  And our ultimate success will be dependent on the commitment to both action and perseverance with which all of the nations gathered here are capable.  We owe the Ukrainian people – and others watching around the world – nothing less than our best efforts.  We must not fail them.  Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks at the Atlantic Council's "Toward a Europe Whole and Free" Conference

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

April 29, 2014

---

So after that I thought I’d just stand up and say, “I accept the nomination.” (Laughter.) Fred, thank you very, very much – very, very generous comments.

Thank you all for the privilege of sharing some thoughts with you at this both timely and very, very important gathering. It’s my privilege to be able to be here, and I’m particularly happy to be here with so many of my colleagues, both our foreign ministers and defense ministers who are here. We had a chance to chat briefly out there. We have been meeting regularly along the trail, and I have come to admire and respect each of them for the clarity of their vision and for the way in which they have been really prescient on many of these issues.

I love the new digs and thank all those who are responsible for that. And also, Fred, thanks so much for your leadership and for the tremendous work that is being done at the Atlantic Council lately, the success of this particular conference but also the work, the groundwork you’ve been laying, and the focus that you have had on the criticality of the NATO relationship, the European relationship, which, as we know, thinking back to comments of the near past about Old Europe and New Europe and other times things that have been floating out there over these last years, this discussion is even more timely and relevant.

This year marks a number of different milestones that are really worth remembering, obviously beginning with the fact that it is 65 years since Secretary of State Dean Acheson and his European counterparts came together to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. And it’s been 25 years, amazingly, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And that wall, as we all know too well, symbolically and literally divided East and West and Europe.

It’s been 15 years, and 10 years, and 5 years since then that NATO has welcomed new partners into the post-Cold War era. And as we have expanded as an organization, as NATO has expanded as an organization, I think it’s safe to say we have also expanded democracy, prosperity, and stability in Europe, and we have opened new opportunities in order to be able to advance security even further, and we have spurred economic growth around the globe.
Year after year, importantly, NATO’s newest members have proven their mettle in ways that we hoped for but necessarily weren’t able to predict with certainty. And so today I can tell you that I’ve seen it firsthand. Governor Huntsman and others have had occasion to travel, and we know what has been achieved in Afghanistan, where our allies in Central and Eastern Europe have served alongside us and others with distinction – on occasion not just making a sacrifice, but asking their young soldiers to join in making the ultimate sacrifice. And that perhaps more than anything else can define an alliance.

In addition, over the decades-long history, I think NATO, without any question, has done more to promote security, more to promote prosperity, and more to promote freedom than any other alliance in human history.

But today it serves us well to remember the words of President Eisenhower, who said about NATO when he was talking to our NATO allies, he said, “We can take satisfaction from the past, but no complacency in the present.”

As we come together then to reflect on 65 years of partnership, perseverance, and protection, we also have to take a look – a hard, cold, sober look – at the clear threats that regrettably still exist – not because of some inherent continuous push over these last years, but frankly, because of a fairly, it appears, uniquely personally driven set of choices that are being made.
And after two decades of focusing primarily on our expeditionary missions, the crisis in Ukraine now calls us back to the role that this alliance was originally created to perform, and that is to defend alliance territory and advance transatlantic security.

The events in Ukraine are a wake-up call. Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community. It is not as if we really haven’t bent over backwards to try to set a new course in the post-Cold War era. And so we’ve pursued serious bilateral engagement. We invited Russians to join organizations like the WTO, the NATO-Russia Council. But what Russia’s actions in Ukraine tell us is that today Putin’s Russia is playing by a different set of rules. And through its occupation of Crimea and its subsequent destabilization of Eastern Ukraine, Russia seeks to change the security landscape of Eastern and Central Europe.

So we find ourselves in a defining moment for our transatlantic alliance, and nobody should mistake that. And we are prepared to do what we need to do, and to go the distance, to uphold that alliance. Our strength will come from our unity. And the strength of our alliance always has come from our unity over the course of the 65 years.

So together, we have to push back against those who want to try to change sovereign borders by force.

Together, we have to support those who simply want to try to live as we do or as others do. I remember being in Kyiv and a man came up to me near the Maidan and said to me. “You know, I just came back from Australia, and I had to come back here and I have to be part of this, and I have to work so that people here could live the way I saw people living in Australia.” In today’s era of mobile devices and smartphones, everybody is in touch with everybody all of the time. And that sense of aspiration and hope and possibility is something that fills the imaginations of young people all around the planet.

So together, we have to support those folks who want to live free, making their choices about their own future. Together, we have to continue our strong support for Ukraine. And we can do that through economic assistance and we can do it through support for free and fair elections, for constitutional reform, for anti-corruption and for demobilization efforts.

And most important, together, we have to make it absolutely clear to the Kremlin that NATO territory is inviolable. We will defend every single piece of it. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty must mean something, and our allies on the front lines need and deserve no less.

Now, obviously, there have to be consequences for those who want to put to test what has been the norm of international relations and the goal, if you will, of international behavior ever since World War II.

Two weeks ago, I traveled to Geneva with my counterparts from Russia, from the EU, and from Ukraine. We agreed on a number of steps that needed to be taken in order to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine. I will tell you we had a very candid conversation, and Foreign Minister Lavrov agreed with all of us that we needed to be reciprocal in the steps that we need to take; both sides needed to do things in order to move forward.
Well, I will tell you that I was that afternoon directly in touch with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and gave him the full download on those things that were legitimate expectations out of that, and he went to work immediately – immediately.

And so it was that from day one, Ukraine undertook to implement both the spirit and the substance of what was laid out in Geneva. He immediately agreed to help to vacate buildings, and he set out to do so, and they did vacate some buildings. They immediately began to remove barricades from the Maidan. Even now in the last 24 hours or so, they’ve vacated an entire building in the Maidan, because that was a specific complaint of Russia.

They proposed a specific amnesty bill in the legislature in order to follow through on the amnesty for protestors so that they could leave buildings with a sense of security about the justice system. They withheld their legitimate right to use their power of the state to remove people from buildings; instead stood back and canceled their CT operation over the course of the Easter weekend.

They actually took a trip – the prime minister himself – out to the region to indicate a willingness to listen to people in order to shape the constitutional reform, and in every respect began to open up the dialogues which even today they are pursuing throughout the region in order to discuss constitutional reform. That’s what Ukraine did starting on day one.

Meanwhile, I have to say to you, not one single step has been taken by Russia in any public way that seriously attempts to live by the spirit or the law of what was signed in that agreement. They have not announced publicly to their people that they need to come out of the buildings. They haven’t engaged with the OSCE in order to negotiate people out of the buildings. Every time you have a conversation, it’s pointing the finger at what the Ukrainians haven’t done, without even tallying up what they have done or acknowledging their own zero in the column with respect to what they have undertaken.

In fact, it’s fair to say they have escalated the crisis even further. There is strong evidence that I laid out several days ago of the degree to which Russian engagement exists directly in the east and has been building up over some period of time. Yet, what do we hear, regrettably? What we hear are the outrageous claims from certain people that the CIA somehow invented the internet in order to control the world, or that the forces occupying buildings, armed to the teeth, all wearing brand new military uniforms with the same lack of insignia, with the same faces in some cases of people who were identified as being in Crimea and in Georgia – they somehow want to assert to people that these people, moving in disciplined military formation to take over buildings and then bring the local separatists in to occupy the building while they move on to another building in an orderly, absolutely discernable, trackable fashion – they assert that these people are merely local activists seeking to exercise their legitimate rights.

As we have made clear, those kinds of claims are absurd. They defy any common sense. They defy the facts. And worse, they’re an indicator of the disingenuous dissembling, the policy of complete fiction that is being pursued in an effort to pursue their own goals and their own ends.
The Russians claim the government in Kyiv is illegitimate, but it’s a government that came to power with the vast supermajority of the Rada voting for it, including President Yanukovych’s own party, who deserted him because he deserted his country. And if your fear is illegitimacy, then you would step out of the way and encourage an election, which is set for about three and a half weeks from now, on the 25^th of May, and you would encourage that election to take place in order to provide the legitimacy.

But instead, they’re doing everything in their power to undermine free and fair elections. They claim eastern Ukraine is too violent for monitors from the OSCE to be there; but when it comes to the armed, pro-Russian separatists – the ones who are actually perpetrating the violence – they do absolutely nothing to prevent them from taking those prisoners and hostages they’ve taken, in order to free them, and they allow them to be paraded in front of the press. And we see no evidence – no evidence at all – that Russia has actually pressured any of these groups in order to release any of these people or change course.

I say this with a certain element of sorrow, because of all of the effort and energy that has been expended to try to create a structure by which we would behave – all of us – differently, representing the best hopes and aspirations of all people on the face of this planet. That’s what all of our predecessors worked so hard to achieve, setting up a structure of rule of law and international law and multilateral mechanisms by which we try to resolve these kinds of differences.

So as a result, for all of these reasons, yesterday the United States announced again – President Obama announced – additional sanctions on more Russian individuals and entities. And we’ve also restricted export licenses for high-tech items that could be used to bolster Russia’s military capabilities.

Now these steps and other steps that we and our partners have taken over the past few months are already forcing Russia to pay a steep price for its efforts to create this instability. And I mean that. You just have to look at the ratings on the bonds, you look at the capital outflow, you look at the GDP numbers that are trending downwards. This is having an impact. And as long as Russia decides to continue to fan the flames rather than help to put them out, we stand ready – with our partners – to do what is necessary, not to necessarily punish somebody, but to find a way forward that restores this process we’ve worked so hard to honor through the years.
The Russians have a clear choice: Leave Ukraine in peace and work with us together to create a strong Ukraine, a Ukraine that is not a pawn, pulled and tugged at between East and West, but a Ukraine that could be a bridge to both, with the ability to have an open trading mechanism on all degrees, 360 around Ukraine. And whatever path they choose, I can guarantee this: The United States and our allies will stand together in support of Ukraine.

This crisis is a wake-up call for us to accelerate the other work that we’ve been doing to promote a stronger, more prosperous transatlantic community.

So to start, we cannot continue to allow allied defense budgets to shrink. Clearly, not all allies are going to meet the NATO benchmark of 2 percent of GDP overnight or even next year. But it’s time for allies who are below that level to make credible commitments to increase their spending on defense over the next five years. And if we’re going to move the trend line in a positive direction, this has to be an alliance-wide effort.

Two, if we want a Europe that is both whole and free, then we have to do more together immediately, with a sense of urgency, to ensure that European nations are not dependent on Russia for the majority of their energy. In this age of new energy markets, in this age of concern about global climate change and carbon overload, we ought to be able to rush to the ability to be able to make Europe less dependent. And if we do that, that will be one of the greatest single strategic differences that could be made here. We can deliver greater energy independence and help to diversify energy sources that are available to the European markets, and we can expand the energy infrastructure across Europe, and we can build up energy storage capacity throughout the continent.

Third, we have to invest in the underpinnings of our economic partnership. We are together, Europe and the United States, two of the largest markets in the world. And the fact is that we can seriously strengthen our economic ties and accelerate growth and job creation and serve as a buffer to any negative impacts of some of the steps we need to take if we move on both sides of the Atlantic rapidly to complete the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. That agreement will do more to change the way we do business and some of our strategic considerations than any other single economic step that we can take, with the sole exception of the energy independence.

So my friends, I’ll just close by saying to all of you that this moment – without reaching for any hyperbole because the moment is serious enough that it doesn’t require that – this moment is about more than just ourselves. The fact is that our entire model of global leadership is at stake. And if we stand together, if we draw strength from the example of the past and refuse to be complacent in the present, then I am confident that NATO, the planet’s strongest alliance, can meet the challenges, can absolutely take advantage of the opportunities that are presented by crisis, and that we can move closer to a Europe that is whole and prosperous, at peace, and free and strong.

That’s our goal, and we look forward to working with our fellow ministers and with each of these countries to achieve it. Thank you for letting me be with you. (Applause.)

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY, EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy Before Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

April 29, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. I am pleased to welcome the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Nabil Fahmy, who is no stranger in Washington. He spent many years in the United States. Actually, he was born in New York. I think he spoke English before Arabic, (inaudible). (Laughter.) And he and I have been in constant touch in recent months by telephone, so it’s good to have a chance to catch up. We’ve seen each other at a couple of conferences, but today we obviously have very important issues to discuss.

Egypt, for a long time, has been a very important strategic partner of the United States, and we do share common interests, particularly the stability of the region, counterterrorism, peace with Israel, and other concerns. Egypt is a very important country. It is one quarter of the Arab world, and historically Egypt has always played a central role in the region and in our efforts to maintain the peace process, as well as the stability of the region itself.

Clearly, Egypt has been going through a very difficult transitional process. What happens in the next weeks and months is very, very important to all of us. We want the interim government to be successful. We are hopeful and look for a political process of inclusivity, a constitution implemented which brings people politically to the table, and broadens the democratic base of Egypt. Egypt’s constitution is a positive step forward. It has taken steps, and they are moving now to an election. But even as these positive steps have been taken, we all know there have been disturbing decisions within the judicial process – the court system – that have raised serious challenges for all of us.

We will discuss these issues today very candidly and forthrightly, and we do so in a spirit that wants to find a way for Egypt to be able to make it through this transition and share a full democracy with its people and be able to take the steps that create the stability and strength that is necessary from a country like Egypt where everybody looks to the potential of Egypt’s reemergence on the global stage as a major partner in our strategic concerns.

So we are hopeful for that. We look to work very closely in that effort. But as I’ve mentioned to the foreign minister a number of times, we really are looking for certain things to happen that will give people the sense of confidence about this road ahead. It’s actions, not words, that will make the difference, and that’s really the discussion that we look forward to have this morning.
So Mr. Foreign Minister, I really welcome you here.

FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: You’ve given us a lot of insight as to what is happening. I know you yourself are pushing for – in many of these things – and we look forward to a good discussion.

FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: Thank you, John. Thank you very much for inviting me back to Washington. It’s been – the State Department has been a frequent visit for me in the past in my previous capacity. And this venue, in particular this hall, was an event – an area for many events that I attended. But the American-Egyptian relationship is something that’s extremely important to me personally and to Egypt, as well as as a nation.

All of the strategic elements that the Secretary mentioned regarding our common goals, I don’t want to repeat because I completely agree with him on those issues. What’s different in my visit this time than in my previous capacity is I come now representing people that want democracy, they want to be stakeholders in the future, they want to build a better country, that are going through a transformation that is societal, not simply changing one president for the other. I believe we are moving forward. Again, as the Secretary said, the constitution in particular was a very constructive step. We’re going forward with the election for president in a few weeks and then hopefully soon after that for parliament.

As we do that, we need to deal with the challenges that we face without disturbing institutional relationships. The Secretary mentioned some of the challenges within the judicial system. They are completely independent from the government, but of course, they’re part of what Egypt is all about. I can’t comment on the content of the decisions themselves, but I’m confident that due process is allowed – that due process is allowed, and that the legal system will ultimately end up with proper decisions in each of these cases. And we will build a democracy based on the rule of law, and the rule of law means applying laws that are consistent with the constitution through a legal system that’s independent and credible to us all – most of all, to the Egyptian people.

And that’s a commitment that I make not to you here in Washington, but to my own people. So I’m glad to say it here as well at the same time. We’re going to have an interesting discussion on a number of the regional issues, on our bilaterals, and of course, I’ll be happy to explain what’s happening in Egypt domestically as well. Thank you, John, for having me here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Nabil. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanks.

U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR APRIL 29, 2014

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

CONTRACTS

ARMY

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Fla. was awarded a $80,663,444 modification (P00055) under contract W58RGZ-11-C-0120 for U.S. and foreign military sales (Indonesia). The contract is for Lot 9 Modernized Target Acquisition Pilot Night Vision Sensors to include eight US systems with one spare and four additional systems with four war replacement spares. It also covers eight systems for Indonesia with one spare. Other procurement funds in the amount of $19,705,128 for fiscal 2014; $17,385,938 for fiscal 2013; and $43,577,378 for fiscal 2010 were obligated at the time of the award. Work will be performed in Orlando, Fla., with an estimated completion date of July 31, 2018. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity.
DynCorp International LLC, McLean, Va., was awarded a $49,898,634 modification (P00034) to cost-plus-fixed-fee contract W91CRB-11-C-0053 for mentoring and training in support of the Afghanistan Ministry of Interior and Afghanistan National Police. Work will be performed in Afghanistan with an expected completion date of Dec. 31, 2014. Fiscal 2013 other funds in the amount of $24,949,317 are being oblicated at award. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting agency.

PAT GD Joint Venture LLC.,* Rochester Hills, Mich. was awarded a $24,400,000 firm-fixed-price foreign military sales contract for piers and dredging, Umm Nasr, Iraq to include the design and construction of an approximately 165meter floating pier for use by the Iraqi Navy and dredging of the adjacent harbor and navigational channel. The contractor also must ensure the harbor and navigational channel remain dredged to the required depth for one year following the initial dredging. Fiscal 2014 other procurement funds in the amount of $24,400,000 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Nov. 6, 2015. Bids were solicited via the Internet with eight received. Work will be performed in Uum Qasr, Iraq. Army Corps of Engineers, Winchester, Va. is the contracting activity (W912ER-14-C-0013).

Dynamic Aviation Group Inc., Bridgewater, Va., was awarded a $22,359,136 firm-fixed-price contract for continued operations, sustainment, and integration of three communications electronic attack with surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, currently deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $5,919,114 are being obligated at award. Work will be performed in Bridgewater, Va. (20 percent) and Afghanistan (80 percent), with an estimated completion date of April 30, 2015. One bid was solicited and one received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal (Aviation), Redstone, Ala., is the contracting agency (W58RGZ-14-C-0037).

Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded an $8,583,960 modification (000730) to firm-fixed-price contract W56HZV-09-D-0159 for 39 each family of medium tactical vehicles and applicable federal retail excise tax in support of the U.S. Army in the continental U.S. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wis., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2015. Fiscal 2013 other funds in the amount of $394,077 and fiscal 2012 funds in the amount of $8,189,883 are being obligated at award. The U.S. Army Contracting Command-Tank and Automotive (Warren), Warren, Mich., is the contracting agency.

NAVY

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Charlottesville, Va., is being awarded an $88,153,800 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price supply contract with a contract line item for cost-plus-fixed-fee engineering and technical services to acquire integrated bridge systems and steering/ship control systems, related hardware and associated services. The systems are comprised of chart servers, network interface boxes, flat panel displays, radar systems, navigation software, ship control software, global positioning systems, weather sensors, depth sensors, speed sensors, digital compass systems, ship control display systems and sonar systems. These items represent a modernization upgrade from existing systems currently in use. In addition, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., will be required to provide services associated with the analysis, repair, improvement, installation, testing and operational training of fleet personnel on this equipment. Work will be conducted at various ship homeports inside and outside the United States and on deployed vessels, and will completed by April 2019. Fiscal 2014 other procurement, Navy contract funds in the estimated amount of $100,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Ship System Engineering Station, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity (N65540-14-D-0002).

Sikorsky Aerospace Maintenance, Stratford, Conn., is being awarded a $7,927,579 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0024) to exercise an option for organizational, selected intermediate, and limited depot-level maintenance for aircraft operated by adversary squadrons. Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West, Fla. (40 percent); NAS Fallon, Nev. (30 percent); and the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Ariz. (30 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy Reserve funds in the amount of $7,927,579 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

AIR FORCE

Mirador Enterprises Inc., El Paso, Texas, has been awarded a $45,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the Holloman Air Force Base Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements program. Task orders will be issued for a broad range of maintenance, repair, minor construction/alteration and renovation work on real property at Holloman AFB, N.M., and federal real property within 60 mile radius of Holloman post office. Work will be performed at Holloman, N.M., and is expected to be completed by April 22, 2019. The award is the result of a competitive 8(a) acquisition. An unlimited number of offers were solicited through Federal Business Opportunities and 19 offers were received. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $2,000 for task order 0001 are being obligated at time of award. 49 Contracting Squadron, Holloman AFB, N.M., is the contracting activity (FA4801-14-D-0007).

WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES

SRA International Inc., Fairfax, Va., is being awarded a $7,349,801 firm-fixed-price contract to provide IT network support services for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency. Work will be performed in Alexandria, Va., and Arlington, Va., with an expected completion date of Feb. 28, 2015. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $7,349,801 are being obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was a sole-source procurement. Washington Headquarters Services, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity. (HQ0034-14-F-0104)

*Small Business

BARRIO AZTECA LT. RESPONSIBLE FOR 2010 U.S. CONSULATE MURDERS SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON

FROM:  JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Barrio Azteca Lieutenant Who Ordered the Consulate Murders in Ciudad Juarez Sentenced to Life in Prison

Arturo Gallegos Castrellon, aka “Benny,” “Farmero,” “51,” “Guero,” “Pecas,” “Tury,” and “86,” 35, of Chihuahua, Mexico, the Barrio Azteca Lieutenant who ordered the March 2010 murders of a U.S. Consulate employee, her husband and the husband of another U.S. Consulate employee, was sentenced today to serve life in prison.

Acting Assistant Attorney General David A. O’Neil of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas, Special Agent in Charge Douglas E. Lindquist of the FBI’s El Paso Division and Administrator Michele M. Leonhart of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made the announcement.

“ Arturo Gallegos Castrellon led the teams of assassins who carried out the U.S. Consulate shootings in March 2010 and ruthlessly murdered nearly 1,600 others as part of a cartel conflict over a drug trafficking route from Mexico into the United States,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General O’Neil.   “His gang of killers terrorized and victimized men and women on both sides of the border, but thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement partners he will now spend the rest of his life in prison for his crimes.”

“I cannot overstate the significance of this victory in our ongoing efforts to end the depredations of the cartels operating along our Southern border,” said U.S. Attorney Pitman.  “This prosecution has called to account Arturo Gallegos Castrellon for the senseless murders he orchestrated in Ciudad Juarez and elsewhere and demonstrates our commitment to ending the murder and mayhem he and the cartels have fomented.”

“The DEA is committed to ensuring cold-blooded criminals, like Arturo Gallegos Castrellon, who murder innocent victims, traffic huge amounts of drugs worldwide, and incite violence are taken off the street and remain behind bars,” said DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart.  “Castrellon’s conviction and life sentence is a clear sign that the DEA, along with our law enforcement partners, will not tolerate those who attack Americans abroad and is committed to upholding the rule of law, protecting our citizens, and bringing to justice the world’s worst criminals.”

Today’s sentence was imposed by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in the Western District of Texas.   In addition, Judge Cardone ordered Gallegos Castrellon to pay $998,840 in restitution and $785,500 in forfeiture.

After his extradition from Mexico on June 28, 2012, a federal jury found Gallegos Castrellon guilty of six counts of murder and conspiracies to commit racketeering, narcotics trafficking, narcotics importation, murder in a foreign country and money laundering.

Evidence at trial proved that Gallegos Castrellon was a leader in the Barrio Azteca (BA), a violent street and prison gang that began in the late 1980s and expanded into a transnational criminal organization.   The BA formed an alliance with “La Linea,” part of the Juarez Drug Cartel, which is also known as the Vincente Carrillo Fuentes Drug Cartel (VCF).   The purpose of the BA-La Linea alliance was to battle the Sinaloa Cartel and its allies for control of the drug trafficking route through Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico.   The drug route through Juarez, known as the Juarez Plaza, is important to drug trafficking organizations because it is a principal illicit drug trafficking route into the United States.

Evidence at trial also proved that Gallegos Castrellon was in charge of BA teams of assassins, which he helped create and supervised in 2008 through 2010.   His teams killed up to 800 persons between January and August 2010, reaching a total of nearly 1,600 in a multi-year period.

Trial evidence also proved that Gallegos Castrellon ordered the March 13, 2010, triple homicide in Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, of U.S. Consulate employee Leslie Enriquez, her husband Arthur Redelfs, and Jorge Salcido Ceniceros, the husband of another U.S. Consulate employee.

A total of 35 defendants were charged in the third superseding indictment and are alleged to have committed various criminal acts, including the 2010 Juarez Consulate murders, as well as racketeering, narcotics distribution and importation, retaliation against persons providing information to U.S. law enforcement, extortion, money laundering, murder and obstruction of justice.  Of the 35 defendants charged, 26 have been convicted, one committed suicide before the conclusion of his trial, and two remain fugitives, including Eduardo Ravelo, an FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitive.

The case was investigated by the FBI’s El Paso Field Office, Albuquerque Field Office (Las Cruces Resident Agency), DEA Juarez, and DEA El Paso.   Special assistance was provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service; the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; the El Paso Police Department; the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office; the El Paso Independent School District Police Department; the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission; the New Mexico State Police; the Dona Ana County, N.M., Sheriff’s Office; the Las Cruces, N.M., Police Department; the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility and the Otero County Prison Facility New Mexico.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Joseph A. Cooley of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section, Trial Attorney Brian Skaret of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney John Gibson of the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Western District of Texas - El Paso Division.   Valuable assistance was provided by the Criminal Division’s Offices of International Affairs and Enforcement Operations.

AG HOLDER SAYS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL COLLECT DATA ON STOPS AND ARRESTS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Monday, April 28, 2014

Attorney General Holder: Justice Dept. to Collect Data on Stops, Arrests as Part of Effort to Curb Racial Bias in Criminal Justice System

$4.75m Project Seeks to Ease Mistrust Between Law Enforcement, Minority Communities

Noting that African-American and Hispanic males are arrested at disproportionately high rates, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Justice Department will seek to collect data about stops, searches and arrests as part of a larger effort to analyze and reduce the possible effect of bias within the criminal justice system.

Attorney General Holder said the project grew out of President Obama’s call, issued last July following the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case, for the Justice Department to seek to reduce tensions between law enforcement and minority communities.

“Racial disparities contribute to tension in our nation generally and within communities of color specifically, and tend to breed resentment towards law enforcement that is counterproductive to the goal of reducing crime,” Attorney General Holder said. “Of course, to be successful in reducing both the experience and the perception of bias, we must have verifiable data about the problem.  As a key part of this initiative, we will work with grant recipients and local law enforcement to collect data about stops and searches, arrests, and case outcomes in order to help assess the impact of possible bias.”

The data collection is one part of the Department’s new National Center for Building Community Trust and Justice. It will be funded through $4.75 million in competitively

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

April 29, 2014

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

FACT SHEET: Not Alone – Protecting Students from Sexual Assault

One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college.  Most often, it happens her freshman or sophomore year.  In the great majority of cases, it’s by someone she knows – and also most often, she does not report what happened.  And though fewer, men, too, are victimized.

The Administration is committed to putting an end to this violence. That’s why the President established the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault on January 22, 2014, with a mandate to strengthen federal enforcement efforts and provide schools with additional tools to combat sexual assault on their campuses. 

Today, the Task Force is announcing a series of actions to: (1)  identify the scope of the problem on college campuses, (2) help prevent campus sexual assault, (3) help schools respond effectively when a student is assaulted, and (4) improve, and make more transparent, the federal government’s enforcement efforts.  We will continue to pursue additional executive or legislative actions in the future.

These steps build on the Administration’s previous work to combat sexual assault.  The Task Force formulated its recommendations after a 90-day review period during which it heard from thousands of people from across the country -- via 27 online and in-person listening sessions and written comments from a wide variety of stakeholders.

Helping Schools Identify the Problem: Climate Surveys
As we know, campus sexual assault is chronically underreported – so victim reports don’t provide a fair measure of the problem.  A campus climate survey, however, can.  So, today:

• We are providing schools with a toolkit for developing and conducting a climate survey.  This survey has evidence-based sample questions that schools can use to gauge the prevalence of sexual assault on campus, test students’ attitudes and awareness about the issue, and craft solutions.  We call on schools to voluntarily conduct the climate survey next year and, based on what we learn, we will further refine the survey methodology.  This process will culminate in a survey for all schools to use.
• We will explore legislative or administrative options to require colleges and universities to conduct an evidence-based survey in 2016.  A mandate for schools to periodically conduct a climate survey will change the national dynamic: with a better picture of what’s really happening on campus, schools will be able to more effectively tackle the problem and measure the success of their efforts.   

Preventing Sexual Assault – and Bringing in the Bystander
The college years are formative for many students.  If we implement effective prevention programs, today’s students will leave college knowing that sexual assault is simply unacceptable.  And that, in itself, can create a sea change.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a systematic review of primary prevention strategies for reducing sexual violence, and is releasing an advance summary of its findings.  This review summarizes some of the best available research in the area, and highlights evidence-based prevention strategies that work, some that are promising, and those that don’t work.  The report points to steps colleges can take now to prevent sexual assault on their campuses.
• The CDC and the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women will pilot and evaluate prevention strategies on college campuses.  This work will build on the CDC’s systematic review, and will identify and fill gaps in the research on sexual violence prevention.
• Getting Bystanders to Step In and Help Is a Promising Practice.  Bystander intervention programs work to change social norms, and teach everyone to speak out and intervene if someone is at risk of being assaulted.  These programs are among those the CDC found most promising. 

Helping Schools Respond Effectively When A Student is Sexually Assaulted: Confidentiality, Training, Better Investigations, and Community Partnerships
By law, schools that receive federal funds are obliged to protect students from sexual assault.  It is the Task Force’s mission to help schools meet not only the letter, but the spirit, of that obligation.  And that can mean a number of things – from giving a victim a confidential place to turn for advice and support, to providing specialized training for school officials, to effectively investigating and finding out what happened, to sanctioning the perpetrator, to doing everything we can to help a survivor recover. 

• Many survivors need someone to talk to in confidence.  While many survivors of sexual assault are ready to press forward with a formal complaint right away, others aren’t so sure.  For some, having a confidential place to go can mean the difference between getting help and staying silent.  Today, the Department of Education is releasing new guidance clarifying that on-campus counselors and advocates can talk to a survivor in confidence.  This support can help victims come forward, get help, and make a formal report if they choose to.
• We are providing a sample confidentiality and reporting policy.  Even victims who make a formal report may still request that the information be held in confidence, and that the school not investigate or take action against the perpetrator.   Schools, however, also have an obligation to keep the larger community safe.  To help them strike this balance, we are providing schools with a sample reporting and confidentiality policy, which recommends factors a school should consider in making this decision.
• We are providing specialized training for school officials.  School officials and first responders need to understand how sexual assault occurs, the tactics used by perpetrators, and the common reactions of victims.   The Justice Department will help by developing new training programs for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault cases and by launching a technical assistance project for campus officials. The Department of Education will develop training materials for campus health center staff to improve services to victims.
• We will give schools guidance on how to improve their investigative and adjudicative protocols.  We need to know more about what investigative and adjudicative systems work best on campus.  The Justice Department will undertake this work, and will begin evaluating different models this year with the goal of identifying the most promising practices.  The Department of Education’s new guidance also urges some important improvements to the disciplinary process.
• We are helping schools forge partnerships with community resources.  Community partnerships are critical to getting survivors the help they need:  while some schools can provide comprehensive services on campus, others may need to partner with community-based organizations.  Rape crisis centers in particular can help schools better serve their students.  We are releasing a sample agreement between schools and rape crisis centers, so survivors have a full network of services in place. 

Improving and Making More Transparent Federal Enforcement Efforts
To better address sexual assault at our nation’s schools, the federal government needs to both strengthen our enforcement efforts and increase coordination among responsible agencies.  Importantly, we also need to improve communication with survivors, parents, school administrators, faculty, and the public, by making our efforts more transparent.

• On Tuesday, we are launching a dedicated website – www.NotAlone.gov – to make enforcement data public and to make other resources accessible to students and schools.  On the website, students can learn about their rights, search enforcement data, and read about how to file a complaint.  The website will also help schools and advocates:  it will make available federal guidance on legal obligations, best available evidence and research, and relevant legislation.  Finally, the website will have trustworthy resources from outside the federal government, such as hotline numbers and mental health services locatable by simply typing in a zip code.
• The Department of Education is providing more clarity on schools’ legal obligations.  The Department of Education is releasing answers to frequently asked questions about schools’ legal obligations to prevent and respond to sexual assault.  Among many other topics, the new guidance makes clear that federal law protects all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, immigration status, or whether they have a disability.  It also makes clear questions about a survivor’s sexual history with anyone other than the alleged perpetrator shouldn’t be permitted during a judicial hearing, and also that a previous sexual relationship doesn’t imply consent or preclude a finding of sexual violence.  And that schools should take steps to protect and assist a survivor pending an investigation.
• The Departments of Justice and Education have entered into an agreement clarifying each agency’s role.  Both agencies have a critical role to play in enforcing the laws that require schools to prevent and respond to sexual assault on their campuses.  The agencies have entered into a formal agreement to increase coordination and strengthen enforcement.

Next Steps
The action steps highlighted in this report are the initial phase of an ongoing plan and commitment to putting an end to this violence on campuses.  We will continue to work toward solutions, clarity, and better coordination. We will review the legal frameworks surrounding sexual assault for possible regulatory or statutory improvements, and seek new resources to enhance enforcement.  Campus law enforcement agencies have special expertise- and they, too, should be tapped to play a more central role.  And we will also consider how our recommendations apply to public elementary and secondary schools – and what more we can do to help there.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

On Support for Israel

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

April 28, 2014

---

For more than thirty years in the United States Senate, I didn’t just speak words in support of Israel, I walked the walk when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight. As Secretary of State, I have spent countless hours working with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Justice Minister Livni because I believe in the kind of future that Israel not only wants, but Israel deserves. I want to see a two state solution that results in a secure Jewish state and a prosperous Palestinian state, and I’ve actually worked for it.

I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don’t believe.

First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt.

Second, I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution. In the long term, a unitary, binational state cannot be the democratic Jewish state that Israel deserves or the prosperous state with full rights that the Palestinian people deserve. That’s what I said, and it’s also what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said. While Justice Minister Livni, former Prime Ministers Barak and Ohlmert have all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future, it is a word best left out of the debate here at home.

PRESIDENT OBAMA VISITS TROOPS IN SOUTH KOREA

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

U.S. service members rush to get a final photograph of U.S. President Barack Obama as he waves goodbye following his speech on U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan in South Korea, April 26, 2014. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Chris Church.

U.S. President Barack Obama participates in a naturalization ceremony at the War Memorial of Korea in Seoul, April 25, 2014. Walter Haith, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for the Seoul field office, called the name of each candidate, and Robert Daum, deputy district director of the agency's Asia-Pacific district, administered the oath of allegiance. White House photo by Pete Souza,

DOJ SAYS INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WORKING TO RECOVER STOLEN ASSETS FROM PEOPLE OF UKRAINE

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Monday, April 28, 2014

International Community Mobilizes to Recover Stolen Assets for People of Ukraine

A high-level international meeting to support the Government of Ukraine in recovering stolen assets begins tomorrow in London. The gathering is a landmark for Ukraine in underscoring the rule of law and international cooperation. The international community and the Government of Ukraine are united in their commitment and determination in returning stolen assets to the people of Ukraine.

The Ukraine Forum on Asset Recovery (UFAR) is jointly organized by the United Kingdom and the United States of America in support of efforts by the Government of Ukraine to recover stolen assets. Asset recovery is essential in stopping those who have stolen assets from benefitting from their crimes, and in sending a strong message that there can be no impunity for those who carry out such illegal actions. The two-day meeting brings together representatives of key international financial centers and international organizations to bolster collective action, foster direct exchange between practitioners and plan practical steps towards this goal. Key objectives include:

• Reaffirming the political commitment of the international community in tracing and recovering stolen assets;
• Facilitating international cooperation for the early tracing of such assets;
• Enabling  sharing of best practices, lessons learned and available tools;
• Addressing ways of tracing assets hidden behind complex corporate structures;
• Facilitating networking and trust-building among practitioners across jurisdictions; and
• Identifying specific capacity building needs for Ukraine.

Senior government officials alongside policy makers, judicial experts, prosecutors, financial intelligence analysts, and regulators are participating in UFAR. Bilateral meetings between Ukrainian officials and other delegations will be an important feature of UFAR in helping to identify concrete actions to be taken to advance asset recovery.

Attorney General Eric Holder of the United States, which is jointly organizing UFAR, emphasized the importance of asset recovery in bringing justice and in mobilizing against corruption.

“This community of nations stands united in our determination to support Ukrainian leaders and citizens as they combat corruption and strive to ensure the stability, the independence, and the national sovereignty of a strong and free Ukraine.

“We know that the costs of corruption can be immense and long-lasting.  That is why, within days of the fall of President Yanukovych’s regime, the U.S. Department of Justice had a response team on the ground in Kyiv to assess the needs of Ukraine’s investigation into any stolen assets belonging to its people; to provide assistance with document review and preservation; and to help initiate and coordinate any and all efforts required by further investigations.

“The United States will never stop fighting alongside Ukraine and its partners to ensure accountability, to strengthen transnational cooperation, and to meet instability with resolve – and robust diplomacy.”

In hosting UFAR in London, the British Home Secretary, the Right Hon. Theresa May MP, stressed the importance of the international community’s role in assisting Ukraine.

“By taking urgent and immediate steps to provide political and economic stability, the UK, US and wider international community has already demonstrated a strong commitment to the people of Ukraine. This forum provides a further opportunity to show our ongoing support.

“Building on our expertise in the field of asset recovery, it will also provide practical leadership and assistance to the Ukrainian government as they identify and recover assets looted under the Yanukovych regime and introduce political and economic reform.

“The message is clear - we are making it harder than ever for corrupt regimes or individuals around the world to move, hide and profit from the proceeds of their crime.”

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS REMARKS ON CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFER POLICY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Conventional Arms Transfer Policy: Advancing American National Security Through Security Cooperation

Remarks

Gregory M. Kausner
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Remarks to IISS

Washington, DC

April 23, 2014

---

Introduction
Thank you very much Sam. Sam is one of the leading Russia experts around, and as we grapple with the situation unfolding in Ukraine, his work will provide vital insight. So, I glad to share the stage with him. I am grateful to the International Institute for Strategic Studies for hosting me today. With its founding focus on arms control and renowned for its annual evaluation of the global military balance, the institute is the perfect venue for this discussion. For more than half a century IISS has helped us see beyond the headlines, so it is well placed to facilitate our understanding of the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy.

While the Conventional Arms Transfer policy is complex, its objective is clear: when the United States provides defense articles and military training to our partners and allies, it does so for one main reason: to further U.S. national security interests.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt called on us to look outward and fulfill our role as the great “Arsenal of Democracy,” and, in 1941, his Lend-Lease program enabled military aid to flow across the Atlantic to a beleaguered Britain. FDR championed U.S.-security assistance not just because it was the right thing to do, but because it was in our interest to stand with an ally fighting for freedom.

Security cooperation as a tool of U.S. foreign policy remains as important today as ever before. In a world of transnational threats, the United States is safer when countries and regions are secure, stable, and free.

With the globalization of commerce and the interconnected nature of economies and peoples, our security is now linked to more places, countries, and regions than ever before.
While the United States remains an unrivaled military power that can rapidly deploy forces around the world to ensure stability, we cannot be everywhere at once, nor do we seek to be. One of our country’s great strengths is that through our alliances and partnerships we do not have to be everywhere. We can share the burden of maintaining global security with others. In order to do so, however, we must ensure that our partners have the necessary capabilities and resources to contribute to the fight.

Opportunities and Challenges

People are often surprised to learn that it is the State Department that oversees security assistance. In some countries, arms transfers are treated as strictly economic, industrial, or military decisions. But in the United States security assistance is treated as a matter of foreign policy.

When we provide a defense article to a foreign recipient, we view it as more than just commercial transaction; it is a way to exert American influence and export our values. Security cooperation is about using all of our equipment, skills, and knowledge to shape a more prosperous and secure future – not just for us, but also for our partners.

Training and equipping these partners can advance a broad agenda of our foreign policy goals. Let me highlight some examples of what I mean:

Security assistance provides us with influence. When we transfer or sell a defense system to a partner nation, the delivery of that system is the beginning – not the end – of an enduring relationship – a relationship that includes maintenance, end-use monitoring -- and most importantly, training. That training happens at all levels – from the tactical to the strategic. Our security cooperation is not just about building new partnerships on a national level. It’s about creating personal relationships —relationships that often transcend the volatile political climates of the day. Personal relationships enable us to pick up the phone and call our counterparts when tensions run high -- to not only respond to crises, but to forestall them.

Security assistance provides the United States with access. Our aid oftentimes facilitates our transit through airspace and busy shipping lanes; provides the freedom to use foreign ports and bases; and offers unfettered access to critical geo-strategic locations – all crucial elements of our global posture.

Our security assistance enables us to operate together with partner militaries. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, we re-discovered the importance of interoperability on the battlefield. We are more effective when we can fight together, side by side using common platforms, because of the similarities in tools, training, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Security assistance can support regional balance. Our arms transfers are an unequivocal signal to those who seek to counter U.S. interests or undermine international norms. When we train and equip our allies, it sends a message that their military strength should not be tested.

Finally, our security assistance enables burden sharing. By providing defense capabilities to our partners, we build their capacity to become self-reliant; to respond to threats; and to better contribute to multilateral coalitions. Such cooperation reduces our international burden and makes Americans safer at a lower cost.
That’s the power of our security assistance in action. And w
hile the advantages are unmistakable, the risks are real.

The influx of advanced weapons into a region can destabilize established power balances.
Arms, when in the wrong hands, can contribute to human rights violations.
Industrial competitors are eager to exploit U.S. technology, the outcome of which could not only affect the health of the U.S. industrial base, but also endanger American lives.

So, the question isn’t whether there are challenges. We know there are. It is whether we can mitigate the risks and seize the opportunities that our security assistance provides. And I am confident that we can.

Conventional Arms Transfer Policy

This January, President Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive 27 on Conventional Arms Transfers – the CAT Policy for short. The President’s Directive brings clarity and purpose to U.S. security assistance. When we consider the merits of an arms transfer, we now have a transparent set of objectives to weigh.

The policy provides clear criteria -- applied on a case-by-case basis -- to ensure that every U.S. arms transfer promotes U.S. national security.

The CAT policy is not a formula. We cannot plug in complex variables and hope for a perfect policy prescription. It is instead a decision-making framework, the efficacy of which depends on policymakers being able to balance its two fundamental tenets:

On one hand, support for transfers that meet the legitimate security requirements of our allies and partners to advance our national security and foreign policy interests -- and on the other, promotion of restraint, in transfers of weapon systems that may be destabilizing or dangerous to international peace and security.

Why Now?

Before I get into the details of what this means in practice, let me answer the question of why we decided to update the CAT policy this year.
Much has changed since 1995, when the original CAT policy was issued. Our current doctrine needed to reflect the realities of the 21st century not those of the Cold War.

• Transnational threats challenge our interests today in ways that were hardly imagined 20 years ago.
• From Afghanistan to Libya, coalitions have emerged to play a central role in U.S. defense policy.
• Technology has evolved. The provision of services and technical data related to arms has, in many cases, become as significant as the transfer of weapon.
• Regional dynamics have changed dramatically. Take the remarkable events in the Middle East, which began in 2011. But the shifting geo-political landscape does not end there. As is evident in Eastern Europe and the Asia Pacific, territorial and maritime disputes continue to drive instability.
• And while the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms and human rights hasn’t changed, it needed to be more prominently reflected in the policy. These ideals are not only central to promoting American values, but to preserving U.S. security.

We of course considered all of these realities prior to the President’s update. It is a standard of good governance, however, to regularly reevaluate our assumptions. Now, the context of today’s security environment is reflected in the text. And by updating the policy, we have re-validated its importance.

Objectives and Criteria

So what does the new CAT policy actually say? In short, it details objectives and criteria to consider when making or denying arms transfers. It is up to policymakers, however, to strike the appropriate balance between permitting legitimate transfers that support our security, and the need for restraint against the proliferation of arms. Indeed, that can be a challenging balance to maintain, so I will enumerate, in no particular order, each objective and some of the criteria we consider:

• First, ensuring U.S. military forces, and those of allies and partners, continue to enjoy technological superiority over potential adversaries. This cuts both ways: We make transfers to bolster our partners’ legitimate defense capabilities. We deny transfers, however, when there is a high probability that the technology involved could be illegally diverted.
  
  To avoid such a result, we assess a potential recipient’s capacity to protect sensitive software and hardware design, development, manufacturing, and integration knowledge – critical to not only safeguard the U.S. industrial base, but to ensure system vulnerabilities are not revealed to those who seek to exploit U.S. operational capabilities.
   
• Second, promoting the acquisition of U.S. systems to increase interoperability with allies and partners, lower the unit costs for all, and strengthen the industrial base. If we hope to retain our technological edge in a time of fiscal austerity, we must continue to invest in research and development. By contributing to economies of scale, foreign sales can help maintain U.S. investment in the defense sector.
  
  While we do not approve transfers strictly based on the health of the U.S. industrial base, we would be foolish not to consider its impact.
   
• Third, enhancing the ability of allies and partners to deter or defend themselves against aggression. As President Obama said, “we should not be the world's policeman.” Supporting our partners not only lifts the burden from the shoulders of our military, but it also contributes to a more stable international order. To this end, we assess the ability of the recipient to field, support, and appropriately employ the requested system in accordance with its intended end-use.
   
• Fourth, encouraging the maintenance and expansion of U.S. security partnerships with those who share our objectives, and regional access in areas critical to U.S. interests. The relationships we forge through security assistance are not only government-to-government – they are commercial, institutional, and personal. Think about the scope of a major arms sale, and the range of cooperation it often entails – from companies that collaborate on co-production, to technicians who team to maintain a common platform, to soldiers who train in shared tactics. But for such cooperation to take root, we must ensure that we team with stable partners.
   
• Fifth, promoting regional stability, peaceful conflict resolution, and arms control. We are committed to nonproliferation and to the furtherance of peace. When we make the decision to transfer a capability to a foreign nation we do so mindful of the impact it could have on regional balance. So, we consider if capabilities that project power, provide for anti-access and area denial, or that are new introductions into a region, could foster increased tension or contribute to an arms race. We weigh the human rights, democratization, counterterrorism, counter proliferation, and nonproliferation record of the recipient, and the potential for misuse of the export in question.
  
  We also must consider if a country could procure arms from another source. The arms industry is a competitive market. Just because another exporter is willing to sell to a potential recipient, however, does not mean we should. But the influence that comes with an arms sale should not be underestimated, and we should be careful not to cede such influence to others.
   
• Sixth, preventing the proliferation of conventional weapons that could be used as delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction. Countering WMD proliferation is a core U.S. national security goal. We recognize that some conventional arms may be used to support unconventional capabilities. For this reason, the CAT policy closely aligns with constraints imposed by multilateral arms control arrangements; where there is a strong potential for misuse or a transfer would set a dangerous precedent, we withhold our assistance. We assess the degree of protection afforded by the recipient country to sensitive technology and potential for unauthorized third-party transfer, as well as in-country diversion.
   
• Seventh, supporting counterterrorism efforts. As Secretary Kerry said, “…the threat that we face is more diffuse, decentralized, and geographically dispersed than ever before, and addressing this threat will require every tool in our arsenal...” When a partner or ally can aid in the fight to confront the destructive forces of transnational terrorism, we will look to train and equip them.
   
• Eighth, combating transnational organized crime and related threats to national security. International crime is not a new phenomenon, but its reach is expanded by a globalized economy and interconnected world. The U.S. cannot expect to effectively combat the threat alone.
  
  While any strategy must include efforts to reform institutions and build capacity throughout the justice sector, targeted security assistance will enable partners to identify, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal groups.
   
• Ninth, supporting democratic governance and other related U.S. foreign policy objectives. Our security assistance can provide the United States ac  cess and influence that can be used to advance democratic ideals and promote good governance. We need to be clear-eyed though. Security assistance is not always the most effective leverage. To promote gains in democracy or governance, we should consider the full spectrum of tools at our disposal and not rely on security assistance as a panacea.
   
• This brings me to the final objective: ensuring that arms transfers do not contribute to human rights violations or violations of international humanitarian law. This is a fundamental national value -- and, for all of us in the State Department, one we take personally. The policy makes very clear that we will not make transfers if U.S. equipment and training could be used to commit: genocide, crimes against humanity, or violations of international humanitarian law.

In updating the policy – outlining all of these objectives and criteria in a transparent way – we recognize that the example set by the United States as an exporter of security assistance plays a critical role in shaping international norms.

The Arms Sale Process

Some refer to our arms transfer decision-making process as onerous, inflexible, and arcane. There is no question; it is not perfect. As the policy states, we will continue to pursue efforts to streamline security cooperation. The deliberate review of U.S. arms transfers, however, is an affirmation of how seriously we take this business.

Both the Departments of State and Defense assess the policy and technical impacts of each and every transfer. The U.S. Congress plays a vital oversight role as well. All major arms transfers require us to notify Congress, and an extensive consultation process exists to ensure that congressional concerns are addressed.

Now, we often hear the question – do you ever reject an arms transfer? Although we do not advertise such decisions, we reject sales all the time.

When we decide to move forward with a transfer, however, transparency remains a hallmark of the CAT policy – in fact, our major Foreign Military Sales are posted upon notification to Congress on the public website of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the texts of both Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales notifications are published in the Federal Register.

Conclusion

We recognize the challenges associated with U.S. arms transfers. Across the interagency, we work day in and day out to ensure transfers are carefully considered, and made – or denied – for the right reasons that promote American security and reflect American values.
Each delivery of U.S. security assistance sends a message to our friends and foes. It is an act of support and trust for our partners and allies. It provides them the capabilities to defend themselves, and to provide for the stability of their region.

The advantages of security assistance as both a complement to, and a substitute for, U.S. “boots on the ground” are clear and compelling. As someone who works these issues every day, however, I will be the first to tell you that the decision to train or equip a foreign partner is not always an easy one. Yet we cannot simply turn our back on the complexities of building partner capacity. To do so would open the door for other suppliers and actors. It would hamper our allies’ efforts to work with us on common security issues. It would distance us from our partners.

It would disadvantage the very industry on which we rely for our technological security capabilities and advantage. It would take away our voice in circumstances where it might matter the most.

So, we transfer arms with our eyes wide open, with laws, regulation, and policy designed to reflect caution, but also shaped to ensure that our security policy supports, and reinforces, our foreign policy. And we see results every day, from coalition operations against shared threats, to multinational training exercises, to the conversations that occur between American troops and foreign partners – partners who came here for training and left here as friends. We will remain cautious in using arms transfers as a tool of foreign policy, but we should never forget that our national security is in many ways dependent upon, and advanced as a result of, our security cooperation.

Thank you.