Wednesday, May 7, 2014

IRS VIRTUAL CURRENCY GUIDANCE

FROM:  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
IRS Virtual Currency Guidance : Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply
IR-2014-36, March. 25, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service issued a notice providing answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency, such as bitcoin. These FAQs provide basic information on the U.S. federal tax implications of transactions in, or transactions that use, virtual currency.

In some environments, virtual currency operates like “real” currency -- i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance -- but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.

The notice provides that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes.  General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.  Among other things, this means that:
Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.

Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply.  Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.

The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.

READOUT: NSA RICE'S BILATERAL MEETING WITH ISRAEL'S PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

May 7, 2014

Readout of National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice's Bilateral Meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu

National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu today in advance of the U.S.-Israel Consultative Group consultations, to be held tomorrow (May 8).  They discussed a wide range of regional and bilateral issues, including the United States and Israel’s close security cooperation, which has been unprecedented under President Obama’s leadership.   On Iran, Ambassador Rice emphasized the critical importance of pursuing a comprehensive solution that assures the international community that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.  She reiterated that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that diplomacy is the best way to resolve the international community’s concerns peacefully.  Ambassador Rice told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the United States will continue intensive consultations with Israel as P5+1 and the EU negotiations continue. 
On Israeli-Palestinians negotiations, Ambassador Rice noted that, while we have come to a pause in the parties’ talks, the United States remains convinced that lasting peace can only be secured through direct negotiations that lead to two viable, independent states living side-by-side in peace and security.
Finally, Ambassador Rice and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed global and regional issues including Syria and Ukraine.

CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS TELLS SENATE THERE'S A NEED FOR MILITARY BALANCE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Right:  Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, right, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, May 6, 2014. DOD photo by Army Staff Sgt. Sean K. Harp. 
Dempsey Stresses Need for Military Balance in Senate Hearing
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2014 – Pay and compensation are only one part of a broader challenge to the Defense Department to maintain the balance the military needs to fight the nation’s wars, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the committee to ask the senators to support recommendations to slow the growth of military compensation. The senior enlisted leaders of the services sat behind the chiefs to express their solidarity to the proposals.

“We’re working to make sure that the joint force is in the right balance to preserve military options for the nation in the face of a changing security environment and a declining budget,” the chairman told the senators. “We’ve been tasked to reduce the defense budget by up to $1 trillion over 10 years while upholding our sacred obligation to properly train, equip and prepare the force.”

Doing this means the department must carefully allocate resources to ensure that if service members are sent into harm’s way, they are the best-led, best-trained and best-equipped force on the battlefield. This requires balance among competing fiscal accounts.

Making fiscal choices requires certainty, time and flexibility, Dempsey said. “While we have a degree of certainty in our budget for the next two years, really for this year, we still don’t have a predictable funding stream or the flexibility and time we need to reset the force for the challenges ahead,” he said.

The military needs Congress to step forward and help, Dempsey said. “Our recommendations have lacked congressional support -- notably, our request to reduce base infrastructure and retire weapons systems that we no longer need and cannot afford,” the chairman told the senators. “In the meantime, we are continuing to hemorrhage readiness and cutting further into modernization. [This means] risk to the performance of our mission and risk to those who serve continues to grow.”
Dempsey told the senators that all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all of the services’ senior enlisted leaders support the three departmentwide principles to rebalance military compensation.

“First, we’re not advocating direct cuts to troops’ pay,” Dempsey said. “Rather, this package slows the growth of basic pay and housing allowances while reducing commissary subsidies and modernizing our health care system.”
Second, military leaders will ensure that the compensation package allows the services to continue to attract and retain the quality people needed, Dempsey said. “We’ll watch the way the force reacts, and if it reacts, we’ll be back to you with recommendations on how to adjust,” he added. “But we have to take that step.”
Finally, Dempsey told the Senate panel, savings from this will be invested in force readiness and modernization.

The chairman emphasized that none of these recommendations would impinge on care for wounded warriors or on the mental health challenges facing the force.
“We’re seeking $31 billion in savings in pay compensation and health care over the future-year defense program,” the general said. “If we don’t get it, we’ll have to take $31 billion out of readiness, modernization and force structure over that same period.”

Delaying the decision until next year will mean a two-year delay in implementation, Dempsey said, which would force the department to restore about $18 billion in lost savings.

“In short, we have submitted a balanced package that meets budgetary limits, enables us to fulfill the current defense strategy and allows us to recruit and retain the exceptional talent that we need,” Dempsey said. “Our people are our greatest strength and they do deserve the best support we can provide.”

U.S. COUNTERS RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN UKRAINE DOD OFFICIAL TELLS SENATE COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
DOD Works to Counter Russian Intervention in Ukraine
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2014 – The Defense Department is working with the State Department and NATO allies to provide reassurance, deterrence and support to Ukraine, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.
The U.S. government’s response to Russia’s actions in the region is being done carefully and without taking actions that would escalate the crisis, Evelyn N. Farkas said.

“Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, followed by blatant and unconcealed efforts to eastern and southern Ukraine, signifies a paradigm shift in our relations with Russia,” she said. “Despite Russia’s efforts to portray the situation otherwise, this crisis is entirely one of its choosing. These actions represent a wholesale rejection of the idea of a Europe whole, free and at peace.”
Farkas listed the DOD contributions to Ukraine. Soon after Russia moved into Crimea, the department delivered 329,000 packaged meals to support forces in the field. DOD also has sent uniforms, medical supplies and other nonlethal equipment to Ukrainian armed forces and border guards.

All told, this adds up to about $18 million of aid to date, she said. “Looking ahead,” she added, “we will use all available tools to provide meaningful cost-effective support to Ukraine’s security institutions.”

DOD officials also continue to engage with their Ukrainian counterparts, Farkas said, noting that a high-level meeting is scheduled next month.

The United States has also taken prompt and high-profile steps to reassure NATO allies in light of Russian activity in Ukraine, Farkas said. These include a stepped up maritime presence in the Black Sea and the deployment of additional combat aircraft to the Baltic republics and to Poland.

“Last week, 600 paratroopers arrived in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to begin exercises requested by those nations,” she said. “These exercises are the first in a series of activities that will take place over the next few months and beyond.”

The United States is also taking steps to support non-NATO partners – such as Moldova and Georgia – that feel threatened by Russia’s actions, she said.
And the United States is not alone, Farkas told the panel.

“Since the start of this crisis, our NATO allies have acted with resolve. As we approach the NATO summit in Wales this fall, we will continue to urge all NATO allies to increase support to these reassurance measures, including by bolstering their individual commitments to allied security by robust defense investment.”
These measures represent a clear eastward shift of allied forces, she said, specifically intended to counter Russia’s aggressive actions.

DOD SAYS UKRAINIAN BORDER GUARDS RECEIVE EQUIPMENT

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Ukrainian Border Guards Get Equipment, DOD Spokesman Says
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2014 – Ukraine’s border guard has received a large percentage of the U.S.-funded equipment it requested, a Defense Department spokesman said here today.

Army Col. Steven Warren told Pentagon reporters that DOD recently provided funding to Ukraine for locally purchased equipment.

“To date,” he said, “using Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, Embassy Kiev has purchased and delivered fuel pumps, concertina wire, vehicle batteries, spare parts, binoculars [and] communications gear [for] the Ukrainian border guards for use in monitoring and securing their borders.”

Warren explained that the Ukrainian assistance falls into two categories: one for the border guard and another for regular army support. Approved support to Ukraine’s regular army continues through necessary channels, he added.
Asked about whether Pentagon officials see a correlation between Russian air activities in the Pacific and activities in Ukraine, Warren said officials see no specific linkage, noting that the Russian military has long operated in the Pacific.
Warren as also was asked about an increase in Russian naval presence in the Black Sea, and he emphasized the need for de-escalation.

“The Black Sea is international waters,” he said. “The Russians, of course, as all nations, can train and travel through international waters. We’ve long called on the Russians to take [steps] to de-escalate the tensions in that region. Certainly, increased naval presence in the Black Sea does not contribute to de-escalation.”
Pentagon officials believe the Russians have an opportunity to take actions that will help to bring a swift and peaceful resolution to the situation in Ukraine, Warren added.

FORMER DEPUTY PLEADS GUILTY TO UNLAWFULLY DETAINING HISPANIC MOTORISTS FOR MONEY

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Former Lowndes County, Georgia, Sheriff’s Deputy Pleads Guilty to Civil Rights Conspiracy Charge

Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Georgia announced that Jason Stacks, a former Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) Deputy, pleaded guilty to conspiring to use his law enforcement authority to unlawfully detain and take money from motorists.  
     
In connection with his plea, Stacks admitted that he conspired with two civilians to subject Hispanic motorists to unlawful traffic stops so that the conspirators could demand the motorists pay money in order to avoid arrest and/or deportation.  On Aug. 16, 2013, Stacks, while acting as a LCSO Deputy, unlawfully detained at least four motorists.  One of the motorists, identified in the plea documents by the initials T.C., was unlawfully detained by Stacks and then approached by Stacks’s two Spanish-speaking co-conspirators, who explained to T.C. that he would be sent to jail or deported if he did not pay $500.  When T.C. responded that he did not have $500 in his car, the co-conspirators drove T.C. to his residence and took $300 in cash from him.  Stacks and the two co-conspirators divided the $300 among them.

“Mr. Stacks admitted that he conspired to use his badge to unlawfully detain and take money from motorists,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division.  “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously prosecute officers who seek to profit from the violation of civil rights.”

“Today’s guilty plea is another example of the zero tolerance the Department of Justice has for law enforcement officers who violate individuals’ civil rights,” said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Moore for the Middle District of Georgia.

This case has been investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office.  The matter is being prosecuted by Special Litigation Counsel Forrest Christian and Trial Attorney Risa Berkower of the Civil Rights Division, with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Georgia.

REMARKS BY SECRETARY KERRY AND EU HIGH REPRESENTATIVE LADY ASHTON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With EU High Representative Lady Catherine Ashton After Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
May 6, 2014




SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon, everybody. I am very pleased, as always, to welcome my very good friend and colleague in these endeavors, the EU High Representative Cathy Ashton back here to Washington. I’m also personally happy to be back in Washington – (laughter) – after a trip through Africa that has left us with a very long to-do list, which we’re already working on.

Lady Ashton and I just covered a lot of ground, but since we’re in agreement on so much of it, we were able to cover it quite quickly. We discussed, most importantly, our shared strategy of using the tools of diplomacy in order to reduce the conflicts that are threatening Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the world, but particularly there.

Let me begin with Ukraine. In the weeks since Lady Ashton and I met in Geneva, along with the Ukrainian foreign minister and the Russian foreign minister, we have been, it is fair to say, nothing less than disappointed to see Russia to fail to live up to the very plain and simple, easy-to-interpret commitments that were made in Geneva. And I’ll reiterate: The agreement that we made in Geneva, it really isn’t vague and it’s not open to some loose interpretation. It was simple, it was specific, and it outlined concrete steps that all of the parties had to take. Ukraine’s government, literally before the ink was dry, started to implement on that agreement. And they have held up their end of the bargain.

Ukraine has shown remarkable restraint. Almost immediately coming out of that meeting in Geneva, they ordered a cessation of any kind of counterterrorism activity, any effort to remove people from buildings based on the notion that both sides were going to work to bring people out of those buildings. And the fact is that they have been committed in Kyiv to trying to move their country forward through nonviolence, through constitutional reform, through dialogue, and by reaching out to the disaffected parts of Ukraine.

We also are very concerned about efforts of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, in Luhansk to organize, frankly, a contrived, bogus independence referendum on May 11th. We flatly reject this illegal effort to further divide Ukraine, and its pursuit will create even more problems in the effort to try to de-escalate the situation. This is really the Crimea playbook all over again, and no civilized nation is going to recognize the results of such a bogus effort.

As President Obama has made clear, if Russian elements continue to sabotage the democratic process and prevent Ukraine from holding a free and fair election 19 days from now on the 25th, then we stand ready to implement additional sanctions. And the “we” is Europe and the United States together. I know the European Union is strong in its commitment to do this, and I think the high representative will address meetings that are shortly going to be held next week in furtherance of our common goals here.

We are not going to sit idly by while Russian elements fan the flames of instability, instead of fulfilling the commitments that we made. Look, we came together, and we came together in a real spirit of trying to de-escalate. And we weren’t playing a game. We laid down some very specific steps that could be taken, and immediately, the Government of Ukraine, in good faith, undertook to implement those steps, including removing barricades from the Maidan in Kyiv, removing people from buildings, as well as reaching out to make clear to the people of Ukraine how decentralization could take place to give more power to those people in places that were disaffected. Regrettably, that was not met with reciprocity, and reciprocity is one of the things that we discussed very clearly in Geneva.

I must add also that it’s very hard to reconcile that Russia is now making the argument that Ukraine ought to reduce – not have an election or postpone an election because of the violence that’s taking place, but Russia is full, whole-hog behind having an election in Syria where there is far worse violence. Reconcile that one for us, please.

So the choice is really Russia’s. The United States, the EU, and our allies have made our choice very, very clear: We are going to stand together united not just in support of Ukraine, but united in support of de-escalating; united in support of a peaceful, diplomatic solution; united in recognition that, yes, there are historic and cultural and other ties between Russia and Ukraine, but the way to assert them is at the diplomatic negotiating table, not at the end of a gun. And we believe that we will also stand together in the effort to try to de-escalate this situation.
Next week, I will meet in London with our European counterparts in order to discuss what the appropriate next steps will be.

I also want to underscore that Lady Ashton and I applaud the commitment and the courage of the monitors of the OSCE. We’re deeply appreciative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, who have put themselves in harm’s way, not on one side or the other, but on the side of a peaceful resolution, on the side of de-escalation. And they have tried to enforce compliance of the Russian-backed forces to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable approach to defining the future for all of the people of Ukraine.

We believe that the OSCE can now play an enhanced role, and right now there are efforts taking place. I talked yesterday with the OSCE chairman, President Burkhalter of Switzerland, and he is tomorrow going to be traveling to meet with President Putin. Today there were meetings. I talked yesterday also with the foreign minister of Germany, Frank Steinmeier. He today met with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Vienna, and there are further discussions taking place. I will talk with him in an hour or two from now. So there’s a lot of energy being expended to try to see if we can find a reasonable way forward here. And we support the efforts very much of this kind of diplomacy to help the Ukrainians restore law and order and improve the environment for free and fair elections on May 25th.

And before I invite our honored guest to offer her thoughts here, I just want to briefly mention a couple of other topics that we discussed very quickly this afternoon: South Sudan, Nigeria, and Iran.

First on South Sudan, the cessation of hostilities agreement that was signed in January by the South Sudanese Government and the opposition has obviously not been upheld. And the recent attacks by the South Sudanese Government and the anti-government forces, both of them, are absolutely unacceptable, and the United States condemns them in the strongest terms.

I talked this morning with Prime Minister Hailemariam of Ethiopia, and he has been directly in touch with Riek Machar, who tells him that he will come to a meeting though they’re working on the precise date and hope to have something to announce shortly. He has also talked to President Kiir, and President Kiir has, in fact, committed absolutely to be there and to come. And we’re very hopeful that that can be the beginning of a dialogue, and we will have participants there to assist in that process.

As President Obama has made clear, however, we will hold accountable those who have stood in the way of a peace plan. And I’ve said as much directly to President Kiir and to former Vice President Riek Machar when I was there this past weekend. So today, the United States will announce sanctions on two individuals responsible for violating the cessation of hostilities agreement, individuals responsible for perpetrating unthinkable violence against civilians. The first is the commander of the South Sudanese Government’s Presidential Guard Forces Marial Chanuong, and he has led violent attacks against civilians in Juba. And that will – further details will be announced later regarding that. The second, Peter Gadet, who led anti-government forces in the April 17th attack on Bentiu that left more than 200 civilians dead.

And we will do our utmost to prevent South Sudan from plunging back into the violence and despair that tore that country apart for so long. We will continue to stand with the people of South Sudan who call for peace and who recognize that the only way to resolve this conflict is through a political dialogue.

Secondly, on Nigeria: Today I spoke with President Goodluck Jonathan on behalf of President Obama and offered – on behalf of President Obama offered America’s support for Nigeria in their response to this crisis. Our embassy in Abuja is prepared to form a coordination cell that could provide expertise on intelligence, investigations, and hostage negotiations, and to help facilitate information-sharing and victim assistance. And President – the President was – President Goodluck Jonathan was very happy to receive this offer and ready to move on it immediately, and we are immediately engaging in order to implement this. We remain deeply concerned about the welfare of these young girls, and we want to provide whatever assistance is possible in order to help for their safe return to their families.

And finally, Lady Ashton and I discussed – I think you see the breadth of the things that we’re talking about. You get a sense of the tremendous cooperation between the EU and the United States, and particularly between Cathy Ashton and myself, for which we are very, very grateful. And we are extremely grateful for her stewardship of the important negotiations that are taking place with Iran on the nuclear program, on a comprehensive – on the search for a comprehensive solution to the challenge of that program.

We – Lady Ashton and our political directors will meet again in Vienna next week. And as we try to seize this diplomatic moment and make our allies and ourselves safer, Iran obviously has to make some very tough decisions. We remain firm in our goals. They don’t vary. Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, and it must ensure it has a peaceful nuclear program. And as I’ve said many times, we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal.

Let me close by extending to Lady Ashton early greetings for Europe Day, which falls this Friday. It’s a holiday that recalls and renews the EU’s vision for a united, peaceful, stable, and democratic Europe, and the United States will stand side by side with Europe as it strives to live up to that vision and to those high ideals. Lady Ashton, thanks for being with us.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Thank you. Thank you very much, Secretary Kerry, or John, as I would prefer. Thank you for your good wishes for Europe Day. I held a reception in New York last night, and it was my great pleasure to be able to see the Empire State Building lit up in the colors of the European Union of blue and yellow. It is a recognition of this incredibly important transatlantic partnership that every nation of the European Union values so highly, and for which I thank you, your predecessors, and all of your colleagues for the work that has gone on to develop it to the point where I think we are very much joined up in our thinking.
As you’ve said, we’ve talked about a range of issues. We talk a lot in between these meetings, so we cover a huge number of current concerns. And I will just pick up on the back of some of this news. You’ve said two or three of them, of which Ukraine is inevitably the highest on our agenda, and the latest news of the great concern that we have from the illegal actions by armed separatist groups is, of course, at the foremost of our attention. We want to see Russia join in in the call to see an immediate end to these actions, and that is very much, as you’ve said, in line with the discussions we had in Geneva, where we talked practically for seven hours. We talked about what this meant. There was no vagueness. There was absolute clarity in what we were trying to do – to try and find ways to begin the de-escalation. And we will continue, as the European Union, to engage fully in seeking a political solution and to stay fully behind what we said in Geneva and to find ways that we can see the implementation done by everyone.
We know, too, that Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity. We understand the international obligations that it has, and we work closely with them. And as you have indicated, they have done a lot from the beginning of leaving Geneva at the end of that day to try and implement what was agreed.

I pay tribute, like you, to the OSCE, and I join the chief monitor of the special mission, who’s called upon all sides to exercise maximum restraint, to avoid bloodshed, and to solve differences peacefully. You all know that on the 28th of April we took the decision to extend the number of people subject to targeted sanctions for actions that undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. Any further steps that destabilize the situation in Ukraine would lead to additional and far-reaching consequences for our relations in a broad range of areas.

Like you, too, we are focused on the elections and the importance of free and fair presidential elections. This is a really important step in the stabilization of Ukraine. It’s about democracy. It’s an opportunity, too, for there to be a legitimate and broad debate on the future of Ukraine and to engage with people who do want to talk about how that future should be – peacefully working together, and to take this opportunity to be able to do that. We, of course, will continue as well with our assistance package, which, as you know, will bring in overall support of about 11 billion euros over time.

I want, as well, to mention the terrible escalation of violence in South Sudan and to pay tribute to your visit. I already know from our special representatives in the region and from people from the countries concerned that your visit was extremely timely and your efforts were very well recognized. So may I pay tribute to you for that, as well as many, many other things.
I’m worried that this country is on the brink of what could be a civil war, ethnically motivated. And the prospects of famine and the humanitarian disaster – they’re really looming large now, so we need to work together. We need to work to ensure that the leaders in South Sudan really do take the action that you’ve identified they need to. And when the meeting takes place on Friday, they really have got to now try and put aside personal differences and try and change the atmosphere and to try and prevent any further offenses and to respect the cessation of hostilities.

We’re actively considering the targeted sanctions that you’ve described. As you know, the Foreign Affairs Council, we’re meeting on Monday, and that’s the forum where I am president to try and look at all of these issues and see how we go forward. So we need to work very closely in good cooperation with you and with others and to make sure that we put as much energy as possible into trying to prevent what, as I said, could be a disaster.

Like you, our thoughts are with the parents of the Nigerian girls and with the girls themselves. These are the future of the country. They are teachers, dancers, politicians. They are scientists; they are mothers. They are women in the making, who have a right to play their full part in their society. And what has happened to them is devastating for all of us, and we must do, like you, everything possible to try and reunite them with their families and to prevent this ever, ever happening again.

But I want to end, if I might, by also reiterating my full support for everything that you have done in the Middle East. Your efforts are not, by any means, over yet. I know that. And I know that this has been a difficult time. But I do think that you have made tremendous progress and the European Union stands absolutely beside you as you continue your efforts and remains committed to supporting you in every way possible.

My final thought is on Iran. We will, of course, next week try and take this process forward. And we’re all interested in making sure that if we can get an agreement it’s the best agreement.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Cathy.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: We always hug. There’s always a hug. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, Lady Ashton. On Nigeria first, why has it taken so long to mobilize an American effort? We understand that President Jonathan today said he is welcoming the help, that there was no invitation before this, and if you understand that to mean that you can now act. But it will take a while to organize this cell in the Embassy. Why, given our extraordinary abilities with surveillance, with detection, did not the United States act sooner with other allies? It’s understood that some of these girls may have been taken across borders. There is an international issue. They are listed as a terror organization, Boko Haram, on the State Department list. It seems inconceivable to people around the world that we could not act sooner where lives are at stake. And how long now will it take to act?

And if I could ask you about Benghazi, because this is our first opportunity, sir. First of all, your response to Chairman Issa’s committee’s subpoena for you to appear, we understand that on May 21st, the date that you were ordered to appear, that you are supposed to be traveling, previously scheduled, in Mexico. Will you now organize another day to appear? How do you feel about being subpoenaed rather than being invited, as would have been the normal protocol? And what is your response to the committee’s charge that the State Department, under your watch as well, has dragged its feet on being forthcoming with all of the demands for documents?

And if I could ask Lady Ashton, finally, given the conversations between President Obama and Chancellor Merkel last week, can the international community really wait to see whether the sectoral sanctions should be imposed? It does seem as though Vladimir Putin and his supporters, these separatists, are not changing their policy and are not responding even to the damage that has been done, whatever it has been, to their economies.
Thank you all so very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: The last question --

QUESTION: Well, you can --

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: He’ll answer it as well.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, no. I want her to answer it. I thought it was for her.

QUESTION: Yes, for both, but --

SECRETARY KERRY: So – well, give me the last question again of the four questions I got on here.

QUESTION: Sorry. The last question is: Why wait to impose tougher sanctions given that Vladimir Putin has shown no sign of desisting despite the sanctions that have already been imposed? But I think first --

SECRETARY KERRY: Well --

QUESTION: -- Nigeria and Benghazi.

SECRETARY KERRY: All right, sure. Well, let me speak to Nigeria. First of all, we have been in touch from day one, and our Embassy has been engaged and we have been engaged. But the government had its own set of strategies, if you will, in the beginning. And you can offer and talk, but you can’t do if a government has its own sense of how it’s proceeding. I think now the complications that have arisen have convinced everybody that there needs to be a greater effort, and it will begin immediately. I mean literally immediately. We are in touch, our Embassy is in touch. We’ve been talking with AFRICOM, we’ve been talking with the various entities, and I think you’re going to see a very, very rapid response.

QUESTION: We have satellites, though, surveillance?

SECRETARY KERRY: I understand. Yeah, we do, but it depends where they are and what they’re looking at on any given day. And so there are options, and I can assure you – I think the White House will have more to say about what we are going to be doing, and I’ll let them speak for that. But the simple answer is we’re going to do everything in our power to able to be helpful. And I’m going to see the President in a little while this afternoon. I think the President may or may not have something to say about this in the near term.

And let’s just – the important thing is that we have put everything on the table. We’re going to send a team, and it’ll be a combined team ready to work. But you have to have a host country that’s ready to receive and work with you in any situation, and we’re prepared to work.
On the issue of Benghazi, I served 29 years in the United States Senate, 28-plus. And I was chairman of a major committee, and I don’t think I ever issued a subpoena to somebody that I hadn’t first invited to come and speak. I think this sort of speaks for itself, frankly.

We have had more than, I think, 50 briefings. There have been in the double digits of hearings. We’ve delivered over 25,000 documents. And the fact is that documents require a legal process to go through for examination of executive privilege or other kinds of – classified or other kinds of things that may or may not be in them. That’s just not – it doesn’t happen automatically. But I’ve guaranteed that we would cooperate in every single way. We have, and I will, and the Department will. That’s our obligation. And of course, we will. But I think everybody needs to take a hard look at – and sort of measure what’s been already put out there versus where this effort is going. And you see a very partisan response on the Hill with respect to it.
I also think there’s an issue of the requisite body figuring out who has jurisdiction over this, from what I understand. There are still some questions as to who is going to do what. So we’ll respond, because we have absolutely nothing to hide whatsoever, and I look forward to complying, whatever responsibilities we have.

QUESTION: Do you intend to --

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to – I’ll comply with whatever responsibilities we have. And with respect to the question of tougher sanctions and sanctions, what we are doing is having a major impact. Nobody should doubt that. The bonds in Russia are already just above junk bonds in categorization, and they’ve had to postpone a number of sales of bonds. The economy is already on the downward decline. The IMF has already declared that it’s in recession. Their growth was going to be about 1.3 percent; it’s now prospected to be perhaps .1 or 2 percent, minimal, and we have only yet begun, if we have to. And I think there’s no question. But it is important for the United States and Europe to try to move together in this. We believe that. And so that requires a certain element of preparation, coordination. You have to do the right paperwork, the right examination. You have to pull your teams together. And we are proceeding, I think, in a very effective and authoritative way.

We’ve made it very clear – President Obama and Chancellor Merkel had a meeting the other day. And they said clearly that if there are interference or continued interference, if there is continued interference with respect to the election and election process, there will be more sanctions that this time will start to bite into the sectors of the economy. And those become even more compelling than what has been put on the table to this point.

But obviously, when you’re trying to keep a door open to be able to find some kind of a diplomatic solution, when the other party says they’re willing to come to the table and actually engage in that discussion, it seems to me reasonable to try to do that. And I think most people in most places want a responsible government, not to escalate to the point of creating an inevitable confrontation, but rather to find out if there’s a way to be able to find that diplomatic solution. That’s what diplomacy is about. There’s no question about our ability, when we want to, to be able to put sanctions in place that are even more biting than what we have today. But you have to ask yourself if the price has been (inaudible) ahead of time, whether or not that invites something further that you don’t want to have happen.

So there’s a delicate mix here, and I think President Obama has calibrated this extremely effectively. It’s having a biting effect, and we will continue to proceed in unity with our European allies to do what we think has the greatest impact and the most effect.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: I mean, I have nothing much more to add, except to say that from the perspective of what the European Union is doing, it is this desire to see a way to find a method of de-escalation. And that was what Geneva was about. It’s why we put on hold measures that we were considering, because that’s, as you said, is what you do. When we saw that we were not getting the results from Geneva, we pressed the start button again and we’ve continued with those measures. And we’re looking at all of the possibilities. It’s a mix of things that you want to do to try and create the circumstances that will lead to the most important thing, which is stopping the violence, for people to stop occupying the buildings, and to get the kind of discussion, debate, and democratic approach that will lead Ukraine into its future. And so you have to consider all of the ways in which that can be done.

I will be bringing together the 28 foreign ministers on Monday. They will be discussing all of the elements of that approach, working very closely with our colleagues in the United States, in order to see how we can best do that. And it’s why countries like Germany, like others, obviously, engaging and talking as well as looking at what we might do as a coordinated effort, and I really hope that we’re successful in that.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Gero Schliess from Deutsche Welle, and I’m sure I butchered that, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Gero Schliess, Gero Schliess, thank you. First part also on Ukraine: Some people have the impression that for the U.S. sanctions – or, let’s say, punishment or isolation of Mr. Putin is the most important goal. And I have a perception that Europe seems to be reluctant to pursue this policy. And my question to both of you is: We have (inaudible) that Putin is a problem, but in what respect could he be also part of a solution? And today, did you discuss the option of a neutral Ukraine that would possibly satisfy Putin and might be acceptable for the Western countries?

And the second part of my question goes – is about Syria. As Syrian delegation of – Syrian opposition is in D.C. to talk to the Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry, your Administration has granted the U.S. offices of Syrian National Coalition diplomatic status. Does this signal that the U.S. are getting more actively involved in the civil war, including providing the rebels with heavy weaponry?

And to you, Lady Ashton, would the European Union also grant diplomatic status to the Syrian National Coalition?

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Should I start?

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead, please.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: On Ukraine, it’s for the people of Ukraine to decide what Ukraine is and will be, and they will consider very carefully where they sit in the world. I’ve said whenever I visited Ukraine, when I met with the then-President Yanukovych and in more recent times, that it’s not about a competition between Europe and Russia for a nation, that Ukraine will want strong and good economic links with Russia. And we recognize that that’s important. This is never and never should be about this idea of a competition.

For us, it’s always about trying to find now the way forward, as I’ve already indicated, to find the formula that’s going to help to de-escalate the situation, to talk with everybody and to keep all the doors open while being very clear that the situation cannot continue as it is.
On Syria, I’ll answer very briefly, the European Union of itself does not do diplomatic relations with anyone. It’s individual member states who do that.

QUESTION: And may I ask, how far could Putin be part of a solution concerning the Ukraine crisis?

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Well, President Putin is president of Russia, and Russia is playing a role at the moment. So the question for Russia is: If you take what I’ve just said about the fact that Ukraine as a nation needs to have a good relationship with all of its neighbors, then you need to start looking at how, from Russia’s perspective, they’re going to define that. And defining that for me is about strong economic links. Yes, there are strong historical links, and yes, there needs to be a way in which they can be peacefully co-existing side by side. And I hope that President Putin might consider that that is the way forward.

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to your question on President Putin, there’s no observer of Russia, there is no one engaged in diplomacy today who doesn’t understand that President Putin is calling the shots in Russia, that a very narrow group of people around him are advising him in one way or the other. But President Putin is almost exclusively, if not exclusively calling the shots.

There is no specific effort by the United States of America to somehow single him out other than to respond to the fact that in his name, Russia has deployed its forces, engaged in direct activities involved first in Crimea, now in east and south of Ukraine, in ways that are destabilizing that country, and still has 40,000-plus or so troops lined up on the border in a place that it didn’t have them before they began to move into Crimea.

Now, what we are trying to do is not targeted on him because we have some personal thing or something about him. It’s because he’s making decisions that are adversely affecting the region and the rights of the people of Ukraine to choose their future and to have their sovereignty respected. We have only one interest in this. That is the stability and respect for Ukraine, its integrity and its sovereignty, and the opportunity of the people of Ukraine to choose their future. That’s our interest. And we are not seeking alignment; we’re not seeking anything except this universal value that is respected around the world for the right of people to not be bludgeoned at the butt of a gun, or with military invasion, to be told what to do.

Now, we believe that it’s appropriate for us to respond in response to the legitimate demands of a government that was voted on even by the former supporters of President Yanukovych, who deserted the country of his own free will, and made a decision not to live up to the agreement that he signed back in February. And the parliament, with his own party’s support, voted him out and provided for an interim government and called for elections. Now, what could be more sensible than to allow this country under siege to be able to have an election where they give legitimacy to a new government by having all of the people be able to vote? That’s all people are looking for here. It seems to me that it shouldn’t be so complicated for Russia to be able to engage in that process.

And we respect that Russia has a long historical connection to Ukraine, and that Kyiv is the home – the birthplace of Russian religion, and that wars of liberation have been fought on that territory. And we understand the connection and the strong feelings about protection of people who – Russian-speaking and so forth. We’re not – nobody’s arguing against that, though. The fact is that the interim government of Ukraine is prepared to respect the Russian language, prepared to respect the greater autonomy for people in that region, to give them – frankly, the people – the Government of Ukraine has offered to give the people in south and east Ukraine more power over their own lives on an everyday basis than Russia gives any individual state or province in Russia. That’s a fact.

And so the answer is that what we think is important here is that the rights of the people be respected. And Lady Ashton’s correct: They have to choose their future. But they have said they are not seeking alignment. They’ve said they’re not looking for NATO membership. And NATO and those of us who are members have said we’re prepared to respect the choice of the interim government and whatever future government of Ukraine there is.

Final comment: We have said again and again to the Russians – and I hope they hear it again today – we are not seeking for a Ukraine that belongs to some other part of the world, but only – we want one that just belongs to Ukraine. And we’re not seeking one that is a pawn between East and West. We’d like Ukraine to be a bridge between East and West. And we certainly agree with President Putin’s vision that we could have an economic arrangement that goes from Vladivostok to Lisbon that involves everybody in a major market where everybody benefits.

So there’s more to talk about than unfortunately some of the heated rhetoric has given people a sense of. And our hope is that – that’s why we pursue these discussions, is to see if we can’t find a way to make those interests meet the moment and find a way forward that de-escalates this confrontation.

MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, and Syria. I didn’t answer Syria. On Syria, we have not recognized the SOC. We’ve given them diplomatic status to be able to come here, but because we have previously said that they are the legitimate representative. But we have not moved to create a diplomatic – to recognize them or create a diplomatic situation. But we’re hopeful that, again, there also, we can find a way forward that deals with this extraordinary violence that is literally destroying the country of Syria. And our hope is that we could have a reasonable way forward to do that. Thank you. Thank you all.


U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT REMARKS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY NPT CLUSTER 1

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

NPT Cluster 1: Nuclear Disarmament and Security: U.S. Statement

Remarks
Christopher Buck, Deputy Chief of Mission, Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament Permanent Mission, Geneva
Third Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
United Nations, New York City
May 2, 2014


(As Delivered)

Mr. Chairman,

I am pleased to provide an update on ongoing U.S. activities in fulfillment of our obligations and commitments under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the 2010 NPT Action Plan. In this context, I highlight the extensive report that the United States has submitted to this Preparatory Committee meeting, consistent with Actions 5, 20, and 21 of the 2010 NPT Action Plan.

U.S. policy is to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This remains a central element of President Obama’s nuclear agenda, and we are working to create conditions that can enable its eventual achievement by pursuing a multifaceted, step-by-step approach incorporating national, bilateral, and multilateral actions.

It is because we understand the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons that the United States continues to devote considerable resources in a decades-long effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons. There is no “quick fix” to achieving nuclear disarmament. There is no path other than the hard, daily work of verifiable step-by-step disarmament to which we remain resolutely committed.

In line with our support for the NPT, in 2010 the United States changed our nuclear posture to further reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and emphasize the interest of all nations in extending the 69-year record of non-use of nuclear weapons. The President also made it clear that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads nor will we pursue new military missions for nuclear weapons.

This important shift in U.S. nuclear posture has taken place against the backdrop of dramatic and ongoing reductions in our nuclear arsenal. In fact, when the NPT entered into force in 1970, the United States had a nuclear stockpile of over 26,000 nuclear weapons. As Under Secretary Gottemoeller announced on Tuesday, the U.S. nuclear stockpile now has been reduced to 4,804 warheads, which reflects an 85% decrease from its Cold War peak. During this period, the United States reduced its non-strategic nuclear warheads by 90 percent. To lend a better sense of the scale of this ongoing activity in the post-Cold War period, between 1994 and 2013, the United States dismantled 9,952 nuclear warheads.

Moreover, this effort continues as we fulfill our obligations under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia, now in its fourth year of implementation. When the Treaty limits are reached in 2018, the strategic forces of the United States and Russia will be capped at 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, their lowest level since the 1950s.

Contrary to the view expressed by some in this hall, we do not regard the achievement of nuclear disarmament as simply a rhetorical goal. It is one the United States is working on and pursuing every day.

And this work is not done. As outlined by President Obama in Berlin in June 2013, the United States remains open to negotiate further reductions with Russia in all categories of nuclear weapons – including strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons.

We are also developing effective verification methodologies and processes that will be essential as we move toward increasingly smaller nuclear arsenals. Our experience with verified bilateral nuclear disarmament provides valuable experience and useful tools for multilateral nuclear disarmament approaches in the future. To that end, we are working closely with all NPT nuclear weapon states (or “P5”) to lay the foundation for future arms control agreements with participants beyond Russia and the United States.

Within the P5 process we have institutionalized regular dialogue on nuclear weapons-related issues. China hosted a fifth P5 Conference in Beijing on April 14 and 15, and the United Kingdom has agreed to host a sixth conference next year. Through these high-level conferences and frequent expert-level meetings, the P5 were able to reach consensus on a framework for reporting to this PrepCom in accordance with their commitments in the Action Plan. P5 CTBT experts have held productive discussions on ways they can collaborate in strengthening the CTBT monitoring regime. And the P5 Working Group on Nuclear Terms and Definitions, chaired by China, has made progress on the development of a P5 nuclear terms glossary.

The significance of this work should not be underestimated. P5 engagement is a long-term investment to strengthen and advance the NPT, build trust and create a stronger foundation to achieve the Treaty’s disarmament and nonproliferation goals. In addition, the United States and the United Kingdom are conducting a joint project to further develop verification procedures and technologies, which we will brief today at 1:15 p.m. in the North Lawn Building, Conference Room 5.

Turning to the broader multilateral context, the United States supports the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), which is the next logical and necessary step toward achieving our shared disarmament goals. A verifiable ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons is necessary if we are to create conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. All states can contribute to achieving this goal. We are disappointed that the Conference on Disarmament (CD) has been unable to initiate negotiations on an FMCT. Even as we continue our efforts in the CD, the United States is actively engaged in the meeting of the FMCT Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), which can usefully complement efforts to promote negotiations of an FMCT in the CD.

In another important multilateral effort, the ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) remains a top priority for the U.S. Administration. Our active involvement in all activities of the CTBT Organization’s Preparatory Commission clearly demonstrates our ongoing commitment to the Treaty and the vital importance the United States attaches to completing the verification regime. The United States recognizes that the voluntary adherence to unilateral nuclear testing moratoria is no substitute for a legally binding prohibition against the conduct of such explosions. Entry into force of the CTBT is in the security interests of every nation. All States have an important role to play in providing the necessary resources to complete the Treaty’s verification regime and maximize the capabilities of the Provisional Technical Secretariat.

Mr. Chairman,

The United States recognizes the importance of security assurances in the context of the NPT. Accordingly, the United States updated and strengthened its long-standing negative security assurance policy in the context of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review published in April 2010. The United States declared that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon States that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. It was also made clear that the United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or our allies and partners.

The United States also supports well-crafted nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) that are vigorously enforced and developed in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the United Nations Disarmament Commission. We are a Party to both Protocols of the Treaty of Tlatelolco and in recent years the United States has worked toward extending legally binding negative security assurances by submitting for ratification the protocols to the African and South Pacific nuclear-weapon-free zones. We are pleased to note that the United States and other NPT nuclear weapon states will soon sign the Protocol to the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty. The nuclear weapon states are also engaging ASEAN to resolve any remaining differences so that we can sign the revised Protocol to the Southeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone. These actions are a priority for us.

Mr. Chairman,

The United States is committed to achieving a world without nuclear weapons, and we are dedicated to working with all NPT States Parties to make that goal a reality. The pursuit of our shared goal will require patience and persistence from all of us. But we are confident in our purpose, and strengthened in both our methods and morale by the tremendous progress we have made thus far.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON CLIMATE CHANGE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

FACT SHEET: What Climate Change Means for Regions across America and Major Sectors of the Economy

…Science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind…those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it—they’re busy dealing with it.”
-- President Barack Obama, Remarks at Georgetown University, June 25, 2013.
Today, delivering on a major commitment in the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Obama Administration is unveiling the third U.S. National Climate Assessment—the most comprehensive scientific assessment ever generated of climate change and its impacts across every region of America and major sectors of the U.S. economy.
The findings in this National Climate Assessment underscore the need for urgent action to combat the threats from climate change, protect American citizens and communities today, and build a sustainable future for our kids and grandkids.
Developed over four years by hundreds of the Nation’s top climate scientists and technical experts—and informed by thousands of inputs from the public and outside organizations gathered through town hall meetings, public-comment opportunities, and technical workshops across the country, the third National Climate Assessment represents the most authoritative and comprehensive knowledge base about how climate change is affecting America now, and what’s likely to come over the next century.
And, for the first time, to ensure that American citizens, communities, businesses, and decision makers have easy access to scientific information about climate change impacts that are most relevant to them, the U.S. National Climate Assessment is being released in an interactive, mobile-device-friendly, digital format on www.globalchange.gov.
Today’s announcement is a key deliverable of the Climate Action Plan launched by President Obama last June—which lays out concrete steps to cut carbon pollution, prepare America’s communities for climate-change impacts, and lead international efforts to address this global challenge. The Plan acknowledges that even as we act to reduce the greenhouse-gas pollution that is driving climate change, we must also empower the Nation’s communities, businesses, and individual citizens with the information they need to cope with the changes in climate that are already underway.
Climate-Change Impacts in Regions across America:
• Northeast – MaineNew Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and District of ColumbiaSixty-four million people are concentrated in the Northeast. The high-density urban coastal corridor from Washington, DC, north to Boston is one of the most developed environments in the world, containing a massive, complex, and long-standing network of supporting infrastructure. The Northeast also has a vital rural component.” Communities in the Northeast “are affected by heat waves, more extreme precipitation events, and coastal flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge.” (NCA Highlights: Northeast; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Southeast and Caribbean –Virginia, W. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and the Caribbean IslandsThe Southeast and Caribbean region “is home to more than 80 million people and some of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas… The Gulf and Atlantic coasts are major producers of seafood and home to seven major ports that are also vulnerable. The Southeast is a major energy producer of coal, crude oil, and natural gas.” “Decreased water availability, exacerbated by population growth and land-use change, causes increased competition for water in this region. There are also increased risks associated with extreme events such as hurricanes.” (NCA Highlights: Southeast & Caribbean; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Midwest – Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin: “The Midwest’s agricultural lands, forests, Great Lakes, industrial activities, and cities are all vulnerable to climate variability and climate change.” “Longer growing seasons and rising carbon dioxide levels increase yields of some crops, although these benefits have already been offset in some instances by occurrence of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods.” (NCA Highlights: Midwest; NCA Highlights: Overview
• Great Plains – Wyoming, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and TexasThe Great Plains region “experiences multiple climate and weather hazards, including floods, droughts, severe storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storms. In much of the Great Plains, too little precipitation falls to replace that needed by humans, plants, and animals. These variable conditions already stress communities and cause billions of dollars in damage. Climate change will add to both stress and costs.” “Rising temperatures lead to increased demand for water and energy and impacts on agricultural practices.” (NCA Highlights: Great Plains; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Southwest – California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado“The Southwest is the hottest and driest region in the United States. Climate changes pose challenges for an already parched region that is expected to get hotter and, in its southern half, significantly drier. Increased heat and changes to rain and snowpack will send ripple effects throughout the region… and its critical agriculture sector.” “Drought and increased warming foster wildfires and increased competition for scarce water resources for people and ecosystems.” (NCA Highlights: Southwest; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Northwest – Idaho, Oregon, and Washington: “The Northwest’s economy, infrastructure, natural systems, public health, and agriculture sectors all face important climate change related risks. Impacts on infrastructure, natural systems, human health, and economic sectors, combined with issues of social and ecological vulnerability, will unfold quite differently in largely natural areas, like the Cascade Range, than in urban areas like Seattle and Portland or among the region’s many Native American Tribes.” “Changes in the timing of streamflow related to earlier snowmelt reduce the supply of water in summer, causing far-reaching ecological and socioeconomic consequences.” (NCA Highlights: Northwest; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Alaska: “Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as rapidly as the rest of the United States…The state’s largest industries, energy production, mining, and fishing—are all affected by climate change.” “Rapidly receding summer sea ice, shrinking glaciers, and thawing permafrost cause damage to infrastructure and major changes to ecosystems. Impacts on Alaska Native communities increase.” (NCA Highlights: Alaska; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Hawaii and Pacific Islands: The U.S. Pacific Islands region “includes more than 2,000 islands spanning millions of square miles of ocean. Rising air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms and drought, decreasing streamflows, rising sea levels, and changing ocean chemistry will threaten the sustainability of globally important and diverse ecosystems…as well as local communities, livelihoods, and cultures.” “Increasingly constrained freshwater supplies, coupled with increased temperatures, stress both people and ecosystems and decrease food and water security.” (NCA Highlights: Hawaii and the Pacific Islands; NCA Highlights: Overview)
• Coasts: “More than 50% of Americans – 164 million people – live in coastal counties, with 1.2 million added each year... Humans have heavily altered the coastal environment through development, changes in land use, and overexploitation of resources. Now, the changing climate is imposing additional stresses...” “Coastal lifelines, such as water supply infrastructure and evacuation routes are increasingly vulnerable to higher sea levels and storm surges, inland flooding, and other climate-related changes.” (NCA Highlights: Coasts; NCA Highlights: Overview)
Climate-Change Impacts on Key Sectors of Society and the U.S. Economy
• Health: “Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through impacts from increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as mosquitoes and ticks. Some of these health impacts are already underway in the United States. Climate change will, absent other changes, amplify some of the existing health threats the Nation now faces. Certain people and communities are especially vulnerable, including children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and some communities of color. Public health actions, especially preparedness and prevention, can do much to protect people from some of the impacts of climate change. Early action provides the largest health benefits.” (NCA Highlights: Human Health)
• Transportation: “The impacts from sea level rise and storm surge, extreme weather events, higher temperatures and heat waves, precipitation changes, Arctic warming, and other climatic conditions are affecting the reliability and capacity of the U.S. transportation system in many ways. Sea level rise, coupled with storm surge, will continue to increase the risk of major coastal impacts on transportation infrastructure, including both temporary and permanent flooding of airports, ports and harbors, roads, rail lines, tunnels, and bridges. Extreme weather events currently disrupt transportation networks in all areas of the country; projections indicate that such disruptions will increase. Climate change impacts will increase the total costs to the Nation’s transportation systems and their users, but these impacts can be reduced through rerouting, mode change, and a wide range of adaptive actions.” (NCA Highlights: Transportation)
• Energy: “Extreme weather events are affecting energy production and delivery facilities, causing supply disruptions of varying lengths and magnitudes and affecting other infrastructure that depends on energy supply. The frequency and intensity of certain types of extreme weather events are expected to change. Higher summer temperatures will increase electricity use, causing higher summer peak loads, while warmer winters will decrease energy demands for heating. Net electricity use is projected to increase. Changes in water availability, both episodic and long-lasting, will constrain different forms of energy production. In the longer term, sea level rise, extreme storm surge events, and high tides will affect coastal facilities and infrastructure on which many energy systems, markets, and consumers depend. As new investments in energy technologies occur, future energy systems will differ from today’s in uncertain ways. Depending on the character of changes in the energy mix, climate change will introduce new risks as well as new opportunities.” (NCA Highlights: Energy Supply and Use)
• Water: “Climate change affects water demand and the ways water is used within and across regions and economic sectors. The Southwest, Great Plains, and Southeast are particularly vulnerable to changes in water supply and demand. Changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in consumption and withdrawal, have reduced surface and groundwater supplies in many areas. These trends are expected to continue, increasing the likelihood of water shortages for many uses. Increasing flooding risk affects human safety and health, property, infrastructure, economies, and ecology in many basins across the United States… Increasing resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity provide opportunities to strengthen water resources management and plan for climate-change impacts.”(NCA Highlights: Water)
• Agriculture: “Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply… Climate change effects on agriculture will have consequences for food security, both in the U.S. and globally, through changes in crop yields and food prices and effects on food processing, storage, transportation, and retailing. Adaptation measures can help delay and reduce some of these impacts.” (NCA Highlights: Agriculture)
• Ecosystems: “Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed. Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst, and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources… Whole-system management is often more effective than focusing on one species at a time, and can help reduce the harm to wildlife, natural assets, and human well-being that climate disruption might cause.” (NCA Highlights: Ecosystems)
• Oceans: “Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities… In response to observed and projected climate impacts, some existing ocean policies, practices, and management efforts are incorporating climate change impacts. These initiatives can serve as models for other efforts and ultimately enable people and communities to adapt to changing ocean conditions.” (NCA Highlights: Oceans)
Climate Trends in America
• Temperature: “U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the Nation’s warmest on record. Temperatures in the United States are expected to continue to rise. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Extreme Weather: There have been changes in some types of extreme weather events over the last several decades. Heat waves have become more frequent and intense, especially in the West. Cold waves have become less frequent and intense across the Nation. There have been regional trends in floods and droughts. Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Hurricanes: “The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Severe Storms: “Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States. Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Precipitation: “Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Heavy Downpours: “Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last three to five decades. Largest increases are in the Midwest and Northeast. Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events are projected for all U.S. regions.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Frost-free Season: “The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Ice Melt: “Rising temperatures are reducing ice volume and surface extent on land, lakes, and sea. This loss of ice is expected to continue. The Arctic Ocean is expected to become essentially ice free in summer before mid-century.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Sea Level: “Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)
• Ocean Acidification: “The oceans are currently absorbing about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually and are becoming more acidic as a result, leading to concerns about intensifying impacts on marine ecosystems.” (NCA Highlights: Climate Trends)

JUSTICE ANNOUNCES OWNERS LOS ANGELES AMBULANCE COMPANY SENTENCED FOR MEDICARE FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Owners of Los Angeles Ambulance Company Sentenced for Medicare Fraud Scheme

The owners of Alpha Ambulance Inc. (Alpha), a now-defunct Los Angeles-area ambulance transportation company, have been sentenced in connection with a Medicare fraud scheme.

Acting Assistant Attorney General David A. O’Neil of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California, Special Agent in Charge Glenn R. Ferry of the Los Angeles Region of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) and Assistant Director in Charge Bill L. Lewis of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office made the announcement.

Aleksey Muratov, aka Russ Muratov, 32, and Alex Kapri, aka Alex Kapriyelov or Alexander Kapriyelov, 56, were sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins in the Central District of California to serve 108 months and 75 months in prison, respectively.   Both Kapri and Muratov pleaded guilty on Oct. 28, 2014, to conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

Muratov and Kapri were owners and operators of Alpha, which specialized in the provision of non-emergency ambulance transportation services to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, primarily dialysis patients.

According to court documents, Muratov and Kapri knowingly provided non-emergency ambulance transportation to Medicare beneficiaries whose medical condition at that time did not require ambulance transportation.  With Kapri’s knowledge, Muratov and others at Alpha instructed certain Alpha employees to conceal the Medicare beneficiaries’ medical conditions by altering required documents for Medicare reimbursement and creating fraudulent justifications for the transportation.   The defendants caused Alpha to submit claims to Medicare that were fraudulent because the transportation was not medically necessary.

Additionally, as the defendants were submitting these false claims, Medicare notified Alpha that the company would be subject to a Medicare audit.  In response, Muratov instructed Alpha employees – with Kapri’s knowledge – to alter specific documents that would be submitted to Medicare in response to the audit and create false justifications for transportation of the beneficiaries identified.

From at least June 2008 through at least July 2012, Alpha submitted more than $49 million in claims for ambulance transportation.  As a result, Medicare paid Alpha more than $13 million for these claims, many of which were fraudulent.

The case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.  This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Blanca Quintero and Alexander F. Porter and Assistant Chief O. Benton Curtis III of the Fraud Section.

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,700 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5.5 billion.  In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

NSF: CLIMATE CHANGE MAY WORSEN SUMMERTIME OZONE POLLUTION

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 
Climate change may worsen summertime ozone pollution

Americans face 70 percent increase in unhealthy ozone levels by 2050
Ozone pollution across the continental United States will become far more difficult to keep in check as temperatures rise, according to new research results.

The study shows that Americans face the risk of a 70 percent increase in unhealthy summertime ozone levels by 2050.

The results appear online this week in a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, published by the American Geophysical Union.

The work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Warmer temperatures and other changes in the atmosphere related to a changing climate, including higher atmospheric levels of methane, spur chemical reactions that increase overall levels of ozone.

Unlike ozone in the stratosphere, which benefits life on Earth by blocking ultraviolet radiation from the sun, ground-level ozone can trigger a number of health problems.

These range from coughing and throat irritation to more serious aggravation of asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.

Even short periods of unhealthy ozone levels can cause local death rates to rise. Ozone pollution also damages crops and other plants.

Unless emissions of specific pollutants associated with the formation of ozone are sharply cut, most of the continental United States will experience more summer days with unhealthy air by 2050, the research shows.

Heavily polluted locations in parts of the East, Midwest and West Coast, in which ozone already frequently exceeds recommended levels, could face unhealthy summer air in most years.

"It doesn't matter where you are in the United States, climate change has the potential to make your air worse," said National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Gabriele Pfister, lead scientist on the study.

In addition to NCAR, the paper co-authors are from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; University of Colorado, Boulder; and North-West University in South Africa.

"A warming planet doesn't just mean rising temperatures, it also means risking more summertime pollution and the health effects that come with it," said Pfister.

However, the research also showed that a sharp reduction in the emissions of certain pollutants would lead to dramatically decreased levels of ozone even as temperatures warm.

The research is one of the first of its type to be conducted with new, highly advanced geoscience supercomputing capabilities.

"Understanding future changes in surface ozone over the summer has tremendous implications for air quality and human health," said Anjuli Bamzai, a program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research through NSF's Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction using Earth System Models (EaSM) Program.

"Through a series of 'what if' simulations," said Bamzai, "atmospheric chemists, climate modelers, regional modelers and developers of emissions scenarios demonstrate that a balance of emission controls can counteract the increases in future temperatures, emissions and solar radiation that in turn lead to decreases in surface ozone."

Ozone and heat

Ozone pollution is not emitted directly. It forms as a result of chemical reactions that take place between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight.

These gases come from human activities such as combustion of coal and oil, as well as natural sources such as emissions from plants.

To examine the effects of climate change on ozone pollution, Pfister and colleagues looked at two scenarios.

In one, emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from human activities would continue at current levels through 2050.

In the other, emissions would be cut by 60-70 percent. Both scenarios assumed continued greenhouse gas emissions with significant warming.

The researchers found that, if emissions continue at present-day rates, the number of eight-hour periods in which ozone would exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb) would jump by 70 percent on average across the United States by 2050.

The 75 ppb level over eight hours is the threshold that is considered unhealthy by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (The agency is considering tightening the standard to a value between 65 and 70 ppb over eight hours.)

Overall, the study found that, 90 percent of the time, ozone levels would range from 30 to 87 ppb in 2050 compared with an estimated 31 to 79 ppb at present.

Although the range itself shifts only slightly, the result is a much larger number of days above the threshold considered unhealthy.

There are three primary reasons for the increase in ozone with climate change:

Chemical reactions in the atmosphere that produce ozone occur more rapidly at higher temperatures.
Plants emit more volatile organic compounds at higher temperatures, which can increase ozone formation if mixed with pollutants from human sources.
Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere, contributes to increased ozone globally and will enhance baseline levels of surface ozone across the United States.
In the second scenario, Pfister and colleagues found that sharp reductions in nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds could reduce ozone pollution even as the climate warms.

In fact, 90 percent of the time, ozone levels would range from 27 to 55 ppb.

The number of instances when ozone pollution would exceed the 75 ppb level dropped to less than 1 percent of current cases.

"Our work confirms that reducing emissions of ozone precursors would have an enormous effect on the air we all breathe," Pfister said.

Pfister and a nationwide scientific team expect to learn more about the sources, chemistry and movement of air pollutants this summer when they launch a major field experiment known as FRAPPÉ along Colorado's Front Range.

The role of supercomputing

The study was among the first conducted on the new 1.5 petaflops Yellowstone supercomputer. The IBM system, operated by NCAR and supported by funding from NSF and the University of Wyoming, is one of the world's most powerful computers dedicated to research in the atmospheric and related sciences.

"High resolution models can consume significant time and resources on massive computers, but as shown in this research, they're often required for accurate regional ozone projections," said Irene Qualters, division director for Advanced Computing Infrastructure at NSF.

"Running these models wouldn't have been possible without the parallel processing power of the Yellowstone supercomputer, a critical part of NSF's cyberinfrastructure.

"The work will also help other researchers in related climate topics determine scenarios where coarse resolution is sufficient and, conversely, where high resolution is needed."

Thanks to its computing power, the scientists were able to simulate pollution levels hour-by-hour for 39 hypothetical summers.

This allowed the team to account for year-to-year variations in meteorological conditions, such as hot and dry vs. cool and wet, thereby getting a more detailed and statistically significant picture of future pollution levels.

To simulate the interplay of global climate with regional pollution conditions, the scientists turned to two of the world's leading atmospheric models, both based at NCAR and developed through collaborations in the atmospheric sciences community.

They used the Community Earth System Model, funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy and NSF, to simulate global climate as well as atmospheric chemistry conditions.

They also used an air chemistry version of the multiagency Weather Research and Forecasting Model to obtain a more detailed picture of regional ozone levels.

Even with Yellowstone's advanced computing speed, it took months to complete the complex simulations.

"This research would not have been possible even just a couple of years ago," said Pfister.

"Without the new computing power made possible by Yellowstone, you cannot depict the necessary detail of future changes in air chemistry over small areas, including the urban centers where most Americans live."

-NSF-

Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed