• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Показатели88
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы973
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации144
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Рейтинг Doing Business
17 января, 19:01

Call for FTZ tariff cut

SHANGHAI should eliminate tariffs in the pilot free trade zone to improve trading and enhance the competitiveness of domestic companies, says Fang Huaijin, vice president of the Shanghai International

Выбор редакции
17 января, 15:46

British prime minister: UK wants to trade, do business all around the globe; has started reaching out to other nations

British prime minister: UK wants to trade, do business all around the globe; has started reaching out to other nations.

17 января, 15:12

Protecting forests: It's the right thing to do, and we can do it

On a recent trip to Brazil, we flew over the Amazon. Looking out the plane window, I saw an ocean of trees blanketing the ground below. But I also saw large patches of land that had been deforested to make way for farmland. And as much as I like to see farmland, since our business depends on sourcing crops from farmers worldwide, I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a real sense of loss at that sight. Protecting forests is clearly the right thing to do. Primary forests are irreplaceable. They contain troves of biodiversity, many millions of people depend on them directly for their livelihoods, and they are an important buffer against climate change. As a leader in agriculture, food and nutrition, Cargill knows preserving forests is imperative. Although estimates vary, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that deforestation accounts for roughly 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. As a company, Cargill wants to do the right thing for the planet, and we have to do what we can to end deforestation, beginning with our own supply chains. In 2014, at the U.N., we endorsed the New York Declaration on Forests, pledging to do our part in halving deforestation by 2020 and eliminating it by 2030. With that target in mind, we knew where we were going. But to know how to get somewhere, you first have to know where you are. That meant we had to establish a baseline. Over the last year, we partnered with World Resources Institute (WRI) and Global Forest Watch (GFW), whose expertise in protecting forests is widely recognized, to develop that baseline across our global operations and see where our business stands on forest loss. Using satellite photography, extensive mapping and on-the-ground field visits, we looked at more than 1,900 sourcing locations, both Cargill-owned and third-party operated, and 166 million hectares of land surrounding them. To give you an idea of the scope of the project: That's an area about the same size as the American states of Texas, California and Montana combined. What we found is that on the 119 million hectares of forested land in the area we looked at, there was about 1.46 percent tree cover loss in 2014. That analysis gave us a basic view of what's happening on the ground. What we don't know yet is how much of that tree cover loss was directly related to our own activity. That's because we are not the only company that operates in those areas, and a number of our own suppliers also sell to other buyers. The next step is to determine what exactly caused the deforestation, and what we can do to develop solutions, either by ourselves or working with others. You can read more about this in Cargill's new Report on Forests, along with the progress we have made protecting forests in global supply chains like palm oil and cocoa, soy in Brazil and Paraguay, and cotton and maize in Zambia. We also just launched a policy that will ensure the companies we buy wood-fiber-based packaging from make their products responsibly. Of course, we can't do all these things by ourselves, if only because we don't grow most of the crops we trade and ship - we buy them from farmers and other companies. That's why, in our actions to stop deforestation, we have always placed a special emphasis on collaboration. To get where we're going, we are working with governments, NGOs, business partners and - most importantly - farmers around the world. Take Paraguay, for instance. The country is a significant exporter of soy beans, which account for half of its agricultural output and 12 percent of its GDP. We already had years of experience in making the soy trade more sustainable. Ten years ago, we were one of the founders of the Soy Moratorium in Brazil, which contributed to an 80 percent drop in the rate of deforestation in the Amazon and was recently extended indefinitely. Building on the lessons we learned there, we set out to equip Paraguayan farmers with sustainable approaches. We also rolled out a certification program based on three pillars: increasing the use of best agricultural practices, protecting worker welfare and managing greenhouse gases. Similar collaborations with farmers have been going on in other countries. And although every place and every supply chain is different, we've managed to reach more than 148,000 farmers and suppliers around the world, including 15,000 small- and large-scale soy farmers in Brazil, 21,000 palm oil small farmers in Indonesia, 1,000 soy farmers in Paraguay and 90,000 cocoa farmers and cooperatives in West Africa. All of this goes to show that stopping deforestation has to happen on multiple fronts. It's not just shoes on the ground or satellites 100 miles up in space, it's both - and more. Making our 2030 target will take significant amounts of research, cooperation, education, and yes, money. But we are fully committed to making that investment, and we are confident we can get there. To be sure, there is still a lot of work to be done. But with effort, dedication and a willingness to listen to sometimes unlikely allies, we as an industry can protect forests, do business and ensure farmers' livelihoods at the same time. We can nourish the world and protect the planet, and I'm confident that we will do it. Our children and grandchildren require and expect no less. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 января, 15:00

How to Deliver Criticism So Employees Pay Attention

In my college days I ranked among the top 10 women divers in the United States. I got that far not just because I worked hard — practicing every day in four-to-six-hour sessions — but also because I had an extremely tough coach who routinely offered both caring support and sharp criticism. Early in our relationship he explained how it would work: “When I stop yelling is when you’d better start to worry.” And I understood: Because he believed in me, he would push me — hard. Strategies for coaching athletes don’t always work for executives trying to manage employees. But when it comes to delivering criticism, I do think some best practices translate. Used correctly, criticism can improve performance, enhance trust and respect, and advance the achievement of mutual goals. Used incorrectly, it can be toxic to a relationship. How can you increase the likelihood that your employees will perceive the criticism you offer them as helpful and well-intended and be more willing to act on it, as I was with my diving coach? Based on my sports experience with him and my current work as an executive coach, I’ve developed a few guidelines: Engage the person in a specific solution. All too often managers offer criticism in general terms, leaving the receiver to guess what remedy is expected. Good coaches are, by contrast, extremely specific: “Straighten your left leg” or “Be sure to spot the palm tree before you open your somersault tuck.” They encourage the athlete to problem-solve with them: “What felt off on that dive?” or “What could you do to get that leg straighter or start that twist earlier?” Such an approach is equally effective in the workplace. Take, for example, the director of a large hospital who received complaints that a new manager was too abrupt in meetings and was failing to respond to requests in a timely fashion. Instead of taking the woman to task and explaining how she should change, the director explained the situation and asked her what might be done about it. She said, “It’s important for you to make good first impressions, but I’ve heard that some people think you’re too terse and not getting back to them quickly enough. How do you think you might change your behavior to shift those perceptions?” The manager suggested a few ideas and immediately implemented them. Engaging employees in a specific solution ensures they’ll get it right next time, communicates respect for their opinions, and builds their confidence. Link the criticism to what’s most important to the employee. My coach knew I wanted to please my parents. After all, they sacrificed a lot to allow me to pursue my dream of one day being in the Olympics. So, during diving workouts, if I was goofing off, all my coach had to say to get me focused was, “Do you think what you are doing right now is going to make your parents proud of you and get you into the Olympics?” The same tactic can be used with employees. As an example, consider someone who cares about being respected by peers but is habitually 10 minutes late to weekly staff meetings and often blames her tardiness on her busy schedule. A manager might simply reprimand her — either nicely (“Please make more of an effort to be on time”) or sharply (“Do we need to get you a new watch?”). But a more effective strategy is to say something like: “How do you think coming in late affects your reputation with your colleagues?” If employees see the link between the criticism and the things they care about personally, they’ll be more receptive to it. Keep your voice and body language neutral. Coaches do yell sometimes; mine would bark at me from across the pool when I’d botched an easy dive. At times, managers can motivate with a raised voice and expressive gestures as well — to get across a we-can-do-better message. But, ideally, workplace criticism is far more effective when delivered in a matter-of-fact tone of voice, with a relaxed facial expression and with neutral body language. That’s how the hospital director spoke to her new manager. (It’s also how my coach and I typically discussed how I could improve.) An unemotional delivery sends a message that the criticism is simply part of doing business. Heed individual preferences. My coach knew I liked to hear what he thought of each dive. I preferred that he be direct and to the point so that I had a clear understanding of what I needed to do differently. Employees also have feedback preferences. One regional sales manager I know often accompanies her sales associates on client visits. Some reps wanted her advice on their customer interactions immediately, while others preferred that she observe a day’s worth of calls and deliver comprehensive feedback the next morning at breakfast. Early on, before your employees have a chance to do anything that requires criticism, ask them how they prefer to receive feedback. Should you give it immediately or postpone it to another time? Do they prefer an email or an in-person talk? If it’s the latter, should it be in your workspace, theirs, or a neutral spot? A recent study conducted by the National Management Association and my firm found that 98% of managers believe it is important to be open and receptive to criticism, but that’s easier said than done. When bosses follow these guidelines, employees are much more likely to make good on the goal of welcoming negative feedback.

17 января, 14:04

Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden on The Cancer Moonshot

World Economic Forum Davos, Switzerland THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Madam Ambassador, thanks for putting together a crowd for us.  (Laughter.)  Folks, I’m delighted to be here and happy to be back with so many distinguished people.  And I mean that sincerely.  Many of you know as much or more about the subjects I’m going to speak to than I do, including -- is Elizabeth Blackburn here?  Elizabeth, a Nobel Laureate, who found the BRCA gene.  As that old saying goes, she’s forgotten more about this than I’m going to know. But, folks, I’m happy to be back here at the World Economic Forum at Davos to talk about the fight against cancer.  And I’m accompanied by Greg Simon, who is Executive Director of administration’s Cancer Moonshot and who will lead my Biden Cancer Initiative that I’ll launch after we leave office, which is in about 48 hours.  (Laughter.)  I hope I have a ride home.  (Laughter.)  I’ll talk about in a few moments. But, Greg, where are you?  Greg has had a great deal of experience in this area and he’s led the initiative the last year for the President and me. Last year, I arrived at the forum a few days after President Obama delivered his final State of the Union Address, where he announced, quite frankly to my surprise, that he was putting me in charge of a national Cancer Moonshot to double the rate of progress in preventing, diagnosing and treating cancer. And I was not only genuinely surprised by the announcement, I was genuinely surprised by the response that I got both at home and abroad.  Here at Davos I was scheduled -- Klaus had asked me to deliver the keynote address on the promise and perils of the  Fourth Industrial Revolution, and to participate in a few bilateral meetings over the remaining days. But given the overwhelming interest in the Cancer Moonshot, the forum asked  me if I could quickly convene a roundtable of cancer experts, among whom Elizabeth was one of them, to discuss where we are and where we need to go in the fight against cancer. And so I did on a few days notice -- we put together such a roundtable -- and it kicked off what for me was a year-long journey that’s taken me literally around the world meeting with the best cancer researchers, doctors, nurses, and patients, as well as philanthropists, heads of state -- they've all been part of it.  But I’m back here today to outline how far we’ve come and what -- at least from our perspective -- what path we should chart moving forward. And let me start with where we believe we are.  When we announced the Cancer Moonshot, I knew there would be a lot of skeptics out there who’d say, “well, here we go again. Haven’t we done this before?”   President Nixon, when he declared War on Cancer in 1971, he was earnest and sincere and very committed.  But what makes the difference between then and now is -- the single big difference is that he had no army.  He had no resources.  He had no weapons.  He had no strategy to win.   But after 45 years with many of you in this room doing incredible work, 45 years of progress, after decades of funding research, training scientists and physicians, treating millions of patients, we now have an army.  We now have powerful new technologies and tools, like:  Immunotherapy that -- by the way, even six, eight, 10 years ago was viewed kind of as a voodoo science out there.  It wasn’t really an integral part of this fight -- that makes cancer cells visible to the immune system so our natural defenses can destroy the cancer.  Surgeons are using cutting-edge robotics to allow for more precise imaging to find the cancer and more precisely surgically remove the cancer in hard-to-reach areas. Liquid biopsies that find early signs of cancer in the blood and tell you whether or not you have a particular cancer.     These advances and many others provide hope that more precise medicines and diagnostics might greatly improve and detect and defeat cancer.   But on so many levels, we’ve now reached an inflection point.  When the system was set up before, we thought there was basically only one cancer in different parts of the body.  We’ve now learned there are over 200 specific kinds of cancers. After decades we thought we could tackle cancer one discipline at a time.  But that's not how cancer operates.  Cancer uses every tool at its disposal -- it hides from the immune system, it builds it own blood supply system, it uses viruses to spread, it engineers a friendlier environment, a cellular environment in which to survive. And it knows how to spread through the body using pathways and mutations we don’t understand fully yet.  And cancer never gives up, it never surrenders.  That's why we have to use every discipline cancer does, and that's what we’re starting to in a way that's only really begun in the last five or six, seven years. Five years ago as I said, oncologists weren’t routinely working closely with immunologists, virologists, geneticists, chemical and biological engineers.  And now they are.  Immunotherapies are finding the keys to making cancer cells visible and targeting them.  Virologist are now working on vaccines to prevent and treat cancers. Geneticists are cataloging mutations that drive cancers.  And chemical and biological engineers are helping engineer environments hostile to cancer.  And they’re all working together. Like many of you, I decided to become acquainted with this after someone close to me in my family was diagnosed.  You tend to try to learn everything you possibly can once that occurs.  And I knew little about the discipline.  And like I said, what impressed me was that so much of this is really very brand new in terms of the collaboration.   Also, there’s a recognition that by aggregating and sharing millions of patients’ data, like genomics, family history, lifestyles, treatment outcomes and by using supercomputing power that we can do now a million billion calculations a second, we can understand why one therapy or treatment works for one person and not for another for the same exact cancer. And today, it was just announced that two major data sharing organizations, who were part of the roundtable.  Five of them were here when we had the roundtable last year, two of them -- Cancer LinQ and another that focuses on genomic information called Project Genie -- are joining forces to accelerate data sharing of real-world clinical data that will improve cancers. After the meeting we had here, I asked the five groups that we're focusing on data sharing -- on aggregating data, I asked them whether they’d meet with me in Washington privately.  And they came to my office, and we sat for an hour and a half.  And I asked each of them to explain to me -- help educate me as to what they were doing.  And I remember when we finished saying something that will not surprise you all, but you said, didn't you know that, Joe?  I looked and said, but it sounds like you're all doing the same thing.  No, I’m not being facetious.  I said, you've all just made the case to me the more data you can aggregate across a spectrum, the more likely you are to find patterns, the most likely you are to find cures and/or treatments.  Why aren’t you talking to one another?  And I remember afterwards several of them walking up to me as we were having coffee and pulling me aside and say, keep this up.  Keep this up.  But I didn't -- I had nothing to do with this sharing and collaboration.  But the point is the mood is changing as I feel it just in the last year. I also learned from the best minds in the world that the strategy we’ve been following is equivalent to fighting the last war.  The model of scientific breakthroughs for most of the history was one of individual achievement, Jonas Salk in the laboratory finding the -- creating the polio vaccine.  There was little -- if any -- sharing among hospitals and researchers, and little ability to share even if they wanted to share.  And across the world, our funding processes and systems of academic research primarily follow that old model.  So the Moonshot has fundamentally been about two things since I began it.  And the first objective I’ve had was to inject the urgency of now into this fight and double the rate of progress and do in five years instead of 10. And when I say urgency of now, the brightest minds I’ve met in the world -- and I’ve been doing my job and mostly working on strategic doctrine and foreign policy my career -- the brightest people I’ve met, I’ve met now and spoken with over 13,000 cancer researchers in the two major organizations.  I’ve met with scores and scores of leaders in the field.  I’ve met with seven or eight Nobel Laureates in the field.  And the amazing thing to me is that they're all working so hard.  But with a few changes, even without learning more information, we could probably extend the life of a lot of people. The one thing that the clinicians can tell you is -- and those of you who are clinicians -- how many times have you had a patient say to you, Doctor, can you just -- I know you can't save me, but can you just give me two more weeks so I can watch her get married, doc?  Doc, can you just keep me around for another month so I can see my first grandchild born, doc?  Doc, I’m not asking for anything except can you just extend a little bit?  I might be able to get my finances in order.   You hear that all the time.  I heard that at my son’s beside.  He wasn’t afraid of dying, but he wanted to settle a few things.  Greater collaboration with no new breakthroughs can have the possibility of being able to say to one in four or five of those patients, yes, I can figure a way, just a little longer. The second thing, objective I had was changing the culture, coming up with a new strategy for this fight.  Not for the strategy for the last fight. We have four primary structures for organizing the Moonshot.  One, we established the White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force to reimagine the federal government’s fight and role in this fight to break down silos in the federal government.  I went all over the world literally asking for suggestions:  What should we be doing better? Under this task force, which I engaged and Greg met with members of each of the departments at least once every two weeks for updates on progress that was being made on things we were trying to do, we engaged everyone from the National Institutes of Health, to the Defense Department and to Veterans Affairs -- but to some agencies never been involved.  NASA -- everybody would go why in the hell are they bringing NASA into this, or the Patent Office, or the Environmental Protection Agency, or the White House policy councils, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, they all have a role to play.    Secondly, we hosted a Cancer Moonshot Summit in June.  Some of you participated in that summit.  We held it in D.C., over 400 of you came.  We had roundtables on various aspects of dealing with cancer.  Some of you were there, made significant contributions.  But interestingly enough, we simulcast, in effect, these roundtables where 7,000 people around the country gathered in 300 local summits held in every single state, including Guam and Puerto Rico to try to again inject this notion of the urgency of now. And the summit workshops launched a torrent of new collaborations and innovative initiatives across all sectors, and they continue to this day. For example, we got a call from IBM.  How would you like to borrow Watson?  They came to us and offered Watson, their supercomputer, to partner with the largest hospital in the world, the Department of Defense and the Veterans Affairs.  So now a veteran can get her genome or tumor sequenced at Walter Reed, and they're very good at it and they can do it quickly, and then Watson will search all specific therapies that would target that particular cancer and provide recommendations to the physicians and tumor boards to use in choosing the right therapy.  So you increase the prospect that the first time out will be the best shot out. In June, I was at the University of Chicago, where we launched the National Cancer Institute Genomic Data Commons.  The purpose was to bring together cancer sequencing data and related patient information from the Cancer Genome Atlas.  Well, that atlas comprised roughly 14,000 individuals with that data.  Now the database has grown now to over 30,000 individuals.  And our international agreements are going to add tens of thousands of more patients’ data. And Amazon came along and says, look, we’ll agree to make their cloud computing available to help us store these enormous amounts of data that this project is going to generate. But the important thing is, that it’s a totally open-access database, able to be accessed by any researcher in the world, eliminating the silos.  It did not exist a year ago.  And this data has already been accessed and used more than 5 million times, and this was in the spring of last year -- increasing chances exponentially that we may find some answers.  We’ve also transformed access to cancer clinical trials.  In the United States only 4 percent of the people diagnosed with cancer ever become part of a clinical trial, which is how research advances and may be the only possibility of saving the patient’s life.  Maybe. So we engaged the President’s Innovation Fellows, some of the top, young technology minds in the world, mostly from Silicon Valley, who have dedicated a year to come in.  These are trying to modernize the whole government.  So I went to them and said, look, there’s no way anyone can rationally go and figure out that that oncologist from Bemidji, Minnesota, who has come up with an accurate diagnosis doesn't know where to turn.  He’s not near one of the great cancer centers in the United States.  So where do they go? There was a site that said you could click on and find out where there were cancer trials.  But it was useless.  So these brilliant, young -- they range in age from 25 to 40 thereabouts -- within three weeks put together a site.  They can go now.  It’s trials.cancer.gov.  Type in real words like breast cancer, leukemia, and ZIP codes, age, and then find a list of clinical trials near you or your loved one that previously you could not have easily found.  And find the people equally excited about this are the pharmaceutical companies.  They have trouble finding enough people for their trials. You and your doctor can now find out what trials are available for your types of cancer near you.  Another example is NASA I mentioned earlier, working with the National Cancer Institute, establishing a new collaboration to study the biological effects of particle beam radiotherapy, a novel technology that may deliver a more targeted dose of radiation to tumor cells. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is advancing the effort to promote cancer vaccines like the HPV vaccine that are safe and effective strategies for combatting viruses -- for various types of cancer. The Moonshot also initiated the Blood Profiling Atlas Pilot. Representatives from the government, academia, and pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies are launching partnerships to create an open database for liquid biopsies to accelerate the development of safe and effective blood profiling diagnostic technologies and our patient will benefit from this. Stanford Medicine and the VA in Palo Alto are collaborating to establish the Hadron Center in Palo Alto, California, for the potential benefit of both Veteran and non-Veteran cancer patients.  The Hadron Center will utilize particle-beam radiotherapy using beams of charged particles such as proton and helium, carbon, or other ions to allow more precise targeting everywhere inside the patient's body, potentially -- we don't know yet -- resulting in less damage to healthy cells. The reason NASA got in the game is they know more about radiation than anybody in the world, so they're participating.   Earlier this year we announced what we call the NCI -- the National Cancer Institute Formulary. This is a public-private partnership with more than two dozen pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies which allows researchers to test existing drugs for new combinations that could be effective against different types of cancer.  This is how it works.  When you go into a bar and you listen to a song and you put money in a jukebox, you don’t have to negotiate a licensing agreement with each song from the record company you're about to play.  That licensing agreement has already been worked out. But until recently, if you waited to use -- you've wanted to use a combination of drug, you had to go through each company, get permission to use each different drug.  It literally could take years.  And a lot of people got lost in the meantime that might have been saved.  Now, the NCI has already worked out the details of intellectual property, access, and licensing so researchers and companies know there is an agreement on licensing if the drug is successful and how the intellectual property will be shared.  This new system just launched.  And I urge as many of you as possible to join it, participate, and share.  It will make an enormous difference potentially. Combination drugs have the potential to do for cancers what many of you have done for HIV.  There was total collaboration in HIV.  There are dozens of other actions that you can read about in WhiteHouse.gov/CancerMoonshot.  The third thing we did was we created a Cancer Moonshot blue ribbon panel at our national institute to recommend research that holds the most promise for additional investments.  Some of you were named to that panel.  My dad used to have an expression.  He said, Joey, if everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you.  What do the best minds in the world think are the best therapies or technologies we should be pursuing as rapidly as we can, in what order?   That blue ribbon panel delivered a report with transformative recommendations to change the research blueprint for the National Cancer Institute. For example:  Launching a 3-D Cancer Atlas.  Oncologists today rely on past experience, consultation with multidisciplinary teams, published studies, and other sources to make diagnosis and treatment decisions.  But providing a web-based catalog of the genetic lesions and cellular interactions in a tumor, immune and other cells in the tumor, the microenvironment -- one that maps the evolution of tumor -- from development to metastasis, it’s going to enable researchers to develop predictive models for tumor progression and response to treatment that will ultimately help oncologists make informed treatment decisions for each patient Now none of this is a guaranteed promise.  But it all holds significant potential.  Establishing a national network of cancer patients that, with appropriate privacy safeguards, will provide them with a genetic profile of their own cancer and let them “pre-register” for clinical trials, so they can be contacted when a trial in which they may be eligible opens; establishing clinical trials networks devoted exclusively to immunotherapies for pediatric and adult cancers would advance research in this area and could lead to new vaccines to prevent cancers of all types in children, as well as adults; expanding the use of proven cancer prevention and early detection strategies.   Several cancer prevention and risk reduction strategies have proven to be highly effective, including tobacco control, colorectal cancer screening, HPV vaccine.  Boosting prevention research to identify ways to increase the uptake of these strategies, especially in medically underserved populations could greatly reduce the incidence and death from lung and other tobacco-related cancers, colorectal cancer, cervical and other HPV-related cancers, respectively.  Here’s why it matters.  By some estimates, at least 50 percent of the cancers can be prevented, and that prevention falls into three major categories:  One:  Personal actions on the part of the individual, such as living a healthier lifestyle, avoiding cancer risk behaviors, like smoking. The second way of prevention is the responsibilities of government and industry to reduce carcinogens and toxins in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we grow our food in.  And the third is to make available existing diagnostic tools to all communities -- because we know the earlier cancer is detected, the better prospect for an outcome that's good. But there is a fourth outcome, an entirely new set of diagnostic tools that can detect cancers earlier, new technologies like hereditary markers.  Instead of waiting until you're 48 years old to get your first colonoscopy, if they have the marker, get it when you're 16 years old.  And by continuing to keep an eye on it, prevent you from being the victim of dying of cancer -- of that cancer. The fourth -- and in addition to the task force report, I was asked to deliver a report to the President in October that included the progress made ‘16 and my assessment -- and it’s only mine of what the road ahead looks like.  Obviously, I would like you all to look at that and critique it.  The report lays out the changes we need in our view to implement -- to implement at our research institutions and universities to align our research system with the realities and opportunities of the 21st century.   And all this has helped us make progress on the international fight against cancer.   Last April I delivered remarks at conference on Regenerative Medicine hosted by the Vatican and that the Pope addressed as well.  I laid out what I thought to be the guideposts for international collaboration through the Moonshot. One:  Focus on prevention, access, and affordability around the world. Two:  Raise the urgency of international response to cancer, reflecting the same urgency we bring to infectious disease threats.  There are 16 Million people who will die from cancer this year.  And according to many of the experts in the audience, if we don’t do anything about it, there will be 26 million dying by 2020. Increase research and patient data sharing among researchers, institutions, foundations, nations.  Support standardization of data and biorepositories.  Increase government investment and cancer research -- we should increase it to capitalize on this moment, of this inflection point. Since then, the United States has signed 10 memoranda of understanding in nine countries.   I’m supposedly an expert on foreign policy.  An expert is anyone from out of town with a briefcase.  (Laughter.)  I have traveled over 1.3 million miles for the President, meeting with heads of state, most of whom I’ve known most of my career.  I was recently in the Gulf, the Persian Gulf recently, seven months ago, talking about the fight against ISIS with a head of state, sitting on the Gulf, the Persian Gulf, talking about -- he had his people lined up on one side of a table outside and I had mine for a dinner.  And before we began, he said, Mr. Vice President, before we talk about ISIS -- they call it Daesh -- before we talk about Daesh, can we talk about cancer?  We want to help. In that tour through the Middle East in Jordan and Israel, can we talk about cancer?   The President put together and 50 heads of state came in the East Room with rectangular tables lined up around the entire room with 50 heads of state on how to deal with the nuclear proliferation.  The President sat in front of the fireplace.  And I was directly across from him, my back to that famous hallway.  Before he began he said, I know a lot of you want to talk to Joe about cancer, but let’s deal with the nuclear issue first.  (Laughter.)  He wasn’t being facetious.  The result -- whether I was in Melbourne, Japan, the UAE, we've signed -- we were sought after and signed 10 detailed memorandum of understanding as to how we should jointly proceed. These have focused on data sharing and advanced research.  Last month, we saw the United States Congress come together.  I know I’m supposedly the guy that Republicans and Democrats like in the Congress.  I actually respect the Congress.  That's part of the problem that people think I have.  But I genuinely do.  And we could get anything through the Congress. But through the leadership of some Republicans in the House and Democrats in the Senate, they put together what they call the 21st Century Cures Act, and no one thought we could pass it.  At the very waning hours, we were able to go up and get them jointly to appropriate and commit to 6.3 billion in biomedical and health-related research, including $1.8 billion for the National Cancer Institute to invest in additional research as part of the Moonshot.  This is the one bipartisan thing that exists, and I pray will continue to exist in the new administration.  But it also is an international consensus.  So we have enormous opportunities I believe with greater collaboration, but organizing a different pathway than we've been following. This investment, in my view, should be matched by other nations who agree that now is the time to double-down in our fight against cancer.  And it’s my hope, as I’ve already spoken to the Vice President-elect, who is a good man, about to come in to be Vice President in four days or three days, about my willingness to continue to work with him and the incoming administration to be committed and enthusiastic as we are to the goal of ending cancer as we know it.  And my prayer is they will do that, as well.  But I know those in the private sector, philanthropy, at academic institutions and non-profit organizations, will continue the work regardless of what the next administration does.  There’s too much momentum here.  And this will include me as a private citizen.   I do not have -- I hope I’m well informed, but I don't have the expertise most of you have, but I’ve found I have the power to convene and thus far I’ve been viewed as a fair dealer.  I have no interest in any one institution or another.  And I maybe even have the ability to occasionally shame so people move in directions that up to now there’s been unwillingness to move because of the culture that's developed. After I leave office, after meeting with some very significant people who many of you know -- a coupe in this room as well -- who have encouraged me to set up the Biden Cancer Initiative with similar goals of the Moonshot, changing the way we do business in cancer research and development and providing cancer care. The initiative will focus on, one, improving data standards and giving patients a mechanism to share their data, so they can help many other patients going through the same fight; and so researchers can use the data to find new patients and new cures.  Most people are not experts like you.  They think that already exists, that patients actually own their own data; that people -- they actually have access to their own data.  I was with one particular researcher, and he said, well, we're having trouble getting patients.  And I said, I tell you what, I’ll make you a bet -- the press was with me, like here -- I said, I bet if I ask them, their networks will give me 15 minutes of primetime to talk about this.  I said, if I pick one single repository, I’ll bet you I get minimum between 2 million and 10 million patients who the next morning will give you their data, say they’ll send it there.  And this researcher said, well, yes, maybe you have a point.   Guys, this is not -- this is within our wheelhouse.  That's the easy part.  The hard part is what you all do. Working with community care organizations to help improve access to care and quality of care is another focus that we'll have.  So outcomes aren’t wholly dictated by your ZIP code. And convening a national conversation with pharmaceutical companies, insurers, biotech companies, and others to ensure patients can afford treatments.  Too many Americans are forced to sell their homes, go into bankruptcy, just so a loved one can get the care and hope for the cure.  That needs to change. And these companies need to have serious remuneration.  They're taking real risks.  But there’s got to be a way we can figure this out. And also calling for greater transparency and access to clinical trials, so more patients can get access to treatments that might work for their cancer. And continuing to work for cultural change and improvements in our cancer research system, so we can make the best use of today’s opportunities to generate, share and knowledge from patients and researchers to help patients everywhere around the world.  These are the reasons why I plan on staying involved -- because for the first time in 45 years, there is some real movement toward collaboration.  Not because people are selfish, but because it wasn’t the model.  It’s not the way it worked for good reason.  But the collaboration between cancer centers, drug companies, the insurance industry, and government is where the solution lies -- and how we’ll end cancer as we know it.  So let me conclude by saying, which will not shock you:  I am optimistic.  (Laughter.)  I know I’m always optimistic.  But I am optimistic because of the absolute commitment and sheer brilliance I have been exposed to from so many researchers and scientists and these great institutions. I see the day when patients get the right therapy the first time for their cancer, where prevention is more effective, and where care is personalized and more effective with less harmful side effects. I see the day when those younger people of you in this room, when you take your children and grandchildren later for their school physical, that they will -- at the time they get their vaccination against measles and mumps, they’ll be vaccinated against certain types of cancer -- like you can be vaccinated against HPV virus. I see the day when we’ll be able to identify through markers in the blood, cancers that haven’t even developed yet.  And the one thing I can tell you:  There is hope.  I’m willing to bet everyone in this room who has had cancer, or has a loved one who has had cancer, you understand that feeling when the doctor says, it’s cancer.  You all know, at that moment, the one thing you most need is some reason to hope.  When President Kennedy discussed sending humankind to the moon, he talked about the commitment the nation -- and this is the phrase he used -- the commitment the nation was “unwilling to postpone.” A very famous speech, and some of you can probably recite the speech, but the part of the speech since I’ve been a kid that got me the most about my notion about governance, my notion about exploration, my notion about science was when a nation or a people “unwilling to postpone.”  We should be unwilling to postpone finding the answer to how to end cancer as we know it. And I’m confident we can do it.  You're already doing it.  But let’s double down.  It is about the urgency of now. I thank you all for your graciousness in listening and thank you for having me.  (Applause.)  END

Выбор редакции
16 января, 08:23

The prize for doing business better: $12 trillion

It's no secret that tens of millions of people have been hurt by the forces of globalization.

14 января, 17:00

Goodbye, American Apparel

The 19-year-old company has been purchased for $88 million, which may be the brand’s last great marketing feat.

14 января, 14:26

Trump boycott initiative accused of bullying

An online campaign is calling on consumers to boycott major US retailers that do business with the Trump family. But the co-owner of one of the firms being targeted says the so-called 'Grab Your Wallet' initiative could hurt thousands of ordinary workers. Al Jazeera’s John Hendren reports from Chicago - Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish - Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera - Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/

13 января, 19:19

Dr. David Shulkin as Secretary of Veteran Affairs

Once again, President-elect Trump has done a terrific job of finding the right person to lead a very important department. As he has shown us for decades in the business world, that is what he does best: puts the right people in the right places. Along those lines, he has selected David Shulkin - a longtime friend of mine - to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. David is an interesting choice because once again President-elect Trump thought outside the box. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is typically a Veteran. But David isn't a Veteran. Instead, he boasts a prolific career in hospital management that leaves little doubt he will do a great job fixing what has been a very flawed VA hospital system. David ran two very prestigious hospitals, including Beth Israel Medical Center in NY, Morristown Medical Center in NJ. He also oversaw the Atlantic Health System and several prolific collegiate hospital systems, including the University of Pennsylvania, Temple University, and - returning to the institution where he received his MD in 1986 - the Medical College of Pennsylvania. He's been a respected academic in the field as well, sitting on the board of numerous medical journals - such as the esteemed Journal of the American Medical Association - and holding the Chairmanship of Medicine at Drexel University's College of Medicine. He has both the medical and business background to be the ideal fit for the position. Still, people will point to the fact that he has served as Undersecretary of the VA since March 2015 as a negative against him. But, if we are being completely fair, he has not been the top man in charge nor has he been given enough time to put his own stamp on the VA to try to turn it around his way. And anybody who doubts his commitment to the job or his desire to make the VA great again should have those worries calmed by David's own words about the VA's troubles. "The first responsibility that we have to our veterans is to make sure those that need urgent care are getting care on time," he told NPR, adding that, "We've brought in people from the outside who have private sector experience. And what we're saying is that we have to do business differently. ... We know how to make this program work better." The VA sorely needs that kind of approach, and that is what it will get with David in charge. That's why he was picked out of a list of candidates that included over 100 names. I'm delighted for my friend, but even more elated for the improved care our heroic veterans will receive with David's medical, hospital, and business expertise running the show at the VA. His resume, intelligence, and character make him the perfect man for the job, and America will have the opportunity to see that for themselves very soon. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

13 января, 16:03

HE WHO TROLLS LAST… When Trump Tweets, the Left’s Outrage Machine Shudders. Stephen Miller: …

HE WHO TROLLS LAST… When Trump Tweets, the Left’s Outrage Machine Shudders. Stephen Miller: The anti-Trump group Grab Your Wallet called for a boycott of L.L. Bean stores, even though the company itself has offered no political position on Trump or anything else for that matter really. This is how it usually starts. Suddenly, however, […]

13 января, 14:22

Эксперты назвали самый доходный актив 2017 года

Большинство экономистов и управляющих активами полагают, что наибольший доход в 2017 году принесут вложения в акции

13 января, 13:41

Аналитики Всемирного банка улучшили оценку будущего белорусской экономики

Новости Беларуси. Аналитики Всемирного банка улучшили оценку будущего белорусской экономики. Оптимистичный прогноз основан на предполагаемом восстановлении экономик стран-экспортеров сырья, в особенности нефти, а также повышении конкурентоспособности и производительности предприятий. В 2018 году увеличение ВВП ожидается на уровне 1,3% по отношению к 2017 году. В 2019 году – на 1,4%. В том числе благодаря оживлению торговли и увеличению потоков денежных переводов.

13 января, 09:16

Let's do business: Alibaba's US job overtures

Donald Trump, the U.S. President-elect blustering about a trade war against China, is all smiles after meeting Jack Ma, a leading Chinese entrepreneur.

13 января, 04:22

Barack Obama: The Most Partisan U.S. President Ever?

Daniel R. DePetris Politics, Americas Here are his 5 biggest failures. With each day that ticks off the calendar, President Obama gets closer and closer to handing the reigns of executive power to his successor. After eight tumultuous years battling congressional Republicans on everything from healthcare and government spending to Planned Parenthood and the Iranian nuclear agreement, it's probably not a stretch to assume that Obama is looking forward to a few months off with his family in Hawaii—even if there is a lingering thought in the back of his mind that he could have won a third term if the Constitution allowed him to. Historians will look back at Obama's tenure and likely come to the inescapable conclusion that his was one of the most partisan in America's existence—a time when government shutdowns were just a regular cost of doing business. It is far too soon to determine with any accuracy where President Obama stands compared to his colleagues in the annals of U.S. history. But it is still nevertheless appropriate to say that Obama, like all presidents before him and all of the presidents that will come after, made mistakes that will muddy his legacy. Whether justified or not, here are the five biggest failures that will at least partially color President Obama's two terms. 1. Guantanamo Remains Open: Some presidential candidates, like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, chose to run on a law-and-order platform. Barack Obama ran as a rule-of-law candidate, someone who argued during his first presidential campaign that the United States was traveling further and further away from the international laws, norms and conventions that America helped establish. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was Enemy Number One for the constitutional law professor, a prison that incarcerated people based on mere suspicion of terrorist activity without recourse to the rights that typical defendants are given in the U.S. justice system. Read full article

13 января, 04:02

On-the-Record Press Call on Cuba Policy Announcement

ON-THE-RECORD PRESS CALL BY DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BEN RHODES AND SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY JEH JOHNSON ON CUBA POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT Via Telephone 5:55 P.M. EST MR. PRICE:  Good evening, everyone, and thanks so much for joining this call, especially on such short notice.  We wanted to convene this call to discuss the changes to the policies and regulations affecting Cuban nationals that were announced late this afternoon.  First, the ground rules.  This call is on the record.  We have on this call, for your awareness, Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor.  We also have the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, along with another senior DHS official for question. We'll do this call on the record, but it will be embargoed until the conclusion, so we ask that you please not use this material until the call concludes. And with that, I will turn it over to Secretary Johnson to begin. SECRETARY JOHNSON:  Good evening.  This is Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security.  As part of the normalization of relations with the government of Cuba, effective immediately I have repealed the "wet foot, dry foot" policy with regard to Cuban migrants that has been in place since the mid-1990s.  Going forward, those Cuban migrants who arrive in the United States illegally, with some exceptions which I'll get into in a moment, will be subject to deportation consistent with our laws and our immigration enforcement priorities. To the extent permitted by the laws of both our countries, the aim here is to treat Cuban migrants in a manner consistent with migrants who come here illegally from other countries, particularly other countries in the same region.  This is a move toward equalizing our immigration policies with regard to those who come here illegally as part of the overall normalization process with the government of Cuba.  Along with the repeal of the policy, which I have done today, this is a product of an agreement with the government of Cuba.  Essentially, what the agreement means is that past is past, but that the future will be different with regard our migration relationship with the government of Cuba.  Going forward, if a Cuban migrants arrives here illegally, the Cuban government has agreed to accept that person back, specifically if the time -- between the time a Cuban migrant leaves Cuba, as demonstrated to us by the Cuban government, and the time that we commence a deportation proceeding against the individual is less than four years, the Cuban government has agreed to take that person back. Now, the reason for the four-year period is because of the existence of a law in Cuba enacted in response to the Cuban Adjustment Act of the United States, the law in Cuba essentially says that if a person has left Cuba, after two years they are considered to have effectively migrated from Cuba.  In the course of our negotiations, the Cuban government agreed, therefore, that if a person has been out of Cuba more than four years because the time they left and the time we commenced a deportation proceeding against them, which tolls that clock, they will take that migrant back. Ultimately, we seek to get to a place fully consistent with the international law under which the Cubans will agree to accept everyone back who is ordered deported by our country.  This is regarded by us as an interim arrangement until their laws are repealed.  We also welcome repeal by Congress, by our Congress, of the Cuban Adjustment Act.  Under our agreement with Cuba, there was also the possibility that the Cubans will accept back migrants outside of this arrangement, but on a case-by-case basis.  We are also today repealing the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, which you should be familiar with.  That, too, is effective immediately.  We are leaving in place the Cuban Family Reunification Program.  That program will continue.  I'll also add that with regard to interdictions of Cuban migrants at sea, by our Coast Guard, that is status quo.  That policy and that approach will continue, as well. So I'm happy to take any questions.  But first, let me turn it over to Ben Rhodes if he has any comments. MR. RHODES:  Thanks, Jeh.  Just a few contextual points.  This grows out of the normalization of relations between our countries.  What we've seen in recent years is a continued uptick in Cuban migrants coming to the United States.  We attribute that to a variety of factors -- one, that Cuba has liberalized its own exit policies with respect to Cubans leaving the country; two, the change in our policy -- the normalization of relations that began on December 17, 2014 -- I think created an expectation in Cuba that this change might take place and therefore people were motivated to migrate.  Also, though, the increase in resources available to the Cuban people, particularly through our remittance policies, also made it more possible for Cubans to travel. What we've seen, therefore, is a steady increase to some 40,000 Cubans granted parole in fiscal year 2015; 54,000 roughly in fiscal year 2016.  And what we had also seen is a growing number of Cubans who had begun a journey to try to reach the United States who were in a variety of Central American countries that was creating both humanitarian challenges and strains within those countries as large numbers of Cubans were essentially stuck there and then facing a very difficult and dangerous -- journey to our southern border in some cases. So we wanted to ensure that we normalized our migration policies to the extent that we could and that we brought them in line with the way in which we treat other countries, as Jeh referenced.  And so, again, what this does going forward is repeal the "wet foot, dry foot" provision such that we are returning to Cuba those people who come into our custody who traveled here illegally.  I'd just say a couple of other things here.  Ultimately, of course, we believe that we'd like to see people be able to increase their economic prospects within Cuba.  That is why we have taken steps to open up a greater commercial and people-to-people relationship, and have encouraged the Cuban government to pursue economic reforms.  That, ultimately, is the best way to ensure opportunity for the Cuban people going forward. And lastly, as Jeh said, the Cuban Adjustment Act is the legislative architecture around these policies.  That provides preferences including adjusted status, green card status, and certain benefits to Cubans who are paroled into the country.  That remains statute.  But obviously under this change, we will not be granting parole to people who arrive here illegally by land or by sea.  We do believe it would be the appropriate step for Congress to repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act, even with the four-year clock that is embedded into Cuban law that, frankly, provides Congress with four years within which to assure full normalization of these policies to repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act.  And the Cubans have indicated that they will repeal their law, which is reciprocal to the Cuban Adjustment Act if and when Congress takes that action. And with that, we're happy to move to questions. Q    Thank you both so much for doing this call.  I was just wondering, for the last two years whenever the topic of "wet foot, dry foot" policy came up, the administration was adamant that the rule belonged to the Cuban Adjustment Act and, as an act of Congress, it had to be repealed by Congress, even if it was discussed as a presidential fiat.  So why do this now with only a week left in the administration?  And what changed that made you decide that this was possible and something that could be rescinded? MR. RHODES:  Well, Serena, a couple of things.  First of all, we've been working sequentially through the normalization process.  So there was the initial announcement December 17th, then we had to establish embassies, then we were focused on making a series of regulatory changes.  So part of this was we arrived at the issue of migration later in the process.  That's the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make is that we saw the increase in migration, which I think is attributable to the factors I mentioned -- the liberalization of Cuba's own exit policies, the increased resources, particularly through remittances for Cubans, and, frankly, just the expectation in Cuba that this change might happen.  And that increased the sense of urgency. But the last point, which is an important one, is this policy is often discussed here as if it is purely unilateral.  But for this to work, the Cubans had to agree to take people back.  And we did not have that indication from them -- it was not part of my discussions with them leading up to December 17th and after.  And it was only in recent years, as the uptick in migration continued, that they entered into those discussions with us.  And then we, again, had to determine how to ensure that this was the best possible agreement, even as we both knew that our laws were in place -- in other words, the Cuban Adjustment Act, which the Cubans object to, was still in place.  The Cubans made the adjustment to their law to extend this clock to four years, so it took time to negotiate various elements.  But again, I think this was the appropriate step at the appropriate time, and it makes sense from a perspective of our Cuba policy, it makes sense from a perspective of our immigration policy.  Look, the last thing I’d say is -- we do get asked about this a lot -- frankly, we did not want to speculate publicly about the likelihood of this change for fear of inviting even greater migration flows, and everything we said is actually entirely what we believe, which is that we do think Congress should repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act.  It’s the cleanest way to fully normalize our immigration relationship. Q    Hi, hi, thank you for doing this, and my apologies because I was late to the call, so I’m not sure if you already talked about that, but I was wondering what are the Cubans agreeing to -- the Cuban government?  Are they agreeing to taking all Cubans back, including those with deportation orders?  Is this happening, as well?  And also, can you set a timeframe, just to find out -- just to realize what’s going to happen with those Cubans, I don’t know, now entering the border in Mexico?  What’s going to happen to them? SECRETARY JOHNSON:  I’ll take that.  Essentially, as I described in the first part of the call, what we’ve agreed to is, past is past and future will be different.  Going forward, the Cuban government has agreed to take back those who have been ordered by an immigration court, deported from this country.  Consistent with our laws, we will still hear claims for asylum like we do for everybody else.  And I explained earlier that if the period of time between the time they left and the time we begin a deportation is four years or less, they have agreed to take them back.  The reason for the four years is because of the state of their laws in Cuba, which we expect will be repealed as part of the normalization process, and so that’s generally how it works. And as I mentioned earlier, interdictions at sea will continue, and those people will be returned as well. MR. RHODES:  I’d just add one thing.  As Jeh indicated, it’s a prospective policy.  Going forward, the Cubans will be taking people back.  Looking back, in addition to the case-by-case review that we can seek for individuals who have removal orders, you’ll note in the joint statement that Cuba has agreed to accept the list of 2,746 people out of the Mariel boatlift.  So there is a particular agreed-upon list of individuals who have procedure for return.  But our goal was to set the policy direction going forward and to normalize, essentially, this migration relationship prospectively.  There’s obviously an enormous number of -- there’s a very large Cuban American population, and many Cuban migrants are already here.  It was going to be too complicated, frankly, to significantly return people who are already here.  We wanted to get things right going forward. Q    Hi.  So just the first question I wanted to make sure I understood.  So this would not impact Cubans who are already here?  And so I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.  So this will be Cubans migrating to the country going forward? And the second part was -- I’m obviously not an expert on this -- but it was my understanding that also under the “wet foot, dry foot” policy there was a lottery for a certain number -- 20,000 or so Cubans -- who could come here each year through that, and that also under the policy the U.S. was less, I don't know, vigilant in deporting Cubans who’d committed some sort of deportable offense.  So I wondered if I’m correct on those points, if those also will change -- the lottery will go away, and the U.S. would become more aggressive at deporting Cubans who have made some sort of deportable offense. SECRETARY JOHNSON:  Let me take that.  First of all, the policy, as Ben mentioned, is prospective.  Going forward, effective immediately, those who arrive here going forward.  With regard to your question about the lottery, I’m going to turn it over to a DHS senior official.  Go ahead. DHS SENIOR OFFICIAL:  Hi.  So under our agreement -- so the 20,000 -- so we agreed in the 1994-95 Migration Accords with Cuba that we would accept for admission 20,000 Cubans per year.  That continues to be the case under this agreement.  This new agreement does not change that commitment by the United States. MR. RHODES:  But again, those are people who would come here through authorized procedures.  So what this does is allow us to deal with Cubans arriving irregularly by land, as well as sea. Q    Hi, good afternoon.  I saw a statement by Senator Menendez saying that Congress was not consulted on this.  I just wanted to confirm that with you.  And I also wanted to know -- the Cuban Adjustment Act actually leaves a lot of discretion for the Attorney General to grant -- well, a lot of this question for him to decide on whether to grant that green card for Cubans who have been here a year.  So I was wondering, since you think that Congress should lift the act, do you also think that the Attorney General should exercise that discretion and stop granting parole to -- well, granting residency to Cubans who have been here a year legally? SECRETARY JOHNSON:  The discussions leading up to this were very sensitive.  The policy that we're announcing today is effective immediately.  We did not want for there to be a mass exodus from Cuba in anticipation of a change in policy.  So these were very sensitive discussions.  And I’m going to turn it over to the DHS senior official to describe how the Cuban Adjustment Act works. One point I’ll make is, references in the law to the Attorney General back then now are to me, the Secretary of Homeland Security, because DHS was created after the enactment of the law. Go ahead. DHS SENIOR OFFICIAL:  So I think the point you're trying to raise is that to some degree the decision whether to adjust the status of a Cuban national who has been paroled into the United States under the Cuban Adjustment Act is discretionary.  I don't know if you can still -- is that the point you were trying to make?  Well, I’m assuming that's the point you were trying to make, assuming you can't answer my question.  So there is case law that limits our authority to grant or deny adjustment under that law.  But that is something that we will continue to consider and analyze moving forward. MR. RHODES:  I’d just add a couple things.  On the congressional point, while we did not have regular updates on what were very sensitive negotiations, we have over the course of the last year or so, frankly, heard from members of Congress, from both parties, who were expressing increasing concern about the migration flows.  In fact, in some cases, we were being urged to do something about it.  And we've also heard increasing interest and even pieces of legislation being introduced that seek to amend or repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act, whether it's the benefits provided under the Cuban Adjustment Act or the act itself.  So this is an issue that we've discussed with members of Congress from both parties, and around this announcement of course we're doing many notifications to those interested members. And I should add to Serena's original question here -- that congressional interest is one of the things that gave us a greater impetus to act.  It was clear to us that Congress was taking a greater interest in this issue, given the uptick in migration flows and the strain that that was placing on certain communities. On CAA, again, the cleanest way to fully normalize is to repeal the act.  So that is the -- that would be our recommendation.  We have seven days, so it's not going to happen in that timeframe, but I do think actually there is bipartisan support for that type of effort going forward. Q    Hi, thanks for doing this call.  I wanted to ask two things.  One is just sort of a more technical thing.  This happened by a Department of Homeland Security rule, right, so presumably in a subsequent administration, it could be undone and then the Cuban Adjustment Act is still there.  I'm just wondering if for some reason this wasn't followed up on, and our Congress doesn't repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act, and the Cubans don't revise their policy with that four-year window, could we be left with the same situation sort of de facto that we have now?  And then secondly, just if you guys could put this in context a bit.  This was a policy initially designed to give Cubans who are fleeing persecution a special way of getting to the United States.  In making this move, is the administration essentially taking the position that this is no longer necessary or appropriate, I guess, giving the détente? MR. RHODES:  Jeh, you take the first question.  I can handle the second. SECRETARY JOHNSON:  It's important to remember that this is the ending of a policy that was put in place 20 years ago.  This is not the enactment of a policy that can be repealed by a subsequent administration.  This is us repealing a policy unique to Cuba, given the nature of the relationship 20 years ago, which is very different right now.  So I wouldn't characterize it as creating a policy that could be repealed. Go ahead, Ben. MR. RHODES:  Yeah, I'd just say a couple of things.  I just want to clarify, Julie, because of the nature of the way you phrased it.  Keep in mind that the four-year provision is not six.  So, in other words, it's four years from whenever the individual leaves Cuba.  So, in other words, the earliest that that could enter into question is four years from today.  But if an individual leaves Cuba a year from now, that's five years from today.  It is a peculiarity, but Congress will have four years to repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act.  During that time, we will be putting individuals who come into our custody, who have arrived here illegally, into removal proceedings.  And again, the Cubans have committed to repeal their law, which was passed to be reciprocal to the Cuban Adjustment Act. To your second question, I think a number of things have changed.  First of all, I think as a general matter there are certainly individuals -- well, put it this way -- early in the post-revolution history, it was very clear that the overwhelming number of Cubans who came to the United States and ended up doing incredible things here in the United States absolutely had to leave for political purposes, or very much were leaving for political purposes.  I think increasingly over time, the balance has tilted towards people leaving for more traditional reasons in terms of seeking economic opportunity and, frankly, having not just the benefits of "wet foot, dry foot" and the adjusted status, but also literal benefits under the Cuban Adjustment Act.  That's not to say that they're not still people who have political cause to leave Cuba.  And as we do with any other country, political asylum continues to be an option for those individuals.  But we have seen the balance shift to more similar reasons in terms of people pursuing economic opportunity. The second thing I'd say is that we believe that ultimately the best future for Cuba is one that is determined by the Cuban people, both in terms of their economic livelihoods and in terms of their political future.  And, frankly, it's important that Cuba continue to have a young, dynamic population that are clearly serving as agents of change and becoming entrepreneurs, and being more connected to the rest of the world.  And, frankly, we believe that this change is in service of creating more incentive for there to be the economic reforms that need to be pursued on the island in terms of opening up more space for the private sector, allowing foreign firms to hire Cubans, so that they can be responsive to the economic aspirations of their people. So in the long run, the best way for Cubans to have this opportunity is for them to be able to pursue it at home through an economy that has continued to pursue market-based reforms. Now, we believe very strongly, in this administration, of course, that our Cuba opening is the best way to incentivize that economic reform; that as more Americans travel, as more Americans do business, as there are greater commercial ties, that ultimately is going to create more opportunity for people in Cuba, as well as creating opportunities for Americans.  And so that's very much the approach we'd like to see continued going forward, and ultimately the one that has the best opportunity to deliver results to the Cuban people. The links between Cuban Americans and Cubans will remain as robust as ever.  And, in fact, what we've done is open up for space for those links, because Cuban Americans can now travel, they can send unlimited remittances.  Many of them are people who are focused on -- many of the commercial opportunities include Cuban Americans who want to contribute to the building and development of Cuba.  So those links will remain very strong in the context of this policy change. We'll take one more question. SECRETARY JOHNSON:  I just would like to emphasize something my colleague said a moment ago coming from me.  Cuban migrants, like everybody else, will still be able to apply for asylum, consistent with our laws.  So this is -- what we’re doing is putting, to the full extent permitted under each nation’s laws, putting Cuban migrants in the same place and on the same footing with migrants who come here from other countries who are available -- who are allowed to apply for asylum and the like.  It’s an effort to normalize the relationship and equalize it in the region and how we treat migrants from around the world. MR. RHODES:  We’ll take the last question. Q    Thank you very much.  Just wanted to clarify the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border.  If a Cuban approaches the border tomorrow and presents himself to immigration with a Cuban ID card and nothing more than that, in the past they’ve been allowed entry and parole.  Will they still continue to be allowed to cross the border into the United States to apply for asylum, or will they be turned away like other people?  Will they still -- in other words, will they still have some kind of privilege under the Cuban Adjustment Act that will allow them to set foot in the country to make that asylum claim? SECRETARY JOHNSON:  The policy repeal is effective immediately.  So a Cuban migrant, like a Guatemalan migrant or a migrant from El Salvador, can assert a claim of credible fear at the border when they arrive.  But effective immediately, that policy -- our approach to Cubans arriving tomorrow will be the same as those arriving from other countries in Central America, Mexico, and otherwise. MR. RHODES:  And just to put a fine point on this, the Cubans will be treated like everybody else.  People from anywhere can issue a claim of asylum; that does happen frequently.  This is an important point, though:  Under the current policy, they would have been paroled in, and then that would have put them into a position where they could begin to receive the benefits under the Cuban Adjustment Act.  They’re not going to be paroled in during whatever adjudication might take place of a claim.  So essentially they are being treated like people from any other country that arrives.  There’s not going to be a separate queue for Cubans.  So just like any other migrant who reaches our border, they have certain claims that they can pursue, but they’ll be treated as other individuals from other countries are.  And if they are not paroled in, they will not be able to adjust and achieve the benefits under the CAA, which would be the current context.  So I think that’s an important change, particularly in light of how this issue has been debated and discussed in parts of the country -- because, again, if people knew that they could achieve that parole into the country immediately, they also know that that would put them on a track towards the potential benefits afforded to them under the CAA.  That changes -- it just treats the Cuban migrants like migrants from other countries. MR. RHODES:  Okay, thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  And we look forward to answering any other inquiries you may have going forward.  Jeh, is there anything else you want to say? SECRETARY JOHNSON:  No, that's it. MR. RHODES:  Great.  Thanks, everybody.  END 6:29 P.M. EST  

12 января, 23:26

A Sanctions Skeptic for State?

What Rex Tillerson’s confirmation hearings revealed

12 января, 19:31

Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition: How the transition was at all possible? #6

First week lecture of online HSE course «Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition» at Coursera. Full course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/economy-russia-transition HSE online courses catalogue: http://elearning.hse.ru/en/mooc?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera About the Course: The course brings the basic knowledge on the specific aspects of Russian economy that had significant impact on the latest development trends in Russia. The course is mainly developed for students pursuing their master’s degree in the field of international economy and for those who have professional interest in Russian economy. The course will disclose universal patterns by analyzing trends in Russian economy. We will provide you with knowledge on the basics of economy, understanding the role of market reforms in developing the key features of modern Russian economy, cause-effect relationship of the most significant trends in Russia’s economic development, instruments for analysis of Russian economy, business climate in Russia and skills required for doing business in Russia. Taught by: Vladimir Zuev, Professor, Department of Trade Policy, HSE © HSE: http://www.hse.ru/en?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera

12 января, 19:30

Understanding Russian Economy: How to make use in full of all the treasures? #5

First week lecture of online HSE course «Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition» at Coursera. Full course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/economy-russia-transition HSE online courses catalogue: http://elearning.hse.ru/en/mooc?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera About the Course: The course brings the basic knowledge on the specific aspects of Russian economy that had significant impact on the latest development trends in Russia. The course is mainly developed for students pursuing their master’s degree in the field of international economy and for those who have professional interest in Russian economy. The course will disclose universal patterns by analyzing trends in Russian economy. We will provide you with knowledge on the basics of economy, understanding the role of market reforms in developing the key features of modern Russian economy, cause-effect relationship of the most significant trends in Russia’s economic development, instruments for analysis of Russian economy, business climate in Russia and skills required for doing business in Russia. Taught by: Vladimir Zuev, Professor, Department of Trade Policy, HSE © HSE: http://www.hse.ru/en?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera

12 января, 19:30

Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition: Territory full with resources #4

First week lecture of online HSE course «Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition» at Coursera. Full course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/economy-russia-transition HSE online courses catalogue: http://elearning.hse.ru/en/mooc?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera About the Course: The course brings the basic knowledge on the specific aspects of Russian economy that had significant impact on the latest development trends in Russia. The course is mainly developed for students pursuing their master’s degree in the field of international economy and for those who have professional interest in Russian economy. The course will disclose universal patterns by analyzing trends in Russian economy. We will provide you with knowledge on the basics of economy, understanding the role of market reforms in developing the key features of modern Russian economy, cause-effect relationship of the most significant trends in Russia’s economic development, instruments for analysis of Russian economy, business climate in Russia and skills required for doing business in Russia. Taught by: Vladimir Zuev, Professor, Department of Trade Policy, HSE © HSE: http://www.hse.ru/en?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera

12 января, 19:30

Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition: Economic importance of Russia #2

First week lecture of online HSE course «Understanding Russian Economy. Problems of Transition» at Coursera. Full course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/economy-russia-transition HSE online courses catalogue: http://elearning.hse.ru/en/mooc?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera About the Course: The course brings the basic knowledge on the specific aspects of Russian economy that had significant impact on the latest development trends in Russia. The course is mainly developed for students pursuing their master’s degree in the field of international economy and for those who have professional interest in Russian economy. The course will disclose universal patterns by analyzing trends in Russian economy. We will provide you with knowledge on the basics of economy, understanding the role of market reforms in developing the key features of modern Russian economy, cause-effect relationship of the most significant trends in Russia’s economic development, instruments for analysis of Russian economy, business climate in Russia and skills required for doing business in Russia. Taught by: Vladimir Zuev, Professor, Department of Trade Policy, HSE © HSE: http://www.hse.ru/en?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=desription&utm_campaign=coursera