Executive Order--Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government
DELIVERING AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to cut waste, streamline Government operations, and reinforce the performance and management reform gains my Administration has achieved, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. My Administration is committed to ensuring that the Federal Government serves the American people with the utmost effectiveness and efficiency. Over the last 2 years, we have made good progress and have saved taxpayer dollars by cutting waste and increasing the efficiency of Government operations by curbing uncontrolled growth in contract spending, terminating poorly performing information technology projects, deploying state of the art fraud detection tools to crack down on waste, focusing agency leaders on achieving ambitious improvements in high priority areas, and opening Government up to the public to increase accountability and accelerate innovation.
The American people must be able to trust that their Government is doing everything in its power to stop wasteful practices and earn a high return on every tax dollar that is spent. To strengthen that trust and deliver a smarter and leaner Government, my Administration will reinforce the performance and management reform gains achieved thus far; systematically identify additional reforms necessary to eliminate wasteful, duplicative, or otherwise inefficient programs; and publicize these reforms so that they may serve as a model across the Federal Government.
The implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111 5) (Recovery Act) has seen unprecedented transparency. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB) has developed innovative technologies and approaches for preventing and identifying fraud and abuse that have the potential to improve performance across all of Government spending.
Sec. 2. Accountable Government Initiative. (a) On September 14, 2010, in a Memorandum to the Senior Executive Service, my Administration introduced goals for the Accountable Government Initiative (Initiative). The mission of the Initiative is to monitor and promote agency progress in making Government work better, faster, and more efficiently. To hold executive departments and agencies (agencies) accountable for obtaining results consistent with this mission, the Vice President shall convene periodic meetings in which Cabinet members and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report to him on improvements implemented under their direction.
(b) The Federal Chief Performance Officer (CPO), who also serves as the Deputy Director for Management of OMB and the Chair of the President's Management Council (PMC), shall work with the PMC to support agencies' performance and management reform and cost cutting efforts. The CPO will lead OMB and the PMC in identifying practices that should be adopted across agencies and in facilitating reforms that require cross-agency coordination and cooperation. The CPO shall work with agencies to ensure that each area identified as critical to performance improvement has robust performance metrics in place, and that these metrics are frequently analyzed and reviewed by agency leadership. Agencies shall update these metrics quarterly, as appropriate, on the website performance.gov.
(c) In accordance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (31 U.S.C. 1115 et seq.), each agency's Chief Operating Officer (COO) shall be designated as the Senior Accountable Official responsible for leading performance and management reform efforts, and for reducing wasteful or ineffective programs, policies, and procedures. In discharging this responsibility, this official shall be accountable for conducting frequent data driven reviews of agency progress toward goals in the areas that OMB identifies as being critical to performance improvement across agencies or that the agency head identifies as top near term priorities. These goals may include reforming information technology, reducing improper payments, leveraging the Federal Government's purchasing scale, reducing high risk contracting practices, improving the management of Federal real estate, enhancing customer service, and achieving agency and Federal Government priority goals identified pursuant to the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.
(d) The Director of OMB shall provide guidance to agencies as part of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget process for identifying areas of program overlap and duplication within and across agencies, and for proposing consolidations and reductions to address those inefficiencies.
(e) The Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) at all agencies shall be responsible for achieving agency cost savings. This will include each agency's share of the $2.1 billion in administrative cost savings identified in my Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, and for achieving those savings as quickly as possible. The CFOs are encouraged to realize these cost savings by targeting wasteful practices and by reducing, and identifying alternatives to, discretionary travel, the use of consultants, and other administrative expenses. The Federal CFO Council shall provide a monthly report on these efforts to the PMC, with relevant findings and progress reported on performance.gov.
Sec 3. Government Accountability and Transparency Board. (a) There is hereby established a Government Accountability and Transparency Board (Board) to provide strategic direction for enhancing the transparency of Federal spending and advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal programs. The Board shall be composed of 11 members designated by the President from among agency Inspectors General, agency Chief Financial Officers or Deputy Secretaries, a senior official of OMB, and such other members as the President shall designate. The President shall designate a Chair from among the members. Building on the lessons learned from the successful implementation of the Recovery Act, the Board shall work with the RATB to apply the approaches developed by the RATB across Government spending.
(b) Not later than 6 months after the date of this order, the Board shall submit a report to the President that identifies implementation guidelines for integrating systems that support the collection and display of Government spending data, ensuring the reliability of those data, and broadening the deployment of fraud detection technologies, including those proven successful during the implementation of the Recovery Act.
(c) The Director of OMB, in consultation with the Board, shall be responsible for assisting executive agencies in achieving objectives in the guidelines identified in subsection (b) above.
(d) The Chair of the Board, in consultation with the Director of OMB, shall provide monthly updates to the Vice President on the progress obtained under this order.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget related to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 13, 2011.
A Passionate Career.
A Voice for Change.
Vermont Law School is searching for environmental advocates who will devote their careers to protecting our most precious resource.
The online Master of Environmental Law and Policy is designed for both law and non-law students to truly understand the laws and policies shaping global environmental solutions. Vermont Law School prepares graduates to become agents of change in the environmental field by studying cutting-edge topics including climate change, energy, pollution prevention, natural resources protection, and land use.
"The revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater "
THE ARMAN MINES LOST HUMAN USE REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION TRUSTS ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR THE COMMUNITIES OF MINNESOTA, IRON MOUNTAIN, COPLEY MOUNTAIN, DEMOCRAT MOUNTAIN, SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN, MAGEE, CAMDEN, SALLEE, CORAM, VOBIS, WHITEHOUSE, KESWICK, MATHESON, NOBLE, SCOTT, LAWSON, RICHMOND, TAYLOR, MOTION, KEYSTONE, MOCOP, CROWN POINT, SPRING CREEK, FLAT CREEK, BOULDER CREEK, SLICKROCK CREEK, SOUTHFORK CREEK, BATTLE CREEK, BUENAVENTURA RIVER, CHAPPIE-SHASTA, BRANDEIS, AND SO FORTH.
THE COMMUNITIES WILL FEATURE THE LATEST AMMENITIES IN SUSTAINABLE LIVING WITH FENCED AND RAISED VEGETABLE GARDENS FOR EVERY YARD AND NON-SEPTIC WASTE DISPOSAL, WATER, COMPLETE SOLAR-BATTERY INDEPENDENCE, WITH ASSISTANCE AND TRANSPORTATION FOR SENIORS, DISABLED, VETERANS, WIDOWS & ORPHANS, AND NON-FLAMMABLE AND EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION WITH PRECAST CONCRETE FROM MINING WASTE ROCK, MINE TAILINGS, & DRAINAGE.
THE ARMAN MINES INSTITUTE DEVELOPS SOIL RESTORATION INITIATIVES AND PROVIDES REMINERALIZATION OF SOIL FOR HUMAN FOOD CROPS & FARMLAND.
SUMMARY OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PRIVATE SUPERFUND TRUSTS
$336,706,450 + $93,590,773 = $430,297,223 PAYABLE TO BEGIN SUPERFUND REMEDIATION
Since 2009 - Mr. T. W. Arman, mistaken for 'ARMAN' aka "TWO MINERS AND 103 MILLION ACRES OF LAND" fka - Iron Mountain Mines; the Arman Mines Ministries of Natural & Mineral Resources Federation, the Arman Mines Institute, the Hummingbird Institute, the College of the Hummingbird, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Railway, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Tramway, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Road, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Airport, THE HUNDREDS OF THE ARMANSHIRE, NATIVE PIGMENTS, ARMAN PIGMENTS, AMD&CSI, IMMI, HU/MOUNTAIN, ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF MINERAL RESOURCES FEDERATION, THE ARMAN LOST HUMAN USE REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION TRUSTS, THE ARMAN MINERALS RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL, THE GUYS OF JUSTICE, THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF MINING & PRINCIPLES OF PIGMENTS; THE ARMAN MINES HAZARD AND REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE, THE ARMAN MINES DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE, AND THE ARMAN MINES HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD CENTER FOR HEALTH INSTITUTE FOR LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE.
Mr. T.W. Arman, proprietor, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., & 'ARMAN'
All the rights, privileges, and immunities of the Camden and Magee Military Scrip Warrants for the United States of America State of California Morrill Act University of California San Buena Ventura Agricultural College Patent. May 1, 1862 - President Abraham Lincoln - Charles Camden - William Magee - Iron Mountain Investment Co. - United States of America Lode and Placer Mining Patents, Arman Mines Apex Relocations, Apex Discoveries, and Apex mining law applications, Arman Mines Flat Creek mining district vested and accrued existing rights of the locators of the Lost Confidence Mine, &c; their successors and assigns, (Ted Arman) and to their and their heirs and assigns and successors use and behoof, forever.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said mining premises, together with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances of whatsoever nature thereunto belonging, unto the said grantee above named and to its successors and assigns forever; subject, nevertheless, to the above-mentioned and to the following conditions and stipulations:
FIRST. That the premises hereby granted shall be held subject to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may be recognized and acknowledged by the local laws, customs, and decisions of the courts. And there is reserved from the lands hereby granted a right of way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States.
SECOND. That in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the Legislature of California may provide rules for working the mining claim or premises hereby granted, involving easements, drainage, and other necessary means to its complete development
Since 1849 - Flat Creek Mining District
Since May 1, 1862 - Camden & Magee Agricultural College, Military Scrip Warrant Freehold Estate; 360 acres of land in lieu of Rancho Buena Ventura grant patent title,
President Abraham Lincoln - Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act
1844 Mexican Land Grant and Bounty Warrants prior rights; Perdido Californio Bosque del Norte
Since Janurary 4, 1875 - Shasta County Recorder; Morrill land grant Act of Congress - Camden & Magee University of California Agricultural College Patent by Governor Newton Booth.
Since April 8, 1880 - Lost Confidence Mine, Camden & Magee; Bears Den et al lode Mining Claims.
Since 1895 - Mountain Copper Co. Ltd., Iron Mountain Investment Co. 2898 ACRES OF LAND (Jardine Matheson/ Rothschilds/ Keswick, et al), Iron Mountain Investment Co. The Noble, Scott, &c.
Since 1967 - Stauffer Chemical Co., (AstraZeneca, Bayer Crop Sciences et al), Responsible Parties/
Since 1976 - Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., Innocent landowner, operator - T.W. Arman
Since 2001 - Essential Solutions, Inc. Agricultural & Horticultural Products Research.
Since 2008 - Hu/Mountain jv Relocation, Remission, Reversion, Remainder, &c.
Since 2009 - T.W. Arman, sole proprietor, innocent owner & patron of 'ARMAN'
OLD WORLD MIX - AGRICULTURAL MINERALS, PAINTS, STAINS & DYES, CATALYSTS
HUMATE RICH CORN GLUTEN MICROBIAL INNOCULANT FOR ARMAN COMPOST MIX
ARMAN MINES MINISTRY PLEDGES BILLION LBS. FOR SOIL MINERALS RESTORATION
IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. PIGMENT CO. OFFERS 72% GYPSUM 22% IRON OXIDES NATURAL IRON MOUNTAIN COLOR FOR CEMENT, CONTACT BY FAX MR. T.W. ARMAN
July 26, 2010 EPA Releases Rulemaking Guidance on Environmental Justice
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing an interim guidance document to help agency staff incorporate environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking process. "Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven't had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA's work can make a real difference for health and the economy," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work
Mr. T.W. Arman has been trying for years to supply his minerals to farmers, gardeners, landscapers, horticulturalists, and others who work in agricultural enterprises that provide our food and sustain our environment, and it is well documented that minerals are necessary for soil fertility, for instance:
"Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of plants, animals and man. All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil."
This was a statement made by Dr Alexus Carrel, Nobel Prize Winner, in 1912. Almost a hundred years later, agriculturist and writer, Graham Harvey, wrote in The Daily Telegraph , 18 February 2006: " Britain 's once fertile soil has been systematically stripped of its crucial minerals by industrial farming, leaving our fruit and vegetables tasteless and a nation in chronic ill health."
William Albrecht (1896-1974 Illinois), referred to as the Father of Soil Research for his pioneering studies of the effects of infertile soil on plants and animals, warned in 1930s that if the land was not remineralised, there would be a massive increase in human degenerative diseases.
Iron Mountain Mines minerals were naturally distributed by the cycles of the seasons and the annual flooding that for half a million years fertilized the great valleys of California. In 1943 the United States of America State of California constructed the Shasta dam forever destroying this process.
matters for which the courts may wish to take judicial notice
Rancho Buena Ventura (also called "San Buena Ventura") was a 26,632-acre (107.78 km 2 ) Mexican land grant in present day Shasta County, California , given in 1844 by Governor Manuel Micheltorena to Major Pierson B. Reading (1816-1868). The land grant is named for the former name of the adjacent Sacramento River , Buena Ventura, which meant good fortune in Spanish. The grant extended some nineteen miles on the west side of the Sacramento River, from Cottonwood Creek on the south to Salt Creek on the north, and extended approximately three miles west of the Sacramento River the length of the grant. The grant encompassed present day towns of Anderson , Cottonwood and Redding . This was the northernmost land grant in California Redding, however, was not named for Major Reading; it was named for B. B. Redding, a land agent for the Central Pacific Railroad
Governor Micheltorena and John Sutter , his alcalde granted Rancho Buena Ventura to Pierson B. Reading (listed as Pearson B. Reading in the land case documents) in 1844. Reading, who was at that time working for John Sutter at Sutter's Fort in Sacramento as a clerk and trapper, visited the land grant but did not move onto it. He stocked the land with cattle and built a house for his overseer but it was burned down by natives in 1846. Reading was active in promoting the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846. After serving as an artillery lieutenant then as paymaster at the rank of major in a battalion led by John C. Frémont , he built a permanent adobe dwelling and settled on his grant in 1847 He became the second (after Lansford Hastings ) permanent settler of what was to become Shasta County
With the cession of California to the United States following the Mexican-American War , the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that the land grants would be honored. As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho Buena Ventura was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852 The US appealed the claim on the grounds that Reading was not a Mexican citizen In 1854 Reading went to Washington, D.C. for the hearing before the US Supreme Court on his land grant claims. There he met and married Fanny Wallace Washington. The claim was upheld by the Supreme Court and the grant was patented to Pearson B. Reading in 1857.
The first land sale was made in 1853. By 1866, over 5,000 acres (20.2 km 2 ) of the land grant was sold. In 1866, Reading borrowed from the estate of his longtime friend Samuel J. Hensley, using the remaining rancho lands as collateral. After Reading's unexpected death in 1868, the remaining rancho lands were sold to James Ben Ali Haggin at public auction in 1871 to satisfy the unpaid debt. After the auction, the only remaining land from the original land grant was the one square mile (640 acres (2.6 km 2 )) Washington section purchased by Fanny Washington's mother.
William Magee was the U.S. deputy surveyor for Shasta County. He served as caretaker for Reading.
Charles Camden was the most successful miner in Shasta County, he bought and sold much of the land at the Rancho, 800 acres for Military Scrip Warrants (U.S. Patent Title), They were partners. Under their rights of Pre-emption The U.S. Land Office at Marysville granted 360 acres of land on Iron Mountain in lieu of land in the Rancho Buena Ventura. Mining was insignificant until James Sallee discovered a seam of silver in the ore and the Lost Confidence Mine was recorded April 8, 1880.
EPA To Hold Listening Sessions on Potential Revisions to Water Quality Standards Regulation
07/30/2010 Contact Information: Dave Ryan Ryan.email@example.com 202-564-7827 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold two public listening sessions on potential changes to the water quality standards regulation before proposing a national rule. The current regulation, which has been in place since 1983, governs how states and authorized tribes adopt standards needed under the Clean Water Act to protect the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Potential revisions include strengthening protection for water bodies with water quality that already exceeds or meet the interim goals of the Clean Water Act; ensuring that standards reflect a continued commitment to these goals wherever attainable; improving transparency of regulatory decisions; and strengthening federal oversight.
Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based approach to pollution control, including Total Maximum Daily Loads and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Standards are also a fundamental component of watershed management.
The public listening sessions will be held via audio teleconferences on August 24 and 26, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. At the sessions, EPA will provide a review of the current regulation and a summary of the revisions the agency is considering. Clarifying questions and brief oral comments (three minutes or less) from the public will be accepted at the sessions, as time permits. EPA will consider the comments received as it develops the proposed rulemaking. EPA will also hold separate listening sessions for state, tribal and local governments.
According to the state supreme court, "[i]t is misconduct... to elicit or attempt to elicit inadmissible evidence... Because we consider the effect of the prosecutor's action on the defendant, a determination of bad faith or wrongful intent by the prosecutor it is not required for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct." ( People v. Crew (2003) 31 Ca) The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law, including criminal defense lawyers.
" A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ... the prosecutor represents "a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall 'win a case,' but that justice shall be done." ( Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.)' " ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.)
"Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... 'The duty of the attorney general is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence...' " ( People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.) "The prosecutor's job isn't just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules." (United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323.) "As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility... to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair trial ..." (United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.) Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include ( Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861:) "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." ( People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].) "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void. Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered, ( B & C Investments, INc. v. F & ; M Nat. Bank & ; Trust , 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App.Div 3, 1995). "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." ( Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150)
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. (The Court: Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates , Illinois , 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)
"The most obvious misconduct is to present false testimony or false evidence." Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264; United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1993) 17 F.3d 1201; United States v. Valentine (2nd Cir. 1987) 820 F.2nd 565; SEE: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d); Penal Code § 1473(b), and Rule 5-200, Rules Prof. Conduct of State Bar.)
Due process is violated when false evidence is presented, whether offered intentionally or inadvertently. "Under well-established principles of due process, the prosecutor cannot present evidence it knows is false and must correct any falsity of which it is aware... even if the false evidence was not intentionally submitted." ( Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66... Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264... People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 33 ..." People v. Seaton , 26 Cal.4th 598, 647; see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213-214; People v.Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1192-1196.) "Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void." ( Sabariego v Maverick , 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461)
:" Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200, Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Deception to Court -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 - SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998) "...competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioner."
When a breach of ethics, and a duty of omission results in a wrong of commission, it is often because of ignoring empirical evidence, i.e., then the abused victim and the laws that protect the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has, or has not been committed through empirical evidence, and the law -- but if the agents turn a blind eye to both evidence and the law, justice is lost . This is NOT "harmless error," rather it is unethical, blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct, and may be moral turpitude, malum in se, ( State v. Stiffler , 788 P.2 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109).
. Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" 7 Witkin , Cal. Procedure, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.). ( Burns v. Municipal Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 596, 599 .)
A void judgment or proceeding founded on a void judgment is void: 30A Am Jur Judgments
ABUSE OF DISCRETION : A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.
The human condition, which can be ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, perhaps deceived by their own, as Shakespeare says, "insolence of office" -- is what makes the presumption of innocence a good principle, if it is put into practice, for it is the basis for the protection of the innocent, allowing for the lay citizen to have the protection of the law beyond their own familiarity or understanding of it.
A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." ( Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) and, ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.
Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment. "Attorneys should be disciplined for conduct that violates clearly established law, or conduct so outrageous that its illegality is obvious,"
MANUFACTURED JURISDICTION: "the circumstances relied upon to establish federal jurisdiction over the offenses charged were artificially created by the Government in an attempt to exceed the proper scope of federal law enforcement." 501 F.Supp. at 1205.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP says that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is "ultimately responsible"
Geithner Acting Director of Consumer Bureau During Transition
July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Treasury said in a statement today.
AIG has published their quarterly earnings., via AIG : Second quarter 2010 adjusted net income was $1.3 billion (compared to $1.1 billion in the second quarter of 2009), including operating income of $2.2 billion from continuing insurance operations, Mortgage Guaranty operating income of $226 million, $604 million in income from the Asia life insurance operating segment (principally American International Assurance Company, Ltd. (AIA)), and fair value gains on Maiden Lane III of $358 million, partially offset by interest and amortization on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) Credit Facility and third party debt, invested asset impairment charges and other net restructuring and legal settlement charges, and a decrease in the net deferred tax asset. More good news is that adjusted net income has stabilized. The bad news is that it is way insufficient to repay the government what it is owed. The total outstanding debt and equity assistance given by the government is $132.1 billion. Of that amount, the amount requiring repayment from AIG to taxpayers is $101.2 billion. The difference between the $132.1 billion in government assistance outstanding and the $101.2 billion debt and equity balance requiring repayment is attributable to the $30.9 billion outstanding on the Maiden Lane II and III loans as of June 30, 2010.
Recap of the amount outstanding, via AIG : Debt: Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) initially provided AIG with a revolving credit facility of $85 billion. The current outstanding balance of $26.5 billion at June 30, 2010 includes accumulated interest and fees. Accumulated interest does not reduce the available balance of the revolving credit facility. EQUITY: U.S. Dept. of Treasury TARP Shares were issued to pay down the FRBNY Revolving Credit Facility. These shares were later exchanged for TARP Series E noncumulative preferred shares. Unpaid dividends on the series D shares were added to the liquidation preference of the Series E shares. As of June 30 2010, the balance outstanding on the series E shares was $41.6 billion. EQUITY: Preferred Interests in AIA and ALICO Held by FRBNY: In December 2009, AIG transferred to the FRBNY preferred equity interests in newly-formed special purpose vehicles (SPVs) in exchange for a $25 billion reduction of the balance outstanding and the maximum credit available under the FRBNY Credit Facility. As of June 30, 2010, the equity balance outstanding was $25.6 billion. The debt to equity swaps that the FRBNY has done has hidden the true nature of the problem. Looking at strictly the current earnings and ignoring the restructuring plans, it will be next to impossible for the taxpayers to be paid back with a return above inflation. AIG probably will be able to eventually payoff the 26.5 Million. Their quarterly earnings are at roughly 1BB which means it would take approximately 7 years for the taxpayers to get repaid with a 6% interest rate if all of their earnings were diverted into debt repayment. If only half of their Earnings go to debt repayment, then it will take approximately 15 years.
If we take all earnings and plug back into debt reduction, in seven years we have a company which is approximately worth 56 Billion if we have a discount rate of 10% with a 2% growth rate. The taxpayers aren't getting paid back this way. As of today we are owed 26.5 in debt and 75 Billion in equity. The 55 Billion that is still owed the taxpayers is almost exactly equal to what the company is worth at the end of seven years. However, the assumption which is being made is that the pieces that are being sold off will not materially be affecting earnings. That assumption is highly unrealistic.
So from the companies own financial statements, it should be clear that AIG will begin paying back the money which it is owed. However, that the taxpayer gets paid in full out of this is a pipe dream. Three or four years down the road we will hear that the AIG rescue was effective and the taxpayer received all the money owed. Don't buy it.... LIQUIDATE AIG!
YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO SURRENDER OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF THE PREMISES.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 14 2000
SUBJECT: Use of Non-Time Critical Removal Authority in Superfund Response Actions
FROM: Stephen Luftig, Director /s/ Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Barry Breen, Director /s/
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
TO: Regions I - X Program and Legal Division Directors
Since the inception of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (“SACM”) in 1992, it has been a central feature of EPA’s Superfund. program philosophy to integrate the removal and remedial programs in order to achieve the greatest human health and environmental protection in the most efficient fashion. To this end, EPA has urged Superfund decision makers to broadly use the CERCLA removal authority to achieve quick, protective results at Superfund sites, consistent with all legal requirements, including public participation. The increased use of removal authority has also been highly effective in increasing the pace of cleanups and has contributed substantially to the number of projects reaching construction completion. Approximately one third of the first 500 projects at NPL sites that have achieved construction completion have had some removal activity. This increased use of removal authority should continue, where appropriate and consistent with the guidelines discussed in this guidance memorandum. Such use allows EPA to take the legally-authorized response actions best suited to the threats posed at sites.
At the same time, the statutory and regulatory differences between the requirements applicable to removal actions and the requirements applicable to remedial actions demonstrate that the distinction between removal actions and remedial actions is important and that there are limitations to the use of removal authority. It is therefore important to continue EPA efforts, in each individual case, to carefully consider and document the bases for employing removal authority.
Word-Searchable Version – Not a true copy
To ensure that the Regions continue to properly consider and document the rationales for employing removal authorities, this memorandum summarizes the pertinent NCP criteria and guidance to be considered in determining whether the use of remedial or removal authority is most appropriate in a given case. With respect to non-time-critical removal actions, this memorandum provides supplemental guidance regarding the initiation of such actions. This memorandum further clarifies the Headquarters consultation requirement where it is anticipated (at the time the EE/CA Approval Memorandum is prepared and for subsequent, significant increases in project costs) that a non-time-critical removal action could cost in excess of $6 million.1 This guidance applies to preparation, review, and signature of all EE/CA Approval Memoranda, unless such memorandum has been signed prior to the date of this guidance.
2. Relevant Factors in Selecting Removal Authority
In order for the lead agency to make a determination that a removal action is warranted, the lead agency must first make the determination, preferably in the action memorandum, that there is a release or threat of release into the environment of a hazardous substance, or a release or threat of release into the environment of a pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare. CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 104(a)(1). The lead agency must also make a determination, preferably documented in the action memorandum, that “there is a threat to public health, or welfare or the environment.” 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(b)(1). This determination must be based on a consideration of the appropriateness of a removal action in relation to the factors set out in Section 300.415(b)(2). Id. These factors are:
“(i) Actual or potential exposure to nearby human populations, animals, or the food chain from hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants;
1 While the principles identified in this guidance apply to the use of removal authority by anyone carrying out CERCLA response actions, including other federal agencies, the EPA-HQ consultation requirement identified herein does not apply to actions performed by other federal agencies. Different statutory sections, guidances and agreements may apply to such actions. See, for example, “Policy on Decommissioning Department of Energy Facilities Under CERCLA” (May 22, 1995).
For Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) pilots, existing guidance (e.g., Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Manual) ensures the appropriate choice of non-time-critical removal authority consistent with this guidance. Regions and BCRLF pilots should continue to follow BCRLF guidance when proceeding with BCRLF funded non-time-critical removal actions.
Word-Searchable Version – Not a true copy
ii) Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies or sensitive ecosystems;
(iii) Hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants in drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage containers that may pose a threat of release;
(iv) High levels of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants in soils largely at or near the surface, that may migrate;
(v) Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants to migrate or be released;
(vi) Threat of fire or explosion;
(vii) The availability of other appropriate federal or state mechanisms to respond to the release; and
(viii) Other situations or factors that may pose threats to public health or welfare or the environment.”
40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(b)(2).
In determining the appropriateness of any removal action, the Agency considers the NCP factors set out above and is guided by the partial list of appropriate removal actions set out in 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(e). The Agency considers the factors set out in 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(b)(2) as factors that are relevant to determining whether it is appropriate, in a specific circumstance, to employ removal, rather than remedial, authority.
In addition to considering Section 300.415(b)(2) factors, EPA decision makers should also consider the following additional factors in determining whether to employ a non-time- critical removal action or a remedial action in a particular situation: (1) time-sensitivity of the response; (2) the complexity of both the problems to be addressed and the action to be taken; (3) the comprehensiveness of the proposed action3 and (4) the likely cost of the actton4. The
2 Time sensitivity refers to the need to take relatively prompt action. In. contrast, the length of time necessary to complete an action, sometimes referred to as “duration” of the action, captures only how long the response action will take to build or implement. While some courts have looked to that factor in distinguishing between removal and remedial actions, this characteristic usually is not helpful; removal actions are most often of short duration, but they certainly can be long-running responses, too, thereby undercutting the probative value of duration, relative to the factors discussed in the text, in deciding whether an action is removal rather than remedial in nature.
3 Although some courts have considered the “permanence” of a response action as relevant to discerning whether the action is removal or remedial in nature, the Agency believes that consideration of permanence per se is sometimes misleading in making a determination regarding whether to employ removal or remedial authorities. As a practical matter, removal actions are often permanent solutions such as can be the case in a typical soil or drum removal. Also, the Agency views the reference to “permanent” in the statutory definition of “remedy” as merely reflecting Congress’ preference that remedial actions effect permanent solutions. See 42
Word-Searchable Version – Not a true copy
interplay of these factors, and how varying combinations of them can point toward use of one response authority over the other, are discussed below.
In considering all of these factors, including those supplied by the NCP, regional decision makers often will have to make choices based on information that is far from complete or comprehensive. As they must do in many other situations, regional decision makers must use their professional judgment and make prudent decisions in light of available information. The information which the decision maker considers or relies on in making this determination should be placed in the administrative record.
Generally, where a site presents a relatively time-sensitive, non-complex problem that can and should be addressed relatively inexpensively, EPA would normally address the problem by use of removal authority. But even expensive and complex response actions may be removal action candidates if they are relatively time-sensitive -- regardless of whether any further action might ultimately be selected for a site. Thus, for example, removal authority may be appropriate for incineration of thousands of drums that are degrading over time, especially where the Agency determines as part of an initial removal action that such disposal is warranted regardless of any further action that EPA may ultimately decide is appropriate for a site. Similarly, even technically complex actions may be appropriately implemented under removal authority. For example, dredging large quantities of contaminated sediment could be conducted using removal authority where such action was the appropriate course for abating or controlling a time-sensitive threat.5
U.S.C. Section 9621(b)(1). It does not suggest that removals cannot also achieve permanent solutions. Compare 42, U.S.C. Section 9601(23)(definition of “removal”) with 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(24) (definition of “remedial action”). However, at sites where the other factors suggest that remedial authority should be used, it may still be appropriate to use removal authority to conduct interim or partial response actions to achieve immediate risk reduction while the RI/FS is completed and the final remedy is selected. This guidance uses the term “comprehensiveness” to distinguish between such interim or partial responses and the final or “comprehensive” response at such sites.
4 CERCLA Section 104(c)(1) and the NCP at 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(b)(5) require that fund-financed removal actions (other than Section 104(b) removal actions) be terminated after $2 million has been obligated or 12 months have elapsed unless one of two grounds for a waiver of this limit has been invoked. These limits (which can be waived) apply only to fund-financed actions, and serve as a fiscal check; they are not found in the statutory definition of “removal” and do not control which actions can be taken as removals.
5 Generally, further examination of the site will also take place in order to determine whether other or subsequent response actions would be appropriate as well.
Word-Searchable Version – Not a true copy
In contrast, absent time sensitivity6, remedial authority generally would be used to address complex site problems that will likely require a costly, complicated response. For example, where a response action aimed at aquifer restoration is to be carried out at a complex, highly contaminated groundwater site, where no one is presently using the groundwater, such work will typically call for the use of remedial authority. In addition, remedial authority would generally be used to select a final, comprehensive, costly response to environmental problems at an industrial plant site that includes multiple waste streams or sources of contamination. However, at either type of site, it would remain appropriate to use removal authority to address “hot spots,” control the source of contamination, or take other interim actions.
A site-specific decision concerning the use of non-time-critical removal or remedial authority will need to be made based on the NCP criteria and considerations of time sensitivity, complexity, comprehensiveness, and cost. The relative importance of these factors will vary in light of the site conditions and contemplated action in question. Indeed, each decision must be sensitive to site conditions and circumstances. This guidance describes the Agency’s general approach to use of non-time-critical response authorities. Guidance cannot anticipate every possible condition or circumstance, and some health or environmental conditions specific to a site may sometimes warrant departure from the approach set out in this section of this guidance memorandum.
3. Documentation Requirements
Existing guidance requires that an action memorandum discuss the threats to public health, welfare or the environment as they relate to the factors set out in Section 300.415(b)(2). See OSWER Dir. 9360.3-01, “Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance” at 14-16 (Dec. 1990). The underlying information supporting such analysis should also be included in the administrative record for the action. Id. at 2. See also 40 C.F.R. Sections 300.800(a) and 300.810.
Action memoranda should be carefully prepared to effectively document consideration of the factors set out in Section 300.415(b)(2). Where time permits, this discussion in the action memorandum should specifically cite to and identify the underlying data, evaluations, reports or other information on which the discussion is based. Prior to signing an action memorandum, regional decision makers should carefully review the “threats to the environment” section of the action memorandum to ensure that the Section 300.415(b)(2) factors have been considered and documented.
6 The issue here is whether a CERCLA decision maker is faced with a threat to human health or the environment that, though not time-critical, is nonetheless sufficiently serious that the added time needed to comply with remedial requirements (e.g., completion of a RI/FS and ROD) would be unacceptable.
Word-Searchable Version – Not a true copy
B. Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions
Where a planning period of at least six months exists, the NCP establishes important additional requirements for the use of removal authority (principally by requiring that an engineering evaluation/cost analysis or “EE/CA” be prepared and by establishing significant public participation requirements). See 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(b)(4) and (m)(4).
To authorize the preparation of an EE/CA, existing guidance requires that an EE/CA Approval Memorandum be prepared and approved. See OSWER Dir. 9360.0-32, “Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA” at 22-23 (August 1993). Importantly, one key function of the EE/CA Approval Memorandum is to document at the beginning of the process that “the situation meets the NCP criteria for initiating a removal action . . . .” Id. The NCP also requires that the lead agency establish an administrative record file for the action at or before the time the EE/CA Approval Memorandum is signed. 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415(n)(4)(I).
To ensure that a non-time-critical removal action is employed appropriately, regional decision makers should ensure that the EE/CA Approval Memorandum:
1 ) explains the basis for the decision to employ a non-time-critical removal action as opposed to initiating a RI/FS, including a discussion of the factors relevant to that decision, including the relevant Section 300.415(b)(2) factors, and the cost, complexity, comprehensiveness, and time sensitivity of the proposed action, to the extent such information is known. or can be reasonably anticipated at the time that the EE/CA Approval Memorandum is being prepared;
2) addresses whether a non-time-critical removal action is appropriate, in the context of any likely response action, including remedial action, that may be selected in the future; and
3) is supported at the time it is signed by an administrative record file that contains all of the underlying information considered by the Region relevant to the findings and key discussion contained in the EE/CA Approval Memorandum, including, but not limited to, a finding of actual or threatened release or discussion that the instant case meets or is likely to meet the NCP criteria and other factors for initiating a removal action.
4. Headquarters Consultation
For non-time-critical removal actions where the cost of the selected removal action could exceed $6 million, the Region must consult with the Director of OERR prior to signing the EE/CA Approval Memorandum (or its equivalent). This consultation requirement applies both to fund-lead actions and those actions to be performed by PRPs. For fund-lead actions, OERR
Word-Searchable Version – Not a true copy
will coordinate with OSRE to ensure that all enforcement options have been adequately considered. In all cases, the draft EE/CA Approval Memorandum shall be forwarded to the Director of OERR as part of the consultation process.
5. Purpose and Application of this Guidance.
This document provides guidance to EPA staff. This guidance is designed to communicate national policy on use of removal and remedial authority. This document does not, however, substitute for EPA’s statutes or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA may revise this guidance in the future, as appropriate. http://genome.jgi-psf.org/cloce/cloce.home.html
Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
Posted In Securities Litigation
In 1997, I testified at an oversight hearing before the United States Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee regarding securities litigation abuses. At the time, Congress was considering whether to enact legislation to stop plaintiffs from filing securities class actions in state court in order to avoid stricter federal standards applicable to class action lawsuits. Both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) were urging delay. In my testimony, however, I called on Congress to take prompt action:
I strongly disagree with the position of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and Mark Griffen, the current president of the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., that it is too early to consider and make further changes with respect to the 1995 Act. While I acknowledge that it may be too early to count all of the effects of the 1995 Act, it is not too early to conclude that the securities of many issuers trade in what is quintessentially a national securities market. For these national issuers and their stockholders, the litigation standards should be consistent. Consistent standards is a matter of both common sense and fairness.
A year later, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka “SLUSA”). The Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee’s report quoted the following from my written statement:
It is important to note that companies can not control where their securities are traded after an initial public offering * * *. As a result, companies with publicly-traded securities can not choose to avoid jurisdictions which present unreasonable litigation costs. Thus, a single state can impose the risks and costs of its peculiar litigation system on all national issuers.
As amended by the SLUSA, the Securities Act of 1933 provides for concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state courts for ’33 Act claims except for certain types of class actions. Yesterday, a California Court of Appeal issued an opinion addressing the scope the exception.
GSA launches the Business Breakthrough Regional workshops
Solicitation Number: 2011-06-01
Agency: General Services Administration
Office: Office of Small Business Utilization
Location: Office of Small Business Utilization-NCR
The General Services Administration (GSA) is pleased to invite well established businesses to participate in our exciting new initiative - the Business Breakthrough Program.
Business Breakthrough will offer businesses a robust workshop agenda full
of up-to-date information on how to successfully navigate Federal
contracting. Representatives from GSA, Industry and other Federal agencies
will provide information and guidance including real-world case studies
from across industries. We anticipate companies that will benefit most from Business Breakthrough are currently too large to qualify in Federal procurement preference programs but too small to compete with large firms. This FREE five day workshop is a "must" for companies serious about advancing within the Federal marketplace. Participants will gain an in-depth understanding of GSA's procurement culture, various Federal procurement methods, discover proven strategies for developing a successful
marketing plan and much more!
The first Business Breakthrough workshop begins on Monday, May 23, 2011 at
the New York Seminar and Conference Center, 71 West 23rd Street, New York,
NY 10010. Registration is free but you must complete a registration form
to be confirmed for participation. Please visit www.gsa.gov/businessbreakthrough to review all the Program details,
Save the date and plan to participate in the workshop nearest you! The 2011
Business Breakthrough workshop schedule is:
May 23-27 New York City
June 6-10 Kansas City, MO
July 18-22 Portland, OR
August 1-5 Denver, CO
August 22-26 Fort Worth, TX
August 29-Sept 2 San Francisco, CA
Sept 12-16 Chicago, IL
Sept 26-30 Atlanta, GA
Oct 17-21 Boston, MA
Oct 31-Nov 4 Philadelphia, PA
Dec 5-9 Washington, DC
Seating is limited so register NOW!!!
301 7 Street, SW
Washington, District of Columbia 20407
At this time, additional funding for demonstration projects is not budgeted. However, we will seek and encourage innovative funding to demonstrate the principles of the Memorandum. CALTRANS is partnering with a commercial seed source to find better establishment techniques of native plants. The Florida DOT with the help of the Florida Federated Garden Clubs is using research grant to plant native plant interpretative gardens at Welcome Centers to increase public awareness. Further partnerships with educational institutions, arboreta, commercial nurseries, botanic gardens and garden clubs are encouraged. These partnerships in themselves will improve public awareness.
Will "cultural landscapes" have to be replaced with environmentally and economically beneficial landscapes?
No. Cultural or historical, or existing landscapes are not expected to be replaced. The Executive Memorandum applies only to landscape projects implemented after August 10, 1995, or realistically projects funded beginning October 1, 1995.
Will the Federal Highway Administration assist States in implementing the Memorandum?
The FHWA will facilitate the implementation in every way possible. Further guidelines for the use of native plants in wildflower and treeways programs are in progress. State-by-State lists of what plants are native are also in progress. The FHWA is developing a training course/workshop mechanism to further share information about the Memorandum's approach. The FHWA will continue to share experiences and information for all States through the quarterly Greener Roadsides.
Can consistency among agencies be expected?
We have been assured by the Federal Environmental Executive, who oversees the implementation of the Memorandum, that consistency will be the rule.
Home | News | $3.8 BILLION INVESTMENT IN HUMAN GENOME PROJECT DROVE $796 BILLION IN ECONOMIC IMPACT CREATING 310,000 JOBS AND LAUNCHING THE GENOMIC REVOLUTION
$3.8 BILLION INVESTMENT IN HUMAN GENOME PROJECT DROVE $796 BILLION IN ECONOMIC IMPACT CREATING 310,000 JOBS AND LAUNCHING THE GENOMIC REVOLUTION
“Genomic Revolution” Forging Major Breakthroughs in Medicine, Agriculture, Security & Justice, and Energy and Promises to Create Significantly More Jobs in the Future
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The $3.8 billion the U.S. government invested in the Human Genome Project (HGP) from 1988 to 2003 helped drive $796 billion in economic impact and the generation of $244 billion in total personal income, according to a study released today by Battelle. In 2010 alone, the human genome sequencing projects and associated genomics research and industry activity directly and indirectly generated $67 billion in U.S. economic output and supported 310,000 jobs that produced $20 billion in personal income. The genomics-enabled industry also provided $3.7 billion in federal taxes during 2010.
The report also outlines significant breakthroughs the Human Genome Project, and a companion private project from Celera Genomics, have made possible in just the first ten years since the reference human genomes were published. Advancements include new approaches to medicine, greater productivity in agriculture and potential sources of renewable energy. The study also forecasts the creation of significantly more jobs in the future as new companies and new industries continue to form around the expanded knowledge of human DNA model organism genomes and advances in genomics technology.
“From a simple return on investment, the financial stake made in mapping the entire human genome is clearly one of the best uses of taxpayer dollars the U.S. government has ever made,” said Greg Lucier, chief executive officer of Life Technologies, whose foundation sponsored Battelle’s analysis. “This project has been, and will continue to be, the kind of investment the government should foster…ones with tangible returns.
“The initial dollar investment has already been returned to the government via $49 billion paid in taxes. Now we sit at the dawn of the ‘Genomics Revolution’ and all humankind will reap the benefits as we transfer what we now know about the human genome into major breakthroughs including: new forms of ‘personalized medicine’ and genetics therapy better suited to solving the problems we all care so much about, such as cures for cancer, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s, HIV/AIDS and many more terrifying diseases. These major advancements are rapidly creating multiple new industries and companies and those companies are creating quality jobs for thousands of people. Life will be even better for all of us thanks to the HGP,” Lucier said.
Battelle Conclusions Simon Tripp, Senior Director of Battelle's Technology Partnership Practice, or TPP, (co-author of the Battelle report with TPP Research Leader Marty Grueber) noted, "What is truly impressive is the extent to which genomics technologies have advanced under the driving force of the human genome sequencing projects. Today high-speed sequencing and advancements in genomic data analysis are empowering unprecedented advancements in biological sciences and being applied to the most pressing issues facing the world—human health and medicine, feeding a rapidly expanding global population, developing advanced biofuels, and protecting the environment. The ability of modern science to address these large-scale issues via genomics stands as testimony to the vision and foresight shown by HGP supporters, leaders and participants."
The four main conclusions reached in the Battelle study are:
The economic and functional impacts generated by the sequencing of the human genome are already large and widespread. Between 1988 and 2010 genome sequencing projects, associated research and industry activity—directly and indirectly—generated an economic (output) impact of $796 billion, created 3.8 million job-years of employment (310,000 jobs in 2010) with personal income exceeding $244 billion (an average of $63,700 in personal income per job-year).
The federal government invested $3.8 billion in the HGP from 1990–2003 ($5.6 billion in 2010 dollars). This investment was foundational in generating the economic output of $796 billion above, and thus shows a return on investment (ROI) to the U.S. economy of 141 to 1, meaning that every $1 of federal HGP investment has contributed to the generation of $141 in the economy.
Overall, however, the impacts of the human genome sequencing are just beginning—large scale benefits in human medicine and many other diverse applications are still in their early stages. The best is truly yet to come.
The HGP is arguably the single most influential investment to have been made in modern science and a foundation for progress in the biological sciences moving forward.
About the Human Genome Project “Sequencing of the human genome represented the largest single undertaking in the history of biological science and stands as a signature scientific achievement,” the Battelle report states. It took just 13 years to sequence human DNA under the Human Genome Project (HGP), an international public project led by the United States, and a complementary private program. Sequencing the human genome involved determining the complete sequence of the three billion DNA base pairs and identifying each human gene. It required advanced technology development and the assembly of an interdisciplinary team of biologists, physicists, chemists, computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers. President Bill Clinton called it “the very blueprint of life” in his January 27, 2000 State of the Union address.
The “Genomics Revolution” in Action Scientists are using the reference genome, the knowledge of genome structure, and the data from the HGP as the foundation for fundamental advancements in science and medicine and the development of applied genomics tools, techniques and technologies.
Genomics also has become a tool for applications in the field of justice and security. For homeland security, the ability to genotype suspicious infectious pathogens and trace their origin is a national security priority. Law enforcement is also using genomics in tracing illegal importation of protected animal species tissue, while the identification of human remains from disasters is another application.
Modern genomics, advanced by the HGP is not only being applied to human biomedical sciences. The “genomic revolution” is influencing renewable energy development, industrial biotechnology, agricultural biosciences, veterinary sciences, environmental science, forensic science and homeland security, and advanced studies in evolution, zoology, anthropology and other academic disciplines.
Next Steps in the “Genomics Revolution” While the primary impacts of the “Genomics Revolution” have not yet been felt in most areas of daily clinical practice, that day is accelerating towards us. The Battelle report lists a number of example advancements we can expect in the future due to the HGP and genomics advancements:
Agricultural productivity to increase considerably, working towards the challenge of feeding the world’s rapidly expanding population in a sustainable manner.
Not only will food availability increase, but the impact of its production on the global environment will reduce as crops and livestock are developed with traits suited to nitrogen use efficiency, no-till agriculture, water use efficiency and reduced waste production.
Currently low-value biomass, especially low-value cellulosic biomass, will be converted into higher-value liquid fuels, energy sources, bio-based chemicals, plastics and materials. These products will increasingly displace petroleum and other fossil-based inputs, contributing to reduced carbon emissions and associated climate and environmental benefits.
An increasingly two-way flow of diagnostics, therapeutics and prevention tools will move between human medicine, veterinary medicine and agriculture as the cost of genomic technologies reduces and the applications of discoveries in one area can be applied to another because of comparative genomics and other genomic advancements.
The legacy of pollution on the planet caused by human activity will be addressed increasingly through the application of genetically engineered, modified or synthetic organisms designed to perform remediation and mitigation functions.
About Battelle As the world’s largest independent research and development organization, Battelle provides innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing needs through its four global businesses: Laboratory Management; National Security; Health and Life Sciences; and Energy, Environment and Material Sciences. It advances scientific discovery and application by conducting $6.5 billion in global R&D annually through contract research, laboratory management and technology commercialization. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Battelle oversees 22,000 employees in more than 130 locations worldwide, including seven national laboratories which Battelle manages or co-manages for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and a nuclear energy lab in the United Kingdom.
Battelle also is one of the nation’s leading charitable trusts focusing on societal and economic impact and actively supporting and promoting science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education.
"Regulations as the Congress shall make." This power of Congress has rarely been exercised, except to refine the procedures for obtaining Court review of lower court decisions; over the years the trend has been for Congress to allow the Court maximum discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject a case. Of course, the very concept of Congress "allowing" the Court such discretion only reinforces that phrase in Section 2: ". . . supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court is still beholden to Congress as to what cases it may hear, and under what set of regulations that elected body of representatives drafts and approves. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power . It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body . The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body. Federalist #78 -Alexander Hamilton
§ 2344. Review of orders; time; notice; contents of