Category: housing

  • MIL-OSI USA: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Polish Deputy Prime Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz Hold Joint Media Availability

    Source: United States Department of Defense

    UNKNOWN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the press conference in the Ministry of National Defense. We have here Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of National Defense Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz and Secretary of Defense of the United States, Mr. Pete Hegseth. Deputy Prime Minister, can you please take the floor?

    DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER KOSINIAK-KAMYSZ: Good morning. Good morning, everyone. It is a great moment. It is a great moment for myself, for my wife, together with whom we are hosting Secretary of Defense of the United States together with his wife. Welcome very cordially. Thank you for choosing Poland as the first venue of your first official bilateral visit, that you decided to come to Poland.

    It is a testimony to our partnership. It is also a testimony to our friendship and shared strategy of security for the United States, for Poland, Europe and the whole world. That is our great duty. It is a great honor for myself to host Secretary Pete Hegseth to Poland today and talk about the most important challenges related to the security of Poland, the United States, Europe and the world.

    Thank you very much for a very good discussion. Well, first, we had a [Inaudible] and then we had a bilateral meeting with delegations to talk about our alliance and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. Polish American Alliance has never been as strong as it is today, and we can do everything possible to make it even stronger overnight.

    And this is what we agreed on, that we will have a joint investment and shared security guarantees, as well as increasing capabilities. Poland is a country that understands threats, that it can see it, and we can sense it. We have our own history and we know how it happened, that in our country, in our beloved homeland, the war was waged. We were deprived of our own independence for years.

    For years, we didn’t also have the self-determination capacity when we restored it. We know how important security is, how important freedom is and peace. The values that bring us together need strength. Freedom needs strength. The peace also needs strength. Security takes a lot of strength, and that strength is not possible without spendings, without the money that we have to spend on security, without increasing our capabilities and investment in our armed forces, the alliance and the society.

    We know this perfectly well and this is something that we definitely share. Thank you very much for that. Poland is an example of such a such a country and Secretary of Defense gave an example of Poland in public in Brussels, that Poland is actually an example how to care for our own security and the allied security.

    Because whatever we do, the protection of our borders, five percent of defense spending is modernization and transformation of the Polish armed forces, the acquisition of the state-of-the-art equipment from our strategic partner in the area of defense, which is the United States and this is an absolute priority for our country.

    Everyone in Poland absolutely accepts that and agrees with that. We want to thank our taxpayers, thanks to whom we are able to execute that great plan of the transformation of the Polish Armed Forces. Without them, it would not be possible. We can do that, thanks to them, because they contribute to this and they understand this.

    Poland is a country that understands that the greater defense spendings are definitely a must. Europe must spend more. This is the message with which Secretary of Defense came to the meeting of defense ministers of the alliance. Well, we must spend more to protect our territory better and the United States wants to cooperate.

    And the United States will do everything possible to be together for the alliance to be stronger and stronger, but Europe also must demonstrate its contribution. We understand this perfectly well and we are true to our commitments. We are true to our allied obligations. We were together in Iraq. We were together in Afghanistan.

    We were in different anti-terror missions. After the terrorist attacks in the United States, we were the first country that was ready to support the US and we continue to do so. We will support the United States. We are a steadfast and loyal ally and thank you very much for the presence of the American troops in Poland.

    It is incredibly important for us. It is crucial and it gives us a sense of security and it really provides tangible security. We want to thank for every single American serviceman and servicewomen training together with Polish troops for giving us strengths and capabilities and our power. You are very much welcome here.

    Come to us. This is your home, and you will always be treated like that because it is a great privilege for us and a great pleasure. I am also very happy with our conversation about the future, further spendings that we want to make in the United States, further acquisitions. We will definitely continue that effort.

    We also want to develop the cooperation of our defense industries. We also talked about that investment joint venture, Polish American Investment to increase the capabilities for our production, especially the capacity to produce munitions and the capacity for armament, production that is not sufficient in Europe.

    Europe must wake up. Europe must invest in defense industry and we want to create joint venture companies with the United States to be able to use these resources better. Poland can and should be a hub of infrastructure for maintenance, for economy and businesses of the United States. Our strategy is to be like a transatlantic bond, bringing the United States and Europe together because Poland is best prepared to do that and Poland understands best all the actions that are undertaken by the United States today.

    And I think that Poland has very good awareness of the situation. After this conversation, I am absolutely convinced that it is the case. We want to be a service hub that will be used for the American equipment used by our allies along the eastern border of NATO. We also talked about illegal migration that we stop at the Polish Belarusian border.

    We talked about the challenges the United States is also facing to this extent and very good information that I want to share with you. You know that there is the review of different spendings in the United States, that there are different executive orders that were issued by President Trump and the objective is to review the justification of the spendings.

    But there is something as foreign military financing. This is the fund that is used to modernize, for example, the Polish armed forces and we use it, billions of dollars. And that executive order of President Trump about freezing the funding of different programs to support modernization and transformation, they do not apply to Poland.

    Thank you very much, Secretary of Defense for the decisions about the that, for a very clear presentation of the case. It is a great example and we are ironclad partners. We are friends for better and for worse, for good times and worse times. We are together with each other, Poland and the United States.

    The United States and Poland are true and loyal friends and our cooperation will be even at a higher level.

    UNKNOWN: Thank you. Now, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense of the United States.

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: Well, thank you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister. Thank you for your incredibly strong words, which I echo and concur completely. Our friendship, our bond is ironclad and we came here specifically to reinforce that. I also want to thank your wife for being a part of this as well today, and your entire delegation.

    The warmth of the Polish people is very, very clear. It is a privilege to be here and I do want to emphasize that it’s quite intentional that our first European bilateral is right here in Poland. The symbolism is not lost, in fact, it is intentional. We see Poland as the model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defense, but in our shared defense and the defense of the continent.

    Our relationship is strong and growing stronger every day. Poland, a strategic frontline partner on NATO’s eastern flank. Poland, a staunch US ally. Poland, a, as I said, model ally, not only in words. Words are cheap, but in deed and in actions. Poland leads by example, on a lot of things, including defense spending, building up Polish military readiness.

    Yesterday in Brussels, we both talked a lot about spending and the need for hard power. Diplomacy is important. Talk is important. Negotiations are important. But ultimately, beans and bullets and tanks and helicopters and hard power still matters. Poland understands that and so do we. They’re exceeding NATO burden sharing commitments and we’re looking for even more ways to partner.

    You mentioned joint ventures, strategic partnerships. We are open and look forward to further solidifying how we can work together as it pertains to our defense industrial bases. We want to achieve peace through strength together. Deterrence, that defense industrial base, that’s Apaches, F-35s, HIMARS, Patriots, you name it. The more you have, the stronger we are.

    The more we can cooperate with those systems, the more interoperable our capabilities are, the better. I also want to thank you and the Polish people for the outstanding support of our forces that are deployed here. We have over 8,000 American troops in Poland. I had a chance to spend the morning with some of some of those US troops.

    We ran the streets of Warsaw this morning in the snow. I’m from Minnesota, so I was used to it. It was about 25 to 30 US Soldiers and Marines, had a chance to talk to them while we ran and did push-ups. And I asked them about their experience here in Poland and some worked directly with troops, others worked in military sales.

    Some work in POW and MIA remains recovery still. Each one of them had nothing but gushing compliments for the Polish people, for the Polish military, for the amount of support that they receive, for the true partnership, for the eagerness with which Polish troops work alongside American troops. We’ve seen plenty of examples across the globe as the United States of America, or where you work with allies who sometimes you wish wanted it just as much as we did.

    That’s not a problem we have with Polish troops or here in Poland, and we thank you and we thank your military for the immense amount of support they provide to ours. We also, investments by Poland makes it easier for us to be here as well. Generous contributions from the Polish Treasury for infrastructure and logistics support for our troops to be here reduces the US taxpayer burden.

    I know that’s something that President Trump worked with Poland on his first four years in office. We will continue to do that together as well. The level of partnership, just to underscore here, is unmatched in Europe. The common bond between our forces is unlike others in Europe. We have a shared warrior ethos, which we talked about, something I’m emphasizing, we’re emphasizing at Donald Trump’s Department of Defense.

    We’re ready, we’re lethal, we’re capable and we want to reinvest the warrior spirit. We want to rebuild our military and reestablish deterrence. I heard the exact same things from you and from your leadership in our bilateral meeting, which is incredibly encouraging. No truer friend, no tougher foe than the Polish soldier.

    As I mentioned, we saw it in Iraq, we saw it in Afghanistan and it goes all the way back to World War II and Market Garden. The Polish military has stood alongside America and we stand alongside you. So, thank you again for that robust partnership, for being a friend around the table of nations. Yes, at NATO, we are all friends, but sometimes you look out and see those that say we are with you when there are tough conversations to be had and you were, and I know you will be. We look forward to leading those conversations and ensuring our deeds match our words, and your friendship is incredibly valued.

    On behalf of the American people, thank you for welcoming us. It’s an honor to be here, sir. Thank you.

    UNKNOWN: Now we have time for four short questions. The first question, Jan Piotrowski, TVN 24.

    Q: — Hegseth. Sir, just recently you’ve ruled out the possibility of restoring Ukrainian pre-2014 borders, but do you believe that there is a possibility to restore the border as it was before the full-scale invasion back in February 2022? Thank you.

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: Thank you for the question, sir. I think anything is possible. I, as the Secretary of Defense, have a specific lane of the portfolio of what America is representing inside these negotiations. So, my job today and in Brussels was to introduce realism to the conversation, the reality that returning to 2014 borders as part of a negotiated settlement is unlikely.

    The reality of US troops in Ukraine is unlikely. The reality of Ukraine membership in NATO as a part of a negotiated settlement, unlikely. And I stand by the comments that I made on that first day in the Ukraine contact group and that’s for all the press out there who it’s difficult for them to understand that.

    We stand by the statements we made in reality about the status of US forces or Ukraine’s involvement in NATO and the unlikely nature of that. That said, I would never put constraints around what the president of the United States would be willing to negotiate with the sovereign leaders of both Russia and Ukraine.

    I’m not here to put a left and right limit on those discussions. We’ve been here just simply to introduce realism into the expectations of our NATO allies to incentivize the opportunity for that negotiation. So, what those borders ultimately look like, sir, remains to be seen and I think is part of the discussion that would be had between our President, Zelenskyy, Putin and likely Europe’s involvement in those discussions as well.

    Thank you, sir.

    Q: Mr. Secretary, are US troops in Ukraine on the table? Vice President Vance says it is. And [untranslated], under what condition would Poland send forces to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission?

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: Well, the president has said multiple times inside his framework for discussions of this, and I just want to lay out that these are not comments or statements that I make in a vacuum or make without direct consultation with our team. So, President Trump’s national security team, from Mike Waltz to the vice president to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, we’re all on the same page.

    And our job is to ensure that our commander in chief, the president of the United States, has the full spectrum of options to bring this conflict, to bring the killing to an end, to an end. And my message to the Ukraine contact group was I do not believe as a part of those negotiations that US troops will be on the ground.

    You can say that and I believe that to be true. That’s what President Trump has said. That is what he has emphasized, that this is a for Europeans to resolve alongside Ukraine and Russia and that US boots will not be on the ground. Again, negotiations happen, the president has latitude and what happens in those negotiations is his prerogative because he is the American people’s representative on the world stage.

    There’s no daylight in those conversations. There’s no daylight between myself and the vice president. We are collective advocates on behalf of the president. He reserves the right to have any option as he discusses troops and partnerships and investment opportunities and front-line limits. Those are all what President Trump will negotiate with his counterparts.

    DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER KOSINIAK-KAMYSZ: [Inaudible] just started. I would like to thank for this question. The negotiation, which President Trump chairs, is just the first step. We’ve talked about it. Well, some thought that this is the finale, that this is the end. Well, it was just launched and it is worthwhile not only in Poland, but also in Ukraine across the world to realize.

    And what just was said by Pete Hegseth, what will be the finale, it is to be seen. It is in front of us. What is for sure, we need to be strong and united as allies and this is what we have between Poland and the United States. Poland has been doing a lot to support Ukraine. We’ve been doing that from the first day.

    Without the Polish participation, we could not be able to send assistance to Ukraine. 95 percent of hardware humanitarian assistance goes through logistical hub in Poland, and this has been happening for three years. We’ve been securing this. We’ve involved our forces which are protecting this process. We would like to thank our allies from the US, other countries, that they are supporting this transfer process and protection process of the donations which have been transferred to Ukraine.

    And this is the role for Poland, of the logistical support in many issues rather than sending our troops to Ukraine, what we can do for sure. And I think we’re going to do it together soon to send our companies, joint venture companies or joint venture partnerships to Ukraine. The companies investing in the defense industry also using various capabilities to elevate the level of security of Ukraine and the eastern flank of NATO developing these possibilities.

    If we invest in Ukraine, the United States, Europe and Poland, this is a great guarantee of security. I think it is also in the strategy that the United States is presenting broadly and this is also going to be a subject of the discussion. So, our role as a logistical support that we’ve been doing, it is very important.

    Without that, we could not support fighting Ukraine and the peace in Ukraine.

    UNKNOWN: Thank you very much. Next question, there will be two more questions.

    Q: Mr. Secretary, would the US consider lowering troops number in eastern Europe as a part of the deal with Russia, or would it consider giving up its permanent military presence in Poland?

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: Well, I will state definitively as I did in Brussels, that America is committed to the NATO alliance. Our message has been – and as we discussed, we believe, heard loud and clear that member countries in NATO need to spend more, need to invest more, need to have more skin in the game for their collective defense.

    That is not just a suggestion from the United States of America, that is a direct request, which we will follow up on as a reflection of their desire and commitment to actually defend their own backyard. That’s a serious aspect of NATO becoming a serious alliance in the future. As I mentioned, you can have as many flags as you want, but if you don’t have hard power, you’re not an actual alliance.

    And unfortunately, our adversaries look at that and they judge accordingly. Right now, on the continent, the American presence is robust and it has been. And that partnership is real and important. And the troops that we have here in Poland is an investment in that, is a recognition of that. And frankly, the invitation we receive here, if anything, would make me want to welcome more troops to Poland, as the Secretary of Defense.

    That’s not a policy statement. That’s just how I feel. The welcome is warm. At the same time, our president is in the middle of negotiations, but he has recognized, as have I, that American presence on the continent is important to deter Vladimir Putin and send that signal of solidarity. But I think it’s really important what the deputy prime minister said.

    This is the beginning of negotiations. I’m not here to set the terms of how my president of the United States will debate this. I’m here to give him my best military advice alongside him of what may or may not be most useful to reach the peaceful end state that we want. From my perspective, the American troop levels on the continent are important.

    What happens five or 10 or 15 years from now is part of a larger discussion that reflects the threat level, America’s posture, our needs around the globe, but most significantly, the capability of European countries to step up. And that’s why our message is so stark to our European allies, now is the time to invest because you can’t make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever.

    America has to stare down a lot of threats to include, as I mentioned, the Communist Chinese and if that’s the case, then countries like Poland and others will continue to step up. But as of today, we are very proud of our partnership in Europe. Thank you.

    UNKNOWN: [Inaudible] Fox News [Inaudible].

    Q: — Fox News. These questions are for both you gentlemen. Do you believe the warnings from NATO allies that allowing Putin to keep Ukrainian territory, will one day embolden him to launch future attacks, perhaps even invade the eastern flank of the NATO alliance? Is this Yalta 2.0 or perhaps even Munich 2.0? Do you trust Vladimir Putin to live up to any potential agreement?

    And finally, in light of the Russian drone attack on Chernobyl last night, should there be a ceasefire during these negotiations? Thank you.

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: Do you want to go? Go ahead.

    DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER KOSINIAK-KAMYSZ: Well, what I believe is the strength which protects us from evil. On the strong, we are able to defend ourselves from Putin on the strength the terrorists in our freedom. Our freedom will not be protected by beautiful words, by diplomatic meetings. Our freedom and independence will be only defended and protected by the strength of our alliance.

    This is the only thing that can protect us, nothing else. And we’ll never have a calm day. There are no calm days across the world. There are only those who have slept the last 30 days, years, because they thought that they lived in the calm world. The world will never be calm. The world will also always require from us activity.

    We always need to invest that. We have to remember that Putin or other dictator may come, which can threaten our security. It never ends. This is what history teaches us. And I think it was a bit too good for us. For some, it was too good. Maybe they didn’t have the experiences that we’ve had in Poland, that they just slept over this time.

    And right now, it’s time to wake them up and the voice which came from Brussels, from Pete Hegseth, and more spending was finally heard. We’ve been talking about, we’ve been showing that and we need it. Not to replace the American troops in Europe because without them the world and Europe will not be saved.

    But to maintain them to keep them, Europe must show that they want it, not in the words but in the deeds and many European countries is already doing that, but many more needs to do it and we want to do it. So, there is no other security guarantee than your strength.

    SECRETARY HEGSETH: Well, I appreciate those words and I agree. First, your second question on a ceasefire, I think the president has stated that that could be part of a good faith aspect of the beginning of negotiations, which the president’s goal is to stop the killing and the violence and the death. Part of doing that could be a ceasefire, and that could be a welcome development.

    As far as Vladimir Putin being emboldened, he’s going to declare victory no matter what. You can expect that no matter what the outcome is. Thankfully, the bravery of the Ukrainians and allies that came alongside them, especially early in the war, deterred and defeated Vladimir Putin from achieving what he wanted, which was all of Ukraine.

    So, now you have a more defined front line and whether he declares victory or not will be up to him. Whether he’s emboldened speaks exactly to what the deputy prime minister talked about and NATO’s willingness to step up. If NATO’s response to this situation is to truly increase capabilities, truly increase inputs and spending to think more like Poland, to think more like the Baltics who are closer to the threat and recognize the reality of the threat, then I don’t think Vladimir Putin will be emboldened by this outcome.

    It will be a recognition that the collective ability of the west to deter him was something that actually happened. Is there trust there? No. I mean, you don’t have to operate under a position of trust in order to negotiate a deal. But again, I’m the Secretary of Defense, it’s not my job to read the mind of Vladimir Putin.

    President Trump will be the one at the table with Zelenskyy and Putin. You don’t have to trust somebody in order to negotiate with them. But as Ronald Reagan said, if you don’t trust, you need to verify and so there will be a follow up and ensuring that whatever peace is negotiated is a lasting and enduring peace.

    UNKNOWN: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, prime minister and secretary.

    DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER KOSINIAK-KAMYSZ: Thank you one more time.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Anchorage man sentenced to 13 years for distributing meth

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An Anchorage man was sentenced today to 13 years in prison and will serve five years on supervised release for distributing methamphetamine in Alaska and violating his conditions of release from a previous drug distribution conviction.

    According to court documents, Todd Robert Klink, 55, made two sales of methamphetamine totaling over 82 grams to a law enforcement witness in July 2023 and January 2024. The first sale was of   97% pure methamphetamine and second was of 68% pure methamphetamine.

    On Feb. 20, 2024, a federal grand jury in Alaska indicted Klink and charged him with two counts of distribution of a controlled substance. On March 1, 2024, agents arrested Klink and executed a federal search warrant on his home. During the search, agents located and seized over 3.5 kilograms of 100% pure methamphetamine, over 500 grams of 98% pure methamphetamine, digital scales with drug residue and other assorted paraphernalia for drug use and distribution.

    At all times during this conduct, Klink was on supervised release for a 2011 distribution of methamphetamine conviction in the U.S. District Court, District of Alaska.

    On Jan. 29, 2025, Klink pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of a controlled substance. Klink received a 132-month sentence for distributing methamphetamine in 2023 and 2024, and a 24-month sentence for violating his supervised release, which will run consecutive, making his total sentence 156 months.

    “Despite his past conviction for drug-related offenses and a history of criminal activity, Mr. Klink made the conscious decision to persist in trafficking dangerous drugs within our community, showing a disregard for both the law and well-being of others,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn R. Vogel for the District of Alaska. “The justice system will not stand by while illegal, poisonous substances are distributed in our communities, putting countless lives at risk. This sentence underscores our unwavering commitment to collaborating with law enforcement to dismantle drug trafficking operations and protect Alaskans.”

    “Drug traffickers like Mr. Klink, who persistently violate our drug laws, pose an especially grave threat,” said David F. Reames, Special Agent in Charge, DEA Seattle Field Division. “The sentence he received in this case will both safeguard our communities and hold him accountable for his crimes and I am proud of our team for their hard work achieving this result.”

    The Drug Enforcement Administration Seattle Field Division and Anchorage District Office, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Seattle Field Division and Anchorage Police Department, investigated the case.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Cody Tirpak prosecuted the case.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI: Synaptics Reports Inducement Grants Following Completion of Broadcom Agreement

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN JOSE, Calif., Feb. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Synaptics® Incorporated (Nasdaq: SYNA) today announced that on February 17, 2025, it will grant restricted stock unit (“RSU”) awards to new employees who joined Synaptics in connection with the previously announced asset purchase transaction between Synaptics and Broadcom Inc. which closed on January 30, 2025. Pursuant to that transaction, Synaptics also entered into a licensing agreement with Broadcom that includes Broadcom’s Wi-Fi® 8, ultra-wideband, Wi-Fi 7, advanced Bluetooth®, and next-generation GPS/GNSS products and technology for the IoT and Android™ ecosystem, further accelerating Synaptics’ Edge AI strategy.

    “We are excited to welcome our new team members to Synaptics and look forward to building a bright and successful future together,” said Venkat Kodavati, SVP Wireless Products Group.

    The RSU awards will be granted to these 104 newly hired non-executive employees under Synaptics’ 2025 Inducement Equity Plan (the “Plan”) in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). The aggregate number of RSUs awarded will be 1,006,506 and are being made as a substitution of Broadcom equity awards and are being granted as a material inducement to the employees’ acceptance of employment with Synaptics. The Plan and the RSU awards were approved by the compensation committee of the Company’s board of directors.

    Fifty percent of the RSUs will vest on the first anniversary of the grant date, and the remaining fifty percent will vest quarterly thereafter until fully vested on the second anniversary of the grant date, subject to the employees’ continued service with the Company through the relevant vesting dates. The RSU awards also are subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and the inducement award agreement covering the RSU awards.

    About Synaptics Incorporated
    Synaptics (Nasdaq: SYNA) is driving innovation in AI at the Edge, bringing AI closer to end users and transforming how we engage with intelligent connected devices, whether at home, at work, or on the move. As a go-to partner for forward-thinking product innovators, Synaptics powers the future with its cutting-edge Synaptics Astra™ AI-Native embedded compute, Veros™ wireless connectivity, and multimodal sensing solutions. We’re making the digital experience smarter, faster, more intuitive, secure, and seamless. From touch, display, and biometrics to AI-driven wireless connectivity, video, vision, audio, speech, and security processing, Synaptics is the force behind the next generation of technology enhancing how we live, work, and play. Follow Synaptics on LinkedIn, X, and Facebook, or visit www.synaptics.com

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
    This press release contains statements that are not historical facts but rather forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements include those that address activities, events or developments that the Company or its management believes or anticipates may occur in the future. All forward-looking statements are based upon our current expectations or various assumptions. Our expectations and assumptions are expressed in good faith, and we believe there is a reasonable basis for them. However, there can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will materialize or prove to be correct as forward-looking statements are inherently subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual future results, performance or achievements to differ materially from the future results, performance or achievements expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements. Numerous risks, uncertainties and other factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those set out in the forward-looking statements, including risks related to our ability to consummate and realize anticipated benefits from the transaction and our ability to grow sales and expand into the serviceable wireless market as expected, and other risks as identified in the “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business” sections of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and our most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q; and other risks as identified from time to time in our Securities and Exchange Commission reports. For any forward-looking statements contained in this or any other document, we claim ​the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and we assume no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements in light of new information or future events, except as required by law.

    Synaptics and the Synaptics logo are trademarks of Synaptics in the United States and/or other countries. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.

    For further information, please contact:

    Investor Relations
    Munjal Shah
    Synaptics
    +1-408-518-7639
    munjal.shah@synaptics.com

    Media Contact
    Patrick Mannion
    Synaptics
    +1-631-678-1015
    patrick.mannion@synaptics.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sen. Scott Introduces Trump Dept. of Education Nominee Linda McMahon at Confirmation Hearing

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Tim Scott
    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and Co-Chair of the Congressional School Choice Caucus, introduced Linda McMahon at her confirmation hearing before the HELP Committee. McMahon is President Donald J. Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of the Department of Education.

    “I can’t think of a more important civil rights issue today than public education and the education of our kids. I can’t think of a better person to take on that challenge than someone I had confidence [in] when she was the administrator of the SBA. I can’t think of someone better to take on this challenge than someone that took a regional company, WWE, and made it into the global powerhouse that it is today – the co-founder, the chief executive, Linda McMahon. I can’t think of someone better to do the job than someone, who served her own State Board of Education, who was a trustee at Sacred Heart University, and who led the policy initiatives at the America First Policy Institute. That would be Linda McMahon,” Senator Scott said in part.
    Watch Senator Scott’s full remarks here. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SCHUMER ANNOUNCES UNITED AIRLINES TO OFFER SECOND DAILY FLIGHT IN SUMMER FROM SYRACUSE TO DENVER

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
    Schumer Called United CEO Urging Airline To Offer Additional Denver Flight To Boost Syracuse Airport, Central NY’s Flourishing Tech Ecosystem, And Upstate NY’s One-Of-A-Kind Tourism & Recreation Industry
    United’s Syracuse-To-Denver Flight Is Fully Booked Almost Every Day And New Daily Flight For Peak Travel Season Will Improve Access To Key West Coast And International Markets
    Schumer: New Summer Flight To Denver Will Help Central NY Soar To New Heights!
    U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer today announced United Airlines will add a second daily flight between Syracuse Hancock International Airport and Denver International Airport during the summer. Schumer last year called United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby urging the airline to add a second daily flight for the route, which has been a Syracuse airport priority for years since their existing flight is fully booked almost every day. Schumer said this new flight will improve connectivity to key West Coast and international markets.
    “Syracuse, prepare for takeoff because a second daily flight to Denver is coming to Syracuse International Airport this summer! I called United Airlines CEO last year and told him how important it is to improve access between Central New York and the West Coast, and I’m thrilled he heeded my calls,” said Senator Schumer. “With Micron making historic investments in Onondaga County, this new daily flight is a critical step to connecting this region to the West Coast and other critical high-tech hubs. I look forward to continuing to work with United Airlines and the incredible team at Syracuse Airport to help Syracuse Airport and Central New York reach new heights.”
    “Increased connectivity to and through Denver is a great addition for all our travelers, but especially for our semiconductor industry travelers,” said SRAA Executive Director Jason Terreri. “The twice daily service provides convenient one-stop options into Boise, ID and the Bay Area. On behalf of us all at Syracuse Airport, I would like to thank Senator Schumer and the rest of our elected officials for championing this increased service for our region, helping to ensure Central New York is a leader in the chip manufacturing space for decades to come.”
    The new United flight to Denver will take flight this summer and is expected to start running from June 26th to August 17th. The additional daily service will feature an inbound flight departing Denver at approximately 9:40 AM MT and arriving in Syracuse just after 3 PM EST, as well as an outbound flight departing Syracuse at 4:15 PM EST and arriving in Denver just after 6 PM MT. The service will offer increased access to key destinations, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Calgary, Vancouver, and more.
    Schumer said adding a second daily flight from Syracuse to Denver during peak tourist season will increase access to tourism and vacation destinations across Central New York, unlocking new seats for travelers from markets on the West Coast and other international destinations. Schumer said the additional daily flight will also help accelerate the growth of Central New York’s advanced technology and manufacturing ecosystems. With Micron’s landmark $100+ billion investment in Onondaga County creating tens of thousands of good-paying jobs thanks to his CHIPS & Science Law, Schumer explained that a second daily Denver flight will help improve access to the company’s headquarters in Boise, as well as connectivity to critical markets on the West Coast and across the globe during peak summer travel season.
    Over the years, Schumer has tirelessly advocated for new growth and flights at Syracuse Airport. Last year, Schumer announced $9,575,869 in federal funding for taxiway rehabilitation and new signage through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which Schumer fought to boost in the 2024 FAA Reauthorization. In 2023, Schumer proudly championed and delivered $6 million for Syracuse Airport in the annual federal budget, including $3 million for security checkpoint upgrades critical for the airport to handle current peak traffic volume and projected demand increases spurred by Micron, and $3 million for a comprehensive de-icing project to help boost tourist travel, business demand, and on-time departures. In 2022, Schumer secured $2.5 million for a new operations command center, allowing the airport to centralize security and communications in a hardened facility to enhance the interaction and coordination between law enforcement officers, security, terminal, airfield maintenance, airfield operations, and more. That same year, following a personal meeting urging Breeze Airways CEO David Neelman to land at Syracuse Airport, Schumer proudly announced that Breeze had heeded his call and made Syracuse the home of the company’s first Upstate NY air service.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: UN rights office condemns continuing Israeli military operation in West Bank

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI

    Peace and Security

    The UN human rights office, OHCHR, on Friday condemned the intensifying Israeli military operation in the northern West Bank, warning that nearly 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced already amid an “alarming wave” of violence and destruction.

    Since the start of the offensive on 21 January, Israeli forces have killed at least 44 Palestinians, including five children and two women, in Jenin, Tulkarem and Tubas governorates, and four refugee camps in those areas, according to OHCHR.

    Many of those killed were unarmed and posed no imminent threat, said the UN rights office, calling the killings “part of an expanding pattern of Israel’s unlawful use of force in the West Bank where there are no active hostilities.”

    ‘Unprecedented’ displacement

    OHCHR also highlighted an unprecedented scale of mass displacement not seen in decades in the occupied West Bank.

    It cited reports from displaced residents of a pattern where they were led out of their homes by Israeli security forces and drones under the threat of violence.

    They are then forced out of their towns with snipers positioned on rooftops around them and houses in their neighbourhoods used as posts by Israeli security forces,” the office said.

    Testimonies collected by OHCHR describe Israeli forces threatening residents who were told they would never be allowed to return. One woman, who fled barefoot carrying her two young children, said she was denied permission to retrieve heart medication for her baby.

    In Jenin refugee camp, bulldozed roads were photographed with new street signs reportedly now written in Hebrew.

    “In this regard, we reiterate that any forcible transfer in or deportation of people from occupied territory is strictly prohibited and amounts to a crime under international law,” OHCHR stated.

    Legal obligations

    The office stressed that displaced Palestinians must be allowed to return to their homes and called for immediate, transparent investigations into the killings.

    “Military commanders and other superiors may be held responsible for the crimes committed by their subordinates if they fail to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish unlawful killings,” it stated.

    OHCHR also reiterated Israel’s obligations under international law, including ending its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible and evacuating all West Bank settlements immediately.

    “In the meantime, as the occupying power, Israel must ensure the protection of Palestinians, the provision of basic services and needs, and the respect of Palestinians’ full range of human rights,” the office said.

    © WFP

    WFP aid trucks cross into Gaza via the Zikim and Kerem Shalom border crossings.

    Humanitarian update

    Meanwhile in Gaza, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) reported on Friday it had reached more than 860,000 men, women and children with food parcels, hot meals, bread and cash assistance since the start of the fragile ceasefire.

    UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told journalists at a regular news briefing in New York that over 19,000 metric tonnes of WFP food have entered Gaza.

    The agency has also distributed nutrition packs to some 85,000 people, including children under five, and pregnant and breastfeeding women, and provided more than 90,000 people with cash assistance in the past two weeks.

    Efforts are also underway to establish more food distribution points, especially in North Gaza, to reduce travel distances, transport costs and protection risks for families,” Mr. Dujarric said.

    Fuel deliveries, schools reopening

    In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) distributed 100,000 litres of fuel to hospitals in Gaza City on Friday, having delivered about 5,000 litres of fuel to Al Awda Hospital, in North Gaza governorate the day before.

    In southern Gaza, education partners in Rafah are preparing for the reopening of at least a dozen schools as displaced families return to their home areas, Mr. Dujarric said.

    “As you know, schools across the Strip had been used as shelters for Palestinians displaced during 15 months of hostilities. In Khan Younis and Deir al Balah, partners are providing cleaning materials to restart learning activities,” he added.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Mexican citizen sentenced to 15 months in prison, following ICE, law enforcement partner investigation

    Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    SEATTLE – A criminal alien and transporter for a northern border human smuggling conspiracy was sentenced Feb. 10, in U.S. District Court in Seattle to 15 months in prison, announced U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations Seattle acting Special Agent in Charge Matthew Murphy and U.S. Attorney Tessa M. Gorman.

    Jesus Ortiz-Plata, 46, of Independence, Oregon was arrested May 23, 2024, in Everett, Washington, with aliens who had been smuggled into the United States from Canada.

    “This defendant played a key role in a dangerous and exploitative human smuggling operation that risked the lives of vulnerable individuals for financial gain. By using freight cars to smuggle people across the northern border, he demonstrated a callous disregard for human safety,” said ICE HSI Seattle acting SAC Murphy. “ICE HSI remains committed to dismantling these dangerous smuggling networks and holding individuals like Ortiz-Plata accountable for their role in facilitating these illegal activities.”

    “This defendant was a cog in a conspiracy that transported people into the U.S. from across the northern border in an extremely dangerous smuggling scheme loading people into freight cars on trains traveling from Canada into the U.S.,” said U.S. Attorney Gorman. “These transnational smuggling groups charge thousands of dollars and risk the lives of those trying to reach the U.S. We will continue to investigate these smuggling groups to hold members accountable.”

    Since late 2022, as Border Patrol and investigators encountered non-citizens who had illegally attempted to cross the border. As part of the investigation, agents frequently encountered a phone number that was later linked to Ortiz-Plata. After substantial investigation, Ortiz-Plata was identified, and law enforcement obtained court permission to track his location. After months of surveillance and monitoring, on May 23, 2024, Ortiz-Plata traveled from his home in Oregon and was surveilled by agents from Seattle to an apartment in Everett. Ortiz-Plata left the apartment with three men – all aliens who entered his vehicle. All four were taken into custody. Two had crossed the border in a freight train car and one claimed he had walked across the border and been picked up on the U.S. side.

    On Nov. 20, 2024, Ortiz-Plata pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport certain aliens for profit.

    In asking for the 15-month prison sentence, prosecutors noted that the defendant did not run the smuggling ring, but still played an important role in its success. “Ortiz-Plata admits that he knew the noncitizens he picked up were using freight trains to get into the United States; but nevertheless, he proceeded to participate. Even if he, himself, was not the one directing the noncitizens to jump on, Ortiz-Plata continued to facilitate, and thereby promote, this extremely dangerous smuggling route, multiple times, over the course of at least a year.”

    Ortiz-Plata will likely be removed from the United States following his prison term.

    The case was investigated by ICE HSI Border Security Enforcement Team, Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection’s Air and Marine Operations. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Celia Lee and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Collins.

    Members of the public can report crimes or suspicious activity by dialing the ICE Tip Line at 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.

    Learn more about ICE HSI’s mission to increase public safety in your community on X at @HSISeattle.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: First Japanese encephalitis case this summer

    Source: New South Wales Health – State Government

    Japanese encephalitis (JE) virus infection has been identified in a man who likely acquired his infection while camping in the Murrumbidgee region in NSW.
    NSW Health’s Executive Director of Health Protection Dr Jeremy McAnulty said this recent case, who is currently recovering in hospital, is likely to have acquired the infection in late December or early January while holidaying.
    “This case, along with recent detections in pigs and mosquitoes in NSW and detections in Victoria and Queensland, highlights the risk of JE virus infection in a large stretch of NSW west of the Great Dividing Range,” Dr McAnulty said.
    “It is very important for people who live in or travel to these areas to be aware of the elevated risk and to take precautions against mosquito bites. In addition to JE virus, Murray Valley Encephalitis, Kunjin, Ross River, and Barmah Forest viruses can also be spread by mosquito bites.
    “Importantly, there is a safe, effective and free vaccine to protect against JE which is available to anyone who lives or routinely works in various inland LGAs as well as for people who work in some other high-risk occupations.”
    JE vaccine is available through local General Practitioners, Aboriginal health services and pharmacists.
    People who meet the eligibility criteria should make an appointment with their GP, Aboriginal Medical Service or pharmacy and let the provider know it is for the JE vaccine. These providers may require a few days’ notice so they can order the vaccine.
    Actions to prevent mosquito bites include:

    Applying repellent to exposed skin. Use repellents that contain DEET, picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus. Check the label for reapplication times
    Re-applying repellent regularly, particularly after swimming. Be sure to apply sunscreen first and then apply repellent
    Wearing light, loose-fitting long-sleeve shirts, long pants and covered footwear. and socks
    Avoiding going outdoors during peak mosquito times, especially dawn and dusk
    Using insecticide sprays, vapour dispensing units and mosquito coils to repel mosquitoes (mosquito coils should only be used outdoors in well-ventilated areas)
    Covering windows and doors with insect screens and checking there are no gaps
    Removing items that may collect water such as old tyres and empty pots from around your home to reduce the places where mosquitoes can breed
    Using repellents that are safe for children. Most skin repellents are safe for use on children aged three months and older. Always check the label for instructions
    Protecting infants aged less than three months by using an infant carrier draped with mosquito netting, secured along the edges
    While camping, use a tent that has fly screens to prevent mosquitoes entering or sleep under a mosquito net

    Information on eligibility for a free JE vaccine is available on Japanese encephalitis ​vaccination.
    JE virus cannot be transmitted between humans, and it cannot be caught by eating pork or other pig products.
    For further information on JE virus and ways to protect yourself visit Mosquito borne diseases.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: School behaviour improving after mobile phone ban and vaping reforms

    Source: Australian Ministers for Education

    As students have returned back to school, new data shows student behaviour has improved after the Albanese Labor Government worked with states and territories to ban mobile phones in schools.

    It’s been one year since phones have been banned or restricted in all public schools, after Education Ministers agreed to put the ban in place from Term 1 2024 and schools are seeing the difference.

    A New South Wales survey shows 87 per cent of students are less distracted in the classroom and 81 per cent of students have seen improved learning, according to almost 1,000 principals.

    In South Australia, there has been a 63 per cent decline in critical incidents involving social media and 54 per cent fewer behavioural issues.

    The Albanese Government’s world-leading vaping reforms are also making a difference in our schools. It’s now been six months since new vaping laws banned the sale of them in corner stores and got rid of flavours like bubble gum and blueberry ice.

    Vaping rates have dropped by a third in 15 to 29-year-olds according to the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) when comparing 2024 to 2023. 

    And suspensions relating to vaping at South Australian schools have dropped by a staggering 50 per cent.

    The latest research from the Cancer Council’s Generation Vape study, also shows the number of young people aged 14 to 17 who vape is in decline.

    These positive school behaviour results come as the Government has also passed legislation last year that will deliver on its commitment to support parents and protect young people by setting a minimum age of 16 years for social media.

    The new laws will come into effect no later than 12 months from 10 December 2024, allowing the necessary time for social media platforms to develop and implement required systems.

    Setting 16 as the minimum age for accessing social media complements the work the Government is doing with states and territories to tackle bullying across the country.

    This work with states and territories is a national effort to deal with bullying in Australian schools and to provide children and parents confidence that no matter where their child goes to school, if they’re experiencing bullying, it will be managed in an appropriate way.

    The Albanese Labor Government is supporting parents, teachers and students in school and at home so every child has a happier, healthier start to life.

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Education Jason Clare:

    “Our ban on mobile phones and our ban on vapes are improving behaviour in classrooms. 

    “Teachers tell me these bans are making a world of difference. 

    “There are less distractions in the classroom and playgrounds are noisy again. Children are being children.

    “This is helping teachers and parents and supporting happier, healthier children.”

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Health Mark Butler:

    “As parents bring their kids back to school for the new school year, they can have confidence, as can teachers and young people themselves, that we have finally turn the corner on the scourge of vaping.

    “This data shows the Albanese Government’s vaping reforms are working to prevent a new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine.”

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland:

    “The Albanese Government is protecting young Australians from the harms that come with social media, and supporting mums, dads, and carers to keep their kids safe.

    “Keeping children safe is a collective responsibility, and we are stepping up to play our role.

    “We’ve listened to young people, parents and carers, experts and industry in developing these landmark laws to ensure they are centred on protecting young people – not isolating them.

    “We will continue to act in the interests of young people and vulnerable Australians.”

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: WA judge temporarily halts unconstitutional Trump order targeting gender affirming care for youth

    Source: Washington State News

    WA judge temporarily halts unconstitutional Trump order targeting gender affirming care for youth

    SEATTLE — A federal judge today granted Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order against a presidential order that would end federal funding to medical institutions providing gender-affirming care.

    President Trump’s executive order – which Attorney General Nick Brown called clearly illegal and unusually cruel – also directs unconstitutional criminal enforcement against medical professionals and patients involved in such care. The lawsuit seeks to block federal agencies from acting on this order.

    “Today’s order reaffirms that we live by the rule of law,” Brown said. “Young people’s ability to receive life-saving gender-affirming medical care remains in place. Providers won’t be criminalized for providing the best care for their patients, and this order removes any hurdles from medical professional giving young people the care they need. Washington state’s world-leading medical and research institutions can continue their work with the funding already allocated by Congress.”

    The state is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Minnesota and Oregon. Three individual doctors also joined as plaintiffs in the case, representing themselves as well as the minors for whom they care.

    The states argued the order violates the 5th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by singling out transgender individuals for mistreatment and discrimination. Additionally, Congress has already authorized research and education funding for medical institutions in Washington state, and the president cannot unilaterally overrule congressional intent. The president also cannot unilaterally regulate or criminalize medical practices in Washington state, which are protected by the 10th Amendment, states argue.

    In granting the states’ request for a TRO, Judge Lauren King said the president’s order “blatantly discriminated against trans youth.”

    Read more about the lawsuit here.

     -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the State of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Stein Announces $8 Million Investment in Vance County for Precision Manufacturer’s First North American Plant

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Stein Announces $8 Million Investment in Vance County for Precision Manufacturer’s First North American Plant

    Governor Stein Announces $8 Million Investment in Vance County for Precision Manufacturer’s First North American Plant
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    Today, Governor Josh Stein announced high-precision manufacturer Syntec Precision Technology Corporation will create 34 new jobs in Vance County. The company will invest $8 million to establish its first North American production and warehouse facility in the city of Henderson.

    “Syntec has made a great decision to make its North American home in our state,” said Governor Josh Stein. “Global manufacturers like Syntec need strong communities with a steady pipeline of talent and infrastructure to support their long-term growth strategies, and we’re proud that Vance County fits the bill.” 

    Syntec Precision Technology is a leader in engineering and producing precision machining parts for the hydraulic, life sciences, and transportation industries. The company provides research and development, manufacturing, assembly and testing services for its customers. Syntec’s expansion to the United States will support the development, production, and distribution of its high-quality parts for medical devices, diagnostic equipment, and orthopedic products as well as new equipment.

    “On behalf of my family and our team, I am thrilled to announce our plans to establish a manufacturing facility in North Carolina,” said Lei Wang and Bin Wang, Owners of Syntec Precision Technology Corporation. “We are deeply grateful to the State of North Carolina, Vance County, the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, and the NC Community College System, for their unwavering support and encouragement throughout this process. Your partnership has been instrumental in making our vision a reality, and we are excited to contribute to the growth and success of this vibrant community. We look forward to a strong and prosperous future together in North Carolina.

    “North Carolina has the largest manufacturing workforce in the southeastern United States,” said N.C. Commerce Secretary Lee Lilley. “Our ‘First in Talent’ workforce development system continues to provide a highly trained, dedicated workforce for dynamic manufacturers like Syntec.”

    While wages for technicians, inspectors, engineers, and other personnel vary by position, annual wages for new positions will average $46,985. The average wage in Vance County is $45,193. These new jobs could potentially create an annual payroll impact of more than $1.5 million.

    A performance-based grant of $100,000 from the One North Carolina Fund awarded to Syntec Precision will help the company locate to Vance County. The OneNC Fund provides financial assistance to local governments to help attract economic investment and to create jobs. Companies receive no money upfront and must meet job creation and capital investment targets to qualify for payment. All OneNC grants require a matching participation from local governments and any award is contingent upon that condition being met.

    “We welcome these new jobs to Vance County,” said N.C. Senator Lisa S. Barnes. “Syntec is a fantastic addition to our existing supply chain, and we look forward to partnering with the company as it builds its new home here in rural North Carolina.”

    In addition to the North Carolina Department of Commerce and the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, other key partners in this project include the North Carolina General Assembly, North Carolina Community College System, Vance-Granville Community College, Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments, Vance County, Henderson-Vance County Economic Development Commission, Duke Energy, and the City of Henderson. 

    Feb 14, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Joins Researchers & Medical Community in Opposing Major Cuts to Life-saving NIH Research

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    PROVIDENCE, RI – Earlier this week, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump Administration’s attempt to make abrupt, unlawful cuts to research funding at universities, medical schools, hospitals and other scientific institutions administered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  A court hearing on the matter is scheduled for February 21st. 

    Along with the uncertainty that comes with any major litigation process, so does widespread alarm about what a potential loss of federal grant dollars would mean for the organizations and communities that rely on NIH funding, including those in Rhode Island.  If Trump’s funding cuts take effect, the University of Rhode Island, Brown University, Care New England, and Brown University Health stand to lose as much as $34.3 million, according to the Boston Globe, as innovative health research would be halted, clinical trials put on hold, and an entire generation of medical researchers could lose their career opportunities overnight.

    NIH is the primary source of federal funding for medical research in the United States and has partnered with academic and medical researchers nationwide to conduct groundbreaking research that has led to scientific discoveries and advancements that have saved and transformed lives. 

    But now the Trump Administration is attempting to suddenly slash billions of dollars of federal funding annually for U.S. research institutions, including local universities, hospitals, and medical centers.  The move could hamper progress toward prevention and treatment of illnesses like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and Parkinson’s disease, and ultimately lead hospitals and universities to lay off staff and shut down laboratories.

    Today, U.S. Senator Jack Reed held a press conference at Butler Hospital to oppose these short-sighted cuts that could endanger life-saving research, good-paying jobs, and economic growth in Rhode Island and nationwide.

    “NIH is a key driver of America’s strategic advantage in science and technology, and every American who has ever set foot in a hospital has directly benefitted from NIH-supported research.   President Trump’s proposed cuts would halt research, delay promising medical advancements, and eliminate jobs at universities and hospitals,” said Senator Reed.  “NIH has a proven track record of funding scientific breakthroughs and life-saving treatments.  I am heartened that my colleague, Congressman Amo, is taking a lead role in the House to fight these cuts because Congress must work on a bipartisan basis to uphold the law and the law is clear and prohibits modifications to NIH’s indirect costs.  Instead of wasting taxpayers money on costly litigation, I urge the Trump Administration to uphold its contractual obligations that are already in place, drop its attempt to ignore Congress’ funding directives, and stop impeding scientific research and advancement.”

    Twenty-two states, including Rhode Island, sued the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and NIH for unlawfully cutting these funds.  This week, federal judges ordered the Trump Administration to hold off on making $4 billion in NIH cuts.

    The indirect costs that are being targeted by these funding cuts include things like utilities, support staff, cleaning costs, and financial management, as well as employing students, supplying equipment, and more. Universities and hospitals may also use this funding to ensure research facilities are compliant with federal rules and regulations, such as data security and privacy.  The amount the federal government covers is not arbitrary or unknown, rather it is based on a preestablished rate applied to select expenses. The indirect funds are provided to universities and other research institutions in addition to the research award as part of the overall federal-private partnership.

    Studies show that every dollar in NIH funding spurs almost $2.50 in economic activity.  NIH funding supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and generates an estimated $92.89 billion in economic activity.

    “Rhode Island has a thriving life sciences ecosystem, with a history of innovation in research and discovery fields like neuroscience, health and aging, immunology, RNA and cancer therapy. Scientific breakthroughs can only happen with the right infrastructure – top-notch researchers, supportive institutions and critical financial support,” said Dr. Mark A. Turco, President & CEO of the Rhode Island Life Science Hub. “Reducing indirect support has the potential to slow the advancement of groundbreaking scientific advances. The Rhode Island Life Science Hub remains committed to supporting the state’s institutions, partners and the wider scientific community to continue to advance innovation that drives economic growth and, most importantly, improves the well-being of people and patients.”

    “We are extremely grateful for Senator Reed’s leadership on this critical issue. The NIH cuts being proposed directly threaten Care New England and every hospitals’ ability to provide innovative research and ultimately advanced medical care. This change would jeopardize the health of the people of Rhode Island. In addition, we are deeply concerned about its negative impact on jobs and the economy.  For the sake of patients, healthcare staff, and our state’s economic well-being, we must all speak out as Senator Reed has,” said Michael Wagner, MD, President and CEO, Care New England Health System.

    “Care New England stands united with our healthcare and academic partners in opposing the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy change that would drastically reduce funding for indirect costs of research. This reduction is not just an abstract financial figure—it directly threatens the critical infrastructure that allows us to provide world-class care and conduct the innovative research that benefits our patients, our community, and the state of Rhode Island. This change will have a profound impact on Care New England’s research operations, as well as the broader healthcare ecosystem, and we are deeply concerned about its long-term consequences on jobs and the economy. We appreciate Senator Reed’s leadership in addressing this issue and urge swift action to reverse this policy for the sake of our patients, our staff, and our state’s economic well-being,” said William Grobman, MD, Chief Scientific Officer, Care New England.

    “Discoveries at America’s research universities, like the University of Rhode Island, are changing lives and saving lives,” said Kerry L. LaPlante, PharmD, dean of the University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy. “Researchers at URI are leading critical work around infectious diseases and neuroscience—like our groundbreaking research on microplastics and their impact on Alzheimer’s and dementia—as well as oncology, where we are identifying tumor development at its earliest stage. These discoveries are not possible without robust and sustained federal funding for the entire research ecosystem. Indirect costs are a critical piece of funding, and they are fundamental to advancing medical research and discovery and to the health and safety of researchers. Without these critical resources, the integrity, safety, and progress of scientific breakthroughs would be at risk. To stay competitive, Rhode Island must continue advocating for strong research funding—funding that fuels innovation, supports jobs, and sustains the research ecosystem and scientific discovery—and we are grateful to Senator Reed and our entire Rhode Island delegation for their leadership.”

    “At Brown University, in addition to halting critical research on a host of health challenges, from child mental health to Alzheimer’s disease to cancer, we estimate we’d have to cut roughly 200 jobs if the indirect cost rate is capped at 15 percent,” said Mukesh Jain, senior vice president for health affairs and dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University. “It’s also likely that we’d have to pause construction of the Danoff Labs in Providence’s Jewelry District, which will house research in aging, immunity, brain science, cancer and biomedical engineering, among other fields. These cuts have downstream effects on union construction jobs, building material purchases, and laboratory equipment. The ripple effects are felt through the local economy. We are thankful for Sen. Reed’s leadership on this issue.”

    During Trump’s first term in office, his Administration proposed deep NIH cuts but was rebuffed by Congress.  In the federal lawsuit filed this week, the plaintiffs contend that the past actions by Congress established funding practices that cannot be changed without Congressional approval. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Cosponsors Resolution Making it Clear the U.S. Should Not Send American Forces into Gaza

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC — As President Donald Trump continues to saber rattle about Gaza in order to distract from his failure to address domestic policies like making housing and rent more affordable, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) says Americans must make it clear they don’t want Trump sending U.S. troops to Gaza

    Senator Reed is cosponsoring S. Res 68, which rebuts President Donald Trump’s declared support for forcibly displacing millions of Palestinians and expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States shall not deploy U.S. military assets or personnel to Gaza for this purpose.  The resolution notes President Trump failed to rule out using U.S. military forces to take over Gaza.

    Today, Reed, the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated:

    “President Trump should focus on housing people here at home, not committing U.S. tax dollars toward displacing millions of Palestinians from their homeland.”

    “I strongly oppose President Trump’s reckless desire to take over Gaza and expel its citizens from their homeland into neighboring countries.  This is a misguided idea on many levels.  It would violate international law, alienate our allies, and pull U.S. forces into intractable conflict. 

    “President Trump’s rhetoric negatively impacts the U.S.  He needs to understand his irresponsible messages increase the likelihood of more violence and suffering.  Further, putting U.S. troops on the ground in Gaza would be a disastrous national security mistake.” 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Lamont Activates Connecticut’s Severe Cold Weather Protocol Effective Sunday Evening

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Ned Lamont today announced that due to a weather forecast indicating that Connecticut will experience a blast of arctic temperatures and breezy winds over the next several days, he is directing the state’s severe cold weather protocol to go into effect beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, February 16, 2025, and remaining in effect through 12:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 22, 2025.

    During this period, overnight temperatures are expected to drop into the single digits. Coupled with steady winds, it will feel like it is below zero during the overnights for much of next week.

    Anyone in need of shelter or a warming center is urged to call 2-1-1 or visit 211ct.org to find available locations. Transportation can be provided if necessary.

    “Following the snow and freezing rain that is expected to move into the state beginning Saturday afternoon and continuing into Sunday morning, it’s looking like abnormally cold air will settle into the region, causing it to feel brutally cold for much of the week,” Governor Lamont said. “With the kind of arctic air that is headed our way, frostbite can develop on exposed skin in under 30 minutes. Spending long periods of time outdoors in these conditions is not only harmful, but it can also be fatal. Shelters and warming centers are available across Connecticut, and transportation can be provided if needed.”

    The purpose of the state’s severe cold weather protocol is to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive protection from the severe cold, which could be life threatening if exposed to the elements for extended periods of time. While enacted, a system is set up for state agencies and municipalities to coordinate with United Way 2-1-1 and Connecticut’s network of shelters to make sure that anyone in need can receive shelter from the outdoors, including transportation to shelters.

    The following actions are implemented while the protocol is enacted:

    • The Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection’s Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security uses its WebEOC communications network, which is an internet-based system that enables local, regional, and state emergency management officials and first responders to share up-to-date information about a variety of situations and conditions. The system is used to monitor capacity at shelters across the state, enabling 2-1-1 to act as a clearinghouse to assist in finding shelter space for those who need it. Local officials, working through WebEOC, can alert 2-1-1 and the state when they open temporary shelters or warming centers.
    • The Connecticut Department of Social Services, Connecticut Department of Housing, and Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services coordinate with 2-1-1 and the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness, along with community-based providers, to provide transportation for people seeking shelter.

    For emergency management news and resources, visit the state’s CTPrepares website at ct.gov/ctprepares.

     

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Announces Arrests, Charges, and the Dismantling of a Sacramento-Area Brothel Operation

    Source: US State of California

    Friday, February 14, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the arrests and filing of felony charges against four individuals for allegedly operating two residential brothels in Sacramento County, laundering money, conspiracy, and tax evasion. During the operation, six survivors were offered resources and services. An extensive investigation was conducted by special agents from the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Human Trafficking and Sexual Predator Apprehension Team and White-Collar Investigation Team, with support from the newly formed Sacramento Regional Human Trafficking Task Force. Assistance was also provided by the Bureau of Gambling Control, the United States Department of State, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Sacramento County Code Enforcement, the California Franchise Tax Board, and the Employment Development Department through the TRUE Task Force.

    “Every single day, our dedicated prosecutors and special agents strive to protect the most vulnerable Californians from exploitation. This case is an example of the California Department of Justice’s continued dedication to dismantling these criminal networks and standing with survivors on their path to recovery and justice,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Through collaboration with our partners, we are able to leverage our collective resources across the state to keep our communities safe and hold people accountable for their crimes. I take immense pride in what we can achieve through collaboration, and I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners who played a crucial role in achieving this significant outcome.”

    “By working closely with our law enforcement partners, we have taken down a dangerous operation that exploited individuals to simply line their pockets,” said HSI San Francisco Special Agent in Charge Tatum King. “HSI is committed to holding those responsible accountable for their actions and dismantling criminal networks that prey on vulnerable populations.”

    The suspects ran two residential brothels from April 2022 until February 13, 2025, utilizing homes in residential areas. They recruited women to engage in commercial sex at these locations, promoted their prostitution services on various websites, and collected payments from clients who visited to buy sexual services.

    The case will be prosecuted by DOJ’s Special Prosecutions Section. Charges against the suspects include conspiracy, pimping, pandering, money laundering, tax evasion, mortgage fraud and criminal profiteering. Arraignment for the defendants is set for Tuesday, February 18 before the Sacramento County Superior Court.  

    It is important to note that criminal charges are only allegations against a person. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty.

    A copy of the complaint can be found here.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: NORTHCOM Commander Recommends Reopening Adak Base, Bolstering Homeland Missile Defense

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Alaska Dan Sullivan

    02.14.25

    WASHINGTON—In response to questions posed yesterday by U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), General Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), endorsed the idea of reopening the long-shuttered Adak Naval Air Station and increasing military infrastructure investments across Alaska. In his exchange with Gen. Guillot, Sen. Sullivan highlighted the escalating incursions by Russian and Chinese military aircraft and vessels in Alaska’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the past several years.

    Gen. Guillot also committed to working with Sen. Sullivan on implementing President Trump’s executive order, “Iron Dome for America,” and on Sens. Sullivan and Kevin Cramer’s (R-N.D.) IRON DOME Act, new legislation to strengthen and expand the U.S. homeland missile defense system.

    [embedded content]

    Below is a full transcript of Sen. Sullivan’s exchange in SASC.

    Sen. Dan Sullivan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. I want to echo what the chairman has been saying. We do need Canada to step up. When they don’t meet their 2 percent of GDP NATO commitments, it undermines the entire alliance. I appreciate that the chairman mentioned that. General, it was good to meet with you the other day. We had a meeting with senior Trump administration officials just a couple days ago—a number of senators who are focused on the border. They focused, like your testimony, a lot on the northern border, which I really appreciate. I have a chart here that depicts a lot of the air and sea incursions that we’ve seen in the last few years. It’s been quite remarkable, particularly the joint Chinese-Russian strategic bomber missions into our ADIZ and the joint Chinese-Russian naval task force—quite big—[an 11] ship naval task force [in 2023]. President Trump himself commented recently that we need to increase military investments in Alaska as Russia and China make more menacing moves in the region. That’s a list—that’s just an example of all the different incursions, air and sea, just in the last [few] years, which is quite astounding. General, I want to go into a little bit more detail. Your troops have done a great job of intercepting these strategic bombers. By the way, they come with armed MiGs, right? This is a serious incursion. Not easy to do. Our Navy’s done a good job—although, the first time we had that joint Russian-Chinese task force, we didn’t have any Navy response, nothing, which was ridiculous, in my view. One 150-foot Coast Guard cutter. But these are difficult missions, made more difficult—for example, when you’re intercepting strategic bombers, a lot of times our fighters are having to fly over a thousand miles just to get to the end of the ADIZ to intercept them. So, my question—Do you agree we need more infrastructure? You and I have talked about reopening the airfield and the Navy base at Adak, which is out here in the Aleutian Island chain, or Utqiagvik and Barrow, Alaska, to help with the SAR missions. Can you explain that in a little bit more detail? Admiral Paparo is in agreement with you on this. These incursions are going to increase. This is America, our northern border, and yet the infrastructure we have for the young men and women who are doing these dangerous intercept missions, both at sea and in the air, they need more infrastructure for their safety and for our rapid response. Do you agree with me that they do and would you support reopening the Adak naval base and the extension of the Barrow runway, which is way up there in the northern part of America, North America?

    Gen. Greg Guillot: Senator, I do agree with you. As you mentioned, Admiral Paparo and I are very closely linked and aligned on all issues in the Pacific. I would support Adak for sure for maritime and air access and, as you pointed out, Deadhorse or a point at the far north part of Alaska, because those missions aren’t only long—a thousand miles or more with five or six or seven air refuelings usually at night—but also the harsh conditions. If a pilot should have to eject, having those forward points that you mentioned would allow us to pre-position search and rescue aircraft or be able to land there in an emergency, which are capabilities that we just don’t have right now.

    DS: Great. Thank you on that. Again, I want to thank the men and women under your command. They do these intercept missions all the time. They’re very tough. They’re dangerous. They don’t make a lot of news down here in the Lower 48, but they’re doing a great job.

    Let me turn to missile defense. Senator Cramer and I recently introduced our IRON DOME Act that reinforces what President Trump’s executive order does. That’s a depiction of that, covering the whole United States with integrated missile defense systems to protect our homeland. I’d love to get co-sponsorships from all my colleagues. My 2017 Advancing America’s Missile Defense Act, which pretty much became law in the NDAA, had 30 co-sponsors—ten Democrats, 20 Republicans. Can I get your sense to—first, your commitment to work with me and Senator Cramer on that? Then, you mentioned the NGIs and the ground-based missile interceptors. Those are almost all based in Alaska. Why is it taking so long to fill those 20 silos that we just built out that are needed? Can I get your commitment to work with me, as part of this IRON DOME Act, to accelerate that?

    GG: Senator, you have my full commitment to work with you on the Iron Dome. The core mission of NORAD and NORTHCOM is to defend just as you described there. You also have my full commitment to work to move all defense industrial base capabilities to the left to bring these capabilities earlier as our adversaries are advancing their capability, and we must keep pace.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Bennington Man Convicted at Trial of Possessing Bomb

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Rutland, Vermont – The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont announced that yesterday, Tyler Hayes, 42, of Bennington, Vermont, was convicted of two charges stemming from his unlawful possession of a homemade bomb, following a jury trial in U.S. District Court in Rutland. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ordered that Hayes remain in jail pending sentencing, which has not been scheduled. Hayes has been held in custody since his arrest on January 19, 2024.

    According to court records and evidence presented at trial, a bomb was discovered in Hayes’s former Bennington residence days after he abandoned the property in February of 2023. The property manager contacted law enforcement, who defused the bomb. Witnesses at trial described how Hayes had been discussing and constructing bombs for months, and had offered to trade a bomb for fentanyl. Other witnesses described Hayes making admissions after the bomb was discovered, including that he was “on the run” after a bomb had been found at his residence. An explosives expert from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives testified that, although the homemade bomb was rudimentary and simplistic (constructed from a combination of a pipe bomb and flammable liquids stored in plastic water bottles), it was nonetheless capable of causing substantial destruction and injury had it been detonated.

    The jury convicted Hayes of possessing an unregistered destructive device, in violation of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), and of possessing a destructive device while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of the Gun Control Act (“GCA”). Hayes faces up to 10 years in prison on the NFA violation, and up to 15 years on the GCA violation. The actual sentence will be determined by the judge with reference to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory sentencing factors.

    “Yesterday’s guilty verdict in Rutland reflects not only the investigative skill of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives and Homeland Security Investigations, but also the work of an extraordinary team of prosecutors and support staff from this office,” stated Acting United States Attorney Michael P. Drescher. “The superb organization and presentation of evidence at trial demonstrated not only that Hayes was guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but also the extreme danger he presented to the community.” Drescher also thanked the Vermont State Police, whose Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit disabled the bomb, as well as the Bennington Police Department for their assistance in the case.

    The prosecutors are Assistant United States Attorneys Corinne Smith and Nicole Cate. Hayes is represented by James Valente, Esq., and Chandler Matson, Esq.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit Justice.gov/PSN.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: ‘I couldn’t stop crying for an hour’ – meet the 92-year-old campaigner who saved her brother from execution 

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Hideko Hakamada’s brother Iwao was sentenced to death for murder in Japan in 1968. She campaigned tirelessly for his release as he spent nearly five decades on death row, being described as the world’s longest-serving death row prisoner.  

    In September 2024, Hakamada was acquitted after a retrial – a court ruling that the evidence that incriminated him was fabricated. Here, 92-year-old Hideko celebrates her brother’s long-awaited freedom. 

    I thought my brother would not smile in prison. So I smiled every time I visited him, so that he would not forget to smile. When I smile, Iwao also smiles. That is what I tried to do. 

    Everyone knew he was on death row, so there was no point in hiding it. I kept a little distance from the world – I didn’t go to social gatherings. I think that’s how I was able to do so many things so hard for Iwao.  

    I was in my 40s, I had a job. I would come home from work at night, and when I was home alone at night, my eyes would open suddenly in the middle of the night. Then all I could think about was Iwao. I couldn’t go to sleep. I had to go to work in the morning, so I drank whiskey to sleep. I drank too much. I drank every day. Then I realized I wouldn’t be able to help Iwao if I was like that, so I stopped drinking altogether. 

    I was so focused on Iwao that I had no regard for anything else. I visited him a lot. I felt that I had to help my brother who was suffering. I was fighting for him because I thought it was only natural that he should be acquitted because he was innocent.  

    It is a crime for a human being to kill another human being, no matter what the government says. 

    In November 1980, when Iwao’s appeal was dismissed and the death penalty was confirmed, everyone was there, from the lawyers to the supporters and newspapers. At that very moment, everyone seemed to be my enemy. 

    Later, however, I was supported by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and that kind of feeling has eventually disappeared. I am also very much indebted to Amnesty International. We went on a “Speaking Tour” throughout Japan together. It was about appealing to everyone. There were people who had never heard of the Hakamada case. 

    Iwao was on death row, and we didn’t know what tomorrow would be. But I believe that appealing to these people made a difference. 

    I used to accept the death penalty without giving it much thought.  But after what happened with Iwao, I became against the death penalty. It is a crime for a human being to kill another human being, no matter what the government says. 

    Some people may say that there are people who seem to deserve death penalty, but criminals are still human beings. Some may be rehabilitated, and some may not be rehabilitated, but they are still human beings. I believe that we have to take care of human beings.  

    I think it is important for everyone to speak out against the death penalty, even if it may or may not work, rather than just saying nothing because no one will listen. Do not go silent. You must always express that you are against it. We need a world where the death penalty is no more. I believe that the death penalty will eventually be abolished. 

    We have been fighting for 58 years. We have received support not only from all over Japan, but also from overseas. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone for their support. It was not because of the hard work on my end that Iwao was saved. It was only possible because of this support. 

    When the judge said that the defendant is not guilty in court, the judge’s voice sounded divine. I was so moved and happy that I burst into tears. I couldn’t stop crying for about an hour. 

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hickenlooper, Lankford, Bennet, Curtis, Neguse, Maloy Reintroduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Bill to Waive Fees for Replacing Documents After Natural Disasters

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator John Hickenlooper – Colorado

    Survivors of natural disasters like the Marshall Fire often have to pay thousands of dollars to replace critical documents like passports or visas

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper, James Lankford, Michael Bennet, and John Curtis along with Representatives Joe Neguse and Celeste Maloy introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Replacing Essential Passports and Licenses After Certain Emergencies (REPLACE) Act, which would automatically waive replacement fees for survivors who lose critical documents like passports in natural disasters.

    “Costly replacement fees for critical documents – like passports and visas – are one more hurdle for disaster survivors trying to rebuild,” said Hickenlooper. “Waivers are already legal. They should be automatic.”

    “As families recover from major disasters, the last thing they should have to worry about is paying to replace passports and other critical documents lost in the damage,” said Bennet. “Our bill will ensure document replacement is free, taking one burden off of Coloradans’ shoulders as they move forward after disaster strikes.”

    “I’m pleased to reintroduce the Replace Act and address the urgent needs of disaster-impacted Americans by ensuring fee waivers for essential documents are automatically granted. When a wildfire destroys a home, the last thing that a family should worry about is paying fees to replace their documents like passports and birth certificates,” said Curtis. “This legislation is particularly crucial for rural Utahns, who will benefit from streamlined access to document replacements in times of need.”

    “In the aftermath of the Marshall Fire, our office worked to ensure those affected could quickly recover critical documents like passports and birth certificates. After a disaster, the cost of replacing lost documents can be overwhelming. Our bill, the REPLACE Act, helps ease this burden by waiving fees for those impacted—ensuring passports and immigration documents can be replaced at no additional cost,” said Neguse.

    “Utah families should not have to cover the costs to replace critical documents – like passports and visas – after wildfires and other natural disasters,” said Maloy. “The REPLACE Act removes a bureaucratic hurdle so that survivors can move forward with one less thing to worry about.”

    Victims of major disasters can spend tens of thousands of dollars replacing critical documents lost in natural disasters, including passports, employment authorizations, proof of citizenship, green cards, and more.

    Under current law, federal agencies may waive these fees, but this process is not automatic. Waivers are not guaranteed and are not always issued. Additionally, survivors may not know to wait for a fee waiver and often need documentation immediately.

    The REPLACE Act would amend the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 to require automatic waivers of certain critical document fees for individuals and households affected by major disasters.

    The REPLACE Act would automatically waive the cost of replacing:

    • Passports
    • Visa Forms
    • Permanent Residence Cards
    • Declaration of Intent forms
    • Naturalization/Citizenship Documents
    • Employment Authorizations
    • Biometric service fees                                                                    

    Full text of the bill is available HERE.  

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hubble Captures a Cosmic Cloudscape

    Source: NASA

    The universe is a dusty place, as this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image featuring swirling clouds of gas and dust near the Tarantula Nebula reveals. Located in the Large Magellanic Cloud about 160,000 light-years away in the constellations Dorado and Mensa, the Tarantula Nebula is the most productive star-forming region in the nearby universe, home to the most massive stars known.
    The nebula’s colorful gas clouds hold wispy tendrils and dark clumps of dust. This dust is different from ordinary household dust, which may include of bits of soil, skin cells, hair, and even plastic. Cosmic dust is often comprised of carbon or of molecules called silicates, which contain silicon and oxygen. The data in this image was part of an observing program that aims to characterize the properties of cosmic dust in the Large Magellanic Cloud and other nearby galaxies.
    Dust plays several important roles in the universe. Even though individual dust grains are incredibly tiny, far smaller than the width of a single human hair, dust grains in disks around young stars clump together to form larger grains and eventually planets. Dust also helps cool clouds of gas so that they can condense into new stars. Dust even plays a role in making new molecules in interstellar space, providing a venue for individual atoms to find each other and bond together in the vastness of space.

    Explore More

    Media Contact:
    Claire Andreoli (claire.andreoli@nasa.gov)NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Welch Urges OMB to Immediately Reverse Trump’s Chaotic Federal Funding Freeze That is Hurting Vermonters

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, this week urged the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to halt President Trump’s unilateral federal funding freeze, which is inflicting serious and lasting harm on Vermont farms, families, and businesses. In his letter, Senator Welch uplifted the concerns of Vermonters who attended a recent roundtable about how the funding freeze has impacted them. 
    The Trump Administration’s pause on federal funding, which was announced without warning or legal authority, has blocked Vermont state agencies and organizations from federal funding and has led to layoffs. The Administration has not restored access to payment portals for some organizations, defying court orders. On Tuesday, a senior Trump Administration FEMA official ignored a federal judge’s order to suspend the freeze for a wide array of grant programs. 
    “On Friday, January 31, 2025, I held a roundtable with Vermont stakeholders who shared their perspectives on the impact of the funding freeze. The stakeholders—non-profits, small businesses, and farmers that represent a range of sectors including health care, housing, education, and agriculture—shared how the freeze is already impacting their work,” wrote Senator Welch. 
    “The funding freeze is also hurting state agencies and local municipalities. Just last week, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources reported being unable to access several of its federal accounts—including those that fund clean water and land and water conservation,” continued Senator Welch. “Additionally, the town of Killington, Vermont, which was awarded a transformational $25 million infrastructure award to redevelop its downtown, has had its grant funding frozen. The town was told that the previously agreed to construction deadlines must remain in place, without any indication of whether construction costs will be reimbursed.” 
    Senator Welch concluded: “Federal funding comprises 36% of Vermont’s budget. The state relies on nongovernmental entities that receive federal funding to deliver critical services to Vermonters, from Meals on Wheels to housing for unhoused youth, to childcare for unserved rural families. The Administration’s funding freeze and ensuing chaos are already having concrete negative impacts on the people of Vermont. I urge you to immediately reverse the funding freeze order and turn the payment portals back on.” 
    Read the full text of the letter. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 13 February 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     491k  822k
    Thursday, 13 February 2025 – Strasbourg
    1. Opening of the sitting
      2. Proposal for a Union act
      3. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (debate)
      4. Threats to EU sovereignty through strategic dependencies in communication infrastructure (debate)
      5. Resumption of the sitting
      6. Voting time
        6.1. Recent dismissals and arrests of mayors in Türkiye (RC-B10-0100/2025, B10-0100/2025, B10-0103/2025, B10-0110/2025, B10-0115/2025, B10-0119/2025, B10-0121/2025, B10-0124/2025) (vote)
        6.2. Repression by the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (RC-B10-0126/2025, B10-0126/2025, B10-0128/2025, B10-0130/2025, B10-0131/2025, B10-0132/2025, B10-0134/2025, B10-0135/2025) (vote)
        6.3. Continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (RC-B10-0101/2025, B10-0101/2025, B10-0104/2025, B10-0111/2025, B10-0113/2025, B10-0117/2025, B10-0120/2025, B10-0122/2025, B10-0123/2025) (vote)
        6.4. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025, B10-0106/2025, B10-0107/2025, B10-0108/2025, B10-0112/2025, B10-0114/2025, B10-0116/2025, B10-0118/2025) (vote)
        6.5. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025, B10-0102/2025, B10-0105/2025, B10-0109/2025, B10-0125/2025, B10-0127/2025, B10-0129/2025, B10-0133/2025) (vote)
      7. Resumption of the sitting
      8. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
      9. Cross-border recognition of civil status documents of same-sex couples and their children within the territory of the EU (debate)
      10. Explanations of votes
        10.1. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025)
        10.2. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025)
      11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
      12. Dates of forthcoming sittings
      13. Closure of the sitting
      14. Adjournment of the session

       

    PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
    Vicepresidente

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è aperta alle 9:01)

     

    2. Proposal for a Union act

     

      President. – I would like to announce that, pursuant to Rule 47(2), the President has declared admissible a proposal for a Union act on the need to amend the Council Regulation on fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas for 2025, and to protect the trawling sector.

    The proposal is referred to the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) as the committee responsible, and to the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety for opinion.

     

    3. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (debate)


     

      Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, good morning to all honourable Members in this House. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement with you. As you know, this has been a busy plenary week and it has been my honour to address the House from this podium several times.

    On each occasion, it has been necessary to frame our dialogue in terms of the world that Europe finds itself in today: a world of increased global competition, a rise in unfair economic practices, and a more complex and uncertain geopolitical reality.

    In the face of this, the European Union’s network of free trade agreements – the world’s largest – is a vital asset in ensuring we can maintain our economic edge. I’ve heard the same messages from many of you, honourable Members, in a plenary debate on Tuesday, when a new trade era was discussed, as well as yesterday when we discussed the Commission work programme for this year.

    Free trade agreements open up markets around the world to our companies. They provide drivers for growth and innovation, and they are helping our industry retain and regain its competitiveness. And these agreements are mutually beneficial, with the EU being a trusted trading partner in a rules-based system. We only need to look to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada to see the real-world benefit.

    At a time when the old-world order in global trade is being shaken up, it is more important than ever to grow this free trade agreement network. This growth can contribute to our overarching efforts to de-risk via trade diversification and ensure our long-term industrial competitiveness. The EU-Mercosur partnership agreement is a vital element of this effort and a sign of our commitment to the Latin American region.

    The conclusion of negotiations strengthens our political and economic ties, giving EU companies a first-mover advantage in a region where trade with China is dominant. For instance, China is the main exporter to and importer from Brazil. The agreement will provide additional continuity, stability and predictability in our trade relations, and it highlights that regional blocs can commit to shared values and deliver concrete results for the mutual benefits of our citizens.

    Above all, the agreement is an economic win-win for the European Union. It offers export opportunities to the fifth biggest global economic bloc outside the European Union, with 273 million potential consumers. Our exports to Mercosur already amount to EUR 84 billion, with EU investment in the region of some EUR 340 billion.

    But with this agreement, we can now strengthen this trade and investment relationship even further. For example, this agreement would help us to save, and especially for EU exporters, over EUR 4 billion in customs duties every year – EUR 4 billion a year. It would eliminate tariffs on key commodities, like, if we take as an example cars, which are currently at the level of 35 %. If I’m talking about machinery, I’m talking about 20 %. If you look at chemicals, it’s 18 %. And if you look at pharmaceuticals, it’s 14 %. So, you see that these duties are very, very high and we are going to completely eliminate them.

    Mercosur countries can become one of our best sources of critical raw materials, thereby increasing our resilience by diversifying our supply chains. And I can assure you that the deal reached in Montevideo in December is not only a good deal, but it’s also a new deal – different and better than the one agreed in 2019.

    We have secured several negotiated outcomes that respond to our sustainability concerns while preserving the EU’s sensitivities. By including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as an essential element of the EU Mercosur Partnership agreement, this sends a strong message in support of multilateral cooperation on climate change and this allows for partial or total suspension if a party leaves the Paris Agreement or if it undermines it from within.

    The agreement also contains legally binding commitments to take measures to halt deforestation as of 2030. Importantly, the agreement provides a critical platform of cooperation with Mercosur countries on our common sustainability ambitions, with strong commitments on labour and the environment.

    In addition, we have reached a balanced outcome on agrifood trade, considerably improving market access for many EU agrifood products, while striking a cautious balance in sectors where our interests are more sensitive and negotiated clear and well-calibrated tariff quotas amounting to a very small percentage of EU consumption, for example, not more than 1.5 % of beef, as well as a gradual implementation to market opening over several years.

    The Commission will monitor market developments closely after the agreement is implemented, particularly with regard to the agricultural sector, to ensure that the partnership with Mercosur does not negatively affect the competitiveness of the European farmers. In case of an imbalance, we will impose safeguards to protect our sensitive sectors and to ensure that agricultural producers are fully protected. President von der Leyen has announced that at least EUR 1 billion will be available to address any unforeseen circumstances.

    As a last point on Mercosur, we know that EU consumers care about the quality and safety of their food and health and consumer protection was never and will never be up for negotiations. Already today, agricultural products imported from Mercosur countries and from any other third country, with or without trade agreements, must comply with the EU’s strict sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

    Honourable Members, I know how important openness and cooperation on trade issues is to this House. Indeed, it came up in our debate on trade and preparedness on Tuesday to which I was referring earlier on. So, I want to underline that I have already engaged on Mercosur with the INTA Committee and with the AGRI Committee, together with Commissioner Hansen, responsible for agriculture, as well as with different working groups. And I see this as an ongoing dialogue, and I want to assure you that we will continue to listen to your concerns and provide you with factual answers and ensure your views are taken into account moving forward.

    So, I will stop here, Madam President, and I look forward to our exchanges and the debate.

     
       

       

    VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY
    Vizepräsidentin

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to use the beginning of my speech to paint a picture of the EU reality on the global stage. Because five years ago, the UK left the European Union. A month later – COVID‑19 – the pandemic broke out in Europe. And three years ago, Russia launched a full‑scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. And at the same time, European energy prices reached record levels, and this also, of course, created inflation for European citizens. A month ago, Trump was inaugurated in the US administration. All this at the same time when China is systematically disregarding the multilateral trade order, and the BRICs is growing.

    Never before has the EU and its citizens and businesses been faced with so much uncertainty and unpredictability as now, most evidently seen last Monday, when Trump increased the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 25 %. I have stood at this podium more times than I can remember to talk about the importance of the Mercosur deal. If there would ever be a moment to conclude the deal that would create the biggest free trade zone in the world, it would be now.

    We need it now because it will provide opportunities for businesses and citizens. It will enhance our energy security. It will create a channel of diplomatic and economic relationships with one of the biggest players in the world, and it will demonstrate that the EU is a global, relevant player that stands for an open, rules‑based geopolitical order. Let’s do it. Let’s conclude. Let’s finalise the negotiation. It is beneficial for all.

     
       

     

      Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, colleagues, let me thank M Warborn for his short history lesson. Of course, we agree very much with the fact that geopolitics has changed dramatically in the last five-to-ten years and the EU-Mercosur agreement is, in that light, important.

    For the S&D, it is important also that, in the next coming months, we will fully scrutinise this deal up to the very detail. We need to make sure that this deal works not just for our economy, but for the environment and for the workers on both sides of the world. We hear the sincere concerns, Commissioner, from the unions, from the environmental NGOs and from the farmers.

    It is important, as you mentioned, that the Paris Agreement is now an essential element. But many questions, Commissioner, on deforestation, remain. And we need answers on these. Let it be clear: this Mercosur agreement cannot water down the EU Deforestation Regulation. So we need answers.

    The S&D will be a fair partner in this process, but we need answers to make sure that the impact of the agreement on climate, workers’ rights and European farmers is clear.

     
       

     

      Jean-Paul Garraud, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, il est encore temps de désamorcer la bombe agricole. Il est encore temps pour la Commission de renoncer à l’accord de libre-échange entre les pays du Mercosur et l’Union européenne, contre lequel nos agriculteurs protestent depuis des mois. Mais vous ne voulez pas renoncer, Monsieur le Commissaire, je viens de vous entendre.

    Cet accord est pourtant un contresens, un archaïsme et une faute. Un contresens, puisqu’il remet en cause notre autonomie alimentaire au moment où toutes les autres puissances cherchent à la garantir face aux désordres du monde. Un archaïsme, car il contrevient à la raison écologique et multiplie les échanges avec des produits du bout du monde, produits qui, par ailleurs, ne respectent même pas les normes environnementales qui sont les nôtres. Enfin, cet accord est une faute: à travers un obscur mécanisme de règlement des différends, vous offrez à des pays tiers, à des concurrents, la possibilité de remettre en cause les décisions des États membres, donc leur souveraineté et les libres choix des peuples.

    En promettant aux agriculteurs un fonds de compensation, vous reconnaissez d’ailleurs implicitement que cet accord va provoquer des ravages au sein de nos filières agricoles. Or, nos agriculteurs ne veulent pas qu’on subventionne leur déclin ou, pire, leur disparition. Ils veulent être protégés et promus. Ils veulent vivre dignement et librement de leur travail, de cette noble mission: nourrir l’Europe.

     
       

     

      Carlo Fidanza, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l’Unione europea ha colpevolmente lasciato il Sud America in balia della penetrazione cinese e di regimi, governi o movimenti che lo hanno spesso allontanato dall’Europa e dall’Occidente. L’accordo con il Mercosur ha quindi evidenti motivazioni geopolitiche e presenta anche altrettanto evidenti opportunità di crescita per alcuni comparti.

    Eppure, questo accordo ha generato una immediata reazione da parte degli agricoltori europei. E sapete perché? Perché nel recente passato è stata proprio l’agricoltura a pagare il prezzo più alto in molti accordi di libero scambio. Ma anche perché in questi anni le scelte ideologiche dell’Unione europea hanno colpito duramente la competitività degli agricoltori europei, con le follie green, con una burocrazia asfissiante, con una ripartizione non equilibrata della redditività lungo le filiere.

    È certamente vero che alcuni settori agroalimentari – penso a quello del vino o dei formaggi – potrebbero avere dei benefici dall’accordo. Ed è vero che il numero di denominazioni di origine formalmente protette è il più alto mai inserito in un accordo di libero scambio, sia pure con qualche evidente falla.

    Ma è altrettanto vero che la mancanza di reciprocità, la possibilità garantita ai produttori sudamericani di continuare ad utilizzare agrofarmaci da noi vietati da tempo, la mancanza di controlli affidabili in loco sugli standard sanitari e contro la contraffazione, così come nelle procedure doganali europee, in molti nostri porti europei, sulle importazioni, fanno pendere la bilancia verso una legittima e fondata preoccupazione da parte del mondo agricolo. E non basteranno a tranquillizzare i nostri produttori una clausola di salvaguardia di difficile attivazione o quel solo miliardo di euro previsto per le compensazioni, una goccia nel mare e addirittura meno di quel miliardo e ottocento milioni previsti dall’Unione europea per gli agricoltori del Mercosur.

    Oggi questo accordo si presenta ancora troppo sbilanciato e troppo penalizzante per la nostra agricoltura e noi, a queste condizioni, non possiamo sostenerlo.

     
       

     

      Svenja Hahn, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Liebe Kollegen! Ich finde es ehrlich gesagt unverantwortlich, wie faktenbefreit und populistisch einige in diesem Parlament Ängste schüren, Ängste vor Freihandel.

    Natürlich müssen wir Sorgen wie die von unseren Landwirten ernst nehmen. Deshalb gibt es auch in sensiblen Bereichen sehr niedrige Einfuhrquoten, wie zum Beispiel bei Rindfleisch, wo es anderthalb Prozent des gesamten EU-Konsums sind. Das ist ungefähr ein 200-Gramm-Steak pro Person. Das ist keine Marktverzerrung, und sollte es doch welche geben, plant die Kommission sogar Hilfszahlungen.

    Das eigentliche Problem ist doch die EU-gemachte Bürokratie – nicht der Handel –, die die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unserer Landwirte behindert. Protektionismus wird dieses Problem nicht lösen. Auch der Klimaschutz wird nicht geschwächt; er wird sogar gestärkt. Denn die Einhaltung des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens ist eine essentielle Grundlage dieses Abkommens.

    Deshalb: Gucken wir doch mal auf die Zahlen! Dann sehen wir, dass alleine in der EU 800 000 Jobs am Handel mit den Mercosur-Ländern hängen. Allein aus meinem Heimatland Deutschland exportieren über 12 000 Unternehmen in den Mercosur, und 70 % davon sind kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen. Wir haben gerade gehört von Kommissar Šefčovič: Alleine die reduzierten Zölle bedeuten Einsparungen von 4 Mrd. EUR bei unseren Unternehmen. Die echten Chancen erwachsen doch erst durch diese Marktöffnung, wie zum Beispiel der Zugang zu kritischen Rohstoffen. Das hilft unserer Wirtschaft, unseren Klimazielen und vor allen Dingen reduziert es unsere Abhängigkeit von Autokratien wie China.

    Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich: Ich bin nicht bereit, zuzusehen, wie die Autokraten dieser Welt Schulter an Schulter stehen – und wir in der Europäischen Union sollen nicht mal Handel mit anderen Demokratien hinbekommen? Ich bin nicht bereit, das zu akzeptieren, denn in Zeiten von drohenden Zollspiralen und Handelskriegen brauchen wir mehr Handel mit mehr Partnern, allen voran den Handel mit Mercosur. Wir brauchen keine Deglobalisierungs- und Degrowth-Fantasien. Wir brauchen das Mercosur-Abkommen für unsere Arbeitsplätze in der Europäischen Union, für Wirtschaftswachstum und vor allen Dingen auch für internationale Zusammenarbeit.

     
       

     

      Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, quand, en Europe comme dans les pays du Mercosur, les agriculteurs, le monde associatif, les associations de protection des consommateurs, les syndicats, les académiques, les citoyens s’opposent au traité commercial entre l’Union européenne et le Mercosur, ce sont des millions de personnes qui dénoncent ces impacts économiques, sociaux, environnementaux, climatiques, humains.

    C’est un accord qui date du siècle dernier, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce n’est pas un new deal. Ces millions de personnes pèsent peu face aux intérêts économiques de quelques industriels et des plus grosses exploitations agricoles pour – attention! – un bénéfice attendu de + 0,1 % du PIB. Peu glorieux, n’est-ce pas? Ah oui, il faut quand même aussi en déduire les millions du fonds de compensation agricole promis pour pallier les effets négatifs de cet accord sur le monde agricole, sans en régler les problèmes pour autant.

    Il faut aussi tenir compte des effets du mécanisme de rééquilibrage: rééquilibrage pour les États des pays du Mercosur qui va permettre au gouvernement, ou plutôt à l’agrobusiness, brésilien de contester nos lois si elles affectent leurs intérêts économiques et commerciaux. Exemples: mécanisme d’ajustement carbone aux frontières, lois anti-déforestation, contre le travail forcé, le devoir de vigilance de nos entreprises.

    Alors là, c’est la sidération totale, une atteinte insupportable à notre souveraineté stratégique et même à notre sécurité économique. Nous refusons de brader notre agriculture en la soumettant à une concurrence totalement déloyale. Nous refusons d’exporter nos produits chimiques et pesticides interdits en Europe, de brader davantage nos normes et de consommer des citrons verts au glyphosate, du bœuf aux hormones ou de la volaille à la grippe aviaire. D’encourager aussi la déforestation.

    Il est impossible de faire l’inventaire de tous les problèmes. Mais une chose est certaine, vous nous présentez un texte qui est pire qu’en 2019, quand le Parlement a dit qu’il lui était impossible de ratifier l’accord du Mercosur en l’état. C’est en défendant la démocratie, les valeurs, les normes sociales et environnementales qui protègent nos citoyens et assurent la prospérité de nos économies que l’Union européenne fera la différence.

    Chers amis du Mercosur, nous voulons des partenariats avec vous, mais des partenariats réellement équitables.

     
       

     

      Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, comment osez-vous venir défendre ici l’accord avec le Mercosur, le plus grand et le pire accord de libre-échange jamais signé par l’Union européenne? Comment osez-vous dire aux agriculteurs, qui peinent déjà à joindre les deux bouts, qu’importer des centaines de milliers de tonnes supplémentaires de bœuf, de poulet ou de fromage n’aura aucun impact sur eux? Comment osez-vous exposer délibérément la population à des OGM et des pesticides interdits en Europe? Car non, il n’y aura aucune réciprocité des normes. Comment est-il possible, à l’heure de l’urgence écologique, de soutenir un accord qui va contribuer à accélérer le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation?

    Oui, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous devriez avoir honte. Honte, parce que la réalité, c’est que personne ne veut de cet accord. Et vous vous retrouvez ici à devoir passer en force, en piétinant les règles de consultation du Parlement européen. Hier, le vote d’un de mes amendements l’a montré très clairement: les inquiétudes sur cet accord sont extrêmement vives et il n’y a pas de réelle majorité en sa faveur.

    Le dogme du libre-échange étouffe les peuples et dévaste la planète. Il est déjà en train de vaciller. La bataille n’est pas terminée. Comptez sur nous pour le faire tomber.

     
       

     

      Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-жо Председател, г-н Комисар, търговското споразумение между Европейския съюз и Меркосур предоставя възможности за европейската индустрия, както чухме и от Вас, но може да има катастрофални последици за селскостопанския сектор и европейските фермери не бива да плащат цената на това споразумение.

    Липсва прозрачност относно процеса по ратификация на споразумението, както и относно предпазните мерки, предвидени от Европейската комисия. Беше споменат фонд от един милиард евро, без да е ясно нито откъде ще дойде финансирането му, нито пък дали то би било достатъчно. Няма никаква яснота и дали този потенциален фонд ще се създаде предварително или едва при смущения на пазара. Компенсаторните мерки няма да защитят нашето земеделие. На тях често им липсват ясни дефиниции, не достигат до истински ощетените, а докато влязат в сила, щетите вече ще бъдат нанесени. Освен това доказването на, цитирам, „сериозна вреда“, нанесена на производителите поради споразумението, е сложен и бюрократичен процес. Нека не предадем европейските фермери и този път.

     
       

     

      Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el Acuerdo Unión Europea-Mercosur no es un tratado comercial más. Se trata de hablar de futuro. Nos jugamos nuestra capacidad de seguir siendo un actor relevante en el comercio global, de generar crecimiento y empleo y de abrir las puertas a un mercado de setecientos cincuenta millones de consumidores. Es indudable que tiene claros beneficios, entre otros, la eliminación de cuatro mil millones de euros en aranceles, el acceso a mercados estratégicos, la mayor presencia de nuestras industrias y pymes y la protección de más de trescientas indicaciones geográficas.

    Dicho esto, entiendo y comparto, comparto claramente, las preocupaciones del sector agrario. No podemos ignorarlas. Pero seamos claros: el problema de nuestro sector agrario no es el Mercosur, es la política agraria europea diseñada sin tener en cuenta la realidad del campo. Si nuestros productores se sienten amenazados por este Acuerdo es porque la política agraria no les ofrece las herramientas necesarias para competir y esto es lo que debe cambiar. Por eso, más que bloquear el Acuerdo, lo que debemos hacer es reformar nuestra política agraria para que no penalice a nuestros productores con normas asfixiantes, asegurar salvaguardas eficaces que protejan a los sectores vulnerables de manera rápida y efectiva y garantizar un fondo de compensación justo y ampliable que realmente funcione y que se adapte cuando sea necesario. No se trata de elegir entre comercio y agricultura, se trata de hacer las cosas bien y de analizar con datos actualizados dónde está el origen del problema y buscar soluciones al mismo.

    Negarnos a ratificar este Acuerdo no resolverá los problemas del sector agrario y mandará un mensaje de que Europa renuncia a ser líder y prefiere dejar que otros aprovechen nuestras oportunidades.

     
       

     

      Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar! Meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich finde es unredlich, wenn man sich hier mit einem Zeigefinger hinstellt und sagt, am europäischen Wesen soll die Welt genesen, ohne dass man vernünftige Abkommen mit anderen Partnern auf Augenhöhe schließt. Und das machen wir genau so, dass wir die gleichen Ziele zusammen mit den Regierungen von Uruguay, Paraguay, Brasilien und Argentinien umsetzen wollen, was den Klimaschutz, was den Schutz der Artenvielfalt und was den Schutz der Arbeitnehmerrechte anbetrifft.

    Das können wir nur gemeinsam machen und nicht mit einem erhobenen Zeigefinger nur hier aus Europa. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lassen Sie uns doch nicht so defensiv sein! Natürlich, wie Lenny Kravitz sagt: It Ain’t Over ‘Til It´s Over.

    Wir haben jetzt bis nächstes Jahr Zeit, zu gucken, wie die Entwicklung weitergeht. Wie wir es gemeinsam hinkriegen können, falls es Änderungswünsche, Ergänzungswünsche gibt, das umzusetzen. Wir haben das doch in anderen Handelsabkommen auch gemacht. Wir sind die Kraft, die letztendlich dafür sorgt, dass ein Abkommen ein gutes Abkommen wird.

    Und wir brauchen stabile Abkommen in einer globalen Welt, die von Konflikten gekennzeichnet ist. Ohne stabile Bedingungen in unserer wirtschaftlichen Situation, gerade wenn 40 % unseres BIP vom internationalen Handel abhängig sind, können wir nicht weiter existieren. Wir geben unsere Wohlfahrtssituation auf. Deswegen brauchen wir stabile Verhältnisse. Wir wollen uns nicht Autokraten dieser Welt anheimgeben. Deswegen lassen Sie uns Abkommen diskutieren, gegebenenfalls verbessern, aber gestalten!

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf mehrere Fragen nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       





     

      Raffaele Stancanelli (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è economicamente comprovato come il libero mercato porti sviluppo e benessere economico ed è per questo che, in linea di principio, noi siamo favorevoli allo stesso. Tuttavia, è fondamentale che gli accordi siano proficui per entrambe le parti. Questo non è il caso per il Mercosur.

    Gli agricoltori e gli allevatori stanno disperatamente cercando di farci capire la gravità dell’impatto che questo accordo potrebbe avere per le loro attività. I nostri agricoltori si troverebbero in una posizione di svantaggio economico e non potrebbero competere con i grandi latifondisti sudamericani. A questo squilibrio si aggiunga la grande contraddizione green della Commissione: da un lato impone norme sempre più rigide ai nostri agricoltori, dall’altro permette che il nostro mercato venga invaso da prodotti esteri che non rispettano gli stessi standard imposti in Europa, specie sotto il profilo fitosanitario e quello della sostenibilità ambientale e sociale.

    È un fatto ideologico dire che questo non è un accordo equo? No, noi pensiamo di no. Perché se è vero che gli accordi di libero scambio portano benefici, è altresì vero che il Mercosur, così come è strutturato, danneggia e svende i nostri agricoltori, produttori, allevatori e consumatori. Forse sarebbe il caso di non restare chiusi nei palazzi, ma ascoltare con umiltà chi lavora la terra e produce ricchezza.

     
       

     

      Rihards Kols (ECR). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, trade agreements aren’t just about tariffs and paperwork; they create real opportunities. For our SMEs this means access to a market of 260 million consumers. So far, all EU trade agreements have delivered benefits while maintaining high standards. It’s a fact. This deal does the same: lowering tariffs, cutting red tape and ensuring fair competition.

    Yes, concerns exist. That’s why the Commission has announced a EUR 1 billion fund to support affected farmers. But if we can fund compensation, we should also fund opportunity. A one-stop EU platform should be established for Mercosur markets that will help our businesses expand without excessive costs, because access should not be a privilege but a policy priority.

    Commissioner, you must ensure a structured engagement similar to the CFSP and CSDP. We should have a CTP conference during every presidency, where civil society and national parliamentarians can engage with the European Parliament and with the Commission. This is a chance to expand, compete and lead – and we should take it.

     
       

     

      Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, voitures allemandes contre agriculture française: certains voudraient réduire l’accord de commerce entre le Mercosur et l’Union européenne à ce clivage. À mes collègues, notamment allemands, je vous le dis, je ne me ferai pas complice de cette instrumentalisation.

    C’est une hérésie, une faiblesse politique abyssale que de nourrir un protectionnisme exacerbé qui ne fait que creuser des divisions et empêche toute évolution. Ce n’est pas un combat entre États européens que nous devons amplifier, mais notre crédibilité à construire des partenariats durables et équitables avec des États tiers avec qui nous dialoguons et commerçons déjà. Ce n’est pas une opposition entre secteurs qui est en débat, mais notre engagement à transformer des chaînes de valeur pour qu’elles soient durables, résilientes et sûres.

    Alors, au-delà des postures, de nombreuses questions demeurent, dont celle-ci: avons-nous, nous Européens, la capacité de contrôler les produits qui rentrent sur notre marché, accords de commerce ou non? Alors soyons à la hauteur de tous les enjeux. Ne laissons pas la souveraineté, la durabilité, la compétitivité devenir de vagues concepts déconnectés des réalités, de la vie de nos industries, de nos agricultures, de nos concitoyens.

     
       

     

      Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, no se pueden hacer trampas al solitario. No puede usted decir que es bueno para el sector agrícola europeo y, al mismo tiempo, decir que hay que aumentar las compensaciones al sector agrícola europeo. ¿En qué quedamos? Si es bueno, no se debe compensar. Si hay que aumentar las compensaciones, no puede ser bueno para el sector agrícola.

    Segunda cuestión: ustedes han conseguido en este Acuerdo con el Mercosur dos unanimidades que son absolutamente increíbles. La primera, unanimidad de todos los sectores agrícolas y sus representantes de Europa, pero también de los países del Mercosur. También han conseguido ustedes la unanimidad en contra de todos los sindicatos europeos y de los sindicatos del Mercosur.

    ¿A quién beneficia este Acuerdo con el Mercosur si tiene en contra a todos los sindicatos agrarios europeos y del Mercosur y a todos los sindicatos de trabajadores europeos y del Mercosur? ¿A quién beneficia? Clarísimamente, a los europeos y a las europeas no, porque nos hace más dependientes. ¿De quién? De las grandes multinacionales, que son a los únicos a los que va a beneficiar.

    Por eso, nosotros estamos en contra, de forma clara y contundente. Necesitamos más apuesta de verdad por los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, más inversión en Europa para hacer una Europa mucho más fuerte, más inversión en la agricultura europea y no más vulnerabilidad y dependencia de terceros y, especialmente, de las grandes multinacionales.

     
       

     

      Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Madam President, in order to properly debate the impact of this proposed agreement – proposed agreement; the title doesn’t say proposed, but we haven’t agreed to it yet – the proposed agreement on beef farmers in the EU, we need to compare like with like. In other words, you cannot compare carcass waste to processed premium beef waste. But that’s what your spin doctors are doing. The reality is that this deal will guarantee that at least 9 % of high-value cuts sold in the EU will come from Mercosur: 209 000 tonnes in a market of 2.3 million.

    I hear people talk of opportunities. If you’re a suckler farmer in the west of Ireland on a 30-hectare farm, where are the opportunities? If it’s a win-win, as you say, why then the need for a compensation package?

    And if there’s money, and EUR 1 billion for a compensation package, how come there’s no money to increase the farmers’ money that they get from the CAP, from what it was in 1991? Farmers in Ireland are facing a 60 % cut in CAP payments since that year.

    You’re talking about a EUR 1 billion compensation package for something that’s a win-win deal. There is no win-win – no win-win in science. You cannot destroy or create energy. It’s rubbish.

     
       

     

      Arno Bausemer (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Es ist ein großer Fehler, gegen die Bürger Europas Politik zu machen. Es ist ein noch größerer Fehler, Politik gegen diejenigen zu machen, die diese Bürger Europas ernähren, nämlich unsere Landwirte.

    Die hohe Qualität der Produkte, die unsere Landwirte produzieren, ist weltweit einmalig. Wenn man sich anschaut oder anhört, was hier teilweise gesagt wird, dann ist es eben falsch. Es ist kein Wettbewerb, wenn man andere Standards – viel niedrigere Standards, etwa in den Mercosur-Staaten – mit den Standards vergleicht, die wir hier in Sachen Qualität haben. Nun habe ich mich natürlich mit dem Thema beschäftigt. Ich selbst bin kleiner Landwirt im Nebenerwerb und war auch bei den Landwirten bei den Protesten im Oktober in Brüssel; im Dezember auch hier in Straßburg. Wo waren Sie? Wo war die Kommission?

    Sie schicken Polizisten heraus, weil Sie Angst vor den Landwirten haben. Sie sprechen nicht mit den Landwirten. Mein Kollege von der ESN hat gerade den deutschen Bauernpräsidenten zitiert, der ganz klar gesagt hat: Dieser Weg ist falsch! Wir können mit diesen Produkten nicht konkurrieren, weil sie eben viel schlechter sind und weil sie unseren Markt mit geringer Qualität schwemmen. Das ist der Holzweg.

    Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, es ist unsere Aufgabe, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die Landwirte ihre hohe Qualität auch in ihren Produkten an den Markt bringen. Nun gibt es Vertreter in diesem Hause – ich denke da besonders an die Grüne Partei –, die der Meinung sind, man könnte die Versorgung mit hochwertigen Proteinen, Vitaminen, Zink, Eisen damit herstellen, dass man den Bürgern getrocknete gelbe Mehlwürmer vorsetzt und nicht hochwertiges Fleisch. Das ist der Fehler. Ich rufe gerade die Kollegen – sind ja auch welche da – von der Europäischen Volkspartei dazu auf: Lassen Sie die Grünen bitte links liegen, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Lassen Sie diese Politik auf den Scheiterhaufen der Geschichte verschwinden. Machen Sie Politik für die Bürger Europas!

    Ich sage Ihnen noch eines zum Abschluss: Die AfD in Deutschland als Teil einer Regierung wird dieses Mercosur-Abkommen niemals unterstützen. Wenn Sie in der Kommission auf die Idee kommen sollten, das mit irgendwelchen rechtlichen Tricksereien zu umgehen – wir stehen an der Seite der Landwirte in der ersten Reihe bei den Protesten und werden dieses Abkommen verhindern.

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       





     

      Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ideálna dohoda neexistuje. Dohoda je kompromis a umenie možného a ja si myslím, že aj vy to tak rozprávate o farmároch. Neviem, kde ste boli, keď sme hovorili o slovenských a východoeurópskych farmároch a o zaplavení produktmi z Ukrajiny poľnohospodárskeho pôvodu. Ale myslím si, že v tomto prípade by sme mali byť pragmatickí. Farmárom pomôžeme znížením záťaže a nezmyselnej byrokracie, podporou spotreby domácich produktov a potravín, zvyšovaním platov, udržaním pracovných miest. A práve udržanie pracovných miest je podpora priemyslu a konkurencieschopnosti, ktorú ponúka práve dohoda Mercosur. A ja ju vidím ako príležitosť pre európsku ekonomiku, pretože sme orientovaní exportne. Príležitosť pre otvorenie ďalších trhov a presne, ako aj komisár Šefčovič hovoril, zníženie záťaže, čo sa týka ciel a daní alebo taríf na naše napríklad automobily, ktoré pre Slovensko sú veľmi dôležité, je určite príležitosťou a, myslím si, že pozitívom dohody Mercosur. Vyjednávalo sa to viac ako 20 rokov. Veľa sa o tom rozprávalo, snažili sa byť naozaj pragmatickí a vidieť, aká je príležitosť v tom všetkom, čo môžeme s touto dohodou dosiahnuť.

    A rada by som upozornila aj na to, čo pán komisár hovoril: my sa tu rozprávame o nejakej kvalite potravín a o tom, že nechceme dovážať a chceme naše fytosanitárne štandardy. Komisia nám jasne povedala, že naše fytosanitárne štandardy budú dodržiavané a že to súčasťou tejto dohody je. Tak tu neklamme našich voličov a občanov Európskej únie.

     
       

     

      Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, u trenutku kada se svjetska trgovina fragmentira, za Europu je strateški važno osigurati trgovinske partnere s kojima ima ugovorom uređene odnose. U takvim okolnostima sporazum s MERCOSUR dobiva novu geopolitičku težinu za naše odnose s Latinskom Amerikom. Iako nas povezuju povijest i kultura, bez ovog sporazuma Europa neće moći se nositi sa sve jačom konkurencijom globalnih igrača. Prisutnih u Latinskoj Americi. I ne samo prisutnih. Kina je već danas prvi trgovinski partner za veliki broj zemalja ove regije. Stoga nema dvojbe da je ovaj sporazum potreban, da, za europsku industriju, ali i općenito za europsku ekonomiju. No, isto tako je točno da postoji potreba za dijalogom s poljoprivrednicima. Za Hrvatsku poljoprivrednu komoru, tri su sektora osjetljiva. Govedarstvo, peradarstvo i šećerna industrija. I zato je važno komunicirati da su sporazumom dogovorene kvote za uvoz tih proizvoda od svega 1,2 % do 1,5 % ukupne potrošnje na europskom tržištu. I uz to, te male kvote uvodit će se postupno. Dakle, europsko tržište neće biti poplavljeno poljoprivrednim proizvodima iz Južne Amerike, ali, da, Komisija mora pripremiti paket kompenzacijskih mjera koji bi se mogao aktivirati u slučaju potrebe. Dakle, MERCOSUR nije prijetnja, ali jest prilika da Europa bude konkurentna na svjetskom tržištu.

     
       


     

      Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, ce traité de libre-échange entre l’Union européenne et l’Amérique du Sud est en réalité une menace pour notre agriculture, notre environnement et notre souveraineté économique. Cet accord met en concurrence directe nos agriculteurs avec des productions dont les normes environnementales et sanitaires sont bien moins strictes.

    Vous sacrifiez nos filières européennes, déjà en crise, pour vendre vos voitures allemandes. Le Mercosur favorise un modèle économique basé sur l’exportation intensive et la destruction des écosystèmes. Il affaiblit notre souveraineté en inondant nos marchés de produits à bas coûts, il détruit les filières locales et fragilise nos producteurs au profit des multinationales. L’accord avec le Mercosur n’est pas un progrès, c’est une régression économique et environnementale. Il est urgent de le refuser et de défendre une agriculture juste, durable et locale.

    Sachez qu’un agriculteur se suicide tous les deux jours en France. Je pense que, en signant cet accord, les commissaires, Mme von der Leyen et les députés qui le signeront seront le dernier clou qui fermeront leur cercueil.

    (L’oratrice refuse des questions carton bleu de Marie-Pierre Vedrenne et Manon Aubry.)

     
       

     

      Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Wszystko, co mówicie w sprawie umowy z Mercosurem, przypomina dokładnie sytuację z Nord Streamem. Wiele osób w tej Izbie mówiło wam, że pozbywanie się własnych strategicznych zasobów energetycznych na rzecz importu gazu z zewnątrz da krótkotrwałe zyski niewielu, a w dłuższej perspektywie skończy się tragedią.

    No i co? I dzisiaj mamy dokładnie to samo. Chcecie zniszczyć europejskie rolnictwo, żeby sprzedawać samochody, które przestały być konkurencyjne między innymi przez was, przez Zielony Ład. Problem tylko polega na tym, że rolnictwo to nie tylko żywność, miejsca pracy, ale przede wszystkim bezpieczeństwo. I przestańcie kłamać, że to nie ma żadnego wpływu na rolnictwo. Gdyby tak było, to nie przedstawialibyście żadnych pakietów rekompensacyjnych. Po co takie pakiety?

    Zakładacie, że żywność do Europy zawsze będzie można ściągnąć. Tak samo myśleliście z gazem. No i co, pytam. Chyba, że zakładacie, że Europejczycy zawsze sobie jakoś poradzą, bo dopuściliście do jedzenia robaki. Ale tak naprawdę to was trzeba wykopać, a nie rolników. Im trzeba dziękować, bo mamy najlepszą żywność na świecie, i nie pozwolimy wam tego zniszczyć.

    (Mówca zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card question. – You said that the agreement will destroy the farmers. That is absolutely not true. Look back and see the agreement, which was actually beneficial for the farmers, even though a lot of people said that it would destroy the farmers.

    The Commission has, on the other side, done a very good job. They have TRQs, they have safeguards, and they have a compensation package. How can you say that it will destroy farmers? We recognise that there are sensitive products, but that’s why the Commission has worked with us. This will help the farmers. It is beneficial for the wine sector, for cheese, for a lot of businesses.

     
       

     

      Patryk Jaki (ECR), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Jeżeli to jest tak, jak Pan mówi, że rolnicy na tym zyskają, to pytanie jest kluczowe, to dlaczego protestują? Pan myśli, że oni są głupkami, że nie wiedzą, co robią? Pan się lepiej zna na ich działalności niż oni sami? Ja uważam wprost przeciwnie. Poza tym, uważam, jest błąd logiczny w Pana pytaniu, bo skoro Pan twierdzi, że oni na tym zyskają, to po co pakiety rekompensacyjne? No po co? To szkoda pieniędzy. Lepiej przeznaczyć je na innowacje. Więc przykro mi.

    Dokładnie to samo na tej sali słyszałem w sprawie Nord Streamu. Jeszcze raz to powtórzę – twierdziliście, że nie będzie żadnego problemu. I co? Rolnictwo to jest nasze bezpieczeństwo.

     
       


     

      Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE), question «carton bleu». – Madame Karlsbro, merci. Vous dites que vous ne comprenez pas pourquoi certains et certaines s’opposent à l’accord avec le Mercosur que, très manifestement, vous soutenez.

    Or, signer cet accord avec le Mercosur, le mettre en œuvre, c’est dire aux agriculteurs, qui souffrent déjà, qui crèvent déjà, de la faible rémunération liée à la vente de leurs produits, que nous allons les soumettre à une concurrence plus dure encore sur les produits les plus rémunérateurs.

    Signer et ratifier cet accord avec le Mercosur, c’est dire aux parents qui voient déjà leurs enfants souffrir, voire mourir, de cancers liés à l’exposition aux produits toxiques que nous allons continuer, voire même aggraver, cette exposition.

    Signer et ratifier l’accord du Mercosur, c’est dire aux citoyennes et aux citoyens européens que Javier Milei, la tronçonneuse à la main, qui sort de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et terrorise ses citoyens, est un partenaire fiable pour l’Union européenne. Voilà pourquoi nous nous opposons à cet accord du Mercosur. Et je vous en prie…

    (La Présidente retire la parole à l’oratrice)

     
       



     

      Alexander Bernhuber (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielleicht möchte ich schon etwas Nachhilfe in Ackerbau und Viehzucht geben, was Landwirtschaft betrifft, weil Sie ja sagen, die Landwirtschaft profitiert. Die Landwirtschaft ist aber sehr vielseitig, und ein Bauer, der vielleicht gerade einen Stall gebaut hat, kann keinen Wein pflanzen und jetzt in Mercosur-Ländern Wein verkaufen.

    Also, man muss hier genau schauen, welche landwirtschaftlichen Sektoren durch dieses Handelsabkommen benachteiligt werden. Ich verstehe nicht, warum nicht einfach die Landwirtschaft von diesem Abkommen ausgenommen worden ist – wo man genau weiß, das ist der kritische Sektor, da gibt es die größten Bedenken.

     
       


     

      Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, has the Commissioner been listening to the family farmers on both sides of the Atlantic that urge us not to sign this trade agreement? Or have you been listening to the big land‑owning oligarchs that are teaming up with the agrochemical multinationals that run thousands of hectares‑big farms, spreading pesticides that are banned in Europe with aeroplanes?

    Have you been listening to the indigenous communities and Quilombo communities that came all the way to Brussels to report about their poisoned rivers, their poisoned wells, their burned‑down forests, the deforestation and the attacks on them. Have you been listening to the labour organisation that reports about child labour, about forced labour, but in very high numbers?

    Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with Mercosur. Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with democracies. But as it stands, this trade agreement, in my point of view, is not fit for purpose. We still need to work on that and need to improve it. As it stands, this trade deal is toxic for the planet and the people.

     
       


     

      Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la comunidad internacional se encuentra en una situación de fragmentación, creciente polarización, abundancia de conflictos y auge del proteccionismo. En este contexto es oportuno para la Unión Europea reforzar las relaciones políticas y económicas con los países del Mercosur, con los que tantos vínculos compartimos. Son aliados naturales nuestros.

    No disponemos todavía de la versión final de la parte del diálogo político y cooperación del Acuerdo, señor comisario, pero entiendo que establece mecanismos institucionales que permitirán reforzar nuestras relaciones políticas y abordar de forma más coordinada los retos comunes y los retos globales, desde la lucha contra el narcotráfico hasta el cambio climático.

    El Acuerdo con el Mercosur nos ayudará también a contener la importante presencia de China en la región. La dimensión económica y comercial del Acuerdo ofrece muchas oportunidades para las empresas europeas. En efecto, el Acuerdo supone el fin de la tradicional política proteccionista de economías tan grandes como la de Brasil y la de Argentina y facilitará así el acceso de los productos europeos y de nuestras compañías al Mercosur.

    Necesitamos un diálogo permanente con los sectores que temen verse perjudicados, particularmente ganaderos y muchos agricultores. Hay que explicar el alcance real del Acuerdo, las cuotas, las cláusulas de salvaguarda, las posibles medidas compensatorias, y avanzar también, internamente en la Unión, en reformas que reduzcan la burocracia y simplifiquen la legislación, y facilitar así la labor y asegurar la competitividad de unos sectores víctimas estos años de una auténtica sobrerregulación.

    Espero que la Brújula para la Competitividad, señor comisario, contribuya también a ello. Queda trabajo por hacer.

    (El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

     
       



     

      Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo con il Mercosur è un’intesa di grande rilevanza geopolitica e potrebbe ridefinire gli equilibri globali. Per l’Unione europea rappresenta un’opportunità strategica per rafforzare la propria presenza in America latina e contrastare l’influenza di altre superpotenze.

    Tuttavia, per decidere se possiamo votarlo, è essenziale valutarne l’impatto su lavoratori, imprese, agricoltura e ambiente, assicurando che siano rispettate regole chiare e condivise. L’inserimento dell’accordo di Parigi e del capitolo su commercio e sviluppo sostenibile sono passi positivi, ma permangono nodi irrisolti che vanno approfonditi: il meccanismo di riequilibrio, la risoluzione delle controversie, l’efficacia delle misure contro la deforestazione, ma anche la necessità di rafforzare il sistema doganale per garantire la sicurezza del mercato interno e dei consumatori.

    Come Socialisti e Democratici abbiamo avviato un dialogo con la Commissione, le parti sociali e le ONG per valutare ogni aspetto dell’accordo. Mi rivolgo in particolare alla Commissione: abbiamo un anno per dare risposte, come istituzioni, alle questioni sollevate dagli europei, per agire sulle criticità in modo convincente, con provvedimenti e azioni e poter quindi convincere anche questo Parlamento della bontà dell’accordo. Dobbiamo lavorare insieme e poi potremo decidere cosa fare.

     
       

     

      Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, apoiamos firmemente o comércio livre, reconhecendo os seus benefícios para o crescimento económico e a prosperidade das nações. Conhecemos bem a história dos anos 20 e 30 do século passado e não queremos repeti‑la. Acreditamos também que o Acordo da União Europeia‑Mercosul tem vantagens geopolíticas, como a contenção da influência crescente da China na América do Sul e o fortalecimento do eixo Atlântico da Europa. Mas, como sempre, definiremos as nossas posições em função dos nossos interesses nacionais, especialmente os dos nossos agricultores, pescadores, industriais e pequenos e médios comerciantes, que constituem a espinha dorsal da nossa economia. Estamos em contacto constante com os empresários e trabalhadores dos setores abrangidos pelo Acordo, pois ninguém conhece melhor a realidade do que eles. As suas preocupações são legítimas, especialmente face à concorrência de produtos de países terceiros que não cumprem os mesmos padrões de qualidade e segurança que exigimos aos nossos produtores. Temos a obrigação de garantir uma concorrência leal e justa, e de assegurar que os nossos setores produtivos são devidamente salvaguardados. Assim o faremos.

     
       

     

      Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, ik verwelkom het akkoord met Mercosur met open armen, want het is niet alleen het grootste handelsakkoord dat de EU ooit gesloten heeft, maar is ook belangrijk om drie redenen.

    Op een moment dat de Amerikaanse president Trump tarieven oplegt aan ons staal en ons aluminium, is het de hoogste tijd om nieuwe markten aan te boren en bovendien dat terrein niet alleen over te laten aan China. Ten tweede bevestigt het ons geloof in vrije, op regels gebaseerde handel en geeft het zuurstof aan onze bedrijven. Ten slotte biedt het akkoord wel degelijk kansen op een verbetering van de arbeidsomstandigheden en wat betreft de strijd tegen de klimaatverandering.

    Maar ik begrijp ook de bezorgdheid van onze landbouwers wanneer het gaat over mogelijke toenemende concurrentie. Voor ons is het dan ook helder dat er daarvoor afspraken moeten zijn, dat er een voortdurende monitoring moet zijn, dat de Europese veiligheids- en gezondheidsnormen ook voor hun producten van tel moeten zijn en, finaal, dat er een steunpakket kan zijn indien dat nodig is. Op die manier geloven wij in dit akkoord met Mercosur.

     
       

     

      Benoit Cassart (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, à plusieurs reprises, nous avons tiré la sonnette d’alarme sur l’impact de l’accord avec le Mercosur à propos de la déforestation, de la perte de biodiversité et du risque sanitaire. Regardons maintenant l’impact de cet accord sur notre autonomie stratégique.

    Le rapport Draghi a souligné l’efficacité de la Chine et des États-Unis par rapport à l’Europe. Pourtant, ces deux puissances ont toutes les deux décidé de protéger leurs marchés et leurs agriculteurs pour favoriser leur autonomie alimentaire. Pour rappel, la population mondiale a augmenté de 82 millions de bouches à nourrir en 2024. Être en mesure de produire son alimentation est un pilier fondamental de l’autonomie stratégique. Or, seulement 6 % des agriculteurs ont moins de 35 ans dans l’Union européenne.

    Monsieur le Commissaire, est-il vraiment raisonnable d’ouvrir les portes aux produits moins durables d’Amérique du Sud, alors que rien ne motive déjà les jeunes Européens à reprendre nos fermes?

    Cet accord n’a rien à voir avec le CETA, qui était un bon accord.

     
       



     

      Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem Mercosur-Abkommen plant die EU zum ersten Mal ein Handelsabkommen mit einem Partner, dessen primäres Interesse natürlich der Export von Agrargütern ist.

    Nicht, dass wir dort heute nicht einkaufen würden: Aus Brasilien kaufen wir im Jahr um 17 Mrd. EUR Lebensmittel, aus Argentinien um 5 Mrd. EUR – es sind also bereits wichtige Handelspartner. Aber, und das wurde heute auch gesagt, das Abkommen könnte natürlich einige Sektoren der Landwirtschaft treffen: Rindfleisch, Geflügelfleisch, Zucker, Bioethanol, Reis oder Zitrusfrüchte, um nur einige zu nennen.

    Natürlich gibt es auch Chancen für andere Bereiche in der Landwirtschaft, das steht außer Zweifel. Und natürlich gibt es ein geopolitisches Interesse an diesem Abkommen, das unterstütze ich ausdrücklich. Die Europäische Union verliert derzeit schnell – und in den letzten Stunden noch schneller – Partner und Freunde in der gesamten Welt, und unsere fehlende Entscheidungsfreude – und 25 Jahre Abkommen und Reden über Mercosur sind vielleicht ein Symbol dafür – zeigt, dass wir es uns nicht erlauben können, Partnern, möglichen Partnern die Tür vor der Nase zuzuschlagen.

    Aber wir brauchen eine Strategie für die Landwirtschaft, und die Strategie kann nicht nur einfach das Versprechen auf 1 Mrd. EUR sein. Wir brauchen ein Konzept, Sicherheiten für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, Maßnahmen, um neue Märkte in der Welt zu erschließen. Und dann brauchen wir eine Finanzierung für dieses Konzept. Aber zuerst brauchen wir ein Konzept, und dann brauchen wir das notwendige Geld dazu.

    Ich bitte Sie, Herr Kommissar, sich zügig auf den Weg zu machen, um ein solches Konzept vorzulegen und die Bedenken, die es in der Landwirtschaft gibt, aus dem Weg zu räumen.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, este acordo é bom para a União Europeia sob o ponto de vista político, sob o ponto de vista económico e sob o ponto de vista comercial. A União Europeia tem todo o interesse em reforçar as suas ligações com os países do Mercosul. Nós temos profundas afinidades históricas, culturais e políticas com essa região. Estamos a falar de um conjunto de democracias. Devemos aprofundar essas relações e nada melhor do que avançar com o tratado. Num tempo em que regressa em força o protecionismo e o mercantilismo, nós temos de manifestar sinais de abertura, um acordo de livre comércio e um acordo que visa regular de forma adequada as relações com outra região do mundo. Nós não queremos uma Europa fechada sobre si própria. Nós queremos uma Europa aberta. A Europa precisa de se relacionar com outras regiões do mundo. Precisamos de obter matérias‑primas que nós não temos no nosso continente. Precisamos de estabelecer relações comerciais que vão dinamizar as nossas economias e, por isso mesmo, é fundamental garantir finalmente a concretização deste acordo.

    Mas há uma coisa que aqui quero dizer. É legítimo, naturalmente, estar contra este acordo, mas o que eu tenho verificado, infelizmente, acho que em alguma esquerda e muita direita, é que há um verdadeiro discurso trumpista contra este acordo, porque é um discurso assente na falsificação da realidade e um discurso assente na tentativa de produzir o medo junto das populações. Façamos um debate sério, um debate na base dos factos, um debate na base daquilo que efetivamente está no acordo e não naquilo que alguns querem fazer crer que está no acordo, mas efetivamente não está lá. Este acordo é um acordo que deve, pode e deve ser discutido. Nós estamos aqui a iniciar essa discussão democrática. Somos um espaço aberto e democrático, mas temos a obrigação de o fazer com rigor.

    (O orador aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Francisco Assis, se este acordo é assim tão bom, porque é que a Comissão está a querer impedir os Estados‑Membros de fazerem o seu escrutínio nacional? Porque é que a Comissão está a querer dividir o acordo em dois, para impedir o escrutínio nacional pelos Estados-Membros que eventualmente possam impedir a entrada em vigor deste acordo? Não acha que isto é a confirmação dos prejuízos que podem resultar deste acordo em termos ambientais, em termos económicos, em termos sociais? As preocupações que têm sido colocadas pelos agricultores, relativamente à destruição da sua atividade económica por uma competição desleal, com produções a custos mais baixos, mas com riscos para os consumidores, são preocupações objetivas, Senhor Deputado. Não as ignore.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado João Oliveira, não desvalorize a importância democrática deste Parlamento Europeu. O acordo vai ser discutido e vai ser votado aqui no Parlamento Europeu; e este Parlamento é a expressão também da vontade dos vários países, dos vários povos, dos vários Estados europeus. O acordo é, do meu ponto de vista, um acordo bom, é um acordo que protege, no essencial, os interesses europeus. Haverá alguns setores que podem perder. Em todos os acordos há sempre esse risco. Então aí temos de encontrar mecanismos, cláusulas de salvaguarda, fundos de apoio e é isso que está previsto. Portanto, esse discurso, que é um discurso que visa criar medo na sociedade europeia, junto de determinados setores da sociedade europeia, é um discurso que não serve os interesses daqueles que supostamente os senhores estão a representar e a defender.

     
       


     

      Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Muito obrigado pela pergunta. O acordo, no essencial, como já tive oportunidade de dizer, é um acordo que garante e protege os vários setores económicos europeus. Nomeadamente no campo da agricultura, nós temos de fazer esse debate. Vamos ver quem ganha e, eventualmente, quem perde. Se houver alguns setores agrícolas europeus que venham a perder, evidentemente que nós temos, a nível europeu, de encontrar mecanismos de compensação, e é isso que temos feito ao longo dos anos. Se há um setor na União Europeia que tem beneficiado bastante dos apoios europeus é precisamente o setor da agricultura. É provavelmente o setor económico que mais tem beneficiado do apoio ao longo dos anos, ao longo das várias décadas de existência da União Europeia. Agora, o que também não é aceitável é o discurso que se faz em relação ao estado da agricultura naqueles países. Eu conheço esses países todos, visitei‑os várias vezes. Nesses países não vigora a lei da selva. São democracias, são democracias com Estados de direito e são democracias cada vez mais preocupadas em acompanhar as grandes agendas nas questões do combate às alterações climáticas, à desflorestação, etc. Também não façamos tão mau juízo dos países …

    (a Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

     
       

     

      Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, vamos a decirles la verdad a los europeos. Ustedes no quieren agricultura, ustedes no quieren ganadería, ustedes no quieren pesca. Por eso, primero asfixian al sector primario con su tiranía verde y ahora vienen a rematarles con este Acuerdo con el Mercosur, un pacto que inundará Europa con carne hormonada, soja transgénica y otros productos que no estarán sometidos a ninguno de los estándares sanitarios y medioambientales que exigen a nuestros productores europeos.

    ¿Y cómo compite, señor comisario, un ganadero europeo que soporta el 15 % de costes regulatorios frente a una carne hormonada de Brasil que no cumple con ninguno de estos requisitos? Pues no compite, señor comisario, se arruina, y eso es precisamente lo que ustedes quieren. España ha perdido más de 70 000 explotaciones agrarias en la última década. Europa, más de cinco millones. Veo que no les parece suficiente. ¿Y saben qué es lo más indignante? Que vengan aquí a hablarnos de sostenibilidad, mientras destruyen el medio rural de los europeos; que nos hablen de competitividad, mientras condenan a nuestro sector primario a la ruina.

    Este Acuerdo es un chollo para las grandes multinacionales y una sentencia de muerte para la producción familiar, para el medio ambiente y, sobre todo, para la seguridad alimentaria de los europeos. Mientras el Partido Popular y el Partido Socialista lo aplauden, nosotros decimos alto y claro que no vamos a ser el vertedero agrícola de sus intereses globalistas.

    (La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

     
       



     

      Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, já rozumím obavám zemědělců ze snížení cel, které přinese obchodní dohoda s Mercosurem, a proto s nimi musíme intenzivně jednat a hledat pro ně přijatelná řešení.

    Jsem ale hluboce přesvědčena, že volný obchod přináší zdravou konkurenci, snižuje ceny pro spotřebitele, vede k inovacím a investicím. Evropským firmám i zemědělcům nabízí dohoda nová stabilní odbytiště, přístup ke strategickým surovinám i levnější dovoz komodit, které neumíme sami vypěstovat. Dohoda navíc obsahuje evropské standardy pro bezpečnost potravin i kontrolní mechanismy. Dohoda s Mercosurem je také šancí pro evropské firmy v době, kdy hrozí obchodní válka s USA, kdy Putin svou agresí zablokoval obchod s Ruskem a Čína je bezpečnostně problematickým partnerem. Proto má dohoda mou podporu.

     
       

     

      Barry Cowen (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we face a new global reality today, with countries retreating from trade and turning to protectionism. Amidst this shift, it’s natural for the EU to seek new trading partners. In doing so, however, we must continue to uphold our principles by ensuring a level playing field.

    As it stands, the Mercosur deal lacks key guarantees and imposes demands on Europe’s farmers not matched by Mercosur nations. On the whole, for example, Ireland’s agricultural industry has three strategic goals, all with EU competences: extending the nitrates derogation, an increased CAP budget and stopping a Mercosur deal that farmers believe threatens beef exports.

    If the Commission were to provide meaningful assurances around the Mercosur deal and firm commitments on the derogations in the next CAP, I believe farmers’ views could shift. Our country, for example, presently enjoys an EUR 800 million trade surplus with Mercosur nations.

    This deal has the potential to bring about further opportunities, but good politics is ultimately about compromise. Good politics! And the question now is whether the Commission will prove its political astuteness by strengthening the deal and providing strategic assurances on the CAP and the derogation – or not!

     
       




     

      Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, tarifas é o assunto do momento. Fiat, Volkswagen, Renault estão entre as dez marcas mais vendidas no Mercosul. Pagam taxas de 35 %, tanto quanto a nossa indústria da moda, e os nossos vinhos, mundialmente reconhecidos, 27 %. Reduzir ou eliminar tarifas não será uma boa notícia. As terras raras que estes países têm e que nós precisamos para a transição energética? Devem ter reparado que o sistema elétrico do Báltico foi integrado na rede europeia há três dias. O investimento na nossa indústria de defesa? Queremos lançar satélites de baixa órbita, queremos usar caças Eurofighter ou Super Rafale em vez dos F-35 americanos? Queremos que o sistema de defesa SAMP/T Mamba seja uma alternativa ao Patriot? Pois é, mas o Brasil processa 89 % do nióbio a nível mundial e a Argentina, 11 % do lítio. Será que podemos mesmo deitar fora um acordo com o Mercosul? Não, não podemos.

    (A oradora aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE), domanda “cartellino blu”. – Onorevole Pereira, Lei ha citato delle case automobilistiche europee che, grazie a questo trattato, potrebbero finalmente vendere le loro auto in Sudamerica. Ma a Lei sfugge che oggi, grazie alle miopi politiche europee, queste aziende non vendono più un’auto in Europa. Stellantis nel 2024 ha registrato il -36 % di vendite di auto in Europa; 300 000 auto vendute: numeri da anni ’50. E questo perché, se nel 2025 non vengono eliminate le sanzioni, queste case automobilistiche, per rispettare i target, sa che cosa stanno già facendo? Stanno diminuendo la produzione di auto tradizionali. L’alternativa è acquistare certificati verdi da case che producono auto fuori dall’Europa. Quindi forse questi dazi anziché metterli, anzi…

    (La Presidente toglie la parola all’oratrice)

     
       



     

      Lídia Pereira (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhora Deputada, agradeço a pergunta, apesar de ter vindo mesmo à última hora. Como deve saber, ou pelo menos eu espero que saiba, porque de facto há muita desinformação que vem da sua bancada, há quotas previstas para a importação de produtos agrícolas, há mecanismos de controlo sanitário. E, contas feitas, a quantidade de carne a importar corresponde a cerca de um bife de vaca e a um peito de frango por cada europeu. Portanto, eu não estaria tão preocupada, porque já falámos e já ouvimos o Senhor Comissário relativamente às garantias e às salvaguardas que estão previstas no acordo para o setor agrícola. Temos de perceber que estamos a falar de geopolítica, e estarmos completamente cerrados nas nossas fronteiras vai ter consequências para o crescimento económico da União Europeia.

     
       



     

      Eric Sargiacomo (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, beaucoup de choses ont été dites. Je vais me concentrer sur les conditions de la réciprocité et, question centrale, d’un juste échange, tant pour un aspect de concurrence déloyale que sur le plan de la santé publique, de la sauvegarde environnementale ou encore des droits sociaux.

    En matière de sécurité sanitaire, si nous interdisons des produits sanitaires en Europe parce qu’ils sont CMR – cancérigènes, mutagènes, reprotoxiques – avérés par la science, alors il est de notre devoir de faire de cette interdiction une obligation absolue. Car la garantie de la santé est d’ordre public, ici et là-bas. Elle doit s’imposer à tout décideur, à tout traité, à tout accord. Cette exigence doit entraîner l’obligation de conformité des produits que nous importons, au-delà des contrôles douaniers aléatoires ou de limites maximales de résidus de pesticides, dont nous connaissons tous les failles.

    Ces produits doivent faire l’objet d’un véritable certificat de conformité délivré de façon indépendante, selon un cahier des charges établi par l’Union européenne. En l’absence d’une telle garantie, l’Europe engagera sa responsabilité pour mise en danger de la vie d’autrui, ici et là-bas. La confiance n’exclut pas le contrôle. Pour l’instant, les conditions de la confiance ne sont pas là, même pour un milliard hypothétique.

     
       

       

    PRESIDE: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS
    Vicepresidente

     
       

     

      Gilles Pennelle (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais vous parler d’un éleveur de poulets breton qui s’appelle Patrick.

    Il travaille longuement toute la journée et, le soir, il consacre de nombreuses heures sur son ordinateur à gérer le tsunami de vos normes: les 160 pages de règles que l’Union européenne a imposées à la filière volaille. Il a vu ses coûts de production augmenter, ses revenus s’effondrer.

    Il apprend un jour que Pedro, éleveur de poulets brésilien, va pouvoir vendre ses poulets chez lui, à des prix bradés. Il apprend que Pedro, lui, n’a pas de normes, ne respecte pas le bien-être animal, utilise même des produits phytosanitaires pour son maïs, alors que Patrick ne le peut pas, et que Pedro utilise des antibiotiques de croissance. Il n’a pas été écouté par la Commission.

    Alors, Patrick m’a demandé de vous poser une question, Monsieur le Commissaire: «Quels intérêts servez-vous pour m’imposer une telle injustice?» Il a même ajouté: «Vous direz au commissaire européen que je ne crois plus en son Europe.»

     
       



     

      Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Umowa handlowa między Unią Europejską a Mercosurem przygotowana w tajemnicy przed rolnikami to nie szansa – mówię to z bólem – a wyrok na europejskie rolnictwo. Mercosur to czarna gradowa chmura, która zniszczy mikro, małe rodzinne gospodarstwa rolne już dziś z trudem stawiające czoła nieuczciwemu handlowi z krajów spoza Unii Europejskiej.

    Polski rynek za poprzedniej władzy zalały już produkty rolne niskiej jakości spoza Unii, takie jak zboże techniczne. Taki mamy wschodni Mercosur, Szanowni Państwo. Dodatkowo polscy rolnicy są obłożeni najbardziej rygorystycznymi restrykcjami. Wprowadzanie zatem na nasze rynki takich produktów jak zboże, mięso, tytoń i cukier z krajów Mercosur o niskiej jakości i cenie zabije polskie i europejskie rolnictwo, zagraża bezpieczeństwu żywnościowemu i zdrowotnemu.

    Szanowni Państwo, apeluję i proszę w imieniu polskich i europejskich rolników o solidarność całej wspólnoty w ochronie rynku rolnego, zdrowia konsumentów i bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego. Mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” produktom niskiej jakości, mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” niebezpiecznej umowie …

    (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos)

     
       

     

      Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, tras la patada que ha dado Trump al tablero comercial mundial es aún más evidente que tenemos que reforzar los lazos económicos y políticos con los países del Mercosur, con los que compartimos, además, valores, principios, intereses y cultura. Son y deben seguir siendo nuestros aliados y nunca el chivo expiatorio de las contradicciones de los populistas, como fue en su día el CETA.

    Este Acuerdo ofrece inmensas oportunidades a los agricultores y responde a sus preocupaciones con largos períodos transitorios, con seguridad y con ayudas a los sectores y productos sensibles. Abre un mercado de doscientos sesenta millones de consumidores a nuestras empresas y, especialmente, a nuestras pymes. Diversifica nuestro acceso a las materias primas críticas y abre los mercados públicos a nuestras empresas. Por último, ofrece garantías medioambientales, sociales y sanitarias que ahora no existen en el comercio entre los dos bloques.

    Por todo ello, los socialistas españoles creemos que es imprescindible aprobar este Acuerdo.

     
       


     

      Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, Europa lleva más de veinte años negociando este Acuerdo y eso deja en evidencia la complejidad y el esfuerzo extra que necesita en materia de transparencia y de trabajo con los sectores. Parece que vamos a tener beneficios para automoción, maquinaría, herramientas, aeronáutica, servicios avanzados a la industria, productores de vino, lácteos, quesos. Pero también tenemos a parte de una sociedad que está preocupada y a un sector primario que arrastra, además, problemas derivados de la última reforma de la PAC.

    Hablemos claro: uso de hormonas, fitosanitarios y cumplimiento del Acuerdo de París, para garantizar un mercado justo, tienen que estar encima de la mesa. Y necesitamos claridad en torno a productos protegidos, productos cuya apertura va a ser gradual en cuanto al mercado y seguimiento que se va a hacer del impacto e incumplimientos que supondrían el fin del Acuerdo, así como medidas compensatorias y salvaguardas.

    Hay que trabajar todos estos meses que tenemos por delante, con mesas mixtas de trabajo y con el sector, para que, cuando ese Acuerdo llegue a este Parlamento y toque votarlo, podamos hacerlo en consecuencia y esto no sea una guerra entre sectores, sino un espacio de oportunidades colectivas y sociales equilibradas.

     
       

     

      Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, en los Estados Unidos, aranceles; en China, competencia desleal; y, en Rusia, sencillamente la guerra. Este es el balance de las relaciones comerciales a las que nos enfrentamos actualmente. Para Europa el comercio siempre ha sido una herramienta económica, pero Trump, Xi Jinping y Putin lo han convertido en un arma política y con ello están poniendo en riesgo nuestra competitividad, nuestra prosperidad e, incluso, nuestra seguridad.

    Por eso, necesitamos alternativas, necesitamos urgentemente nuevos mercados y el Mercosur supone una oportunidad para impulsar a nuestros exportadores y diversificar nuestras cadenas de suministro.

    Pero no podemos cometer los mismos errores del pasado e ignorar las necesidades de nuestros agricultores y nuestros ganaderos. Tenemos la responsabilidad de darles garantías. Por eso, me parece buena noticia que el Acuerdo cuente con salvaguardas y medidas de reciprocidad sólida para proteger nuestro sector primario. Y todavía más importante es que la Comisión apueste esta legislatura por la reducción de la burocracia verde. Comercio, sí; simplificación, también.

     
       

     

      Dario Nardella (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è indubbio che il nuovo quadro geopolitico che nasce dalle elezioni americane e l’influenza sempre crescente cinese sul Sud America impongono all’Europa un cambio di schema.

    Dobbiamo rafforzare il nostro impegno su tutti i mercati internazionali, giocare una leadership commerciale. L’Europa vive di export: il 30 % del GDP del nostro continente è legato all’esportazione, e questo vale ancor di più per un paese come l’Italia, il mio paese.

    Per questo il Mercosur, in linea di principio, è uno strumento utile, soprattutto per i settori industriali, come la chimica, le auto, le macchine. Tuttavia, Commissario, possono esserci problemi seri per l’agricoltura.

    Allora ci sono condizioni che la Commissione deve seguire. Primo: la reciprocità. Secondo: controlli con una dogana europea. Terzo: risorse per la promozione, perché non si può tagliare la PAC e poi promuovere il Mercosur. Quarto: questa compensazione di un miliardo di euro ci sarà o no? Quinto: il rispetto degli standard ambientali.

    Un accordo importante deve diventare un buon accordo.

     
       

     

      Ton Diepeveen (PfE). – Voorzitter, de overeenkomst tussen de EU en Mercosur biedt kansen, maar brengt ook vooral risico’s met zich mee. Onze boeren worden uitgeknepen en geconfronteerd met strenge regels, terwijl goedkope import uit Zuid-Amerika zonder problemen binnenkomt.

    Wat de voedselveiligheid betreft, blijkt uit het rapport van de Commissie dat Brazilië gebruik maakt van verboden groeihormonen. Toch blijft de Commissie beweren dat alles onder controle is. Dit vormt een gevaar voor de consument en is een dolksteek in de rug van onze boeren. Wat krijgen wij hiervoor terug? In Nederland een schamele 0,03 % economische groei, terwijl onze veehouders voor de bus worden gegooid.

    Als klap op de vuurpijl pompt Brussel ook 1,8 miljard EUR belastinggeld in Mercosur, waarvan een deel naar boeren in Brazilië gaat, terwijl onze eigen boeren in de kou staan. Er is geen gelijk speelveld, geen eerlijke handel, maar wel nog meer bureaucratie en import uit landen die lak hebben aan onze regels. Dit is waanzin. Schrap dit akkoord. Schroef de Green Deal terug, zodat onze boeren eindelijk uit dit moeras van klimaatwaanzin kunnen ontsnappen.

     
       

     

      Ana Vasconcelos (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let us be clear about what’s really at stake with the Mercosur agreement. It’s not just Europe’s economic future. It’s our international credibility after stalling this deal for more than 20 years. It’s about where we stand in a world where the global balance of powers is shifting and Europe is struggling to defend its interests.

    Some warn of threats to our industry and farmers. They’re missing the crucial point. Our economy doesn’t struggle because of international competition. It struggles under the weight of excessive regulatory burdens.

    This agreement cuts tariffs on key European exports while maintaining environmental standards. It gives small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of our economy, access to new opportunities in a market of nearly 300 million consumers. Yet some prefer to walk away because of fair competition. Here’s a real threat: not competition, but risk aversion; not trade, but excessive bureaucracy. We burden our businesses with excessive regulations, and then we wonder why we struggle globally.

    While we hesitate, China is acting fast. It has already replaced Europe as South America’s primary trading partner. The path to European competitiveness isn’t through isolation, it’s through strategic engagement.

     
       

     

      Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo commerciale Mercosur con i paesi dell’America latina, pur rappresentando un’opportunità strategica, perché mira a rafforzare la competitività europea, diversificando le catene di approvvigionamento e riducendo la dipendenza da altri mercati, presenta però alcuni rischi e criticità che, soprattutto per il settore agroalimentare, meritano la nostra attenzione prima di procedere alla sua definitiva approvazione.

    Le nostre aziende agricole rispettano standard elevatissimi in termini di sicurezza, qualità, sostenibilità ambientale e benessere animale, a differenza di quelle dei paesi Mercosur. A fronte di ciò, dobbiamo prevedere controlli rigorosi per assicurare reciprocità nelle importazioni, prevenire concorrenza sleale a garanzia dei nostri agricoltori e dei nostri consumatori, così come dobbiamo rafforzare gli strumenti di tutela dei prodotti europei di indicazione geografica.

    Un’Europa competitiva non si costruisce solo con l’apertura dei mercati, ma anche con la tutela delle proprie aziende e delle proprie eccellenze. Questo accordo potrà definirsi equo se saremo in grado di garantire nuove opportunità, senza però sacrificare la nostra sicurezza e la nostra identità alimentare e soprattutto il futuro delle nostre imprese.

     
       

     

      Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señor presidente, se ha dicho que el Acuerdo con el Mercosur es muy relevante en términos comerciales, pero es sobre todo muy relevante en términos geopolíticos. Llevamos meses hablando de la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica de la Unión Europea. ¿Y con quién nos vamos a aliar si no es con una región como América Latina, con la que compartimos valores, con la que hemos defendido en el ámbito multilateral el Acuerdo de París o la Agenda 2030?

    Y, por supuesto, es importante que en este debate hablemos de lo que realmente contiene este Acuerdo, porque claro que somos sensibles a los elementos ambientales. Por eso, conviene decir que este Acuerdo incluye compromisos vinculantes para la protección de los bosques y de la naturaleza, que son fundamentales.

    También somos sensibles —como no puede ser de otra manera— a los elementos sociales. Por eso, es importante dejar bien claro que este Acuerdo también recuerda de forma muy clara los derechos laborales, la igualdad de género o los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y de los pequeños productores de aquí y de allí.

    Y somos también sensibles a los sectores agrícolas —los cítricos, por ejemplo—, pero queremos decirles que este Acuerdo recoge cláusulas y tenemos herramientas como el observatorio europeo o, por supuesto, las cláusulas de salvaguardia, que vamos a utilizar para defender un buen Acuerdo para los intereses de nuestros agricultores aquí y allí.

     
       




       

    Solicitudes incidentales de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

     
       


     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, I heard a lot of misinformation and lies when we were speaking about sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Colleagues, European sanitary and phytosanitary standards are not negotiable!

    The EU has very stringent standards to protect human, animal and plant health, and any product sold in the EU must comply with the European Union standards. I have been Commissioner for food safety and health, I know very well that it is to remain unrelated and unaltered regardless of a trade agreement.

    EU animal, plant and health and food safety import controls are very strict, and we can control all third countries. It doesn’t matter which agreement it is.

    I welcome this Mercosur agreement because I was involved in 2019, of course Paris Agreement and trade and sustainable development inclusion is very well done, and we need to go forward and see it.

     
       


     

      Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, connaissez-vous l’œstradiol 17? C’est une hormone stéroïdienne produite par les follicules ovariens et le placenta. Elle a été synthétisée pour devenir une hormone de croissance, dans l’élevage, pour faire grossir et grandir les animaux. En 2013, il a été reconnu que les résidus de cette hormone de synthèse sont retrouvés dans notre corps, dans nos eaux de surface. C’est donc pour cela que, dans sa grande sagesse, notre institution a interdit son utilisation et l’importation de la viande en contenant.

    L’œstradiol 17 favorise les cancers, en particulier le cancer du sein. C’est même la première cause de cancers chez les non-fumeuses. Le mois dernier, la Commission européenne nous a présenté un rapport indiquant que, premièrement, les pays du Mercosur utilisaient massivement l’œstradiol et, deuxièmement, les contrôles pharmacologiques y étaient défaillants.

    Alors comment, en important 90 000 tonnes de viande du Mercosur, allez-vous nous garantir notre santé? Allez-vous aussi proposer un fonds de compensation? Mes chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, il n’existe pas, pour les femmes, de solution de remplacement. Il n’existe pas de solution de remplacement pour les enfants des mères endeuillées.

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, o acordo do Mercosul é bom e mau. É um acordo bom para as multinacionais do agronegócio, mas é um acordo mau para os pequenos e médios agricultores e para os consumidores. É um acordo bom para os grandes grupos industriais das potências da União Europeia que têm agora abertos os mercados da América Latina, mas é mau para os restantes países, que continuarão a não ter condições de desenvolver a sua produção industrial. O acordo do Mercosul é bom para os grandes grupos do setor dos serviços que têm agora aberto o mercado da contratação pública na América Latina. Mas é mau, em geral, para as micro, pequenas e médias empresas, para os pequenos e médios agricultores, para todos aqueles que, produzindo de acordo com regras e práticas tradicionais, se verão confrontados com uma concorrência desfavorável com a inundação dos mercados de produtos a mais baixo custos, porque produzidos em condições diferentes daquelas que lhes são impostas. Se este acordo é bom e mau, é óbvio que é bom para uma minoria e mau para uma imensa maioria. E é por isso que a Comissão não quer que os Estados façam o seu escrutínio nacional e está a procurar dividir o acordo em dois para impedir esse escrutínio. Essa é uma opção com a qual não concordamos e que não aceitaremos.

     
       


     

      Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o acordo com o Mercosul é um acordo justo, um acordo equilibrado e um bom acordo do ponto de vista geopolítico, económico e social. Não restam dúvidas que para a indústria é um bom acordo e que temos de incluir garantias do ponto de vista do setor agrícola. Estão previstas garantias adicionais, nesta última versão do acordo, que passam por: fases graduais de implementação, quotas, máximas e salvaguardas, em especial para a carne bovina, subvenções e apoio financeiro aos eventuais agricultores afetados, proteção para mais de 350 produtos europeus, condicionamento à entrada de produtos do Mercosul que não cumpram as regras ambientais e sanitárias, e respeito pelo Acordo de Paris e pelo combate ao desmatamento ilegal. Excelente trabalho feito pela Comissão Europeia. Já demorámos 20 anos a chegar aqui. Parem de mentiras, parem e vamos acelerar e assinar este acordo.

     
       

     

      Cristina Maestre (S&D). – Señor presidente, las preguntas que nos tenemos que hacer son: ¿queremos ser una potencia fuerte o aislarnos en un mundo competitivo? ¿Queremos fortalecer nuestra industria —que invierte más de 340 000 millones de euros— o regalarle el mercado a China, a la India o a los Estados Unidos? ¿Queremos que nuestros agricultores sigan pagando tasas del 28 %, del 35 %, o incluso más, o abrir un mercado libre de aranceles?

    La ultraderecha está en un laberinto nocivo para la Unión Europea: apoya los aranceles de Trump, pero a la vez no quiere apoyar un comercio abierto con Latinoamérica. Yo creo que esto es un sindiós y tendrán que explicarlo también al tejido productivo.

    Dicho esto, claro que tenemos que ser exigentes y garantistas con los sectores más sensibles, claro que sí. Por eso, yo le pido a la Comisión Europea que dé certidumbres y también transparencia por el bien de nuestros agricultores. Hay que fortalecer las medidas de salvaguardia para los sectores sensibles. Pedimos más controles en fronteras, para que se cumplan los contingentes establecidos, proteger la liberación parcial de esos productos sensibles, claro que sí, y, por supuesto, que nos diga de dónde va a salir ese fondo de compensación y si va a ser lo suficientemente fuerte, por si hubiera que hacer uso de ello.

     
       


     

      Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτές τις μέρες οι αγρότες στην Ελλάδα δίνουν διαρκή και δίκαιο αγώνα για την παραμονή στη γη τους, που γίνεται αφόρητη από την ευρωενωσιακή ΚΓΠ, το τσάκισμα του εισοδήματος από την κυβέρνηση, τις εξευτελιστικές τιμές στους μεγαλέμπορους, την ανύπαρκτη προστασία από καταστροφές, την υποστελέχωση κρατικών υπηρεσιών που είναι αποτέλεσμα της δημοσιονομικής σταθερότητας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

    Επιπλέον, δυσκολεύουν περαιτέρω την κατάσταση οι διακρατικές συμφωνίες τύπου Mercosur που θα αυξήσουν τις αθρόες εισαγωγές αγροτικών προϊόντων, τις ελληνοποιήσεις που πλήττουν το εισόδημα των παραγωγών. Κόντρα στην κυβερνητική πολιτική, κόντρα στις μειωμένες απαιτήσεις που καλλιεργεί η συμπολιτευόμενη αντιπολίτευση, οι βιοπαλαιστές αγρότες παλεύουν για την επιβίωσή τους διεκδικώντας μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής με κρατική παρέμβαση, αφορολόγητο πετρέλαιο στην αντλία, μείωση της τιμής του ρεύματος στα 7 λεπτά, 100% αποζημιώσεις, εγγυημένες τιμές πώλησης των προϊόντων τους που να εξασφαλίζουν το εισόδημά τους, πλήρη στελέχωση κρατικών, γεωπονικών και κτηνιατρικών υπηρεσιών.

     
       


     

      Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, dezbaterea privind acordul Mercosur stârnește multe emoții și ridică întrebări la care încă nu s-au oferit răspunsuri clare. Realitatea este însă că, în timp ce fermierii europeni sunt supuși celor mai stricte norme de mediu, în alte părți ale lumii aceste reguli pur și simplu nu există. Europa are datoria să-și protejeze fermierii și să le ofere garanții solide pentru a-și putea continua activitatea. Aceștia nu trebuie să fie sacrificați pe altarul neputinței noastre de a le oferi certitudini într-o lume atât de incertă, generată de inflație, secetă, inundații sau războiul din Ucraina.

    Ei nu cer privilegii sau tratament preferențial. Cer doar dreptul de a concura în mod corect. Compensațiile provizionate a fi acordate fermierilor trebuie să fie dublate de relaxarea condițiilor de producție în agricultură, domnule comisar, iar acordul trebuie să fie echitabil, să creeze oportunități reale de comerț și să nu distrugă agricultura europeană. Este datoria noastră de a găsi cele mai bune soluții atât pentru fermierii europeni, dar și pentru consumatori.

     
       

     

      Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, les dernières négociations ont-elles permis d’améliorer le projet d’accord commercial entre l’Europe et le Mercosur? La réponse est oui, mais aucun des efforts que nous pourrions faire pour continuer à l’améliorer ne changera ce fait: un accord de libre-échange, c’est parfois un mieux pour le consommateur, des secteurs gagnants, mais c’est toujours une kyrielle de perdants, dont aucun fonds de compensation ne répare jamais les vies brisées et les territoires déstabilisés.

    Un accord de libre-échange, c’est une perte de souveraineté, comme viennent de nous le rappeler les décisions de Trump. Quand le temps des avantages réciproques s’estompe, vient le temps du chantage, auquel il est bien difficile de résister quand la dépendance à l’autre s’est installée. Le doux commerce, en réalité, n’existe pas.

    Le libre-échange, c’est certes plus de liberté individuelle de commercer, mais moins de liberté collective, cette liberté de choisir, en Europe, d’être un continent qui met l’humain d’abord et pose la préservation du vivant comme un impératif. Alors oui pour un partenariat avec les pays du Mercosur, mais il existe 1 000 autres voies de coopération.

     
       



     

      Marko Vešligaj (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kad raspravljamo o ovome sporazumu o MERCOSUR-u trebamo uzeti u obzir i specifičnosti manjih zemalja, kao što je Hrvatska, u kojoj kostur poljoprivrede čine zapravo mali poljoprivrednici i oni će biti najviše pogođeni ovim sporazumom – razni sektori, od stočarstva, ratarstva, peradarstva, pa i vinarstva, gdje sam svjestan toga da se otvara jedno veliko tržište, prvenstveno za vinarsku industriju velikih zemalja, dakle tržište MERCOSUR-a. Međutim, ono što mene brine jest mogućnost da ćemo biti preplavljeni jeftinim vinima upitne kvalitete iz Južne Amerike i na taj način – i u kombinaciji s onim s čime se suočava danas vinarski sektor, a to su, podsjetit ću vas, bolesti vinove loze, da Europska komisija opet najavljuje sheme grubbing up-a, odnosno krčenja vinograda – može stvoriti brojne opasnosti za vinarski sektor u manjim zemljama kao što je Hrvatska, ponavljam, koja nema problema s prekomjernom proizvodnjom, gdje mali vinari čine temelj te proizvodnje i koja želi štititi i razvijati svoje autohtone sorte.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, míle buíochas as ucht an t-urlár a thabhairt dúinn uilig. Mar a dúirt tú, tá an díospóireacht seo an-tábhachtach.

    There are those who are against Mercosur, but they are against everything. But there are also many speakers here this morning who are pro-trade but say they cannot support Mercosur in its current form. That would reflect the position of the new Irish Government – made up of a coalition of Renew and EPP – and I think it needs to be addressed very strongly by the Commission.

    There are issues like deforestation, sustainability, production standards – especially in Brazil – and then the effect, especially on beef farmers, who feel that they will be decimated if Mercosur goes ahead. So the Commission has a job to do to convince them otherwise, give them proper compensation, if that is needed, and also look at a package that might include other issues that they are concerned about, especially the reform of the CAP, etcetera.

    Commissioner Šefčovič, you did a great job in relation to Brexit. Now is the chance for you to step up here. I am very confident you will!

     
       

       

    (Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

     
       

     

      Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I was privileged to attend three very politically charged, very politically dynamic debates this week. And I want to thank many of you for highlighting that, in this geopolitical era, the free trade agreement with Mercosur, as Mr Lange has underlined, will greatly contribute to our social welfare state, it will create new jobs and open new opportunities for all sectors of our economy, including for our farmers and for our agri‑food sectors. Moreover, it’s also good for the environment and sustainability.

    Let me underline that, in all aspects, we are much better off with the agreement than without it. This agreement binds the Mercosur countries to strong commitments on the fight against deforestation, and it gives us an important platform for cooperation on our climate ambition.

    On top of this, the overall benefit of this agreement is also good for our farmers and agricultural community. As some of you know, I consulted widely with farmers, with small farmers, family farmers, organic farmers and also big farmers as well. And two weeks ago, I was with many of you, together with the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Hansen, in the discussion on this precise issue in the Agriculture Committee of this House.

    I do all this because I have the utmost respect for our farmers, and I have the utmost respect for the debate we have in this House. And I know how crucial a role our farmers are playing in the area of our food security and our food sovereignty and, of course, for the welfare of our society.

    Honourable Members, I was surprised that Ms Aubry asked me how did I dare to come here to defend this agreement? I came because you invited me. And I will always be here when you invite me, because I respect this House, I respect democratic debate and, despite all the charged debate we had here today, I am proud of this agreement. And I believe that, through discussion, through explaining, through presenting facts and figures, we can convince the majority, most of you, that we indeed are doing the right job.

    In this debate, we unfortunately didn’t cover the fact that this agreement is actually the biggest free trade agreement the EU ever concluded. Just for your information, this FTA is four times bigger than our free trade agreement with Japan. We also overlooked the important signal we are sending out in this difficult time where the trade barriers are being erected again – and we discussed it on Tuesday – and also in the time where we are losing our privileged relationship with countries so close to us historically, culturally, economically, like the countries of Mercosur, to China.

    Unfortunately, we didn’t mention, at all, the strategic importance of the supply of critical raw materials and opportunities these deals open for our businesses and the need to diversify our economic relations. The debate almost completely focused on agriculture, so let’s look at this again.

    As you know, the EU is an agri‑food export superpower. Last year, our farmers exported products of the value of EUR 228 billion, and our farmers and our agri‑food exports have a trade surplus of EUR 70 billion. EUR 70 billion! Can you imagine how our farmers would do without these export opportunities? Do you believe that we would be able to be so strong in exports if the large network of our FTAs would not open these new markets for all of them, big farmers, small farmers, our agri‑food sector?

    Into Mercosur itself, our farmers are already now exporting more than EUR 3.2 billion of products, and they managed to do it with import duties which are up to 35 % more than they should be and without any protection for our GIs. And this agreement is going to eliminate these import duties. It’s going to protect our GIs, so there will be no imitation of our famous cheeses, our wines and spirits. And I believe that this would greatly improve export opportunities for our farmers.

    Mr Cowen and Mr Kelly have been asking and highlighting the importance of strategic discussion on agriculture, and the Commission is absolutely prepared for this. Commissioner Hansen is working on the new strategic vision on agriculture, and I can tell you that we do our utmost to look into all possible ways how to lower reporting obligations for our farmers, how to cut the red tape for our farmers, so the farmer whom one of the honourable Members was referring to as ‘Patrick’ would have an easier life.

    But I’m also convinced that this debate we have right now, for the benefit of Patrick and all other farmers, should be based on true facts and figures. And I want to be very clear that the food products in the European Union being domestically produced or imported must comply with the EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, including the EU’s strict policies on GMOs, and the Commission conducts regular audits in third countries and works closely with the Member States’ authorities that perform official controls and enforcement activities on imported food to ensure that non-compliant products cannot enter the EU market.

    The Member States, of course, are looking in great detail into this agreement and are also carrying out their own audits and their own studies. And there were quite a few honourable Members from Ireland who intervened in this debate, and therefore I think that they should also look at the study which was commissioned by the Irish Government. It was done by the Independent Economic and Sustainability Impact Assessment on Ireland and the Mercosur agreement. This independent study forecast an increase in Ireland’s exports to Mercosur by 17 % and an increase of imports of 12 %. It will increase manufacturing export of Ireland by 1.4 billion and agri‑food exports by 10 to 20 million.

    We will be very happy from the Commission’s side to have this discussion with every single Member State, because we have the figures, we have a convincing argument and we are open for this open, frank debate which would truly be based on the facts.

    I would also kindly ask you not to spread information which is simply not true. And I totally agree with Ms Pereira who was calling for this. No import of hormone beef. No chlorinated chicken will ever be imported to the European Union. Mr Andriukaitis was working on that for five years and he was absolutely crystal clear on that. The problem Ms Sbai was referring to was spotted and immediately resolved. This type of beef has never entered the EU market and never will. We do inspections regularly and we also control at the import.

    On the so-called non‑violation complaint instrument – which I explained many times, but I’m happy to do again – it’s not new. It’s fully compatible on the WTO framework. And this instrument is only forward‑looking and addresses effects that could not be foreseeable at the time of the conclusion. So it doesn’t concern the CBAM. It doesn’t concern any of the any of the laws, any of the acquis which are valid right now, which already entered into force. And I’m sure that Ms Bricmont knows about it. So under no circumstances is our regulatory freedom affected, nor will it be. So let’s not use this argument any more.

    To conclude, Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate, and I’m ready to continue the discussion with you, with the farmers and with all stakeholders. At the same time, I believe that we would advance our debate and do better service to our citizens, to our farmers if we respect true facts, if we speak about real figures, and if we stay true to what was really agreed and not repeat in every debate the things which are simply not true.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you, Commissioner. I am sorry for being so strict with time, and I insist that this debate should have had much more time.

    The debate is closed.

     

    4. Threats to EU sovereignty through strategic dependencies in communication infrastructure (debate)


     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, dear colleagues, I want to first and foremost welcome this exchange today. Our mission is to improve Europe’s tech sovereignty, security and democracy in an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation.

    A short glance at the news from Europe and beyond is enough to show how significant a task this is. Our own backyard, the Baltic Sea, experiences security challenges and hybrid attacks, including to the security and resilience of critical submarine infrastructures. This kind of threat offers an example of the pressing need to improve our preparedness.

    Europe has put in place a robust legal framework to protect its critical infrastructure against physical and hybrid security threats. But today, the transposition and implementation of the critical entities’ resilience and the network and information security tool directives are still slow. We continue to support Member States and call on them to transpose both directives as soon as possible.

    Moreover, the 2024 recommendation on secure and resilient submarine cable infrastructures provides a set of recommended actions at national and EU level aimed at improving submarine cable security and resilience. The European Union is also making substantial investments in cable infrastructures through the Connecting Europe Facility. Since 2021, over EUR 420 million has been allocated to 50 projects and more.

    Looking ahead, we also earmarked another EUR 542 million, for a total investment of nearly EUR 1 billion, and the Commission is considering further measures not only to boost investment, but also to increase the security and resilience of these infrastructures.

    The security of 5G and next-generation networks, the backbone of our economy, remains very high on the European Union’s agenda, but the current implementation by Member States of the 5G cybersecurity toolbox is still not satisfactory. New capacities have to be provided by existing or new actors to fill gaps left by high-risk vendors in the supply chains. The Commission will urgently explore ways to speed up its enforcement and implementation.

    A particularly sensitive domain is that of critical communications used by public security and safety authorities, civil protection or medical emergency responders. We need to ensure that they cannot be interfered with, disrupted or compromised via components and devices from non-trusted third country suppliers. This is why increasing our strategic autonomy is one of the key objectives of the European critical communication system, which will connect the communication networks of first responders in all Member States and Schengen countries by 2030.

    But the challenge is even broader than that. Europe must remain competitive and must have the technologies it needs in order to secure its digital infrastructure. We must close our innovation gap with global partners. Future applications, such as automated driving or telemedicine will run on advanced networks that look increasingly like a computing continuum, ranging from chips and high-speed processors to connectivity, cloud, edge, software, quantum technologies and AI. This is why we need to enhance and better coordinate research efforts and multidisciplinary cooperation, as well as why we need to improve access to finance by EU actors, including by coordinating public and private investments.

    To reach this goal, the 2024 white paper on digital infrastructure needs envisaged the creation of a connected collaborative computing network to set up end-to-end integrated infrastructures and platforms for telco cloud and edge.

    Colleagues, this debate is also an excellent opportunity to update you on the IRIS2 satellite constellation, a beacon of the EU’s commitment to deliver secure, resilient and sovereign connectivity, demonstrating the recent but high ambition of the European Union in the field of secure satellite connectivity with precursor governmental services provided by the GOVSATCOM programme.

    IRIS2 was launched in 2023, paving the way for an operational state-of-the-art connectivity system. Thanks to this EU-owned infrastructure capability, enabling also commercial services based on private sector investments, the European Union will be able to maintain its competitive edge and shield its sovereignty.

    Work has been ongoing on this since last December, with the signing of the concession contract with industry to develop the constellation and start the industrial supply chain in view of a timely delivery of the system. Full IRIS2 operational services are expected by 2030. This means that Member States, close partners and EU institutions will benefit from a broad set of reliable and secure applications, such as border and maritime surveillance, crisis management, critical infrastructure protection, and various security and defence operations.

    There are, of course, competing non-EU solutions in the market. We remain, however, convinced that Europeans prefer guaranteed access to reliable connectivity without critical third-party dependencies, and as IRIS2 comes onto the scene, this will be a crucial selling point to all Member States as well as businesses.

    The incidents that have become an all too frequent reality of heightened geopolitical tensions highlight the importance of such sovereign solutions. IRIS2 will also integrate the European quantum communication infrastructure. This pan-European initiative will help to strengthen the protection of our governmental institutions, their data centres, hospitals, energy grids and more.

    Moreover, we are also supporting the development of quantum technologies to ensure that critical components use EU technologies. EuroQCI will help to counter the threat that quantum computers will pose to current encryption methods, but it will not be enough on its own. It will be complemented by our initiatives to advance and deploy post-quantum cryptography in the European Union. Last year, we issued the recommendation to coordinate the transition to PQC for public administrations and other critical infrastructures in the European Union.

    Finally, let me stress that Europe can only respond to today’s challenges by acting together with our partners, especially with NATO. In a hybrid threat environment, close civilian and military cooperation is and remains essential. I can assure you that the European Commission is steadfast in its commitment to foster a secure, resilient, but also innovative digital environment, and we continue to count on your support in building this future together.

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, the strength of our Union is in its openness, the ability to trade, to innovate and to compete globally. However, in today’s reality, Europe’s communication infrastructure is heavily reliant on global actors, and Europe must be in a position where no country or individual company can dictate our digital future.

    I believe in a strong and resilient Europe, one that competes globally without excessive state interventions, but through strategic interventions, free markets and international cooperation. By that way, individuals and businesses can choose between multiple actors and alternatives.

    To go forward in this situation, I think the Union must do a lot of things, but let me mention three of them.

    Firstly, we need to encourage private investments in new communication infrastructure, not through subsidies or state control, but through reducing red tape and creating smart incentives.

    Secondly, we need to deepen our partnership with trusted partners to ensure openness works in Europe’s favour rather than making us dependent.

    Lastly, as the Commissioner started his intervention with, we need to safeguard Europe’s connectivity by taking coordinated action to protect submarine cables. This state terrorism has to end and we have to work together, coordinatedly, to make that sure – we have to reinforce our cable security, our repair capabilities, but also invest in the expansion of new submarine cables to enhance our redundancy and ensure resilience in our communication infrastructure.

     
       


     

      Csaba Dömötör, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Európa lemaradása a digitális iparágak terén egyre látványosabb és hozzáteszem egyre zavaróbb. Ez szuverenitási kérdés és stratégiai cél, hogy ezt a lemaradást leküzdjük.

    A digitális színtérnek azonban van egy másik fontos terepe, ez pedig a véleményszabadság. Miközben Amerikában elzavarják a Facebookos cenzorokat, az uniós intézmények azon törik a fejüket, hogy tovább erősítsék a cinikus módon tényellenőrzésnek nevezett rendszert. Mindezt a DSA-rendelet köntösében. Növelik az ezen ügyködő bürokráciát, és a Facebook után most már az X-et és a TikTokot is célba vették.

    Tudjuk, hogy miért van ez. Egyre nagyobb a szakadék az itteni politikai elit szándékai és a választók akarata között. Erre az itteni többség és a Bizottság nem irányváltással válaszol, hanem azzal, hogy el akarja hallgattatni a kritikus hangokat.

    Ez nem fog menni. A digitális szuverenitás nem csupán technológiák kérdése, hanem a szabadságé is. Nincsen szuverenitás szabad véleménynyilvánítás nélkül. Legyenek benne biztosak, hogy a patrióták minden eszközzel küzdenek majd a cenzúra ellen.

     
       

     

      Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Do budowania niezależności infrastrukturalnej, w tym niezależności technologicznej, potrzebne są środki finansowe. Unia Europejska powinna zdecydować, na co te środki z własnego budżetu chce przeznaczać. Są trzy takie duże polityki, które w tym samym czasie prowadzimy: jest to polityka bezpieczeństwa, w tym bezpieczeństwa technologicznego, polityka społeczna, która pozwala żyć obywatelom na odpowiednio wysokim poziomie, i niestety polityka Zielonego Ładu, która powoduje, że te koszty życia się zwiększają oraz że generowane są różnego rodzaju wydatki w tej polityce.

    Jeżeli chcemy być faktycznie niezależni technologicznie, to powinniśmy przeznaczać dodatkowe środki finansowe na ten obszar. Ale żeby to było możliwe, musimy zrezygnować z jednej z tych trzech polityk, które wymieniłem, i powinniśmy zrezygnować z polityki Zielonego Ładu, która w tej chwili ogranicza rozwój i niezależność Europy. Druga rzecz, powinniśmy przestać obrażać się na swoich partnerów technologicznych z różnych kontynentów na świecie i z nimi współpracować po to, aby również w Europie powstawały odpowiednie technologie.

     
       

     

      Michał Kobosko, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, let me start with thanking you, on behalf of the Renew Europe Group, for the Commission’s immediate reaction to the security threats related to the Baltic submarine cables and the ongoing work to increase security of our critical infrastructure. We also need to look for more synergies between digital and energy networks, while working on detection, prevention and repairing of the undersea infrastructure that is nowadays, especially in the Baltic Sea, under constant and real threat.

    Going above sea level, I can strongly encourage the Commission to do the utmost to invest in the European critical communication infrastructure. Europe cannot allow itself to be dependent on third countries when it comes to comes to strategic elements of communication infrastructure.

    So I welcome the IRIS2 planned constellation, with its 290 satellites. It is a huge step forward for Europe and we should appreciate it. But we should also keep in mind that it won’t be enough. We will need to do much more beyond 2030.

    In order to achieve Europe’s tech sovereignty, we need to have everyone on board. All Member States need to join the efforts, instead of making constant deals to secure military and government communications with third-country providers, which can put EU security in jeopardy.

    Prime Minister Meloni, please join us, and let’s keep Europe great and secure together. Do not waste the money of Italian taxpayers on senseless deals with global oligarchs.

     
       



     

      Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much. As every morning during the past weeks, we are waking up to a new reality. Now, it’s the biggest push against Europe’s security interests by Trump. But frankly, we had known it all along. In this marriage, we have over-relied on one partner. In strategic communications, it’s not even a country: it’s one unelected, unaccountable man, driven by personal whims. Today, Musk can decide if, at a time of war, we can continue talking to each other, or not.

    Our biggest strategic risk on this side of a potential frontline of a future war is communication failure. Low-Earth orbit satellites revolutionise global communication in times of crisis, but their infrastructure is in the hands of a few private non-Europeans: Starlink today, Amazon or OneWeb tomorrow. So this is not the way to go.

    IRIS² will only be valid and will be functioning in 2030. It is good that the US Space Act is part of a Commission working programme. We have seen this. But we need clear strategic goals: equitable division of use of space; common standards for compatibility of systems; enforced cybersecurity, which closes the gaps of NIS 2; massive investment in efficient launchers, in reusable satellites, in an independent space supply chain. It is not about science fiction; it is about our survival!

     
       

     

      Pernando Barrena Arza, en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, reducir la dependencia estratégica en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación es crucial para avanzar con paso decidido en el concepto de soberanía europea. Un sistema de telecomunicaciones tecnológicamente soberano y seguro y de obediencia europea es una herramienta imprescindible no solo en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación, sino en todas las infraestructuras de comunicación en general. Europa no puede estar a merced de grandes compañías que representan intereses geopolíticos ajenos a los europeos.

    En estos momentos otras potencias y particularmente los Estados Unidos están utilizando su posición avanzada en este tema como herramienta de hard power, que, como todos sabemos, no se limita únicamente a la amenaza del poder militar, sino también a la presión económica y tecnológica.

    Que los Estados europeos sean dependientes de Starlink, como acaba de hacer Italia, es un desastre porque deja un ámbito tan delicado como es el de las comunicaciones críticas en manos de una visión del mundo que solo piensa en cómo segar la hierba bajo los pies a Europa y dejarla sin opciones en el concierto internacional.

    Apostar por la soberanía de Europa exige disponer de medios soberanos y asegurarnos de que el despliegue de tecnología necesario compense su huella de carbono y permita también el acceso del público a las redes de forma universal.

     
       

     

      Sarah Knafo, au nom du groupe ESN. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous sommes devant deux grands mouvements historiques: l’un est technologique, l’intelligence artificielle, l’autre est politique, le vent de liberté qui souffle sur l’Occident. Or, nos règlements, comme le règlement sur les services numériques, le règlement sur les marchés numériques et le règlement MiCA contre le bitcoin, sont à contretemps de ces mouvements. Vous renvoyez au monde une image à la fois technosceptique et liberticide de notre continent.

    Si vous ne voyez le progrès technique que comme une menace, alors l’innovation se fera sans l’Europe et même contre l’Europe. Faisons les choses dans l’ordre. L’innovation doit précéder sa régulation. Sans innovation, nous n’aurons ni prospérité ni souveraineté. Sans innovation, nous aurons toujours des Emmanuel Macron pour offrir nos données de santé sur un plateau à Microsoft.

    Nous ne voulons plus d’un système absurde où la puissance publique saupoudre nos entreprises de subventions tout en les accablant des taxes les plus élevées du monde et tout en offrant nos marchés publics les plus stratégiques à des entreprises américaines.

    Montrons à notre jeunesse qu’elle n’a pas besoin de partir aux États-Unis ou en Asie pour écrire l’histoire. Nous voulons de la liberté, de l’énergie, des marchés, moins d’impôts, des capitaux et des cerveaux. Osons la liberté! Ayons confiance dans le génie des nations européennes.

     
       

     

      Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Kommunikation ist nicht nur ein zutiefst menschliches Bedürfnis mit gesellschaftlicher Wirkung. Kommunikationsfähigkeit in Krisenzeiten ist wesentlich für die Aufrechterhaltung staatlicher und gesellschaftlicher Ordnung. Dafür braucht es verlässliche Strukturen und Mittel. Das gilt im Kontext nationaler Sicherheit ebenso wie im europäischen. Informations- und Kommunikationsflüsse gewährleisten zu können, Lagebilder herzustellen und Führungsfähigkeit bereitstellen zu können, hat entscheidenden Einfluss auf den Verlauf unterschiedlicher Szenarien und auf unsere Fähigkeit, sie zu bewältigen.

    Der Niinistö-Bericht zur Preparedness Union schreibt uns nicht ohne Grund viele Dinge ins Stammbuch, unter anderem auch den beschleunigten Roll-out eines sicheren, autonomen, interoperablen Systems für Kommunikation und Informationsaustausch; die Beschleunigung und den Ausbau des European Critical Communication System auf der zivilen und der militärischen Seite; die Abhängigkeiten in Lieferketten zu vermeiden; Forschung, Entwicklung, Produktion sicherheitsrelevanter Produkte in Europa; Komponenten und Dienstleistungen so attraktiv zu machen, dass wir sie nutzen können.

    Preparedness, liebe Kollegen, braucht einen umfassenden Ansatz, der aus den üblichen Silos auch ein Stück weit rausgeht. Deswegen werden ITRE, SEDE, LIBE, IMCO, TRAN, INTA, SANT – wir alle werden unseren Beitrag leisten müssen. Und deswegen schließe ich vielleicht mit der, neben der Priorisierung von Haushaltsmitteln, wichtigsten Forderung von Niinistö: Sicherheitsvorbehalte und Auswirkungsüberprüfung in allen Gesetzgebungsverfahren, die wir hier im Haus haben.

     
       

     

      Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sur President, l-infrastruttura diġitali saret importanti daqs l-infrastruttura tradizzjonali bħall-pontijiet u t-toroq tagħna. U jiena li ġej minn Malta, Stat Membru żgħir, gżira, nagħraf aktar l-importanza ta’ din l-infrastruttura, speċjalment għall-cables tal-internet taħt il-baħar, li huma daqstant kruċjali għall-funzjonament tal-ħajja taċ-ċittadini tagħna u tal-infrastruttura kritika f’kull Stat Membru.

    U allura naħseb wasal iż-żmien sabiex l-esperiment li għamilna bit-twaqqif tal-aġenzija ENISA, li tara li jkollna koordinament fejn tidħol iċ-ċibersigurtà, cybersecurity, tkun estiża wkoll għal din l-infrastruttura kritika billi jew titwaqqaf aġenzija separata, jew inkella l-ENISA tingħata aktar u aktar kompetenza sabiex naraw li jkollna aktar koordinazzjoni, aktar protezzjoni, fejn tidħol din l-infrastruttura.

    Barra minn hekk, għandna bżonn inkomplu nsaħħu r-reżiljenza u għalhekk, li hu Digital Sovereignty Fund għandu jitwaqqaf mill-aktar fis possibbli.

     
       


     

      Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, bez infrastruktury, která bude bezpečná, nebudou fungovat digitální technologie, na kterých závisí naše ekonomika a společnost. Jsem rád, že Česká republika je v této oblasti průkopníkem. Tzv. Pražské návrhy na budování 5G sítí z roku 2019 předcházely souboru 5G Toolbox v následujícím roce.

    5G Toolbox je třeba důsledně aplikovat napříč celou Evropskou unií, ale musíme také dále snižovat strategickou závislost na zemích, které nejsou našimi důvěryhodnými partnery. Potřebujeme mít v EU regulatorní prostředí, které bude usnadňovat život našim firmám. Musíme více podpořit výzkum a vývoj a taky nám chybí funkční systém certifikace kybernetické bezpečnosti. A v téhle souvislosti, pane komisaři, ptal jsem se na to i na výboru, stále ještě od vás nemáme hodnotící zprávu týkající se aktu o kybernetické bezpečnosti. Tak ji prosím dodejte.

     
       

     

      Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, the main takeaway from Georgia Meloni’s close manoeuvres with Elon Musk and his company, Starlink, is that it sends a clear signal to Europe. The European alternative to Starlink – ‘IRIS square’, not ‘IRIS two’, Commissioner – must be accelerated. Europe should work harder and faster.

    Sure, like many colleagues have said, for Italy there are clear and imminent dangers if Elon Musk encrypts and handles government communications. Italy can easily become a signals intelligence colony of the United States. It’s true that Italy is not supporting Europe’s commitment to technological leadership, to security and to self-determination, as you said, Commissioner, and I agree. But the biggest problem is, of course, our own lack of ambition with the IRIS2 programme.

    If Europe does not rally behind IRIS2 and the GOVSATCOM programme and accelerate its own progress, the future of European sovereignty in space communication will be decided by Elon Musk. So feel the heat: finish IRIS2 four years earlier than planned, move fast and build things!

     
       

     

      David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, mes chers collègues, l’Europe est pieds et poings liés: 92 % de nos données sont stockées à l’étranger, nos infrastructures livrées aux GAFAM et aux fournisseurs chinois. Et que fait l’Europe? Elle parle de souveraineté, mais en réalité elle se soumet. L’extrême droite se dit patriote, mais laisse l’Europe devenir un territoire vassalisé, incapable de protéger ses citoyens et ses entreprises face aux lois extraterritoriales américaines et à la dépendance à l’égard des fournisseurs chinois.

    Pendant ce temps, le numérique avale 10 % de l’électricité mondiale et la tendance explose. Et que fait-on? On laisse les GAFAM dicter leurs règles pendant que Bruxelles dérégule, retire des lois et plie face aux lobbys. À force de reculer, elle abandonne la bataille sans même l’avoir livrée.

    Il est temps de dire stop! L’Europe doit investir dans ses propres réseaux, développer un cloud souverain, sécuriser ses infrastructures et imposer des règles strictes, à l’image de nos valeurs démocratiques. Car une Europe qui dépend, c’est une Europe qui subit, et une Europe qui subit, c’est une Europe qui s’efface. Nous devons reprendre le contrôle. Pas demain, pas plus tard, maintenant.

     
       




     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, há cinco anos, com a pandemia, ficou claro que não podemos depender da China para bens de saúde. Dissemos que aprenderíamos com o erro. Depois, há três anos, foi a vez de perceber que depender da Rússia para energia barata era também um erro. Voltámos a dizer que aprenderíamos. E hoje, apesar de Trump nos ameaçar quase diariamente, há quem queira depender mais dos Estados Unidos da América, seja para armamento, energia ou plataformas digitais. Se a Europa quer menos vulnerabilidade, é agora que devemos evitá‑la. A nova infraestrutura de comunicações, desde cabos submarinos à rede 5G, é fundamental para a nossa autonomia e deve ser construída pelos europeus. A criação de novas redes sociais e de informação é também crucial para a nossa soberania. Por isso, em vez de aprendermos com os velhos erros, evitemos cometê‑los.

     
       

     

      Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, on l’a vu à Mayotte, où la France s’est tournée vers le réseau américain Starlink de Musk. L’accès à Internet par satellite est un véritable enjeu de souveraineté. En ce sens, Iris2 est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais ce n’est qu’un petit pas, au moment où les Américains font des bonds de géant.

    D’abord sur le nombre de satellites déployés: 290 prévus côté européen, contre 7 000 prévus côté américain. Ensuite, concernant le calendrier, nous prévoyons au mieux un lancement en 2030, alors que la constellation Starlink compte déjà 6 300 satellites en orbite basse.

    Ce n’est pas un problème de budget: 10,6 milliards d’euros prévus, cela nous permet de rivaliser avec les budgets quasi équivalents de SpaceX et d’Amazon. Mais il faut voir comment on l’utilise, ce budget. Lancer un satellite européen coûterait 35 millions d’euros. Pour ce prix, les Américains peuvent en lancer 200. Et, pendant que nous blablatons, eux le font.

    Pour résumer, nos satellites, aussi technologiques soient-ils, seront lancés trop tard et pour trop cher. Nous avons les cerveaux, les technologies et les budgets. Finalement, le problème c’est vous. Vivement qu’on vous remplace!

     
       

     

      Elena Donazzan (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, abbiamo un tema, riguarda i bisogni e il tempo. I bisogni sono evidenti, è un bisogno di sicurezza ora, immediato. E quello del tempo è che non abbiamo tempo.

    IRIS2 resta un programma di grande rilevanza e va sostenuto in ogni condizione, ma non è pronto. Sarà pronto nel 2030, secondo le previsioni, ma sappiamo che le previsioni spesso vanno oltre.

    Ma il tema del bisogno è evidente e in tante occasioni qui ne abbiamo trattato. La preoccupazione – e rispondo ai colleghi di Renew, che sembrano essere così interessati a ciò che accade in Italia – è esattamente questa: l’Italia e il governo Meloni hanno ben chiaro che cosa significa avere bisogni di sicurezza per l’Italia, per l’Europa, per le imprese italiane ed europee.

    E, dall’altra, quello che accade rispetto alla tempistica: noi siamo aperti a ogni confronto, con al centro sempre la sovranità e l’indipendenza, in questo tema così delicato che è quello della sicurezza delle comunicazioni.

     
       


     

      Seán Kelly (PPE).A Uachtaráin, a Choimisnéir agus a chairde, the security and resilience of our digital networks are more vital now than ever, and the European Union’s ability to reduce these dependencies is under close scrutiny. I have raised the issue of Ireland’s vital role in global communication infrastructure before. Ireland’s waters serve as the gateway for over 75 % of the northern hemispheres undersea cables, making us a strategic hub for transatlantic data traffic. This makes us uniquely vulnerable to disruptions in this infrastructure.

    We cannot underestimate the importance of safeguarding these undersea cables, which are essential not just for Ireland’s connectivity, but for the economic stability and security of the entire EU. The protection of our communication infrastructure is not just a national issue; it is a European one. We cannot afford to be over-reliant on external providers, particularly in such an uncertain geopolitical climate. We need a coordinated EU approach to ensure the security of our undersea cables and to invest in the resilience of our satellite infrastructure.

    I welcome the Commission’s commitment to investing EUR 865 million to improve digital connectivity, including quantum communication networks and undersea cables. But as we implement the Commission’s work plan for 2025, we must prioritise the protection of these strategic assets.

    Bímis ar an airdeall, níl aon am le cailliúint, go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin.

     
       

     

      Giorgio Gori (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, tra i ritardi tecnologici accumulati dall’Europa spicca quello delle infrastrutture di comunicazione satellitare.

    Se tutto va bene, i 290 satelliti della costellazione IRIS2 saranno disponibili nel 2030. Nel frattempo, gli oltre 6 000 satelliti Starlink già in orbita e altri 30 000 in via di autorizzazione sono un dato di fatto. Il gap competitivo è macroscopico e va colmato.

    Si possono immaginare nel frattempo soluzioni ponte, però con due chiare condizioni. La prima è relativa alla protezione e sicurezza dei dati di comunicazione, che devono rimanere in capo agli Stati membri. La seconda è che ogni accordo industriale sia iscritto in una cornice istituzionale, che coinvolga la dimensione europea.

    È urgente un piano di investimento europeo che combini politiche industriali, di difesa, investimenti in ricerca, oltre che un maggiore coordinamento della spesa pubblica. La debolezza strutturale in questo settore ci rende vulnerabili e dipendenti e mette a rischio la sovranità tecnologica e democratica dell’Unione europea.

     
       

     

      Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, години наред отсъстваше стратегическият поглед за технологическото развитие на Съюза. И едва сега, когато глобалната политика се промени и конкурентите ни започнаха да предприемат радикални политики в областта на търговията, Европейската комисия се сети, че съществуват такива стратегически зависимости, които застрашават сигурността и конкурентоспособността на европейските икономики. Комисар Виркунен го каза — 42% от 5G комуникациите минават през т. нар. високорискови доставчици, разбирайте през Китай, защото основните оператори са китайски — Huawei и ZTE. В същото време изостава Европейският съюз и в сателитната свързаност. Там водещи са САЩ и Starlink. Разбирам, че отговорът на Комисията за всички предизвикателства и проблеми е създаването на нови регулации. Обаче аз смятам, че за да гарантираме сигурността, конкурентоспособността и суверенитета на Европейския съюз, е нужно да изграждаме инфраструктура, капацитет, диверсификация на доставчиците и търсене на надеждни партньори.

     
       

     

      Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, když jde o naší bezpečnost, Evropa nemůže být závislá na cizí zemi. Je přeci naprosto hloupé, pokud některé členské státy chtějí používat pro utajenou vládní komunikaci Starlink. Přitom Evropa má řešení. Máme tady náš GOVSATCOM a IRIS2, což jsou spolehlivé platformy, které nejsou ohrožovány cizími zájmy a máme skrze ně nezávislost a autonomii, která nebude ohrožovat nás uvnitř členských států.

    Dámy a pánové, je naprosto nezbytné, aby Evropská unie urychlila nasazení GOVSATCOM a IRIS2 a nabídla členským státům bezpečnou alternativu. Všechny evropské bezpečnostní složky, včetně agentury Frontex, musí povinně využívat Galileo a GOVSATCOM pro šifrovanou komunikaci.

    A za třetí, masivně musíme podpořit členské státy, aby investovaly do evropské infrastruktury místo spoléhání na neevropské dodavatele. Naše bezpečnost nesmí být v rukou cizích firem, které nám mohou jediným tlačítkem naši komunikaci vypnout.

     
       

     

      Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señor presidente, estamos debatiendo mucho esta semana sobre la reordenación del orden mundial y la necesidad de garantizar la autonomía estratégica tecnológica para la Unión Europea, para la supervivencia de nuestras democracias y, en definitiva, del propio proyecto europeo y debemos conseguirla para garantizar realmente el desarrollo de nuestra propia inteligencia artificial, la resiliencia económica y, como digo, el propio proyecto europeo.

    El potencial acuerdo del Gobierno de Italia con Starlink —el servicio de comunicaciones por satélite de Elon Musk— es paradigmático y debemos saber que la conexión entre la política, los negocios y las amistades no es inocua y tiene implicaciones muy directas en sectores estratégicos de nuestra economía y en nuestra seguridad, en nuestras libertades de toda Europa, no solo de Italia.

    Por eso, debemos acelerar y financiar proyectos como el Iris2, porque, frente a actores divisorios, lo que necesitamos es más Europa y más democracia.

     
       


     

      Paulius Saudargas (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, it is a textbook reality that when an unfriendly state prepares for military aggression, it begins with disinformation, cyber‑attacks and disruption of communication infrastructure. This strategy has been evident for decades and we have witnessed it when Russia attacked Ukraine.

    The same tactics to disrupt communication networks are being observed in various parts of the European Union itself – for example, the recent undersea cable sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Our sovereignty is only as strong as our resilience, including the resilience of our strategic infrastructure.

    Information is power, and the ability to control and protect our communication networks is a fundamental pillar of security. Yet the EU remains dangerously exposed to external dependencies in this domain.

    Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recently disconnected from the BRELL electricity grid. For years, the Baltic states relied on an energy system that could be manipulated externally. For years, we invested in infrastructure to finally break free.

    This example must serve as a broader lesson for the EU. We must extend this thinking to our communication networks, ensuring that they remain secure, autonomous and resilient against external threats.

    A Europe that cannot safeguard its own communications infrastructure is a Europe at risk.

     
       

     

      Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, recent events have proven once again that technology is power. The digital infrastructure, such as submarine cables, 5G networks, satellites and AI, are critical for our economy, security, health care and daily lives. And yet, almost 50 % of 5G communications rely on foreign communication infrastructure. Dependency on non-EU providers limits our autonomy and exposes us to risks that are beyond our control.

    We must increase the investment in EU technology. Prioritising secure and EU home-grown technology will safeguard us, strengthen our cybersecurity, drive innovation and guarantee long-term competitiveness. The time to act is now. True sovereignty can only be achieved by investing and ensuring that the EU tech sector can survive and remain competitive in this global digital race.

     
       

     

      Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A kommunikációs infrastruktúráink rendszere biztosítja a modern társadalom működéséhez szükséges feltételeket, ezért ellenőrzése és védelme stratégiai jelentőségű.

    A kommunikációs infrastruktúrák jó része külső szereplőktől függ, ami súlyos biztonsági és gazdasági kockázatokat rejt magában. Gondoljunk csak bele. Az 5G-hálózataink, a felhőszolgáltatásaink jelentős része nem európai kézben van. Ez nem csupán technológiai függőség, hanem egyben biztonsági kérdés is.

    Amikor kritikus adataink külső szervereken utaznak, amikor stratégiai döntéseink más hatalmak infrastruktúráján keresztül születnek, valójában feladjuk a szuverenitásunk egy részét. Éppen ezért a külső befolyás csökkentésére van szükség.

    Az EU-nak sürgősen cselekednie kell. Be kell fektetnünk saját technológiai megoldásainkba. Fejlesztenünk kell az európai alternatívákat, és meg kell erősítenünk a kibervédelmünket. Csak így biztosíthatjuk, hogy Európa továbbra is független, erős és versenyképes szereplő maradjon a világpolitika színpadán. Kezünkbe kell vennünk a digitális jövőnk irányítását, vagy elfogadjuk, hogy mások írják számunkra a szabályokat. Az idő pedig sürget.

     
       

     

      José Cepeda (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, Europa ¿está o no está en guerra? Yo creo que estamos en guerra. Estamos en una guerra híbrida y, por primera vez en muchísimas décadas, no somos lo suficientemente conscientes de la situación que estamos atravesando. Tenemos que invertir en nuestra seguridad y en nuestra defensa, en nuestras infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones.

    Y para ser realmente soberanos solamente tenemos que hacer dos cosas: invertir de una forma importante en tecnología, pero no en cualquier tecnología, en nuestro desarrollo tecnológico, e invertir también en una mayor cooperación de nuestros sistemas de inteligencia, para precisamente proteger de una forma eficiente todas las infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones. En este caso hay numerosísimos trabajos que desarrollan institutos de investigación, como por ejemplo Max Planck; tenemos que esforzarnos para que se visualicen mucho más. Y tenemos que generar nuestros propios recursos si realmente queremos ser soberanos y protegernos de lo que nos está hoy invadiendo de una forma directa.

     
       


     

      Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito su Starlink in Italia ci ha posto un doppio interrogativo: possiamo affidarci per comunicazioni del governo e degli apparati di intelligence e di difesa ad aziende fondate e guidate da chi oggi pubblicamente supporta forze filo-Putin e anti-UE, con l’uso di potenti mezzi di comunicazione e di risorse illimitate? E, qualora adottassimo sistemi come Starlink, possiamo rischiare che il governo americano ne interrompa le funzionalità, come è accaduto in una occasione in Ucraina?

    Io credo serva equilibrio e approfondimento. Vale per l’Italia, che ho usato come esempio, e vale per l’Europa. Non possiamo precluderci nessuna soluzione tecnologica, ma quando si tratta della sicurezza nazionale ed europea dobbiamo essere certi di mantenere il controllo e la riservatezza necessaria.

    In ogni caso, dobbiamo portare avanti i nostri progetti. L’Unione ha già lanciato il progetto IRIS2 per una connettività satellitare sicura. È in ritardo questo progetto. La Commissione deve impegnarsi a realizzarlo più velocemente insieme agli Stati membri.

    E poi le crescenti tensioni geopolitiche. La dipendenza da fornitori esterni per infrastrutture cruciali è un tema non solo rispetto ai satelliti, ma anche per i cavi sottomarini, le tecnologie mobili. Si mette a rischio, se non si lavora su questo, l’autonomia strategica dell’Europa.

    Dobbiamo fare di più, adesso e insieme. Non perdiamo altro tempo, perché ne va della nostra libertà.

     
       



       

    (Se suspende la sesión durante unos instantes)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

     

    5. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 12:30)

     
       


     

      Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’article 10 de notre règlement intérieur exige des députés qu’ils préservent la dignité du Parlement, et l’article 17 dispose que les députés sont responsables des actes de leurs assistants.

    Ces règles ont été piétinées hier soir. Sous la direction et en présence de Mme Manon Aubry, présidente de groupe, un attroupement de députés et d’assistants français d’extrême gauche ont tenté d’empêcher la tenue d’une conférence ici même, au Parlement européen, en vociférant des injures et des slogans diffamatoires à l’entrée de la salle de conférence.

    Nous demandons que des sanctions soient prises. Ce sont des violations inacceptables de notre règlement intérieur. Nous n’allons pas nous laisser intimider par des apprentis révolutionnaires islamo-gauchistes et antisémites.

    Ces actes sont graves. Il vous faut, Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente Metsola, prendre des sanctions et éviter ainsi les prochaines actions que ces gens-là préparent. C’est votre responsabilité, Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen. Nous attendons les mesures que vous prendrez pour préserver l’exercice de la démocratie.

     
       

     

      Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, l’événement qui était organisé hier par le groupe ESN portait sur la remigration. La remigration, c’est la déportation de personnes qui sont européennes en dehors de l’Union européenne.

    Monsieur Garraud, en prenant la défense de cet événement, vous montrez le vrai visage de l’extrême droite, qui est celui aujourd’hui d’un projet raciste et xénophobe.

    Alors oui, Monsieur Garraud, nous avons protesté pacifiquement. Oui, Monsieur Garraud, vous nous trouverez à chaque fois – à chaque fois! – sur votre chemin. À chaque fois que vous organiserez des événements racistes dans les locaux de notre Parlement européen, vous nous trouverez ici pour protester, parce que le racisme n’a pas sa place, ni ici au sein du Parlement européen, ni à l’extérieur.

     
       


     

      Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, thank you for your patience, and thank you, colleagues. On behalf of my group – and I hope many more – I would like to ask our President to convey our deepest concerns about yesterday’s statements by President Trump and his government. We all want peace for Ukraine, but the terms and conditions emerging are bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe and bad for the rules-based order. Just good for Putin!

    The EU and other European allies are not part of the discussion. That is unacceptable and risky. An emergency Council meeting before the weekend should be on the table, ensuring a united message to our US friends that we are not going to do it like this.

    Not about Ukraine, without Ukraine; not about Europe, without Europe!

    (Applause)

     

    6. Voting time

     

      President. – This being said, based on the recommendations of the services we will move directly to the vote.

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the repression by the Ortega‑Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (see minutes, item 6.2).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (see minutes, item 6.3).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (see minutes, item 6.4).

     


       

    (The vote closed)

     
       

       

    (The sitting was suspended at 12:47)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
    Vice-President

     

    7. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 15:01)

     

    8. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

     

      President. – The minutes of yesterday’s sitting and the texts adopted are available. Are there any comments? No. The minutes are approved.

     

    9. Cross-border recognition of civil status documents of same-sex couples and their children within the territory of the EU (debate)


     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for proposing a debate on the recognition of civil status documents of same‑sex couples and their children within the Union.

    Families, in particular rainbow families, can currently face difficulties in having their marriage or partnership or the parenthood of their children recognised in another Member State, for example, when they move to another Member State or returned to their Member State of origin. The recognition in a Member State of civil status documents on marriage, partnerships and parenthood issued in another Member State is at the basis of the right to free movement and an essential element of the construction of a Union of equality.

    The Court of Justice ruled in its 2018 judgment in the Coman case that already today Union law on free movement requires Member States to recognise, for certain purposes, civil status documents on marriage or partnerships issued in another Member State, irrespective of the sex of the spouses or partners.

    This recognition obligation aims to enable Union citizens and their spouses or partners, including same‑sex couples, to benefit from rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, or to be treated equally in a host Member State in respect of all matters within the scope of the Treaty, even if that host Member State does not provide for same‑sex marriage or same‑sex partnerships. But let me be clear: this does not require Member States to provide, in their national law, for the institution of same‑sex marriage.

    Similarly, the Court of Justice confirmed in its 2021 judgment in the VMA case that the Member States are already required under Union law free movement to recognise a civil status document on the parenthood of a child issued in another Member State. This recognition obligation aims to enable all children and their parents, including children with same‑sex parents, to benefit from their rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, and in their right to travel documentation even if the host Member State does not allow parenthood by same‑sex couples.

    The Commission considered that the protection of children’s rights in cross‑border situations should be extended, and in 2022, it adopted a proposal for a regulation that would require Member States to recognise civil status documents on parenthood issued in another Member State for all purposes.

    The regulation would require Member States to recognise parenthood to enable all children to also benefit from their rights under national law, such as the right to inherit from either parent in another Member State, the right to receive financial support from either parent in another Member State, or the right to be represented by either parent in another Member State on matters such as their schooling and health. This recognition obligation would apply irrespective of how that child was conceived or born, and irrespective of the child’s type of family, therefore also applying to children with same‑sex parents.

    The proposal would facilitate the recognition of parenthood by harmonising the Member States’ rules on private international law, that is, rules that determine which Member State’s court would be competent to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, which national law would apply to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, and how judgments and public documents on parenthood issued in one Member State should be recognised in another Member State.

    The proposal also provides for the creation of a European certificate on parenthood – a certificate that children or their parents could use to prove children’s parenthood in another Member State.

    As the proposal concerns rights going beyond rights for which recognition is already granted under Union law, the proposal had to be adopted under the Union’s competence to adopt measures on family law with cross‑border implications, pursuant to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Such measures must be adopted by the Council by a unanimous vote, after having consulted Parliament. Parliament gave a large support to the proposal in December 2023. In the Council, the Member States are discussing the proposal’s provisions constructively, and progress is gradually being made.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly, thar ceann an Ghrúpa PPE. – Go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin agus go raibh maith agat a Choimisinéir, aontaím leat sa mhéid a dúirt tú.

    We are faced with a very important question. Should same sex couples and their children receive the same recognition and protection of their civil status across all EU Member States? The answer is clear: yes.

    This is about ensuring equality and fairness for all families across Europe. This is not a question of ideology, but simply a question of fundamental human rights.

    The European Union is founded on the principles of equality, dignity and freedom. When a same-sex couple legally marries in one Member State, or when their child is legally recognised as theirs, that legal status should not dissolve at a border. A family is a family, whether they live in Dublin, Warsaw, Madrid or Budapest.

    Yet today, many same-sex couples and their children find themselves in legal limbo simply because they move between Member States. A child recognised as the legal offspring of two parents in one country may suddenly find themselves without legal guardianship in another. This is not just an inconvenience. It is a violation of their rights, creating insecurity, fear and unnecessary suffering. Worse still, this legal uncertainty directly infringes on one of the fundamental pillars of the EU: the right to free movement.

    What freedom is there if crossing a border can strip away a person’s legal relationship with their child? No EU citizen should have to choose between their right to live and work anywhere in the Union and the legal security of their family. Yet that is precisely the choice some families are forced to make.

    This Parliament has a duty to defend all families. EU law must guarantee that civil status documents – marriages, partnerships, birth certificates – are recognised across borders, regardless of the gender of the parents or spouses.

    The European Court of Justice has already affirmed that all EU citizens, including same sex families, must be able to move freely without discrimination. Now we need our legislation to reflect this. We must ensure that legal rights are already granted by one country, are not stripped away by another. This is about legal certainty, respect for human dignity and the freedom of movement that is the heart of the of the European project.

    Families should not have to fear crossing a border. Children should not lose their legal parents overnight. We have a responsibility to ensure that love, commitment and parental care are recognised and respected no matter where in the EU they exist. Let us choose the path of equality, dignity and fundamental rights.

    Tugaimis, agus seasaimis suas dár gclann i ngach áit san Aontas agus aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh i ngach aon Bhallstát.

     
       

     

      Krzysztof Śmiszek, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zasada wzajemnego uznawania dokumentów między państwami członkowskimi. Zasada wzajemnego zaufania. Zasada równości bez względu na orientację seksualną. Zasada swobodnego przepływu osób. Zasada zakazu dyskryminacji. To są podstawy funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej.

    Dzisiaj powiem Państwu o sytuacjach, prawdziwych sytuacjach, w których te zasady w Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązują. Prawo Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązuje, jeżeli po spędzeniu 15 pięknych lat ze swoim partnerem w Polsce, umiera on we Włoszech i musisz sprowadzić jego ciało do kraju, jak w przypadku Polaków – Krzysztofa i Łukasza. Te zasady nie istnieją kiedy zawierasz związek małżeński z miłością swojego życia w Danii albo w Portugalii. W Polsce ten związek nie ma żadnego znaczenia. Twoja miłość w świetle prawa nie istnieje, tak jak miłość polskiej pisarki Renaty i jej partnerki. Tak jak miłość aktywistów Dawida i Jakuba. Tysiące polskich, słowackich czy rumuńskich par jednopłciowych zawiera związki małżeńskie i wychowuje dzieci w Niemczech, w Portugalii, Holandii, Szwecji czy Hiszpanii. Kiedy podróżują do Polski, Bułgarii czy Słowacji, ich związki małżeńskie już nie istnieją i ich rodzicielstwo w świetle prawa zostaje odrzucone. Ich życia są unieważnione. Stają się niewidzialni. Stają się dla siebie obcymi osobami.

    Podstawą Unii Europejskiej jest wolność poruszania się po jej terytorium. W jaki sposób ta wolność jest respektowana, jeżeli w jednym kraju jestem mężem i ojcem, a w drugim nikim. Jeżeli odbiera się mi moją tożsamość, moją miłość i moją rodzinę w momencie, kiedy wsiadam do pociągu w Berlinie, a wysiadam we Wrocławiu czy Warszawie. Artykuł 21 Karty Praw Podstawowych zakazuje dyskryminacji ze względu na orientację seksualną. Czy na pewno tak jest w Unii Europejskiej? Panie Komisarzu, czas zakończyć tę jawną dyskryminację. Czas na działanie Unii Europejskiej i Komisji Europejskiej.

     
       

     

      Paolo Inselvini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, i bambini, la parte più fragile, coloro che hanno bisogno di protezione più di tutti, devono avere la priorità. Questo in generale, ma anche e soprattutto per il dibattito odierno. Siamo tutti d’accordo, credo e spero, su questo aspetto.

    E allora perché qualcuno vuole sacrificare i diritti dei più piccoli sull’altare dell’ideologia? Perché si vuole esaudire a tutti i costi i desideri, più o meno legittimi, degli adulti? I bambini hanno il diritto ad avere un padre e una madre. Non perché lo decidiamo noi, brutti e cattivi, non perché lo decide uno Stato, ma perché così è, senza alcuna possibilità di smentita.

    Avere dei bambini, invece, non è un diritto. Avere dei figli non è un diritto che può essere esaudito a tutti i costi. Questo semplicemente, perché le persone non sono delle cose.

    Ecco perché mi sorge un dubbio. Evidentemente, la discussione di oggi è fatta per ingannare. È un inganno: un inganno da parte di chi vuole legittimare la barbara pratica dell’utero in affitto, ossia la mercificazione della donna, dei bambini e della vita.

    E se questo è il vostro obiettivo, bene, sappiate che ci troverete pronti alle barricate. Saremo l’argine che fermerà la vostra furiosa marea ideologica. Non smetteremo mai di ribadirlo: i bambini possono nascere solo da un padre e una madre, solo da un uomo e da una donna. Ed è assurdo dover sempre ricordare ciò che è ovvio. Ma se ci costringerete, noi lo riaffermeremo ogni giorno con coraggio. Non arretreremo un centimetro nella difesa della famiglia, della donna e dei bambini.

     
       

     

      Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire Micallef, chers collègues, la montée de l’extrême droite en Europe représente une menace grandissante pour tout le monde, et plus particulièrement pour la communauté LGBTI. En témoigne la récente mesure du gouvernement Meloni, qui vise à annuler les enregistrements des actes d’état civil des enfants des couples de même sexe. En Italie, plus de 20 000 enfants élevés par des couples de même sexe sont ainsi menacés par la remise en cause de leur filiation légale.

    Aujourd’hui, dans l’Union européenne, ce sont plus de 2 millions d’enfants qui pourraient faire face à une situation dans laquelle ce lien avec leurs parents n’est pas reconnu. Il est donc urgent d’agir maintenant, d’autant plus que, Monsieur le Commissaire, la solution, nous l’avons déjà trouvée, vous l’avez rappelé.

    La Commission européenne a proposé, il y a deux ans déjà, un règlement pour harmoniser cette reconnaissance et introduire un certificat européen. Cette reconnaissance ne permettrait pas simplement de mettre fin à l’incertitude, mais elle offrirait également une garantie réelle de protection des droits et l’égalité pour les familles.

    Alors, chers collègues, qu’attendons-nous pour la mettre en œuvre? Avec mon groupe Renew Europe, nous portons haut et fort les valeurs européennes d’égalité. J’appelle donc les États membres à faire avancer cette proposition, essentielle pour la sécurité juridique pour tous, pour l’égalité, pour la protection des enfants dans l’Union européenne. Nous devons cela à tous les enfants européens.

     
       

     

      Kim Van Sparrentak, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, this summer I am getting married and I honestly can’t wait to call my beautiful fiancée my wife. I can’t wait to celebrate with all our friends and family and use our legal rights to be recognised as partners for life.

    And two weeks later, one of my best friends is also getting married and I know he is as excited as me to tie the knot with his girlfriend. But the sad reality is that within our union of equality, my friend and I aren’t equal, because there are still Member States that disavow a marriage between me and my girlfriend. They are allowed to prevent us from accessing our social security or our claims to residency and they can disregard the other if we have to make unthinkable medical choices. They are still allowed to hinder us in our right to free movement. Some marriage certificates are apparently more meaningful than others.

    And this is definitely not about me. It is about baby Sara, who is a toddler by now, and her mums, who have been fighting for their child not to grow up stateless. This is about Adrian Coman, whose partner was prevented from living with him in his home country of Romania. It is about Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi not having to fight for the legal gender recognition he already obtained, especially when the possibilities are limited and dehumanising.

    The courts are clear: freedom of movement means that if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country. If you are a spouse in one country, you are a spouse in every country. If you obtain legal gender recognition in one country, you obtain legal gender recognition in every country.

    Commission, I’m looking forward to you putting this into law and I’m especially looking forward to seeing that happen within the new LGBTIQ equality strategy.

     
       

     

      Siegbert Frank Droese, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Verehrte Kollegen! Ich wundere mich schon, dass wir heute die Tagesordnung nicht geändert haben. Sie haben es wahrscheinlich mitbekommen: Ein Weltereignis von Weltrang hat sich gestern ereignet. Die Präsidenten Trump und Putin werden einen Friedensprozess in Gang setzen, was die Ukraine betrifft. Die Kommission, das Parlament, die EU spielen dabei keine Rolle. Da hätte ich mir ehrlich gesagt gewünscht, dass wir heute über dieses Thema reden. Nun ist es so. Wir reden jetzt heute über das Problem gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.

    Die Kommission propagiert jeden Tag pausenlos ihre EU-Werte und will sie möglichst global durchsetzen. Was für eine Vermessenheit! Dass dadurch Abkommen verhindert werden, oft die Wirtschaft der EU Schaden nimmt, ist der Kommission dabei vollkommen egal. Dabei scheint die Kommission nicht zu interessieren, dass die Mehrheit der Länder auf der Welt andere Werte als diese EU hat. Dies gilt insbesondere für den Bereich Familie. Sechs Länder haben nicht der Idee von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen zugestimmt, darunter Bulgarien, Rumänien und Polen. Diese Länder haben andere Traditionen. Warum kann man das nicht respektieren? Diese EU macht doch immer Reklame für Einheit in Vielfalt. Gilt das normale und traditionelle Familienbild aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern, das in Europa seit Anbeginn der Zeit herrscht, nicht als schützenswerter Teil einer Vielfalt? Warum werden hier Länder wie Rumänien bedroht, die ihre Verfassung verändern müssen? Das finden wir übergriffig, das ist widerlich, das ist abzulehnen.

    Um es klar zu sagen: Niemand soll diskriminiert werden. Es soll aber auch niemand bevorzugt werden. Gleichbehandlung für jedermann. Diese EU will nun grenzüberschreitend, dass alle privaten Lebensformen überall in der EU anerkannt werden. Nein, das soll jedes Land selbst entscheiden. Das ist eine nationale Aufgabe der Mitgliedsländer. Diese EU, solange sie noch besteht, soll sich auf ihre Kernkompetenzen, wenn sie die denn hat, konzentrieren und sich nicht in das Privatleben der Bürger einmischen. Wir respektieren das Privatleben aller Bürger. Wir stehen aber auch für Familie aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern.

    Die Souveränität einer Nation heißt auch Souveränität in den Familienfragen und Respekt vor Privatangelegenheiten seiner Bürger. Und von dieser Stelle aus möchte ich meinen Landsleuten zurufen: Wenn Sie Freiheit, Frieden und Souveränität große Beachtung schenken, haben Sie nächste Woche am Sonntag die Gelegenheit. Wir sagen dazu: Von den Alpen bis zur See wählen alle AfD. Oder in einfacher Sprache: Sei schlau, wähl blau!

     
       


     

      Lucia Yar (Renew). – Dnes tu stojím s víziou Európy, ktorá je spravodlivá, láskavá a verná svojim spoločným hodnotám, pán predrečník. Európy postavenej na tolerancii, kde o vzťahu dvoch dospelých ľudí rozhodujú ich city, ich vzájomné city, a nie povolenia politikov, kde každé dieťa, bez ohľadu na orientáciu alebo pohlavie svojich rodičov, má právo na stabilitu, bezpečie a rodinu. Verím v Európsku úniu, ktorá spája, nie rozdeľuje. Takú, ktorá nedovolí, aby prekročenie hranice znamenalo stratu rodiča. Aj Európsky súdny dvor, už sme o tom počuli, tvrdí, že ak je právny vzťah uznaný v jednej krajine, musí ho rešpektovať aj iná krajina. Kvôli princípu spravodlivosti a ochrany tých najzraniteľnejších, to je ten dôvod. A predsa, napríklad u nás na Slovensku, vidíme opak. Populistické vlády predkladajú návrhy, ktoré práva rodín nerozširujú, ale ich obmedzujú, zraňujú ich. My ale máme naviac. Vyberme si cestu, ktorá je cestou rešpektu. A skúsme aj v tejto dobe povedať jasné áno spravodlivosti. Postavme sa za Európu, v ktorej každé dieťa, každá rodina a každý človek má svoje bezpečné miesto.

     
       

     

      Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte, dass alle Europäerinnen und Europäer die gleichen Rechte haben, unabhängig davon, wo sie leben und wen sie lieben.

    Niemand hat Hass und Hetze verdient; alle haben Respekt und gleiche Rechte verdient. Es ist doch absurd, dass Menschen sich in der EU zwar frei bewegen können, aber sie selbst und ihre Familien nicht überall anerkannt werden. Es hat in der Vergangenheit mehrere Fälle gegeben, wo gleichgeschlechtliche Paare ihre Rechte vor Gericht einklagen mussten. Zwei polnische Frauen, die in Wien ein Kind bekommen haben, aber zu Hause damit nicht anerkannt wurden. Homosexuelle Männer, die nach ihrem Umzug in einen anderen EU-Mitgliedstaat ihre Ehe nicht anerkannt bekommen haben.

    Es ist untragbar, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Paare in der Europäischen Union 2025 immer noch diskriminiert werden. Es ist unsere Pflicht, die Grundrechte von allen EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürgern zu schützen. Dafür brauchen wir europäische Gesetze, mit denen die Freiheit der Menschen geschützt und Regenbogenfamilien EU-weit anerkannt werden. Gegen Staaten wie Rumänien, die das systematisch untergraben, muss die EU-Kommission mit Sanktionen vorgehen.

    Ich möchte Sie auch ganz herzlich auffordern, hier nicht nachzulassen, sondern nachzulegen, auch wenn die politische Stimmung in einigen Mitgliedstaaten vielleicht kompliziert ist. Aber Sie haben hier gemeinsam mit uns eine Verantwortung. Der müssen Sie gerecht werden.

     
       

     

      Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jutro Walentynki, 14 lutego. Niestety nie wszyscy w tej Unii Równości będą mogli świętować to święto. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej obywateli lepszego i gorszego sortu. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej rodziny, które nie mają równych praw. Nadal mamy 2 miliony dzieci w Unii Europejskiej, które nie są objęte ochroną. Europejski certyfikat rodzicielstwa chce to zmienić, to dobry kierunek i dlatego dziwię się, naprawdę dziwię się prawicy, że z taką nienawiścią podchodzi do czegoś, co Wy zawsze popieraliście – ochrony rodziny i ochrony dzieci. Przecież tu chodzi o bezpieczeństwo tego dziecka. Chodzi o to, że kiedy jego rodzice znajdują się w sytuacji, która nie jest uregulowana prawnie, to by dziecko po prostu najnormalniej w świecie było bezpieczne. Nic więcej i nic mniej.

    (Mówca zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)

     
       

     

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Mam pytanie do Pana Posła. Nie rozumiem tego lamentu, który tutaj Pan Poseł przedstawia wraz ze swoim partnerem. Od ponad roku rządzicie państwo w Polsce – Pana formacja z Donaldem Tuskiem. Rządzicie w Polsce od 14 miesięcy. Macie większość, możecie tak zmienić prawo w Polsce, jak chcecie i nie umiecie tego zrobić. No i powiedzcie dlaczego?

    Poza tym, Panie Pośle, Unia Europejska jest organizacją prawną – artykuł 5 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej mówi bardzo wyraźnie, że kompetencje nieprzyznane innym są kompetencjami krajowymi. Więc także tu macie większość w tym Parlamencie, możecie robić, co chcecie i nie robicie tego. Więc krótko mówiąc, ja jestem za prawem naturalnym, mam trochę inne zdanie niz Pan, ale niech Pan nie ma pretensji do Kaczyńskiego, do Prawicy o to, że jesteście mniejszością, bo jesteście …

    (Przewodnicząca odebrała mówcy głos)

     
       

     

      Robert Biedroń (S&D), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Ja chciałem podziękować panu posłowi, że on tak pełen emocji podchodzi do tej sprawy i tutaj podpowiada, jak to zmienić. Proszę się przyłączyć. Ja myślę, że tutaj warto, żebyśmy wszyscy ponad podziałami chronili każdego obywatela i każdą obywatelkę. Jeśli chodzi o prawo unijne, Panie Pośle, to warto doczytać – Europejski Trybunał Sprawiedliwości wydawał wyroki w tej sprawie. Brak takiej regulacji to nie tylko jest pogwałcenie traktatów, ale pogwałcenie także podstawowych praw człowieka. Dlatego, Panie Komisarzu, dziękuję za tę inicjatywę, którą, jak rozumiem, pan Rzońca będzie popierał.

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, of course, no child should be discriminated against because of the way they were born or the type of family they were born into. It is crucial. It is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 2. Please read this article. We are all obliged to fulfil the requirements of human rights. All.

    It’s not a question of religion. Those who are mentioning Christianity, please read the Bible. Abraham and his first son and, of course, Saint Mary’s story. It would be good to listen and to understand about what you are speaking. Of course, you know that all families, including rainbow families, should have the same rights in the EU. This includes, for instance, the right to maintenance and schooling, education and others.

    But it is a pity we see that such a trend is growing, especially in those countries where the far right are trying to violate human rights. Of course, the parenthood regulation is still blocked in the Council. It is also a shame that the Council still, until now, has no chance to solve this problem. It is our duty to implement all human rights.

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

      Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (PfE). – Señora presidente, señorías, el Derecho de familia es competencia de los Estados miembros. La Declaración de los Derechos del Niño es clara: todo niño tiene un padre y una madre y tiene derecho a conocerlos y a ser cuidado por ellos en la medida de lo posible. Los vínculos naturales entre padres e hijos deben ser respetados, pues trascienden la propia existencia: ¿quién soy?; ¿de dónde vengo?; el inicio de nuestra vida en el vientre materno; el vínculo con nuestros padres… Otras formas de paternidad interfieren en esta realidad y exponen al niño y a las personas implicadas no solo a graves dilemas éticos y legales, sino también a situaciones donde se agrede su propia dignidad.

    Garantizar la seguridad jurídica de las familias es legítimo; sin embargo, vemos cómo este principio está siendo instrumentalizado para dar una nueva forma a las relaciones entre padres e hijos transformándolas en contractuales, a veces incluso en mercantiles, como es la gestación subrogada. El ser humano deja de ser tratado como un sujeto de derechos y pasa a considerarse un objeto de transacción, un bien de consumo, a través de la explotación de las mujeres, causando un doloroso desgarro con el hijo y normalizando la ruptura de los lazos naturales.

    La difícil situación en la que se puedan encontrar estos niños debe ser resuelta caso a caso a nivel nacional, no por un mecanismo general europeo como es el certificado de filiación: esto alentaría estas prácticas exponiendo a más personas a esta…

    (la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the gender-neutral right to free movement is a cornerstone of our citizens’ Union. The gender-neutral Union family law, the right to love and the right to be loved is an essential block to build a union of equality.

    By requiring or facilitating the recognition of civil status documents, including for same sex couples, Union law on free movement and Union family law aim to protect the rights of couples and also of children in cross-border situations, without leaving behind any spouse or partner due to their sexual orientation and without leaving behind any child because of the way in which he was conceived or born, or because she has the same sex parents.

    In facilitating the recognition of civil status documents also for same sex families, Union law does not interfere with the Member States’ substantive family law, such as their rules on the definition of family or their rules on surrogacy, which fall within the competence of Member States.

    However, with the recognition of civil status documents for all spouses or partners and for all children, Union law will ensure that same sex couples and their children can benefit from all their rights in any Member State.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. The debate is closed.

     

    10. Explanations of votes

     

      President. – The next item is the explanation of votes.

     

    10.1. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025)



     

      Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážení voliči, mám čtyři důvody, proč jsem dnes hlasoval proti rezoluci o Gruzii. Důvod první, Evropský parlament by se měl věnovat potížím Evropy, ne usnesením o cizích zemích. Je to neuctivé a neužitečné. Oni mají své problémy, my máme dost vlastních. Důvod druhý, kritika gruzínských voleb je dezinformace. Zásadní výhrady proti nim neměla ani mise OSCE, ani mise Evropského parlamentu. Gruzínci si jasně zvolili Gruzínský sen. Evropský parlament nemá žádnou pravomoc určovat, kdo bude v Gruzii premiérem či prezidentem. Důvod třetí, rezoluce vyzývá k puči a k financování nepokojů z peněz evropských občanů. Vyzývá, abychom se dopustili stejného zahraničního vměšování, které tady soustavně kritizujeme. Exprezidentce Zurabišviliové skončil mandát. Nechť odejde. Exprezident Saakašvili byl v řádném procesu trestně odsouzen za zneužití moci. Nechť svůj trest vykoná. Důvod čtvrtý, politika, kterou rezoluce Gruzii vnucuje, by jí připravila podobný osud, jaký stihl Ukrajinu. Gruzie tu není proto, aby dělala pěšáka Západu v boji s Ruskem. Tímto se Gruzii omlouvám za pokus o destabilizaci ze strany Parlamentu. Přeji jí rozumnou vládu, mír a prosperitu.

     

    10.2. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025)


     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – Maith thú a Uachtaráin arís, bhí mé an-sásta, cosúil le mo ghrúpa an EPP, vótáil ar son na tuarascála seo.

    The ongoing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo is both heartbreaking and unjustifiable. The escalation of conflict, including the occupation of Goma by M23 forces, has led to severe violations of human rights, including the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and recruitment of child soldiers. These actions are not only a violation of international law, but are also catastrophic for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

    The resolution calls for concrete actions to bring peace to the region, including imposing sanctions, halting arms transfers and demanding that Rwanda ceases its support for M23.

    I believe this resolution sends a clear message that we will not tolerate further human suffering and that we stand in solidarity with the people of the DRC in their fight for peace and justice.

    Sin a bhfuil uaimse a Uachtaráin, míle buíochas agus go dté tú slán abhaile.

     

    11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to Parliament for its approval at the beginning of the next sitting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today’s sitting to the persons and bodies named in the resolutions.

     

    12. Dates of forthcoming sittings

     

      President. – The next part‑session will take place from 10 to 13 March 2025, in Strasbourg.

     

    13. Closure of the sitting

       

    (The sitting closed at 15:40)

     

    14. Adjournment of the session

     

      President. – The session of the European Parliament is adjourned.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cassidy, Barrasso, Thune, Colleagues Introduce Bill to End Electric Vehicle Tax Credits

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and 12 Republican colleagues introduced the Eliminating Lavish Incentives to Electric (ELITE) Vehicles Act to end the federal electric vehicle and charging stations tax credit. This legislation stops taxpayer money from subsidizing luxury electric vehicles (EVs) for high-income individuals and corporations.
    “The Biden administration giving tax credits at the environmental lobby’s bidding is not good policy,” said Dr. Cassidy. “American taxpayers should not have to foot the bill so millionaires can zip around in their electric cars.”
    “The hard-earned money of taxpaying Americans should not cover the cost for the luxuries of the nation’s elite. Nor should we be allowing China to infiltrate our markets and undermine our supply chain,” said Senator Barrasso. “Repealing these reckless tax credits from the Biden administration once and for all will stop Washington from giving handouts to our adversaries and high-income individuals. Wyoming families should not foot the bill for expensive electric cars they don’t want and can’t afford.”
    “American taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the Biden administration’s sweeping windfall for electric vehicles,” said Senator Thune. “I’m proud to join Sen. Barrasso in this effort to end the exorbitant tax burden that was placed on American households to fuel a reckless and unrealistic environmental agenda.”
    The ELITE Vehicles Act would:

    Repeal the $7,500 tax credit for new EVs. 
    Eliminate the tax credit for purchasing used EVs.
    Wipe out the federal investment tax credit for electric vehicle charging stations.
    Close the “leasing loophole” that has allowed certain taxpayers and foreign entities to evade restrictions on EV incentives.
    Stop China from exploiting loopholes and circumventing guardrails to access U.S. tax credits associated with electric vehicles.

    Cassidy, Barrasso, and Thune were joined by U.S. Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Hoeven (R-ND), and Rick Scott (R-FL) in introducing the bill.
    This legislation is supported by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity, National Taxpayers Union, and Heritage Action.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: California Yimby

    Source: UNISDR Disaster Risk Reduction

    Mission

    California YIMBY is a statewide housing advocacy organization that has helped pass 8 bills to increase home building and expand access to opportunity.

    California YIMBY’s mission is to make California an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. Achieving this mission will put California on a path of broad-based economic prosperity, creating vibrant, livable, and inclusive communities for everyone.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Commend the United Kingdom on Steps Taken to Provide a Real Living Wage, Ask Questions on Reported Discriminatory Legislation for Asylum Seekers and High Levels of Child Poverty

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights today concluded its review of the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with Committee Experts commending the steps taken to provide a real living wage, while asking questions on reported discriminatory legislation for asylum seekers and high levels of child poverty in the State party. 

    Joo-Young Lee, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said in its reply to the list of issues, the State party stated that the level of the minimum living wage for this year would be set at a level not below two-thirds of the median earnings in the United Kingdom.  For the first time, the cost of living would also be taken into account in this process, with the aim of providing a real living wage, which was commendable. 

    Seree Nonthasoot, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said it had been reported that the discriminatory effects of such recent legislation as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 had hindered access by migrants in an irregular situation and asylum seekers to social protection benefits.  Could the State party clarify if these hindering measures were in place and if social benefits would be ensured to this marginalised group?

    Julieta Rossi, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the United Kingdom was one of the richest economies in the world, yet extremely high figures of poverty persisted. According to information, during the period 2022/2023, 21 per cent of the population lived in relative poverty, with alarming rates of 30 per cent in childhood, or 4.3 million children.  Was the State developing a strategy to achieve a drastic and short-term reduction of poverty, which prioritised child poverty and poverty of disadvantaged groups? 

    The delegation said last month, a new border security, asylum and immigration bill was introduced to parliament, which included the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and amended the Illegal Migration Act, including the duty to remove individuals who had arrived in the United Kingdom immediately.  The Nationality and Borders Act remained in place, but all asylum claims were individually considered in line with international obligations. 

    Concerning child poverty, the delegation said the United Kingdom Government was developing a child poverty strategy to be launched in spring, as part of a 10-year strategy to address the issue.  The strategy would look at increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, and better local support.  The incoming Government had committed to ending dependence on emergency food parcels. In the financial year 2025/2026, funding of 742 million pounds would be devolved to local governments to help address this issue.

    Robert Linham, Deputy Director, Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom and head of the delegation, introducing the report, said the United Kingdom had a system of asymmetric devolution.  The position of the United Kingdom Government remained that incorporation was not necessary for the Covenant’s full implementation, which had been secured through a combination of policies and legislation.  But the Scottish Government had embarked on a programme to incorporate international treaties into Scots law.  Regarding the right to work, increasing the number of people in work was central to the United Kingdom Government’s mission to grow the economy.  Proposals, backed by 240 million pounds of investment, had been announced to reform employment support and create an inclusive labour market. 

    In concluding remarks, Mr. Nonthasoot extended appreciation to the United Kingdom delegation for its superb time and sequence management, which allowed the Committee to raise all relevant questions.  The Committee implored the United Kingdom to ensure that all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories under its control provided the highest standard of human rights to everyone. 

    In his concluding remarks, Mr. Linham said the dialogue had been rich and detailed, covering a variety of issues.  It was hoped that the Committee could see the efforts being undertaken in the whole of the United Kingdom to improve economic, social and cultural rights. 

    The delegation of the United Kingdom was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government; the United Nations Human Rights and IMA Policy Team; the Department for Business and Trade; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; the Department for Education; the Department for Work Pensions; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Department for Energy and Net Zero; the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; the HM Treasury; the Home Office; the Scottish Government; the Welsh Government; the Northern Ireland Executive Office; the Attorney General’s Chambers for the Isle of Man; the Government of Jersey; and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee’s seventy-seventh session is being held until 28 February 2025.  All documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Monday, 17 February to begin its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Rwanda (E/C.12/RWA/5).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (E/C.12/GBR/7).

    Presentation of Report

    ROBERT LINHAM, Deputy Director, Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom and head of the delegation, said the United Kingdom had a system of asymmetric devolution by which specified areas of responsibility were devolved to some or all of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.  For example, health and education were devolved to all three nations; social security was fully devolved to Northern Ireland but only in part to Scotland; and immigration was largely reserved to the United Kingdom Government.  The delegation also represented the three Crown Dependencies: the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Isle of Man, as well as the 14 British Overseas Territories, home to 250,000 people. 

    One example of devolution in practice related to the incorporation of the Covenant into national law.  The position of the United Kingdom Government remained that incorporation was not necessary for the Covenant’s full implementation, which had been secured through a combination of policies and legislation; and further what it would take to incorporate the Covenant would not be justified by the benefits.  But the Scottish Government had embarked on a programme to incorporate international treaties into Scots law. Its incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with two Optional Protocols, came into force last July; and the Scottish Government had committed, subject to the outcome of the next election, to introduce a human rights bill in the next session of Parliament that would give domestic legal effect in Scots law to the present Covenant and some other United Nations treaties.

    Since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and political institutions in February last year, new initiatives had been launched, including an additional 25 million pounds to support early learning and childcare, the provision of free period products to anyone who needed them, and a strategy to end violence against women and girls.  The United Kingdom general election in June 2024 resulted in a change of government to the Labour Party.  In some areas, the approach had already changed quite radically, while other policies remained under review. 

    Regarding the right to work, increasing the number of people in work was central to the United Kingdom Government’s mission to grow the economy.  Proposals, backed by 240 million pounds of investment, had been announced to reform employment support and create an inclusive labour market. Last October, the Government also introduced an employment rights bill into the United Kingdom’s Parliament to increase workers’ rights to better working conditions and more secure work, and to improve industrial relations.  It also included protections from sexual harassment; gender and menopause action plans; and enhanced rights for pregnant workers.

    In the same vein, Guernsey enacted legislation that formally made discrimination on the grounds of race, disability, carer status, religion or belief, and sexual orientation unlawful, covering the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, accommodation, and membership of clubs and associations.

    Regarding the right to health, England introduced the “Core 20 Plus 5” approach to reduce healthcare inequalities, amongst the most deprived 20 per cent of the population. The Government’s goal was to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between England’s richest and poorest regions, which in 2020 stood at 10.8 years.  The mental health bill, introduced into Parliament last November, sought to address inadequate care of autistic people and people with learning disabilities, and reduce their unnecessary detention.

    Using newly devolved powers as part of its goal to eradicate child poverty, the Scottish Government introduced five payments to eligible families.  Three Best Start Grants provided one-off payments at key stages in a child’s life.  Best Start Foods was a regular weekly payment to help buy milk and healthy food.  And the Scottish Child Payment helped with the costs of supporting a family.  Similarly, Wales offered free school meals to all children in State primary schools.

    In cultural rights, the United Kingdom last year ratified the 2003 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.  In Wales, the Cymraeg 2050 Welsh Language Strategy saw almost 17,000 people studying with the National Centre for Learning Welsh in 2022/23, a 33 per cent increase over five years.  Regarding environmental commitments, finally, the Paris Agreement was extended to the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey in 2022 and 2023. Mr. Linham said the United Kingdom was committed to upholding the rights set out in the Covenant. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said the Committee, via the Secretariat, had received more than 72 submissions pertaining to the periodic report of the State party, probably the highest number thus far for any State party, which attested to the attention and interest that the international community and stakeholders gave to the State party and its report.  It was also important to note, following the submission of the report, that there was a general election in July 2024 and a new administration had since been appointed. 

    The Committee observed that the Covenant could not be applied directly by the State party’s domestic courts.  While there was alignment between the State party’s Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, there was as yet no such transposition mechanism for the Covenant?  Was the Covenant applicable in Anguilla and Northern Ireland?  When would the nearly 50-year-old reservations to the Covenant be withdrawn?  Did the State party’s plan to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Covenant?

    The Committee recognised the State party’s record in introducing the first national action plan on business and human rights in the world in 2013, which was updated in 2016, and the Modern Slavery Act in 2015.  However, there was still an absence of a comprehensive legal framework for human rights due diligence, especially by United Kingdom companies in their transnational operations.  Could clarification on this be provided?  When would systematic and mandatory human rights due diligence be introduced? 

    Was the State party contemplating adopting a sectoral approach in the revision of the national action plan, where key sectoral performance indicators could be specified, for example in banking and finance, retail, construction, and health?  Did the State party intend to integrate effective remedial mechanisms, including legal aid to victims into the next national action plan and, more strategically, binding legislation? Would non-judicial recourse be provided for victims in extraterritorial cases?

    The Committee had scrutinised the 2024 report submitted to Parliament by the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Committee and found alarming findings.  The Committee concluded that only a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve the 2030 target were covered by credible plans, and low-carbon technologies must become the norm.  The Committee was also concerned that the devolved structure of the State party’s administrations had led to the fact that obligations arising from the Paris Agreement had not extended to all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.  What was the concrete policy path to meet the action lines and targets, particularly home decarbonisation and adaptation?  How would the Paris Agreement have full coverage and effect in the territory of the State party?

    How was the State party addressing the tax system which had created negative impacts on vulnerable and marginalised groups, including the regressive nature of the value added tax on low-income households, and the welfare to work policies that posed a burden on people with disabilities?  In November 2024, the net public debt of the United Kingdom stood at 98.1 per cent.  How was this high public debt level impacting social budget programmes and what was the medium- and long-term direction on public debt management which would sustain basic public service investment and maintenance? 

    Could the State party provide policy trajectory on the concrete plan to tackle tax evasion and illicit financial flows, and in particular the reform of law and regulations in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other Overseas Territories that were indexed as tax havens?

    How did the new administration intend to address the regional disparity issue?  What were the cumulative impacts of the two austerity programmes implemented by the United Kingdom? 

    Had an assessment been carried out to implement the official development assistance restoration to 0.7% of the gross national income.  There were reports indicating that part of the development aid through British International Investment had caused impacts on key sectors responsible for delivering human rights, including health and education.  Could this be clarified?  The Committee was concerned by the lack of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation; could the delegation provide more information around this? 

    While the State party had achieved good progress on gender equality, there were challenges in the fragmented and uneven legislative frameworks on women’s rights, particularly in Northern Ireland, Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. There were also news reports of incidents of sexual exploitation and violence against women and young girls by ‘grooming gangs’ in places like Oldham, north Manchester. Was this an isolated incident or a common occurrence and what had been done to address the issue?

    It had been reported that the discriminatory effects of such recent legislation as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 had hindered access by migrants in an irregular situation and asylum seekers to social protection benefits.  Could the State Party clarify if these hindering measures were in place and if social benefits would be ensured to this marginalised group?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said there was no obligation to incorporate the Covenant under domestic law. Successive Governments had explored ratifying the Optional Protocol and the view of previous Governments was that the protections were negligible.  The Covenant was applicable in England, Wales, Scotland, the three Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories.  Some of the reservations existing in the name of the United Kingdom related to territories which were no longer part of the United Kingdom, including the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu which were no longer British Overseas Territories, but sovereign States in their own right.   

    The Scottish Government had developed proposals to give domestic legal effect to the rights contained in the Covenant, by incorporating them into the Scottish legal framework.  The Government aimed to deliver a clear and workable law for the authorities that would implement it. 

    The Prime Minister had announced a commitment to reduce emissions by at least 81 per cent by 2035.  The target covered all sectors and categories and was aligned with the Paris Agreement. The United Kingdom was committed to extending its ratification of the Paris Agreement to all Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.  The Government had committed an additional 3.4 billion pounds to the “Warm Home Plan”, to support decarbonisation and cut bills for household heating. 

    The United Kingdom was committed to making the tax system fairer and more sustainable.  The Government had committed to not increasing tax on working people.  Recent tax changes had been targeted at the highest income households and working people had been largely protected from these tax increases.  Jersey was committed to introducing measures to reduce harmful tax measures.  Jersey’s 2019 economic substance law required companies to prove their genuine business activity, preventing those without real operations from artificially reporting profits. 

    A campaign had been launched against illicit finance.  At a recent joint ministerial council, the United Kingdom confirmed that Overseas Territories needed to implement fully public registers of beneficial ownership, which were key in targeting against corruption and tax evasion.  There were strong policies in place to monitor the impact of development aid programmes. 

    In recent years, there had been an increase in the representation of women in parliament, as well as in senior positions in the private sector, where women now represented 41 per cent.  The United Kingdom had mandatory gender pay gap reporting, which had shown a significant close in the size of the gender pay gap.  The current Government had introduced a bill which would introduce a new duty on employers to outline how they planned to close the gender pay gap. 

    There had been no agreement on a single equality bill in Northern Ireland, but numerous statutes had been enacted over the past few years.  Legislation now prohibited less favourable treatment in employment, education and public functions among others. 

    The safety of children was of paramount importance, but for too long grooming gangs had operated, victims had been ignored, and perpetrators had gone unpunished.  A 10-million-pound action plan to tackle grooming gangs and child sexual abuse had been announced, which would allow victims to have the chance to have their cases re-heard.  Survivors and victims would allow their closed cases to be reviewed by an independent panel, when they previously were not taken forward to prosecution by the Crown.  An audit would begin soon which would draw on the views of victims and survivors. 

    Last month, a new border security, asylum and immigration bill was introduced to parliament, which included the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and amended the Illegal Migration Act, including the duty to remove individuals who had arrived in the United Kingdom immediately.  The Nationality and Borders Act remained in place, but all asylum claims were individually considered in line with international obligations. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said reports had been received that the Northern Ireland human rights commission was at risk of losing its A status due to insufficient funding.  The Committee would like to raise this concern.  Why did the United Kingdom not adopt the same approach as the Scottish Government in incorporating the Covenant in domestic legislation so that all people could enjoy protection from the Covenant?  What was the State doing to reduce homelessness?  The Committee was very concerned that violent incidents against women would become systematic.  There should be a clear indication on how to prevent this type of violence. 

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what measures the Government would take to give full legal effect to the Covenant, and ensure victims of violations of economic, cultural and social rights had full access to legal remedies?  The Committee was pleased the Scottish Government had proposed the human rights bill, and hoped the provisions of the Covenant would be incorporated.  What was the plan to enact a bill of rights for northern Ireland?

    A Committee Expert asked how the State was planning a social green transformation? 

    Another Expert asked if there were any developments underway regarding the participation of the United Kingdom in the revised European Social Charter? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said all three of the human rights institutions had A status and adequate funding for their role.  At the most recent review of Northern Ireland, it was re-accredited with A status, and a baseline budget review had been launched for the Commission in 2024. 

    There was no obligation for direct justiciability for the rights of the Covenant under domestic law. The United Kingdom had no plans to ratify the revised European Social Charter. 

    It was intended that legislation in Scotland would increase accountability for the Covenant. 

    The debt to gross domestic product ratio was expected to fall in the final year of the five-year forecast. 

    The State would upgrade five million homes across the country through new technologies, including solar heat pumps and installation.  The transition to warmer, decarbonised homes would include support for the most vulnerable to combat fuel poverty.  Climate change would have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable of society, including those with pre-existing medical conditions.  The country’s climate change risk assessment took this into account and built into the development of the National Adaptation Programme.  It was essential that transition plans to net-zero were resilient in themselves.

    The Government was working on a strategy to end homelessness.  Last year, a funding increase was announced for homelessness services and initiatives were announced to allow renters to challenge rental increases. 

    Tackling violence against women and girls was a priority for the Government, and the State pledged to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that according to information that the Committee had received, although some employment gaps gradually narrowed over time, ethnic minorities, women, young people, and persons with disabilities continued to face higher levels of unemployment and were more likely to be in a low-paid jobs.  How had the State party analysed the underlying causes of employment and pay gaps, and what was the impact of these measures on ethnic minorities, women, young people and persons with disabilities in their access to decent work?

    Information received by the Committee indicated that the level of national minimum wage and national living wage was insufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living for workers, as it did not keep pace with the rising cost of living.  In its reply to the list of issues, the State party stated that the level of the minimum living wage for this year would be set at a level not below two-thirds of the median earnings in the United Kingdom. For the first time, the cost of living would also be taken into account in this process, with the aim of providing a real living wage, which was commendable.  Had the State party adopted a methodology for determining the level of the national minimum wage and the national living wage that was indexed to the cost of living. 

    What measures were being taken to address precarious work such as exploitative zero-hour contracts and to enhance security of employment?  What measures were taken to protect workers from labour exploitations and to impose appropriate sanctions on those responsible?  The Committee noted that the State party planned to establish a single body, a Fair Work Agency, to enhance the effectiveness of the protection of workers.  How would it be ensured that the body had necessary 

    powers and resources to effectively monitor working conditions and protect workers?  What measures were taken to ensure the right to strike?

    According to information received by the Committee, the level of social security benefits was not sufficient for a decent standard of living.  Information indicated that the social security system, including the Universal Credit, was not providing people with adequate social protection. What measures were being taken to ensure that the level of social security benefits was adequate and determined by an assessment of the real cost of an adequate standard of living?  Had the State party carried out an assessment of the impact on people of such measures as the benefit cap, the two-child policy, the so-called “bed-room tax” and the five-week wait, and if so, what measures were being taken to address these impacts?  What measures were being taken to ensure that any conditions for benefits were proportionate and did not result in stigmatisation and degradation of claimants?

    What measures had the State taken to ensure the availability, accessibility, and affordability of quality childcare, including childcare for disabled children?

    How was it ensured that quality social care was available, accessible, and affordable for adults who needed care and support, including older persons?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the creation of the national minimum wage had been one of the most successful economic interventions in the United Kingdom in the past 25 years.  The Government was determined to deliver a genuine living wage and had asked the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living in recommending the appropriate rates for 2025 onwards.  The Low Pay Commission expected that three million low paid workers would receive a pay rise.  The Government had recently introduced an employment rights bill which would include a right to guaranteed hours.  There would be new rights to reasonable notice of shift cancellations, and the bills would close loopholes regarding scrupulous “fire to hire” practices. The Government aimed to protect workers and business from the minority of employers who broke the rules.   

    Migrant workers had the same employment rights and protections as other United Kingdom workers, including the minimum wage and protection against discrimination.  In 2023, it was ensured that all seasonal workers would receive at least 32 hours of work per week, and the minimum wage was also raised. 

    The employment rate for people of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin had increased in recent years; historically this was low in the United Kingdom.  Levels of qualifications at schools were lower for some ethnic groups, which affected employment opportunities.  The State was planning to introduce mandatory pay reporting by ethnicity and disability. 

    A whitepaper would be published setting out the reforms expected by the Government on health and disability.  There were a range of ethnic minority support mechanisms in place. 

    The current rates of income-related benefits did not represent a minimum requirement, which could vary depending on people’s circumstances.  The current Government had committed to reviewing universal credit to tackle poverty.  The new child poverty strategy would focus on the benefit cap and the two-child limit. The Department for Work and Pensions published a range of independent evaluations in a wide range of social policy, including households below-average incomes. 

    The Government would provide more than eight billion pounds this year for education, representing a 30 per cent increase from the previous year.  Tax free childcare was a United-Kingdom wide offer to support parents to return to work, or work more when they needed to.  Families could receive up to 2,000 pounds per child per year, or 4,000 pounds if the child had a disability.   

    A fund could be used to increase funds paid to adult social care providers and reduce waiting times. The Care Act 2014 placed emphasis on local authorities to shape their care market, making sure they were meeting the needs of the local population. 

    In 2022, the Scottish Government published a refreshed Fair Work Vision, with a key goal of reducing the gender pay gap.  The median gender pay gap had decreased from 15.6 per cent in 2016, to 9.2 per cent in 2024. The disability employment had been reduced to around 37 per cent, which was its lowest level, with plans to halve the gap by 2028.  The Scottish Government was delivering 15 social security payments and was investing around 6.9 billion pounds in social security payments. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked how the State would ensure the income-related benefits were adequate for those living in disadvantaged situations?  According to information, there may be a gap among the poorest of families for accessing childcare entitlements, particularly families that were not working. Could this be clarified? 

    A Committee Expert asked for examples where violations of the right of women workers compared to men had been judicially assessed?  What remedies were applied?

    Another Expert asked if there were plans for a participatory poverty assessment to be conducted every few years to identify those who were affected?   

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, asked if indexation based on inflation would be adopted, to more accurately reflect the living wage? 

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked about the two-child cap on certain social security benefits, including universal credit.  This cap could have a huge impact on child poverty levels.  What was the rationale behind this?  What were the obstacles to immediately repealing the two-child limit?  The State had a high level of child policy, up to 30 per cent, so the Committee would appreciate more information being provided on this subject.

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said income-related benefits were rated annually in the United Kingdom, based on the level of the consumer-prices index.  As such, benefits for 2025 would be increased by 1.7 per cent.  The two-child cap was introduced as the United Kingdom faced a financial crisis a few years ago.  There was absolutely a relationship between the cap and the number of children in poverty.  The cap remained in place, but a taskforce was reviewing how the State would tackle the high levels of child poverty in the country, and would determine the best steps in this regard.  Removing the cap depended on the United Kingdom’s fiscal position. 

    The Low Pay Commission made annual recommendations on the appropriate rates of entities such as the minimum wage.  The Government’s impact assessment for 2025 found that women, younger and older workers, workers with a disability, and those from ethnic backgrounds, were more likely to be in minimum wage drops and more likely to benefit from the raising of the minimum wage in April 2025.  The Government had committed to reviewing the parental leave system to ensure it offered the best support to working families. 

    The Scottish Government had used other policies to determine the real living wage, including when issuing public sector grants and other funding.  The proposed human rights bill would aim to meet standards pertaining to the Covenant. 

    Working parent entitlements were established to support parents to return to work, which was why that entitlement was contingent on work.  Non-working families could access 15 hours of Government-funded early education. 

    The Education Minister in Northern Ireland was committed to bringing forward a strategy which would make childcare more affordable, among other initiatives.  A new childcare subsidy scheme had been implemented, and preschool education had been expanded, allowing more than 2,000 additional children to receive a fulltime place in 2025. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the United Kingdom was one of the richest economies in the world, yet extremely high figures of poverty persisted.  According to information, during the period 2022/2023, 21 per cent of the population lived in relative poverty, with alarming rates of 30 per cent in childhood, or 4.3 million children.  Was the State developing a strategy to achieve a drastic and short-term reduction of poverty, which prioritised child poverty and poverty of disadvantaged groups? What measures had the State implemented in response to the recommendations of the review of child welfare care, as well as those issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in June 2023?

    According to statistics, food insecurity increased from 4.7 million to 7.2 million between 2021/22 and 2022/23, especially affecting low-income households.  What was the Government doing to address this alarming situation?  According to reports, there was a persistent housing crisis in the State party, including increasing rates of homelessness in the country, with most being women. Housing prices were high, as were mortgage rates, with rents rising higher than inflation in some parts of the country.  The lack of affordable housing for persons with disabilities was a factor which determined that they remained institutionalised, and there was inadequate initial accommodation for asylum seekers, among other issues.  What was the Government doing to address this crisis? 

    According to independent research commissioned by the Government in 2024, the National Health Service in England was in critical condition due to lack of funding, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, staff shortages and inefficiency in management. What were the details of the results of the investigation, and the drafting of a 10-year plan to address these issues? 

    Suicide rates remained high in the country, especially among men.  Persons with disabilities, gypsy, Roma and nomadic communities had high suicide rates compared to the general population.  Could information about the new mental health bill for England and Wales be provided?  What were the developments in other jurisdictions?

     

    Data from 2020 to 2022 showed the highest maternal mortality rates in England since 2003 to 2005, with a disproportionate impact on women in the most deprived areas. What were the results of the research commissioned by the Task Force on Maternal Disparities in 2022 and the policies in place to address this issue?  Access to sexual and reproductive care across the UK showed regional disparities; what measures had been adopted to unify this? 

    There had been a huge increase in drug-related deaths in the State party.  What plans and strategies were in place to prevent deaths, taking into account the disproportionate impact on certain communities? Were there plans to review the criminalisation of personal consumption and expand harm reduction services, including supervised drug consumption rooms?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the United Kingdom Government was developing a child poverty strategy to be launched in spring, as part of a 10-year strategy to address the issue. The strategy would look at increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, and offering better local support.  The incoming Government had committed to ending dependence on emergency food parcels.  In the financial year 2025/2026, funding of 742 million pounds would be devolved to local governments to help address this issue.

    Concerning support for families, the State’s response published in 2023 was to shift the focus away from crisis intervention and towards early help for families, ensuring children remained with their families as much as possible.  This was a multidisciplinary support offer which would work with the entire family at the earliest level possible.  When children could not remain with their families, they were supported to live with kinship families or foster families. 

    A social supermarket programme had been rolled out across all areas in Northern Ireland from 2022 to address food poverty.  Other support included debt and benefits advice, health food advice, and cooking on a budget.  A programme to tackle organized crime was established in 2016 and it had been extended until 2027.  Sexual and reproductive health services were provided across all five trust areas in Northern Ireland.  There were workforce challenges and the need for further investment. 

    The United Kingdom Government had committed to support first time home buyers.  The Government was seeking to deliver the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation, with 110,000 to 130,000 social homes to be built over the next five years.  Since 2021, local authorities in England were required to ensure victims of domestic abuse and their children could access safe accommodation.  The Government would invest 160 million pounds in domestic safe accommodation in the next financial year. 

    Concerning Travellers, the Government aimed to ensure fair and equal treatment for them.  The revised policy for Traveller sites outlined that accommodation for Travellers should provide access for healthy lifestyles and health services. 

    The Scottish Government regarded poverty as a huge concern and had implemented the Child Poverty Act, which required poverty reduction plans to be published every four years.  Actions in the plans included raising incomes and lowering essential costs.  The Scottish Government had committed over three million pounds for remote rural and island health care.  The aim was to develop a model where services were provided as locally as possible, to ensure equitable outcomes. 

    Progress had been made in maternal care in the rural north of Scotland, via the plan which focused on restoring obstetric maternity care in the area.  The Scottish Government acknowledged that the number of drug and alcohol related deaths in Scotland remained too high.  The Government had launched a five-year mission to combat this, and the first “Safer Drug Consumption” facility in the United Kingdom had been opened in Glasgow last year. 

    One of the Government’s priorities was to clear the asylum backlog claims, and ensure people were housed in more effective and supervised accommodation.  Due to the exceptional number of unaccompanied children arriving in the United Kingdom from 2020, the Home Office had opened hotels to support these children, with a team residing within the hotels to support each child.  The teams included staff to provide medical and psychological support.  When the last hotel closed in 2024, all remaining children went directly into State care.  The United Kingdom had no plans to legalise or decriminalise drugs. 

    The mental health bill was introduced in November 2024 and would modernise the mental health act, including through addressing unnecessary detentions shaped by racial disparity.  The suicide strategy for England looked at what could be done for groups with higher suicide rates, including autistic people, Roma, refugees, asylum seekers and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.   Anyone in England experiencing a mental health crisis could speak with a trained member of the National Health Service on the phone.  An additional 150 million pounds had been invested over the past two years to support mental health services.  Fifty million pounds would be invested into research into maternity inequalities to improve outcomes for all women.  England supported harm reduction activities, including needle and syringe testing.

    Welsh Ministers had a duty to submit child poverty objectives, and report on them every three years.  There was a targeted school meals programme for children. Over 3.4 million pounds had been made available as a capital grant fund for local Welsh authorities to fund residential or transit sites for Travellers.  The Welsh Government was currently finalising a new mental health strategy, with a focus on tackling inequalities. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert commended the delegation for being so well prepared and for their excellent time management.  What steps had the State party taken to ensure a more just and equitable financial architecture which prioritised human rights in lending policies?  What steps had the State taken for cancelling debt for countries in debt crisis?  What was the State party’s position on the use of compulsory license to promote access to health products in foreign countries? 

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said the Scottish Government had provided a good example of safer drug consumption facilities.  Why did this not go hand in hand with decriminalisation?  What was the trajectory of decriminalisation?  Would the United Kingdom adopt a universal drug 

    policy which covered all its territories?

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said there was a pressing need to implement the child poverty strategy as soon as possible.  Could a more specific timeline for its implementation be provided?   The United Kingdom was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and had an obligation to earmark resources to reverse the situation of poverty in the country. How was the State addressing the issue of energy poverty? 

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said there was a concern that rent rises, in combination with a lack of social housing, were putting families at risk of homelessness.  What was being done to address this issue?

    Another Expert asked for measures adopted to address child obesity?  Were taxes on junk food being increased?

    An Expert asked about the emergency response in Northern Ireland to address the large number of deaths of homeless people?

    A Committee Expert asked what indicators were used to measure poverty?  Did the State use the multidimensional poverty index?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the child poverty strategy would be published in the spring, but acknowledged that people living in poverty needed help now.  In the meantime, steps had been taken to reduce the universal credit rate, which would benefit 1.2 million households.  Some of the challenges around food poverty related to incomes, rather than access to food, and this was being addressed in the food poverty strategy.  The United Kingdom used the universally recognised definition of poverty, which was measured by income. 

    There were no plans to change United Kingdom drug laws.  There was clear medical and scientific evidence which showed that controlled drugs were harmful.  There were no plans to extend United Kingdom drug legislation to the Overseas Territories.

    The United Kingdom had committed 1.6 billion pounds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which was committed to sustainable and equitable access of vaccines.  The National Health Service had doubled investment in gender dysphoria services and increased the number of clinics from seven to 12. 

    Obesity was concentrated within the most deprived areas.  The Government was addressing this by limiting school children’s access to fast food, preventing advertisements of the least healthy foods, and delivering schemes such as the healthy milk and the school fruit and vegetables scheme. 

    The United Kingdom was committed to working with partners to tackle unsustainable debt and coordinated with other official creditors to provide debt relief and promote debt sustainability for developing countries. 

    Scotland had released the Good Food Nation Plan in 2024, setting out the objectives the Government aimed to achieve on food related issues.  The long-term strategy for housing was published in 2021, addressing housing supply across the whole country, affordability and choice, and housing’s role in achieving net zero. 

    Northern Ireland was tackling homelessness through a strategy and had developed a strategic action plan for accommodation.  Funding for homelessness services would increase to nearly one billion pounds in England in the next financial year to prevent rough sleeping.

    A levy was applied to pre-packaged soft drink with an added five grams of sugar per 100 millilitres; drinks that contained less than five grams of sugar did not pay the levy, which was paid by packagers and importers.  The Government had committed an additional 3.5 million pounds over the next few years for the warm homes plan, with multiple targeted schemes in place to deliver energy assistance to low-income households.   

    The United Kingdom was supportive of the development of a new sharing and benefits system to support adequate and fair sharing of benefits, and was committed to working with African partners to develop such a system.

    The United Kingdom published multi-dimensional poverty measures annually. The Government’s priority was to grow the economy, as this was the best way to improve living standards. To achieve growth, decisions on tax and spending needed to be balanced. 

    Questions by a Committee Expert

    LAURA CRACIUNEAN-TATU, Committee Chair and Taskforce Member of the United Kingdom, said in England and Wales, the attainment gaps in education were widening, with inadequate measures to address them.  In Scotland, the new bill on education had been criticised as it failed to address urgent needs, and there were high levels of bullying in school, including incidents of misogyny and racism.  There were also major issues of bullying in Northern Ireland, including cyberbullying, on the grounds of race, sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics, disability, migration or other status.  Traveller and Roma children had some of the lowest levels of educational attainment.  Acts including the Special Needs Disability Act 2016 and the Integrated Education Act 2022 had not been fully implemented.  For Jersey, measures to address the poverty-related attainment gap were inefficient, and the Jersey premium had limited impact. 

    What measures had been implemented to address these challenges, and what were the concrete results? How were they evaluated in terms of impact and implementation?  How was it ensured that all educators were trained on bullying and what targeted measures were in place to address this issue?  Did children of migrant families have access to education, including language support, uniform grants, school meals and school transport?  How was it ensured that Traveller and Roma children remained in the educational system?  In Northern Ireland, there were currently 72 integrated schools; was there a plan to increase this number?  Was there any evaluation of the impact of the Jersey premium in reducing the attainment gap?  Were there any plans to address legislation to balance between the right to light work and the full benefit of education for children?

    Had the Irish Language Commissioner been appointed?  What measures were in place to ensure that the arts sector in all jurisdictions received sufficient, secure, long-term funding proportional to inflation, and that the right to take part in cultural life was not affected by the cost-of-living increases?  What measures were in place to ensure access to sport for transgender persons and persons with disabilities?

    Could information be provided on the status of the proposed Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill and how it would contribute to fostering intercultural dialogue and reconciliation?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said last year, a proposal for a draft remedial order was introduced into the United Kingdom parliament, as the first step to repeal and replace the Legacy Act. 

    The Government wanted to see more people engaging in physical activity, and that included transgender persons.  A different approach was required in competitive sport, where the Government had a responsibility to protect the integrity of women’s sport.  Each sport was different, and the Government worked with all sports organizations to prioritise integrity while also being inclusive.  For instance, tennis and golf had decided to protect the fairness of competition at the competitive level, but adopt a more inclusive approach at the recreational level. 

    Access to culture was a core part of the United Kingdom, and each part of the country had an Arts Council.  Much of the cultural offerings in the United Kingdom were free of charge, including entry to museums and free music tuition for children. 

    The Addressing Bullying in Schools Act in Northern Ireland commenced in 2021.  It put onus on schools to address the motivations of bullying and put policies in place at the school level.  Three new language authorities would be established with preparations at an advanced stage. 

    The Scottish Government published a cultural strategy in 2020 and a refreshed action plan to support delivery in 2023, responding to recent challenges including COVID-19 and the cost of living.  The Government had allocated more than 50 million pounds to cultural funding, which was an historic increase. 

    Wales had invested two million pounds in literacy programmes and 1.6 million pounds for science, technology, engineering and mathematics in schools.  In Wales, around 67 per cent of students attending mainstream schools could access a free school meal at lunchtime.  Tackling the impact of poverty in education was a priority. New guidance was published to help schools support Gypsy, Roma and Traveller students.  The school curriculum had been developed to be inclusive for all learners, with diversity as a cross-cutting theme.  Cardiff had been secured as the host of the Euro Games in 2027, which was a key event for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. 

    Post COVID, the Government had established the Oak Academy, which had a specific focus on closing attainment gaps.  Teachers had reported positive outcomes when using Oak resources.  Local authorities were required to provide sufficient school places for the area.  No child could be denied schooling based on their ethnicity.  There was an active Gypsy and Roma stakeholder group which aimed to ensure that the barriers these young people faced were addressed. 

    Education Scotland had rolled out several programmes, including to address gender stereotypes, unconscious bias, and domestic abuse.  Numerous provisions had been put in place in Jersey to ensure equal education access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

    Sport England had a 10-year plan to increase the participation of sport for persons with disabilities.  The overall investment figure into disability focused access was around 30 million pounds per year.  There had been 6.7 million pounds of investment directly to national disability sport organizations.  As a direct result of such investment, the United Kingdom took second place in the medal tally of the Paralympics last summer, which would inspire more people with disabilities to participate in sport. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what measures were in place to ensure children of pre-school age had access to affordable, quality childhood education?  The State party continued to treat social security as an instrument for getting people to work.  It was highly likely that if this approach continued, the State party would fail to address poverty.  Social security must be used to achieve an adequate standard of living for all people. 

    A Committee Expert asked to what extent corporal punishment at school was prohibited and sanctioned?  Was any form of corporal punishment against children treated as a criminal offence? What measures were being taken to implement anti-bullying plans? 

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked how the State party was addressing the issue of stateless persons, particularly when it came to access to education and family reunification? 

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said there were more than 80,000 children in foster care across the United Kingdom.  What was being done to close the attainment gaps in education for these children?  How was bullying prevented against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said it was not correct that the Government considered social security just as a route to work.  Children’s early years were crucial to their development, health and life chances, and the Government aimed to set every child up to have the best start in life. 

    The Home Office Stateless Policy was designed to assist those who were not recognised as a citizen of any country.  This provided a means for stateless persons in the United Kingdom to access their basic human rights. 

    All forms of physical punishment of children were against the law in Scotland in all settings. An Act was passed in 2019 which removed the defence of “reasonable chastisement” to the existing offence of assault. 

    Closing Remarks

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, extended appreciation to the United Kingdom delegation for its superb time and sequence management, which allowed the Committee to raise all relevant questions.  The State party should implement robust legislative programmes and ensure people were confident that they would be protected at the international level.  The Committee implored the United Kingdom to ensure that all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories under its control provided the highest standard of human rights to everyone.  Mr. Nonthasoot thanked all those who had made the dialogue possible. 

    ROBERT LINHAM, Deputy Director, Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom and head of the delegation, said the dialogue had been rich and detailed, covering a variety of issues.  It was hoped that the Committee could see the efforts being undertaken in the whole of the United Kingdom to improve economic, social and cultural rights. The United Kingdom was a great supporter in the work of the treaty bodies and it was hoped this was evident through the dialogue.  Mr. Linham thanked everyone who had supported the dialogue. 

     

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

     

    CESCR25.004E

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Files Amicus Brief in Support of Challenge to Trump’s Executive Order Banning Transgender Servicemembers

    Source: US State of California

    Friday, February 14, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in Talbott v. Trump in support of a challenge to President Trump’s executive order attempting to prohibit transgender servicemembers from serving in the military in any capacity. The plaintiffs in this case are six active-duty servicemembers and two individuals seeking enlistment. In the brief, the attorneys general argue that the executive order undermines our nation’s military, jeopardizes the ability of the National Guard to respond effectively to natural disasters and to ensure states’ security, and threatens states’ efforts to protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.

    “Today we are filing an amicus brief to protect the rights of the hard-working military servicemembers who have dedicated their life to service and to protecting our lives and our country. The Trump Administration’s decision to single out and discriminate against transgender servicemembers is an insult to all who serve; it’s also unlawful,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As home to approximately 2.8 million LGBTQ+ individuals, California will continue to stand up for the rights of our transgender community as they seek to live their lives as their authentic selves.”

    California has the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel as well as military bases. If allowed to stand, this executive order would substantially impact California’s interests. California relies heavily on the California National Guard, which provides critical services for the state. This includes responding to national security threats and natural disasters, like the recent devastating fires in Los Angeles. Transgender servicemembers, like all other servicemembers, are qualified individuals who volunteer their lives to service, protecting and providing for our nation in times of need.

    In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this order from going into effect, arguing that banning transgender individuals from military service will:

    • Harm National Guard recruitment efforts, jeopardizing states’ security and readiness;
    • Undermine states’ institutions and efforts to uphold and protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities;
    • Harm the states’ transgender veterans, active servicemembers, and those who wish to serve; and
    • Weaken the military’s role as an inclusive institution by imposing discriminatory policies.

    In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Vermont, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. 

    A copy of the brief can be found here.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Nationwide celebration of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare Awareness Month extended till 13th March 2025

    Source: Government of India

    Nationwide celebration of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare Awareness Month extended till 13th March 2025

    Prof. S.P.Singh Baghel interacts with over 23000 Stakeholders from the Livestock Sector; Emphasizes on Sustainable Practices & Expanding Employment Opportunities

    Workshops, Health Camps, Vaccination Drives & Awards Aim to Educate Stakeholders; Improve Rural Prosperity and Economic Resilience

    Posted On: 14 FEB 2025 8:34PM by PIB Delhi

    Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare Awareness Month celebration by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD) under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, has been extended until 13th March 2025 in its inaugural year to maximize outreach and impact. This initiative was started from 14th January 2025 wherein nationwide activities were organised by the department of animal husbandry and dairying in association with state animal husbandry and welfare departments that was earlier slated till 13th February 2025. In order to further promote and give boost to ethical animal husbandry practices, animal health and welfare in India, the awareness campaign will now be continued till 13th March 2025 across the country. To support the campaign, DAHD has also developed a dedicated dashboard for tracking and uploading all extension activities across the country. To mark the occasion, the Department organized an online webinar on 14th February, graced by the esteemed presence of Prof. S. P. Singh Baghel, Union Minister of State for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, and Panchayati Raj. The webinar witnessed an overwhelming response, with over 23,000 participants, including representatives from State Animal Husbandry Departments, veterinarians, para-veterinarians, Pashu Sakhis, farmers, and livestock rearers, joining via YouTube and Webex platforms.

    Addressing the participants, Prof. Baghel highlighted the critical role of the livestock sector in food security, employment generation, and economic growth. He emphasized that millions of farmers, especially in rural areas, depend on livestock for milk, meat, eggs, wool, and leather, as well as for manure to enrich crop production.  He highlighted that strengthening the livestock sector, directly contributes to rural prosperity and national economic resilience. Prof. Baghel reaffirmed the government’s commitment towards prioritizing animal husbandry within the rural development agenda, with DAHD working closely with State Animal Husbandry Departments to enhance livestock productivity, disease control, and the well-being of those engaged in the animal husbandry sector. He also emphasized the need to promote sustainable practices, improve animal care, and expand employment opportunities for farmers through various schemes and initiatives.

    The Union Minister of State placed special focus on the use of sex-sorted semen, stating that this innovation will help address the issue of stray cattle by ensuring more female calf births. He expressed confidence that with this technology, every household could have three female calves within the next five years. Additionally, he stressed upon the importance of expanding Artificial Insemination coverage to boost productivity, encouraging the use of IVF techniques for rapid breed improvement, and ensuring 100 percent vaccination coverage. He reiterated the government’s vision for an FMD-free India as part of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s goal for a disease-free livestock sector. He urged that knowledge of best animal husbandry practices and government schemes should reach even the most remote villages and pastoral communities.

    In her address,  Smt. Alka Upadhyaya, Secretary, DAHD, emphasized that annual observance of this campaign will help stakeholders adopt and implement good animal husbandry practices, promoting sustainable livestock management with a strong focus on animal welfare, productivity, and environmental responsibility. She also highlighted key government initiatives in the sector, such as the Rashtriya Gokul Mission, National Livestock Mission, Livestock Health and Disease Control Programme and the ongoing Livestock Census.

    As part of the campaign, States are actively organizing workshops and webinars to educate farmers and stakeholders, health and infertility camps to enhance livestock well-being, deworming and vaccination drives to prevent diseases, awareness camps, cattle exhibitions, and best livestock farmer awards. Photography, essay writing, and art competitions are being held in schools and colleges, while walkathons, dog shows, and horse shows have engaged the public to spread awareness about animal health and welfare. Television and radio broadcasts have promoted animal husbandry schemes, with pamphlets and brochures being distributed to improve public outreach.  The department is also undertaking social media campaigns to share best practices and the economic benefits of animal husbandry. The Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare Awareness Month campaign is a major step towards empowering farmers, promoting scientific livestock management, and enhancing economic returns. By fostering widespread adoption of modern practices and government schemes, this initiative will play a crucial role in improving animal health, increasing productivity, and ultimately boosting farmers’ incomes.

    ****

    Aditi Agrawal

    (Release ID: 2103396) Visitor Counter : 12

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Budget 2025-26 Reflects PM Modi’s Vision for a Futuristic India, Says Dr. Jitendra Singh

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Budget 2025-26 Reflects PM Modi’s Vision for a Futuristic India, Says Dr. Jitendra Singh

    A Transformative Blueprint for Technological Advancement and Energy Self-Reliance

    Nuclear Energy to be India’s Powerhouse: ₹20,000 Cr Allocated for Indigenous Reactors, 100 GW Target Set for 2047

    Posted On: 14 FEB 2025 7:10PM by PIB Delhi

    Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science and Technology; Earth Sciences and Minister of State for PMO, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Space, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Dr. Jitendra Singh has hailed the Union Budget 2025-26 as a reflection of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s forward-looking vision for India.

    Describing it as a roadmap for a technologically advanced and self-reliant nation, the Minister underscored its role in shaping the country’s future. He made these remarks while addressing a press conference at the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

    Dr. Jitendra Singh commended the Budget’s groundbreaking initiatives, particularly its focus on technological innovation and energy independence. He highlighted the historic decision to allow private sector participation in the nuclear industry, calling it a game-changer for India’s energy sector. He noted that these measures would not only help achieve energy self-sufficiency but also propel India toward global leadership in advanced nuclear technology by 2047.

    Dr. Jitendra Singh emphasized the government’s commitment to establishing nuclear power as a cornerstone of India’s energy strategy. The introduction of the “Nuclear Energy Mission for Viksit Bharat” outlines a comprehensive plan to enhance domestic nuclear capabilities, foster private sector participation, and deploy advanced nuclear technologies. A significant allocation of ₹20,000 crore has been earmarked for research and development in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), with a target to operationalize at least five indigenously designed SMRs by 2033. This initiative aligns with India’s ambitious goal of achieving a 100 GW nuclear power capacity by 2047, a critical step toward reducing carbon emissions and ensuring sustainable energy.

    Reflecting on the success of opening the space sector to private players, Dr. Jitendra Singh expressed confidence that similar reforms in the nuclear sector will accelerate growth and innovation. He noted that for decades, the nuclear industry operated under stringent regulations, but recent policy shifts aim to foster greater openness and collaboration, aligning with the vision of Aatmanirbhar Bharat.

    ****

    NKR/PSM

    (Release ID: 2103340) Visitor Counter : 50

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Owner Of Las Vegas Company Indicted In $24 Million Cryptocurrency Ponzi Scheme

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAS VEGAS – A Las Vegas business owner made his initial appearance in court yesterday for allegedly misrepresenting that his company was a profitable, up-and-running artificial intelligence company that mined cryptocurrency, verified cryptocurrency transactions, paid fixed rates of return on investments, and provided a 100% money back guarantee. In total, the defendant obtained approximately $24 million from at least 400 investors.

    “Mr. Kovar allegedly stole victims’ hard-earned money by making false representations regarding his investment company, including misleading some victims to believe their investments were backed by the FDIC,” said Ryan Korner, Special Agent in Charge with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General (FDIC OIG). “FDIC OIG is committed to identifying, and holding accountable, those who endanger our Nation’s financial system by victimizing others for their personal gain.”

    Brent C. Kovar, 58, is charged with 12 counts of wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, and three counts of money laundering. A jury trial has been scheduled to begin on April 8, 2025, before United States District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey.

    According to allegations contained in the indictment, from late 2017 to July 2021, Kovar owned Profit Connect, a Las Vegas, Nev., based company that purportedly used artificial intelligence software on a supercomputer to mine cryptocurrency and verify cryptocurrency transactions. He falsely represented to investors that Profit Connect paid a fixed rate of return of 15%-30% APR and provided a 100% money-back guarantee. In reality, Kovar used investor money to operate Profit Connect, buy gifts for employees, buy a house for himself, and repay investors as if those repayments came from mining cryptocurrency and verifying cryptocurrency transactions.

    As part of the scheme, Kovar created a website, a YouTube video, and a PowerPoint presentation in which he made the misrepresentations to influence customers to buy investments. Furthermore, he leased office space for a sales office and a warehouse for a data center. As alleged, investments were sold through an entity known as Profit Connect Wealth Services. Kovar sent money via wire transfers to investors, he mailed checks through the U.S. Postal Service, and he engaged in monetary transactions greater than $10,000 that were derived from unlawful activity.

    If convicted, Kovar faces a total maximum statutory penalty of 330 years in prison and a fine of not more than $4,500,000. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Acting United States Attorney Sue Fahami, Special Agent in Charge Spencer L. Evans for the FBI Las Vegas Division, Special Agent in Charge Ryan Korner for the FDIC OIG, and Special Agent in Charge Carissa Messick for the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) Phoenix Field Office made the announcement.

    The FBI, FDIC OIG, and IRS-CI investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorney Daniel Schiess is prosecuting the case.

    An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    ###

     

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Risch Celebrates President Trump VA Secretary Approval of Waiver for Boise Veterans Home Improvements

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Idaho James E Risch
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jim Risch released the following statement today celebrating action by President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Doug Collins, allowing the Boise veterans’ home to complete an essential modernization project stalled for two years by the Biden administration.
    “Secretary Collins made a promise to me that he would break down the bureaucratic barriers that have unjustly denied Idaho’s veterans from receiving their hard-earned benefits and care. He delivered. In just two weeks, President Trump’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs accomplished what the Biden administration refused to do for two years.
    “The Biden administration played favorites by selectively applying red tape that blocked the modernization of veterans’ facilities across Idaho. Our veterans selflessly dedicated their lives to protecting our freedoms. They should never be forced to fight for access to the high-quality care and services they deserve.
    “I am proud to have worked with Secretary Collins to honor our commitment to Idaho’s veterans. I look forward to partnering with President Trump and Secretary Collins to ensure that facilities across the Gem State can finally proceed with long overdue projects that are vital to our veterans’ health and safety.
    “Together, we are removing obstacles to providing the brave men and women who served our great nation the care they rightfully earned.”
    Background:
    In December, Senator Risch met with Secretary Collins before his confirmation to discuss the significant roadblocks imposed by the Biden administration’s Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which halted modernization projects at Idaho’s veterans’ homes.
    Senator Risch specifically requested that Secretary Collins issue the necessary waivers that would exempt these projects from Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) requirements. On Wednesday, Secretary Collins signed a BABAA waiver for the State Veteran Home in Boise, and personally called Senator Risch to deliver the news.
    Despite repeated attempts by Senator Risch, the Idaho Congressional Delegation, and Idaho Constitutional Officers, the Biden administration refused to grant BABAA waivers to Idaho State Veteran Homes in Boise, Pocatello, and Lewiston. In 2024, Senator Risch introduced the Waiving Arbitrary and Inconsistent Veteran home Eligibility Requirements (WAIVER) Act as a legislative fix to the BABAA.
    Most federal agencies, including the VA, previously granted BABAA waivers for projects that predated the legislation’s enactment in 2022. While the Biden administration’s VA indicated it intended to grant these waivers for Idaho’s homes, none were ever received. Instead, only three were issued—predominately to Democrat-led states.
    Senator Risch will continue to work with Secretary Collins and President Trump to secure waivers for modernization projects at the Pocatello and Lewiston State Veteran Homes.

    MIL OSI USA News