FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Syria Spillover: The Growing Threat of Terrorism and Sectarianism in the Middle East and Ukraine Update
Testimony
William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary of State
Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
March 6, 2014
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. I’m pleased to be joined by Matt Olsen and Derek Chollet. I ask that my written testimony be entered into the record.
Before addressing the issue of extremism in the Levant, let me first offer a quick assessment of developments in Ukraine, as you requested.
Ukraine
A great deal is at stake in Ukraine today. Less than 48 hours ago in Kyiv, not far from the Shrine of the Fallen, Secretary Kerry made clear America’s deep and abiding commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in the face of Russian aggression, and our determination to ensure that the people of Ukraine get to make their own choices about their future. That’s a bedrock conviction for the United States. On my own visit last week, I was profoundly moved by the bravery and selflessness of Ukrainians, and profoundly impressed by the commitment of the new interim government to reach across ethnic and regional lines and build a stable, democratic and inclusive Ukraine, with good relations with all of its neighbors, including Russia.
While we and our partners worked to support Ukraine’s transition, Russia worked actively to undermine it. Russia’s military intervention in Crimea is a brazen violation of its international obligations, and no amount of Russian posturing can obscure that fact.
Ukraine’s interim government, approved by 82 percent of the Rada, including most members of Yanukovich’s party, has shown admirable restraint in the face of massive provocation. They need and deserve our strong support. President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the entire Administration have been working hard, steadily and methodically, to build urgent international backing for Ukraine, counter-pressure against Russia, reassurance to other neighbors, and a path to de-escalation. Our strategy has four main elements, and we look forward to working with Congress on each of them.
First, immediate support for Ukraine as it deals with enormous economic challenges and prepares for critical national elections at the end of May. On Tuesday, Secretary Kerry announced our intent to seek a $1 billion loan guarantee. That will be part of a major international effort to build a strong economic support package for Ukraine as it undertakes reform. That effort includes the IMF and the EU, which laid out its own substantial assistance package yesterday. Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and his colleagues are committed partners, and understand that the Ukrainian government has difficult reform choices to make, after inheriting an economic mess from Yanukovich. Ukraine’s considerable economic potential has never been matched by its business environment or economic leadership, and now is the time to begin to get its financial house in order and realize its promise.
Second, deterring further encroachment on Ukrainian territory and pressing for an end to Russia’s occupation of Crimea. President Obama has led broad international condemnation of Russia’s intervention, with strong, unified statements from the G-7 and NATO, as well as the EU, whose leaders are meeting today in an emergency summit. We are sending international observers from the OSCE to Crimea and eastern Ukraine to bear witness to what is happening and make clear that minorities are not at risk. This was never a credible claim by Russia, nor a credible pretext for military intervention.
We are making clear that there are costs for what Russia has already done, and working with our partners to make clear that the costs will increase significantly if intervention expands. Today, the President signed an executive order authorizing sanctions – including asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or that purport to exercise authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. This E.O. will be used in a flexible way to designate those most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine.
The State Department today also put in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals. We continue to look at every aspect of our relationship with Russia, from suspension of preparations for the Sochi G-8 Summit to pausing key elements in our bilateral dialogue.
Third, bolstering Ukraine’s neighbors. We are moving immediately to reinforce our Washington Treaty commitments to our allies. As Secretary Hagel stressed yesterday, we are taking concrete steps to support NATO partners, through intensified joint training with our aviation detachment in Poland and enhanced participation in NATO’s air policing mission in the Baltics.
And fourth, Secretary Kerry is working intensively to de-escalate the crisis, in order to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty while creating a diplomatic off-ramp. We support direct dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow, facilitated by an international contact group. As the President and Secretary Kerry have emphasized, we do not seek confrontation with Russia. It is clearly in the interests of both Ukraine and Russia to have a healthy relationship, born of centuries of cultural, economic and social ties. The will for that exists among Ukraine’s new leaders. But it cannot happen if Russia continues down its current dangerous and irresponsible path. That will only bring greater isolation and mounting costs for Russia.
Our strategy, it seems to me, needs to be steady and determined, mindful of what’s at stake for Ukrainians as well as for international norms. We also need to be mindful of the enduring strengths of the United States and its partners, and the very real weaknesses sometimes obscured by Russian bluster. Most of all, President Putin underestimates the commitment of Ukrainians, across their country, to sovereignty and independence, and to writing their own future. No one should underestimate the power of patient and resolute counter-pressure, using all of the non-military means at our disposal, working with our allies, and leaving the door open to de-escalation and diplomacy if Russia is prepared to play by international rules.
Extremism in the Levant
Now let me turn very briefly to the Levant. The turbulence of the past three years has had many roots: rising aspirations for dignity, political participation and economic opportunity in a region in which too many people for too many years have been denied them; the ruthless reaction of some regimes; and the efforts of violent extremists to exploit the resulting chaos.
Nowhere have these trends converged more dangerously than in Syria. The conflict, and the Asad regime, have become a magnet for foreign fighters , many affiliated with terrorist groups from across the region and around the world. As Matt will describe, these fighters, mostly Sunni extremists, represent a long-term threat to U.S. national security interests. From the other side, Asad has recruited thousands of foreign fighters, mostly Shia, to defend the regime, with active Iranian support and facilitation. The hard reality is that the grinding Syrian civil war is now an incubator of extremism – on both sides of the sectarian divide.
We face a number of serious risks to our interests as a result: the risk to the homeland from global jihadist groups who seek to gain long-term safe havens; the risk to the stability of our regional partners, including Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq; the risk to Israel and other partners from the rise of Iranian-backed extremist groups, especially Lebanese Hizballah fighting in Syria; and the risk to the Syrian people, whose suffering constitutes the greatest humanitarian crisis of this new century.
These are enormous challenges. They require a steady, comprehensive American strategy, aimed at isolating extremists and bolstering moderates, both inside Syria and amongst our regional partners. I’d highlight four elements of our strategy:
First, we are working to isolate and degrade terrorist networks in Syria. That means stepping up efforts with other governments to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Syria, and cutting off financing and weapons to terrorist groups. It also means stepping up efforts to strengthen the moderate opposition, without which progress toward a negotiated transition of leadership through the Geneva process or any other diplomatic effort is impossible. Strengthened moderate forces are critical both to accelerate the demise of the Asad regime, and to help Syrians build a counterweight to the extremists who threaten both the present and the post-Asad future of Syria and the region. None of this is easy, but the stakes are very high.
Second, we are pushing hard against Iranian financing and material support to its proxy groups in Syria and elsewhere. We are also working intensively with partners in the Gulf and elsewhere to curb financing flows to extremists.
Third, we are increasing cooperation with Turkey, and intensifying our efforts to strengthen the capacity of Syria’s other endangered neighbors:
-- In Jordan, which I visited again last month, we are further enhancing the capacity of the Jordanian Armed Forces to police its borders and deepening intelligence cooperation on extremist threats. The staggering burden of supporting 600,000 Syrian refugees has put serious strain on Jordan’s resources. We deeply appreciate Congress’ continued support for significant U.S. assistance for Jordan, which has totalled about a billion dollars in each of the last couple years, complemented by substantial loan guarantees. I can think of no better investment in regional stability than our efforts in Jordan.
-- In Lebanon, we are supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces to deter spillover, better monitor the border with Syria, and help bolster the government’s policy of “dissociation” from the Syrian conflict. The formation of a new Cabinet last month provides a renewed opportunity for the United States to engage, and Secretary Kerry reaffirmed our strong commitment to Lebanon’s security and economic stability directly to President Sleiman and at the International Support Group for Lebanon ministerial meeting in Paris yesterday.
-- In Iraq, we are surging security assistance and information sharing to combat the rising threat from ISIL, while pressing Iraqi leaders to execute a comprehensive strategy – security, political and economic – to isolate extremists, especially in Anbar. That was one of the main purposes of my last visit to Baghdad at the end of January. I appreciate the close consultation we’ve had with you, Mr. Chairman, and with other members of the Committee on these crucial issues, and we look forward to continuing to address your concerns, which we share.
And finally, we are supporting global efforts to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria, through the $1.7 billion we have already contributed. We are working hard to facilitate the delivery of cross-border aid, using the recently adopted UN Security Council resolution to expand humanitarian access. We are also providing substantial aid to refugee populations in neighboring countries.
Beyond the Levant, we continue to work with our Gulf partners to enhance security cooperation, blunt the extremist threat, and support sound economic development in transitioning countries. This will be an important focus of the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia later this month.
Mr. Chairman, the rise of extremism in the Levant poses an acute risk for the United States, and for our regional partners. It is essential that we intensify our efforts to isolate extremists in Syria, limit the flow of foreign fighters, bolster moderate opposition forces, ease the humanitarian crisis, and help key partners like Jordan defend against spillover. Thank you again for your focus on these vitally important challenges, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
Friday, March 7, 2014
FORMER OWNER AIRLINE FUEL SUPPLY CO. PLEADS GUILTY IN KICKBACK-FRAUD SCHEME
FORMER OWNER OF FLORIDA AIRLINE FUEL SUPPLY COMPANY PLEADS
GUILTY IN SCHEME TO DEFRAUD ILLINOIS-BASED RYAN INTERNATIONAL
AIRLINES
GUILTY IN SCHEME TO DEFRAUD ILLINOIS-BASED RYAN INTERNATIONAL
AIRLINES
WASHINGTON — A former owner and operator of a Florida-based airline fuel supply service company pleaded guilty today to participating in a kickback scheme to defraud Illinois-based Ryan International Airlines, a charter airline company located in Rockford, Ill., the Department of Justice announced.
Sean E. Wagner, the former owner and operator of Aviation Fuel International Inc. (AFI), pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach to one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. On Aug. 13, 2013, a grand jury returned an indictment against Wagner and AFI, charging them for their roles in a conspiracy to defraud Ryan International Airlines. According to the indictment, Wagner and AFI made kickback payments to Wayne Kepple, a former vice president of ground operations for Ryan, in exchange for awarding business to AFI. According to court documents, from at least as early as December 2005 through at least August 2009, Wagner and others at AFI made kickback payments to Kepple totaling more than $200,000 in the form of checks, wire transfers, cash and gift cards. The charges against AFI were dismissed on Feb. 21, 2014.
Ryan provided air passenger and cargo services for corporations, private individuals and the U.S. government – including the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“These types of kickback schemes subvert the competitive process and increase costs to American consumers,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division will vigorously prosecute individuals who defraud American taxpayers and businesses.”
Wagner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. The count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
As a result of the ongoing investigation, four other individuals have pleaded guilty and have been ordered to serve sentences ranging from 16 to 87 months in prison and to pay more than $580,000 in restitution.
The charges are the result of an investigation being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Southeast Field Office, headed by Special Agent in Charge John F. Khin, with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOD WORKING ON COORDINATED RESPONSE TO CRISIS IN UKRAINE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
DOD Supports U.S., Allied Response to Russia-Ukraine Crisis
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Mar. 6, 2014 – The Defense Department is working to support the coordinated U.S. response to Russia’s recent aggression toward Ukraine, and to help Ukraine and U.S. allies and partners in the region, DOD and administration officials said here today.
The United States is focusing diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine, and senior administration and defense officials continue to engage with their Russian counterparts.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry is meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today, for example, and this week the United States announced a $1 billion package of economic assistance to Ukraine, and the European Union announced a $15 billion assistance package.
This morning, President Barack Obama issued an executive order that allows the administration to initiate financial sanctions against Russian and Ukrainian individuals and entities that steal assets, engage in destabilizing activities, or take flight unlawfully. The administration also is imposing visa restrictions on those responsible for violating Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Defense Department is making substantial contributions to U.S. and international efforts in support of Ukraine. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey summarized the department’s activities this morning in advance of their testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on the president’s fiscal year 2015 defense budget request.
Hagel said he strongly supports the administration’s efforts, including the steps Obama has taken to apply diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia, and the continued collaboration with European partners.
“Earlier this week, I directed the Department of Defense to suspend all military-to-military engagements and exercises with Russia. And yesterday, I announced a series of steps [the department] will take to reinforce allies in Central and Eastern Europe during this crisis,” Hagel told the panel.
The steps include increasing joint training through the DOD aviation detachment in Poland, made up of airmen from the 31st Fighter Wing who train and work with their Polish partners at Lask Air Base in central Poland.
“I was advised this morning that [the partnership at Lask] continues to move forward,” the secretary said, adding that the department also will augment its participation in NATO's Baltic air policing mission. He told the House members that six F-15s have arrived in Lithuania within the past 24 hours.
In his remarks, Dempsey said he is deeply engaged in DOD support of the diplomatic approach to resolving Ukraine's crisis.
“I'm engaged with our NATO allies. I've spoken both yesterday and today with my Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, and will continue to maintain that line of communication,” Dempsey told the panel.
Also this morning, on a White House background teleconference with reporters, senior administration officials discussed details of the new visa restrictions and the executive order released today in support of Ukraine.
“Since the Russian intervention in Ukraine, you have seen us work on several lines of effort to mobilize international unity, to condemn the Russian intervention, to impose cost on Russia for debt interventions so they are isolated politically and economically [and] to provide additional support for the government in Kiev,” a senior administration official said.
The best way to make sure the rights of Ukrainians and ethnic Russians are being protected is to use international monitoring, he said.
“A monitoring team from the [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] has arrived in Ukraine [and] moved out to different parts of the country. The team has an important set of experiences and capabilities to ensure that basic rights are being protected. We believe that that monitoring mission should expand into Crimea and can be the basis for a way of deescalating the crisis,” the official added.
Representing broad international unity, the North Atlantic Council, European allies and G-7 countries all have condemned Russia’s aggression, he added, and the United States has suspended preparatory meetings for the G-8 in Sochi, Russia.
The United States also has cancelled discussions associated with deepening trade and commercial ties with Russia, the official noted, “and with today's actions we take an additional step to impose costs on Russia and those who are responsible for violating Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The executive order gives the United States flexibility to target individuals and entities responsible for violating international law and Ukrainian sovereignty, the official said.
“We are also imposing certain visa restrictions that further impose a cost on individuals responsible for the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the official said.
The senior administration official added, “There are individuals who have had their visas pulled or will be banned from visas, and those individuals -- who I won't give names or numbers -- do include Russians and Ukrainians.”
Such actions should send a strong message that the United States and its allies intend to impose costs on Russia for the Ukrainian intervention, the official added, and they give the United States flexibility to respond based on Russia's actions, whether positive or negative.
SEC COMMISSIONER PIWOWAR'S REMARKS ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Remarks at AIMA Global Policy & Regulatory Forum
Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar
New York, NY
March 6, 2014
Thank you, Kathy [Casey], for that kind introduction. Thank you, Kathy and Jiri [Krol], for inviting me to lead off the excellent program that AIMA has put together. I have enjoyed working with both of you over the past few years on numerous global policy and regulatory issues, which is the focus of today’s forum.
In addition to serving as SEC Commissioners, Kathy and I have a lot in common, including the fact that we both studied international politics as undergraduates at Penn State. Many of the concepts that we learned from that curriculum have served us well over the course of our careers, particularly as international financial regulatory issues have become more important in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Jiri and I also have something important in common. I remember the first time I met with Jiri, he commented about my last name “Piwowar” which means “Brewer” or “Beer Maker” in Polish. The Polish and Czech languages are very similar, so Jiri knew exactly what it meant. What I did not realize, however, was that Jiri’s last name “Krol” is Czech for “Beer Drinker.” Of course, I’m kidding.
Seriously, I am excited to be here with you this morning to share my thoughts on how I approach the international financial regulatory issues that come before the Commission. But, before I continue, I need to provide the standard disclosure that my remarks are my own and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners.
International engagement has long been a fundamental aspect of effective capital markets regulation. As Kathy [Casey] noted in a speech she gave while Commissioner in 2007: “If we, as regulators, are to remain effective and relevant in meeting our mission of protecting investors, fostering capital formation and maintaining competitive, fair and orderly markets, we will need to be more nimble and responsive to market developments and rely more on cooperation and collaboration with our international counterparts.”[1]
It has become clear to me over these past few months that at no time in the Commission’s history have we been more engaged with the international community or more involved in collaborative workstreams with our fellow regulators from around the globe.
Much of this international work stems from the 2009 G-20 initiatives regarding over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives reforms.[2] It thus came as little surprise to me that, from the very beginning of my tenure as Commissioner, I have seen a steady stream of visitors eager to discuss the Commission’s approach to the regulation of cross-border OTC derivatives. In addition to sharing their own views and observations on these issues, visitors frequently ask me my personal views on the topic.
I believe I can condense them into a single, concise theory that should provide you with clarity on where I stand on every cross-border issue facing the Commission: “I am a proponent of the rationalization of the global regulatory framework by seeking convergence and harmonization of rules through bilateral and multilateral dialogue and the mutual recognition of comparable regimes based on principles of international comity.”
I am sure that clears things up.
I have been struck by two observations regarding international financial regulatory issues, particularly with respect to OTC derivatives. First, this is an incredibly complex area where actual details matter more than abstract concepts. Second, much of the conversation involves buzzwords and terms of art that may mean different things to different people.
I recognize that labeling regulatory approaches is sometimes constructive and frequently necessary in order to foster dialogue between regulators. However, the two observations I just mentioned often collide with each other as regulators and market participants alike seek to understand how jurisdictions around the world intend to regulate cross-border activities. Broad concepts and terms of art not only fail to provide the specificity required by the financial markets, but also lend themselves to being misconstrued as individuals read into the terms what they seek to get out of them.
We saw a recent example with regard to the so-called “Path Forward” agreement on derivatives regulation negotiated between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the European Commission.[3] Not long after the agreement was published, it became clear that the regulators had differing interpretations of the understandings in that document. Surely, neither side intended to mislead the other by agreeing to a set of broad concepts that left significant room for interpretation rather than specific requirements that would have bound both parties. However, the fact remains that the document failed to resolve any of the crippling uncertainty in the market.
At this point you may be questioning how I can critique the reliance on international buzzwords and broad concepts, and yet give a speech in which I share with you some of the broad principles that guide my decision-making in this area?
I raise these issues only to express my view that the use of such terms, while at times helpful, must be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, and cannot serve as a substitute for detailed guidelines. The principles I share with you should be treated the same way. However, my hope is that they will provide you with insight into my thinking as the Commission tackles these complex issues in the near future.
Respect for International Regulators
The first principle guiding my thoughts in this area is respect for my international counterparts.
My education gave me a broad perspective of, and healthy respect for, the international community. My respect for the international financial regulatory community has only grown as I have worked with regulators from around the globe during my professional career at both the Senate Banking Committee and the SEC.
Approaches to regulating the same activity often differ across jurisdictions. This is not surprising given the role that legal traditions and cultural norms play in shaping financial development and regulation. However, we must not let these differences get in the way of cooperation, and lead to unnecessary burdens for market participants or duplicative or conflicting regulations.
Therefore, I reject any notion that we must pull the whole world into the U.S. regulatory sphere, or that other jurisdictions should simply adopt U.S. regulations. This would be neither appropriate given our mission, nor necessary given applicable regulations in other jurisdictions.
I believe that market participants that comply with the regulatory requirements in the jurisdiction in which they are based should, under certain circumstances, be deemed to comply with our requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act Title VII space.
This is probably the area where the most ink is spilled on creating terms of art for use by the international financial regulatory community. It is no wonder that this occurs, however, because allowing for compliance with home country requirements in this manner is vital to creating an effective global regulatory environment.
As a result, I believe we should apply this principle broadly, and expect that regulators in other jurisdictions will do the same. Determinations about which jurisdictions qualify for this type of treatment should be based on a minimum level of acceptable regulation, and focused on regulatory outcomes rather than a rule-by-rule comparison.
In addition, where differences in the timing of compliance dates among jurisdictions arise, we should provide reasonable relief to market participants in the interim period. The implementation of enhanced regulation for OTC derivatives represents the creation of a long-term system of oversight, and must not be used as a short-term power grab between regulators or jurisdictions. Market participants should not pay the price — either directly through increased compliance and restructuring costs or indirectly through market uncertainty — for differences in their regulators’ compliance dates.
Territorial Approach to Regulation
The second principle that guides my thoughts on cross-border applications of Commission regulations is that the Commission should take a territorial approach.
The territorial approach to regulation has a long history at the Commission,[4] and there is no reason to abandon it as we develop the new framework for OTC derivatives regulation.
Of course, a territorial approach to regulation may itself be viewed as a term of art. In using this term in the context of OTC derivatives, I mean that the Commission’s regulation of cross-border OTC derivatives activity should generally apply to transactions involving activity within the United States. An activity may be deemed to occur within the United States either because a transaction is entered into with a U.S. person, or because it is conducted within the United States.
These concepts are only given meaning through the definitions applied to them. I could spend this entire speech talking about the definition of the term “U.S. person,” but for now I will simply convey the two essential aspects of this definition.
First, the definition of U.S. person must be clearly defined and easily applied. Market participants will inevitably be required to build out their compliance systems to account for how this term is defined. It is our job as regulators to give them clear guidelines to follow.
Second, the definition of U.S. person must be limited in scope. We should not attempt to expand the reach of our rules by creating an unreasonably broad definition.
The definition of what constitutes a “transaction conducted within the United States” is also an important aspect of the territorial approach to regulation. It ensures that all market participants operating within the United States are subject to the same rules and that everyone entering into transactions in the U.S. market receives the same protections.
However, it is important to note that not all activities that touch the United States should be drawn into its regulatory sphere. For example, a phone call from abroad made to someone in the United States seeking OTC derivatives market color is not the type of activity that should trigger application of our regulations.
Predictable Changes in Behavior in Response to Regulation
Another key principle in this area is that we should consider the predictable changes in behavior by market participants in response to regulation.
Markets are dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, market participants must be creative and able to adapt. It would be naïve and foolish for regulators to think that we can completely control markets and prevent market participants from pursuing their economic interests.
If we adopt unnecessarily harsh regulations in the United States, we must expect that market participants will adapt. This could involve structuring business activities away from our jurisdictional reach, which some call regulatory arbitrage. We should not be surprised by this activity, nor should we condemn it. It would not be nefarious. Rather, it would simply be a rational response to overly burdensome regulation.
It would also be naïve and foolish for regulators to downplay the impact of our decisions on markets and the burdens they place on market participants. We know that increased regulation is not costless. Market regulators must always strive to implement effective regulation that adequately protects investors. However, we must do so in full recognition of the tradeoffs and costs associated with our rules. These costs can burden our economy and ultimately hurt investors.
It is not just the potential increased costs associated with our regulations that we must consider. We must also recognize that, with truly global capital markets, our actions have the power to shift the markets themselves. If our rules are unnecessarily harsh and we reject international cooperation, market participants may rationally seek other jurisdictions in which to operate.
If this happens, we must own up to the fact that our own actions — even ones undertaken with the best of intentions — can result in less regulatory transparency, less effective regulation, fewer protections for investors, higher prices, fewer productive jobs, and slower economic growth.
Regulatory Process Matters
This leads me to my final point — regulatory process matters.
Just as we cannot ignore the impacts associated with our rules, we must not ignore the appropriate process for developing them. That process includes a rigorous economic analysis, which includes identifying and evaluating reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulatory approach.[5]
The regulation of cross-border OTC derivatives activity involves many decision points, each with a number of viable alternatives. In developing our final rules in this area, we must engage in a thoughtful economic analysis to guide our decision-making process. The importance of the rulemaking process is highlighted by the current state of OTC derivatives regulation in the United States.
As I am sure all of you are aware, both the SEC and CFTC have been tasked with implementing portions of Title VII, including application of the statute to cross-border activities. The SEC has undertaken a methodical, deliberative process that includes the publication of a comprehensive document in May 2013 containing proposed rules developed with the insight of a thoughtful economic analysis.[6] SEC staff is currently reviewing the public comments on that proposal, and I expect that in the near future we will adopt final rules in this area that reflect the comments received and that are based on sound analysis of the economic consequences of the rules.
The CFTC, on the other hand, chose not to engage in a disciplined rulemaking process, and instead attempted to address these same issues by publishing “interpretive guidance” in July 2012.[7] This interpretive guidance did not contain clear rules, and was not based on any economic analysis. It is therefore not surprising that the guidance received widespread condemnation by foreign regulators. In December 2012, the CFTC responded with “further” interpretive guidance[8] that received so much criticism from foreign governments and regulators that the House Committee on Agriculture held a hearing a few weeks later.[9] In July 2013, the CFTC issued “final” interpretive guidance on the cross-border application of the swap provisions added by the Dodd-Frank Act.[10] Lacking the clarity and finality achievable through the rulemaking process, the CFTC’s final guidance has now been called into question through litigation, injecting further uncertainty into the markets.[11]
While the CFTC’s guidance is currently tied up in the courts for an indeterminate period of time, I can envision the SEC’s methodical approach to these issues bearing fruit in the form of a robust final rule in the coming months. Aesop, the ancient Greek story teller, would be quite happy looking at the state of Title VII regulation right now. His fabled story of the tortoise and the hare seems quite appropriate, with its overarching message that “Slow and steady wins the race.”
Conclusion
In closing, it bears repeating that the application of Dodd-Frank Act Title VII provisions to cross-border OTC derivatives activities is an incredibly complex area that does not lend itself to mere generalities. That is precisely why many of the common terms of art used in international dialogue are not always helpful.
Market participants do not need to know whether their regulators support abstract notions of mutual recognition, comparability assessments, or international comity. They do need to know whether their transactions must be reported, cleared, or traded on an exchange, and where they can undertake those activities.
I trust that my remarks give you a better sense of how I intend to approach international financial regulatory issues, including the final cross-border OTC derivatives rulemaking. I further hope that the Commission, as a whole, will follow the old adage “the little things you do matter more than the big things you say” and rely more on cooperation and collaboration with our international counterparts as we work together to develop an effective global financial regulatory framework that is consistent with our mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets, and promoting capital formation.
Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the day.
[1] Remarks at the Institute of International Bankers Fall Membership Luncheon by Commissioner Kathleen L. Casey (Oct. 9, 2007), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2007/spch100907klc.htm.
[2] See Leaders’ Statement at the Pittsburgh Summit, G-20 Meeting (Sept. 25, 2009), available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/g7-g20/Documents/pittsburgh_summit_leaders_statement_250909.pdf.
[3] Cross-Border Regulation of Swaps/Derivatives Discussions between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Union — A Path Forward (July 11, 2013), available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6640-13.
[4] See, e.g., Registration Requirements for Foreign Broker-Dealers, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27017, 54 F.R. 30013, 30016 (July 18, 1989).
[5] See, e.g., Current Guidance on Economic Analysis in SEC Rulemakings (Mar. 6, 2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/riskfin/rsfi_guidance_econ_analy_secrulemaking.pdf.
[6] Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Re-Proposal of Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to the Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants; Proposed Rule, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69490, 78 F.R. 30967 (May 23, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-23/pdf/2013-10835.pdf.
[7] See Cross-Border Application of Swaps Provisions, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission website, available at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/Cross-BorderApplicationofSwapsProvisions/index.htm.
[8] Id.
[9] See Dodd-Frank Derivatives Reform: Challenges Facing U.S. and International Markets Before the Subcommittee On General Farm Commodities and Risk Management of the House Committee on Agriculture (Dec. 13, 2012). Hearing transcript, testimonies, and other documents are available at http://agriculture.house.gov/hearing/dodd-frank-derivatives-reform-challenges-facing-us-and-international-markets.
[10] See Cross-Border Application of Swaps Provisions, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission website, available at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/Cross-BorderApplicationofSwapsProvisions/index.htm. See also Statement of Dissent by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia, Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance With Certain Swap Regulations and Related Exemptive Order (July 12, 2013), available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/omaliastatement071213b.
[11] Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, International Swaps and Derivatives Association, and Institute of International Bankers v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 13-CV-1916 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 4, 2013).
Remarks at AIMA Global Policy & Regulatory Forum
Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar
New York, NY
March 6, 2014
Thank you, Kathy [Casey], for that kind introduction. Thank you, Kathy and Jiri [Krol], for inviting me to lead off the excellent program that AIMA has put together. I have enjoyed working with both of you over the past few years on numerous global policy and regulatory issues, which is the focus of today’s forum.
In addition to serving as SEC Commissioners, Kathy and I have a lot in common, including the fact that we both studied international politics as undergraduates at Penn State. Many of the concepts that we learned from that curriculum have served us well over the course of our careers, particularly as international financial regulatory issues have become more important in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Jiri and I also have something important in common. I remember the first time I met with Jiri, he commented about my last name “Piwowar” which means “Brewer” or “Beer Maker” in Polish. The Polish and Czech languages are very similar, so Jiri knew exactly what it meant. What I did not realize, however, was that Jiri’s last name “Krol” is Czech for “Beer Drinker.” Of course, I’m kidding.
Seriously, I am excited to be here with you this morning to share my thoughts on how I approach the international financial regulatory issues that come before the Commission. But, before I continue, I need to provide the standard disclosure that my remarks are my own and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners.
International engagement has long been a fundamental aspect of effective capital markets regulation. As Kathy [Casey] noted in a speech she gave while Commissioner in 2007: “If we, as regulators, are to remain effective and relevant in meeting our mission of protecting investors, fostering capital formation and maintaining competitive, fair and orderly markets, we will need to be more nimble and responsive to market developments and rely more on cooperation and collaboration with our international counterparts.”[1]
It has become clear to me over these past few months that at no time in the Commission’s history have we been more engaged with the international community or more involved in collaborative workstreams with our fellow regulators from around the globe.
Much of this international work stems from the 2009 G-20 initiatives regarding over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives reforms.[2] It thus came as little surprise to me that, from the very beginning of my tenure as Commissioner, I have seen a steady stream of visitors eager to discuss the Commission’s approach to the regulation of cross-border OTC derivatives. In addition to sharing their own views and observations on these issues, visitors frequently ask me my personal views on the topic.
I believe I can condense them into a single, concise theory that should provide you with clarity on where I stand on every cross-border issue facing the Commission: “I am a proponent of the rationalization of the global regulatory framework by seeking convergence and harmonization of rules through bilateral and multilateral dialogue and the mutual recognition of comparable regimes based on principles of international comity.”
I am sure that clears things up.
I have been struck by two observations regarding international financial regulatory issues, particularly with respect to OTC derivatives. First, this is an incredibly complex area where actual details matter more than abstract concepts. Second, much of the conversation involves buzzwords and terms of art that may mean different things to different people.
I recognize that labeling regulatory approaches is sometimes constructive and frequently necessary in order to foster dialogue between regulators. However, the two observations I just mentioned often collide with each other as regulators and market participants alike seek to understand how jurisdictions around the world intend to regulate cross-border activities. Broad concepts and terms of art not only fail to provide the specificity required by the financial markets, but also lend themselves to being misconstrued as individuals read into the terms what they seek to get out of them.
We saw a recent example with regard to the so-called “Path Forward” agreement on derivatives regulation negotiated between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the European Commission.[3] Not long after the agreement was published, it became clear that the regulators had differing interpretations of the understandings in that document. Surely, neither side intended to mislead the other by agreeing to a set of broad concepts that left significant room for interpretation rather than specific requirements that would have bound both parties. However, the fact remains that the document failed to resolve any of the crippling uncertainty in the market.
At this point you may be questioning how I can critique the reliance on international buzzwords and broad concepts, and yet give a speech in which I share with you some of the broad principles that guide my decision-making in this area?
I raise these issues only to express my view that the use of such terms, while at times helpful, must be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, and cannot serve as a substitute for detailed guidelines. The principles I share with you should be treated the same way. However, my hope is that they will provide you with insight into my thinking as the Commission tackles these complex issues in the near future.
Respect for International Regulators
The first principle guiding my thoughts in this area is respect for my international counterparts.
My education gave me a broad perspective of, and healthy respect for, the international community. My respect for the international financial regulatory community has only grown as I have worked with regulators from around the globe during my professional career at both the Senate Banking Committee and the SEC.
Approaches to regulating the same activity often differ across jurisdictions. This is not surprising given the role that legal traditions and cultural norms play in shaping financial development and regulation. However, we must not let these differences get in the way of cooperation, and lead to unnecessary burdens for market participants or duplicative or conflicting regulations.
Therefore, I reject any notion that we must pull the whole world into the U.S. regulatory sphere, or that other jurisdictions should simply adopt U.S. regulations. This would be neither appropriate given our mission, nor necessary given applicable regulations in other jurisdictions.
I believe that market participants that comply with the regulatory requirements in the jurisdiction in which they are based should, under certain circumstances, be deemed to comply with our requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act Title VII space.
This is probably the area where the most ink is spilled on creating terms of art for use by the international financial regulatory community. It is no wonder that this occurs, however, because allowing for compliance with home country requirements in this manner is vital to creating an effective global regulatory environment.
As a result, I believe we should apply this principle broadly, and expect that regulators in other jurisdictions will do the same. Determinations about which jurisdictions qualify for this type of treatment should be based on a minimum level of acceptable regulation, and focused on regulatory outcomes rather than a rule-by-rule comparison.
In addition, where differences in the timing of compliance dates among jurisdictions arise, we should provide reasonable relief to market participants in the interim period. The implementation of enhanced regulation for OTC derivatives represents the creation of a long-term system of oversight, and must not be used as a short-term power grab between regulators or jurisdictions. Market participants should not pay the price — either directly through increased compliance and restructuring costs or indirectly through market uncertainty — for differences in their regulators’ compliance dates.
Territorial Approach to Regulation
The second principle that guides my thoughts on cross-border applications of Commission regulations is that the Commission should take a territorial approach.
The territorial approach to regulation has a long history at the Commission,[4] and there is no reason to abandon it as we develop the new framework for OTC derivatives regulation.
Of course, a territorial approach to regulation may itself be viewed as a term of art. In using this term in the context of OTC derivatives, I mean that the Commission’s regulation of cross-border OTC derivatives activity should generally apply to transactions involving activity within the United States. An activity may be deemed to occur within the United States either because a transaction is entered into with a U.S. person, or because it is conducted within the United States.
These concepts are only given meaning through the definitions applied to them. I could spend this entire speech talking about the definition of the term “U.S. person,” but for now I will simply convey the two essential aspects of this definition.
First, the definition of U.S. person must be clearly defined and easily applied. Market participants will inevitably be required to build out their compliance systems to account for how this term is defined. It is our job as regulators to give them clear guidelines to follow.
Second, the definition of U.S. person must be limited in scope. We should not attempt to expand the reach of our rules by creating an unreasonably broad definition.
The definition of what constitutes a “transaction conducted within the United States” is also an important aspect of the territorial approach to regulation. It ensures that all market participants operating within the United States are subject to the same rules and that everyone entering into transactions in the U.S. market receives the same protections.
However, it is important to note that not all activities that touch the United States should be drawn into its regulatory sphere. For example, a phone call from abroad made to someone in the United States seeking OTC derivatives market color is not the type of activity that should trigger application of our regulations.
Predictable Changes in Behavior in Response to Regulation
Another key principle in this area is that we should consider the predictable changes in behavior by market participants in response to regulation.
Markets are dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, market participants must be creative and able to adapt. It would be naïve and foolish for regulators to think that we can completely control markets and prevent market participants from pursuing their economic interests.
If we adopt unnecessarily harsh regulations in the United States, we must expect that market participants will adapt. This could involve structuring business activities away from our jurisdictional reach, which some call regulatory arbitrage. We should not be surprised by this activity, nor should we condemn it. It would not be nefarious. Rather, it would simply be a rational response to overly burdensome regulation.
It would also be naïve and foolish for regulators to downplay the impact of our decisions on markets and the burdens they place on market participants. We know that increased regulation is not costless. Market regulators must always strive to implement effective regulation that adequately protects investors. However, we must do so in full recognition of the tradeoffs and costs associated with our rules. These costs can burden our economy and ultimately hurt investors.
It is not just the potential increased costs associated with our regulations that we must consider. We must also recognize that, with truly global capital markets, our actions have the power to shift the markets themselves. If our rules are unnecessarily harsh and we reject international cooperation, market participants may rationally seek other jurisdictions in which to operate.
If this happens, we must own up to the fact that our own actions — even ones undertaken with the best of intentions — can result in less regulatory transparency, less effective regulation, fewer protections for investors, higher prices, fewer productive jobs, and slower economic growth.
Regulatory Process Matters
This leads me to my final point — regulatory process matters.
Just as we cannot ignore the impacts associated with our rules, we must not ignore the appropriate process for developing them. That process includes a rigorous economic analysis, which includes identifying and evaluating reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulatory approach.[5]
The regulation of cross-border OTC derivatives activity involves many decision points, each with a number of viable alternatives. In developing our final rules in this area, we must engage in a thoughtful economic analysis to guide our decision-making process. The importance of the rulemaking process is highlighted by the current state of OTC derivatives regulation in the United States.
As I am sure all of you are aware, both the SEC and CFTC have been tasked with implementing portions of Title VII, including application of the statute to cross-border activities. The SEC has undertaken a methodical, deliberative process that includes the publication of a comprehensive document in May 2013 containing proposed rules developed with the insight of a thoughtful economic analysis.[6] SEC staff is currently reviewing the public comments on that proposal, and I expect that in the near future we will adopt final rules in this area that reflect the comments received and that are based on sound analysis of the economic consequences of the rules.
The CFTC, on the other hand, chose not to engage in a disciplined rulemaking process, and instead attempted to address these same issues by publishing “interpretive guidance” in July 2012.[7] This interpretive guidance did not contain clear rules, and was not based on any economic analysis. It is therefore not surprising that the guidance received widespread condemnation by foreign regulators. In December 2012, the CFTC responded with “further” interpretive guidance[8] that received so much criticism from foreign governments and regulators that the House Committee on Agriculture held a hearing a few weeks later.[9] In July 2013, the CFTC issued “final” interpretive guidance on the cross-border application of the swap provisions added by the Dodd-Frank Act.[10] Lacking the clarity and finality achievable through the rulemaking process, the CFTC’s final guidance has now been called into question through litigation, injecting further uncertainty into the markets.[11]
While the CFTC’s guidance is currently tied up in the courts for an indeterminate period of time, I can envision the SEC’s methodical approach to these issues bearing fruit in the form of a robust final rule in the coming months. Aesop, the ancient Greek story teller, would be quite happy looking at the state of Title VII regulation right now. His fabled story of the tortoise and the hare seems quite appropriate, with its overarching message that “Slow and steady wins the race.”
Conclusion
In closing, it bears repeating that the application of Dodd-Frank Act Title VII provisions to cross-border OTC derivatives activities is an incredibly complex area that does not lend itself to mere generalities. That is precisely why many of the common terms of art used in international dialogue are not always helpful.
Market participants do not need to know whether their regulators support abstract notions of mutual recognition, comparability assessments, or international comity. They do need to know whether their transactions must be reported, cleared, or traded on an exchange, and where they can undertake those activities.
I trust that my remarks give you a better sense of how I intend to approach international financial regulatory issues, including the final cross-border OTC derivatives rulemaking. I further hope that the Commission, as a whole, will follow the old adage “the little things you do matter more than the big things you say” and rely more on cooperation and collaboration with our international counterparts as we work together to develop an effective global financial regulatory framework that is consistent with our mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets, and promoting capital formation.
Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the day.
[1] Remarks at the Institute of International Bankers Fall Membership Luncheon by Commissioner Kathleen L. Casey (Oct. 9, 2007), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2007/spch100907klc.htm.
[2] See Leaders’ Statement at the Pittsburgh Summit, G-20 Meeting (Sept. 25, 2009), available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/g7-g20/Documents/pittsburgh_summit_leaders_statement_250909.pdf.
[3] Cross-Border Regulation of Swaps/Derivatives Discussions between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Union — A Path Forward (July 11, 2013), available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6640-13.
[4] See, e.g., Registration Requirements for Foreign Broker-Dealers, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27017, 54 F.R. 30013, 30016 (July 18, 1989).
[5] See, e.g., Current Guidance on Economic Analysis in SEC Rulemakings (Mar. 6, 2012), available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/riskfin/rsfi_guidance_econ_analy_secrulemaking.pdf.
[6] Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Re-Proposal of Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to the Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants; Proposed Rule, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69490, 78 F.R. 30967 (May 23, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-23/pdf/2013-10835.pdf.
[7] See Cross-Border Application of Swaps Provisions, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission website, available at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/Cross-BorderApplicationofSwapsProvisions/index.htm.
[8] Id.
[9] See Dodd-Frank Derivatives Reform: Challenges Facing U.S. and International Markets Before the Subcommittee On General Farm Commodities and Risk Management of the House Committee on Agriculture (Dec. 13, 2012). Hearing transcript, testimonies, and other documents are available at http://agriculture.house.gov/hearing/dodd-frank-derivatives-reform-challenges-facing-us-and-international-markets.
[10] See Cross-Border Application of Swaps Provisions, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission website, available at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/Cross-BorderApplicationofSwapsProvisions/index.htm. See also Statement of Dissent by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia, Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance With Certain Swap Regulations and Related Exemptive Order (July 12, 2013), available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/omaliastatement071213b.
[11] Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, International Swaps and Derivatives Association, and Institute of International Bankers v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 13-CV-1916 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 4, 2013).
SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN ROME, ITALY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Press Availability in Rome, Italy
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Rome, Italy
March 6, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY: (In Italian.) Good evening, everybody. It’s a great pleasure for me to be back in Rome. I’m especially pleased to be here in Rome at a time when Italy is making a transition in a – with a new government and making progress, important progress, on growing its economy and tackling unemployment. Tonight, I will have the pleasure of meeting with Italy’s new foreign minister, Foreign Minister Mogherini, and I’m hopeful – we were supposed to also be joined by the prime minister, but he’s on his way back from Brussels, may be a little bit delayed, but we hope he can make it.
I want to assure our Italian friends that the United States intends to continue to deepen our economic and security partnership with this government, including our shared commitment to negotiating an ambitious transatlantic trade and partnership – investment partnership agreement. We believe that such an agreement would be enormously helpful to all of our economies – good for Europe, good for the United States. It will create jobs. It can help create wealth. And at this time, the global economy needs that kind of trade partnership. President Obama, as you know, will be here shortly at the end of March, and I look forward to joining him here at that time in order to talk about these valuable partnerships and many other issues.
The reason that my counterparts and I came to Rome today was to demonstrate our commitment all together – the huge number of countries that came together to demonstrate our commitment to Libya’s democratic transition. And we recognize that this is really a pivotal moment for Libya as it drafts a post-revolution constitution and moves towards national reconciliation and elections. I can tell you that we in America, who are still perfecting our democracy and working and struggling to make it work as effectively as possible, and it goes up and down as we all know – we very well know from our own history the difficulties we had centuries ago in developing our constitution and giving it full bloom that this is hard work. It doesn’t happen overnight. And it is something that takes devotion and commitment and courage. And I think today, we heard from the prime minister and the president of Libya their dedication to helping to make this transition work.
We also know that Libyans did not risk their lives in the 2011 revolution just to slip backward into thuggery and violence. And as I told President Abu Sahmain today as well as Prime Minister Zeidan, we have no illusions about the challenges ahead, but we are committed to work very, very closely with the Government of Libya, but also with our partners, and Italy is one of the central partners in the effort to help Libya in this transition together with France, Great Britain, Germany, and others. And we will continue to work closely to fight terrorism, to prevent the spread of conventional weapons and to secure those weapons where they should be secured, and to build democratic institutions.
Now, let me say a word about a subject that I know is on everybody’s mind, and that’s the question of Ukraine. Just a few moments ago, President Obama spoke in Washington and laid out the steps that he has ordered with respect to this situation at this time, which are in keeping with precisely what we said last week we would do as a consequence of the steps that Russia decided to take with respect to Crimea. As you have heard me say all week, the choices that Russia has made escalated this situation, and we believe that Russia has the opportunity now – together with the rest of us – but Russia particularly has the opportunity now to make the right choices in order to de-escalate.
The United States also has choices to make, and President Obama has been clear that we cannot allow Russia or any country to defy international law with impunity. There’s no place in the community of nations for the kind of aggression and steps that we have seen taken in Crimea in Ukraine in these last days.
So today, as we announced we would last week, we have taken specific steps, and the State Department also has taken specific steps in response to what has occurred. Starting today, at President Obama’s direction, the State Department is putting in place tough visa restrictions on a number of officials and other individuals. And the United States will not grant visas to those who threaten the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and if they already have one, it will be revoked in those individual cases.
Now, let me remind you that this decision comes on top of our existing policy to deny visas to those who are involved in human rights abuses or political oppression in Ukraine. And it is also on top of other steps that the United States has already taken which we have announced. Now, at the same time, President Obama has issued an executive order that gives the Treasury Department the legal framework to sanction those who threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and democracy, those who contribute to the misappropriation of Ukraine’s state assets, and just as importantly, those who try to assert government authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the legitimate government in Kyiv.
I want to emphasize – and there’s a reason why only the legal framework was put in place and not the specific designations – and that reason is that even as we will keep faith with what we have said we would do, we want to be able to have the dialogue that leads to the de-escalation. We want to be able to continue the intense discussions with both sides in order to try to normalize and end this crisis. And we will absolutely consider, if we have to, additional steps beyond what we’ve done. But our preference – and the President has said this and I have said this – is to emphasize the possibilities for the dialogue that can lead to the normalization and defusing of this crisis.
Now, yesterday in Paris, we had lengthy discussions and we met also, obviously, with our Ukrainian counterpart, the foreign minister of Ukraine, and discussed with him Ukrainian thoughts about what should form the centerpiece of our approach to this effort to negotiate. And with the Ukrainian view in mind and with the input of all of our allies in the European community, we have made suggestions to Foreign Minister Lavrov which he is currently taking personally to President Putin in Sochi, I believe, and we have agreed to stay in close touch in order to see if there is a way forward, and try to get to the negotiating table with the parties necessary to be able to stabilize this.
We’ve been in very close touch all day with our European counterparts – both those who were here in Rome as well as by telephone for those who were in Brussels. And we agreed that over the course of the next hours, next days, there is an imperative to try to move quickly in order to prevent a mistake or misinterpretation or any other measures that might preclude our opportunity to be able to find the political solution that we believe is the best way to proceed.
The Ukrainian people, we are convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever, want nothing more than the right to determine their own future, and they want to be able to live freely in a safe and prosperous country where they can make the choices that people make in other countries around the world. And they have the international community’s full support, and while we reserve the right to take steps beyond those things that were announced today, we want President Putin and Russia and everyone to understand our preference is to get back to a normality and get back to a place where the rights of the people of Ukraine will be respected and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the nation will be respected.
The United States will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people, as will our allies and friends in the European community and elsewhere, in order to stand up for the values that we all believe in our fellow – that define our fellow democracies. So thank you very, very much, and I look forward to the opportunity to take a couple questions.
MS. HARF: Great, thank you. The first question is from Elise Labott of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You said that the Ukrainian people have the right to determine their own future. Does that include the people of Crimea? Don’t they have the right to determine their own future? Are there any conditions under which the U.S. might accept a referendum as part of the solution?
And then on your meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, Minister Fabius said that he’s forming this contact group and that the Russians might agree. Did you talk about this with the minister, and do you see this as a useful mechanism that might happen in the coming days?
And lastly, I’m wondering if you talked to him about the fact that he told you last week that the exercises that the Russians were doing had nothing to do with Ukraine. We now know that that was a pretext to mask the Russian intervention.
SECRETARY KERRY: What was the first part of that question? I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Well, we understand that --
SECRETARY KERRY: We now know what?
QUESTION: Well, we know that the – this exercise did have a lot to do with the Ukraine and perhaps it was a pretext for Russia to go into the Crimea. I’m just wondering – you’ve invested a lot in your relationship with Minister Lavrov, and I’m wondering if you feel misled by him at all and whether you spoke with him about that. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me take the first part of that question. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. And we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and the Government of Ukraine needs to be involved in any kind of decision with respect to any part of Ukraine. Any referendum on Ukraine is going to have to be absolutely consistent with Ukrainian law. And it’s my understanding that the constitution of Ukraine requires all – requires an all-Ukraine referendum; in other words, every part of Ukraine, all Ukrainians, would have to be part of a referendum with respect to the territory of Ukraine. So therefore, the proposed referendum would violate the constitution of Ukraine and international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine itself.
QUESTION: But if it was a Ukraine-wide referendum --
SECRETARY KERRY: If it were – if it adheres to the constitution of Ukraine, it’s up to Ukrainians to define that. It’s not up to the United States or Russia to make that decision. Ukrainians need to live by Ukrainian law and according to the constitution, and their constitution would require precisely what I just said. So that is, I think, critical to anything that would flow.
Secondly, with respect to a contact group and where we’re proceeding, frankly, I think everybody has been working to put a contact group together. I think it’s been a general assumption of all of us in unity that we would like to see if a contact group can be put together. And I think that the key here is whether or not that is going to be something that will work in the context of Russia’s willingness to do this, and obviously Ukrainian views about this.
Thus far, the Ukrainian Government has expressed their desire to have the support of a contact group, providing, of course, that the government – that Russia is dealing with them in that context. This can’t be in lieu of the respect for the existing Government of Ukraine, and we don’t intend for it to be, and none of us who have been part of the discussions about a contact group view this as anything except supportive of the process. But I believe there is a way to structure this, and that is obviously part of what we are now engaged in discussions with Russia through Foreign Minister Lavrov and to Mr. Putin.
With respect to the relationship with Foreign Minister Lavrov, it’s professional, as all of my relationships are with any foreign minister. There are moments in the course of a meeting over a year where you may be able to laugh at something, and there are moments where you disagree and disagree very strongly. And we work professionally, both of us, to represent our countries, represent our point of views, and try to get the work of diplomacy done.
This is obviously a moment where we have disagreement, as we do on some other issues. But where we can, we try to find a way forward, whether it’s been on chemical weapons in Syria or with respect to Iran and P5+1, or the enforcement of the START treaty and other kinds of issues, Afghanistan and other things.
So we will continue to work in a professional manner in order to try to resolve those issues that come to us and to try to do so in a way that advances the global interests of peace and stability and security. And that’s what I’m trying to do.
So another question.
MS. HARF: Great. Our final question comes from Oliviero Bergamini from TG1. Thank you.
QUESTION: Buonasera, Mr. Secretary. Are you satisfied with the way the European Union is dealing with this crisis? Because there seems to be quite a distance between countries like Poland that are really close to the position of the United States, and countries like Germany, and Italy to some extent, they get a lot of their energy supplies from Russia, they seem to be much softer on the theme of economic sanctions and so on. That’s actually the reason why Prime Minister Renzi might be late for dinner because they are not finding an agreement right now in Brussels.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, actually, they did announce an agreement in Brussels, and --
QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, there was something. So do you – how do you see the attitude of the European Union?
SECRETARY KERRY: I think the European Union has been extremely cooperative and has been a partner in this thoroughly. There’s been a complete and total communication and sharing of information and sharing of ideas. I do not believe there is a gap. There may be some differences of opinion about timing or about one particular choice versus another. That’s not unusual when you have as many countries working together as we do.
But fundamentally with respect to the question of what has happened and the need to protect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, there is no difference whatsoever. With respect to the need to have some sanctions as a result of what has happened in Crimea, there is no difference whatsoever. And Europe on its own tonight has made its announcement through its own process and own debate that they have taken some steps.
Now, Europe joins us in absolutely believing that we are all better served by getting back to a normality and a stability that will come through good diplomacy and good efforts to try to find a path forward that can protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, protect legitimate interests where they exist of ethnic Russians and/or of other agreements like the base agreement and other things that Russia has that are in law. Those are things that we can deal with. And our hope is that together – Europe, the United States, and others, Canada, Japan – there are a lot of countries interested in what is happening. And I think they all want to be supportive for a process that de-escalates, that reduces tension.
We have a lot of things to do together. We do not need to be distracted or split apart by virtue of what has happened in Ukraine. I think it is fair to say, and I have said that Russia does have some interests in the region. But they need to be dealt with according to law and in a proper way, and dealt with in a way that can respect the integrity of the country, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
At the same time, the Ukrainian people have an overriding interest, a paramount interest here in having their rights protected, their sovereignty protected, their hopes and aspirations which they died to achieve, that needs to be respected. And that’s the tension here, and that’s the – that’s what we’re trying to balance as we approach a diplomatic and peaceful resolution of this, rather than an escalation that could harm the efforts of a lot of other initiatives that we all are focused on.
Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
I want to assure our Italian friends that the United States intends to continue to deepen our economic and security partnership with this government, including our shared commitment to negotiating an ambitious transatlantic trade and partnership – investment partnership agreement. We believe that such an agreement would be enormously helpful to all of our economies – good for Europe, good for the United States. It will create jobs. It can help create wealth. And at this time, the global economy needs that kind of trade partnership. President Obama, as you know, will be here shortly at the end of March, and I look forward to joining him here at that time in order to talk about these valuable partnerships and many other issues.
The reason that my counterparts and I came to Rome today was to demonstrate our commitment all together – the huge number of countries that came together to demonstrate our commitment to Libya’s democratic transition. And we recognize that this is really a pivotal moment for Libya as it drafts a post-revolution constitution and moves towards national reconciliation and elections. I can tell you that we in America, who are still perfecting our democracy and working and struggling to make it work as effectively as possible, and it goes up and down as we all know – we very well know from our own history the difficulties we had centuries ago in developing our constitution and giving it full bloom that this is hard work. It doesn’t happen overnight. And it is something that takes devotion and commitment and courage. And I think today, we heard from the prime minister and the president of Libya their dedication to helping to make this transition work.
We also know that Libyans did not risk their lives in the 2011 revolution just to slip backward into thuggery and violence. And as I told President Abu Sahmain today as well as Prime Minister Zeidan, we have no illusions about the challenges ahead, but we are committed to work very, very closely with the Government of Libya, but also with our partners, and Italy is one of the central partners in the effort to help Libya in this transition together with France, Great Britain, Germany, and others. And we will continue to work closely to fight terrorism, to prevent the spread of conventional weapons and to secure those weapons where they should be secured, and to build democratic institutions.
Now, let me say a word about a subject that I know is on everybody’s mind, and that’s the question of Ukraine. Just a few moments ago, President Obama spoke in Washington and laid out the steps that he has ordered with respect to this situation at this time, which are in keeping with precisely what we said last week we would do as a consequence of the steps that Russia decided to take with respect to Crimea. As you have heard me say all week, the choices that Russia has made escalated this situation, and we believe that Russia has the opportunity now – together with the rest of us – but Russia particularly has the opportunity now to make the right choices in order to de-escalate.
The United States also has choices to make, and President Obama has been clear that we cannot allow Russia or any country to defy international law with impunity. There’s no place in the community of nations for the kind of aggression and steps that we have seen taken in Crimea in Ukraine in these last days.
So today, as we announced we would last week, we have taken specific steps, and the State Department also has taken specific steps in response to what has occurred. Starting today, at President Obama’s direction, the State Department is putting in place tough visa restrictions on a number of officials and other individuals. And the United States will not grant visas to those who threaten the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and if they already have one, it will be revoked in those individual cases.
Now, let me remind you that this decision comes on top of our existing policy to deny visas to those who are involved in human rights abuses or political oppression in Ukraine. And it is also on top of other steps that the United States has already taken which we have announced. Now, at the same time, President Obama has issued an executive order that gives the Treasury Department the legal framework to sanction those who threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and democracy, those who contribute to the misappropriation of Ukraine’s state assets, and just as importantly, those who try to assert government authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the legitimate government in Kyiv.
I want to emphasize – and there’s a reason why only the legal framework was put in place and not the specific designations – and that reason is that even as we will keep faith with what we have said we would do, we want to be able to have the dialogue that leads to the de-escalation. We want to be able to continue the intense discussions with both sides in order to try to normalize and end this crisis. And we will absolutely consider, if we have to, additional steps beyond what we’ve done. But our preference – and the President has said this and I have said this – is to emphasize the possibilities for the dialogue that can lead to the normalization and defusing of this crisis.
Now, yesterday in Paris, we had lengthy discussions and we met also, obviously, with our Ukrainian counterpart, the foreign minister of Ukraine, and discussed with him Ukrainian thoughts about what should form the centerpiece of our approach to this effort to negotiate. And with the Ukrainian view in mind and with the input of all of our allies in the European community, we have made suggestions to Foreign Minister Lavrov which he is currently taking personally to President Putin in Sochi, I believe, and we have agreed to stay in close touch in order to see if there is a way forward, and try to get to the negotiating table with the parties necessary to be able to stabilize this.
We’ve been in very close touch all day with our European counterparts – both those who were here in Rome as well as by telephone for those who were in Brussels. And we agreed that over the course of the next hours, next days, there is an imperative to try to move quickly in order to prevent a mistake or misinterpretation or any other measures that might preclude our opportunity to be able to find the political solution that we believe is the best way to proceed.
The Ukrainian people, we are convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever, want nothing more than the right to determine their own future, and they want to be able to live freely in a safe and prosperous country where they can make the choices that people make in other countries around the world. And they have the international community’s full support, and while we reserve the right to take steps beyond those things that were announced today, we want President Putin and Russia and everyone to understand our preference is to get back to a normality and get back to a place where the rights of the people of Ukraine will be respected and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the nation will be respected.
The United States will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people, as will our allies and friends in the European community and elsewhere, in order to stand up for the values that we all believe in our fellow – that define our fellow democracies. So thank you very, very much, and I look forward to the opportunity to take a couple questions.
MS. HARF: Great, thank you. The first question is from Elise Labott of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You said that the Ukrainian people have the right to determine their own future. Does that include the people of Crimea? Don’t they have the right to determine their own future? Are there any conditions under which the U.S. might accept a referendum as part of the solution?
And then on your meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, Minister Fabius said that he’s forming this contact group and that the Russians might agree. Did you talk about this with the minister, and do you see this as a useful mechanism that might happen in the coming days?
And lastly, I’m wondering if you talked to him about the fact that he told you last week that the exercises that the Russians were doing had nothing to do with Ukraine. We now know that that was a pretext to mask the Russian intervention.
SECRETARY KERRY: What was the first part of that question? I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Well, we understand that --
SECRETARY KERRY: We now know what?
QUESTION: Well, we know that the – this exercise did have a lot to do with the Ukraine and perhaps it was a pretext for Russia to go into the Crimea. I’m just wondering – you’ve invested a lot in your relationship with Minister Lavrov, and I’m wondering if you feel misled by him at all and whether you spoke with him about that. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me take the first part of that question. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. And we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and the Government of Ukraine needs to be involved in any kind of decision with respect to any part of Ukraine. Any referendum on Ukraine is going to have to be absolutely consistent with Ukrainian law. And it’s my understanding that the constitution of Ukraine requires all – requires an all-Ukraine referendum; in other words, every part of Ukraine, all Ukrainians, would have to be part of a referendum with respect to the territory of Ukraine. So therefore, the proposed referendum would violate the constitution of Ukraine and international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine itself.
QUESTION: But if it was a Ukraine-wide referendum --
SECRETARY KERRY: If it were – if it adheres to the constitution of Ukraine, it’s up to Ukrainians to define that. It’s not up to the United States or Russia to make that decision. Ukrainians need to live by Ukrainian law and according to the constitution, and their constitution would require precisely what I just said. So that is, I think, critical to anything that would flow.
Secondly, with respect to a contact group and where we’re proceeding, frankly, I think everybody has been working to put a contact group together. I think it’s been a general assumption of all of us in unity that we would like to see if a contact group can be put together. And I think that the key here is whether or not that is going to be something that will work in the context of Russia’s willingness to do this, and obviously Ukrainian views about this.
Thus far, the Ukrainian Government has expressed their desire to have the support of a contact group, providing, of course, that the government – that Russia is dealing with them in that context. This can’t be in lieu of the respect for the existing Government of Ukraine, and we don’t intend for it to be, and none of us who have been part of the discussions about a contact group view this as anything except supportive of the process. But I believe there is a way to structure this, and that is obviously part of what we are now engaged in discussions with Russia through Foreign Minister Lavrov and to Mr. Putin.
With respect to the relationship with Foreign Minister Lavrov, it’s professional, as all of my relationships are with any foreign minister. There are moments in the course of a meeting over a year where you may be able to laugh at something, and there are moments where you disagree and disagree very strongly. And we work professionally, both of us, to represent our countries, represent our point of views, and try to get the work of diplomacy done.
This is obviously a moment where we have disagreement, as we do on some other issues. But where we can, we try to find a way forward, whether it’s been on chemical weapons in Syria or with respect to Iran and P5+1, or the enforcement of the START treaty and other kinds of issues, Afghanistan and other things.
So we will continue to work in a professional manner in order to try to resolve those issues that come to us and to try to do so in a way that advances the global interests of peace and stability and security. And that’s what I’m trying to do.
So another question.
MS. HARF: Great. Our final question comes from Oliviero Bergamini from TG1. Thank you.
QUESTION: Buonasera, Mr. Secretary. Are you satisfied with the way the European Union is dealing with this crisis? Because there seems to be quite a distance between countries like Poland that are really close to the position of the United States, and countries like Germany, and Italy to some extent, they get a lot of their energy supplies from Russia, they seem to be much softer on the theme of economic sanctions and so on. That’s actually the reason why Prime Minister Renzi might be late for dinner because they are not finding an agreement right now in Brussels.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, actually, they did announce an agreement in Brussels, and --
QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, there was something. So do you – how do you see the attitude of the European Union?
SECRETARY KERRY: I think the European Union has been extremely cooperative and has been a partner in this thoroughly. There’s been a complete and total communication and sharing of information and sharing of ideas. I do not believe there is a gap. There may be some differences of opinion about timing or about one particular choice versus another. That’s not unusual when you have as many countries working together as we do.
But fundamentally with respect to the question of what has happened and the need to protect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, there is no difference whatsoever. With respect to the need to have some sanctions as a result of what has happened in Crimea, there is no difference whatsoever. And Europe on its own tonight has made its announcement through its own process and own debate that they have taken some steps.
Now, Europe joins us in absolutely believing that we are all better served by getting back to a normality and a stability that will come through good diplomacy and good efforts to try to find a path forward that can protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, protect legitimate interests where they exist of ethnic Russians and/or of other agreements like the base agreement and other things that Russia has that are in law. Those are things that we can deal with. And our hope is that together – Europe, the United States, and others, Canada, Japan – there are a lot of countries interested in what is happening. And I think they all want to be supportive for a process that de-escalates, that reduces tension.
We have a lot of things to do together. We do not need to be distracted or split apart by virtue of what has happened in Ukraine. I think it is fair to say, and I have said that Russia does have some interests in the region. But they need to be dealt with according to law and in a proper way, and dealt with in a way that can respect the integrity of the country, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
At the same time, the Ukrainian people have an overriding interest, a paramount interest here in having their rights protected, their sovereignty protected, their hopes and aspirations which they died to achieve, that needs to be respected. And that’s the tension here, and that’s the – that’s what we’re trying to balance as we approach a diplomatic and peaceful resolution of this, rather than an escalation that could harm the efforts of a lot of other initiatives that we all are focused on.
Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES SETTLES STATE DEPARTMENT ALLEGATIONS OF UNAUTHORIZED EXPORTS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
State Department Concludes Settlement of Alleged AECA and ITAR Violations by Esterline Technologies Corporation
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 6, 2014
The U.S. Department of State concluded an administrative settlement with Esterline Technologies Corporation of Bellevue, Washington, to resolve alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. § 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130). Esterline agreed to enter into a consent agreement with the Department pursuant to ITAR Section 128.11. The agreement was reached following an extensive compliance review by the Department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DTCC) in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. This settlement addresses hundreds of alleged civil violations of the AECA and ITAR, and highlights the Department’s responsibility to protect U.S. defense articles, including technical data, and defense services from unauthorized use.
DTCC determined that Esterline demonstrated inadequate corporate oversight and failed to establish an adequate AECA and ITAR compliance program in its defense trade activity. Over the course of many years, Esterline and its operating divisions, subsidiaries, and business units disclosed to the Department hundreds of alleged AECA and ITAR violations consisting of unauthorized exports of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services; unauthorized temporary imports of defense articles; violations of terms and conditions of licenses or approvals granted; exports of defense articles in excess of quantity and value authorized; improper use of exemptions; and failure to file or filing of incorrect documentation with the Automated Export System.
DTCC’s compliance review concluded that many of these alleged violations occurred because Esterline did not properly establish jurisdiction over its defense articles and technical data, did not properly administer licenses and agreements, and had incomplete or poor recordkeeping. The alleged violations involved defense articles, technical data, and defense services that are or were controlled at the time of the alleged violations by the U.S. Munitions List under the following current or former categories: IV(h), VI(i), VI(f), VI(g), VII(g), VII(h), VIII(h), VIII(i), XI(a), XI(c), XI(d), XII(e), XII(f), XV(e), XV(f), XX(c), and XX(d).
Under the terms of a three year Consent Agreement with the Department, Esterline will pay a civil penalty of $20 million. The Department agreed to suspend $10 million of this amount on the condition the Department approves expenditures for self-initiated, pre-Consent Agreement remedial compliance measures and Consent Agreement-authorized remedial compliance costs. Additionally, Esterline will engage a Special Compliance Official to oversee the Consent Agreement, and Esterline will conduct two audits of its compliance program as well as implement additional compliance measures, such as improved policies and procedures, and additional training for employees and principals.
Esterline disclosed the alleged AECA and ITAR violations resolved under this settlement to the Department, acknowledged the serious nature of the alleged violations, cooperated with the Department, and implemented or has planned extensive remedial measures. For these reasons, the Department determined that an administrative debarment of Esterline was not appropriate at this time.
DTCC determined that Esterline demonstrated inadequate corporate oversight and failed to establish an adequate AECA and ITAR compliance program in its defense trade activity. Over the course of many years, Esterline and its operating divisions, subsidiaries, and business units disclosed to the Department hundreds of alleged AECA and ITAR violations consisting of unauthorized exports of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services; unauthorized temporary imports of defense articles; violations of terms and conditions of licenses or approvals granted; exports of defense articles in excess of quantity and value authorized; improper use of exemptions; and failure to file or filing of incorrect documentation with the Automated Export System.
DTCC’s compliance review concluded that many of these alleged violations occurred because Esterline did not properly establish jurisdiction over its defense articles and technical data, did not properly administer licenses and agreements, and had incomplete or poor recordkeeping. The alleged violations involved defense articles, technical data, and defense services that are or were controlled at the time of the alleged violations by the U.S. Munitions List under the following current or former categories: IV(h), VI(i), VI(f), VI(g), VII(g), VII(h), VIII(h), VIII(i), XI(a), XI(c), XI(d), XII(e), XII(f), XV(e), XV(f), XX(c), and XX(d).
Under the terms of a three year Consent Agreement with the Department, Esterline will pay a civil penalty of $20 million. The Department agreed to suspend $10 million of this amount on the condition the Department approves expenditures for self-initiated, pre-Consent Agreement remedial compliance measures and Consent Agreement-authorized remedial compliance costs. Additionally, Esterline will engage a Special Compliance Official to oversee the Consent Agreement, and Esterline will conduct two audits of its compliance program as well as implement additional compliance measures, such as improved policies and procedures, and additional training for employees and principals.
Esterline disclosed the alleged AECA and ITAR violations resolved under this settlement to the Department, acknowledged the serious nature of the alleged violations, cooperated with the Department, and implemented or has planned extensive remedial measures. For these reasons, the Department determined that an administrative debarment of Esterline was not appropriate at this time.
THE RUNNING SPIRAL
Life Is Too Fast, Too Furious for Runaway Galaxy
The spiral galaxy ESO 137-001 looks like a dandelion caught in a breeze in this new composite image from the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Hubble Space Telescope.
The galaxy is zooming toward the upper left of this image, in between other galaxies in the Norma cluster located over 200 million light-years away. The road is harsh: intergalactic gas in the Norma cluster is sparse, but so hot at 180 million degrees Fahrenheit that it glows in X-rays detected by Chandra (blue).
The spiral plows through the seething intra-cluster gas so rapidly - at nearly 4.5 million miles per hour - much of its own gas is caught and torn away. Astronomers call this "ram pressure stripping." The galaxy's stars remain intact due to the binding force of their gravity.
Tattered threads of gas, the blue jellyfish-tendrils sported by ESO 137-001 in the image, illustrate the process. Ram pressure has strung this gas away from its home in the spiral galaxy and out over intergalactic space. Once there, these strips of gas have erupted with young, massive stars, which are pumping out light in vivid blues and ultraviolet.
The brown, smoky region near the center of the spiral is being pushed in a similar manner, although in this case it is small dust particles, and not gas, that are being dragged backwards by the intra-cluster medium.
From a star-forming perspective, ESO 137-001 really is spreading its seeds into space like a dandelion in the wind. The stripped gas is now forming stars. However, the galaxy, drained of its own star-forming fuel, will have trouble making stars in the future. Through studying this runaway spiral, and other galaxies like it, astronomers hope to gain a better understanding of how galaxies form stars and evolve over time.
The image is also decorated with hundreds of stars from within the Milky Way. Though not connected in the slightest to ESO 137-001, these stars and the two reddish elliptical galaxies contribute to a vibrant celestial vista. Credit: NASA.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Readout of President Obama’s call with President Putin of Russia
President Obama spoke for an hour this afternoon with President Putin of Russia. President Obama emphasized that Russia’s actions are in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has led us to take several steps in response, in coordination with our European partners. President Obama indicated that there is a way to resolve the situation diplomatically, which addresses the interests of Russia, the people of Ukraine, and the international community. As a part of that resolution, the governments of Ukraine and Russia would hold direct talks, facilitated by the international community; international monitors could ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians; Russian forces would return to their bases; and the international community would work together to support the Ukrainian people as they prepare for elections in May. President Obama indicated that Secretary Kerry would continue discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, the government of Ukraine, and other international partners in the days to come to advance those objectives.
Readout of President Obama’s call with President Putin of Russia
President Obama spoke for an hour this afternoon with President Putin of Russia. President Obama emphasized that Russia’s actions are in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has led us to take several steps in response, in coordination with our European partners. President Obama indicated that there is a way to resolve the situation diplomatically, which addresses the interests of Russia, the people of Ukraine, and the international community. As a part of that resolution, the governments of Ukraine and Russia would hold direct talks, facilitated by the international community; international monitors could ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians; Russian forces would return to their bases; and the international community would work together to support the Ukrainian people as they prepare for elections in May. President Obama indicated that Secretary Kerry would continue discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, the government of Ukraine, and other international partners in the days to come to advance those objectives.
DOJ FILES SUIT AGAINST PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the School District of Philadelphia for Religious Discrimination
The Department of Justice announced the filing of a lawsuit today against the School District of Philadelphia alleging that the district discriminated against Siddiq Abu-Bakr, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit further alleges that the district’s employment policies constitute a pattern or practice of religious discrimination, also in violation of Title VII.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that the district discriminated against Abu-Bakr and similarly-situated individuals by failing to accommodate their religious beliefs after it instituted a new grooming policy in October 2010 that prevented school police officers and security officers from having beards longer than one-quarter inch. Abu-Bakr, a school police officer since 1987, is a member of the Islamic faith, which requires him not to cut his beard. Consistent with his religious beliefs, Abu-Bakr has maintained an untrimmed beard longer than one-quarter inch for the 27 years that he has worked for the district, without evidence that the maintenance of an uncut beard has interfered with his job performance. When Abu-Bakr notified his supervisor that he could not comply with the new grooming policy due to his religious beliefs, Abu-Bakr was issued a written reprimand for violating the policy. According to the complaint, the district failed to consider Abu-Bakr’s request for reasonable accommodation to its grooming policy that would have been in accordance with his religious beliefs, and later denied his request without making the requisite showing that doing so would cause an undue hardship.
Through this lawsuit, the United States is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the district to develop and implement new grooming policies that would prevent its employees from being discriminated against based upon religion, as well as monetary damages for Abu-Bakr and similarly-situated individuals.
“Individuals should not have to choose between maintaining their jobs and practicing their faith when accommodations can be reasonably made,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Jocelyn Samuels. “Federal law requires all employers, even those with grooming and uniform policies, to reasonably accommodate the religious observances and practices of their employees.”
Abu-Bakr originally filed a charge of religious discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office investigated the matter, determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred, and referred the matter to the Department of Justice.
“No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “Modifying a dress or grooming code is a reasonable accommodation that enables employees to keep working without posing an undue hardship on the employer. We are pleased that the EEOC's collaboration with the Department of Justice protects public employees from religious discrimination.”
The continued enforcement of Title VII is a priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the School District of Philadelphia for Religious Discrimination
The Department of Justice announced the filing of a lawsuit today against the School District of Philadelphia alleging that the district discriminated against Siddiq Abu-Bakr, as well as other similarly-situated individuals, on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit further alleges that the district’s employment policies constitute a pattern or practice of religious discrimination, also in violation of Title VII.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that the district discriminated against Abu-Bakr and similarly-situated individuals by failing to accommodate their religious beliefs after it instituted a new grooming policy in October 2010 that prevented school police officers and security officers from having beards longer than one-quarter inch. Abu-Bakr, a school police officer since 1987, is a member of the Islamic faith, which requires him not to cut his beard. Consistent with his religious beliefs, Abu-Bakr has maintained an untrimmed beard longer than one-quarter inch for the 27 years that he has worked for the district, without evidence that the maintenance of an uncut beard has interfered with his job performance. When Abu-Bakr notified his supervisor that he could not comply with the new grooming policy due to his religious beliefs, Abu-Bakr was issued a written reprimand for violating the policy. According to the complaint, the district failed to consider Abu-Bakr’s request for reasonable accommodation to its grooming policy that would have been in accordance with his religious beliefs, and later denied his request without making the requisite showing that doing so would cause an undue hardship.
Through this lawsuit, the United States is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the district to develop and implement new grooming policies that would prevent its employees from being discriminated against based upon religion, as well as monetary damages for Abu-Bakr and similarly-situated individuals.
“Individuals should not have to choose between maintaining their jobs and practicing their faith when accommodations can be reasonably made,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Jocelyn Samuels. “Federal law requires all employers, even those with grooming and uniform policies, to reasonably accommodate the religious observances and practices of their employees.”
Abu-Bakr originally filed a charge of religious discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office investigated the matter, determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred, and referred the matter to the Department of Justice.
“No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “Modifying a dress or grooming code is a reasonable accommodation that enables employees to keep working without posing an undue hardship on the employer. We are pleased that the EEOC's collaboration with the Department of Justice protects public employees from religious discrimination.”
The continued enforcement of Title VII is a priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR MARCH 6, 2014
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS
NAVY
General Electric, Lynn Mass., was awarded a $79,737,730 firm-fixed-price contract for the repair of 20 T-64 engine (CH53D/E and MH53E helicopters) components, along with manufacturing, engineering, and technical support to the Fleet Readiness Center East, Cherry Point, N.C., with a goal of improving monthly output. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C. (80 percent), and Lynn, Mass. (20 percent), and work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2015. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 Navy working capital funds will be used on the delivery orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured through full and open competition and solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received. The NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity (N00383-14-D-004M). (Awarded March 4, 2014)
Science Applications International Corp., Mclean, Va., was awarded a potentially estimated $35,265,817 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0108). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Kratos Technology & Training Solutions Inc., San Diego, Calif., was awarded a potentially estimated $35,211,430 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0106). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Salient Federal Solutions, Fairfax, Va., was awarded a potentially estimated $34,647,083 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0107). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Mantech Systems Engineering Corp., Fairfax, Va., was awarded a potentially estimated $33,607,344 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0105). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Science Applications International Corp., McLean, Va., was awarded a $33,003,618 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N39430-13-C-1201) to exercise option period one for anti-terrorism/force protection global sustainment at Navy regions, worldwide. The work to be performed provides for preventative and corrective maintenance, repair and replacement, service calls, and systems/software upgrades for anti-terrorism/force protection ashore equipment. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $60,169,948. Work will be performed worldwide and work is expected to be completed March 2015. Fiscal 2014 operation and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $33,003,618 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, Calif., is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 4, 2014)
Alutiiq Pacific LLC*, Anchorage, Alaska (N39430-13-D-1264); Securityhunter Inc.*, Baltimore, Md. (N39430-13-D-1265); and Split Pine Technologies LLC*, Tallahassee, Fla. (N39430-13-D-1266), are each being awarded option year one under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, multiple-award contract for physical security access control at Navy shore installations throughout the world, including joint bases assigned to the Navy. The work to be performed provides for the design, procurement, installation, integration, testing and initial training for anti-terrorism force protection hardware and software. The combined total value for all three contractors is $33,000,000. No task orders are being issued at this time. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $66,000,000. All work on this contract will be performed at Navy shore installations throughout the world, including joint bases assigned to the Navy. The term for this option is from March 2014 to March 2015. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Operation and maintenance, Navy and other procurement, Navy funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Concurrent Technologies Corp., Johnstown, Pa., was awarded a $15,338,026 cost-plus-fixed fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide engineering services in support of the continued modification of the carriage, stream, tow and recovery system to incorporate airborne countermeasures capabilities. The overall objectives of the carriage, stream, tow and recovery program are to design, fabricate, test and integrate a system for the carriage, stream, tow and recovery of all five airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) sensors to support the organic AMCM mission of the MH-60S helicopter. Work will be performed in Johnstown, Pa., and is expected to be completed by March 2015. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation and fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy funding in the amount of $5,034,148 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured in accordance with FAR 6.302 - no other supplies or services would satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, Panama City, Fla., is the contracting activity (N61331-14-D-0010). (Awarded March 4, 2014)
Raytheon Co., McKinney, Texas, was awarded a $12,814,344 firm-fixed-price contract for 16 turret units and eight electronics units for the Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems for Navy MH-60 aircraft. The system is an airborne, electro-optic, forward-looking infra-red, turreted sensor package that provides long-range surveillance, high altitude target acquisition, tracking, range-finding, and laser designation, and for the HELLFIRE missile, and for all tri-service and North Atlantic Treaty Organization laser guided munitions. Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and is expected to be completed by July 2015. Navy working capital funds in the amount of $12,814,344 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-12-G-JQ66). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Arête Associates, Tucson, Ariz., was awarded a $10,228,983 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N6133-11-C-0007) for Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) Program Systems Support for the AN/DVS-1 COBRA Block 1 System and support equipment. The primary mission of AN/DVS-1 COBRA is to conduct unmanned aerial tactical reconnaissance in littoral battlespace for detection and localization of mine fields and obstacles in the surf zone and beach zone. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by February 2015. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $1,400,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, Panama City, Fla., is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Raytheon Co., McKinney, Texas, is being awarded a $10,072,556 firm-fixed-price contract for 10 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems for Air Force HC/MC-130J aircraft. The system is an airborne, electro-optic, forward-looking infra-red, turreted sensor package that provides long-range surveillance, high altitude target acquisition, tracking, range-finding, and laser designation, and for the Hellfire missile, and for all tri-service and North Atlantic Treaty Organization laser guided munitions. Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and is expected to be completed by April 2015. Fiscal 2012 aircraft procurement, Air Force contract funds in the amount of $10,072,556 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-12-G-JQ66-0045).
L-3 Communications MariPro Inc., Goleta, Calif., was awarded a $6,764,229 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N66604-12-C-2838) to exercise an option for the Sea Shore Interface Installation, Highly Accelerated Life Test, and integrated logistics services in support of the Undersea Warfare Training Range, located off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla. Work will be performed in Goleta, Calif. (85 percent), Newington, N.H. (10 percent), and Mayport, Fla. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in May 2019. Fiscal 2014 other procurement, Navy funds in the amount of $6,764,229 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 5, 2014)
ARMY
Colt Defense LLC, West Hartford, Conn. (W15QKN-14-D-0027) and FN Manufacturing LLC, Columbia, S.C. (W15QKN-14-D-0026), were awarded a $16,321,305 firm-fixed-price, multi-year contract for M4 rifle bolts for the M4 product improvement program. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with six received. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Southeast Asia Systems Co., Andover, Mass., was awarded a $7,287,470 modification (P00004) to firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales contract W31P4Q-12-C-0142 for technical assistance to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Hawk Missile System program. Fiscal 2014 other procurement funds in the amount of $7,287,470 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2015. Work will be performed in the UAE. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity.
AIR FORCE
Textron Defense System, Wilmington, Mass., has been awarded a $17,175,606 firm-fixed-price, five-year requirements contract for the ICBM Flight MK 12A Mod 5F midsections. The contract award is to provide the government with up to 21 Mod 5F midsections over a five-year ordering period. Work will be performed at Wilmington, Mass., and is expected to be completed by March 5, 2020. Fiscal 2014 missile procurement funds in the amount of $3,663,047 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PZBE, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8204-14-D-0001).
Leidos Inc., El Segundo, Calif., has been awarded $7,850,000 firm-fixed-price contract for Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Bridge 4.0 which provides for SE&I support services to the GPS Directorate. Work will be performed at Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Sept. 2, 2014. This award is a result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2014 research and development and fiscal 2014 missile procurement funds in the amount of $4,120,000 are being obligated at time of award. This is not a multiyear effort. GPS Directorate, Space and Missile System Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, Calif., is the contracting activity (FA88078-14-C-0005).
*Small business
CONTRACTS
NAVY
General Electric, Lynn Mass., was awarded a $79,737,730 firm-fixed-price contract for the repair of 20 T-64 engine (CH53D/E and MH53E helicopters) components, along with manufacturing, engineering, and technical support to the Fleet Readiness Center East, Cherry Point, N.C., with a goal of improving monthly output. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C. (80 percent), and Lynn, Mass. (20 percent), and work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2015. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 Navy working capital funds will be used on the delivery orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured through full and open competition and solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received. The NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity (N00383-14-D-004M). (Awarded March 4, 2014)
Science Applications International Corp., Mclean, Va., was awarded a potentially estimated $35,265,817 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0108). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Kratos Technology & Training Solutions Inc., San Diego, Calif., was awarded a potentially estimated $35,211,430 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0106). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Salient Federal Solutions, Fairfax, Va., was awarded a potentially estimated $34,647,083 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0107). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Mantech Systems Engineering Corp., Fairfax, Va., was awarded a potentially estimated $33,607,344 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, multiple-award contract to support Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific’s Training Development and Support Center to provide training for a range of program offices. This is one of four contracts awarded. Each awardee will have the opportunity to compete for task orders during the ordering period. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and work is expected to be completed March 4, 2017. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; other procurement, Navy and research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via full and open competition via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with seven proposals received and four selected for award. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-14-D-0105). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Science Applications International Corp., McLean, Va., was awarded a $33,003,618 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N39430-13-C-1201) to exercise option period one for anti-terrorism/force protection global sustainment at Navy regions, worldwide. The work to be performed provides for preventative and corrective maintenance, repair and replacement, service calls, and systems/software upgrades for anti-terrorism/force protection ashore equipment. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $60,169,948. Work will be performed worldwide and work is expected to be completed March 2015. Fiscal 2014 operation and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $33,003,618 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, Calif., is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 4, 2014)
Alutiiq Pacific LLC*, Anchorage, Alaska (N39430-13-D-1264); Securityhunter Inc.*, Baltimore, Md. (N39430-13-D-1265); and Split Pine Technologies LLC*, Tallahassee, Fla. (N39430-13-D-1266), are each being awarded option year one under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, multiple-award contract for physical security access control at Navy shore installations throughout the world, including joint bases assigned to the Navy. The work to be performed provides for the design, procurement, installation, integration, testing and initial training for anti-terrorism force protection hardware and software. The combined total value for all three contractors is $33,000,000. No task orders are being issued at this time. The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $66,000,000. All work on this contract will be performed at Navy shore installations throughout the world, including joint bases assigned to the Navy. The term for this option is from March 2014 to March 2015. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Operation and maintenance, Navy and other procurement, Navy funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. The Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Concurrent Technologies Corp., Johnstown, Pa., was awarded a $15,338,026 cost-plus-fixed fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide engineering services in support of the continued modification of the carriage, stream, tow and recovery system to incorporate airborne countermeasures capabilities. The overall objectives of the carriage, stream, tow and recovery program are to design, fabricate, test and integrate a system for the carriage, stream, tow and recovery of all five airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) sensors to support the organic AMCM mission of the MH-60S helicopter. Work will be performed in Johnstown, Pa., and is expected to be completed by March 2015. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation and fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy funding in the amount of $5,034,148 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured in accordance with FAR 6.302 - no other supplies or services would satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, Panama City, Fla., is the contracting activity (N61331-14-D-0010). (Awarded March 4, 2014)
Raytheon Co., McKinney, Texas, was awarded a $12,814,344 firm-fixed-price contract for 16 turret units and eight electronics units for the Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems for Navy MH-60 aircraft. The system is an airborne, electro-optic, forward-looking infra-red, turreted sensor package that provides long-range surveillance, high altitude target acquisition, tracking, range-finding, and laser designation, and for the HELLFIRE missile, and for all tri-service and North Atlantic Treaty Organization laser guided munitions. Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and is expected to be completed by July 2015. Navy working capital funds in the amount of $12,814,344 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-12-G-JQ66). (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Arête Associates, Tucson, Ariz., was awarded a $10,228,983 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N6133-11-C-0007) for Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) Program Systems Support for the AN/DVS-1 COBRA Block 1 System and support equipment. The primary mission of AN/DVS-1 COBRA is to conduct unmanned aerial tactical reconnaissance in littoral battlespace for detection and localization of mine fields and obstacles in the surf zone and beach zone. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by February 2015. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $1,400,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, Panama City, Fla., is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 5, 2014)
Raytheon Co., McKinney, Texas, is being awarded a $10,072,556 firm-fixed-price contract for 10 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems for Air Force HC/MC-130J aircraft. The system is an airborne, electro-optic, forward-looking infra-red, turreted sensor package that provides long-range surveillance, high altitude target acquisition, tracking, range-finding, and laser designation, and for the Hellfire missile, and for all tri-service and North Atlantic Treaty Organization laser guided munitions. Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and is expected to be completed by April 2015. Fiscal 2012 aircraft procurement, Air Force contract funds in the amount of $10,072,556 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-12-G-JQ66-0045).
L-3 Communications MariPro Inc., Goleta, Calif., was awarded a $6,764,229 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N66604-12-C-2838) to exercise an option for the Sea Shore Interface Installation, Highly Accelerated Life Test, and integrated logistics services in support of the Undersea Warfare Training Range, located off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla. Work will be performed in Goleta, Calif. (85 percent), Newington, N.H. (10 percent), and Mayport, Fla. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in May 2019. Fiscal 2014 other procurement, Navy funds in the amount of $6,764,229 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 5, 2014)
ARMY
Colt Defense LLC, West Hartford, Conn. (W15QKN-14-D-0027) and FN Manufacturing LLC, Columbia, S.C. (W15QKN-14-D-0026), were awarded a $16,321,305 firm-fixed-price, multi-year contract for M4 rifle bolts for the M4 product improvement program. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2018. Bids were solicited via the Internet with six received. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., is the contracting activity.
Raytheon Southeast Asia Systems Co., Andover, Mass., was awarded a $7,287,470 modification (P00004) to firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales contract W31P4Q-12-C-0142 for technical assistance to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Hawk Missile System program. Fiscal 2014 other procurement funds in the amount of $7,287,470 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2015. Work will be performed in the UAE. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity.
AIR FORCE
Textron Defense System, Wilmington, Mass., has been awarded a $17,175,606 firm-fixed-price, five-year requirements contract for the ICBM Flight MK 12A Mod 5F midsections. The contract award is to provide the government with up to 21 Mod 5F midsections over a five-year ordering period. Work will be performed at Wilmington, Mass., and is expected to be completed by March 5, 2020. Fiscal 2014 missile procurement funds in the amount of $3,663,047 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/PZBE, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8204-14-D-0001).
Leidos Inc., El Segundo, Calif., has been awarded $7,850,000 firm-fixed-price contract for Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Bridge 4.0 which provides for SE&I support services to the GPS Directorate. Work will be performed at Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Sept. 2, 2014. This award is a result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2014 research and development and fiscal 2014 missile procurement funds in the amount of $4,120,000 are being obligated at time of award. This is not a multiyear effort. GPS Directorate, Space and Missile System Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, Calif., is the contracting activity (FA88078-14-C-0005).
*Small business
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT FOR WEEK ENDING MARCH 1, 2014
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending March 1, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 323,000, a decrease of 26,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 349,000. The 4-week moving average was 336,500, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week's revised average of 338,500.
In the week ending March 1, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 323,000, a decrease of 26,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 349,000. The 4-week moving average was 336,500, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week's revised average of 338,500.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.2 percent for the week ending February 22, unchanged from the prior week's revised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending February 22 was 2,907,000, a decrease of 8,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,915,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,927,750, a decrease of 14,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,942,500.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 317,183 in the week ending March 1, an increase of 5,702 from the previous week. There were 335,680 initial claims in the comparable week in 2013.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent during the week ending February 22, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,380,582, an increase of 52,160 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.8 percent and the volume was 3,611,062.
The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending February 15 was 3,399,445, a decrease of 86,615 from the previous week. There were 5,401,894 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2013.
No state was triggered "on" the Extended Benefits program during the week ending February 15.
Initial claims for UI benefits filed by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,012 in the week ending February 22, a decrease of 166 from the prior week. There were 1,753 initial claims filed by newly discharged veterans, an increase of 77 from the preceding week.
There were 20,811 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending February 15, a decrease of 1,497 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 28,192, a decrease of 1,378 from the prior week.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending February 15 were in Alaska (5.7), Pennsylvania (4.2), New Jersey (4.1), Rhode Island (4.0), Montana (3.7), California (3.6), Wisconsin (3.6), Connecticut (3.5), Illinois (3.5), and Puerto Rico (3.5).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending February 22 were in Georgia (+7,383), Massachusetts (+3,502), South Carolina (+3,320), Connecticut (+1,376), and Alabama (+1,259), while the largest decreases were in California (-4,973), Missouri (-3,642), New York (-3,572), Michigan (-2,322), and Oregon (-1,810).
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON REAUTHORIZATION ACT REGARDING DROUGHT INFORMATION SYSTEM
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the President
Today, I signed the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act into law. This bipartisan legislation ensures that the federal government can continue to provide timely, effective drought warning forecasts and vital support to communities that are vulnerable to drought. States, cities, towns, farmers, and businesses rely on tools and data from the National Integrated Drought Information System to make informed decisions about water use, crop planting, wildfire response, and other critical areas. As climate change increases the intensity of weather-related disasters such as droughts, wildfires, storms and floods, providing access to updated drought-related science and tools is growing even more important.
Currently, a number of Western states are facing drought conditions, including a severe drought in California, and my Administration is pursuing every measure to provide relief and support in partnership with States. To complement the National Integrated Drought Information System, as part of my Climate Action Plan, federal agencies have also formed a National Drought Resilience Partnership to help communities better prepare for droughts in the long term, and prevent the worst impacts on families and businesses. I commend Congress for passing this bipartisan bill to continue to build our national resilience to drought and help communities, farmers, businesses and individuals better prepare and recover when disaster strikes.
Statement by the President
Today, I signed the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act into law. This bipartisan legislation ensures that the federal government can continue to provide timely, effective drought warning forecasts and vital support to communities that are vulnerable to drought. States, cities, towns, farmers, and businesses rely on tools and data from the National Integrated Drought Information System to make informed decisions about water use, crop planting, wildfire response, and other critical areas. As climate change increases the intensity of weather-related disasters such as droughts, wildfires, storms and floods, providing access to updated drought-related science and tools is growing even more important.
Currently, a number of Western states are facing drought conditions, including a severe drought in California, and my Administration is pursuing every measure to provide relief and support in partnership with States. To complement the National Integrated Drought Information System, as part of my Climate Action Plan, federal agencies have also formed a National Drought Resilience Partnership to help communities better prepare for droughts in the long term, and prevent the worst impacts on families and businesses. I commend Congress for passing this bipartisan bill to continue to build our national resilience to drought and help communities, farmers, businesses and individuals better prepare and recover when disaster strikes.
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ON EXECUTIVE ORDER ON UKRAINE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Executive Order on Ukraine -- Via Conference Call
Via Conference Call
8:38 A.M. EST
MS. HAYDEN: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for joining. This conference call is to discuss the visa restrictions and executive order that were released today in relation to Ukraine. We have several speakers today, all of whom are senior administration officials. The call is on background so they should be referred to and this attributed to senior administration officials. There is no embargo on this call.
With that, I will turn it over to our first senior administration official.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, everybody, for joining the call. I just want to give you a bit of an overview of where things stand and the actions we've taken today.
To begin with, since the Russian intervention in Ukraine you have seen us work on several lines of effort to mobilize international unity, to condemn the Russian intervention, to impose costs on Russia for that intervention so that they are isolated politically and economically, to provide additional support for the government in Kyiv. And you’ve seen both the United States and the European Union make important announcements about our support for the Ukrainian people over the last several days while also, again, indicating that there is an opportunity for Russia to deescalate going forward.
To begin with, since the Russian intervention in Ukraine you have seen us work on several lines of effort to mobilize international unity, to condemn the Russian intervention, to impose costs on Russia for that intervention so that they are isolated politically and economically, to provide additional support for the government in Kyiv. And you’ve seen both the United States and the European Union make important announcements about our support for the Ukrainian people over the last several days while also, again, indicating that there is an opportunity for Russia to deescalate going forward.
In terms of how that's manifested, you have seen broad international unity in the condemnations out of the North Atlantic Council, out of our European allies, and out of the G7 countries. We suspended preparatory meetings for the G8 in Sochi. The United States has pulled down and cancelled discussions associated with keeping trade and commercial ties to Russia. We've also cancelled military exercises and joint consultations with Russia on those specific issues, while providing additional reassurance to our European allies about our commitment to their security.
With today’s actions we have taken additional steps to impose costs on Russia and those who are responsible for the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. That includes an executive order that gives us a great deal of flexibility to target individuals and entities who are responsible for this violation of international law and of Georgian -- sorry -- Ukrainian sovereignty. And we are also imposing visa restrictions, which further imposes a cost on individuals responsible for the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
So this should send a strong message that we intend to impose costs on Russia for this intervention. It also gives us flexibility, however, to respond in the coming days based on Russia’s continued actions. So, again, we already have grave concerns over the intervention in Crimea. The situation, of course, could escalate further if we see actions into Eastern Ukraine, and we have the flexibility, therefore, to calibrate and escalate our own response if we see further Russian destabilizing actions, just as we are going to impose a cost for what has already taken place in Crimea.
At the same time, there continues to be a way to deescalate the situation, to allow international monitors into not just Eastern Ukraine but also Crimea to assure the protection of all Ukrainian citizens including ethnic Russians; to have immediate discussions between the Russian government and the government in Kyiv with the support of the international community; and to work towards the elections that the Ukrainian people will have in May to determine their next democratically elected government.
With that, I'll turn it over to my Treasury colleague to discuss the EO.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. Today the EO issued by the President allows the Secretary of the Treasury to impose powerful financial sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for an array of activities related to the situation developing in Ukraine.
There’s four main criteria for designation: First, it allows us to target those undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; second, those threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; third, those misappropriating state assets of Ukraine; and fourth, those purporting to assert governmental authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv.
In addition, we also are afforded in this executive order the authority to target derivatives -- in other words, those who are acting on behalf of, or providing material support to, or those who are under control by anyone listed.
This is a powerful and flexible tool that will allow us to target those who are most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine, including the military intervention in Crimea. It does not preclude further steps should the situation deteriorate.
Finally, we have not listed specific individuals or entities today, but this authority is now in place and we will be looking to use it as appropriate in response to developments on the ground.
Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The State Department is putting in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals, which reflects a policy decision to deny visas to officials or other persons who have been complicit in or responsible for supporting actions which threaten the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, including the Russian troop movements not authorized to or consented to by the government of Ukraine, and potentially, any other unauthorized actions by regional authorities in Ukraine.
So we have put this -- we have this authority, are implementing it, and we will be restricting visas as well as pulling a number of visas where people already have them.
Q A couple quick questions. I know you can’t give us the names of those on the visa ban. Can you give us a sense of the scope of it, rough numbers of some sort? And you mentioned that those who have visas will have them pulled. Are they notified of that? And then, secondly, why now, this morning, before the Lavrov talks, not after? Did the Crimea referendum thing that they talked about today play a part? And are we going to -- and are you saying you’re not going to do these other sanctions except in response to further actions by the Russians, or we’re going to take further actions even without further escalation?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll go first and then turn it over to my colleague. First, on the why now, Peter, we’ve been preparing very quickly this executive order. We believe that there need to be costs and consequences for Russia for what they’ve already done in Crimea. That is a violation of international law, a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So there will be individuals who are designated pursuant to what we’ve already seen in Crimea.
The point I was making is that we also have flexibility under this EO and any other additional sanctions we may impose should we see further escalatory behavior by the Russian Federation.
We’ve been working on this in close consultation and coordination with our European allies. They were aware that we are taking this step. They have taken some steps related to the events in Ukraine -- they’ll make their own decisions, of course, going forward. But it’s important to note that we have been closely coordinating with them in this effort.
Again, the Russian Federation continues to have the opportunity to deescalate the situation. I know Secretary Kerry is meeting with Prime Minister Lavrov this morning to continue those discussions. But we’re not going to put on hold our efforts to impose a cost for what has been a violation of international law already.
I’ll turn it over to my colleague for the visa question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, Peter, we would notify anyone who holds a U.S. visa that that visa had been revoked. And we will do so as occasion arises. The authority allows us to add people to the visa ban list, and we will be looking at additional names as more information unfolds.
Q Can you just give us sort of the U.S. reaction to the announcement of the referendum today? And secondly, you’ve talked a lot about watching for other movement into Eastern Ukraine. Is it still the U.S. assessment that you’re not seeing that kind of movement at this point?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure, thanks, Julie. First of all, with respect to the referendum that was announced, it is the belief of the United States that decisions about Crimea or any part of Ukraine needs to be made with the government in Kyiv. This is a country with clearly defined international borders, and ultimately only the people of Ukraine can make determinations about their political future. And the government in Kyiv has to be a part of any decisions that are made about the future of Crimea or any other region.
And I think you saw the Prime Minister make comments about their openness to discussions about various arrangements going forward. They have to be at the table. You can’t have a situation in which the legitimate government of the country is excluded from decision-making about different parts of that country. That is clearly a violation of international law and of how these things are done.
So we will continue to support the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Ukraine as a whole, and we will continue to insist that the government in Kyiv be engaged in any discussion about the future of any and all parts of Ukraine.
With respect to movements, what we have seen to date, of course, is a violation of Ukraine’s borders, its territorial integrity, and also the basing agreement that the Russians had with respect to their facility on the Black Sea. We have not seen movements into Eastern Ukraine. Were we to see that, we believe that would be a significant escalation of the situation, would further destabilize the situation, and would invite a further response from the United States and the international community. So it’s something that we’re watching closely.
We’ve also said that international monitors are the best way to assure that the rights of all Ukrainians are being protected, including ethnic Russians. And a monitoring team from the OSCE has arrived in Ukraine, has moved out to different parts of the country, has an important set of experiences and capabilities to ensure that basic rights are being protected. We believe that that monitoring mission should expand into Crimea and can be the basis for a way of deescalating the crisis.
Q For those of us who are here in Crimea, it’s very obvious kind of what’s going on -- law and order is increasingly being run by Russian soldiers and what is essentially their proxies, pro-Russian activists. Do you have any notion that the sanctions today or the actions today will actually impact the people who are delivering orders to these soldiers on the ground, to these people who are doing things like detaining Robert Serry yesterday? Do you have any sense of who the people are who are pulling strings in Crimea and whether there’s even a command structure that would allow you to target people who are making decisions here and who are increasingly targeting journalists and Westerners, not only including Serry but including OSCE members yesterday as well? Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Nate. I’ll make a couple comments and then my colleague may want to comment as well.
We have seen, obviously in addition to the basic violation of Ukraine’s borders and the basing agreement in Crimea, we have seen those concerning reports that you mention. I think we do have an ability to establish individuals or entities that we believe are responsible for supporting those actions. Frankly, the very flexibility of this tool, the fact, frankly, that we have not yet designated individuals I think should be leading people in Russia, people in Crimea to be asking whether or not they’re going to see their name in a designation.
So I think this is a very clear message that the United States is going to use the authorities that we have to target the assets, the travel of individuals who are responsible for that concerning behavior. And the flexibility it affords us I think should lead some of those individuals to be questioning whether or not they’re going to find their name on a list. But I turn it over to Treasury to say anything else.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Nothing to add.
Q I want to return to Peter’s question about the connection and timing with the referendum announcement. I hear what you’re saying on your concerns about the referendum. Our guidance earlier this week from administration officials was that you would take the week to watch how things played out. We were not expecting to see even the step towards sanctions this week. Did something expedite your timeframe? And also, can you talk about whether the concerns of countries like Moldova and former Soviet republics are considering -- are making the U.S. consider expanding its approach in doing any sort of preemptive assistance to any other countries besides Ukraine? Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Margaret, no, the referendum announcement had nothing to do with the timing of this. We were planning this action -- frankly, we had to prepare the EO, to get it ready. We were also coordinating with our European allies. And I believe what we said throughout the week was not that we were going to hold off on any action until the end of the week; it was that we were going to have to prepare our various tools and make decisions about the timing of implementing them.
And now that we have this EO ready to go, we felt it was appropriate to signal the types of tools that are available to the United States, the types of costs that we’re prepared to impose on Russia and those who are responsible for what we’re seeing in Crimea.
So it wasn’t tied to the referendum; it was tied to basically the preparation of this tool, the consultations that we’ve had with European partners, and President Obama was able to discuss these issues with Chancellor Merkel, with Prime Minister Cameron. I know Secretary Kerry has been in touch with the Foreign Ministers of Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, as well as Cathy Ashton. And I think this sends a signal that Russia is not going to be able to avoid accountability for the types of actions that we’ve seen to date.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just to add something to the question about Moldova, the Moldovan Prime Minister was here early this week on the snow day. The Georgian Prime Minister was here the last couple of weeks. Secretary Kerry hosted a U.S-Georgia bilateral working group, and I believe the Vice President saw both of those leaders during their respective visits. So we’ve had, because of earlier scheduled visits, good opportunities to see these leaders.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I should have added, Margaret -- that’s a good addition by my State colleague -- the President was able to see the Moldovan Prime Minister and the Georgian Prime Minister, along with the Vice President. I think separate and apart from how we’re responding specifically to events in Ukraine with these types of actions, we’re also providing additional reassurance to our allies in Eastern Europe and partners like Moldova and Georgia.
In addition to those meetings, you saw DOD, for instance, yesterday announce that they are going to be expanding their Baltic overflights, which provide additional reassurance to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. They are going to be reinforcing our aviation detachment in Poland, and there is going to be a meeting of the Chiefs of Defense of Central and Eastern Europe with General Breedlove. So we continue to reassure our Eastern European allies that at this very delicate and potentially destabilizing time, the United States is strongly committed to their security.
Q I was hoping you might be able to just clarify something for me. Have individuals been identified for the sanctions, on listing them? Or now that the EO is in place, can you begin to identify people to take sanctions against? And additionally, you mentioned that this is an attempt to impose a cost on the Russians. If they do pull their troops back to their bases, will these be rolled back as well, or will these stay in place as sort of a punitive measure?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We can calibrate our sanctions and our actions based on what the Russians do. And, obviously, were they to deescalate the situation, pull back into their base, that would very much affect our calculus as to how we move forward with these types of actions. Like I said, we believe that there should be measures taken based on what’s already happened in Crimea. We’ve already taken a number of those measures in our bilateral actions and statements out of the international community. But we would certainly evaluate the situation if there were to be that type of constructive action taken by the Russians.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We can calibrate our sanctions and our actions based on what the Russians do. And, obviously, were they to deescalate the situation, pull back into their base, that would very much affect our calculus as to how we move forward with these types of actions. Like I said, we believe that there should be measures taken based on what’s already happened in Crimea. We’ve already taken a number of those measures in our bilateral actions and statements out of the international community. But we would certainly evaluate the situation if there were to be that type of constructive action taken by the Russians.
On individuals, Treasury can speak to the EO. And as my State colleague said, we don’t publish the names of those who are affected by visa bans. Suffice to say, that -- well, I’ll leave it to Treasury, actually, to describe their process for reviewing individuals.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So as I noted at the outset, the financial sanctions authority put in place today does not contain an annex. So no individuals or companies have been blocked or designated for sanctions this morning. What the authority does, though, is put in place a powerful tool that will allow us to target individuals and companies in the future that we see directly responsible for these destabilizing activities, as well as assets -- that we identified in the executive order today.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just to answer the questions about visas, just to clarify, there are individuals who have had their visas pulled or would be banned from visas. And those individuals, while I won’t give names or numbers, this does include Russians and Ukrainians.
Q Well, you answered one of my questions here. Thanks for doing the call. I was going to ask about former President Yanukovych, because he has been targeted by the European Union, but I suppose you’re not willing to go that far. But yesterday, the Russians were threatening retaliatory sanctions of their own and I’m just curious if that’s been taken into consideration here.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll take the first and if anybody wants to add on Yanukovych. We’ve seen those comments by the Russians. Frankly, that does not concern us or factor into our decision-making on this. We believe, number one, that Russia has already paid a cost in terms of seeing its stock market contract, seeing significant instability with its currency. I think they have a fragile economy. And similarly, they also have a set of individuals who have been engaged in supporting corruption and supporting the destabilizing actions we’ve seen in Crimea. So there are specific vulnerabilities there, given the nature of the Russian system and the Russian economy, that these types of sanctions can be brought to bear on.
In terms of individuals, we have a process of reviewing who could be designated. That is underway so we have begun the process of identifying potential individuals. I’ll send it over to my colleague to see if he has anything to add on that or Yanukovych.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Nothing to add in particular on Yanukovych. I would just say that anybody who is involved or complicit in activities that are threatening the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or stability of Ukraine is as of this morning on notice that they may be targeted for U.S. sanctions.
Q In the context of your last comment on the vulnerability of the Russian economy, one of the (inaudible) of Russia’s influence in the region is its supply of energy. I’m wondering whether the administration is giving any thought to pressuring Russia through energy moves such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or through expediting approvals to export U.S. natural gas as a way to put pressure on Russia. Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I wouldn’t want to speculate about some of the specific steps you mention. We’re certainly aware of the Russian reliance on energy as a source of support for its economy. I do know that this has been a subject that we and the Europeans have taken into account. As I’ve said, you’ve already seen instability in the Russian economy based on their destabilizing actions. Again, the further Russia escalates this, the more they’re going to face potential costs from the United States, Europe, and other countries around the world.
So I don’t want to speculate on the specific actions associated with energy markets or U.S. tools in that regard. But we are very aware of that dynamic. It is something that we take into account as we make these decisions.
And again, frankly, I think, over time, what you’re going to see is that if Russia continues to perpetuate this crisis, this violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is going to bring greater isolation to their economy. It is going to, I think, carry with it not just the costs that are imposed through punitive actions like this, but the costs for having instability in the neighborhood. And that is not something that they are going to be able to compensate for.
And so we believe that there is a significant vulnerability over time that should affect Russia’s calculus. And that’s why we’re seeking through these types of punitive measures taken by the United States and through our coordination with other allies and partners to make clear that we’re not going to accept a status quo in which Russia can violate the sovereignty of its neighbors with some type of impunity. And so today’s action builds on the steps we’ve already taken. I think if the situation continues, you can see further steps that we would anticipate and that we would coordinate with our European allies on.
Anything my colleagues want to add before we wrap up the call?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Only to say that the State Department and the USG has been working on long-term efforts to help Europe diversify its gas sources. This has been in motion for a number of years and is beginning to yield results.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, thanks everybody for joining the call.
MS. HAYDEN: Just a reminder -- this is Caitlin -- that the call was on background. These were senior administration officials and there’s no embargo. So thanks for joining us. Bye.
END
9:05 A.M. EST
9:05 A.M. EST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)