FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Techniques to prove or disprove existence of other planets
Astronomers developed technology while studying Gilese 581
Astronomers long have sought to find planets that can sustain life as humans know it. Four years ago, they thought they had one, possibly even two, pointing to signs that suggested that at least one rocky planet located in the "habitable zone" was revolving around Gliese 581, a faint dwarf star located 20 light-years from Earth.
Recently, however, National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded scientists, while developing technology they believe will better detect exoplanets, as they are known, determined that the suspected planets, known as Gliese 581g and 581d, did not exist.
Some of the signals, initially thought to be coming from two planets orbiting the star at a distance where liquid water could exist, actually were coming from the star itself, not from the "Goldilocks" planets, so-named because conditions on them are just right for supporting life.
The definition of the habitable zone of a star is whether liquid water can survive on its surface, given that life exists virtually wherever there is liquid water on Earth. Too far from a star, and a world is too cold, freezing all its water; too close to a star, and a world is too hot, boiling off all of its water.
Astronomers have found more than 1,000 planets orbiting stars, many discovered indirectly by the gravitational tug and pull that its mass exerts on the star during its orbit; most were found in close-in orbits to their stars, and unlikely to support life. But many scientists believe that there are a large number of planets, probably rocky like Earth, capable of doing so.
In recent years, scientists detected as many as six planets around Gliese 581, although one was later rescinded by the team that first announced it, but only two were thought to be in the habitable zone.
To be sure, it was disappointing to disprove the habitable zone planets in the Gliese 581 system; nevertheless, their research opens the way to valuable new methods for identifying such planets in the future.
"Bittersweet describes it pretty well," says Suvrath Mahadevan, an assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Pennsylvania State University, describing how he felt about their findings. Still, "these discoveries occur in incremental steps," he adds. "With more powerful instruments and surveys coming on line, we will be finding low mass planets at the right distance to stars in the habitable zone. This is where the field is going."
But Doppler shifts of a star's "absorption lines," which are dark bands where atoms or molecules absorb light, also can result from magnetic events like sunspots within the star itself and can emit signals of planets that do not exist.
"It's possible for things like magnetic activity on the star itself to create Doppler shifts that can be mistaken as planets," Robertson says. "This is a problem we are very concerned about. As we push toward detection of smaller and smaller signals, like those produced by Earth, it becomes more likely that the star will be creating signals that either can hide planets we are looking for, or create false positive planet signals."
The less massive the planet, the smaller is this stellar motion, and the more difficult are the measurements. Thus, observing planets as small as Earth must be conducted with spectrographs and spectral calibration of extreme precision.
This is what the two researchers are working on: a new near-infrared spectrograph called the "Habitable Zone Planet Finder," or HPF. Also, in collaboration with colleagues at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, they are developing a frequency stabilized laser comb calibration system that will enable scientists to detect terrestrial-mass exoplanets by improving the ability to precisely measure velocities.
These will be deployed in 2016 on the 10 meter Hobby-Eberly Telescope, located at the University of Texas at Austin.
The researchers, concerned about the impact of stellar activity on finding planets, consider Gliese 581 "a great test case," Robertson says. "It has this network of low mass planets, including the possibility of planets in the habitable zone, and I was curious as to whether a really good stellar activity analysis might shed some light one way or the other on planet detections around that star."
NSF's Division of Astronomical Sciences supports their work.
The researchers analyzed Doppler shifts in existing spectroscopic observations of the star Gliese 581 obtained with two spectrographs, the ESO HARPS (High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher), at the European Southern Observatory in La Silla, Chile and the Keck HIRES (High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer) at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Mauna Kea, Hawaii.
They focused on absorption lines that were most sensitive to magnetic activity, including looking specifically at one particular line, the "hydrogen alpha absorption line," which exists in all stars and is known to be sensitive to stellar magnetic activity, that is, its strength increases or decreases as a star's magnetic activity changes.
They boosted the signals of the three innermost planets around the star, but the ones attributable to the two likely candidate planets disappeared, becoming indistinguishable from measurement noise. They concluded that the star itself produced the earlier signals through its activity and rotation, and they did not result from the presence of these two suspected planets. But they confirmed the existence of the three additional planets, although none is located in the habitable zone.
"It was disappointing to find out that these potentially exciting planets were not real," Robertson says. Still, "with so much dispute about the system, we were very satisfied to have a definite answer. There is not a lot of confusion left about the origin of these signals, which is a silver lining. The improved signal strength of the real planets is the positive from this work, and will motivate studies in the future, including our own."
Mahadevan agrees. "We are all curious about how many worlds are out there that can support life, and where the closest ones are," he says, adding: "We realize that the results of our work here will be at first disappointing, because we disproved two planets initially thought to be in the habitable zone. But the techniques we have developed will help us find new candidates for planets in the habitable zone, and we likely will use it more to prove, rather than disprove, that these planets exist."
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Investigators
Jason Wright
Michael Endl
James Kasting
Lawrence Ramsey
Suvrath Mahadevan
Related Institutions/Organizations
Pennsylvania State Univ University Park
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT GOLDMAN SACHS LUNCHEON FOR WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at a Luncheon in Honor of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women-U.S. Department of State Entrepreneurship Program for Women in the Middle East
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
March 9, 2015
Hanan, thank you for those wonderful comments. More importantly, thank you for your extraordinary personal example. You’re a role model to so many people, and I think everybody here joins me in expressing such great respect for what you do. It’s wonderful. Thank you.
And Hanan actually is not just successful and she doesn’t just understand that entrepreneurship is not just about making money. As you heard, she’s founded two companies: importing affordable oncology medications to Egypt, and then another one that she runs with her daughters where they manufacture textiles, which you heard about a moment ago, and they support artisans in the local community. So it is really a pleasure for me to be able to welcome Hanan here and the others who have traveled here from more than a dozen different countries in the Middle East, and we welcome all of you. Thank you for being here.
As I was looking around the audience, a lot of friends here. And you’ll forgive me if I don’t single all of you out and run through everybody’s names here, but we’re deeply appreciative for all of you being here. And there are many leaders from the State Department who are at the tables spread around here, who have worked together with Goldman Sachs in order to make this event happen. And I thank every single one of you. I particularly want to thank Evan Ryan, who you heard from a moment ago. She’s a star and doing a spectacular job. (Applause.) As you all know, she’s been with me almost from the beginning. From the beginning here means something different because of the new nominating process. (Laughter.) It takes a while. But from the moment we were able to get her confirmed, she’s been here as my assistant secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. And somehow, somebody she’s related to named Tony Blinken managed to sneak in later, and we welcome him, obviously, also.
Evan is a huge believer, as I am, in people-to-people diplomacy, and she played a really key role in launching the State Department Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women partnership, which we’re very proud of and which is growing in its capacity thanks to many of you who are sitting here right now. It’s no coincidence that one of her first trips as assistant secretary, she journeyed to Rwanda to meet with women tech entrepreneurs.
And I also want to pay a special tribute to Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs for his partnership, for his leadership. There are a number of folks here who are part of that partnership. The success of Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Women program is really proof positive, which many of you have come to understand through your lifetime commitment to this kind of endeavor, that empowering women pays huge dividends – not just for some countries, but for all countries, for all societies. And to date, the program has reached – the program itself has reached across 43 countries, so it’s growing in its impact and in its capacity. And Lloyd, I just want to thank you for your vision, for your leadership, your commitment to this. It is a very important initiative, and it would not have been possible without the commitment of Goldman Sachs and the leadership of it. I also want to thank, particularly, World Bank President Dr. Jim Kim – (applause) – and in unity with him my old friend, crossing paths in many different places but now most importantly at Harvard, David Gergen. Thank you so much for your engagement and involvement in this. (Applause.)
Last year, Goldman Sachs and the World Bank created the first global fund of its type for women, opening doors of opportunity for women around the world. And the State Department is very, very proud to join with the combination of Goldman and Harvard and the World Bank in order to promote women’s entrepreneurship and access to capital through the new program that we are announcing today. I’m particularly proud that we are launching this important public-private partnership on the first day of Global Partnership Week. And the principle really could not be more direct. It’s very simple: If women are able to thrive, societies thrive. And nowhere is that more true than in the Middle East and in North Africa. Everybody here knows we are facing a moment of some enormous challenges in all of these places. But it’s also a part of the world that is richly blessed with unbelievable untapped opportunities. People think I’m a little obsessed by the notion that the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere is sitting on this goldmine of possibility; there’s no question in my mind. The foreign minister of the Emirates recently, they did a big, deep dive economic analysis, and it proved that if we can move forward, if we can empower people, if we can get those economies moving, it will become an enormous center of finance and of new energy possibilities, new agriculture possibilities, and a crosspollination between all of this, and ultimately with tourism, will make it an economic powerhouse globally.
There are – so there’s no better example, really, of when you go micro from this sort of macro-vision that I was just expressing, of the potential for innovation and of ingenuity of its women than the examples that they set themselves. And we’ve seen an increasing income share that is controlled by women as they begin to get this foothold economically, and that benefits all the way down the economic and societal food chain.
Time and again, we see that countries with the greatest representation of women in management positions deliver a higher return to shareholders than those who push women out. And time and again, we’ve seen that gender equality and health, education, political, and economic participation means more jobs and greater economic competitiveness. So the facts tell this story, not the desires of a Secretary of State or a State Department or a good corporate citizen who want to make this happen. The facts tell this story.
And remember that behind each example, there are real people trying to make a living, trying to put food on the table for their families, trying to explore the boundaries of their talents and their capabilities. And each of us has an ability to help tear down those barriers that deny women a fair chance to start their businesses, to obtain credit, to take advantage of modern technology, to pursue a successful career. Now many of our participants here today are doing exactly those things, and the work that they are doing truly is inspirational.
Hassiba Sayah consults with Algeria’s ministry of environment and runs a company that helps Algerian women create and develop their own businesses, and she is an inspiration. And Talan Aouny, who operates one of Iraq’s largest companies and has made the recruitment of women a top priority, is an inspiration.
When I was in Afghanistan the week, regrettably, when we lost a young woman who was going out to – shortly thereafter to take books to students in school, she organized my whole trip. And she put together 10 remarkable Afghan women that I met, each of whom had started their own businesses. Imagine – in Afghanistan, that’s hard. One of them had become the owner of a company that was the biggest employer with respect to trucks and movement of people between the ’Stans and Afghanistan. Absolutely amazing. And all of them, despite the difficulties, expressed their energy, their enthusiasm, their belief in the possibilities of what they could do to help change their country, and what they were doing.
So the bottom line is really very, very simple: No country can get ahead if it leaves half its people behind. No team can win. (Applause.) And no economy can thrive if women are denied a seat at the table. That is also a fact. And I want to be clear: We’re not talking about a largesse that somehow just gives something to women and girls. We’re talking about getting out of the way, breaking down the barriers so that women and girls can make full use of their energy, their talent, and their brains to do what they want to do and can do. That’s called empowerment, and that’s exactly what this is about. Governments don’t grant rights to women or to anyone else in that sense. Women, like men, are born with those rights, and we need to make certain that this country – President Obama, I know, believes this very deeply – is taking the lead in helping to push that notion out into everybody’s political ether.
Our obligation is to allow for the free exercise of rights by everyone without discrimination, without exploitation, and without abuse, and without violence. There are a lot of ways to do it, folks. And first, we need to ensure that women are basically empowered in the ways we’ve described, remove the barriers to opportunity. No barrier in the Middle East is more readily measurable, frankly, than discrimination against women. Women participate in the workplace in the region at only half the rate found in other parts of the world. In some MENA countries, the unemployment percentage for women is three to eight times as high as that for men. And the result is an immense loss of productivity for the region. Because when women are able to join the workforce, guess what? Again and again and again, it is proven the GDP goes up and it goes up fast.
Now, there are many creative ways to eliminate discrimination without coming into conflict with cultural and religious norms. And that’s important. I emphasize, we’re not going to find those ways if you don’t seek them. I find it heartening, for example, that Saudi Arabia is committed to doubling the number of women in its workforce over the next few years. Second, we need to ensure that women have access to quality education and professional training that will enable them to succeed and lead in the workforce. And the Middle East has a lot of fine colleges and universities. But there’s a troubling disconnect between the skills that schools teach and the expertise that the job market demands. And that leaves many educated women still – and men, I might add – unemployed.
And that’s why the State Department is already working closely with a group of locally run nonprofits who are focused on precisely the challenge of matching jobs to skills, and is why we’re working on new ways to do even more than that. Each year, education for employment reaches thousands of young people across the Middle East and North Africa by helping, for example, a young Egyptian woman to learn English so that she could pursue the career of a journalist, or teaching a woman raised in the Moroccan desert the basics of computer science so that she could become the manager of a technology firm in Casablanca. And you can tell I’m talking about real people for whom this has happened.
We need to help young women in the Middle East find jobs, but we also need to help them create jobs. And that means we need to equip women with the tools that they need to be successful entrepreneurs. And we’re looking to the business community to help point the way in developing tomorrow’s engines of growth.
And that’s why at this year’s Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Marrakesh, we brought together nearly 4,000 entrepreneurs and business and government leaders from all across the Middle East and North Africa. And for the first time, the summit had a day dedicated to the specific challenges and opportunities relevant to women and young entrepreneurs. That’s why the State Department is continuing to invest in TechWomen, which supports our foreign policy goals in technology, increases the trade capacity of our partners, and helps women reach their full potential in the tech industry. That’s why we’ve launched Fortune/U.S. State Department Global Women’s Mentoring Partnership, which connects America’s senior women business executives with emerging women leaders from around the world.
So our responsibility is clear: to invest in women and to level the playing field so women have access to the opportunities and rights that they deserve. And that is the story that I want to leave you with today.
On one of my first trips to Kabul as Secretary of State – I’ll just tell you about these women for one minute quickly – there was a woman called Hassina. And I mentioned this trucking company that she started – she started it with 500 bucks, folks. Of her 650 employees today, 300 are women who not so long ago couldn’t even think of joining into the workforce. She told me that when she was growing up, she always knew she wanted to be a businesswoman. And I asked why, and she said simply: “Because then I’ll get to be my own boss.” And that’s not just an Afghan trait. That’s a pretty universal aspiration.
The Egyptian poet Hafez Ibrahim summed it up best when he said, “When you educate a woman, you create a nation.” Friends, women like Hassina and all of our participants who are here today are a living testament to those words. They know that the benefits of investing in women and girls is not limited to one village, it’s not limited to one province or one country; they ripple out across borders. You all heard that extraordinary speech of President Obama’s in Selma on how you create change. And he mentioned Robert Kennedy’s famous speech in South Africa about ripples. Well, ripples are what they are, and they tear down the barriers of oppression and resistance. They make things happen.
I am convinced that those same kinds of ripples will build a current that will lift up and inspire citizens across the globe to understand that they’re really missing something when they do not include women to be fully empowered in their society. And let no one doubt we know this is still a journey we have to complete in our own country, as we continue to break the glass ceiling and deal with questions of equal pay and so forth. We’re still on that journey. But we know the difference that it makes, and that’s the promise of this partnership that we are celebrating here today.
And it’s my pleasure to turn the podium over to the man who is helping to make this possible, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Applause.)
Remarks at a Luncheon in Honor of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women-U.S. Department of State Entrepreneurship Program for Women in the Middle East
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
March 9, 2015
Hanan, thank you for those wonderful comments. More importantly, thank you for your extraordinary personal example. You’re a role model to so many people, and I think everybody here joins me in expressing such great respect for what you do. It’s wonderful. Thank you.
And Hanan actually is not just successful and she doesn’t just understand that entrepreneurship is not just about making money. As you heard, she’s founded two companies: importing affordable oncology medications to Egypt, and then another one that she runs with her daughters where they manufacture textiles, which you heard about a moment ago, and they support artisans in the local community. So it is really a pleasure for me to be able to welcome Hanan here and the others who have traveled here from more than a dozen different countries in the Middle East, and we welcome all of you. Thank you for being here.
As I was looking around the audience, a lot of friends here. And you’ll forgive me if I don’t single all of you out and run through everybody’s names here, but we’re deeply appreciative for all of you being here. And there are many leaders from the State Department who are at the tables spread around here, who have worked together with Goldman Sachs in order to make this event happen. And I thank every single one of you. I particularly want to thank Evan Ryan, who you heard from a moment ago. She’s a star and doing a spectacular job. (Applause.) As you all know, she’s been with me almost from the beginning. From the beginning here means something different because of the new nominating process. (Laughter.) It takes a while. But from the moment we were able to get her confirmed, she’s been here as my assistant secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. And somehow, somebody she’s related to named Tony Blinken managed to sneak in later, and we welcome him, obviously, also.
Evan is a huge believer, as I am, in people-to-people diplomacy, and she played a really key role in launching the State Department Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women partnership, which we’re very proud of and which is growing in its capacity thanks to many of you who are sitting here right now. It’s no coincidence that one of her first trips as assistant secretary, she journeyed to Rwanda to meet with women tech entrepreneurs.
And I also want to pay a special tribute to Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs for his partnership, for his leadership. There are a number of folks here who are part of that partnership. The success of Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Women program is really proof positive, which many of you have come to understand through your lifetime commitment to this kind of endeavor, that empowering women pays huge dividends – not just for some countries, but for all countries, for all societies. And to date, the program has reached – the program itself has reached across 43 countries, so it’s growing in its impact and in its capacity. And Lloyd, I just want to thank you for your vision, for your leadership, your commitment to this. It is a very important initiative, and it would not have been possible without the commitment of Goldman Sachs and the leadership of it. I also want to thank, particularly, World Bank President Dr. Jim Kim – (applause) – and in unity with him my old friend, crossing paths in many different places but now most importantly at Harvard, David Gergen. Thank you so much for your engagement and involvement in this. (Applause.)
Last year, Goldman Sachs and the World Bank created the first global fund of its type for women, opening doors of opportunity for women around the world. And the State Department is very, very proud to join with the combination of Goldman and Harvard and the World Bank in order to promote women’s entrepreneurship and access to capital through the new program that we are announcing today. I’m particularly proud that we are launching this important public-private partnership on the first day of Global Partnership Week. And the principle really could not be more direct. It’s very simple: If women are able to thrive, societies thrive. And nowhere is that more true than in the Middle East and in North Africa. Everybody here knows we are facing a moment of some enormous challenges in all of these places. But it’s also a part of the world that is richly blessed with unbelievable untapped opportunities. People think I’m a little obsessed by the notion that the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere is sitting on this goldmine of possibility; there’s no question in my mind. The foreign minister of the Emirates recently, they did a big, deep dive economic analysis, and it proved that if we can move forward, if we can empower people, if we can get those economies moving, it will become an enormous center of finance and of new energy possibilities, new agriculture possibilities, and a crosspollination between all of this, and ultimately with tourism, will make it an economic powerhouse globally.
There are – so there’s no better example, really, of when you go micro from this sort of macro-vision that I was just expressing, of the potential for innovation and of ingenuity of its women than the examples that they set themselves. And we’ve seen an increasing income share that is controlled by women as they begin to get this foothold economically, and that benefits all the way down the economic and societal food chain.
Time and again, we see that countries with the greatest representation of women in management positions deliver a higher return to shareholders than those who push women out. And time and again, we’ve seen that gender equality and health, education, political, and economic participation means more jobs and greater economic competitiveness. So the facts tell this story, not the desires of a Secretary of State or a State Department or a good corporate citizen who want to make this happen. The facts tell this story.
And remember that behind each example, there are real people trying to make a living, trying to put food on the table for their families, trying to explore the boundaries of their talents and their capabilities. And each of us has an ability to help tear down those barriers that deny women a fair chance to start their businesses, to obtain credit, to take advantage of modern technology, to pursue a successful career. Now many of our participants here today are doing exactly those things, and the work that they are doing truly is inspirational.
Hassiba Sayah consults with Algeria’s ministry of environment and runs a company that helps Algerian women create and develop their own businesses, and she is an inspiration. And Talan Aouny, who operates one of Iraq’s largest companies and has made the recruitment of women a top priority, is an inspiration.
When I was in Afghanistan the week, regrettably, when we lost a young woman who was going out to – shortly thereafter to take books to students in school, she organized my whole trip. And she put together 10 remarkable Afghan women that I met, each of whom had started their own businesses. Imagine – in Afghanistan, that’s hard. One of them had become the owner of a company that was the biggest employer with respect to trucks and movement of people between the ’Stans and Afghanistan. Absolutely amazing. And all of them, despite the difficulties, expressed their energy, their enthusiasm, their belief in the possibilities of what they could do to help change their country, and what they were doing.
So the bottom line is really very, very simple: No country can get ahead if it leaves half its people behind. No team can win. (Applause.) And no economy can thrive if women are denied a seat at the table. That is also a fact. And I want to be clear: We’re not talking about a largesse that somehow just gives something to women and girls. We’re talking about getting out of the way, breaking down the barriers so that women and girls can make full use of their energy, their talent, and their brains to do what they want to do and can do. That’s called empowerment, and that’s exactly what this is about. Governments don’t grant rights to women or to anyone else in that sense. Women, like men, are born with those rights, and we need to make certain that this country – President Obama, I know, believes this very deeply – is taking the lead in helping to push that notion out into everybody’s political ether.
Our obligation is to allow for the free exercise of rights by everyone without discrimination, without exploitation, and without abuse, and without violence. There are a lot of ways to do it, folks. And first, we need to ensure that women are basically empowered in the ways we’ve described, remove the barriers to opportunity. No barrier in the Middle East is more readily measurable, frankly, than discrimination against women. Women participate in the workplace in the region at only half the rate found in other parts of the world. In some MENA countries, the unemployment percentage for women is three to eight times as high as that for men. And the result is an immense loss of productivity for the region. Because when women are able to join the workforce, guess what? Again and again and again, it is proven the GDP goes up and it goes up fast.
Now, there are many creative ways to eliminate discrimination without coming into conflict with cultural and religious norms. And that’s important. I emphasize, we’re not going to find those ways if you don’t seek them. I find it heartening, for example, that Saudi Arabia is committed to doubling the number of women in its workforce over the next few years. Second, we need to ensure that women have access to quality education and professional training that will enable them to succeed and lead in the workforce. And the Middle East has a lot of fine colleges and universities. But there’s a troubling disconnect between the skills that schools teach and the expertise that the job market demands. And that leaves many educated women still – and men, I might add – unemployed.
And that’s why the State Department is already working closely with a group of locally run nonprofits who are focused on precisely the challenge of matching jobs to skills, and is why we’re working on new ways to do even more than that. Each year, education for employment reaches thousands of young people across the Middle East and North Africa by helping, for example, a young Egyptian woman to learn English so that she could pursue the career of a journalist, or teaching a woman raised in the Moroccan desert the basics of computer science so that she could become the manager of a technology firm in Casablanca. And you can tell I’m talking about real people for whom this has happened.
We need to help young women in the Middle East find jobs, but we also need to help them create jobs. And that means we need to equip women with the tools that they need to be successful entrepreneurs. And we’re looking to the business community to help point the way in developing tomorrow’s engines of growth.
And that’s why at this year’s Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Marrakesh, we brought together nearly 4,000 entrepreneurs and business and government leaders from all across the Middle East and North Africa. And for the first time, the summit had a day dedicated to the specific challenges and opportunities relevant to women and young entrepreneurs. That’s why the State Department is continuing to invest in TechWomen, which supports our foreign policy goals in technology, increases the trade capacity of our partners, and helps women reach their full potential in the tech industry. That’s why we’ve launched Fortune/U.S. State Department Global Women’s Mentoring Partnership, which connects America’s senior women business executives with emerging women leaders from around the world.
So our responsibility is clear: to invest in women and to level the playing field so women have access to the opportunities and rights that they deserve. And that is the story that I want to leave you with today.
On one of my first trips to Kabul as Secretary of State – I’ll just tell you about these women for one minute quickly – there was a woman called Hassina. And I mentioned this trucking company that she started – she started it with 500 bucks, folks. Of her 650 employees today, 300 are women who not so long ago couldn’t even think of joining into the workforce. She told me that when she was growing up, she always knew she wanted to be a businesswoman. And I asked why, and she said simply: “Because then I’ll get to be my own boss.” And that’s not just an Afghan trait. That’s a pretty universal aspiration.
The Egyptian poet Hafez Ibrahim summed it up best when he said, “When you educate a woman, you create a nation.” Friends, women like Hassina and all of our participants who are here today are a living testament to those words. They know that the benefits of investing in women and girls is not limited to one village, it’s not limited to one province or one country; they ripple out across borders. You all heard that extraordinary speech of President Obama’s in Selma on how you create change. And he mentioned Robert Kennedy’s famous speech in South Africa about ripples. Well, ripples are what they are, and they tear down the barriers of oppression and resistance. They make things happen.
I am convinced that those same kinds of ripples will build a current that will lift up and inspire citizens across the globe to understand that they’re really missing something when they do not include women to be fully empowered in their society. And let no one doubt we know this is still a journey we have to complete in our own country, as we continue to break the glass ceiling and deal with questions of equal pay and so forth. We’re still on that journey. But we know the difference that it makes, and that’s the promise of this partnership that we are celebrating here today.
And it’s my pleasure to turn the podium over to the man who is helping to make this possible, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Applause.)
FTC, DUTCH AGENCY SIGN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PRIVACY
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Dutch Agency On Privacy Enforcement Cooperation
The Federal Trade Commission has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Dutch Data Protection Authority to enhance information sharing and enforcement cooperation on privacy-related matters.
FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Dutch Data Protection Authority Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm signed the MOU, which is similar to agreements the FTC has with data protection authorities in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The two agencies already cooperate as part of several privacy-related initiatives.
“In our interconnected world, cross-border cooperation is increasingly important,” Chairwoman Ramirez said. “This arrangement with our Dutch counterpart will strengthen FTC efforts to protect the privacy of consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Chairman Kohnstamm said, “In this day and age of increasing cross-border data flows, it is important that the data protection and privacy authorities across the globe increase their cooperation as well. The signing of this MOU between the Dutch DPA and the FTC is a great step in this and marks the good relationship between our offices.”
The FTC increasingly seeks to secure the assistance of international privacy and data protection authorities in its efforts to protect consumer privacy. The MOU recognizes the need for increased cross-border enforcement cooperation and sets out the two agencies’ intent regarding mutual assistance and the exchange of information for investigating and enforcing against privacy violations.
The FTC is the chief U.S. consumer privacy agency. Its comprehensive privacy program uses law enforcement, research, policy initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect consumers’ personal information. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Data Protection Authority enforces the Dutch Data Protection Act, which implements the European Union’s 1995 Data Protection Directive.
The Commission vote authorizing Chairwoman Ramirez to sign the MOU on behalf of the agency was 5-0.
FTC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Dutch Agency On Privacy Enforcement Cooperation
The Federal Trade Commission has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Dutch Data Protection Authority to enhance information sharing and enforcement cooperation on privacy-related matters.
FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Dutch Data Protection Authority Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm signed the MOU, which is similar to agreements the FTC has with data protection authorities in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The two agencies already cooperate as part of several privacy-related initiatives.
“In our interconnected world, cross-border cooperation is increasingly important,” Chairwoman Ramirez said. “This arrangement with our Dutch counterpart will strengthen FTC efforts to protect the privacy of consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Chairman Kohnstamm said, “In this day and age of increasing cross-border data flows, it is important that the data protection and privacy authorities across the globe increase their cooperation as well. The signing of this MOU between the Dutch DPA and the FTC is a great step in this and marks the good relationship between our offices.”
The FTC increasingly seeks to secure the assistance of international privacy and data protection authorities in its efforts to protect consumer privacy. The MOU recognizes the need for increased cross-border enforcement cooperation and sets out the two agencies’ intent regarding mutual assistance and the exchange of information for investigating and enforcing against privacy violations.
The FTC is the chief U.S. consumer privacy agency. Its comprehensive privacy program uses law enforcement, research, policy initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect consumers’ personal information. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Data Protection Authority enforces the Dutch Data Protection Act, which implements the European Union’s 1995 Data Protection Directive.
The Commission vote authorizing Chairwoman Ramirez to sign the MOU on behalf of the agency was 5-0.
AG HOLDER'S SPEECH TO COMMEMORATE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF BLOODY SUNDAY AND SELMA-TO-MONTGOMERY MARCHES
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Attorney General Holder Reaffirms Commitment to Voting Rights in Speech to Commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the Selma-to-Montgomery Marches
Selma, ALUnited States ~ Sunday, March 8, 2015
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Thank you, Reverend [Leodis] Strong, for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be here on this important day, and a privilege to join so many committed public servants, civil rights pioneers, and passionate citizens as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday—and rededicate ourselves to the ongoing fight for civil rights and social justice.
It is a special and humbling honor to speak at this historic chapel—where, 50 years ago, men and women of good conscience and strong will met to advance a cause that was written into our founding documents, and etched into our highest ideals. Within these walls, they spoke of equality, of opportunity, of justice – and of promises unkept. They made brave and perilous plans to realize a dream too long deferred. And they joined together, as one community, to advance the promise of a nation – and to make that promise real.
They did this at a time of great and abiding uncertainty; of deep and dangerous threats. In the years prior, Freedom Riders testing anti-segregation laws had been attacked by angry mobs; Vivian Malone –who would later become my sister-in-law – had braved Governor George Wallace’s Stand in the Schoolhouse Door to integrate the University of Alabama; Medgar Evers had been murdered outside his home; and four young girls—Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair—had been killed by the blast of a bomb at the 16th Street Baptist Church, less than a hundred miles north of here, while attending a service titled “The Love that Forgives.” These contemporary atrocities rested upon the fate of countless and unnamed others who had for centuries been subjected to a state-sponsored regime of intimidation and terror. And although the Supreme Court had struck down segregation laws more than a decade earlier, innumerable communities continued to enforce laws that kept African Americans entirely separate and emphatically unequal. Make no mistake: their decision to move forward was the height of bravery.
Nowhere was this discrimination more insidious than in the barriers African Americans faced when attempting to cast a ballot. Literacy tests, imposed at the discretion of white officials, kept many black individuals from registering to vote; poll taxes – paying to get the necessary documents to vote – were levied against those who did; and lists of African Americans who overcame obstacles to registration were made public, so that some white citizens could identify, intimidate, and often violently suppress black voters. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had given African-American men and women historic protections, without adequate political representation and without real political power, people of color continued to be marginalized, stigmatized, brutalized, and denied their very humanity.
It was under those circumstances that civil rights leaders, courageous advocates, and ordinary citizens who were “sick and tired of being sick and tired” gathered here, in Selma—a town where only two percent of African Americans were registered to vote, in a county in which racist practices were enforced by a notoriously brutal sheriff now consigned to the place where all of his kind, from whatever era, ultimately end, and in a state where the governor had called for “segregation forever.” Spurred by the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson – an unarmed young black man – an earlier movement began and citizens began a march from Selma to Montgomery, across a bridge that was named for a former Alabama Senator, Confederate General and Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan. It was a march along a road that promised to be neither smooth nor straight; a road that led through difficult terrain; a road that had been traveled by generations whose footsteps still echo through history.
They marched through the abandonment of Reconstruction; marched through the injustice of Plessy v. Ferguson; marched through the era of slavery by another name, and the dark days of Jim Crow; marched past – but always saw – peculiar institutions and that strange, horrific fruit. They were met with suspicion, with hostility, and with hatred. And still, they marched on.
Though their feet were tired, their souls were rested. Though their bodies ached, their will was strong. Though these nonviolent activists were driven back by violent resistance—by Alabama law enforcement officers wielding whips and billy clubs, bullets and bare fists—they refused to give up, give out, or give in. Still, they marched on. And, with the relentless drumbeat of their footsteps, they awoke the conscience of the nation, and bent the arc of the moral universe a little further towards justice.
Their courage and their sacrifice led a dubious Congress and a great President to work with my predecessor, Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, to enshrine into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965—one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. And over the last six years, as Attorney General of the United States, I have had the duty and the privilege—the responsibility and the sacred honor—of enforcing and defending this law—and the legacy of all those who made it – and me – possible. I am proud to say that the Department of Justice I lead has aggressively worked to safeguard the right to vote, and to extend its promise to every eligible voter.
And yet, it has been clear in recent years that fair and free access to the franchise is still, in some areas, under siege. Shortly after the historic election of President Obama in 2008, numerous states and jurisdictions attempted to impose rules and laws that had the effect of restricting Americans’ opportunities to vote—particularly, and disproportionately, communities of color. And in 2013, a narrowly divided and profoundly flawed Supreme Court ruling undermined Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and dealt a serious blow to a cornerstone of American civil rights law.
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the situation in covered regions had “changed dramatically,” and that, because of gains made particularly by African Americans since the Voting Rights Act went into effect, vital pre-clearance protections that had required federal review of changes to voting procedures in regions with a history of discrimination should no longer be applied. But as Justice Ginsburg wrote in her striking dissent, “Throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work…is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Let me be clear: while the Court’s decision removed one of the Justice Department’s most effective tools, we remain undaunted and undeterred in our pursuit of a meaningful right to vote for every eligible American. Since the Court’s ruling, we have used the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act to fight back against voting restrictions in states throughout the country –and won. In Texas, we have sought to block as discriminatory a strict photo identification law and two statewide redistricting plans. In North Carolina, we brought suit to enjoin a sweeping election statute that imposes a needlessly restrictive voter identification requirement, reduces early voting opportunities, and eliminates same-day registration during early voting. And in Ohio, Wisconsin, and on behalf of Tribal Nations in Montana and South Dakota, we have supported plaintiffs challenging a wide array of voting restrictions under the Voting Rights Act. We have also successfully litigated cases to protect the right of military and overseas voters to register and vote by absentee ballot in federal elections.
The Justice Department is also working hard outside the courtroom. Given their historic origins and their present pernicious impact, I have urged state legislatures to lift restrictions that currently disenfranchise millions of citizens convicted of felonies who have served their sentences in order to help them rejoin their civic communities and reclaim their futures.
I am proud of the work done by the Department of Justice, and I know that my successor—who is with us today—will continue to fight aggressively on behalf of this sacred right. But I also recognize that the Justice Department cannot wage this fight alone.
For more than two centuries, this nation has been built and improved both by and for the people. From the framers of a revolution to the engineers of emancipation; from the women walking for suffrage to the marchers from Selma, generation after generation, our slow and arduous progress has always been of our own making. And today, this progress is entrusted to each of us—to men and women of principle who believe that in an equal America, everyone can shape the future of the nation; that in a fair America, no one is too small to deserve equal treatment under the law, and no one is powerful enough to escape it; and that in a just America, we can do no less than deliver—fully and without reservation—the promise of this country’s democracy to all.
This means standing up, and speaking out, for the civil rights to which everyone in this country is entitled. It means calling attention to persistent disparities and inequities. And it means working tirelessly to safeguard and to exercise the right to vote.
At the conclusion of the final march to Montgomery, on the steps of the Alabama state capitol, Dr. King called for “a society at peace with itself.” We have made once-unimaginable progress in the half-century since he spoke those words. The failure to acknowledge that is an insult to those we must always honor and hold in our hearts. The fact that I stand here today—50 years after heroes like Reverend Hosea Williams, Amelia Boyntin and Congressman John Lewis were beaten by Alabama State Troopers—as the 82nd, and first African American, Attorney General of the United States, serving in the Administration of the first African American President to lead this nation is cause for great optimism and a sign of tremendous progress. But progress is not the ultimate goal. Equality is still the prize. Still, even now, it is clear that we have more work to do; that our beloved community is not yet formed; that our society is not yet at a just peace.
I have no expectation that our goals will be simple to achieve, or that complex challenges will be easily overcome. I know that our road will be long, and that many obstacles will stand in our way. But I have no doubt that—if we stand together; if we walk together; if we believe as we always have in the power of our ideals and the force of our shared community—not only our cause, but our country shall overcome. Half a century ago, it was said that “nothing could stop the marching feet of a determined people.” Today, 50 years after Bloody Sunday, we stand together once again as a people. We are no less determined. And we will march on.
We will march on, until the self-evident truth of equality is made real for every American. We will march on, until every citizen is afforded his or her fundamental right to vote. We will march on, toward that bright horizon, to the day when all Americans—young or old, rich or poor, famous or unknown; no matter who they are, where they’re from, what they look like, or whom they love—has an equal share in the American Dream. Until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream—we will march on. We will march because change is not inevitable, progress not preordained. Our history teaches us that hard work and perseverance in spite of the inevitable setbacks are the only methods to obtain that to which we are entitled.
While my time in the Department of Justice will soon draw to a close, I want you to know that, no matter what I do or where my own journey takes me, I will never leave this work. I will never abandon this mission. Nor can you. If we are to honor those who came before us, and those still among us, we must match their sacrifice, their effort, with our own. The times change, the issues seem different, but the solutions are timeless and tested: question authority and the old ways. Work. Struggle. Challenge entrenched power. Persevere. Overcome.
In Galatians 6:9 it is said, “Let us not become weary in doing good, for we shall reap a harvest if we do not give up.” If we do not give up.
Be assured that I will always work beside you as we seek to build the more perfect Union—and the more just society—that all Americans deserve
Thank you, once again, for your steadfast support; for your passionate engagement; and for your unwavering devotion to this country and this cause—as we join together, as we forge ahead, and – as our people before – we march on.
Attorney General Holder Reaffirms Commitment to Voting Rights in Speech to Commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the Selma-to-Montgomery Marches
Selma, ALUnited States ~ Sunday, March 8, 2015
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Thank you, Reverend [Leodis] Strong, for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be here on this important day, and a privilege to join so many committed public servants, civil rights pioneers, and passionate citizens as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday—and rededicate ourselves to the ongoing fight for civil rights and social justice.
It is a special and humbling honor to speak at this historic chapel—where, 50 years ago, men and women of good conscience and strong will met to advance a cause that was written into our founding documents, and etched into our highest ideals. Within these walls, they spoke of equality, of opportunity, of justice – and of promises unkept. They made brave and perilous plans to realize a dream too long deferred. And they joined together, as one community, to advance the promise of a nation – and to make that promise real.
They did this at a time of great and abiding uncertainty; of deep and dangerous threats. In the years prior, Freedom Riders testing anti-segregation laws had been attacked by angry mobs; Vivian Malone –who would later become my sister-in-law – had braved Governor George Wallace’s Stand in the Schoolhouse Door to integrate the University of Alabama; Medgar Evers had been murdered outside his home; and four young girls—Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair—had been killed by the blast of a bomb at the 16th Street Baptist Church, less than a hundred miles north of here, while attending a service titled “The Love that Forgives.” These contemporary atrocities rested upon the fate of countless and unnamed others who had for centuries been subjected to a state-sponsored regime of intimidation and terror. And although the Supreme Court had struck down segregation laws more than a decade earlier, innumerable communities continued to enforce laws that kept African Americans entirely separate and emphatically unequal. Make no mistake: their decision to move forward was the height of bravery.
Nowhere was this discrimination more insidious than in the barriers African Americans faced when attempting to cast a ballot. Literacy tests, imposed at the discretion of white officials, kept many black individuals from registering to vote; poll taxes – paying to get the necessary documents to vote – were levied against those who did; and lists of African Americans who overcame obstacles to registration were made public, so that some white citizens could identify, intimidate, and often violently suppress black voters. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had given African-American men and women historic protections, without adequate political representation and without real political power, people of color continued to be marginalized, stigmatized, brutalized, and denied their very humanity.
It was under those circumstances that civil rights leaders, courageous advocates, and ordinary citizens who were “sick and tired of being sick and tired” gathered here, in Selma—a town where only two percent of African Americans were registered to vote, in a county in which racist practices were enforced by a notoriously brutal sheriff now consigned to the place where all of his kind, from whatever era, ultimately end, and in a state where the governor had called for “segregation forever.” Spurred by the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson – an unarmed young black man – an earlier movement began and citizens began a march from Selma to Montgomery, across a bridge that was named for a former Alabama Senator, Confederate General and Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan. It was a march along a road that promised to be neither smooth nor straight; a road that led through difficult terrain; a road that had been traveled by generations whose footsteps still echo through history.
They marched through the abandonment of Reconstruction; marched through the injustice of Plessy v. Ferguson; marched through the era of slavery by another name, and the dark days of Jim Crow; marched past – but always saw – peculiar institutions and that strange, horrific fruit. They were met with suspicion, with hostility, and with hatred. And still, they marched on.
Though their feet were tired, their souls were rested. Though their bodies ached, their will was strong. Though these nonviolent activists were driven back by violent resistance—by Alabama law enforcement officers wielding whips and billy clubs, bullets and bare fists—they refused to give up, give out, or give in. Still, they marched on. And, with the relentless drumbeat of their footsteps, they awoke the conscience of the nation, and bent the arc of the moral universe a little further towards justice.
Their courage and their sacrifice led a dubious Congress and a great President to work with my predecessor, Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, to enshrine into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965—one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. And over the last six years, as Attorney General of the United States, I have had the duty and the privilege—the responsibility and the sacred honor—of enforcing and defending this law—and the legacy of all those who made it – and me – possible. I am proud to say that the Department of Justice I lead has aggressively worked to safeguard the right to vote, and to extend its promise to every eligible voter.
And yet, it has been clear in recent years that fair and free access to the franchise is still, in some areas, under siege. Shortly after the historic election of President Obama in 2008, numerous states and jurisdictions attempted to impose rules and laws that had the effect of restricting Americans’ opportunities to vote—particularly, and disproportionately, communities of color. And in 2013, a narrowly divided and profoundly flawed Supreme Court ruling undermined Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and dealt a serious blow to a cornerstone of American civil rights law.
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the situation in covered regions had “changed dramatically,” and that, because of gains made particularly by African Americans since the Voting Rights Act went into effect, vital pre-clearance protections that had required federal review of changes to voting procedures in regions with a history of discrimination should no longer be applied. But as Justice Ginsburg wrote in her striking dissent, “Throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work…is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Let me be clear: while the Court’s decision removed one of the Justice Department’s most effective tools, we remain undaunted and undeterred in our pursuit of a meaningful right to vote for every eligible American. Since the Court’s ruling, we have used the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act to fight back against voting restrictions in states throughout the country –and won. In Texas, we have sought to block as discriminatory a strict photo identification law and two statewide redistricting plans. In North Carolina, we brought suit to enjoin a sweeping election statute that imposes a needlessly restrictive voter identification requirement, reduces early voting opportunities, and eliminates same-day registration during early voting. And in Ohio, Wisconsin, and on behalf of Tribal Nations in Montana and South Dakota, we have supported plaintiffs challenging a wide array of voting restrictions under the Voting Rights Act. We have also successfully litigated cases to protect the right of military and overseas voters to register and vote by absentee ballot in federal elections.
The Justice Department is also working hard outside the courtroom. Given their historic origins and their present pernicious impact, I have urged state legislatures to lift restrictions that currently disenfranchise millions of citizens convicted of felonies who have served their sentences in order to help them rejoin their civic communities and reclaim their futures.
I am proud of the work done by the Department of Justice, and I know that my successor—who is with us today—will continue to fight aggressively on behalf of this sacred right. But I also recognize that the Justice Department cannot wage this fight alone.
For more than two centuries, this nation has been built and improved both by and for the people. From the framers of a revolution to the engineers of emancipation; from the women walking for suffrage to the marchers from Selma, generation after generation, our slow and arduous progress has always been of our own making. And today, this progress is entrusted to each of us—to men and women of principle who believe that in an equal America, everyone can shape the future of the nation; that in a fair America, no one is too small to deserve equal treatment under the law, and no one is powerful enough to escape it; and that in a just America, we can do no less than deliver—fully and without reservation—the promise of this country’s democracy to all.
This means standing up, and speaking out, for the civil rights to which everyone in this country is entitled. It means calling attention to persistent disparities and inequities. And it means working tirelessly to safeguard and to exercise the right to vote.
At the conclusion of the final march to Montgomery, on the steps of the Alabama state capitol, Dr. King called for “a society at peace with itself.” We have made once-unimaginable progress in the half-century since he spoke those words. The failure to acknowledge that is an insult to those we must always honor and hold in our hearts. The fact that I stand here today—50 years after heroes like Reverend Hosea Williams, Amelia Boyntin and Congressman John Lewis were beaten by Alabama State Troopers—as the 82nd, and first African American, Attorney General of the United States, serving in the Administration of the first African American President to lead this nation is cause for great optimism and a sign of tremendous progress. But progress is not the ultimate goal. Equality is still the prize. Still, even now, it is clear that we have more work to do; that our beloved community is not yet formed; that our society is not yet at a just peace.
I have no expectation that our goals will be simple to achieve, or that complex challenges will be easily overcome. I know that our road will be long, and that many obstacles will stand in our way. But I have no doubt that—if we stand together; if we walk together; if we believe as we always have in the power of our ideals and the force of our shared community—not only our cause, but our country shall overcome. Half a century ago, it was said that “nothing could stop the marching feet of a determined people.” Today, 50 years after Bloody Sunday, we stand together once again as a people. We are no less determined. And we will march on.
We will march on, until the self-evident truth of equality is made real for every American. We will march on, until every citizen is afforded his or her fundamental right to vote. We will march on, toward that bright horizon, to the day when all Americans—young or old, rich or poor, famous or unknown; no matter who they are, where they’re from, what they look like, or whom they love—has an equal share in the American Dream. Until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream—we will march on. We will march because change is not inevitable, progress not preordained. Our history teaches us that hard work and perseverance in spite of the inevitable setbacks are the only methods to obtain that to which we are entitled.
While my time in the Department of Justice will soon draw to a close, I want you to know that, no matter what I do or where my own journey takes me, I will never leave this work. I will never abandon this mission. Nor can you. If we are to honor those who came before us, and those still among us, we must match their sacrifice, their effort, with our own. The times change, the issues seem different, but the solutions are timeless and tested: question authority and the old ways. Work. Struggle. Challenge entrenched power. Persevere. Overcome.
In Galatians 6:9 it is said, “Let us not become weary in doing good, for we shall reap a harvest if we do not give up.” If we do not give up.
Be assured that I will always work beside you as we seek to build the more perfect Union—and the more just society—that all Americans deserve
Thank you, once again, for your steadfast support; for your passionate engagement; and for your unwavering devotion to this country and this cause—as we join together, as we forge ahead, and – as our people before – we march on.
NUTRIENT POLLUTION AND HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS IN STREAMS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus reduces streams' ability to support aquatic life
Residence time of leaves and twigs, important to stream-dwelling species, can be halved
Nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus in streams has long been known to increase carbon production by algae, often causing nuisance and harmful algal blooms.
But according to results of a new study, nutrient pollution can also result in the loss of forest-derived carbon--leaves and twigs--from stream ecosystems, reducing the ability of streams to support aquatic life.
"Most people think of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in streams as contributing to algae blooms," said Diane Pataki, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.
"But streams contain a lot of leaf litter, and this study shows that nutrient pollution can also stimulate carbon losses from streams by accelerating the breakdown of that litter. That helps us better understand how fertilizer runoff affects carbon transport and emissions from streams and rivers."
What matters: How long a leaf or twig floats in a stream
The findings, published today in the journal Science, demonstrate that the in-stream residence time of leaves and twigs, which provide energy to fuel stream food webs, may be cut in half when moderate amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are added to a stream.
"This study shows that excess nutrients reduce stream health in a way that was previously unknown," said Amy Rosemond, an ecologist at the University of Georgia (UGA) and the paper's lead author.
"By increasing nutrients, we stimulate decomposition, and that can cause the loss of carbon that stream life depends on."
Stream food webs based on photosynthesis, leaves and wood
Stream food webs are based on carbon from two main sources.
One is algae, which uses photosynthesis to transform carbon dioxide in water into food.
The other is leaves and bits of wood from streamside forests. This forest-derived carbon usually persists year-round, making it a staple food resource for stream organisms.
Nitrogen and phosphorus play essential roles in decomposition of carbon by microbes and stream-dwelling insects and other invertebrates, but cause problems when they are present in excess amounts--as they increasingly are.
Widespread nutrient pollution
Nutrient pollution is widespread in the United States and worldwide, primarily due to land use changes such as deforestation, agriculture and urbanization.
Its effects on algae are well-known and very visible in the form of algal blooms.
Little was understood about how nutrient pollution affects forest-derived carbon in stream food webs, so Rosemond and her colleagues devised a set of experiments to find out.
Working at the Coweeta Hydrological Laboratory, an NSF Long-Term Ecological Research site in North Carolina, they set up a system to continuously add nutrients to several small headwater streams.
The first experiment ran for six years in two streams, and the second for three years in five streams, with different combinations of nitrogen and phosphorus to mimic the effects of different land uses.
The researchers found that the additional nutrients reduced forest-derived carbon in streams by half.
"We were frankly shocked at how quickly leaves disappeared when we added nutrients," said Rosemond. "By summer, the streams looked unnaturally bare.
"This is comparable to the doubling of carbon from algae that can occur with nutrient pollution, but it's not a zero-sum game.
"Increasing one form of carbon and decreasing another does not equate. These resources have unique roles in stream food webs, and nutrients are affecting their relative availability."
Many streams lack enough light for algae to grow, making forest-derived carbon their main source of energy. But forest-derived carbon is more than a source of food.
Leaves and twigs in streams take up pollutants
"Leaves and twigs, and the microbes that live on them, are also important in taking up pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus," Rosemond said.
"Ironically, by stimulating the loss of these resources with nutrients, we lose a lot of their capacity to reduce the nutrients' effects. That means that more nutrients flow downstream where they can cause problems in lakes and estuaries."
Rosemond said she hopes the study's findings will be incorporated into policies aimed at reducing nutrient pollution.
"Our results provide a more complete picture of nutrient effects in streams."
Co-authors are Phillip Bumpers, David Manning and Bruce Wallace, all of UGA; Jonathan Benstead and Keller Suberkropp of the University of Alabama; Vladislav Gulis of Coastal Carolina University; and John Kominoski of Florida International University.
-NSF-
Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF,
Nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus reduces streams' ability to support aquatic life
Residence time of leaves and twigs, important to stream-dwelling species, can be halved
Nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus in streams has long been known to increase carbon production by algae, often causing nuisance and harmful algal blooms.
But according to results of a new study, nutrient pollution can also result in the loss of forest-derived carbon--leaves and twigs--from stream ecosystems, reducing the ability of streams to support aquatic life.
"Most people think of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in streams as contributing to algae blooms," said Diane Pataki, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.
"But streams contain a lot of leaf litter, and this study shows that nutrient pollution can also stimulate carbon losses from streams by accelerating the breakdown of that litter. That helps us better understand how fertilizer runoff affects carbon transport and emissions from streams and rivers."
What matters: How long a leaf or twig floats in a stream
The findings, published today in the journal Science, demonstrate that the in-stream residence time of leaves and twigs, which provide energy to fuel stream food webs, may be cut in half when moderate amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are added to a stream.
"This study shows that excess nutrients reduce stream health in a way that was previously unknown," said Amy Rosemond, an ecologist at the University of Georgia (UGA) and the paper's lead author.
"By increasing nutrients, we stimulate decomposition, and that can cause the loss of carbon that stream life depends on."
Stream food webs based on photosynthesis, leaves and wood
Stream food webs are based on carbon from two main sources.
One is algae, which uses photosynthesis to transform carbon dioxide in water into food.
The other is leaves and bits of wood from streamside forests. This forest-derived carbon usually persists year-round, making it a staple food resource for stream organisms.
Nitrogen and phosphorus play essential roles in decomposition of carbon by microbes and stream-dwelling insects and other invertebrates, but cause problems when they are present in excess amounts--as they increasingly are.
Widespread nutrient pollution
Nutrient pollution is widespread in the United States and worldwide, primarily due to land use changes such as deforestation, agriculture and urbanization.
Its effects on algae are well-known and very visible in the form of algal blooms.
Little was understood about how nutrient pollution affects forest-derived carbon in stream food webs, so Rosemond and her colleagues devised a set of experiments to find out.
Working at the Coweeta Hydrological Laboratory, an NSF Long-Term Ecological Research site in North Carolina, they set up a system to continuously add nutrients to several small headwater streams.
The first experiment ran for six years in two streams, and the second for three years in five streams, with different combinations of nitrogen and phosphorus to mimic the effects of different land uses.
The researchers found that the additional nutrients reduced forest-derived carbon in streams by half.
"We were frankly shocked at how quickly leaves disappeared when we added nutrients," said Rosemond. "By summer, the streams looked unnaturally bare.
"This is comparable to the doubling of carbon from algae that can occur with nutrient pollution, but it's not a zero-sum game.
"Increasing one form of carbon and decreasing another does not equate. These resources have unique roles in stream food webs, and nutrients are affecting their relative availability."
Many streams lack enough light for algae to grow, making forest-derived carbon their main source of energy. But forest-derived carbon is more than a source of food.
Leaves and twigs in streams take up pollutants
"Leaves and twigs, and the microbes that live on them, are also important in taking up pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus," Rosemond said.
"Ironically, by stimulating the loss of these resources with nutrients, we lose a lot of their capacity to reduce the nutrients' effects. That means that more nutrients flow downstream where they can cause problems in lakes and estuaries."
Rosemond said she hopes the study's findings will be incorporated into policies aimed at reducing nutrient pollution.
"Our results provide a more complete picture of nutrient effects in streams."
Co-authors are Phillip Bumpers, David Manning and Bruce Wallace, all of UGA; Jonathan Benstead and Keller Suberkropp of the University of Alabama; Vladislav Gulis of Coastal Carolina University; and John Kominoski of Florida International University.
-NSF-
Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF,
SEC COMMISSIONER STEIN'S SPEECH ON FACILITATING CAPITAL FORMATION
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SPEECH
Supporting Innovation Through the Commission’s Mission to Facilitate Capital Formation
Commissioner Kara M. Stein
Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford Law School
Stanford, CA
March 5, 2015
Thank you, Jina [Choi], for that kind introduction.
Before I begin my remarks, I am required to tell you that the views I am expressing today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission, my fellow Commissioners, or the staff of the Commission.
I’m pleased to be here with you today and in the Bay Area. I arrived on Tuesday and have been meeting with so many interesting and wonderful people. Thank you to everyone that has worked to put this conference together. The great collaboration between our San Francisco Regional Office and the Stanford University Rock Center for Corporate Governance is providing all of us with an opportunity to meet and discuss emerging issues affecting capital formation and private funds. So, thank you to both for coordinating this conference. Thanks especially to the San Francisco SEC staff for giving me an office-away-from-the office the last couple of days — I really appreciate it.
On Tuesday, I met with the Financial Women of San Francisco. This organization is focused on women investing in, mentoring, and helping other women. I know that you just spent some time during the previous panel discussing private equity and venture capital regulation. Something to add to the list of important issues facing this industry is the lack of women in private equity and venture capital firms, especially at the senior level. A recent survey found that only four percent of senior venture capitalists are women.[1] This issue has received a lot of attention recently, and I understand that industry groups are focused on it.[2] I think that people have become more aware of both the numbers and the issue — and are thinking about not only how firms can open up the door but also how to create a welcoming environment. I look forward to hearing about your ideas and positive developments going forward.
So, as I mentioned, I have been here since Tuesday. This is the last stop on a whirlwind tour of the Bay Area. Yesterday, I visited the Runway, a very impressive start-up incubator located in downtown San Francisco. Just around the corner from the Runway, I participated in a roundtable on crowdfunding and start-up access to capital hosted by the new “Start-Up Legal Garage” at UC Hastings College of the Law. This innovative clinical program helps train young lawyers to provide legal advice that can help start-ups get off on the right foot. In visiting all of these places, it struck me how committed this region of the country is to innovation — new ideas — new products — disrupting old models.
So today’s conference is an excellent opportunity to talk about both innovation and regulation. How does the Securities and Exchange Commission support innovation? Innovation isn’t explicitly part of our mission. But I think that the Commission does, in fact, support innovation — through facilitating capital formation. A major driver of innovation in this country has been the existence of a dependable foundation of capital formation rules that — while not perfect — have allowed companies that need funding to obtain capital to grow and prosper. A key question the Commission is always grappling with is — how do we continue to facilitate innovation as business models are disrupted, financial markets change, and technology evolves? How do we ensure that our rules keep pace with all of this innovation?
Today, I want to talk about a few areas at the Commission where I see the possibility of new options for capital formation. Just as companies continue to innovate, we as a Commission need to grow, keep pace and stay out on the edge of such change. We need to be forward looking and creative so that we can best carry out our mission. In order to facilitate capital formation, our rules must reflect and accommodate the quickly evolving marketplace.
As you well know, the Bay Area has historically been the capitol for venture capital, and it remains so today. As of January 2nd, there were over 1,700 venture capital funds within our San Francisco office’s regulatory footprint. We know this from data collected on Form ADV, which is the form investment advisers use to report information to the Commission.[3] That is almost three times as many venture capital funds as our next closest regional office. Clearly, venture capital is continuing to thrive in this area of the country.
Venture financing has typically been through private investments in smaller issuers. There have been — and continue to be - amazing innovations hatched right here in the Bay Area. Many of these success stories are attributable, in part, to backing from various venture capital and private equity firms. Twitter, Tesla, and Google have all received funding from private funds from this area. The list of great companies that were initially funded through venture capital is a very long one.
As a Commission, we of course want to facilitate investment in these types of innovative companies and make venture funds’ deployment of capital work as smoothly as possible. At the end of the day, we all care about the same things — facilitating capital formation, creating more and better jobs, and nurturing new companies. There is no better place in the world to form a start-up and follow your dream than in the United States — and we need to keep it that way.
But the Commission is also focused on new capital-raising methods. Venture capital might not be an option for every company, for a variety of reasons. So, we need to make sure our securities laws are flexible enough for a wide variety of companies and funding needs. Our securities laws in this area should aspire to provide a variety of funding options that can accommodate companies at different stages in their cycles. I want to discuss some of these options, in addition to venture, that may be available to smaller and newer companies. I want to particularly highlight some of the new options that the Commission is considering.
Despite the fact that venture financing contributes a substantial amount of capital to smaller businesses, is there more that can be done? As I mentioned, venture funding may not be available for every company. There are a limited number of VC firms. Perhaps your start-up focuses on an industry or sector that is not attractive to venture at the moment, for whatever reason. Maybe your company is in a stage of development that is not appealing to venture. Or, it could simply be that you don’t like the strings that come attached with venture capital, such as surrendering some management control.
The good news is that the Commission is currently considering several new options that will promote and enhance capital formation and help U.S. companies remain at the forefront of innovation. For example, Regulation A+ could potentially be an interesting new fundraising option for both small and medium-sized businesses. This provision was part of the JOBS Act passed by Congress in 2012 and would expand upon the Commission’s current, but little used, Regulation A exemption. Reg A+ would enable companies to offer up to $50 million in a 12-month period without registering its securities with the Commission, as opposed to the current $5 million limit. It also would allow small businesses to raise money from the public with a streamlined approach to oversight by the Commission. Reg A+ is a creative example of reimagining a capital formation option that was essentially broken.[4]
We are still in the process of finalizing the new Reg A+, so I can’t really speak too much about it. Although it is not clear how effective Reg A+ will be once the final rules are adopted, I am pleased to see us retrofitting an archaic rule to adapt to a changing marketplace. Changes in technology, in the demands of investors, in our financial markets, and in the needs of small and large companies are clearly disrupting our regulatory paradigm. We are quite appropriately assessing what is working with our rules and what is not. We should be continually examining our securities laws to look for other opportunities to do the same. As a Commission, we need to be as dynamic and nimble as are the companies seeking to obtain capital and the investors who want to invest their capital.
Another new form of capital raising that could plug a gap in the capital formation process is financing through crowdfunding. I suspect most of you are familiar with the concept of crowdfunding — but, in essence, crowdfunding allows small companies to harness the power of a community of small investors via the internet, to fund themselves quickly and efficiently. Crowdfunding offers the possibility of small businesses raising equity more directly, and potentially more efficiently, than our current options allow, including providing an alternative to bank lending. In that sense, it certainly has the capability of disrupting the current capital formation model. As we all search for ways to allocate capital as effectively and as efficiently as possible, crowdfunding may play an important role.[5]
At the same time, equity crowdfunding is a challenging concept for many reasons. It is a new regime. It does not fit neatly into our 80-year old securities law framework, which is focused on operating companies with some history. With crowdfunding, we are in many ways writing new rules and creating new markets out of whole cloth.
The excitement over this new form of raising capital needs to be balanced by consideration of potential risks — both to issuers and investors. It will only work if investors have confidence in the new internet marketplace. And the risk of losses to investors — including complete and total loss — is potentially elevated by the nature of the underlying companies. Some argue that the investors most likely to fund these newer and smaller companies may be the least equipped and suitable for these types of investments. They will generally be non-accredited investors who may be dabbling in an area that has caught their eye. Or perhaps a friend has recommended an idea to them. These are unlikely to be seasoned angel investors.
In addition, equity crowdfunding may be reduced to a temporary fad if fraud or questions of credibility become part of the mix, or if investors’ rights are not preserved through subsequent tranches of financing. For the crowdfunding market to be successful over the long-run, it needs to be a place that is fair, effective, and where both investors and companies understand the risks. In this area, our securities laws matter more than ever. Investor protection and capital formation must go hand in hand.
As the Commission thinks through innovative and new ideas about capital formation, we also need to think about new and innovative ways to fulfill our investor protection mission. Crowdfunding offers the perfect opportunity to do that. And we should be creative. One idea that I would like to get your thoughts on is whether we can make crowdfunding work better by pooling each class of crowdfunding investors into a fund vehicle. If done right, this could potentially solve the problem of hundreds or thousands of small investors on a company’s register, while also ensuring that crowdfunding investors could effectively exercise their governance rights. I know other jurisdictions are experimenting with this idea. I’d like to hear your thoughts about what benefits and risks such pooling might present here in the United States.
Adopting a final crowdfunding rule will be a challenge, but I am eager to work on it. I hope that the panel following my talk will be able to get into this issue a little bit. I would welcome your feedback and thoughts on how to help crowdfunding work as I continue to grapple with it myself.
The final capital formation option that I want to discuss is the idea of regional exchanges. Some view regional exchanges as a possible way to help to increase secondary market liquidity for smaller companies. In 2011, the state legislature of Hawaii authorized a working group to examine whether a locally focused, Hawaii-based stock exchange would be beneficial to support investment in local companies. Other states have undertaken similar examinations. Local or regional exchanges could be a beneficial method for connecting local enterprises to local investors and providing more secondary market liquidity. An exchange focused on venture or smaller issuers may also hold promise. My fellow Commissioner, Dan Gallagher, has discussed the possibility of venture exchanges as well.[6] There are a number of questions that need to be addressed, and I support the Commission staff issuing a Concept Release to get everyone’s best thoughts in this area.
These exchanges could allow small companies to exclusively trade their shares. Disclosure and other rules might be somewhat relaxed. Perhaps such an exchange could provide a new runway for growth for smaller companies, while also providing the essential, material disclosures that investors need. We need to understand why such exchanges have not worked in the recent past, and what, if anything, could be done differently.
I want to leave you with a few final thoughts on capital formation. I mentioned some new options that the Commission is considering to promote capital formation — Reg A+, crowdfunding, and regional exchanges. I also mentioned the tried and true pathway of venture capital. And there are other potential options that I will have to save for another time.
Some of these options for growth will succeed and some may be lightly used. That’s ok and it’s expected. The important point is that we are all engaged in thinking about how to best fund companies given our dramatically evolving financial marketplace. In the end, I hope that we have added a few more options to the palette.
I tend to think of each capital formation option as presenting a different method of growing with different strings attached. Any time an entrepreneur is seeking financing, there will be strings attached to receiving the money. For example, I already mentioned venture capital — some may not want to accept the strings attached with venture capital financing, such as involvement by the investor in management. Others may not want the strings attached that come with being a public company, such as quarterly reporting. The capital formation process and the securities laws should be flexible enough so that businesses have a variety of options that can hopefully suit their unique needs while still protecting investors.
Many of you in the audience are on the forefront of innovation. Given your backgrounds and experience, you have a deep appreciation and understanding of what it takes to adapt to changing landscapes. It’s in many ways what makes you successful.
I hope that the Commission can follow your lead and channel some of that innovative and disruptive spirit. Our regulatory system is 80-years old. I think there is a recognition that we need to evolve in the areas of both capital formation and investor protection to adapt to today’s rapidly changing marketplace.
But many aspects of our securities laws have held up remarkably well. The basics are strong and simple: clear disclosure to investors, good corporate governance, eliminating conflicts of interest, straightforward approaches to fees and costs, transparent public trading markets, being a good fiduciary when managing others’ money, and so on. Time and time again, these basics have led to some of the strongest, most productive companies in the world. I think it’s no accident that the American approach to capital markets, including SEC oversight, has been emulated by many. I know that regulation can feel uncomfortable, especially for those who might do the right thing on their own. And we at the Commission should always be innovating to make it work better. But the basics are needed and have benefited market participants. Time after time, we’ve learned that markets do not effectively regulate themselves and when basic rules aren’t followed, the results are detrimental for everyone.
I wear a lot of hats as an SEC commissioner and there are countless areas to focus on. But, please know that fair and effective capital formation is something that I care deeply about. There is nothing more important for our country and our economy than making sure that businesses obtain the capital they need to grow and create jobs within a marketplace that is safe for investors. I urge all of you — whether you are a business owner, an academic, an entrepreneur, an attorney, a fund, or just someone interested in capital formation — to help us as we continue to explore and discover new options for accessing capital. Only with your input and help can we make sure our options are dynamic and responsive to the marketplace.
I look forward to continuing to work with all of you on these very challenging but exciting projects. Thank you very much for your time this evening, and I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference.
[1] http://fortune.com/2014/02/06/venture-capitals-stunning-lack-of-female-decision-makers/.
[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/08/04/female-intern-finds-venture-capital-no-place-for-a-woman/.
[3] These numbers are based on Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”) data as of January 2, 2015.
[4] For background on Reg A+, see Proposed Rule Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions Under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act, Dec. 18, 2013, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9497.pdf.
[5] See Commissioner Kara M. Stein, Remarks before Los Angeles County Bar Association 47th Annual Securities Regulation Seminar, Oct. 24, 2014, available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370543279728.
[6] See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, Remarks at FIA Futures and Options Expo, Nov. 6, 2013, available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540289361.
SPEECH
Supporting Innovation Through the Commission’s Mission to Facilitate Capital Formation
Commissioner Kara M. Stein
Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford Law School
Stanford, CA
March 5, 2015
Thank you, Jina [Choi], for that kind introduction.
Before I begin my remarks, I am required to tell you that the views I am expressing today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission, my fellow Commissioners, or the staff of the Commission.
I’m pleased to be here with you today and in the Bay Area. I arrived on Tuesday and have been meeting with so many interesting and wonderful people. Thank you to everyone that has worked to put this conference together. The great collaboration between our San Francisco Regional Office and the Stanford University Rock Center for Corporate Governance is providing all of us with an opportunity to meet and discuss emerging issues affecting capital formation and private funds. So, thank you to both for coordinating this conference. Thanks especially to the San Francisco SEC staff for giving me an office-away-from-the office the last couple of days — I really appreciate it.
On Tuesday, I met with the Financial Women of San Francisco. This organization is focused on women investing in, mentoring, and helping other women. I know that you just spent some time during the previous panel discussing private equity and venture capital regulation. Something to add to the list of important issues facing this industry is the lack of women in private equity and venture capital firms, especially at the senior level. A recent survey found that only four percent of senior venture capitalists are women.[1] This issue has received a lot of attention recently, and I understand that industry groups are focused on it.[2] I think that people have become more aware of both the numbers and the issue — and are thinking about not only how firms can open up the door but also how to create a welcoming environment. I look forward to hearing about your ideas and positive developments going forward.
So, as I mentioned, I have been here since Tuesday. This is the last stop on a whirlwind tour of the Bay Area. Yesterday, I visited the Runway, a very impressive start-up incubator located in downtown San Francisco. Just around the corner from the Runway, I participated in a roundtable on crowdfunding and start-up access to capital hosted by the new “Start-Up Legal Garage” at UC Hastings College of the Law. This innovative clinical program helps train young lawyers to provide legal advice that can help start-ups get off on the right foot. In visiting all of these places, it struck me how committed this region of the country is to innovation — new ideas — new products — disrupting old models.
So today’s conference is an excellent opportunity to talk about both innovation and regulation. How does the Securities and Exchange Commission support innovation? Innovation isn’t explicitly part of our mission. But I think that the Commission does, in fact, support innovation — through facilitating capital formation. A major driver of innovation in this country has been the existence of a dependable foundation of capital formation rules that — while not perfect — have allowed companies that need funding to obtain capital to grow and prosper. A key question the Commission is always grappling with is — how do we continue to facilitate innovation as business models are disrupted, financial markets change, and technology evolves? How do we ensure that our rules keep pace with all of this innovation?
Today, I want to talk about a few areas at the Commission where I see the possibility of new options for capital formation. Just as companies continue to innovate, we as a Commission need to grow, keep pace and stay out on the edge of such change. We need to be forward looking and creative so that we can best carry out our mission. In order to facilitate capital formation, our rules must reflect and accommodate the quickly evolving marketplace.
As you well know, the Bay Area has historically been the capitol for venture capital, and it remains so today. As of January 2nd, there were over 1,700 venture capital funds within our San Francisco office’s regulatory footprint. We know this from data collected on Form ADV, which is the form investment advisers use to report information to the Commission.[3] That is almost three times as many venture capital funds as our next closest regional office. Clearly, venture capital is continuing to thrive in this area of the country.
Venture financing has typically been through private investments in smaller issuers. There have been — and continue to be - amazing innovations hatched right here in the Bay Area. Many of these success stories are attributable, in part, to backing from various venture capital and private equity firms. Twitter, Tesla, and Google have all received funding from private funds from this area. The list of great companies that were initially funded through venture capital is a very long one.
As a Commission, we of course want to facilitate investment in these types of innovative companies and make venture funds’ deployment of capital work as smoothly as possible. At the end of the day, we all care about the same things — facilitating capital formation, creating more and better jobs, and nurturing new companies. There is no better place in the world to form a start-up and follow your dream than in the United States — and we need to keep it that way.
But the Commission is also focused on new capital-raising methods. Venture capital might not be an option for every company, for a variety of reasons. So, we need to make sure our securities laws are flexible enough for a wide variety of companies and funding needs. Our securities laws in this area should aspire to provide a variety of funding options that can accommodate companies at different stages in their cycles. I want to discuss some of these options, in addition to venture, that may be available to smaller and newer companies. I want to particularly highlight some of the new options that the Commission is considering.
Despite the fact that venture financing contributes a substantial amount of capital to smaller businesses, is there more that can be done? As I mentioned, venture funding may not be available for every company. There are a limited number of VC firms. Perhaps your start-up focuses on an industry or sector that is not attractive to venture at the moment, for whatever reason. Maybe your company is in a stage of development that is not appealing to venture. Or, it could simply be that you don’t like the strings that come attached with venture capital, such as surrendering some management control.
The good news is that the Commission is currently considering several new options that will promote and enhance capital formation and help U.S. companies remain at the forefront of innovation. For example, Regulation A+ could potentially be an interesting new fundraising option for both small and medium-sized businesses. This provision was part of the JOBS Act passed by Congress in 2012 and would expand upon the Commission’s current, but little used, Regulation A exemption. Reg A+ would enable companies to offer up to $50 million in a 12-month period without registering its securities with the Commission, as opposed to the current $5 million limit. It also would allow small businesses to raise money from the public with a streamlined approach to oversight by the Commission. Reg A+ is a creative example of reimagining a capital formation option that was essentially broken.[4]
We are still in the process of finalizing the new Reg A+, so I can’t really speak too much about it. Although it is not clear how effective Reg A+ will be once the final rules are adopted, I am pleased to see us retrofitting an archaic rule to adapt to a changing marketplace. Changes in technology, in the demands of investors, in our financial markets, and in the needs of small and large companies are clearly disrupting our regulatory paradigm. We are quite appropriately assessing what is working with our rules and what is not. We should be continually examining our securities laws to look for other opportunities to do the same. As a Commission, we need to be as dynamic and nimble as are the companies seeking to obtain capital and the investors who want to invest their capital.
Another new form of capital raising that could plug a gap in the capital formation process is financing through crowdfunding. I suspect most of you are familiar with the concept of crowdfunding — but, in essence, crowdfunding allows small companies to harness the power of a community of small investors via the internet, to fund themselves quickly and efficiently. Crowdfunding offers the possibility of small businesses raising equity more directly, and potentially more efficiently, than our current options allow, including providing an alternative to bank lending. In that sense, it certainly has the capability of disrupting the current capital formation model. As we all search for ways to allocate capital as effectively and as efficiently as possible, crowdfunding may play an important role.[5]
At the same time, equity crowdfunding is a challenging concept for many reasons. It is a new regime. It does not fit neatly into our 80-year old securities law framework, which is focused on operating companies with some history. With crowdfunding, we are in many ways writing new rules and creating new markets out of whole cloth.
The excitement over this new form of raising capital needs to be balanced by consideration of potential risks — both to issuers and investors. It will only work if investors have confidence in the new internet marketplace. And the risk of losses to investors — including complete and total loss — is potentially elevated by the nature of the underlying companies. Some argue that the investors most likely to fund these newer and smaller companies may be the least equipped and suitable for these types of investments. They will generally be non-accredited investors who may be dabbling in an area that has caught their eye. Or perhaps a friend has recommended an idea to them. These are unlikely to be seasoned angel investors.
In addition, equity crowdfunding may be reduced to a temporary fad if fraud or questions of credibility become part of the mix, or if investors’ rights are not preserved through subsequent tranches of financing. For the crowdfunding market to be successful over the long-run, it needs to be a place that is fair, effective, and where both investors and companies understand the risks. In this area, our securities laws matter more than ever. Investor protection and capital formation must go hand in hand.
As the Commission thinks through innovative and new ideas about capital formation, we also need to think about new and innovative ways to fulfill our investor protection mission. Crowdfunding offers the perfect opportunity to do that. And we should be creative. One idea that I would like to get your thoughts on is whether we can make crowdfunding work better by pooling each class of crowdfunding investors into a fund vehicle. If done right, this could potentially solve the problem of hundreds or thousands of small investors on a company’s register, while also ensuring that crowdfunding investors could effectively exercise their governance rights. I know other jurisdictions are experimenting with this idea. I’d like to hear your thoughts about what benefits and risks such pooling might present here in the United States.
Adopting a final crowdfunding rule will be a challenge, but I am eager to work on it. I hope that the panel following my talk will be able to get into this issue a little bit. I would welcome your feedback and thoughts on how to help crowdfunding work as I continue to grapple with it myself.
The final capital formation option that I want to discuss is the idea of regional exchanges. Some view regional exchanges as a possible way to help to increase secondary market liquidity for smaller companies. In 2011, the state legislature of Hawaii authorized a working group to examine whether a locally focused, Hawaii-based stock exchange would be beneficial to support investment in local companies. Other states have undertaken similar examinations. Local or regional exchanges could be a beneficial method for connecting local enterprises to local investors and providing more secondary market liquidity. An exchange focused on venture or smaller issuers may also hold promise. My fellow Commissioner, Dan Gallagher, has discussed the possibility of venture exchanges as well.[6] There are a number of questions that need to be addressed, and I support the Commission staff issuing a Concept Release to get everyone’s best thoughts in this area.
These exchanges could allow small companies to exclusively trade their shares. Disclosure and other rules might be somewhat relaxed. Perhaps such an exchange could provide a new runway for growth for smaller companies, while also providing the essential, material disclosures that investors need. We need to understand why such exchanges have not worked in the recent past, and what, if anything, could be done differently.
I want to leave you with a few final thoughts on capital formation. I mentioned some new options that the Commission is considering to promote capital formation — Reg A+, crowdfunding, and regional exchanges. I also mentioned the tried and true pathway of venture capital. And there are other potential options that I will have to save for another time.
Some of these options for growth will succeed and some may be lightly used. That’s ok and it’s expected. The important point is that we are all engaged in thinking about how to best fund companies given our dramatically evolving financial marketplace. In the end, I hope that we have added a few more options to the palette.
I tend to think of each capital formation option as presenting a different method of growing with different strings attached. Any time an entrepreneur is seeking financing, there will be strings attached to receiving the money. For example, I already mentioned venture capital — some may not want to accept the strings attached with venture capital financing, such as involvement by the investor in management. Others may not want the strings attached that come with being a public company, such as quarterly reporting. The capital formation process and the securities laws should be flexible enough so that businesses have a variety of options that can hopefully suit their unique needs while still protecting investors.
Many of you in the audience are on the forefront of innovation. Given your backgrounds and experience, you have a deep appreciation and understanding of what it takes to adapt to changing landscapes. It’s in many ways what makes you successful.
I hope that the Commission can follow your lead and channel some of that innovative and disruptive spirit. Our regulatory system is 80-years old. I think there is a recognition that we need to evolve in the areas of both capital formation and investor protection to adapt to today’s rapidly changing marketplace.
But many aspects of our securities laws have held up remarkably well. The basics are strong and simple: clear disclosure to investors, good corporate governance, eliminating conflicts of interest, straightforward approaches to fees and costs, transparent public trading markets, being a good fiduciary when managing others’ money, and so on. Time and time again, these basics have led to some of the strongest, most productive companies in the world. I think it’s no accident that the American approach to capital markets, including SEC oversight, has been emulated by many. I know that regulation can feel uncomfortable, especially for those who might do the right thing on their own. And we at the Commission should always be innovating to make it work better. But the basics are needed and have benefited market participants. Time after time, we’ve learned that markets do not effectively regulate themselves and when basic rules aren’t followed, the results are detrimental for everyone.
I wear a lot of hats as an SEC commissioner and there are countless areas to focus on. But, please know that fair and effective capital formation is something that I care deeply about. There is nothing more important for our country and our economy than making sure that businesses obtain the capital they need to grow and create jobs within a marketplace that is safe for investors. I urge all of you — whether you are a business owner, an academic, an entrepreneur, an attorney, a fund, or just someone interested in capital formation — to help us as we continue to explore and discover new options for accessing capital. Only with your input and help can we make sure our options are dynamic and responsive to the marketplace.
I look forward to continuing to work with all of you on these very challenging but exciting projects. Thank you very much for your time this evening, and I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference.
[1] http://fortune.com/2014/02/06/venture-capitals-stunning-lack-of-female-decision-makers/.
[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/08/04/female-intern-finds-venture-capital-no-place-for-a-woman/.
[3] These numbers are based on Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”) data as of January 2, 2015.
[4] For background on Reg A+, see Proposed Rule Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions Under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act, Dec. 18, 2013, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9497.pdf.
[5] See Commissioner Kara M. Stein, Remarks before Los Angeles County Bar Association 47th Annual Securities Regulation Seminar, Oct. 24, 2014, available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370543279728.
[6] See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, Remarks at FIA Futures and Options Expo, Nov. 6, 2013, available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540289361.
Monday, March 9, 2015
READOUT: VP BIDEN'S CALL WITH POLISH PRESIDENT KOMOROWSKI
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
March 09, 2015
Readout of the Vice President’s Call with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski
Vice President Joe Biden spoke today with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski about bilateral relations, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and European energy security. The Vice President noted U.S.-Polish relations were excellent and agreed to continue close consultations with Poland about threats to European security, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Vice President and President Komorowski agreed that Russia and Russia-backed separatists had to fulfill all of the obligations under the Minsk agreements, including unfettered access for OSCE monitors seeking to verify the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the withdrawal of Russian troops and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and return to Ukrainian control of the international border by the end of the year. They agreed that any further escalation of the conflict by Russia would be met by increasing costs. On energy security, the leaders agreed on the importance of infrastructure projects that would help create a single, integrated energy market in Europe.
March 09, 2015
Readout of the Vice President’s Call with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski
Vice President Joe Biden spoke today with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski about bilateral relations, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and European energy security. The Vice President noted U.S.-Polish relations were excellent and agreed to continue close consultations with Poland about threats to European security, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Vice President and President Komorowski agreed that Russia and Russia-backed separatists had to fulfill all of the obligations under the Minsk agreements, including unfettered access for OSCE monitors seeking to verify the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the withdrawal of Russian troops and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and return to Ukrainian control of the international border by the end of the year. They agreed that any further escalation of the conflict by Russia would be met by increasing costs. On energy security, the leaders agreed on the importance of infrastructure projects that would help create a single, integrated energy market in Europe.
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH LITHUANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
March 9, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. It’s my pleasure to welcome my friend, Linas Linkevicius, the foreign minister of Lithuania, and I’m very, very happy to have him here in Washington. We have worked very closely together in any number of meetings and fora around the world. Lithuania may be small, but let me tell you, they are a very strong and important partner within NATO, one of the strongest partners with respect to holding people to high standards, particularly in the enforcement of the Minsk agreement and the need for Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity to be respected.
They’re a NATO ally and a strategic partner, and I want to particularly confirm here that as an ally in NATO and as one of, frankly, the most thoughtful and outspoken with respect to the obligations of all of the member states, Lithuania is setting the example by increasing their defense spending and by assisting at the same time in other efforts that we have, not just within NATO but elsewhere. They’re helping to train troops in Iraq; they’re providing equipment. And I can confirm here with clarity that our, the United States, Article 5 obligations are firm and solid, and we will continue to work with Lithuania as a partner.
We also appreciate the efforts that Lithuania is making in energy diversification now, which is a very important part of a larger strategic need for countries not to be locked in to just one supplier or two suppliers. There needs to be a diversity, which really bolsters independence.
So I thank Linas for taking time to come here. We have a lot to talk about, and it’s my pleasure to introduce him.
FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS: Thank you very much for being able to be here on the eve of our very important event, 25th anniversary of establishing of our independence. Excellent opportunity to express gratitude to United States for non-recognition policy for more than a half century or so Soviet occupation, for staunch support during our accession to NATO, which happened more than 10 years ago. We’re members now of this very important family, which has to do direct influence to the security guarantees of our country. Also, I’m very grateful for strategic partnership now, today, and implementing decisions which were taken in Wales at the NATO summit.
And we’re really trying to cooperate on various fields. Although we are a small country, as was mentioned, but we’re trying to be active and happy and proud that we can share the same priorities with United States, be it in UN Security Council, be it in the other (inaudible) forums, and indeed, we expect and needfurther leadership United States in implementing these assurance measures in our region, also in Lithuania.
Also, we would like to have more leadership of the United States in solving problems around Ukraine, because it actually has to do with not only about the fate of that country in the middle of Europe, but also with our credibility and what we have to do facing this very unusual situation in 21st century during the aggression against sovereign country. And we’re going to have to do the best in order to contain Russian aggression in Ukraine.
We expect as well further support in the accession process, in OECD, which is this year very priority task for Lithuania. And as was said, a lot of issues to discuss and we are looking forward to strengthen even more our ties to do our best because we have the same mission, frankly.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS: Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Welcome.
FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS: Thanks.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, everybody.
Remarks With Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
March 9, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning, everybody. It’s my pleasure to welcome my friend, Linas Linkevicius, the foreign minister of Lithuania, and I’m very, very happy to have him here in Washington. We have worked very closely together in any number of meetings and fora around the world. Lithuania may be small, but let me tell you, they are a very strong and important partner within NATO, one of the strongest partners with respect to holding people to high standards, particularly in the enforcement of the Minsk agreement and the need for Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity to be respected.
They’re a NATO ally and a strategic partner, and I want to particularly confirm here that as an ally in NATO and as one of, frankly, the most thoughtful and outspoken with respect to the obligations of all of the member states, Lithuania is setting the example by increasing their defense spending and by assisting at the same time in other efforts that we have, not just within NATO but elsewhere. They’re helping to train troops in Iraq; they’re providing equipment. And I can confirm here with clarity that our, the United States, Article 5 obligations are firm and solid, and we will continue to work with Lithuania as a partner.
We also appreciate the efforts that Lithuania is making in energy diversification now, which is a very important part of a larger strategic need for countries not to be locked in to just one supplier or two suppliers. There needs to be a diversity, which really bolsters independence.
So I thank Linas for taking time to come here. We have a lot to talk about, and it’s my pleasure to introduce him.
FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS: Thank you very much for being able to be here on the eve of our very important event, 25th anniversary of establishing of our independence. Excellent opportunity to express gratitude to United States for non-recognition policy for more than a half century or so Soviet occupation, for staunch support during our accession to NATO, which happened more than 10 years ago. We’re members now of this very important family, which has to do direct influence to the security guarantees of our country. Also, I’m very grateful for strategic partnership now, today, and implementing decisions which were taken in Wales at the NATO summit.
And we’re really trying to cooperate on various fields. Although we are a small country, as was mentioned, but we’re trying to be active and happy and proud that we can share the same priorities with United States, be it in UN Security Council, be it in the other (inaudible) forums, and indeed, we expect and needfurther leadership United States in implementing these assurance measures in our region, also in Lithuania.
Also, we would like to have more leadership of the United States in solving problems around Ukraine, because it actually has to do with not only about the fate of that country in the middle of Europe, but also with our credibility and what we have to do facing this very unusual situation in 21st century during the aggression against sovereign country. And we’re going to have to do the best in order to contain Russian aggression in Ukraine.
We expect as well further support in the accession process, in OECD, which is this year very priority task for Lithuania. And as was said, a lot of issues to discuss and we are looking forward to strengthen even more our ties to do our best because we have the same mission, frankly.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS: Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Welcome.
FOREIGN MINISTER LINKEVICIUS: Thanks.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, everybody.
DOD REPORT ON RECENT COALITION AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIL
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Coalition Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
WASHINGTON, March 9, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. March 6 and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Attack, fighter and bomber aircraft conducted 12 airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Kobani, six airstrikes struck three tactical units, destroyed two fighting positions and damaged one heavy machine-gun position.
-- Near Kobani, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Kobani, five airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, an ISIL modular oil refinery and destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 32 airstrikes in Iraq:
-- Near Mosul, six airstrikes struck four ISIL tactical units, destroyed two buildings, two check points, two ISIL vehicles and one mortar, damaged an anti-air defense artillery gun and a weapons cache, and neutralized an excavator.
-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes destroyed two anti-air defense guns.
-- Near Fallujah, two airstrikes struck two tactical units and destroyed one fighting position and one sniper position.
-- Near Kirkuk, one airstrike struck one tactical unit and destroyed one vehicle and one weapons cache.
-- Near Huwayjah, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed six ISIL excavators and an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Fallujah, four airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, an ISIL fighting position and destroyed three ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Haditha, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL mortar tube and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Kirkuk, an airstrike struck multiple ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL excavators.
-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL bomb factory and an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Qaim, an airstrike struck an ISIL staging area.
-- Near Fallujah, four airstrikes struck two ISIL large tactical units, an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed nine ISIL vehicles, two ISIL buildings, two ISIL armored vehicles and an ISIL storage facility.
-- Near Haditha, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Kirkuk, two airstrikes struck an ISIL large tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL bunker.
-- Near Tal Afar, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL excavator.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Separately, a U.S. bomber aircraft yesterday attacked a staging area used by the Khorasan group, a network of veteran al-Qaida operatives plotting external attacks against the United States and its allies, officials said. The airstrike near Aleppo, Syria, struck a large tactical unit and destroyed four buildings and three tents, they added.
Coalition Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
WASHINGTON, March 9, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. March 6 and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Attack, fighter and bomber aircraft conducted 12 airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Kobani, six airstrikes struck three tactical units, destroyed two fighting positions and damaged one heavy machine-gun position.
-- Near Kobani, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Kobani, five airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, an ISIL modular oil refinery and destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 32 airstrikes in Iraq:
-- Near Mosul, six airstrikes struck four ISIL tactical units, destroyed two buildings, two check points, two ISIL vehicles and one mortar, damaged an anti-air defense artillery gun and a weapons cache, and neutralized an excavator.
-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes destroyed two anti-air defense guns.
-- Near Fallujah, two airstrikes struck two tactical units and destroyed one fighting position and one sniper position.
-- Near Kirkuk, one airstrike struck one tactical unit and destroyed one vehicle and one weapons cache.
-- Near Huwayjah, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed six ISIL excavators and an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Fallujah, four airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, an ISIL fighting position and destroyed three ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Haditha, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL mortar tube and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Kirkuk, an airstrike struck multiple ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL excavators.
-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL bomb factory and an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Qaim, an airstrike struck an ISIL staging area.
-- Near Fallujah, four airstrikes struck two ISIL large tactical units, an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed nine ISIL vehicles, two ISIL buildings, two ISIL armored vehicles and an ISIL storage facility.
-- Near Haditha, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Kirkuk, two airstrikes struck an ISIL large tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL bunker.
-- Near Tal Afar, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL excavator.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Separately, a U.S. bomber aircraft yesterday attacked a staging area used by the Khorasan group, a network of veteran al-Qaida operatives plotting external attacks against the United States and its allies, officials said. The airstrike near Aleppo, Syria, struck a large tactical unit and destroyed four buildings and three tents, they added.
WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON VENEZUELA
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
March 09, 2015
Statement by the Press Secretary on Venezuela
Today President Obama issued a new Executive Order to implement and expand upon the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014. Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems.
We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government’s efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent. We have consistently called on the Venezuelan government to release those it has unjustly jailed as well as to improve the climate of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. These are essential to a functioning democracy, and the Venezuelan government has an obligation to protect these fundamental freedoms. The Venezuelan government should release all political prisoners, including dozens of students, opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and Mayors Daniel Ceballos and Antonio Ledezma.
The only way to solve Venezuela’s problems is through real dialogue – not detaining opponents and attempting to silence critics. The Venezuelan people deserve a government that lives up to its commitment to democracy, as articulated in the OAS Charter, the Inter American Democratic Charter, and other fundamental instruments related to democracy and human rights.
We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.
It is unfortunate that during a time when we have opened up engagement with every nation in the Americas, Venezuela has opted to go in the opposite direction. Despite the difficulties in our official relationship, the United States remains committed to maintaining our strong and lasting ties with the people of Venezuela and is open to improving our relationship with the Venezuelan government.
SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF ROBERT LEVINSON'S DISAPPEARANCE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Eighth Anniversary of Disappearance of Robert Levinson
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 9, 2015
We ask the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to work cooperatively with us on the investigation into Robert Levinson’s disappearance so we can ensure his safe return.
Mr. Levinson went missing from Kish Island, Iran, eight years ago today. He has spent more than 2,900 days separated from those who love him, and is one of the longest held U.S. citizens in history. Year after year, the family has endured the pain of his absence.
It is time for him to come home.
We remain committed to the safe return of Mr. Levinson to his family and appreciate the support and assistance from our international partners. We remain concerned about Mr. Levinson’s health given his age and the length of his disappearance.
Today, the FBI announced it has increased its reward for information that could lead to Mr. Levinson's safe return to up to $5 million from $1 million.
We call on anyone with information about this case to contact the FBI.
Eighth Anniversary of Disappearance of Robert Levinson
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 9, 2015
We ask the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to work cooperatively with us on the investigation into Robert Levinson’s disappearance so we can ensure his safe return.
Mr. Levinson went missing from Kish Island, Iran, eight years ago today. He has spent more than 2,900 days separated from those who love him, and is one of the longest held U.S. citizens in history. Year after year, the family has endured the pain of his absence.
It is time for him to come home.
We remain committed to the safe return of Mr. Levinson to his family and appreciate the support and assistance from our international partners. We remain concerned about Mr. Levinson’s health given his age and the length of his disappearance.
Today, the FBI announced it has increased its reward for information that could lead to Mr. Levinson's safe return to up to $5 million from $1 million.
We call on anyone with information about this case to contact the FBI.
SEC CHARGES CHINESE ISSUER, 2 OFFICERS WITH FRAUD
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 23214 / March 4, 2015
Securities and Exchange Commission v. China Infrastructure Investment Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00307 (D.C.D.C., filed March 3, 2015)
SEC Charges Chinese Issuer and Two Officers with Fraud
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action on March 3, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in connection with a fraudulent scheme to file false and forged SEC reports. China Infrastructure Investment Corp.'s 2011 SEC Forms 10-K and 10-K/A and its first quarter 2012 SEC Form 10-Q contained material omissions and misrepresentations, including multiple forged signatures and certifications of CIIC's former chief financial officer. CIIC is a company incorporated in Nevada and engaged in the construction and operation of a toll road in China. The company and its chief executive officer and corporate secretary filed the false reports with the SEC to conceal the fact that the company's CFO had resigned and that CIIC had no CFO at the time of the filings.
The SEC's complaint alleges that CIIC hired Li Lei as CFO on June 27, 2011. On September 21, 2011, less than three month later, Lei resigned effective immediately. Within the week following Lei's resignation, the company's corporate secretary, Wang Feng, falsely reported that the Lei had decided to continue as CFO for a transition period. CEO Li Xipeng and Feng knew at the time of Lei's resignation that NASDAQ had decided to delist CIIC for failure to maintain a minimum share price of at least $1.00, and CIIC was appealing the delisting decision. As the complaint further alleges, Feng believed that public disclosure of the resignation of the CFO could have a negative impact on CIIC's share price, and thus forged Lei's signatures on the filings as part of a scheme to create the false impression that CIIC continued to have a CFO. In furtherance of the scheme, CIIC sent correspondence to NASDAQ and its auditors bearing Lei's forged signature.
The SEC's complaint alleges that all three defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; that CIIC violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder by filing materially false annual and quarterly reports, and that Xipeng is also liable for these violations as a control person of CIIC, and that Xipeng and Feng aided and abetted these violations; that Xipeng and Feng violated Rule 13b2-2 by making materially false statements to CIIC's auditors in connection with required reports; and, that Xipeng violated Rule 13a-14 by falsely certifying that CIIC's reports contained no untrue statements of material fact, and that Feng aided and abetted this violation. The SEC's complaint seeks permanent injunctions and civil money penalties against all three defendants and officer-and-director bars against Xipeng and Feng. In related actions, the SEC issued an Order suspending trading in the securities of CIIC and issued an Order instituting proceedings to determine if the registration of CIIC's securities should be suspended or revoked.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Nancy Singer and Andrew Shirley under the supervision of Conway Dodge. The SEC's litigation will be led by Stephan Schlegelmilch and Melissa Armstrong.
Litigation Release No. 23214 / March 4, 2015
Securities and Exchange Commission v. China Infrastructure Investment Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00307 (D.C.D.C., filed March 3, 2015)
SEC Charges Chinese Issuer and Two Officers with Fraud
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action on March 3, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in connection with a fraudulent scheme to file false and forged SEC reports. China Infrastructure Investment Corp.'s 2011 SEC Forms 10-K and 10-K/A and its first quarter 2012 SEC Form 10-Q contained material omissions and misrepresentations, including multiple forged signatures and certifications of CIIC's former chief financial officer. CIIC is a company incorporated in Nevada and engaged in the construction and operation of a toll road in China. The company and its chief executive officer and corporate secretary filed the false reports with the SEC to conceal the fact that the company's CFO had resigned and that CIIC had no CFO at the time of the filings.
The SEC's complaint alleges that CIIC hired Li Lei as CFO on June 27, 2011. On September 21, 2011, less than three month later, Lei resigned effective immediately. Within the week following Lei's resignation, the company's corporate secretary, Wang Feng, falsely reported that the Lei had decided to continue as CFO for a transition period. CEO Li Xipeng and Feng knew at the time of Lei's resignation that NASDAQ had decided to delist CIIC for failure to maintain a minimum share price of at least $1.00, and CIIC was appealing the delisting decision. As the complaint further alleges, Feng believed that public disclosure of the resignation of the CFO could have a negative impact on CIIC's share price, and thus forged Lei's signatures on the filings as part of a scheme to create the false impression that CIIC continued to have a CFO. In furtherance of the scheme, CIIC sent correspondence to NASDAQ and its auditors bearing Lei's forged signature.
The SEC's complaint alleges that all three defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; that CIIC violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder by filing materially false annual and quarterly reports, and that Xipeng is also liable for these violations as a control person of CIIC, and that Xipeng and Feng aided and abetted these violations; that Xipeng and Feng violated Rule 13b2-2 by making materially false statements to CIIC's auditors in connection with required reports; and, that Xipeng violated Rule 13a-14 by falsely certifying that CIIC's reports contained no untrue statements of material fact, and that Feng aided and abetted this violation. The SEC's complaint seeks permanent injunctions and civil money penalties against all three defendants and officer-and-director bars against Xipeng and Feng. In related actions, the SEC issued an Order suspending trading in the securities of CIIC and issued an Order instituting proceedings to determine if the registration of CIIC's securities should be suspended or revoked.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Nancy Singer and Andrew Shirley under the supervision of Conway Dodge. The SEC's litigation will be led by Stephan Schlegelmilch and Melissa Armstrong.
DOCTOR RECEIVES CASH PAYMENTS FROM PATIENTS AND 46 MONTHS IN PRISON
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, March 6, 2015
Monmouth County, New Jersey, Doctor Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison on Structuring and Tax Charges
A Monmouth County, New Jersey, doctor was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, to serve 46 months in prison for structuring cash transactions in order to avoid reporting requirements and for aiding and assisting in the filing of his own false tax returns, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman of the District of New Jersey and Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Justice Department’s Tax Division announced.
Paul DiLorenzo of Ocean Township, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson to two counts of a second superseding indictment charging him with structuring financial transactions and aiding and assisting in the filing of false tax returns. In addition to the prison term, Judge Wolfson sentenced DiLorenzo to three years of supervised release, ordered DiLorenzo to pay restitution to the IRS of $304,293, and ordered DiLorenzo to forfeit nearly $1,000,000 in illegally derived proceeds.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Between 2009 and June 27, 2012, DiLorenzo received more than $2 million in cash payments from his patients. The medical office received payments exceeding $10,000 in a single day on at least 35 occasions. Between May 28, 2009, and Nov. 2, 2011, DiLorenzo deposited $1 million in cash into banks accounts in his name and in the name of his business. The deposits included 150 separate transactions, and all transactions but one were for less than $10,000. Certain currency transactions of more than $10,000 trigger financial institutions to comply with Currency Transaction Report requirements. DiLorenzo admitted that he made the deposits for less than $10,000 in order to evade the reporting requirements.
On March 29, 2011, DiLorenzo aided and assisted in the filing of a false federal income tax return for the 2010 tax year that reported gross receipts of $444,331. His actual gross receipts, however, were more than $1 million. In May 2012, DiLorenzo aided and assisted in the filing of a false tax return for the 2011 tax year in which he reported gross receipts of $537,236, when in fact his actual gross receipts were in excess of $800,000.
U.S. Attorney Fishman and Acting Assistant Attorney General Ciraolo commended special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Richard M. Frankel in Newark, New Jersey; special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jonathan D. Larsen; and special agents and task force officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Tactical Diversion Squad, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Carl Kotowski, who investigated the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Joseph Gribko of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey located in Trenton, and Trial Attorney Yael Epstein of the Justice Department’s Tax Division who prosecuted the case.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Monmouth County, New Jersey, Doctor Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison on Structuring and Tax Charges
A Monmouth County, New Jersey, doctor was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, to serve 46 months in prison for structuring cash transactions in order to avoid reporting requirements and for aiding and assisting in the filing of his own false tax returns, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman of the District of New Jersey and Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Justice Department’s Tax Division announced.
Paul DiLorenzo of Ocean Township, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson to two counts of a second superseding indictment charging him with structuring financial transactions and aiding and assisting in the filing of false tax returns. In addition to the prison term, Judge Wolfson sentenced DiLorenzo to three years of supervised release, ordered DiLorenzo to pay restitution to the IRS of $304,293, and ordered DiLorenzo to forfeit nearly $1,000,000 in illegally derived proceeds.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Between 2009 and June 27, 2012, DiLorenzo received more than $2 million in cash payments from his patients. The medical office received payments exceeding $10,000 in a single day on at least 35 occasions. Between May 28, 2009, and Nov. 2, 2011, DiLorenzo deposited $1 million in cash into banks accounts in his name and in the name of his business. The deposits included 150 separate transactions, and all transactions but one were for less than $10,000. Certain currency transactions of more than $10,000 trigger financial institutions to comply with Currency Transaction Report requirements. DiLorenzo admitted that he made the deposits for less than $10,000 in order to evade the reporting requirements.
On March 29, 2011, DiLorenzo aided and assisted in the filing of a false federal income tax return for the 2010 tax year that reported gross receipts of $444,331. His actual gross receipts, however, were more than $1 million. In May 2012, DiLorenzo aided and assisted in the filing of a false tax return for the 2011 tax year in which he reported gross receipts of $537,236, when in fact his actual gross receipts were in excess of $800,000.
U.S. Attorney Fishman and Acting Assistant Attorney General Ciraolo commended special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Richard M. Frankel in Newark, New Jersey; special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jonathan D. Larsen; and special agents and task force officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Tactical Diversion Squad, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Carl Kotowski, who investigated the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Joseph Gribko of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey located in Trenton, and Trial Attorney Yael Epstein of the Justice Department’s Tax Division who prosecuted the case.
REMARKS BY FRANK A. ROSE ON U.S.-INDIA SPACE SECURITY COOPERATION
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
03/06/2015 10:49 AM EST
U.S.-India Space Security Cooperation: A Partnership for the 21st Century
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Observer Research Foundation
New Delhi, India
March 5, 2015
Thank you very much.
Again, my name is Frank Rose. It’s an honor to return to India in my new role as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance.
I’d like to thank the Observer Research Foundation and my good friend Raji for inviting me to speak with you today.
A Renewed U.S.-India Partnership
At the State Department, my colleagues and I are focused on the tools needed to promote global security as well as stable, strategic relationships with friends and partners around the world.
As the world’s two largest democracies, the U.S.-India Partnership is indispensable to global peace, prosperity, and stability.
Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Washington in September and President Obama’s visit to India this January were critical steps towards strengthening and expanding the U.S.-India strategic partnership.
We’ve seen tremendous movement and progress made in all areas of our relationship—infrastructure and investment, civil nuclear cooperation, climate change, defense cooperation and defense trade, health, and global issues like women’s rights and nonproliferation.
But it’s also important to remember that our partnership has deep roots.
As our leaders wrote in their joint op-ed in the Washington Post, “As nations committed to democracy, liberty, diversity, and enterprise, India and the United States are bound by common values and mutual interests. We have each shaped the positive trajectory of human history, and through our joint efforts, our natural and unique partnership can help shape international security and peace for years to come.”
Space Security Cooperation
As we deepen our strategic relationship, we share an interest in addressing the emerging security challenges of the 21st century.
Ensuring the long-term sustainability and security of the outer space environment is one of those challenges, and one that the United States and India are uniquely situated to address together.
Between ISRO and NASA, our two nations have done tremendous work in our exploration of outer space.
I would like to congratulate India on being one of just four space agencies to have reached Mars’ orbit and for being the first Asian nation to do so. It was a pleasant coincidence that NASA’s MAVEN spacecraft and ISRO’s Mars Orbiter Mission entered the orbit of Mars within a couple of days of each other.
We’re also pleased that ISRO and NASA have established a Mars Working Group to explore how our separate Mars missions can work together and coordinate their efforts. This is just one area of the nearly 15 years of strong civil space cooperation between India and the United States. We look forward to the continued growth across all areas of our space cooperation, potentially including India’s participation in research aboard the International Space Station.
U.S.-India civil cooperation in space has not led to extensive cooperation on space security, at least to date.
But I believe that just as this is a time of transformation and progress for our strategic partnership, so too is it a time of growth for our space security relationship.
Our governments recognize the importance of space security; in September our President and Prime Minister called for the establishment of a dialogue to address this important issue. I’m proud to chair that dialogue here next week.
Bilateral Space Security Cooperation
In September of last year, our leaders committed to a new mantra for our relationship, “Chalein saath saath; forward together we go.” I believe this is true for our space security relationship as well.
As we begin bilateral cooperation on space security, it is important we have an open dialogue where we share information, discuss areas in which we disagree as well as those where we agree, and identify areas for cooperation.
I am excited to start that conversation here in New Delhi.
We also need to identify areas of concrete collaboration.
Collaboration in space situational awareness and collision avoidance, as identified by the U.S.-India Joint Statement of September 2014, is one such potential area.
As we all know, space situational awareness, or SSA, is a foundational capability for spaceflight safety and preventing collisions in space. International cooperation on SSA is greatly beneficial, as international partnerships bring the resources, capabilities, and geographical advantages to enhance SSA upon which we increasingly depend.
The Department of State works closely with the Department of Defense on SSA information sharing agreements with foreign partners.
Establishing an arrangement to share information between the United States and India would be one possible way to begin bilateral collaboration.
Another area of potential bilateral collaboration could be on the utilization of space assets for maritime domain awareness.
Maritime domain awareness is greatly enhanced when data from ground- and sea-based sensors and local human observations are combined with data from space-based sensors, whether those data are from Automatic Identification Systems or Earth-observation satellites.
As both of our countries have a strong interest in promoting maritime security, and have developed robust and multi-layered maritime domain awareness architectures which utilize satellite information, I believe it would be worthwhile to explore cooperation and information exchanges in this area.
Multilateral Space Security Cooperation
There is much that our nations can do together in the multilateral arena as well.
Today, India, the United States, and the world all rely on satellites for communications, for disaster management and relief, for treaty monitoring, and for sustainable development, among many other things.
But there are risks and dangers to operating in space. As the United States Director of National Intelligence noted in January 2014, threats to space services are increasing as potential adversaries pursue disruptive and destructive counter-space capabilities. For example, Chinese military writings highlight the need to interfere with, damage, and destroy reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites. China has satellite jamming capabilities and is pursuing antisatellite systems.
The United States and India are both strong believers in transparency and rules based on international law and customs. Our Declaration of Friendship released during the President’s visit in January specifically mentions our mutual respect for “an open, just, sustainable, and inclusive rule-based global order.”
Given the threats and risks, and our national principles and laws, I believe that one of the most obvious and most beneficial areas of cooperation between our countries is in the establishment of rules of the road for outer space activities.
As established space-faring nations, India and the United States should work together to clearly and publicly define what behavior the international community should find both acceptable and unacceptable.
Transparency and confidence-building measures, or TCBMs, such as the proposed International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, can contribute to everyone’s awareness of the space environment.
Among the Code’s commitments for signatories is to refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects and to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the creation of space debris, in particular, the creation of long-lived space debris.
Political commitments such as the International Code of Conduct are complemented by work on guidelines on space operations and collaborative space situational awareness in multilateral fora such as the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, or COPUOS.
The Working Group on the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, a part of COPUOS’ Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, which just concluded its meeting in Vienna last month, is doing important work to move forward in the development of new international long-term sustainability guidelines.
Initiatives like the establishment of TCBMs, the Code of Conduct, and the work of UNCOPUOS cannot be successful without the support and active participation of India.
But Indian support for these or other rules of the road initiatives only gets us half-way there. I firmly believe that with U.S.-India collaboration in establishing norms of responsible behavior and Indian leadership in multilateral fora, we can make these and future initiatives even better.
Conclusion
There is much we can do as global partners to ensure the long-term sustainability and security of the outer space environment. Cooperation on space is just one piece of a strategic U.S.-India relationship in the 21st century. As President Obama said in this very city a little more than one month ago, “our nations will be more secure, and the world will be a safer and more just place when our two democracies stand together.”
Thank you again for hosting me here today, and I look forward to your questions and to our first official space security dialogue with India.
Thank you.
03/06/2015 10:49 AM EST
U.S.-India Space Security Cooperation: A Partnership for the 21st Century
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Observer Research Foundation
New Delhi, India
March 5, 2015
Thank you very much.
Again, my name is Frank Rose. It’s an honor to return to India in my new role as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance.
I’d like to thank the Observer Research Foundation and my good friend Raji for inviting me to speak with you today.
A Renewed U.S.-India Partnership
At the State Department, my colleagues and I are focused on the tools needed to promote global security as well as stable, strategic relationships with friends and partners around the world.
As the world’s two largest democracies, the U.S.-India Partnership is indispensable to global peace, prosperity, and stability.
Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Washington in September and President Obama’s visit to India this January were critical steps towards strengthening and expanding the U.S.-India strategic partnership.
We’ve seen tremendous movement and progress made in all areas of our relationship—infrastructure and investment, civil nuclear cooperation, climate change, defense cooperation and defense trade, health, and global issues like women’s rights and nonproliferation.
But it’s also important to remember that our partnership has deep roots.
As our leaders wrote in their joint op-ed in the Washington Post, “As nations committed to democracy, liberty, diversity, and enterprise, India and the United States are bound by common values and mutual interests. We have each shaped the positive trajectory of human history, and through our joint efforts, our natural and unique partnership can help shape international security and peace for years to come.”
Space Security Cooperation
As we deepen our strategic relationship, we share an interest in addressing the emerging security challenges of the 21st century.
Ensuring the long-term sustainability and security of the outer space environment is one of those challenges, and one that the United States and India are uniquely situated to address together.
Between ISRO and NASA, our two nations have done tremendous work in our exploration of outer space.
I would like to congratulate India on being one of just four space agencies to have reached Mars’ orbit and for being the first Asian nation to do so. It was a pleasant coincidence that NASA’s MAVEN spacecraft and ISRO’s Mars Orbiter Mission entered the orbit of Mars within a couple of days of each other.
We’re also pleased that ISRO and NASA have established a Mars Working Group to explore how our separate Mars missions can work together and coordinate their efforts. This is just one area of the nearly 15 years of strong civil space cooperation between India and the United States. We look forward to the continued growth across all areas of our space cooperation, potentially including India’s participation in research aboard the International Space Station.
U.S.-India civil cooperation in space has not led to extensive cooperation on space security, at least to date.
But I believe that just as this is a time of transformation and progress for our strategic partnership, so too is it a time of growth for our space security relationship.
Our governments recognize the importance of space security; in September our President and Prime Minister called for the establishment of a dialogue to address this important issue. I’m proud to chair that dialogue here next week.
Bilateral Space Security Cooperation
In September of last year, our leaders committed to a new mantra for our relationship, “Chalein saath saath; forward together we go.” I believe this is true for our space security relationship as well.
As we begin bilateral cooperation on space security, it is important we have an open dialogue where we share information, discuss areas in which we disagree as well as those where we agree, and identify areas for cooperation.
I am excited to start that conversation here in New Delhi.
We also need to identify areas of concrete collaboration.
Collaboration in space situational awareness and collision avoidance, as identified by the U.S.-India Joint Statement of September 2014, is one such potential area.
As we all know, space situational awareness, or SSA, is a foundational capability for spaceflight safety and preventing collisions in space. International cooperation on SSA is greatly beneficial, as international partnerships bring the resources, capabilities, and geographical advantages to enhance SSA upon which we increasingly depend.
The Department of State works closely with the Department of Defense on SSA information sharing agreements with foreign partners.
Establishing an arrangement to share information between the United States and India would be one possible way to begin bilateral collaboration.
Another area of potential bilateral collaboration could be on the utilization of space assets for maritime domain awareness.
Maritime domain awareness is greatly enhanced when data from ground- and sea-based sensors and local human observations are combined with data from space-based sensors, whether those data are from Automatic Identification Systems or Earth-observation satellites.
As both of our countries have a strong interest in promoting maritime security, and have developed robust and multi-layered maritime domain awareness architectures which utilize satellite information, I believe it would be worthwhile to explore cooperation and information exchanges in this area.
Multilateral Space Security Cooperation
There is much that our nations can do together in the multilateral arena as well.
Today, India, the United States, and the world all rely on satellites for communications, for disaster management and relief, for treaty monitoring, and for sustainable development, among many other things.
But there are risks and dangers to operating in space. As the United States Director of National Intelligence noted in January 2014, threats to space services are increasing as potential adversaries pursue disruptive and destructive counter-space capabilities. For example, Chinese military writings highlight the need to interfere with, damage, and destroy reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites. China has satellite jamming capabilities and is pursuing antisatellite systems.
The United States and India are both strong believers in transparency and rules based on international law and customs. Our Declaration of Friendship released during the President’s visit in January specifically mentions our mutual respect for “an open, just, sustainable, and inclusive rule-based global order.”
Given the threats and risks, and our national principles and laws, I believe that one of the most obvious and most beneficial areas of cooperation between our countries is in the establishment of rules of the road for outer space activities.
As established space-faring nations, India and the United States should work together to clearly and publicly define what behavior the international community should find both acceptable and unacceptable.
Transparency and confidence-building measures, or TCBMs, such as the proposed International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, can contribute to everyone’s awareness of the space environment.
Among the Code’s commitments for signatories is to refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects and to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the creation of space debris, in particular, the creation of long-lived space debris.
Political commitments such as the International Code of Conduct are complemented by work on guidelines on space operations and collaborative space situational awareness in multilateral fora such as the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, or COPUOS.
The Working Group on the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, a part of COPUOS’ Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, which just concluded its meeting in Vienna last month, is doing important work to move forward in the development of new international long-term sustainability guidelines.
Initiatives like the establishment of TCBMs, the Code of Conduct, and the work of UNCOPUOS cannot be successful without the support and active participation of India.
But Indian support for these or other rules of the road initiatives only gets us half-way there. I firmly believe that with U.S.-India collaboration in establishing norms of responsible behavior and Indian leadership in multilateral fora, we can make these and future initiatives even better.
Conclusion
There is much we can do as global partners to ensure the long-term sustainability and security of the outer space environment. Cooperation on space is just one piece of a strategic U.S.-India relationship in the 21st century. As President Obama said in this very city a little more than one month ago, “our nations will be more secure, and the world will be a safer and more just place when our two democracies stand together.”
Thank you again for hosting me here today, and I look forward to your questions and to our first official space security dialogue with India.
Thank you.
REMARKS BY SAMANTHA POWER ON UKRAINE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
March 6, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President. We continue to believe that compliance with the September Minsk Agreements and the February Implementation Package provides a roadmap to peace in Ukraine.
For the first time since the Minsk Implementation Package was signed on February 12th, we have seen a reduction in violence. Of course no one forgets that Russia and the separatists they trained, armed, directed, and fought alongside, started violating their commitments in the Package from the first minutes and hours after the deal was signed – by laying siege to Debaltseve, a city dozens of kilometers beyond the contact line, with their deadly and indiscriminate pummeling. Violations started on day one, and violations of the ceasefire continue in a number of places, particularly outside Mariupol, where Russian-backed separatists have engaged in intense fighting attacking the village of Shirokyne in recent days.
Unfortunately, although the violence has decreased, there has been only partial compliance with the Minsk Implementation Package. As members of this Council know, the package calls for, “an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire,” not a gradual and partial reduction in fire. It does not say that Russian-backed separatists can continue to shell, engage in sniper fire, or use barrel and rocket artillery – yet they have carried out all of these attacks in recent days. Since, February 20th, Russian separatist attacks like these have killed 15 Ukrainian military personnel and wounded nearly one hundred more.
A second condition in the Minsk Implementation Package is full, unfettered access for OSCE monitors to the entire conflict zone. While there have been occasional instances when the SMM has been stopped at Ukrainian checkpoints, the restrictions on the SMM by Russia and the separatists are documented as widespread.
Just as Russia and Russian-backed separatists prevented the SMM from going to Debaltseve while these forces carried out their vicious attack, recent SMM reports chronicle repeated, persistent obstruction by Russian-backed separatists, obstructions that include even threatening to kill OSCE monitors.
To date, the separatists have granted OSCE monitors sporadic access limited to certain roads, when and where it suits them. As we have asked before, it bears asking again: Who obstructs an objective observer other than someone who has something to hide from an unbiased eye?
The Minsk Implementation Package also calls for the full pullback of all heavy weapons. That, too, has not happened. Shortly after the package was signed, the OSCE’s Chief Monitor sent a letter to all of the signatories requesting that they provide information on what heavy weapons were present in eastern Ukraine, where they are, which routes will be used to withdraw them, and where they will be located after being withdrawn. Russia has not replied, as though by pretending it has no heavy weapons in Ukraine, we will forget all of the tanks, Grad missiles, and other heavy weapons we watched Russia send across the border.
All signatories to the Minsk Agreements and the Implementation Package – Ukraine on the one side, and Russia, and the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” on the other – are responsible for pulling back heavy weapons. The OSCE must have unfettered, unconditional access to verify the withdrawal.
Two days ago, Russia sent its 17th so-called humanitarian convoy into Ukraine, once again denying international observers and Ukrainian border guards the right to conduct a full and complete inspection of its contents. Russian convoys that should be coming out of Ukraine are instead going in. If these convoys are carrying humanitarian assistance, why not allow a full inspection?
Colleagues, the ceasefire, weapons pullback, and OSCE verification – none of which are complete – are all among just the immediate steps in the Implementation Package. Further, all of the Minsk Agreements to date have called for the release of all hostages by all sides. Nadiya Savchenko and other Ukrainians being held in Russia are hostages, just as surely as those being kept in basements in Donetsk and Luhansk. Again, we call on Russia to release Nadiya Savchenko, who has been on hunger strike for over 80 days, and her Ukrainian counterparts. This is something Russia can do today.
As we’ve seen before, the separatists have an established track record of using a lull in the fighting to regroup, rearm, and resupply. Russia supports this process by providing an unlimited supply of guns and weaponry. The United States and the rest of the world hopes that that is not the case this time. We are carefully watching what happens in Shyrokyne, a town just east of the strategic port city of Mariupol, which many fear will be the next target of the separatists and Russian military.
The devastating consequences of this conflict are brought into sharp relief by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ most recent report. More than 1.7 million people displaced. More than 5,800 people killed – a casualty count that does not include the hundreds of bodies found once Russian-backed separatists finished their deadly siege of Debaltseve.
An OCHA report from the end of last month said that 500 bodies had been found in houses and basements at the end of the siege – 500 bodies. Homes and basements where people took shelter from the endless barrage of Russian-made mortars and rockets as they rained down on the city’s residents – residents who could not escape. Weeks into the siege, at the end of January, the self-declared leader of the Russian-backed separatists had announced, “Anybody who leaves…will be in the interlocking field of fire of our artillery. From today, the road is under fire.” And so those inside were left with a choice: risk your life by staying, or risk your life by leaving. Civilians were killed doing both, and again, 500 hundred bodies found in homes and basements where people took shelter.
And the casualties and the displaced are one of the devastating consequences of this conflict. Another – and one we rarely speak about in this Council anymore – is the ongoing illegal occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea by a permanent member of this Council.
Crimea is important not only because it constitutes the continuing violation of the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation – a violation orchestrated in Moscow, and dressed up in a sham referendum – but also because it offers a preview of the kind of rule that we can expect in the other parts of Ukraine seized by those who see themselves as part of Novorossiya.
Let me give just one example of what it’s like to live in that world, from the long list of repressive practices documented in the UN’s February human rights report – part of the relentless persecution of the Crimean Muslim Tatar minority. According to the report, on January 29th, 2015, the de facto authorities arrested Akhtem Chiigoz, the Deputy Chairman of the Tatar Mejlis, the Tatars’ representative council. He was charged under the Russian criminal code with having participated in a “mass disturbance,” for protesting against what was then the imminent Russian occupation, which ended in a clash with pro-Russian demonstrators. On February 7th, another Crimean Tatar was detained on the same charges.
Both men are charged with violating Russian law – even though Russian law had not even taken effect at the time that they participated in the protest. Yesterday the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media released a statement saying that media freedom in Crimea was at an all-time low.
Among other violations, she reported that, “Journalists from at least thirteen independent media outlets, freelance journalists, and bloggers have been threatened, assaulted, physically attacked, banned from entry, interrogated, and kidnapped; their equipment confiscated or damaged.”
So, occupy territory, unilaterally attempt to annex it, and then retroactively and arbitrarily apply your laws to those who dared to question your takeover as it was occurring. It does not get much more Orwellian than that. And as anyone who has read the human rights report knows, this is just one in a long list of repressive tactics – including torture, enforced disappearances, and targeted political killings – that have defined Russia’s occupation.
It is to avoid an Orwellian world like this – where we talk of peace while undermining it – that we must ensure that Minsk is implemented. The Council members around this table must confront the situation on the ground as it exists rather than as we wish it were. Peace will not come from more words – and there have been so many words in this Chamber. It will come from the long-awaited and faithful implementation of the many agreements that have been entered into, and renewed respect for the territorial integrity of a Member State of the United Nations.
Thank you.
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
March 6, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President. We continue to believe that compliance with the September Minsk Agreements and the February Implementation Package provides a roadmap to peace in Ukraine.
For the first time since the Minsk Implementation Package was signed on February 12th, we have seen a reduction in violence. Of course no one forgets that Russia and the separatists they trained, armed, directed, and fought alongside, started violating their commitments in the Package from the first minutes and hours after the deal was signed – by laying siege to Debaltseve, a city dozens of kilometers beyond the contact line, with their deadly and indiscriminate pummeling. Violations started on day one, and violations of the ceasefire continue in a number of places, particularly outside Mariupol, where Russian-backed separatists have engaged in intense fighting attacking the village of Shirokyne in recent days.
Unfortunately, although the violence has decreased, there has been only partial compliance with the Minsk Implementation Package. As members of this Council know, the package calls for, “an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire,” not a gradual and partial reduction in fire. It does not say that Russian-backed separatists can continue to shell, engage in sniper fire, or use barrel and rocket artillery – yet they have carried out all of these attacks in recent days. Since, February 20th, Russian separatist attacks like these have killed 15 Ukrainian military personnel and wounded nearly one hundred more.
A second condition in the Minsk Implementation Package is full, unfettered access for OSCE monitors to the entire conflict zone. While there have been occasional instances when the SMM has been stopped at Ukrainian checkpoints, the restrictions on the SMM by Russia and the separatists are documented as widespread.
Just as Russia and Russian-backed separatists prevented the SMM from going to Debaltseve while these forces carried out their vicious attack, recent SMM reports chronicle repeated, persistent obstruction by Russian-backed separatists, obstructions that include even threatening to kill OSCE monitors.
To date, the separatists have granted OSCE monitors sporadic access limited to certain roads, when and where it suits them. As we have asked before, it bears asking again: Who obstructs an objective observer other than someone who has something to hide from an unbiased eye?
The Minsk Implementation Package also calls for the full pullback of all heavy weapons. That, too, has not happened. Shortly after the package was signed, the OSCE’s Chief Monitor sent a letter to all of the signatories requesting that they provide information on what heavy weapons were present in eastern Ukraine, where they are, which routes will be used to withdraw them, and where they will be located after being withdrawn. Russia has not replied, as though by pretending it has no heavy weapons in Ukraine, we will forget all of the tanks, Grad missiles, and other heavy weapons we watched Russia send across the border.
All signatories to the Minsk Agreements and the Implementation Package – Ukraine on the one side, and Russia, and the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” on the other – are responsible for pulling back heavy weapons. The OSCE must have unfettered, unconditional access to verify the withdrawal.
Two days ago, Russia sent its 17th so-called humanitarian convoy into Ukraine, once again denying international observers and Ukrainian border guards the right to conduct a full and complete inspection of its contents. Russian convoys that should be coming out of Ukraine are instead going in. If these convoys are carrying humanitarian assistance, why not allow a full inspection?
Colleagues, the ceasefire, weapons pullback, and OSCE verification – none of which are complete – are all among just the immediate steps in the Implementation Package. Further, all of the Minsk Agreements to date have called for the release of all hostages by all sides. Nadiya Savchenko and other Ukrainians being held in Russia are hostages, just as surely as those being kept in basements in Donetsk and Luhansk. Again, we call on Russia to release Nadiya Savchenko, who has been on hunger strike for over 80 days, and her Ukrainian counterparts. This is something Russia can do today.
As we’ve seen before, the separatists have an established track record of using a lull in the fighting to regroup, rearm, and resupply. Russia supports this process by providing an unlimited supply of guns and weaponry. The United States and the rest of the world hopes that that is not the case this time. We are carefully watching what happens in Shyrokyne, a town just east of the strategic port city of Mariupol, which many fear will be the next target of the separatists and Russian military.
The devastating consequences of this conflict are brought into sharp relief by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ most recent report. More than 1.7 million people displaced. More than 5,800 people killed – a casualty count that does not include the hundreds of bodies found once Russian-backed separatists finished their deadly siege of Debaltseve.
An OCHA report from the end of last month said that 500 bodies had been found in houses and basements at the end of the siege – 500 bodies. Homes and basements where people took shelter from the endless barrage of Russian-made mortars and rockets as they rained down on the city’s residents – residents who could not escape. Weeks into the siege, at the end of January, the self-declared leader of the Russian-backed separatists had announced, “Anybody who leaves…will be in the interlocking field of fire of our artillery. From today, the road is under fire.” And so those inside were left with a choice: risk your life by staying, or risk your life by leaving. Civilians were killed doing both, and again, 500 hundred bodies found in homes and basements where people took shelter.
And the casualties and the displaced are one of the devastating consequences of this conflict. Another – and one we rarely speak about in this Council anymore – is the ongoing illegal occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea by a permanent member of this Council.
Crimea is important not only because it constitutes the continuing violation of the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation – a violation orchestrated in Moscow, and dressed up in a sham referendum – but also because it offers a preview of the kind of rule that we can expect in the other parts of Ukraine seized by those who see themselves as part of Novorossiya.
Let me give just one example of what it’s like to live in that world, from the long list of repressive practices documented in the UN’s February human rights report – part of the relentless persecution of the Crimean Muslim Tatar minority. According to the report, on January 29th, 2015, the de facto authorities arrested Akhtem Chiigoz, the Deputy Chairman of the Tatar Mejlis, the Tatars’ representative council. He was charged under the Russian criminal code with having participated in a “mass disturbance,” for protesting against what was then the imminent Russian occupation, which ended in a clash with pro-Russian demonstrators. On February 7th, another Crimean Tatar was detained on the same charges.
Both men are charged with violating Russian law – even though Russian law had not even taken effect at the time that they participated in the protest. Yesterday the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media released a statement saying that media freedom in Crimea was at an all-time low.
Among other violations, she reported that, “Journalists from at least thirteen independent media outlets, freelance journalists, and bloggers have been threatened, assaulted, physically attacked, banned from entry, interrogated, and kidnapped; their equipment confiscated or damaged.”
So, occupy territory, unilaterally attempt to annex it, and then retroactively and arbitrarily apply your laws to those who dared to question your takeover as it was occurring. It does not get much more Orwellian than that. And as anyone who has read the human rights report knows, this is just one in a long list of repressive tactics – including torture, enforced disappearances, and targeted political killings – that have defined Russia’s occupation.
It is to avoid an Orwellian world like this – where we talk of peace while undermining it – that we must ensure that Minsk is implemented. The Council members around this table must confront the situation on the ground as it exists rather than as we wish it were. Peace will not come from more words – and there have been so many words in this Chamber. It will come from the long-awaited and faithful implementation of the many agreements that have been entered into, and renewed respect for the territorial integrity of a Member State of the United Nations.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)