FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
03/11/2015 08:22 AM EDT
Remarks at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
Remarks
Thomas M. Countryman
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
London, United Kingdom
March 6, 2015
Thank you Mark for the invitation. Having worked with IISS for years on a number of your publications, I am very happy to finally get the chance to visit your headquarters and on a auspicious day. Yesterday marked the 45th anniversary of the entry into force of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty so it is an appropriate time to consider what we have accomplished and how we can approach the Review Conference starting next month. We want to keep in mind the big picture throughout. This treaty in my opinion is the most successful multilateral treaty in the history of diplomacy. It has played a fundamental and irreplaceable role in promoting the security of every state that has become a party to the treaty. It is the common foundation for goals that we share in disarmament and nonproliferation and it lays the basis for the cooperation globally in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Upholding and strengthening the treaty is central to President Obama’s Prague agenda and his commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The treaty is not perfect, it is not immune to challenge, but it is irreplaceable and could not be replicated if we allow it to fall apart.
The NPT Treaty and Review Conference
So let’s consider the significant accomplishments of the treaty. First it provides a framework for ending the nuclear arms race, for the vast reductions in global nuclear stockpiles we have already achieved, particularly in the United States, and for reinforcing the strong taboo against use of nuclear weapons. It has succeeded in limiting the number of states that possess nuclear weapons. Projections in the 1960s before the treaty was negotiated were that by the turn of the century there would have been dozens of states possessing nuclear weapons. Instead that number has barely increased in the last 45 years. The treaty established durable, international legal obligations designed to prevent proliferation of weapons. It gives direction to safeguards and export control regimes that are needed to sustain the treaty, and it has promoted peaceful nuclear trade and assistance for energy and development throughout the world.
We are looking forward to a successful Review Conference or RevCon or short. We have been working with and will continue to work with all parties, and with particular focus on explaining our position better to Non-aligned states, in order to advance realistic and achievable objectives that reinforce and uphold the treaty. We seek a balanced review of all three pillars. As you know the three pillars are described as disarmament by the nuclear weapons states, nonproliferation and the commitment to avoid acquisition of nuclear weapons by other states, and the benefits of peaceful uses to all states. In the 2010 Review Conference, we agreed on an action plan by consensus. This was a breakthrough achievement. It was the most detailed, and substantive conclusion ever in the history of review processes. That action plan is valid today. It is a useful yardstick for implementing steps that strengthen the treaty. It is not, however, a deadline; it was not a time limited action plan. We need now at next month’s conference to take stock of the action plan and update it. We developed a series of working papers on how to update the action plan which we are now circulating in diplomatic channels. We want to reinforce all the parts that are relevant, which is most of it, and identify what can be advanced as a result of next month’s Review Conference. And of course we are actively studying all the papers produced by friends around the world because they contain valuable ideas on how to advance the goals of disarmament and nonproliferation.
Now one hallmark of our preparation has been greater transparency about U.S. nuclear weapons, about their quantity, their alert status, and their role in our military doctrine. The report we gave last year to the Preparatory Committee was unprecedented in providing insight into our nuclear weapons program. No other state has ever provided so much information and we intend to surpass it next month in the Review Conference. Similarly, we have invited a group of senior, foreign government officials to visit our national nuclear laboratories in New Mexico to encourage a more open and transparent dialogue on U.S. policies.
Nonproliferation Pillar
To get to a success in New York next month does not require consensus on a final document but it is desirable and we will do all we can to achieve it. Success can also be measured by the degree of consensus on advancing all three pillars on nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses. Let me spend just a couple more minutes on our priorities in each of these pillars. On nonproliferation, we want to ensure that the international verification of obligations under the NPT remains effective and robust. That means it requires political, technical, and resource commitments from the world. We will continue to promote the IAEA Additional Protocol which represents the highest standard for verification that states are meeting the NPT safeguards requirements. We have an active program through my bureau of the State Department to help states that seek assistance to implement their safeguard obligations. We need to give a strong statement of support to the International Atomic Energy Agency which has the responsibility for implementing safeguards. Most recently, this includes implementing the advanced idea of the State-level concept about which we could talk more.
The International Atomic Energy Agency deserves the highest degree of independence, expertise, and resources in order to accomplish its crucial mission. We need to underscore that noncompliance by the treaty’s members, that is by a state party, undermines the overall integrity of the NPT. We need to discuss how to hold accountable violators of the their own obligations and we also want to develop a consensus about how to address states that may abuse Article 10 of the treaty which gives states the right to withdraw from the NPT. We’ve been part of a group that has built a very wide consensus on this topic.
Peaceful Uses Pillar
On peaceful uses of nuclear science, at the RevCon we will address and advance our record of promoting the availability and sharing of peaceful benefits of the atom. We will highlight nuclear trade and the considerable amount that we spend in assisting states to provide for safety and security in nuclear energy use. At the 2010 conference then-Secretary Clinton announced the Peaceful Uses Initiative which was intended to expand the fund of money that the IAEA has to provide technical cooperation in developing countries. We have provided nearly $200 million dollars to this and other technical cooperation programs since 2010, and I expect we will make a new commitment on this at the Review Conference.
We will detail the progress made through the Nuclear Security Summit process initiated by President Obama. As a result of this process the number of facilities and countries around the world that possess highly enriched uranium or plutonium has decreased markedly. Security of storage sites of fissile materials is much greater, and more countries are prepared to counter nuclear smuggling. We also of course will discuss nuclear safety. Since the 2010 action plan we’ve seen the tragedy of Fukushima, and we note our support for a more wide range of programs to advance nuclear safety -- for example, the declaration of the diplomatic conference on the Convention of Nuclear Safety issued in Vienna last month. We will also use the Review Conference to seek support for new frameworks for peaceful nuclear cooperation such as an arrangement for a fuel bank facility in Kazakhstan that we hope to see finalized this year.
Disarmament Pillar
On the disarmament pillar, the U.S. commitment to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons remains firm. We continue to actively pursue nuclear disarmament in keeping with the commitment that we made under Article 6 of the treaty. We work hard to put in place the building blocks for nuclear disarmament. This approach of discrete, practical steps has achieved major reductions in nuclear weapons and fissile material stocks over several decades and continues to do so. It is a practical approach. It is a verifiable approach, and we’re prepared to explain it and defend it at the Review Conference. When I say discrete steps, it doesn’t mean one thing at a time; it means we are pursuing many channels in order to lay the groundwork for future efforts in bilateral arms reduction with the Russian Federation and in multilateral arms reduction. This includes not only changes to the U.S. arsenal and U.S. policies, but also requires building confidence and transparency with other nuclear states, including by cooperating on our nonproliferation goals. Each step that we have taken over the years has helped to create the conditions and build momentum for subsequent steps.
Some states party to the treaty are dissatisfied with the recent pace of disarmament but the fact remains that since the last Review Conference the New START Treaty has entered into force, and it is being implemented in terms of its notifications and inspections on a faithful basis by both the Russian Federation and the United States. By the time we reach the levels set by the treaty for 2018, the U.S. deployed nuclear arsenal will be at its lowest level since before I was born and that was when Mr. Eisenhower was president. But we also have to show readiness to do more. President Obama offered nearly two years ago to pursue further negotiated reductions with Russia with the goal of cutting our deployed nuclear weapons by another one third. That offer is still on the table. We are ready to engage with Russia on the full range of issues affecting strategic stability, but we’re also realistic about how much can be achieved without a willing partner in the current difficult strategic environment. A new Russian security doctrine which explicitly reprioritizes its nuclear forces is obviously creating a new and direct challenge to bilateral disarmament efforts.
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone – Middle East
Let me speak to one special topic from the 2010 RevCon that I know is of interest around the world. At the 2010 Review Conference the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom, as depositaries of the Nonproliferation Treaty, accepted a commitment that we would before the end of 2012 convene a conference to discuss the creation of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East. Well we are now in the 39th month of 2012 and we haven’t yet succeeded in convening a conference. This is a very specific commitment we made and I think it requires explanation to the world of everything that we have done to try to make this possible. Here I would also note that despite differences with Russia on major issues, we have continued to cooperate well with the U.K., Russia and the UN on this particular point.
The commitment to convene a conference said explicitly that it should be attended by all states of the region, which is to include Israel. Israel, however, is not a member of the NPT and has no legal obligation to honor an invitation to the conference. Israel could, however, be persuaded and over the last three and a half years, through tireless efforts of Russia and the U.K. and the United Nations, and our facilitator Ambassador Laajava of Finland, but especially from the United States, we have reached a point where Israel accepts the value of holding such a conference which it sees as a venue for discussing not just creation of a WMD free zone in the Middle East, but a forum for discussing related security issues that must be addressed if a weapons free zone in the Middle East is to be successful. Over the past year and a half Ambassador Laajava and these three states, together with the UN, have convened five unofficial or informal meetings at which multiple Arab delegations and Israeli diplomats sat at the same table and discussed - for the first time in twenty years - regional security issues.
As a consequence, there is a better understanding by all sides of what are the obstacles and political conditions necessary for creation for such a zone are, and there is a better understanding of our Arab friends who have worked very hard on this issue and shown innovation and flexibility at times, a better understanding that this is not simply a technical exercise of taking the Africa Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty and changing the names. It is a political process. It is a diplomatic process. It is a negotiation process, not just a technical drafting process. We remain hopeful even before the RevCon that additional contact between Israel and the Arabs on this issue will allow us to agree on an agenda and set a date for the convening of such a conference.
Conclusion
Let me just conclude by saying that we don’t just focus on the NPT every five years. It is the constant job of my bureau within the State Department to focus on the assignments and specific obligations that the treaty has given not just to the U.S., not just to the five recognized nuclear weapons states, but to every state party to the treaty. It’s a continual process of upholding and strengthening the treaty. It commands vigilance, and effort. It requires states to watch out for the kind of technical trade that they conduct with states such as North Korea and Iran. It means that we have to take greater responsibility to resolve conflicts that could become temptations for proliferation. We have to seek consensus, we have to identify areas of agreement with states that have a different set of priorities than the United States. Of course progress elsewhere will contribute to success at this conference and in subsequent years, and here of course I am particularly hopeful that Iran will be able to take “yes” for an answer and sign a substantive agreement with the P5 + 1 that ends the possibility of Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
I am less hopeful but never totally pessimistic that we’ll make similar progress with North Korea within the months ahead and of course I hope to see a reduction of tensions in Asia, the one area of the world in which the number of nuclear weapons is increasing. So overall I am optimistic that we can build on the success of the 2010 Review Conference. We look forward to working with all parties who share our interest in achieving an objective, balanced and realistic text. It is essential not just for the security of the world but for the vision that all of us need to keep in our heads, the prospect of finally achieving a world without nuclear weapons. So thank you and I look forward to questions and ideas that you may want to give me.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
SOME CONSUMERS HARMED BY BUYING PRECIOUS METALS TO RECEIVE PARTIAL REFUND
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Sends More Than $2.4 Million in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Investment Scam
The Federal Trade Commission has sent more than $2.4 million in refund checks to just over a hundred consumers harmed by the Premier Precious Metals scheme, which bilked millions of dollars from investors, including many senior citizens.
In February 2014, the defendants were permanently banned from selling any investment opportunities under a settlement with the FTC. They conned consumers into buying precious metals on credit without clearly disclosing significant costs and risks, including the likelihood that consumers would subsequently have to pay more money or lose their investments.
Affected consumers will recover nearly 70 percent of the amount they lost. Consumers who receive checks from the distribution should cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed.
FTC Sends More Than $2.4 Million in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Investment Scam
The Federal Trade Commission has sent more than $2.4 million in refund checks to just over a hundred consumers harmed by the Premier Precious Metals scheme, which bilked millions of dollars from investors, including many senior citizens.
In February 2014, the defendants were permanently banned from selling any investment opportunities under a settlement with the FTC. They conned consumers into buying precious metals on credit without clearly disclosing significant costs and risks, including the likelihood that consumers would subsequently have to pay more money or lose their investments.
Affected consumers will recover nearly 70 percent of the amount they lost. Consumers who receive checks from the distribution should cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY'S OPENING REMARKS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The President's Request for Authorization to Use Force Against ISIS: Military and Diplomatic Efforts
Testimony
Opening Remarks Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
March 11, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, members of the committee, we’re pleased to be here. I’m pleased to return here, and particularly so with – in the distinguished company of Defense Secretary Ash Carter and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marty Dempsey.
From my 29 years of service on this committee, I have nothing but respect for the committee’s prerogatives, and particularly the role that it can play on a critical issue like this. We are very simply looking for – as I think both of you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member have said – the appropriate present-day authorization – not, as you said, Senator Menendez, 2001, but 2015 statement by the United States Congress about the authority with which we should be able to go after, degrade, and destroy, as the President has said, a group known as ISIL or Daesh.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in our democracy, there are many views about the challenges and the opportunities that we face, and that’s appropriate. That’s who we are. But I hope we believe that there is an overwhelming consensus that Daesh has to be stopped. Our nation is strongest, always has been, when we act together. There’s a great tradition in this country of foreign policy having a special place, that politics ends at the water’s edge, and that we will act on behalf of our nation without regard to party and ideology. We simply cannot allow this collection of murderers and thugs to achieve in their group their ambition, which includes, by the way, most likely the death or submission of all those who oppose it, the seizure of land, the theft of resources, the incitement of terrorism across the globe, the killing and attacking of people simply for what they believe or for who they are.
And the joint resolution that is proposed by the President provides the means for America and its representatives to speak with a single powerful voice at this pivotal hour. When I came here last time, I mentioned that --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: The American people are speaking out, Secretary Kerry. We’re tired of an endless war. We don’t want to go in with – a war with no (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN CORKER: The committee will be in order. Look, we appreciate --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) be another endless war and killing of innocent people.
CHAIRMAN CORKER: Okay. If this happens again, I would ask the police to escort immediately people out of the room.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) dollars on the war, creating more terrorism, killing more innocent people.
SECRETARY KERRY: Killing more innocent people. I wonder how our journalists who were beheaded and a pilot who was fighting for freedom who is burned alive, what they would have to say to their efforts to protect innocent people.
ISIL’s momentum has been diminished, Mr. Chairman. It’s still picking up supporters in places. Obviously, we’ve all observed that. But in the places where we have focused and where we are asking you to focus at this moment in time, it is clear that even while savage attacks continue, there is the beginning of a process to cut off their supply lines, to take out their leaders, to cut off their finances, to reduce the foreign fighters, to counter the messaging that has brought some of those fighters to this effort. But to ensure its defeat, we have to persist until we prevail in the broad-based campaign along multiple lines of effort that have been laid out over the course of the last months.
The President already has statutory authority to act against ISIL, but a clear and formal expression of this Congress’s backing at this moment in time would dispel doubt that might exist anywhere that Americans are united in this effort. Approval of this resolution would encourage our friends and our partners in the Middle East, it would further energize the members and prospective members of the global coalition that we have assembled to oppose Daesh, and it would constitute a richly deserved vote of confidence in the men and women of our armed forces who are on the front lines prosecuting this effort on our behalf.
Your unity would also send an unmistakable message to the leaders of Daesh. They have to understand they can’t divide us. Don’t let them. They cannot intimidate us. And they have no hope of defeating us. The resolution that we have proposed would give the President a clear mandate to prosecute the armed component of this conflict against Daesh and associated persons or forces, which we believe is carefully delineated and defined. And while the proposal contains certain limitations that are appropriate in light of the nature of this mission, it provides the flexibility that the President needs to direct a successful military campaign. And that’s why the Administration did propose a limitation on the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” I might add that was after the committee – then-committee chair Senator Menendez and the committee moved forward with its language and we came up here and testified and responded, basically, to the dynamics that were presented to us within the committee and the Congress itself.
So the proposal also includes no geographic limitation, not because there are plans to take it anywhere, but because –
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) we want permission --
SECRETARY KERRY: -- it would be a mistake to communicate to ISIL --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- (inaudible) the United States and then all of the world, not to kill – the United States is killing innocent civilians with drones.
CHAIRMAN CORKER: I would just ask those in the audience – we live in a country where --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) are killing innocent people (inaudible) killing innocent people (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN CORKER: -- people have the opportunity to express themselves in democratic ways. We would hope that you would allow this hearing to proceed in an orderly way and respect other citizens’ rights to be here and to observe what is happening in a civil manner. I would say that I don’t think you’re helping your cause at all. I would say you’re hurting your cause. And hopefully, you will remain in an appropriate manner. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Mr. Chairman, thank you. The point of the no geographic limitation is not that there are any plans or any contemplation. I think the President has been so clear on this. But what a mistake it would be to send a message to Daesh that there are safe havens, that there is somehow just a two-country limitation, so they go off and put their base, and then we go through months and months of deliberation again. We can’t afford that. So that’s why there’s no limitation.
And Mr. Chairman, we know that there are groups in the world, affiliated terrorist groups, who aspire to harm the United States, our allies, our partners. Daesh is, however, very distinctive in that, because it holds territory and it will continue – if not stopped – to seize more, because it has financial resources, because of the debilitating impact of its activities in the broader Middle East, because of its pretentions to worldwide leadership, and because it has already been culpable in the violent deaths of Americans and others.
And I don’t need to preview for this committee the full litany of the outrages that are committed by Daesh, but let me just say that just among them – scratching the surface – are atrocities against Assyrian Christian and Yezidi religious communities; the crucifixion of children; the sale and enslavement of women and girls; the hideous murder of captives from as near as Jordan and as distant as Japan; and the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical sites; the plunder and destruction of cities and towns in which followers of Islam worship and raise their families.
Now I testified before this committee just a couple of weeks ago regarding our strategy for disrupting and defeating ISIL. That strategy continues to move forward on all fronts. Secretary Carter and General Dempsey will touch on the military elements, but I can say – from a diplomatic perspective – that the world is strongly united in seeking Daesh’s defeat.
Our coalition is receiving help from governments throughout and beyond the Middle East – governments that may disagree on other issues but not about the need to take decisive action against Daesh. And to date, we have a coalition of some 62 members, including 14 nations that are contributing directly to the operations against Daesh in Iraq or in Syria, 16 of which have committed to help train or otherwise assist Iraqi Security Forces. Since the coalition came together less than half a year ago, we have stopped ISIL’s surge, we have degraded its leadership, we have forced it to change its communications and its movement and its tactics, and heavily damaged its revenue-generating oil facilities. And if you have a classified briefing, I think you’ll get a very good grounding in the progress that is being made to date.
We continue to see progress in governance in Iraq, where new leaders are working to strengthen and reform the country’s security forces through the purging of incompetent or corrupt officers and the more extensive inclusion of Sunni fighters. In Tikrit right now, there are nearly 1,000 Sunni taking part. There’s a cross-section of engagement.
So Mr. Chairman, just to respond and move rapidly here –
CHAIRMAN CORKER: We’re not moving that rapidly, actually.
SECRETARY KERRY: That’s why I’m cutting and – I’m going to cut to the chase.
CHAIRMAN CORKER: Okay. Good.
SECRETARY KERRY: Responding to the threat posed by ISIL is just not a partisan issue, at least it shouldn’t be. It’s not even a bipartisan issue. It’s really a test that transcends political affiliations, and it’s a tremendous challenge to the security of our nation and to the values of our citizens. And so it’s really the kind of challenge that this committee is here to deal with. And my hope is that we will live up to the tradition that we have never failed to meet in the past that when we had this kind of challenge, the Congress came together; the Senate particularly, I think, in this format. And I’m confident that we can do so here again today and in the next few days.
So I’m happy to respond to your questions, but first I’ll turn to Secretary Carter.
The President's Request for Authorization to Use Force Against ISIS: Military and Diplomatic Efforts
Testimony
Opening Remarks Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
March 11, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, members of the committee, we’re pleased to be here. I’m pleased to return here, and particularly so with – in the distinguished company of Defense Secretary Ash Carter and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marty Dempsey.
From my 29 years of service on this committee, I have nothing but respect for the committee’s prerogatives, and particularly the role that it can play on a critical issue like this. We are very simply looking for – as I think both of you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member have said – the appropriate present-day authorization – not, as you said, Senator Menendez, 2001, but 2015 statement by the United States Congress about the authority with which we should be able to go after, degrade, and destroy, as the President has said, a group known as ISIL or Daesh.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in our democracy, there are many views about the challenges and the opportunities that we face, and that’s appropriate. That’s who we are. But I hope we believe that there is an overwhelming consensus that Daesh has to be stopped. Our nation is strongest, always has been, when we act together. There’s a great tradition in this country of foreign policy having a special place, that politics ends at the water’s edge, and that we will act on behalf of our nation without regard to party and ideology. We simply cannot allow this collection of murderers and thugs to achieve in their group their ambition, which includes, by the way, most likely the death or submission of all those who oppose it, the seizure of land, the theft of resources, the incitement of terrorism across the globe, the killing and attacking of people simply for what they believe or for who they are.
And the joint resolution that is proposed by the President provides the means for America and its representatives to speak with a single powerful voice at this pivotal hour. When I came here last time, I mentioned that --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: The American people are speaking out, Secretary Kerry. We’re tired of an endless war. We don’t want to go in with – a war with no (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN CORKER: The committee will be in order. Look, we appreciate --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) be another endless war and killing of innocent people.
CHAIRMAN CORKER: Okay. If this happens again, I would ask the police to escort immediately people out of the room.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) dollars on the war, creating more terrorism, killing more innocent people.
SECRETARY KERRY: Killing more innocent people. I wonder how our journalists who were beheaded and a pilot who was fighting for freedom who is burned alive, what they would have to say to their efforts to protect innocent people.
ISIL’s momentum has been diminished, Mr. Chairman. It’s still picking up supporters in places. Obviously, we’ve all observed that. But in the places where we have focused and where we are asking you to focus at this moment in time, it is clear that even while savage attacks continue, there is the beginning of a process to cut off their supply lines, to take out their leaders, to cut off their finances, to reduce the foreign fighters, to counter the messaging that has brought some of those fighters to this effort. But to ensure its defeat, we have to persist until we prevail in the broad-based campaign along multiple lines of effort that have been laid out over the course of the last months.
The President already has statutory authority to act against ISIL, but a clear and formal expression of this Congress’s backing at this moment in time would dispel doubt that might exist anywhere that Americans are united in this effort. Approval of this resolution would encourage our friends and our partners in the Middle East, it would further energize the members and prospective members of the global coalition that we have assembled to oppose Daesh, and it would constitute a richly deserved vote of confidence in the men and women of our armed forces who are on the front lines prosecuting this effort on our behalf.
Your unity would also send an unmistakable message to the leaders of Daesh. They have to understand they can’t divide us. Don’t let them. They cannot intimidate us. And they have no hope of defeating us. The resolution that we have proposed would give the President a clear mandate to prosecute the armed component of this conflict against Daesh and associated persons or forces, which we believe is carefully delineated and defined. And while the proposal contains certain limitations that are appropriate in light of the nature of this mission, it provides the flexibility that the President needs to direct a successful military campaign. And that’s why the Administration did propose a limitation on the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” I might add that was after the committee – then-committee chair Senator Menendez and the committee moved forward with its language and we came up here and testified and responded, basically, to the dynamics that were presented to us within the committee and the Congress itself.
So the proposal also includes no geographic limitation, not because there are plans to take it anywhere, but because –
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) we want permission --
SECRETARY KERRY: -- it would be a mistake to communicate to ISIL --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- (inaudible) the United States and then all of the world, not to kill – the United States is killing innocent civilians with drones.
CHAIRMAN CORKER: I would just ask those in the audience – we live in a country where --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) are killing innocent people (inaudible) killing innocent people (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN CORKER: -- people have the opportunity to express themselves in democratic ways. We would hope that you would allow this hearing to proceed in an orderly way and respect other citizens’ rights to be here and to observe what is happening in a civil manner. I would say that I don’t think you’re helping your cause at all. I would say you’re hurting your cause. And hopefully, you will remain in an appropriate manner. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Mr. Chairman, thank you. The point of the no geographic limitation is not that there are any plans or any contemplation. I think the President has been so clear on this. But what a mistake it would be to send a message to Daesh that there are safe havens, that there is somehow just a two-country limitation, so they go off and put their base, and then we go through months and months of deliberation again. We can’t afford that. So that’s why there’s no limitation.
And Mr. Chairman, we know that there are groups in the world, affiliated terrorist groups, who aspire to harm the United States, our allies, our partners. Daesh is, however, very distinctive in that, because it holds territory and it will continue – if not stopped – to seize more, because it has financial resources, because of the debilitating impact of its activities in the broader Middle East, because of its pretentions to worldwide leadership, and because it has already been culpable in the violent deaths of Americans and others.
And I don’t need to preview for this committee the full litany of the outrages that are committed by Daesh, but let me just say that just among them – scratching the surface – are atrocities against Assyrian Christian and Yezidi religious communities; the crucifixion of children; the sale and enslavement of women and girls; the hideous murder of captives from as near as Jordan and as distant as Japan; and the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical sites; the plunder and destruction of cities and towns in which followers of Islam worship and raise their families.
Now I testified before this committee just a couple of weeks ago regarding our strategy for disrupting and defeating ISIL. That strategy continues to move forward on all fronts. Secretary Carter and General Dempsey will touch on the military elements, but I can say – from a diplomatic perspective – that the world is strongly united in seeking Daesh’s defeat.
Our coalition is receiving help from governments throughout and beyond the Middle East – governments that may disagree on other issues but not about the need to take decisive action against Daesh. And to date, we have a coalition of some 62 members, including 14 nations that are contributing directly to the operations against Daesh in Iraq or in Syria, 16 of which have committed to help train or otherwise assist Iraqi Security Forces. Since the coalition came together less than half a year ago, we have stopped ISIL’s surge, we have degraded its leadership, we have forced it to change its communications and its movement and its tactics, and heavily damaged its revenue-generating oil facilities. And if you have a classified briefing, I think you’ll get a very good grounding in the progress that is being made to date.
We continue to see progress in governance in Iraq, where new leaders are working to strengthen and reform the country’s security forces through the purging of incompetent or corrupt officers and the more extensive inclusion of Sunni fighters. In Tikrit right now, there are nearly 1,000 Sunni taking part. There’s a cross-section of engagement.
So Mr. Chairman, just to respond and move rapidly here –
CHAIRMAN CORKER: We’re not moving that rapidly, actually.
SECRETARY KERRY: That’s why I’m cutting and – I’m going to cut to the chase.
CHAIRMAN CORKER: Okay. Good.
SECRETARY KERRY: Responding to the threat posed by ISIL is just not a partisan issue, at least it shouldn’t be. It’s not even a bipartisan issue. It’s really a test that transcends political affiliations, and it’s a tremendous challenge to the security of our nation and to the values of our citizens. And so it’s really the kind of challenge that this committee is here to deal with. And my hope is that we will live up to the tradition that we have never failed to meet in the past that when we had this kind of challenge, the Congress came together; the Senate particularly, I think, in this format. And I’m confident that we can do so here again today and in the next few days.
So I’m happy to respond to your questions, but first I’ll turn to Secretary Carter.
DOD ANNOUNCES ANTI-ISIL FORCES TAKE KEY AREA IN SYRIA
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Anti-ISIL Fighters Retake Key Terrain
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 10, 2015 – Forces opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, supported by coalition airstrikes, seized key terrain late last week in northeastern Syria near Tal Hamis, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
These forces overcame ISIL resistance in that section of Syria and denied the terrorist group its freedom of maneuver in the area, officials said. The two-week operation, which ended March 7, also denied ISIL access to primary travel routes historically used to move its personnel and materials into Iraq -- namely Tal Afar and Mosul.
During the operation, anti-ISIL forces seized critical portions of Route 47 in Syria, a key ISIL communications and supply line leading into Iraq, officials said. In addition, they seized key terrain in the Jazera region and liberated 94 nearby villages. Coalition forces conducted supporting airstrikes, destroying multiple ISIL weapons systems, vehicles and fighting positions.
“This operation demonstrated the ability of anti-ISIL forces to further degrade Daesh influence in this region,” said Army Lt. Gen. James L. Terry, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve commander, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State group. “The determination of these anti-ISIL forces and our precision airstrikes enabled us to deny Daesh this key terrain in Syria.”
The Inherent Resolve coalition will continue to support efforts to attack and defeat ISIL, officials said, noting that anti-ISIL forces hold the gains they have made and are postured to retake additional territory from ISIL in the region.
Anti-ISIL Fighters Retake Key Terrain
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 10, 2015 – Forces opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, supported by coalition airstrikes, seized key terrain late last week in northeastern Syria near Tal Hamis, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
These forces overcame ISIL resistance in that section of Syria and denied the terrorist group its freedom of maneuver in the area, officials said. The two-week operation, which ended March 7, also denied ISIL access to primary travel routes historically used to move its personnel and materials into Iraq -- namely Tal Afar and Mosul.
During the operation, anti-ISIL forces seized critical portions of Route 47 in Syria, a key ISIL communications and supply line leading into Iraq, officials said. In addition, they seized key terrain in the Jazera region and liberated 94 nearby villages. Coalition forces conducted supporting airstrikes, destroying multiple ISIL weapons systems, vehicles and fighting positions.
“This operation demonstrated the ability of anti-ISIL forces to further degrade Daesh influence in this region,” said Army Lt. Gen. James L. Terry, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve commander, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State group. “The determination of these anti-ISIL forces and our precision airstrikes enabled us to deny Daesh this key terrain in Syria.”
The Inherent Resolve coalition will continue to support efforts to attack and defeat ISIL, officials said, noting that anti-ISIL forces hold the gains they have made and are postured to retake additional territory from ISIL in the region.
IRANIAN SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR STEALING U.S. PILOTS IDENTITY
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, March 9, 2015
Iranian Pilot Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison for Stealing U.S. Pilot’s Identity to Obtain Federal Aviation Administration Credentials
An Iranian man was sentenced today in Houston to serve 27 months in prison for using personally identifying information stolen from a U.S. pilot to fraudulently obtain a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate and flight instructor certificate. At today’s sentencing hearing, the government indicated that the defendant sought the FAA credentials to allow him to fly aircraft for profit, and that there was no evidence that he was engaged in any terrorism-related activity.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas made the announcement.
Nader Ali Sabouri Haghighi, 41, of Iran, pleaded guilty on Nov. 3, 2014, to four counts of identity theft related to his use of the victim pilot’s passport and personally identifying information to fraudulently obtain the FAA credentials at issue. U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the Southern District of Texas imposed the sentence.
An ATP certificate is the highest grade of certificate issued by the FAA. It authorizes the holder to pilot multi-engine aircraft under U.S. aviation regulations.
At his plea hearing, Haghighi admitted that he stole the identity of the victim pilot, which he used to obtain certain FAA credentials. These credentials permit a pilot to fly multi-engine aircraft, and have strict requirements for training, knowledge and experience. Haghighi had never been issued these specific credentials, and a general pilot’s license he had previously been issued had been revoked by the FAA.
Haghighi admitted that he used the victim pilot’s information to log onto the Airman Services Records System, an on-line database used by the FAA to monitor and regulate persons authorized to fly aircraft, posing as the victim pilot. He then changed the contact information associated with the victim pilot’s profile and requested a replacement ATP certificate and flight instructor certificate.
Haghighi also admitted that he fraudulently obtained a credit card in the victim pilot’s name and used the credit card to pay for the replacement FAA credentials.
According to court records, on Sept. 15, 2012, Haghighi crashed an airplane in Bornholm, Denmark, while in possession of the victim’s ATP certificate. After facing criminal charges in Denmark and Germany, Haghighi returned to Iran, only to later resurface in Indonesia. He was finally arrested in Panama, where he waived extradition to the United States in August 2014.
The case was investigated by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, with significant assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Diplomatic Security Service of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs and the FBI also provided significant assistance in Haghighi’s apprehension and extradition. Assistance was also provided by the Bornholms Politi (Denmark Police). The case was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney William A. Hall Jr. of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Feazel of the Southern District of Texas.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Iranian Pilot Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison for Stealing U.S. Pilot’s Identity to Obtain Federal Aviation Administration Credentials
An Iranian man was sentenced today in Houston to serve 27 months in prison for using personally identifying information stolen from a U.S. pilot to fraudulently obtain a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate and flight instructor certificate. At today’s sentencing hearing, the government indicated that the defendant sought the FAA credentials to allow him to fly aircraft for profit, and that there was no evidence that he was engaged in any terrorism-related activity.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas made the announcement.
Nader Ali Sabouri Haghighi, 41, of Iran, pleaded guilty on Nov. 3, 2014, to four counts of identity theft related to his use of the victim pilot’s passport and personally identifying information to fraudulently obtain the FAA credentials at issue. U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the Southern District of Texas imposed the sentence.
An ATP certificate is the highest grade of certificate issued by the FAA. It authorizes the holder to pilot multi-engine aircraft under U.S. aviation regulations.
At his plea hearing, Haghighi admitted that he stole the identity of the victim pilot, which he used to obtain certain FAA credentials. These credentials permit a pilot to fly multi-engine aircraft, and have strict requirements for training, knowledge and experience. Haghighi had never been issued these specific credentials, and a general pilot’s license he had previously been issued had been revoked by the FAA.
Haghighi admitted that he used the victim pilot’s information to log onto the Airman Services Records System, an on-line database used by the FAA to monitor and regulate persons authorized to fly aircraft, posing as the victim pilot. He then changed the contact information associated with the victim pilot’s profile and requested a replacement ATP certificate and flight instructor certificate.
Haghighi also admitted that he fraudulently obtained a credit card in the victim pilot’s name and used the credit card to pay for the replacement FAA credentials.
According to court records, on Sept. 15, 2012, Haghighi crashed an airplane in Bornholm, Denmark, while in possession of the victim’s ATP certificate. After facing criminal charges in Denmark and Germany, Haghighi returned to Iran, only to later resurface in Indonesia. He was finally arrested in Panama, where he waived extradition to the United States in August 2014.
The case was investigated by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, with significant assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Diplomatic Security Service of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs and the FBI also provided significant assistance in Haghighi’s apprehension and extradition. Assistance was also provided by the Bornholms Politi (Denmark Police). The case was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney William A. Hall Jr. of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Feazel of the Southern District of Texas.
DOD REPORTS ON RECENT AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIL IN SYRIA, IRAQ
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 10, 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. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted four airstrikes near Kobani, which struck four ISIL tactical units and destroyed nine ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted eight airstrikes in Iraq:
-- Near Fallujah, three airstrikes struck two ISIL large tactical units and destroyed three ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Kirkuk, four airstrikes struck three ISIL large tactical units, an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions, four ISIL buildings, three ISIL vehicles, three ISIL vehicle bombs, an ISIL culvert crossing and an ISIL heavy machine gun.
-- Near Mosul, an airstrike suppressed an ISIL vehicle.
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.
Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, March 10, 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. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Fighter, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted four airstrikes near Kobani, which struck four ISIL tactical units and destroyed nine ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted eight airstrikes in Iraq:
-- Near Fallujah, three airstrikes struck two ISIL large tactical units and destroyed three ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Kirkuk, four airstrikes struck three ISIL large tactical units, an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions, four ISIL buildings, three ISIL vehicles, three ISIL vehicle bombs, an ISIL culvert crossing and an ISIL heavy machine gun.
-- Near Mosul, an airstrike suppressed an ISIL vehicle.
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.
VP BIDEN'S OP-ED ON ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL AMERICA
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
March 10, 2015
Op-Ed by the Vice President on the Administration’s Efforts to Assist Countries in Central America
In an op-ed published in The Hill, the Vice President outlines the Administration’s commitment to Central America. The op-ed can be found HERE.
Investing in a secure, stable Central America
By Vice President Joe Biden
Earlier this month, I spent two days in Guatemala meeting with Central American leaders about our mutual efforts to tackle one of the most significant and urgent challenges facing the Western Hemisphere: bringing stability to this impoverished and violent region.
The President and I are determined to address conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and help these countries on their path to economic prosperity. To that end, we requested $1 billion in next year’s budget to help Central America’s leaders make the difficult reforms and investments required to put the region on a more stable and sustainable path.
But we are just as determined to see these countries make their own commitments to depart from business as usual and embark on a serious new effort to deliver opportunity and security to their long-suffering people.
As I told these leaders back in June — and I reiterated earlier this month — as long as you are on the path to meaningful and lasting change, the United States will be there with you.
What we have seen since then has not been business as usual in Central America. With our support, the leaders of the region have committed themselves to a joint plan with the Inter-American Development Bank called the Alliance for Prosperity. It includes reforms of the police systems, the expansion of community centers to create the conditions we know prevent migration, measures to reduce poverty, steps to attract foreign investment and the continuation of our successful efforts to target smuggling networks.
These are challenges the region has long faced but lacked the political will necessary to address. Even before my recent visit, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras had quickly taken steps to start implementing the Alliance for Prosperity. Honduras signed an agreement with an international nongovernmental organization to increase governmental transparency. Guatemala has added new law enforcement officers and reassigned others to areas most in need, helping to reduce Guatemala’s murder rate by one-third. El Salvador passed a law providing new protections for investors.
And during my visit, the region’s leaders signed on to time frames, benchmarks and a first set of measurable commitments. For example, they committed to:
Create independent governmental auditing mechanisms by the end of 2015 to ensure their citizens’ tax dollars — and U.S. assistance — are used as effectively as possible;
Update regulations to promote a regional electricity market and complete the construction of a gas pipeline from Mexico to Central America, making energy more affordable for consumers;
Train additional police officers and expand centers in high-crime neighborhoods for at-risk youth; and
Develop programs to address domestic violence and promote women’s domestic empowerment by 2016, and to send experts to help.
A great deal of work lies ahead. We have requested $1 billion for Central America in 2016 because Central America cannot do it alone. If the United States is not present, these reforms will falter. But the combination of Central American political will and international support can be transformative, especially since the three governments have committed to match or exceed international assistance to their countries. We intend to focus our assistance in three areas.
• First, improvements in security are essential. El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have three of the five highest per capita murder rates in the world. But some communities in Guatemala and El Salvador are already seeing reductions in violence from well-proven U.S.-sponsored programs in community policing, specialized training, and youth centers similar to the Boys and Girls Clubs. We want to help their governments extend these programs to help stabilize neighborhoods and eradicate transnational criminal networks that threaten Central America’s communities and our own.
• Second, in the 21st century, good governance is essential to attracting jobs and investment. Court systems, government contracting and tax collection are not widely perceived as fair or transparent. The countries of Central America have some of the lowest effective tax rates in the Americas. Central American countries need to do a better job collecting and managing revenues to invest in their own futures. We will assist in these efforts.
• Third, we are ready to offer technical expertise to help Central American countries attract significantly greater private investment. It’s no secret what is required: clear and streamlined rules and regulations, protections for investors, curbs on corruption, courts that adjudicate disputes fairly, and protections for intellectual property.
As we request $1 billion from the United States Congress to empower Central American leaders to address each of these challenges, our own government needs to move quickly to show results and hold ourselves accountable as well. That means rigorously evaluating our programs to build on what works and eliminate what doesn’t deliver the impact we need. The process is already underway, and we look forward to working closely with Congress to craft the most effective assistance package.
This level of support is nearly three times what we have provided to Central America in the recent past. But the cost of investing now in a Central America where young people can thrive in their own communities pales in comparison to the costs of another generation of violence, poverty, desperation and emigration.
The challenges ahead are formidable. Solving them will take years. But Central America’s leaders have now laid out a shared plan to move their region forward and taken the first steps to make it a reality. If they can deliver, Central America can become the next great success story of the Western Hemisphere.
We seek Congress’s help to make it so.
March 10, 2015
Op-Ed by the Vice President on the Administration’s Efforts to Assist Countries in Central America
In an op-ed published in The Hill, the Vice President outlines the Administration’s commitment to Central America. The op-ed can be found HERE.
Investing in a secure, stable Central America
By Vice President Joe Biden
Earlier this month, I spent two days in Guatemala meeting with Central American leaders about our mutual efforts to tackle one of the most significant and urgent challenges facing the Western Hemisphere: bringing stability to this impoverished and violent region.
The President and I are determined to address conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and help these countries on their path to economic prosperity. To that end, we requested $1 billion in next year’s budget to help Central America’s leaders make the difficult reforms and investments required to put the region on a more stable and sustainable path.
But we are just as determined to see these countries make their own commitments to depart from business as usual and embark on a serious new effort to deliver opportunity and security to their long-suffering people.
As I told these leaders back in June — and I reiterated earlier this month — as long as you are on the path to meaningful and lasting change, the United States will be there with you.
What we have seen since then has not been business as usual in Central America. With our support, the leaders of the region have committed themselves to a joint plan with the Inter-American Development Bank called the Alliance for Prosperity. It includes reforms of the police systems, the expansion of community centers to create the conditions we know prevent migration, measures to reduce poverty, steps to attract foreign investment and the continuation of our successful efforts to target smuggling networks.
These are challenges the region has long faced but lacked the political will necessary to address. Even before my recent visit, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras had quickly taken steps to start implementing the Alliance for Prosperity. Honduras signed an agreement with an international nongovernmental organization to increase governmental transparency. Guatemala has added new law enforcement officers and reassigned others to areas most in need, helping to reduce Guatemala’s murder rate by one-third. El Salvador passed a law providing new protections for investors.
And during my visit, the region’s leaders signed on to time frames, benchmarks and a first set of measurable commitments. For example, they committed to:
Create independent governmental auditing mechanisms by the end of 2015 to ensure their citizens’ tax dollars — and U.S. assistance — are used as effectively as possible;
Update regulations to promote a regional electricity market and complete the construction of a gas pipeline from Mexico to Central America, making energy more affordable for consumers;
Train additional police officers and expand centers in high-crime neighborhoods for at-risk youth; and
Develop programs to address domestic violence and promote women’s domestic empowerment by 2016, and to send experts to help.
A great deal of work lies ahead. We have requested $1 billion for Central America in 2016 because Central America cannot do it alone. If the United States is not present, these reforms will falter. But the combination of Central American political will and international support can be transformative, especially since the three governments have committed to match or exceed international assistance to their countries. We intend to focus our assistance in three areas.
• First, improvements in security are essential. El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have three of the five highest per capita murder rates in the world. But some communities in Guatemala and El Salvador are already seeing reductions in violence from well-proven U.S.-sponsored programs in community policing, specialized training, and youth centers similar to the Boys and Girls Clubs. We want to help their governments extend these programs to help stabilize neighborhoods and eradicate transnational criminal networks that threaten Central America’s communities and our own.
• Second, in the 21st century, good governance is essential to attracting jobs and investment. Court systems, government contracting and tax collection are not widely perceived as fair or transparent. The countries of Central America have some of the lowest effective tax rates in the Americas. Central American countries need to do a better job collecting and managing revenues to invest in their own futures. We will assist in these efforts.
• Third, we are ready to offer technical expertise to help Central American countries attract significantly greater private investment. It’s no secret what is required: clear and streamlined rules and regulations, protections for investors, curbs on corruption, courts that adjudicate disputes fairly, and protections for intellectual property.
As we request $1 billion from the United States Congress to empower Central American leaders to address each of these challenges, our own government needs to move quickly to show results and hold ourselves accountable as well. That means rigorously evaluating our programs to build on what works and eliminate what doesn’t deliver the impact we need. The process is already underway, and we look forward to working closely with Congress to craft the most effective assistance package.
This level of support is nearly three times what we have provided to Central America in the recent past. But the cost of investing now in a Central America where young people can thrive in their own communities pales in comparison to the costs of another generation of violence, poverty, desperation and emigration.
The challenges ahead are formidable. Solving them will take years. But Central America’s leaders have now laid out a shared plan to move their region forward and taken the first steps to make it a reality. If they can deliver, Central America can become the next great success story of the Western Hemisphere.
We seek Congress’s help to make it so.
KUWAIT HOSTS MILITARY 2015 MULTILATERAL EXERCISE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Eagle Resolve 2015 Multilateral Exercise Kicks Off in Kuwait
U.S. Central Command
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., March 9, 2015 – U.S. forces, Gulf Cooperation Council nations and international partners are participating in the multilateral Eagle Resolve exercise held in Kuwait, according to U.S. Central Command officials.
Eagle Resolve 2015 kicked off March 8 and the exercise concludes March 31, officials said. Exercise events are being held in Kuwait and its territorial waters, officials added.
Eagle Resolve will consist of a weeklong series of "injects," simulated events designed to exercise participants' ability to respond as a multinational headquarters staff, followed by a series of tactical demonstrations of land, maritime and air forces from several nations, officials said.
The exercise ends with a senior leader seminar to foster an environment for commanders to discuss issues of regional interest, officials said.
About 3,000 U.S. military personnel representing U.S. Central Command headquarters and its components along with military representatives from more than a dozen other nations will support the exercise, officials said.
This is the Kuwaiti government's first time hosting this exercise, officials said.
Qatar hosted Eagle Resolve 2013, officials said. The first iteration of the exercise was held at Centcom’s headquarters in Tampa, Florida, in 1999.
Eagle Resolve 2015 Multilateral Exercise Kicks Off in Kuwait
U.S. Central Command
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., March 9, 2015 – U.S. forces, Gulf Cooperation Council nations and international partners are participating in the multilateral Eagle Resolve exercise held in Kuwait, according to U.S. Central Command officials.
Eagle Resolve 2015 kicked off March 8 and the exercise concludes March 31, officials said. Exercise events are being held in Kuwait and its territorial waters, officials added.
Eagle Resolve will consist of a weeklong series of "injects," simulated events designed to exercise participants' ability to respond as a multinational headquarters staff, followed by a series of tactical demonstrations of land, maritime and air forces from several nations, officials said.
The exercise ends with a senior leader seminar to foster an environment for commanders to discuss issues of regional interest, officials said.
About 3,000 U.S. military personnel representing U.S. Central Command headquarters and its components along with military representatives from more than a dozen other nations will support the exercise, officials said.
This is the Kuwaiti government's first time hosting this exercise, officials said.
Qatar hosted Eagle Resolve 2013, officials said. The first iteration of the exercise was held at Centcom’s headquarters in Tampa, Florida, in 1999.
SCIENTISTS LOOKING FOR PLANETS
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)