SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON MAKES REMARKS AT 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF PRESIDENT NIXON'S TRIP TO CHINA

The following excerpt is from a State Department e-mail:

“Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State U.S. Institute of Peace
Washington, DC
March 7, 2012
Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I am so honored to be here to join you in celebrating the 40thanniversary of President Nixon’s extraordinary trip to China.
And I want to thank everyone at the U.S. Institute of Peace, especially Richard Solomon, who knows China well from his days as Policy Planning Director and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia. And it’s a special delight, Richard, to be visiting this beautiful building for the first time. And Tara, I want to thank you and if the Senate so agrees, we are very much looking forward to Tara joining us at the State Department. So thank you so very much.

I also particularly want to recognize all the members of the Nixon-Cox families. And Tricia, thank you, because you’re absolutely right; there is a bond that is hard to describe to those who have not lived through the incredible honor and challenge of being part of a first family. But I have such great appreciation for what you and your sister have done that has really bestowed great honor on your parents. And this is not only the anniversary of your father’s trip to China but also of your mother’s, and I think that is worth reminding us.

I want to thank Ron Walker and everyone with the Richard Nixon Foundation, the members of Congress, ambassadors who have joined us, including the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Zhang. Thank you so much for being here.

The events of that remarkable week in 1972 have been studied, analyzed, debated, reenacted on stage and screen, even commemorated in song. And yet, there is still more to be said about that journey to Beijing and the relationship it set into motion—and how we, who are the great beneficiaries of that work 40 years ago, are cultivating the relationship so it meets the challenges and seizes the opportunities of this time.

And I want to begin by saluting all who contributed to President Nixon’s journey, to all the subsequent milestones in the U.S.-China relationship. And I know that during the day you have been fortunate in hearing from some of the master architects of those early years, including Henry Kissinger, who extended that first handshake to Zhou Enlai in 1971 and continues to speak and write eloquently about China today; Zbig Brzezinski, who oversaw the normalization of relations during the Carter Administration; Brent Scowcroft, who I see there appropriately in the front row, who skillfully managed the tumultuous period during the Tiananmen Square protests; Win Lord, the young note taker at the Nixon meetings who later became our ambassador to China.

I also salute the Foreign Service officers and civil servants who worked behind the scenes. I’ve learned a lot about that as Secretary of State. Those of us who are out front are only out front because of all the work that has been done to lay the groundwork. And for that trip in particular, I want to recognize Stape Roy, one of the renowned “missionary kids” who later served as ambassador; Jeff Bader, who went to China in 1981 and became a caretaker of our China policy for the next three decades; Chas Freeman, the interpreter for President Nixon’s talks with Mao who later became our deputy chief of mission in Beijing.
There are those who aren’t with us—including Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who was the youngest ever Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; Jim Lilley, who expertly served as our ambassador to China during the challenging events of 1989 and after.

And the journalists who traveled with President Nixon and covered every angle of his time there, including Ted Koppel, who I see in the audience. Thanks to them, people across our country were able to follow President Nixon at every step.

Now, I was a law student in 1972. I was a poor law student. I did not own a television set. But I was not about to miss history being made, so I rented one – a portable model with those rabbit ears. I lugged it back to my apartment and tuned in every night to watch scenes of a country that had been blocked from view for my entire life. Like many Americans, I was riveted and proud of what we were accomplishing through our president.

President Nixon called it “the week that changed the world.” Well, if anything, that turned out to be an understatement.

Then, the People’s Republic of China was profoundly isolated. Poverty was pervasive. The Cultural Revolution had banished nearly all foreigners, as well as foreign businesses, foreign books, even foreign ideas. When President Nixon’s motorcade drove through Beijing, the American delegation noted how eerily silent the city was. Now there were people everywhere, but there was hardly a sound.

Yet within a few short decades, China has become the second largest economy in the world. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty and have joined the global economy. Beijing, Shanghai and other cities have turned into noisy, fast-paced, 24-hour centers of commerce and culture. The 2008 Olympics and the 2010 Expo were very successful coming out parties. And China, a rising geopolitical power, has a seat at virtually every table and a role in virtually every institution of importance in the world.
So there is no doubt that the China of today is a very different country from the China of 1972. Now that transformation is due, first and foremost, to the hard work and determination of the Chinese people and their leaders. It was encouraged, however, by people around the world who supported and invested in their progress. And it can also be traced back in a straight line to that week 40 years ago.

Before Air Force One was wheels down in Beijing, China was firmly on the outside of the international order. That visit was the start of China coming in. And since then, China has worked to move beyond its isolation of that time to engage more cooperatively with other nations, and those efforts have delivered great benefits to the Chinese people. And now, completing that journey is essential if China is to cement its newfound standing and build upon the extraordinary gains it has made.

Whether it does has profound implications, not only for China, but for the United States and the world. Because it’s not just China that’s been transformed during the past 40 years; the U.S.-China relationship has as well.

In 1972, our countries were connected only through a narrow official channel – one member of government talking to another. Today, the web of connections linking our nations is vast and complex, and reaches into just about every aspect of our societies. Our economies are tightly entwined. And so is our security. We face shared threats like nuclear proliferation, piracy, and climate change, and we need each other to solve these problems. The opportunities before us are also shared, and they define our relationship much more than the threats. So therefore, we have the chance, if we seize it, to work together to advance prosperity, pursue innovation, and improve the lives of our people and others worldwide.

Now when I say “we,” I do not mean only our governments, as important as they are. Every day, across both of our countries, executives and entrepreneurs, scientists and scholars, artists and athletes, students and teachers, family members and citizens of all kinds shape and pull and add to this relationship. Together, they represent a vast range of priorities, concerns, and points of view. And they are all stakeholders in how we build toward a shared future. Engaging their talents, ideas and energies makes the U.S.-China relationship far deeper and more durable than anything our governments could do on our own.

It’s like that television I rented in 1972. Back then, we had just a few channels to choose from. In fact, as I vaguely remember, we had three broadcast channels and I guess by that time, we might have had public broadcasting, although I’m not quite sure. Today, there are something like 900 channels and more to come. The channels between China and us have multiplied at an astronomical rate.

But there are challenges that come with a relationship this consequential and this personal to so many. It does get bound up in our domestic politics, yes, in both countries. The United States and China both have politics, you know. People’s voices are heard in ways they weren’t or couldn’t have been heard in years past. This political dimension presents complications for both sides, which makes it that much more important that we ensure our partnership delivers results.

All this adds up to a very different kind of relationship than the one we had. We’ve gone from being two nations with hardly any ties to speak of, little bearing on each other, to being thoroughly, inescapably interdependent. For two nations with long traditions of independence, deeply rooted in our cultures and our histories, these are unusual circumstances to say the least. They require adjustments in our thinking and our actions, on both sides of the Pacific. And so, how do we respond to what is not just a new challenge to our two countries, but I would argue, an unprecedented challenge in history?

Back in 1972, the U.S.-China project was, in many ways, a signature 20th century diplomatic endeavor embedded in the context of the Cold War, focused on establishing official ties and laying the groundwork for peaceful engagement, and building a basic understanding of each other. Well, the U.S.-China project of 2012 is something altogether different; indeed, it is unprecedented in the history of nations. The United States is attempting to work with a rising power to foster its rise as an active contributor to global security, stability and prosperity while also sustaining and securing American leadership in a changing world. And we are trying to do this without entering into unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict; without scoring points at each other’s expense and thereby souring the relationship; and without falling short on our responsibilities to the international community. We are, together, building a model in which we strike a stable and mutually acceptable balance between cooperation and competition. This is uncharted territory. And we have to get it right, because so much depends on it.

After three years of intensive engagement, and the successes and frustrations that have come with it, we are clear-eyed about the obstacles that still remain. There are, understandably so, difficult questions that we must answer, and misconceptions we must address. For example, here in the United States and elsewhere in the world, there are those who make the case – maybe it was made today – that a rising China signals bad news, that as China grows more prosperous and wields greater international power, our relationship will automatically turn adversarial, or the United States will inevitably experience decline as a result. Now meanwhile, some in China fear that the United States is determined to contain their rise and limit their progress to advance our interests at their expense.

And there still remains suspicion and mistrust of the other’s intentions, particularly in the military realm. As Dr. Kissinger recently wrote in Foreign Affairs, “Both sides must understand the nuances by which apparently traditional and apparently reasonable courses can evoke the deepest worries in each other.” We must address this head-on and constructively by creating a framework for building trust over time. That means returning to first principles of the relationship: There is no intrinsic contradiction between supporting a rising China and advancing America’s interests. A thriving China is good for America, and a thriving America is good for China.

That’s why we helped break China’s isolation in 1972, and it’s why, for more than 60 years, we have underwritten regional peace and security that helped make room for China’s extraordinary economic progress; we have championed China’s inclusion in international fora like the WTO; we have elevated the G-20 as a forum for international engagement, in part because China plays a key role in it; at Copenhagen and subsequent climate summits, we made cooperation with China a priority; on issue after issue, we have not only welcomed, we have advocated for China’s participation and we have called for its leadership.

So to those who ask, “Is the United States attempting to contain China?” Our answer is a clear no. In fact, the United States helped pave the way for China to be where it is today in its own development. We are a country that welcomes others’ success, because we believe that it’s good for everyone when people anywhere are able to work their way to better lives. If China’s rise means that we have an increasingly capable and engaged partner, that’s good news for us. And we will seize every chance to engage, because we’re not a country that sits on our lead. We’re a country with confidence in our own standing and in our ability to compete and succeed.

The choices that America has made diplomatically, economically, and strategically reflect that fundamental belief. But of course, to say that a thriving China is good for America, and vice versa, is not the end of the story, because as we all know, there are different ways for countries to get ahead. And for China, for everyone, success must be achieved responsibly; that is not at the expense of others, but in a way that contributes to the regional and global good.

And this is where China has its own choices to make. Its power, wealth, and influence have pushed it rapidly to a new echelon in the international order. What China says and does reverberates around the globe, and simply by changing itself, China affects the world around it. At the same time, it is still working on its great economic mission, bringing development to millions more of the Chinese people. My Chinese counterparts often talk to me in passionate terms about how far their country still has to go. So China is faced with the complicated task of balancing the demands of development with its responsibilities as an emerging global power, or as my Chinese friends sometimes say, a reemerging global power, because of course China has hundreds, thousands of years of history as an influential nation and culture.

And I’ve pointed out to my counterparts China’s response at times has been to seek to have it at both ways, acting like what I call a selective stakeholder. In some forums, on some issues, China wants to be treated as a great power; in others, as a developing nation. That’s perfectly understandable, because China has attributes of both. Nonetheless, the world is looking for China to play a role that is commensurate with its new standing. And that means it can no longer be a selective stakeholder.

Now, I’m well aware that debates about the rise of China and other emerging powers, and they usually start and too often stop with people simply saying, “With great power comes great responsibility” – I think that is a quote from the movie Spiderman, if I remember – (laughter) – and just leaving it at that. Well, it is worth pushing ourselves further on what this really means in action on a pragmatic, day-to-day basis.

Well, for starters, the link between power and responsibility is built into the logic of global politics. As countries become more powerful, their stake in the success of the international system naturally rises, because they have more to lose when that system fails. At the same time, the world’s expectations of them naturally rise as well, because they have more to contribute to strengthen the system. But more than this, it is understandable that the international community wants some confidence that a country’s growing power will be used for the benefit of all. And given the historic challenges to security and stability posed by rising powers, they do have a special obligation to demonstrate in concrete ways that they are going to pursue a constructive path. This is particularly true for a country that has grown as rapidly and as dramatically as China has.

Ultimately, because emerging powers have such a large and growing impact, allowing them to selectively pick and choose elements of the rules-based international system that may on a short-term basis suit their interests would render the system unworkable. And that would end up impoverishing everyone. Having said that, the international system is not static. Rules and institutions designed for an earlier age may not be suited to today. So we need to work together to adapt and update them. Indeed, we have already begun that work. On issues like trade and climate, efforts to develop new norms and mechanisms are well underway. We have no interest in holding onto elements of the system that have become irrelevant, or unsuited to the challenges of our time, or that work only to benefit some countries and not others. That would give countries incentives to walk away from cooperation and go it alone, which would not serve them or us.

But there are principles that we know work. And we cannot afford to abandon them, like maintaining an economic order that is open, free, transparent, and fair; pursuing security in a manner that is measured and transparent to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts; and promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, which do reflect universal values and the inherent dignity of all humankind. China has already shown increased leadership on some regional and global issues, like countering piracy and sustaining the global economic recovery. It has also contributed substantially to UN peacekeeping missions worldwide, and we applaud these steps. But we do believe China will have to go further to fully embrace its new role in the world to give the world confidence that it is going to, not just today or on one set of issues, but for the long run, play a positive role that will enhance security, stability, and prosperity.

So the world is looking to China and asking questions like these: Will China adapt its foreign policy so it contributes more to solving regional and global problems to make it possible for others to succeed as well? Will it use its power to help end brutal violence against civilians in places like Syria? Will it explain its military buildup and the ultimate goals of its military strategies, policies, and programs to relieve unease, to reassure its neighbors, to avoid misunderstandings, and to contribute to maintaining regional security? Will it uphold international maritime laws and norms, which for decades have made it possible for nations to engage in peaceful trade? Will it work more vigorously to establish international standards in cyberspace, so the internet works for everyone and so people in China and elsewhere can harness its economic and social benefits? And will it use its economic standing to enforce a rules-based system for global trade and investment so it can advance its own economic development while contributing to global growth?
As economic partners, we can make it possible for more people in both countries to work, trade, invest, create, and prosper. Whether we do or not depends on how we deal with some of our differences. China has things it wants, including more opportunities to invest in the United States, and we have things we want, including an end to discrimination against U.S. companies and protection for their intellectual property; an end to unfair preferences for domestic firms; and more opportunities for American goods, products and services; and of course, an end to what we see as unfair, distorting currency practices.

We want to engage in more trade and investment with China, because we believe in the benefits that come with greater economic activity and healthy competition. But for it to be healthy, it has to be fair, rules-based and transparent. So we will continue to work with China to urge it to make reforms, and we, in turn, will hear and act on those changes it wants from us.

Finally, we do ask, can China meet its obligations to protect universal human rights and fundamental freedoms? Now, this is an area in which we have had long and profound disagreements. And even as our two countries become more interdependent, the United States will, of course, continue to stand by our principles and universal standards of human rights. And we believe that with development comes an opportunity for the aspirations of people everywhere to express themselves freely, whether on the Internet, or in a public square, or on the factory floor. And so like people everywhere, we do believe that the Chinese people have their own legitimate aspirations, and we do believe that everyone should have a legal system that is independent and will protect them from arbitrary action. And we do believe, not just in China but everywhere, in religious and linguistic differences, cultural differences being respected. Reforms that support these goals give people a greater stake in the success of their nations, which in turn makes societies more stable, prosperous and peaceful.

Now, questions like these are the kind that we kick around all the time with our Chinese counterparts. And I personally am very grateful for the open, candid dialogues that we have been holding for the last three years. We have the greatest respect for what China has accomplished in 40 years, and we want to see those accomplishments continue to build into the future.

I think that our outreach to China during the past three years has been a continuation of a bipartisan tradition that every president since President Nixon has upheld. We consult on every single issue of significance; not a day goes by when our governments are not in touch. In this Administration, we’ve launched our Strategic and Economic Dialogue and a Strategic Security Dialogue, and we’ve had intensive discussions on just about every issue you can imagine, from trade policy to counterterrorism to human rights to border security. Each of our countries has hosted multiple high-level visits from the other. Our presidents have met in person more than 10 times. And later this year, in May, I’ll make my sixth trip to China as Secretary of State.

All of this effort has taken place within a larger regional push to strengthen our ties throughout the Asia Pacific. We’ve enhanced our relationships with our treaty allies Japan, Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. We’ve broadened our relationships with other emerging powers, including India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore. We’ve strengthened our unofficial relationship with Taiwan. We’ve reengaged with Burma. We’ve invested in regional multilateral institutions, including the East Asia Summit and ASEAN. We’ve increased our economic engagement, updated our regional military posture and amplified our advocacy for the rule of law and universal human rights. In short, we are working around the clock to do everything we can to defend and advance security and prosperity throughout the Asia Pacific. And having that positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China is vital to every one of those objectives.

So we are committed to this partnership. And now, we and others around the world are looking for even greater leadership from China. China and the United States cannot solve all the problems of the world together. But without China and the United States, I doubt that any of our global problems can be solved. We want China to be a full stakeholder, embracing its role as a major global player, to helping strengthen the international system that makes its own and our success possible. All the while, we will continue to seek every opportunity for engagement with China, but not just at the government-to-government level. We will keep discussing our differences openly, developing as many avenues for cooperation as we possibly can. In short, we will continue the journey begun by many in this room 40 years ago.

In 1972, when President Nixon disembarked in Beijing and shook Zhou Enlai’s hand, the premier said, “Your handshake came over the vastest ocean in the world, 25 years of no communication.” A few days later, President Nixon toasted his hosts and said, “The Great Wall is a reminder that for almost a generation there has been a wall between the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America. In these past four days we have begun the long process of removing that wall.” Both sides were taking a risk. But they decided that engagement was worth it. They knew that if the summit went smoothly, the conversation between our two countries would continue, and that would lead to cooperation, and that in time we both would benefit from it.

That is precisely what has happened. Nearly everything that China and the United States disagreed about before that trip, we disagreed about after the trip. But we began a conversation that has helped us mitigate our differences and broaden those areas on which we agree. And the result is the relationship we have today, as consequential and multifaceted as any in the world.

We are now trying to find an answer, a new answer to the ancient question of what happens when an established power and a rising power meet. We need a new answer. We don’t have a choice. Interdependence means that one of us cannot succeed unless the other does as well. We need to write a future that looks entirely different from the past. This is, by definition, incredibly difficult. But we have done difficult things before.

I wish that all of the leaders from 40 years ago could have been with me when I visited the U.S.A. Pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. I’m very proud to be called the mother of the U.S.A. Pavilion by our Chinese friends. And what was most striking to me is that we had invited young Americans who were studying Chinese to be the guides and the hosts at our pavilion. And many of the Chinese people who had come from around that vast and magnificent country were stunned to be greeted by Hispanic children, African American, Asian American, Caucasian, every kind of person that we have in the United States speaking to them in their language. And the incredible connections that were being made as people were asking questions, telling jokes, recounting where they had come from was as strong an endorsement of the courageous step taken 40 years ago as any that I personally have seen. But it also was a reminder that we do the work we do as secretaries of state or as presidents or premiers or foreign ministers – we do that work because we all have to be committed to making a better future for those young people, that we are the stewards of their future in terms of the kind of opportunities that they will enjoy.

So let us remember and take inspiration from how far apart our countries were when President Nixon landed in Beijing and how much we have accomplished together since then. It is irrefutable proof of the progress that is possible when people work together to overcome their differences and find common ground not only for their own good, but for others’. It is now up to us to make sure that the future is even more promising than the past. Thank you very much. (Applause.)”

SOUTHCOM'S COMMANDER SAYS CURBING INTERNATIONAL CRIME TOO BIG FOR SOUTHCOM TO HANDLE ALONE

The following excerpt is from a Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

"Southcom 'Part of Solution' to Drug Crime, Commander Says

By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 7, 2012 - U.S. Southern Command's central mission -- disrupting transnational trafficking in drugs, weapons, cash and people in Central and South America –- is too large and complex for even a U.S. combatant command to tackle alone, Southcom's commander said today.

At a Defense Writers Group breakfast, Air Force Gen. Douglas M. Fraser said that in line with the president's strategy targeting transnational organized crime, Southcom works with other U.S. government agencies and international partners' military and law enforcement agencies to track, capture and prosecute people who have made several countries in the Americas the most violent in the world.

Success in that effort rests on the command's other primary mission of building international and interagency partnership and cooperation, the general told reporters.

Southcom is "only one part of the solution" to transnational organized crime and its effects in Central and South America, Fraser noted. Both the United States and the international community are intent on the issue, he added.

"We're working to pull together all the various agencies, capabilities, and [the] international community to improve our ability to coordinate and focus our efforts to address this larger problem," he said.

While transnational organized crime is not a traditional military threat, Fraser said, the violence and corruption stemming from the global drug trade in countries south of the United States has, in many cases, destroyed law enforcement and judicial processes.

Fraser said he doesn't see either an internal or external conventional military threat in the region, but many countries are using their militaries to augment too-small or corrupt police forces.

Transnational crime's greatest impact is in Central America, he said. Honduras in 2011 led the world in per capita murders, with 86 per 100,000 people, Fraser noted. El Salvador's murder rate is 66 per 100,000, he added, while Guatemala's overall rate is 41 per 100,000, with higher peaks in parts of the country.

Those three countries do use their military forces in crime-fighting efforts, Fraser said. He noted Honduras has committed half of its forces to the effort, and Guatemala has employed forces in 60-day sieges against high-crime areas.

While he doesn't think military forces should serve in law enforcement over the long term, the general said, he supports the approach as a bridging strategy.

"[Southcom's] efforts along those lines are to help support the militaries with training, with some equipping -- to help them work with law enforcement as well as address the traffic as it enters Central America," he added.

Fraser said Southcom's forces pursue a more conventional military mission along the region's coastlines, where for 20 years they have spotted and monitored air- and sea-based drug movement from northern South America through the Caribbean to various destinations -- most commonly, now, in Central America.

Drug traffic -- mostly cocaine but increasingly including methamphetamine precursors coming from India and China, routed through the Americas by transnational criminal networks -- then typically moves inland, by ground or air, through Mexico and into the United States, still the world's largest consumer of illegal drugs, the general said.

"Brazil has become the second-largest user of cocaine in the world," he noted, adding drug movement is also increasing from South America to West Africa, then into Europe and the Middle East.

Southcom still conducts training and disaster-preparedness exercises and other traditional military-to-military engagements with partner forces in the region, Fraser said, but international and U.S. efforts are mostly aimed at disrupting drug trade.

Operation Martillo, or "Hammer," is focused on air and maritime surveillance of the Caribbean and eastern Pacific using Southcom assets including Navy and Coast Guard ships and Navy, Air Force and U.S. Customs and Border Protection aircraft, Fraser noted.

About 80 percent of Colombia's cocaine moves by ship, whether traditional coast-hugging "go-fast" drug smuggling boats, fishing vessels, or "pretty sophisticated" wood and fiberglass submersibles and semi-submersibles drug traffickers craft in the region's jungles, Fraser said.

The general said Southcom and its regional partners interdict some 25 to 35 percent of the drug supply they know about, but he acknowledged the overall actual percentage likely is lower. And as traffickers shift from larger shipments to using smaller, more numerous boats, he said, more drugs are getting through.

Operation Hammer has in 45 days netted 3.5 metric tons of cocaine and 10 smuggling vessels, but the effort's overall aim is to use persistent surveillance to force traffickers to move their shipping routes into international waters, the general said.

That shift would prolong transit time and offer more opportunities for U.S. and other nations' vessels to stop illegal shipments, seize cargoes and prosecute traffickers, Fraser explained. Dutch and French ships are active in counterdrug efforts in the Caribbean, he added.

The general said while Southcom may see the number of its own ships decline over time as the Navy reshapes its fleet, some countries in the region are bringing more to bear in the counterdrug effort.

Colombia's recent strategy against the narcoterrorist group FARC -- Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarios de Colombia, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia -- demonstrates what is possible, Fraser said. Colombia has focused more task forces against the group, and paired with forces in neighboring Venezuela to target illicit activity across the border.

"FARC has been diminished in half, ... and they've reverted back to very traditional guerilla tactics," he noted.

Southcom supports Colombia's efforts, and the United States has spent some $8 billion on counterdrug efforts in that nation over 10 years, Fraser said, but Colombia itself has invested $100 billion in defense during that time. Colombia can serve as a model for other regional nations, particularly in its whole-of-government approach anti-corruption efforts, the general said. The government first moves in security forces to stop drug production and quell violence in a given region, then follows up with economic development experts to help build sustainable, legal means of livelihood, he explained.

Colombian troops get anti-corruption training, and spend two months at time in postings in the field before rotating to a new assignment elsewhere in the country, Fraser added. Through these means, the Colombian government has gained control over the country's cities and large towns, he said.

Other nations in the region can take those lessons and determine how to apply them to their situation, the general said."

SEC COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER SPEAKS ON GLOBAL CAPITAL MARKET REFORMS

The following excerpt is from the U.S. SEC website:

“Ongoing Regulatory Reform in the Global Capital Markets
by Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Annual Conference of the Institute of International Bankers
Washington, D.C.
March 5, 2012
Thank you for that very nice introduction. I am very pleased to be here today.
Before I continue, I need to provide the standard disclaimer that my comments today are my own, and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Commission or my fellow Commissioners.

My topic today is “Ongoing Regulatory Reform in the Global Capital Markets.” I’d like to discuss the SEC’s role in that process, with a special emphasis on the Volcker Rule. After all, the IIB, writing jointly with the European Banking Federation, shared 51 pages worth of thoughts on the Rule in a February 13th comment letter, so it seems only fair that I share a few of mine with you this afternoon.

The IIB’s comment letter went to all of the agencies involved in the joint rulemaking process for implementing the Volcker Rule: Treasury, the Fed, the FDIC, the OCC, the CFTC, and the SEC. The leaders of all of these agencies, as well as those of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the National Credit Union Administration, along with an independent member “having insurance expertise,” all serve as voting members of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC. Before moving on to the Volcker Rule, I’d like to take a moment to say a few words about that unique regulatory body.

Those of you hanging on my every word — the vast majority of the audience, I’m sure — may have noted my emphasis on the word “leaders.” The membership of FSOC, as set forth explicitly in the Dodd-Frank Act,1consists not of the regulatory agencies themselves, but of the heads of agencies, ex officio. This is an almost unprecedented arrangement for a formal inter-agency group charged with matters of such great import to the country.
As such, while the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission is a member of FSOC, the Commission itself is not. This distinction is especially important given the structure and composition of the SEC — indeed, of almost all of the agencies whose leaders sit on FSOC. While the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the FHFA can speak in a single voice on behalf of their agencies, the Chairman of the SEC is only one of a five member, bipartisan commission, with each Commissioner having a single vote on all matters that come before the Commission. The heads of the CFTC, the FDIC, the NCUA, and Fed are similarly situated, each leading an agency that has multiple voting members, each with an equal vote. What’s more, with the exception of the Fed, the board or commission of each of those agencies is statutorily mandated to be comprised of members with differing political affiliations. Although the leader of each of these agencies is generally from the President’s party, his or her vote counts no more than that of any other member of the commission or board.

In addition, while all of the agencies whose leaders sit on FSOC are constitutionally part of the executive branch, only Treasury is a federal executive department led by a Cabinet secretary who serves at the pleasure of the President. All of the other agencies are either independent agencies or government corporations, and their governing boards or commissions are comprised of appointees with fixed terms designed to guarantee a measure of independence for the agencies. The Chair of FSOC, however, is the Secretary of the Treasury — the only member of the group who may be removed by the President at will.

So to sum up, the membership of FSOC is comprised primarily of theindividual leaders of independent agencies, who will usually almost exclusively be drawn from the same party. What’s more, this group of leaders of agencies that were deliberately designed, and are statutorily required, to be bipartisan is led by the individual in the most partisan position of all, a Cabinet appointee that the President can dismiss at will. One would hope that these agency chiefs would always be sure to represent the views of their colleagues — from both parties — and the interests of their agencies. The statute, however, is silent on that point.

Not surprisingly for a body comprised primarily of banking regulators, FSOC is tasked with a “safety and soundness” mandate. The purposes of FSOC, as set forth in the establishing provisions of Dodd-Frank, are:

…to identify risks to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the material financial distress or failure, or ongoing activities, of large, interconnected bank holding companies or nonbank financial companies, or that could arise outside the financial services marketplace; to promote market discipline, by eliminating expectations on the part of shareholders, creditors, and counterparties of such companies that the Government will shield them from losses in the event of failure; and to respond to emerging threats to the stability of the United States financial system.

This mandate has some overlap with the SEC’s; specifically, the goal of promoting market discipline would seem to be in accordance with the SEC’s mission to “maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.” Absent from the FSOC mandate, however, are references to the goals of protecting investors and facilitating capital formation that are also at the core of the SEC’s mission.

Were FSOC simply an advisory body, this omission might not be cause for concern. FSOC, however, is vested with unprecedented authority with respect to the agencies from which its members are drawn. Perhaps the most important of these authorities is to “provide for more stringent regulation of a financial activity by issuing recommendations to the primary financial regulatory agencies to apply new or heightened standards and safeguards” in critical areas of regulation, including capital, leverage, and disclosure requirements as well as leverage limits, concentration limits, and overall risk management. Pursuant to the statute, FSOC may provide such recommendations if it “determines that the conduct, scope, nature, size, scale, concentration, or interconnectedness of such activity or practice could create or increase the risk of significant liquidity, credit, or other problems spreading among bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies, financial markets of the United States, or low-income, minority, or underserved communities.”

In addition to this “recommendation” authority, Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act vests FSOC with even greater power with respect to certain financial market utilities and, even more broadly, certain payment, clearing, or settlement activities conducted by “financial institutions.” Specifically, upon FSOC’s designation, by a two-thirds vote, of a financial market utility or a payment, clearing, or settlement activity as “systemically important,” it may direct the Fed, in consultation with the relevant supervisory agencies and FSOC itself, to prescribe risk management standards. With respect to “designated” utilities or to “designated” activities conducted by financial institutions for which the SEC or CFTC is the primary regulator, Title VIII sets forth “special procedures” pursuant to which the Fed may, if it determines that the risk management standards set by the SEC or the CFTC are “insufficient,” impose its own standards. If the SEC or CFTC object within 60 days, FSOC decides, again by a two-thirds vote of its ten voting members, which standards apply.

In other words, FSOC has the power to make “recommendations” to the primary regulators of any “financial companies” regarding their core areas of regulation, and can even allow the Fed to supplant the primary regulators. The decisions made by this group of presidential appointees, which will almost always be comprised exclusively or almost exclusively by members of the same party led by a member of the President’s Cabinet, can take place behind closed doors.

This is not a political or partisan concern. Although the work being performed by the present membership of FSOC may be some of the most important work the council ever does, with consequences to financial markets that could last for decades, Presidents from both parties will have the authority to appoint the agency heads that will serve on FSOC, and as administrations change, so will the political affiliations of FSOC’s members. Instead, this is a concern over the concentration of power in a group made up of leaders of agencies with different goals and missions, including leaders of bipartisan, multi-member agencies who have no statutory requirement to consult with their agency colleagues.

Now, let me stress that FSOC’s mandate, broadly speaking, to preserve the financial stability of the U.S., is of crucial importance — indeed, those of us who were in the trenches during the financial crisis would have been surprised if Congress had not created a systemic risk regulator. But FSOC’s mandate is not the SEC’s mandate. The core of bank regulation is safety and soundness, both on an individual scale, by, for example, guaranteeing bank customers’ deposits, and on a national — indeed, global — scale by managing systemic risk. The SEC, on the other hand, regulates markets that are inherently risky. Indeed, the risks taken by investors are absolutely critical to capital allocation, which in turn is critical to economic growth. The SEC works to protect investors willing to accept the risk of securities markets in the hopes of greater returns by ensuring that those markets are fair and efficient, not risk-free, and does so with the benefit of nearly eight decades of experience in regulating those markets. Were FSOC to interpret its bank-oriented mandate as a license to impose a bank-oriented model of regulation on the SEC and the markets it regulates, the results could have a devastating effect on markets.

Which brings me to the Volcker Rule and the SEC’s role in its implementation. The Volcker Rule, which may have a more dramatic impact on world markets and U.S. competitiveness than perhaps any other rule regulators are promulgating under Dodd-Frank, addresses, at its heart, a topic about which the SEC traditionally has — among all the regulators writing rules in this space — the most experience and expertise in regulating. For those reasons — because it is potentially so significant and because it implicates areas of the SEC’s core competence — it is a perfect case study for how to think about approaching Dodd-Frank rulemaking and the SEC’s role in that rulemaking.

I want to begin by talking a bit about the statute and the proposed rules. Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly known as the “Volcker Rule” even though it is a statutory provision, imposes two significant prohibitions on banking entities and their affiliates. First, the Rule generally prohibits banking entities that benefit from federal insurance on customer deposits or access to the discount window, as well as their affiliates, from engaging in proprietary trading. Second, the Rule prohibits those entities from sponsoring or investing in hedge funds or private equity funds. The Rule identifies certain specified “permitted activities,” including underwriting, market making, and trading in certain government obligations, that are excepted from these prohibitions but also establishes limitations on those excepted activities. The Volcker Rule defines — in expansive terms — key terms such as “proprietary trading” and “trading account” and grants the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the OCC, the SEC, and the CFTC the rulemaking authority to further add to those definitions.

The statute also charges the three Federal banking agencies, the SEC, and the CFTC with adopting rules to carry out the provisions of the Volcker Rule. It requires the Federal banking agencies to issue their rules with respect to insured depositary institutions jointly and mandates that all of the affected agencies, including the Commission, “consult and coordinate” with each other in the rulemaking process. In doing so, the agencies are required to ensure that the regulations are “comparable,” that they “provide for consistent application and implementation” in order to avoid providing advantages or imposing disadvantages to affected companies, and that they protect the “safety and soundness” of banking entities and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Fed.

In October of last year, the Commission jointly proposed with the Federal banking agencies a set of implementing regulations for the Volcker Rule,2with the CFTC issuing a substantively identical set of proposals in January. The proposing release includes extensive commentary designed to assist entities in distinguishing permitted trading activities from prohibited proprietary trading activities as well as in identifying permitted activities with respect to hedge funds and private equity funds.

In her Opening Statement introducing the joint rule proposals at an SEC Open Meeting last October, Chairman Schapiro praised the collaborative effort among the five agencies involved in the drafting process, noting that it involved “more than a year of weekly, if not more frequent, interagency staff conference calls, interagency meetings, and shared drafting.”3 It is telling, however, that in his recent testimony before a House Financial Services Subcommittee, CFTC Chairman Gensler, noting his agency’s role as a “supporting member” in the rulemaking process, stated, “The bank regulators have the lead role.”4

I think, however, that both the statute and our expertise compel the SEC to play a strong and vigorous role in the rulemaking. The Volcker Rule applies to “banking entities” and their affiliates, affecting a wide range of financial institutions regulated by the five different agencies. Regardless of the nature of the regulated entities, however, the Rule addresses a set of activities — the trading and investment practices of those entities — that fall within the core competencies of the SEC. Indeed, the Rule expressly envisions that quintessential market-making activity continue within these firms.

As such, if we at the SEC play our role properly, we can and should ensure that the Volcker Rule meets the aims of Congress without destroying critically important market activity explicitly contemplated by the statute. The issues addressed in the proposed rules — prohibited activities with exceptions to those prohibitions — and limitations to those exceptions — that make complex issues exponentially more so — are the bread and butter of the SEC. For almost eighty years, the SEC has addressed these and similar issues with commensurate levels of complexity. For example, many of you are familiar with the SEC’s extensive array of rulemaking and interpretive releases concerning exceptions for bona fide hedging or market making in the context of short sales. These exceptions, which date back to the early 1980s, built upon the bona fide hedging exceptions to the Commission’s proprietary trading rules for members of national securities exchanges set forth in a 1979 rulemaking.5 The SEC has been dealing with these issues for a long, long time.

By taking a leadership role, the SEC can also ensure that the final rule is consistent with our core mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair and efficient markets and promoting capital formation. These considerations, coupled with the expertise that the SEC brings to the table, should ensure that the bank regulators’ focus on safety and soundness and Dodd-Frank’s overarching focus on managing systemic risk (although many have argued whether the statute will in the end reduce such risk) are balanced by legitimate considerations of investor protection and the maintenance of robust markets.

The Volcker Rule comment period — during which commenters were asked to share their thoughts on over 1,300 questions on nearly 400 topics — ended last month, and although it would of course be premature to share my thoughts on the proposed rules today, even a quick review of the many substantial comment letters the Commission received reveals widespread fears regarding the effect of the proposed rules on the proper functioning of global markets and the competitiveness of the U.S. financial industry might — fears that I share with the commenters.

Our foreign regulatory counterparts have also expressed serious concerns with the proposed rules. The Japanese FSA and the Bank of Japan filed a comment letter to express their concerns over “the potentially serious negative impact on the Japanese markets and associated significant rise in the cost of related transactions for Japanese banks” that they believe would arise from the extraterritorial application of the Volcker Rule.6 British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne wrote recently to Fed Chairman Bernanke to express his fear that the proposed rules’ effect on market making services for non-U.S. debt would make it “more difficult and costlier” for banks to trade non-U.S. sovereign bonds on behalf of clients.7 Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney — who was recently named Chairman of the G-20’s Financial Stability Board — has stated that he and other Canadian officials have “obvious concerns” about the proposed rules. He cited the lack of clarity in the proposed rules’ definitions of “market making” versus “proprietary trade,” the effect the rules would have on non-U.S. government bond markets, and what he viewed as the Rule’s inappropriate “presumption” that trades are proprietary.8 Lastly, Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services, has written to Fed Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Geithner that “[t]here is a real risk that banks impacted by the rule would also significantly reduce their market-making activities, reducing liquidity in many markets both within and outside the United States.”

The aggregate impact of the rulemakings we and our fellow regulators are promulgating is massive, the costs are enormous, and we are introducing these massive and costly rule proposals at a time when our economy is still — hopefully — limping towards recovery. These factors all argue for an approach that is careful, systematic, but most importantly regulatorily incremental. It is important to remember that regulators’ authority and oversight responsibilities do not end when final rules are promulgated, and that continued oversight will ensure that regulators can refine and improve the rules as markets organize and develop in response to the rules we write. Importantly, we can and should recalibrate the rules as markets develop and regulators learn more and gather and analyze relevant data. We must avoid regulatory hubris and should not regulate — particularly where the changes are so novel or comprehensive — with the belief that we completely understand the consequences of the regulations we may impose. In many of these areas, including Volcker, missing the mark could have dire and perhaps irreversibly negative consequences. As such, I believe that this approach - careful, systematic, and regulatorily incremental — should serve as an appropriate guiding principle as we undertake not only our consideration of the Volcker Rule but also other significant rulemaking mandated under Dodd-Frank.

Consistent with this approach, especially in light of the voluminous comments received, regulators must be willing to re-examine our initial efforts and, if necessary, go back to the drawing board to make sure we regulate wisely, rather than just quickly. In a recent speech, my colleague and friend Commissioner Troy Paredes stated that if the proposed implementing regulations for the Volcker Rule need to change as much as it looked to him like they do, the responsible course for the Commission to follow would be to issue a reproposal.10 I couldn’t agree with him more, both regarding the potential need for extensive changes to the proposed rule and the wisdom of reproposing the amended rule to garner the benefit of another round of comment. The comments we’ve received so far, including those I've cited today, provide invaluable insights as to the potential impact of the Volcker Rule. These comments provide powerful evidence that the benefits the proposed rule was designed to provide may come at an unacceptably high cost. It would be a dereliction of our duty as regulators to ignore them.

As Commissioner Paredes stated in his recent speech, the virtue of a reproposal is the benefit of another round of comment. We owe it to investors and all market participants to review each and every comment letter with the goal of learning more about the potential real-world impact of the rules, and given the extensive revisions that I believe the proposed rule requires, we owe it to them to provide another opportunity to comment on a set of reproposed rules.
Thank you for your attention and for inviting me here today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.”

KANSAS REFINERY WILL SPEND MILLIONS TO CLEAN UP ITS ACT

The following excerpt is from an EPA e-mail:

The following excerpt is from the EPA website:

“WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing (CRRM) has agreed to pay a civil penalty of more than $970,000 and invest more than $4.25 million on new pollution controls and $6.5 million in operating costs to resolve alleged violations of air, superfund and community right-to-know laws at its Coffeyville, Kan. refinery. The settlement will benefit the environment and human health by requiring new and upgraded pollution controls, more stringent emission limits, and more aggressive leak-detection and repair practices to reduce emissions from refinery equipment and process units. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), two pollutants emitted from refineries, can cause respiratory problems like asthma and are significant contributors to acid rain, smog and haze.

“The Clean Air Act is designed to protect people’s health from emissions of harmful pollutants,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s settlement will protect residents living near the facility and ensure that the necessary pollution controls are installed to protect the residents of southeastern Kansas in the future.”

“This settlement puts CRRM on a level playing field with the more than 100 petroleum refineries that have agreed to implement aggressive pollution control measures, thereby reducing the threats posed by harmful emissions to area residents,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “The agreement reaffirms our commitment to ensure that the petroleum refining industry complies with the nation’s Clean Air Act.”

The settlement resolves alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).Coffeyville allegedly made modifications to its refinery that increased emissions without first obtaining pre-construction permits and installing required pollution control equipment. The CAA requires major sources of air pollution to obtain such permits before making changes that would result in a significant emissions increase of any pollutant. The settlement also resolves violations in which CRRM failed to timely notify state and local emergency responders of releases of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide from the refinery, as required by the CERCLA and EPCRA.

Once fully implemented, the pollution controls required by the settlement will annually reduce an estimated 200 tons of NOx emissions and more than 110 tons of SO2 emissions. The settlement will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other pollutants that affect air quality. CRRM has also agreed to perform a voluntary environmental project at the refinery valued at more than $1.2 million. The project will benefit the environment and surrounding communities by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds and hydrogen sulfide, reducing the frequency of future acid gas flaring incidents, and conserve 15 million gallons of water each year that would previously have come from the Verdigris River.

The settlement with CRRM is the 30th under an EPA initiative to improve compliance among petroleum refiners and to reduce significant amounts of air pollution from refineries nationwide through comprehensive, company-wide settlements. The first of EPA’s settlements was reached in 2000, and with today’s settlement, 107 refineries operating in 32 states and territories – more than 90 percent of the total refining capacity in the United States – are under judicially enforceable agreements to significantly reduce emissions of pollutants. As a result of the settlement agreements, refiners have agreed to invest more than $6 billion in new pollution controls designed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants by more than 360,000 tons per year.

CRRM’s refinery has the capacity to refine more than 115,000 barrels of crude oil per day, producing gasoline, diesel fuels, and propane.

The State of Kansas has joined in the settlement and will receive a portion of the civil penalty.

The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and court approval.”

U.S. JORDAN JOINT FORUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL COOPERATION

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:

“Communique of the U.S.-Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 6, 2012
Below is the text of a Joint Communiqué issued following the Third Meeting of the United States – Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation held in Amman, Jordan, on March 4, 2012.
Begin Text:
The United States – Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation (“Joint Forum”) met today in Amman, Jordan. Our two governments announced the establishment of the Joint Forum in 2000 when we issued our Joint Statement on Environmental Technical Cooperation (Joint Statement) in association with the U.S. Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

We are pleased to convene this Joint Forum in Amman. We are happy to report that we are making significant progress toward achieving the goal we identified almost 12 years ago in our Joint Statement to "advance environmental protection in Jordan.”
We are especially pleased at the opportunity today’s meeting provided for members of the public both to hear about the ways in which the United States and Jordan are cooperating to preserve and protect Jordan’s environment and to ask questions about and provide input on our current and future work program. The entire meeting was open to the public and exemplified our commitment to transparent, democratic, and participatory processes.
We were pleased to hear reports today detailing the status of cooperative environmental projects. Representatives from Jordan’s Ministry of Environment and Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development described a range of projects they are implementing in Jordan that benefit Jordan’s environment and its people. We are impressed with the breadth and scope of these cooperative activities.

Finally, we signed a new Work Program that lays out a road map for environmental cooperation between the United States and Jordan through 2013. In this new Work Program, we express our intention to focus our cooperation on creating green jobs and other economic opportunities that promote green growth and sustainable development. Under this organizing principle, we identify four priority areas for cooperation: (1) institutional and policy strengthening for effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, including natural resource-related laws; (2) biodiversity conservation and improved management of protected areas and other ecologically important ecosystems; (3) improved private sector environmental performance; and (4) environmental education, transparency, and public participation in environmental decision-making and enforcement.

Today, the United States and Jordan reaffirmed our strong commitment to work together to preserve and protect the environment. Our cooperative environmental work tangibly demonstrates that economic growth and environmental protection are mutually supportive.”

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA SAYS IRAN BIGGEST LOOSER WHEN ASSAD FALLS

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense American Forces Press Service website e-mail:

"Iran Will Be Biggest Loser When Assad Falls, Panetta Says

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 7, 2012 - Iran will be the biggest loser when Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime falls, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the committee on the situation in Syria this morning.

The Syrian people want what the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have – a chance at freedom and a democratic future, the secretary said. Assad and his people are indiscriminately killing those pushing for peaceful change in the nation. The fighting in the country is causing a humanitarian crisis of the first order, and thousands of Syrians are fleeing from the country to Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.

A stable Syria is vital to the Middle East and the world, Panetta said. "But perhaps most notably, Syria is a pivotal country for Iran," the secretary said. "Syria is Iran's only state ally in the region and is crucial to Iran's efforts to support those militants throughout the region who threaten Israel and threaten regional stability."

The unrest in Syria already has weakened Iran's position in the Middle East, and it will be further weakened if the regime falls, the secretary said. "As groups such as Hamas distance themselves from the Assad regime, Iran is quickly becoming the Assad regime's lone backer," he added. "This shows the world the hypocrisy of Tehran."

Panetta told the senators that the United States is on the side of the Syrian people. "They must know that the international community has not underestimated either their suffering or their impatience," he said. "We all wish there was a clear and unambiguous way forward to directly influence the events in Syria. That, unfortunately, is not the case."

The only clear path is for the international community to act as one against the regime, the secretary said.

Dempsey told the panel that Syria's internal convulsions are having consequences. In addition to the refugee problem, the general said, "we also need to be alert to the movement of extremists and other hostile actors seeking to exploit the situation."

"And we need to be especially alert to the fate of Syria's chemical and biological weapons," the chairman added. "They must stay exactly where they are."

The U.S. military role to date has been limited to sharing information with regional partners, Dempsey said. "But, should we be called on to help secure U.S. interests in other ways, we will be ready," he told the senators. "We maintain an agile regional and global posture. We have solid military relationships with every country on Syria's borders."

And the military is prepared to provide U.S. government leaders with options, Dempsey said. "All options will be judged in terms of their suitability, their feasibility and their acceptability," he added. "We have a further responsibility to articulate risk and the potential implications for our other global commitments."

Panetta told the senators that unilateral U.S. action in Syria does not make sense.

"As secretary of defense, before I recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, I've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is," he said. "I've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, at what price, and whether or not it'll make matters better or worse. Those are the considerations that I have to engage in."

The United States needs to build the same type of coalition that worked in Libya, Dempsey said.

The senators asked Dempsey specifically about an air campaign over Syria. "We've demonstrated the capability to penetrate air defense systems for a discrete purpose and a very limited amount of time," he said. "We still have that capability." To conduct a sustained campaign, the U.S. military would have to suppress Syria's air defense.

"In closed session, we do have an estimate based on gaming and modeling of how long it would take to do that, given the density and the sophistication of their air defense system," Dempsey said. "But it would be an extended period of time, and a great number of aircraft."

Such an air campaign would be led by the United States, at least initially, Dempsey said, noting that only U.S. forces have the electronic warfare capabilities to take down those defenses."

CLIMATE CHANGE AND SNOW ON MT. WASHINGTON

The picture (right) and excerpt below are from the National Science Foundation website:

“The Snows of Mount Washington
Climate and environmental change in the U.S. northeast corridor
March 2, 2012

Kilimanjaro is a snow-covered mountain 19,710 feet high, and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Close to the western summit there is the dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude.
---Ernest Hemingway, The Snows of Kilimanjaro

It's March, but a big snow has fallen in the U.S. Northeast for perhaps the first time this winter.
What's going on in traditional New England "snow towns" like Boston, Burlington and Brattleboro--and atop New Hampshire's famed Mount Washington, which is often snow-covered through July?
Is this seemingly snowless winter a blip on the radar screen, or a harbinger of things to come?
What will Earth's climate be like in a century, a decade or or sooner? And what will it be like where you live, if you're in Massachusetts, Vermont or other Northeastern states?
Or in Africa?

National Science Foundation- (NSF) funded scientists are working to find answers.
NSF recently awarded 29 grants to study the consequences of climate variability and change.
The grants were made through the interagency Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models (EaSM) program, co-funded by NSF, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.

"The EaSM projects will expand the limits of our understanding of Earth's climate system," says Tim Killeen, NSF assistant director for Geosciences.

"They will lead to better ways of predicting climate change. The knowledge being developed will result in improved, science-based decision-making about our common future."
The consequences of climate variability and change are more immediate and profound than previously anticipated, scientists believe.

Prolonged droughts; increasing stresses on natural and managed ecosystems; loss of agricultural and forest productivity; degraded ocean and permafrost habitats; global sea-level rise and the rapid retreat of ice sheets and glaciers; and changes in ocean currents have shown that climate variability and change may have significant effects on decade and shorter time scales.

The effects, researchers have found, for humans and other animals, plants and physical systems such as the oceans may be far-reaching.

EaSM awardees such as scientist Charles J. Vorosmarty of the City University of New York and colleagues are studying the alterations taking place in the U.S. Northeast.
"This region reflects many of the changes across the nation's landscapes and watersheds," says Vorosmarty. "Because of its long history of development, it provides a unique lens to look at options for managing large-scale natural systems."

From early settlement to deforestation and land-clearing, to industrialization, urbanization and mega-city growth, and to post-industrialization, the region has been transformed.
"Such human actions will continue," says Vorosmarty, "and likely be more difficult to manage in a rapidly changing climate and environment.

"We will have major challenges trying to balance such needs as improving energy efficiency, maintaining water quality and deciding how best to manage the billions of dollars that will be needed for civil and private infrastructure."

Because the atmosphere, land and aquatic systems, rivers and streams, and the ocean are closely linked through water and biogeochemical cycles, change to one has the potential for system-wide feedbacks and unintended consequences.
"Scientists' current ability to understand human-environment interactions on a regional basis--and across several decades--is limited," Vorosmarty says, "as are tools for environmental planners to formulate sound decisions."
The EaSM team is working to develop a Northeast Regional Earth System Model that improves the ability to forecast implications of planning decisions on the region's environment, energy use and economy through the 21st century.

"The model will be the first to integrate the human causes of decadal climate change with land and aquatic ecosystems, and with the ‘ecosystem services' they provide to all of us, as well as with socioeconomic effects and management and policy decisions," says Elizabeth Blood, program director in NSF's Biological Sciences Directorate, which supports Vorosmarty's award.

The EaSM grants are also funded by NSF's Directorates for Geosciences, Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Computer & Information Science & Engineering, and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences and its Office of Cyberinfrastructure and Office of Polar Programs.

"The research will provide new insights," says Blood, "into the complex links among human and ecological systems and critical Earth processes operating on decadal and regional scales."

The model is being used to test whether there are significant consequences of worldwide and nationwide human decisions on the northeastern region's environment.
"We hope that our research will be a major step forward in understanding the state of large, interacting human and natural systems, with results that can be used to inform policy decisions," says Vorosmarty.
To look forward, however, one must first look back.

As a first step, the colonial hydrology of the northeastern U.S. has been reconstructed by Vorosmarty and other geoscientists, biological scientists and social scientists.
Their findings, which extend to the year 1600, are a new way of uncovering the past.
Throughout American history, water resources have played an integral role in shaping patterns of human settlement and networks of biological and economic exchange.
The scientists divided their study area into three geographic and socio-political sub-regions: New England, the Middle Colonies and the Chesapeake.

They then looked at the ways in which variables such as soil, vegetation and climate combined with socio-political factors to influence each sub-region's hydrologic environment.
In New England, for example, close-knit religious communities with strong central governments concentrated their economic efforts on fur-trading and timber extraction.
The Chesapeake region, on the other hand, was settled largely by young, unskilled men who cleared trees and planted tobacco fencerow-to-fencerow. Their efforts caused extensive erosion, which dramatically altered rivers.

The Middle Colonies were characterized by diverse social, cultural and religious traditions, and by feudal-style estate agriculture.

These past activities need to be integrated into today's analyses of land-cover change and climate change, says Vorosmarty. "The key lesson is that the effect of decisions made long ago lasted for hundreds of years. The future will hold the same."

New information from the Northeast Regional Earth System Model will allow researchers like Vorosmarty to diagnose the health of the regional environment, including its climate.
"What direction that's heading," says Vorosmarty, "is a weathervane for us as well. If we want to change where it's pointing, the time is now."

Whether on New Hampshire's Mount Washington or Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro, whither the snows go, so, too, may we.”

SEC SAYS INVESTMENT ADVISER USED INVESTOR MONEY TO BUY MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:

SEC Obtains Asset Freeze Against Long Island Investment Adviser Charged with Defrauding Investors
“Washington, D.C., March 6, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced it has charged a New York-based investment adviser with defrauding investors in five offshore funds and using some of their money to buy himself a multi-million dollar beach resort property on Long Island.

The SEC alleges that Brian Raymond Callahan of Old Westbury, N.Y., raised more than $74 million from at least two dozen investors since 2005, promising them their money would be invested in liquid assets. Instead, Callahan diverted investor money to his brother-in-law’s beach resort project that was facing foreclosure, and in return received unsecured, illiquid promissory notes. Callahan also used investor funds to pay other investors and make a down payment on the $3.35 million unit he purchased at his brother-in-law’s real estate project.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Islip, N.Y., Callahan operated the five funds through his investment advisory firms Horizon Global Advisors Ltd. and Horizon Global Advisors LLC. He used the promissory notes to hide his misuse of investor funds. The promissory notes overstated the amount of money diverted to the real estate project. For instance, in 2011, Callahan received $14.5 million in promissory notes in exchange for only $3.3 million he provided to his brother-in-law. The inflated promissory notes allowed Callahan to overstate the amount of assets he was managing and inflate his management fees by 800 percent or more.

“Callahan misled investors in his funds with false promises, and he enriched himself at their expense when he diverted fund assets for his personal use and pocketed inflated management fees,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Callahan refused to testify in the SEC’s investigation and recently informed investors about the investigation, but gave false assurances that no laws had been broken. Callahan also misled investors by not disclosing that in 2009, the Financial Regulatory Industry Authority barred him from associating with any FINRA member.

The SEC charges Callahan and his advisory firms with violating federal antifraud laws, specifically Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a), (b) and (c) thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against Callahan and his firms, return of ill-gotten gains with interest, and financial penalties.
At the SEC’s request, and after a court hearing yesterday, the court granted a temporary restraining order freezing the assets of Callahan and his advisory firms, enjoining them from violating the antifraud provisions, and granting other emergency relief.

The SEC’s investigation has been conducted by Holly Pal, Linda French, Osman Handoo, Ann Rosenfield, Natalie Lentz and Lisa Deitch of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. The SEC’s litigation is being led by Dean Conway.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission and the Bermuda Monetary Authority.”

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANNETTA SAYS U.S. ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP GROWS STRONGER

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta delivers remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., March 6, 2012. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

The following picture and excerpt are from a U.S. Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:


“Panetta: U.S.-Israel Partnership Will Become Closer
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 6, 2012 - Defense cooperation between the U.S. and Israel is already close, and it will get closer as both countries face the threats of the future, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today.

Panetta spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee here and said the United States and Israel will work closely together in the face of the dangers that confront both countries.

"The security bonds between Israel and the United States will only grow as America goes through a historic turning point after a decade of war," he said.

In fact, defense cooperation will grow even with U.S. defense budget reductions. Panetta delivered "an ironclad pledge" that the United States will provide whatever support is necessary so Israel maintains military superiority over any state or coalition of states, as well as non-state actors, in the region.

"Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged wars against it," he said. "The Israeli people have been subjected to rocket attacks, to terrorism, and they live in a world where larger nations have threatened to wipe them off the map."

Supporting Israel is the right thing to do and isin America's best interests, Panetta said.
"We have no better ally in this critical region of the world," he said. "A strong Israel deters potential aggressors. A strong Israel sends a message to the region and to the world that America will not waver in defense of our allies."

The U.S. has increased security assistance to Israel substantially. This year, the budget calls for $31 billion in assistance to the nation, up from $2.5 billion in fiscal 2009.
"This is part of a 10-year, $30 billion commitment to Israel's security," Panetta said. "Over and above this commitment, the President has committed more than $650 million in DOD funding for Israeli missile defense."

The U.S. is working with Israel to develop an anti-missile system to address the threat from all levels. The system will deal with short-range defense to counter the continued threat of rocket barrages from Gaza. The United States provided more than $200 million for the Iron Dome rocket defense system.

"Iron Dome is fielded, it is operational, and this new system has already saved the lives of Israeli civilians with over 30 real world successful hit-to-kill intercepts in 2011," Panetta said.

The two nations are also working on medium range missile defense, developing David's Sling, and upper tier ballistic missile defense with the Arrow-3 system.
"We are also working to upgrade Israel's Patriot missile system and batteries," he said. "We are committed to moving forward with all of these systems and more -- because as the Prime Minister told me -- these missile shields do not start wars, they prevent wars."
The secretary noted the Israeli air force will receive the world's most sophisticated warplane -- the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"The F-35 is the future of tactical aviation for the United States military, and providing Israel with this advanced fighter makes it the only country in the Middle East with a true fifth-generation fighter capacity, upholding Israel's edge not just now but for many years to come," the secretary said.
The two militaries will not only share equipment, but also operational concepts. U.S. and Israeli service members will build greater capability and improve partnership through realistic exercises, joint training and personnel exchanges, Panetta said.
"Each year, U.S. and Israeli forces take part in numerous exercises," he said. One example is missile defense exercise Austere Challenge that this year will include more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"This kind of cooperation is mutually beneficial to both the United States and Israel. It has made both of our militaries stronger," Panetta said.
The secretary pointed out that cooperation is not just a one-way street. It was an Israeli company that met the call to help protect American soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan by surging production of up-armor kits for Humvees and mine-resistant vehicles.

"The kits were made in an Israeli kibbutz, and they saved the lives of our men and women in uniform," Panetta said.

FORMER VA OFFICIAL AND WIFE SENTENCED FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD VA, SBA

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice Antitrust website:

"WASHINGTON — The former associate director of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy in Hines, Ill., his wife and their temporary staffing company were sentenced today for their participation in a conspiracy to defraud the VA and the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Justice announced.

William J. Brandt, the associate director of the VA facility from 1996 until April 2007, his wife, Esperanza A. Brandt, and Pronto Staffing Inc. were sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Chicago by Judge Milton I. Shadur. William Brandt was sentenced to serve 60 months in prison and Esperanza Brandt was sentenced to serve 24 months of probation. The Brandts and Pronto Staffing were also sentenced to pay $400,000 in restitution jointly and severally.

On May 9, 2009, the Brandts and Pronto each pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. William Brandt also pleaded guilty to one charge of wire fraud, which deprived the VA and the public of his honest services. The Outpatient Pharmacy in Hines, one of seven regional VA mail-out pharmacies, currently processes and sends out more than 90,000 prescriptions each day to veterans.

The Brandts and Pronto admitted to conspiring with others to commit wire fraud in a scheme to fraudulently allow Pronto to provide temporary pharmacists to the Outpatient Pharmacy where William Brandt worked and supervised pharmacists. Pronto was created by the Brandts in 2000 to provide pharmacists to the Hines Outpatient Pharmacy. The company later sought SBA certification as a woman-owned, minority-owned small disadvantaged business and 8(a) Program participant. As part of the conspiracy, the Brandts agreed to allow another company to fraudulently use Pronto's SBA status to bid on contracts set aside for SBA and 8(a) participants.

William Brandt also pleaded guilty to wire fraud for making materially false misrepresentations to the VA and other government officials and hiding his involvement with Pronto. Brandt claimed that Pronto was solely managed by his wife in order to avoid conflict of interest laws governing federal employees. During the course of the scheme, William Brandt, working with others, secretly agreed that the billing rates charged to the VA for certain pharmacists provided by Pronto should be increased. Between 2000 and 2007, the Brandts and other co-conspirators used Pronto to bill the VA for more than $8 million in services to the Hines Outpatient Pharmacy facility. The department said that this conduct deprived the VA and the public of Brandt's honest service.

Four individuals and one company have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced in this investigation. On June 30, 2008, Joel M. Gostolmelsky, the former director of the VA facility, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to accepting illegal gratuities in connection with awarding staffing and supply contracts, including contracts for temporary pharmacists. On Oct. 7, 2010, Gostolmelsky was sentenced to serve five months in prison and to pay $49,484 in restitution. On Aug. 13, 2009, Stephanie D. Blackmon and a temporary staffing company she owned, Patriot Services Inc., pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the SBA. On Sept. 28, 2010, Blackmon was sentenced to pay a $3,000 criminal fine and Patriot was sentenced to pay a $5,000 criminal fine.

The investigation of unlawful conduct concerning the VA's Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacies was conducted jointly by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division's Chicago Field Office and the VA's Office of Inspector General. The SBA's Office of Inspector General, the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the U.S. Secret Service assisted in the investigation.”

ASSISTANT AG PEREZ TALKS BULLYING ON ANOKA-HENNEPIN CONFERENCE CALL

The following excerpt is from the U.S. Department of Justice website:

“Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez Speaks on Anoka-Hennepin Conference Call~ Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Good Morning.   Joining me today is Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, and Greg Brooker, Civil Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Minnesota.   Greg and Russlynn have been great partners in this effort to enforce the civil rights of students to attend schools free from bullying and harassment.

Education is a great equalizer.   Yet, students cannot learn if they are afraid to go to school.  Students cannot learn if they are being harassed and threatened.   Students cannot learn if they are not free to be themselves.   Students cannot learn if they feel that school administrators can’t and don’t protect them.

Bullying cannot be a rite of passage in our nation’s schools.   Instead, our schools must be safe and nurturing environments that promote learning and full participation by all students.   As a parent of three students in public school, I realize how important it is for children to be free from fear so that they can learn and thrive in school every day.

This case is about ensuring equal educational opportunity for all students in the Anoka-Hennepin school District.   The Departments of Justice and Education, together with six student plaintiffs and the Anoka-Hennepin School District, filed a proposed Consent Decree last night that resolves claims of sex-based harassment in middle and high schools in the district by creating a safe, nurturing learning environment for everyone.   The departments investigated a complaint that the learning environment in the schools was unsafe and unwelcoming for students who did not conform to gender stereotypes.   In Anoka-Hennepin, students were afraid to go to school because they were repeatedly harassed.   Some students faced threats, physical violence, derogatory language and other forms of harassment on a daily basis.   As a result, some students stopped attending school for periods of time, dropped out or contemplated or attempted suicide.   Across the District, students lost their will to learn.

The consent decree follows an extensive joint investigation by the departments.   Our attorneys interviewed over 60 individuals, including current and former students, parents, teachers and district staff and administrators, and reviewed 7,000 pages of documents.

The consent decree is a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform that will enhance the district’s policies, training and other efforts to ensure that every student in the district is free from sex-based harassment. The consent decree will build on the district’s existing anti-harassment efforts to help to create an environment where all students feel safe in school, are free from harassment, and can be themselves.

Under the proposed consent decree the district will:
Retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district’s policies and procedures concerning harassment;
Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools;
Enhance and improve its training of faculty, staff, and students on sex-based harassment;
Hire or appoint a Title IX Coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district’s sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX;
Retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment;
Improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment;
Conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluations of its anti-harassment efforts; and
Submit annual compliance reports to the departments.

The district has been very cooperative with our investigation and throughout our negotiations.  The district has been taking steps to address the harassment and concerns about the learning environment in its schools.   Last month, the district adopted a Respectful Learning Environment Curriculum policy, which sets forth the district’s commitment to affirm the dignity and self worth of all students regardless of their background.   This was a very important step forward in the effort to establish a safe, inclusive and nurturing learning environment for all students.  We will continue to work with the district to assist with implementation of the consent decree.   We will monitor compliance with the consent decree for the next five years to sustain a culture change and promote a supportive learning environment.  Culture changes takes time, but I am confident it is already happening in Anoka-Hennepin and will continue to happen.

Through our consent decree, it is our hope that Anoka-Hennepin, Minnesota’s largest school district educating nearly 40,000 students in 37 schools, will become a model for other school districts in its efforts to address sex-based and other types of prohibited harassment.

I also want to thank the students and others who came forward in this case.   Their courage and insights were invaluable.   As Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” A group of courageous students have indeed changed the world.    The decree explicitly provides for opportunities for student involvement and input into the district’s ongoing anti-harassment efforts.

This administration is committed to combating harassment and bullying.   Where we see barriers to educational opportunities, we work aggressively to break down those barriers.  In Tehachapi, Calif., following the death of Seth Walsh, a gay student who took his own life, we worked with Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights on an agreement with the school district to amend its policies and provide training to address and prevent sex-based harassment.      At South Philadelphia High School, we engaged in a comprehensive consent decree to address the severe and pervasive harassment of Asian American students.   And in Owatonna, Minn., we entered a settlement agreement to resolve an investigation into the racial and national origin harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students at Owatonna High School.   Last year, the Department of Education produced a comprehensive guidance on bullying.  We will use every tool in our law enforcement arsenal to ensure that all students have access to equal educational opportunity.

We look forward to working with the district to ensure that all its students are able to learn in a safe and supportive environment."

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK EXPANDS PRESENCE TO FOUR MAJOR U.S. CITIES

The following excerpt is from a Export-Import Bank e-mail:

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES TO ESTABLISH FULL-TIME PRESENCE IN ATLANTA, DETROIT, MINNEAPOLIS, SEATTLE
Financing for U.S. exporters with focus on small business    

 

Detroit, Mich. – Today at the Detroit Economic Club, Fred P. Hochberg, the chairman and president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), announced that Ex-Im Bank will establish a new full-time presence in four U.S. cities by this summer. Bank staff, which are currently being recruited for the new positions, will be based in Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Seattle. This will provide local small business exporters with enhanced access to Ex-Im Bank products and services. 

“Ex-Im Bank wants to provide small businesses access to export financing for their export sales,” said Chairman Hochberg. “Exports are a true bright spot in our economic recovery, and having additional field staff in four cities will help ensure that more U.S. businesses are reaching international markets.” 

“More Michigan exports mean more Michigan jobs,” said U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, a member of the President’s Export Council under both Presidents Bush and Obama. “Helping Michigan small businesses reach new markets is absolutely one of the best ways to strengthen our economy. There is still a lot of work to be done, but with our auto industry coming back, Detroit welcoming the country’s first-ever satellite patent office and now this new export center, good news is happening in Michigan."

“Last month, I joined President Obama during his visit to Everett when he highlighted the importance of the Export-Import Bank,” said Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn. “We welcome their new office in our city, the opening of which is evidence of Seattle’s resilient economic force in our region. With more than 95 percent of the world's consumers living outside the United States, it is vital that Washington businesses - both large and small - explore international markets.”

“Growing local jobs by expanding exports is one of our key regional economic development strategies,” said Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. “Before now, the Export-Import Bank was the only member of the Federal export team that we were missing here in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. We asked the Obama Administration to fill that gap, and they listened. Now expert advisors on export financing tools and export order insurance will be right here for easy access by Minneapolis–Saint Paul companies. Exports support more than 117,000 jobs in our region, and the Export-Import Bank full-time presence in Minneapolis will only help us grow that number.” 

About Ex-Im Bank:

Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency that helps create and maintain U.S. jobs by filling gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. In the past five years, Ex-Im Bank has earned for U.S. taxpayers $1.9 billion above the cost of operations. The Bank provides a variety of financing mechanisms, including working capital guarantees, export-credit insurance and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and services.

Ex-Im Bank approved $32.7 billion in total authorizations in FY 2011 -- an all-time Ex-Im record. This total includes more than $6 billion directly supporting small-business export sales -- also an Ex-Im record. Ex-Im Bank's total authorizations are supporting an estimated $41 billion in U.S. export sales and approximately 290,000 American jobs in communities across the country."  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JEFFREY FELTMAN ADDRESSES CRISIS IN SYRIA

The following excerpt is from a State Department e-mail:

Syria: The Crisis and Its Implications
TestimonyJeffrey D. Feltman
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsWashington, DC
March 1, 2012
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FELTMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for holding this important hearing.

I appeared before your regional subcommittee in November to discuss the crisis in Syria. And since that time, our European friends have joined us in sanctioning the Central Bank of Syria, impeding the financing of the regime's brutal crackdown. The E.U. has completed its implementation of its embargo on oil purchases from Syria, halting a third of Bashar's government revenues.

The Arab League suspended Syria's membership, with many Arab states downgrading diplomatic relations and freezing Syrian bank accounts. The Arab League put forth a political transition plan for Syria. Over 137 countries -- excuse me -- supported a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Syrian regime's violence and supporting the Arab League transition plan.

More than 60 countries and institutions met in Tunis as Friends of the Syrian People to endorse the Arab transition plan, to demand an immediate end to the violence, and to commit to practical steps to address the Syrian crisis. The Syrian opposition in Tunis articulated a clear, credible transition plan and addressed minority fears directly and convincingly.

We announced $10 million in immediate humanitarian assistance, with millions more from other countries. The UN, the Arab League have appointed a joint high-profile envoy, Kofi Annan, with a mandate from the Arab League initiative and the UN General Assembly resolution. And just this morning, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva overwhelmingly passed a strong resolution, which is the council's fourth, essentially describing the situation in Syria as a manmade humanitarian disaster. And we all know the identity of the man responsible for that disaster.

Now, these are just some of the examples of regional and international resolve. But nevertheless, as both of you have described, we've also seen that the Assad regime has intensified its vicious campaign of attacks against the Syrian people. The situation is, frankly, horrific, including indiscriminate artillery fire against entire neighborhoods, and today's reports from Homs are truly alarming.

Large numbers of Syrians are living every day under siege, deprived of basic necessities including food, clean water and medical supplies. Women and children are wounded and dying for lack of treatment. Innocent people are detained and tortured, and their families left to fear the worst.

Yet, despite the regime's brutality, the people of Syria demonstrate enormous courage. Their determination to continue protesting for their rights, mostly still peaceful protests, is an inspiration and a testimony to the human spirit.

Now, as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs watching the upheavals in the Arab world, I'm humble enough to say that we don't know for sure when the tipping point, the breaking point will come in Syria. But it will come.
The demise of the Assad regime is inevitable. It's important that the tipping point for the regime be reached quickly, because the longer the regime assaults the Syrian people, the greater the chances of all-out war in a failed state.

All of the elements of U.S. policy towards Syria are channeled toward accelerating the arrival of that tipping point. As I referred to at the start, through the Friends of the Syrian People group, we are translating international consensus into action.

We are galvanizing international partners to implement more effective sanctions and to deepen the regime's isolation. We're supporting the Arab League's and now the UN General Assembly's call for an immediate transition in Syria. We're moving ahead with humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people, demanding that attacks cease and access be granted. And we're engaging with the Syrian opposition on their vision for Syria's future, a proud and democratic Syria that upholds the rights and responsibilities of all of its citizens regardless of their religion, their gender or their ethnicity.

Now, together, we're working to persuade frightened communities inside Syria that their interests are best served by helping to build that better Syria, not by casting their lot with a losing regime, a corrupt and abusive regime which has been a malignant blight in the Middle East for far too long. The goal of the opposition and the Friends of the Syrian People alike is as follows: a Syrian-led political transition to democratic government based on the rule of law and the will of the people with protection of minority rights.
I would like to close my opening statement by echoing this committee's praise of my fellow witness and friend, Ambassador Robert Ford.

Ambassador Ford's courageous actions on the ground in Syria these past months have been a great credit to him, to the foreign service, and to the United States. He repeatedly put himself in harm's way to make it clear that the United States stands with the people of Syria and their dream of a better future. And I want to thank this committee for its leadership in supporting his confirmation.