FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Carter Says Shutdown Would Be 'Disruptive, Stupid'
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2013 - The shutdown that looms if the government isn't funded beyond the end of the fiscal year at midnight tonight would be "disruptive and stupid," Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter said here today.
Carter preceded a scheduled speech on India at the Center for American Progress with his thoughts on the impending shutdown.
"Let me just emphasize that the administration firmly believes that a shutdown can be avoided, should be avoided, and while we in the Department of Defense are fully prepared to deal with the shutdown if it occurs," he said, "it will be extremely disruptive and unfortunate, especially for the men and women who are defending this country who now have to worry about receiving their paychecks on time."
About half of the Defense Department's civilian personnel will be placed on no duty-no pay furloughs if the shutdown occurs, the deputy secretary said, noting that they already had been furloughed for more than a week earlier this year.
"This is no way to treat patriots working in our department and will cause serious harm to productivity and morale," Carter said.
Planning for the shutdown is itself disruptive, he added.
"We're spending thousands of hours on complex planning for a shutdown instead of spending this time more wisely and efficiently on addressing our national security challenges," he said.
The Defense Department is prepared to deal with the shutdown if it occurs, Carter said, just as it was prepared to deal with sequestration spending cuts.
"But a shutdown will be disruptive and harmful to the national security mission," he added. "We strongly urge the Congress to pass a budget and avoid a disruptive and stupid shutdown of the federal government."
Monday, September 30, 2013
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU MAKE COMMENTS BEFORE MEETING
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
September 30, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. It’s my great pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Israel here and to the State Department. I think – (audio feedback). Ta-da. (Laughter).
Obviously, I’ve had a number of very generous, warm welcomes as I have visited Israel and the Mideast frequently. I think I’ve been probably the most frequent visitor; I should get frequent flyer miles for my visits to the Prime Minister’s office.
PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: We couldn’t afford it. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: But it is more than safe to say that the Prime Minister and I are every meeting forging a better and better relationship, a stronger and stronger friendship on a very personal level. And I’m very grateful to him for his very generous welcomes to me, the amount of time he has spent with me in Jerusalem working through very complicated but very, very important issues.
Israel, as everybody knows, is a very special friend to the United States of America. And we have just had a very constructive luncheon with the President and a very important meeting before that with a larger group of people. And now the Prime Minister and I will talk about both Iran, the Middle East peace process, Syria, and issues of concern.
We are committed to continuing to work constructively to move forward on the peace process, though it is always difficult, complicated. We know that. But we’re working in good faith. I have confidence in the Prime Minister’s commitment to this effort, and I also want him to know that as we reach out to respond to Iran’s efforts to purportedly change its relationship with the world, we do so very aware of and sensitive to the security needs of Israel and the demands for certainty and transparency and accountability in this process.
So I look forward today to furthering our conversation, and I’m very, very happy to finally welcome the Prime Minister here to the State Department.
PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Mr. Secretary, thank you. John, it’s good to be with you. We have if not the whole world, a good chunk of it to discuss, and we do so as friends and as people seriously committed to both achieving security and a durable peace. These are hard things to achieve, but none better than you and us to try to do it together.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Thanks, partner.
Remarks With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
September 30, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. It’s my great pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Israel here and to the State Department. I think – (audio feedback). Ta-da. (Laughter).
Obviously, I’ve had a number of very generous, warm welcomes as I have visited Israel and the Mideast frequently. I think I’ve been probably the most frequent visitor; I should get frequent flyer miles for my visits to the Prime Minister’s office.
PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: We couldn’t afford it. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: But it is more than safe to say that the Prime Minister and I are every meeting forging a better and better relationship, a stronger and stronger friendship on a very personal level. And I’m very grateful to him for his very generous welcomes to me, the amount of time he has spent with me in Jerusalem working through very complicated but very, very important issues.
Israel, as everybody knows, is a very special friend to the United States of America. And we have just had a very constructive luncheon with the President and a very important meeting before that with a larger group of people. And now the Prime Minister and I will talk about both Iran, the Middle East peace process, Syria, and issues of concern.
We are committed to continuing to work constructively to move forward on the peace process, though it is always difficult, complicated. We know that. But we’re working in good faith. I have confidence in the Prime Minister’s commitment to this effort, and I also want him to know that as we reach out to respond to Iran’s efforts to purportedly change its relationship with the world, we do so very aware of and sensitive to the security needs of Israel and the demands for certainty and transparency and accountability in this process.
So I look forward today to furthering our conversation, and I’m very, very happy to finally welcome the Prime Minister here to the State Department.
PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Mr. Secretary, thank you. John, it’s good to be with you. We have if not the whole world, a good chunk of it to discuss, and we do so as friends and as people seriously committed to both achieving security and a durable peace. These are hard things to achieve, but none better than you and us to try to do it together.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Thanks, partner.
DOJ ANNOUNCED ENHANCED ONLINE RESOURCES FOR U.S. VICTIMS OF OVERSEAS TERRORISM
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Justice Department Announces Enhanced Online Resource for U.S. Victims of Overseas Terrorism
The Justice Department today announced an enhanced online resource designed to support American victims of overseas terrorism. The site, sponsored and maintained by the National Security Division’s Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OVT), will expand the public’s ability to obtain information about the types of support available to help victims of overseas attacks and their loved ones in the aftermath of acts of international terrorism, including information about programs available to assist victims in connection with foreign criminal justice proceedings. In addition, the website provides greater information about OVT’s establishment and services, for victims and others interested in OVT’s work.
“This enhanced website will serve as an important resource for U.S. victims of overseas terrorism and their loved ones,” said John P. Carlin, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “The Department remains committed both to seeking justice for Americans victimized by terrorism, whether at home or abroad, and to providing victims the information and support they deserve.”
The Attorney General established the OVT on May 6, 2005. It is now a component of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The primary purpose of the OVT is to ensure that the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks against American citizens overseas remain a high priority within the Department of Justice.
The OVT is responsible for monitoring the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks against Americans abroad; working with other pertinent Justice Department components to ensure that the rights of victims of such attacks are honored and respected; establishing a Joint Task Force with the Department of State, to be activated in the event of a terrorist attack in which Americans are harmed; and serving as an information resource to American victims of overseas terrorism including, as appropriate, information about ongoing foreign investigations and prosecutions.
“It is crucially important that any Americans attacked while traveling or living outside of our borders receive the support of our government as they pursue justice in the aftermath of the tragedy of terrorism,” said Heather Cartwright, Director of the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism. “This online resource gathers in one place important information for American victims of overseas terrorism and provides assistance as they seek accountability for these crimes.”
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Justice Department Announces Enhanced Online Resource for U.S. Victims of Overseas Terrorism
The Justice Department today announced an enhanced online resource designed to support American victims of overseas terrorism. The site, sponsored and maintained by the National Security Division’s Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OVT), will expand the public’s ability to obtain information about the types of support available to help victims of overseas attacks and their loved ones in the aftermath of acts of international terrorism, including information about programs available to assist victims in connection with foreign criminal justice proceedings. In addition, the website provides greater information about OVT’s establishment and services, for victims and others interested in OVT’s work.
“This enhanced website will serve as an important resource for U.S. victims of overseas terrorism and their loved ones,” said John P. Carlin, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “The Department remains committed both to seeking justice for Americans victimized by terrorism, whether at home or abroad, and to providing victims the information and support they deserve.”
The Attorney General established the OVT on May 6, 2005. It is now a component of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The primary purpose of the OVT is to ensure that the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks against American citizens overseas remain a high priority within the Department of Justice.
The OVT is responsible for monitoring the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks against Americans abroad; working with other pertinent Justice Department components to ensure that the rights of victims of such attacks are honored and respected; establishing a Joint Task Force with the Department of State, to be activated in the event of a terrorist attack in which Americans are harmed; and serving as an information resource to American victims of overseas terrorism including, as appropriate, information about ongoing foreign investigations and prosecutions.
“It is crucially important that any Americans attacked while traveling or living outside of our borders receive the support of our government as they pursue justice in the aftermath of the tragedy of terrorism,” said Heather Cartwright, Director of the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism. “This online resource gathers in one place important information for American victims of overseas terrorism and provides assistance as they seek accountability for these crimes.”
ETHANOL TRADER CHARGED BY CFTC WITH SCHEMING TO CONCEAL TRADING LOSSES
FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURE TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Charges Ethanol Trader John Aaron Brooks with Fraud for Scheming to Conceal Trading Losses
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a civil injunctive enforcement action charging John Aaron Brooks with defrauding an affiliate of a large commercial bank where he then worked by scheming to conceal trading losses from the bank and its affiliate. As alleged in the CFTC’s Complaint, Brooks effectuated his scheme by inflating the value of New York Mercantile Exchange Chicago Ethanol (Platts) Futures contracts to conceal trading losses he was incurring. The losses concealed ultimately grew to cause the bank and its affiliate to suffer over $40 million in realized losses before Brooks’s fraud was detected, leading to his termination, according to the Complaint. Brooks resides in Houston, Texas.
The CFTC’s civil complaint, filed September 27, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that for the majority of the days for nearly eleven months beginning in or about November 2010, and continuing through on or about October 20, 2011, Brooks, then employed as Director in the commodities business of the bank affiliate, knowingly entered false inflated prices into an internal trade booking and valuation computer software system to effectuate his scheme to conceal trading losses.
In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks a civil monetary penalty, restitution, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of the federal commodities laws, as charged.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case includes Janine Gargiulo, Michael Geiser, Trevor Kokal, David Acevedo, Lenel Hickson, Stephen J. Obie, Manal Sultan, and Vincent McGonagle.
CFTC Charges Ethanol Trader John Aaron Brooks with Fraud for Scheming to Conceal Trading Losses
Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a civil injunctive enforcement action charging John Aaron Brooks with defrauding an affiliate of a large commercial bank where he then worked by scheming to conceal trading losses from the bank and its affiliate. As alleged in the CFTC’s Complaint, Brooks effectuated his scheme by inflating the value of New York Mercantile Exchange Chicago Ethanol (Platts) Futures contracts to conceal trading losses he was incurring. The losses concealed ultimately grew to cause the bank and its affiliate to suffer over $40 million in realized losses before Brooks’s fraud was detected, leading to his termination, according to the Complaint. Brooks resides in Houston, Texas.
The CFTC’s civil complaint, filed September 27, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that for the majority of the days for nearly eleven months beginning in or about November 2010, and continuing through on or about October 20, 2011, Brooks, then employed as Director in the commodities business of the bank affiliate, knowingly entered false inflated prices into an internal trade booking and valuation computer software system to effectuate his scheme to conceal trading losses.
In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks a civil monetary penalty, restitution, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of the federal commodities laws, as charged.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case includes Janine Gargiulo, Michael Geiser, Trevor Kokal, David Acevedo, Lenel Hickson, Stephen J. Obie, Manal Sultan, and Vincent McGonagle.
CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP REPORTS ASIAN CARP FOUND NEAR LAKE MICHIGAN ACCESS RIVER
FROM: U.S. CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP'S WEBSITE
Last week, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that the White House Council on Environmental Quality Asian carp director John Goss recently told a group in Milwaukee that a 53 inch, 82 pound Asian carp had been found in Flatfoot Lake, Illinois in August. Flatfoot Lake is land-locked, but located less than a quarter mile from the Calumet River, which has direct access to Lake Michigan as well as Lake Calumet, where a live Asian carp was discovered in 2010.
Following the report Camp said, “News that a live Asian carp was found dangerously close to Lake Michigan, in Flatfoot Lake, is another reminder that we must find a permanent solution to protect the Great Lakes. Incidents like this underscore the fact that hydrological separation is the only real way to keep Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes.”
On the topic, The Lansing State Journal wrote, “Kudos to Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, and other Michigan officials for their ongoing efforts to prevent the potential crisis of an Asian carp invasion of the Great Lakes. They fight an uphill battle, and Michiganders should support their efforts in every way possible.”
In 2012, Camp championed legislation that is now law, The Stop Invasive Species Act, which requires the Army Corps of Engineers to complete a study on hydrologically separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins by January 2014.
Last week, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that the White House Council on Environmental Quality Asian carp director John Goss recently told a group in Milwaukee that a 53 inch, 82 pound Asian carp had been found in Flatfoot Lake, Illinois in August. Flatfoot Lake is land-locked, but located less than a quarter mile from the Calumet River, which has direct access to Lake Michigan as well as Lake Calumet, where a live Asian carp was discovered in 2010.
Following the report Camp said, “News that a live Asian carp was found dangerously close to Lake Michigan, in Flatfoot Lake, is another reminder that we must find a permanent solution to protect the Great Lakes. Incidents like this underscore the fact that hydrological separation is the only real way to keep Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes.”
On the topic, The Lansing State Journal wrote, “Kudos to Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, and other Michigan officials for their ongoing efforts to prevent the potential crisis of an Asian carp invasion of the Great Lakes. They fight an uphill battle, and Michiganders should support their efforts in every way possible.”
In 2012, Camp championed legislation that is now law, The Stop Invasive Species Act, which requires the Army Corps of Engineers to complete a study on hydrologically separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins by January 2014.
OVER $13 MILLION AWARDED IN GRANTS TO SUPPORT PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Education Department Awards $13.3 Million in Grants to Support Principal Development
SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
Contact: Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced today that more than $13 million in grants has been awarded to 20 projects under the School Leadership Program (SLP), which supports the development, enhancement, and expansion of innovative programs to recruit, train, and mentor principals and assistant principals for high-need schools and districts. Grantees include school districts, institutes of higher education and non-profit organizations.
"There are no great schools without great principals and teachers," Secretary Duncan said. "High-quality examples of leadership can help shape a school's culture and create an environment where students are excited to learn. These grants aim to support the development of these leaders, ultimately improving the effectiveness of educators and the academic achievement of students."
These five-year grants will help prepare individuals to meet state certification requirements to become principals or assistant principals. Projects will also provide professional development to current principals and assistant principals, serving over 1500 aspiring and current school leaders in 98 high-need school districts, including six rural areas, across 15 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Grantees will use the funds for a variety of activities to promote effective leadership, such as stipends to principals who mentor new principals, financial incentives to aspiring new principals, training specific to a charter school environment, use of school-based data to develop turnaround practices, and tracking student achievement data.
Grants have been awarded to Green River Regional Educational Cooperative, California State University, Dominguez Hills, The Board of Education of the County of McDowell, The New Teacher Project, Inc., New Leaders, Inc., The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Region 5 Education Service Center, Wheaton R3 School District, Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Inc., Center for Collaborative Education, Delta State University, Foundation for Educational Administration, North Carolina State University, William Paterson University, Relay Graduate School of Education, Western Michigan University , Granite School District, Tulsa Independent District No. 1 Tulsa Public Schools, Illinois State University, and Universidad del Este.
The SLP program is funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Following is a list of grantees and first-year funding amounts:
Applicant Name State Funding for FY2013
Green River Regional Educational Cooperative Kentucky $1,000,000
California State University, Dominguez Hills California $1,166,492
The Board of Education of the County of McDowell West Virginia $816,915
The New Teacher Project, Inc. New York/New Jersey $1,000,000
New Leaders, Inc. New York/Maryland $130,443
The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Illinois $369,609
Region 5 Education Service Center Texas $725,463
Wheaton R3 School District Missouri $428,734
Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Inc. Georgia $725,901
Center for Collaborative Education Massachusetts/California $863,083
Delta State University Mississippi $200,124
Foundation for Educational Administration New Jersey $1,000,000
North Carolina State University North Carolina $529,309
William Paterson University New Jersey $520,620
Relay Graduate School of Education New York/Louisiana $395,285
Western Michigan University Michigan $927,274
Granite School District Utah $996,743
Tulsa Independent District No. 1 Tulsa Public Schools Oklahoma $990,874
Illinois State University Illinois $263,629
Universidad del Este Puerto Rico $314,247
Education Department Awards $13.3 Million in Grants to Support Principal Development
SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
Contact: Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced today that more than $13 million in grants has been awarded to 20 projects under the School Leadership Program (SLP), which supports the development, enhancement, and expansion of innovative programs to recruit, train, and mentor principals and assistant principals for high-need schools and districts. Grantees include school districts, institutes of higher education and non-profit organizations.
"There are no great schools without great principals and teachers," Secretary Duncan said. "High-quality examples of leadership can help shape a school's culture and create an environment where students are excited to learn. These grants aim to support the development of these leaders, ultimately improving the effectiveness of educators and the academic achievement of students."
These five-year grants will help prepare individuals to meet state certification requirements to become principals or assistant principals. Projects will also provide professional development to current principals and assistant principals, serving over 1500 aspiring and current school leaders in 98 high-need school districts, including six rural areas, across 15 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Grantees will use the funds for a variety of activities to promote effective leadership, such as stipends to principals who mentor new principals, financial incentives to aspiring new principals, training specific to a charter school environment, use of school-based data to develop turnaround practices, and tracking student achievement data.
Grants have been awarded to Green River Regional Educational Cooperative, California State University, Dominguez Hills, The Board of Education of the County of McDowell, The New Teacher Project, Inc., New Leaders, Inc., The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Region 5 Education Service Center, Wheaton R3 School District, Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Inc., Center for Collaborative Education, Delta State University, Foundation for Educational Administration, North Carolina State University, William Paterson University, Relay Graduate School of Education, Western Michigan University , Granite School District, Tulsa Independent District No. 1 Tulsa Public Schools, Illinois State University, and Universidad del Este.
The SLP program is funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Following is a list of grantees and first-year funding amounts:
Applicant Name State Funding for FY2013
Green River Regional Educational Cooperative Kentucky $1,000,000
California State University, Dominguez Hills California $1,166,492
The Board of Education of the County of McDowell West Virginia $816,915
The New Teacher Project, Inc. New York/New Jersey $1,000,000
New Leaders, Inc. New York/Maryland $130,443
The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Illinois $369,609
Region 5 Education Service Center Texas $725,463
Wheaton R3 School District Missouri $428,734
Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement, Inc. Georgia $725,901
Center for Collaborative Education Massachusetts/California $863,083
Delta State University Mississippi $200,124
Foundation for Educational Administration New Jersey $1,000,000
North Carolina State University North Carolina $529,309
William Paterson University New Jersey $520,620
Relay Graduate School of Education New York/Louisiana $395,285
Western Michigan University Michigan $927,274
Granite School District Utah $996,743
Tulsa Independent District No. 1 Tulsa Public Schools Oklahoma $990,874
Illinois State University Illinois $263,629
Universidad del Este Puerto Rico $314,247
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AT PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at a Meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 27, 2013
Welcome, everybody, and thank you for – sorry, I’m a moment late. I apologize. I’m very happy to be meeting today with Marshall Islands President Loeak and with the Samoan Prime Minister Malielegaoi and other Pacific Island leaders. We’re very happy to have all of you here.
This week these leaders and other leaders from around the globe have come to New York during the UN General Assembly to discuss some of the issues of greatest challenge to everybody, life and death issues that impact millions of people around the world. Climate change is one issue that absolutely impacts millions of people around the world, and no one knows just how deeply serious and present, how now this challenge is and its impacts than the people of the vulnerable Pacific Islands. They have experienced both historic droughts and the highest rates of sea level rise in the world.
So the science is clear and irrefutable, and today the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed for the fifth time in 20 years that climate change is real, is happening, and is in large part caused by human activity. The IPCC findings have stressed that if we continue down our current path, the impacts of climate change, including sea level rise, could be even worse than previously expected.
So as we work with our international partners to prepare for the impacts of climate change and the impacts that we’re already witnessing, we have an urgent responsibility to try to work together even harder to be able to change the way we’re doing things. I’ve been following this issue since, what, 1988 when then-Senator Al Gore and I held the first hearings in the United States Senate. And Jim Hansen came before our committee and said climate change is happening now. That was 1988. Everything has confirmed that ever since, but we still have a small window of time to prevent the very worst impacts of climate change from catching up to us. But that window is closing.
So we know that no one nation has the ability to address climate change alone. The United States, which is together with China a large proportion of emissions, if we acted all by ourselves and went to zero tomorrow it wouldn’t do the job. So we all are in this. We all have to figure out how to proceed forward. And between President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the important Majuro Declaration the Pacific Islands nations signed at the 44th Pacific Islands Forum earlier this month, between those things our countries have made clear our commitments to address what is one of the defining issues of our time. We’re equally committed to working toward a comprehensive UN climate agreement that takes into account the unique circumstances and capabilities of each nation.
I know I also speak for President Obama when I say that I – we stand with the Pacific Islands in the fight against climate change. And I’m looking forward to our discussion today, and most importantly, I’m looking forward to continuing our very important work as we together try to guarantee the future of our nations and indeed the future of the planet.
Remarks at a Meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 27, 2013
Welcome, everybody, and thank you for – sorry, I’m a moment late. I apologize. I’m very happy to be meeting today with Marshall Islands President Loeak and with the Samoan Prime Minister Malielegaoi and other Pacific Island leaders. We’re very happy to have all of you here.
This week these leaders and other leaders from around the globe have come to New York during the UN General Assembly to discuss some of the issues of greatest challenge to everybody, life and death issues that impact millions of people around the world. Climate change is one issue that absolutely impacts millions of people around the world, and no one knows just how deeply serious and present, how now this challenge is and its impacts than the people of the vulnerable Pacific Islands. They have experienced both historic droughts and the highest rates of sea level rise in the world.
So the science is clear and irrefutable, and today the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed for the fifth time in 20 years that climate change is real, is happening, and is in large part caused by human activity. The IPCC findings have stressed that if we continue down our current path, the impacts of climate change, including sea level rise, could be even worse than previously expected.
So as we work with our international partners to prepare for the impacts of climate change and the impacts that we’re already witnessing, we have an urgent responsibility to try to work together even harder to be able to change the way we’re doing things. I’ve been following this issue since, what, 1988 when then-Senator Al Gore and I held the first hearings in the United States Senate. And Jim Hansen came before our committee and said climate change is happening now. That was 1988. Everything has confirmed that ever since, but we still have a small window of time to prevent the very worst impacts of climate change from catching up to us. But that window is closing.
So we know that no one nation has the ability to address climate change alone. The United States, which is together with China a large proportion of emissions, if we acted all by ourselves and went to zero tomorrow it wouldn’t do the job. So we all are in this. We all have to figure out how to proceed forward. And between President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the important Majuro Declaration the Pacific Islands nations signed at the 44th Pacific Islands Forum earlier this month, between those things our countries have made clear our commitments to address what is one of the defining issues of our time. We’re equally committed to working toward a comprehensive UN climate agreement that takes into account the unique circumstances and capabilities of each nation.
I know I also speak for President Obama when I say that I – we stand with the Pacific Islands in the fight against climate change. And I’m looking forward to our discussion today, and most importantly, I’m looking forward to continuing our very important work as we together try to guarantee the future of our nations and indeed the future of the planet.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
DOD PLANS FOR GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
DOD Spells Out Closure Contingency Plan Guidance
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2013 - DOD officials today issued guidance to the force in the event appropriations lapse Oct. 1 and a government shutdown results.
Officials emphasize they still hope Congress can avoid that but say it is prudent to take such steps.
The eight-page document gives basic guidance to commanders and directors on how to handle everything from personnel matters to contracts to medical concerns.
Even if the government runs out of money, military personnel will report to work as normal. This includes active duty personnel and reserve component personnel on active Guard or reserve status.
DOD can also maintain police, fire, and emergency medical protection. These activities -- and some others -- are labeled as excepted and protected from stoppage. Non-excepted activities must generally stop.
In the event of a funding lapse, DOD civilians who support excepted activities -- military operations, emergency services, or other designated activities -- would be directed to continue working.
For pay purposes, military personnel will be paid retroactively once the appropriation is passed or the continuing resolution signed. DOD-excepted service personnel will also receive retroactive pay.
Non-excepted DOD civilians will be placed on emergency, no-notice, non-pay furloughs. They would be required to report to work on Oct. 1 to receive their furlough notice. Civilians on emergency furloughs would be paid retroactively only if a law is enacted providing authority to pay them.
Training and travel of military and civilian employees would be disrupted unless it was connected to an excepted activity, officials said.
Those on travel would have to return to their duty stations in an orderly fashion.
DOD Spells Out Closure Contingency Plan Guidance
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2013 - DOD officials today issued guidance to the force in the event appropriations lapse Oct. 1 and a government shutdown results.
Officials emphasize they still hope Congress can avoid that but say it is prudent to take such steps.
The eight-page document gives basic guidance to commanders and directors on how to handle everything from personnel matters to contracts to medical concerns.
Even if the government runs out of money, military personnel will report to work as normal. This includes active duty personnel and reserve component personnel on active Guard or reserve status.
DOD can also maintain police, fire, and emergency medical protection. These activities -- and some others -- are labeled as excepted and protected from stoppage. Non-excepted activities must generally stop.
In the event of a funding lapse, DOD civilians who support excepted activities -- military operations, emergency services, or other designated activities -- would be directed to continue working.
For pay purposes, military personnel will be paid retroactively once the appropriation is passed or the continuing resolution signed. DOD-excepted service personnel will also receive retroactive pay.
Non-excepted DOD civilians will be placed on emergency, no-notice, non-pay furloughs. They would be required to report to work on Oct. 1 to receive their furlough notice. Civilians on emergency furloughs would be paid retroactively only if a law is enacted providing authority to pay them.
Training and travel of military and civilian employees would be disrupted unless it was connected to an excepted activity, officials said.
Those on travel would have to return to their duty stations in an orderly fashion.
SECRETARY KERRY'S RECENT REMARKS TO UN SECURITY COUNCIL ON SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the United Nations Security Council
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 27, 2013
Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished minister members of the Security Council.
Five weeks ago, the world saw rows upon rows of murdered children lying on a hospital floor alone or beside slain parents, all wrapped in un-bloodied burial shrouds. And the world’s conscience was shocked, but our collective resolved hardened. Tonight, with a strong, enforceable, precedent-setting resolution requiring Syria to give up its chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council has demonstrated that diplomacy can be so powerful, it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war.
So tonight, we are declaring together, for the first time, that the use of chemical weapons, which the world long ago determined beyond the bounds of acceptable human behavior, are also a threat to international peace and security anywhere they might be used, anytime they might be used, under any circumstances. As a community of nations, we reaffirm our responsibility to defend the defenseless, those whose lives remain at risk every day that anyone believes they can use weapons of mass destruction with impunity. Together, the world, with a single voice for the first time, is imposing binding obligations on the Assad regime requiring it to get rid of weapons that have been used to devastating effect as tools of terror. This important resolution reflects what President Obama and President Putin and colleagues around the world set out to do.
I want to thank Foreign Minister Lavrov for his personal efforts and cooperation, beginning before Geneva and continuing through this week, so that we could find common ground. I also want to thank my good friends and counterparts, Foreign Secretary Hague and Foreign Minister Fabius, who have been partners every step of the way.
Our original objective was to degrade and deter Syria’s chemical weapons capability, and the option of military force that President Obama has kept on the table could have achieved that. But tonight’s resolution, in fact, accomplishes even more. Through peaceful means, it will for, the first time, seek to eliminate entirely a nation’s chemical weapons capability, and in this case specifically Syria’s. On-site inspections of the places that these weapons are stored will begin by November, and under the terms of this agreement, those weapons will be removed and destroyed by the middle of next year.
Our aim was also to hold the Assad regime publicly accountable for its horrific use of chemical weapons against its own people on August 21st. And this resolution makes clear that those responsible for this heinous act must be held accountable.
In this resolution, the Council has, importantly, endorsed the Geneva Communique, which calls for a transfer of power to a transitional governing body, paving the way for democratic elections and a government that can be chosen by the people of Syria to represent the people of Syria.
We sought a legally binding resolution, and that is what the Security Council has adopted. For the first time since Syria’s civil war began, the Security Council is spelling out in detail what Syria must do to comply with its legal obligations. Syria cannot select or reject the inspectors. Syria must give those inspectors unfettered access to any and all sites and to any and all people.
We also wanted a resolution that would be enforced. And again, that is what the Security Council has adopted. We are here because actions have consequences. And now, should the regime fail to act, there will be consequences. Progress will be reported back to the Security Council frequently, and in the event of noncompliance, the Council will impose measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Just two weeks ago, when the Syrian regime would not even acknowledge the vast supply of chemical weapons and say that they existed, this outcome, frankly, would have been utterly unimaginable. But thanks to the cooperation within the P-5 of the United Nations, and thanks to our friends and partners around the world, many of whom are here in this room, the Security Council has shown that when we put aside politics for the common good, we are still capable of doing big things. Provided this resolution is fully implemented, we will have eliminated one of the largest chemical weapons programs on earth from one of the most volatile places on earth.
The Assad regime carries the burden of meeting the terms of this agreement. And when it comes to those who murder their own citizens, the world’s patience needs to be short. But make no mistake: The rest of the world still carries the burden of doing what we must do to end mass killing by other means. We must work together with the same determination and the same cooperation that has brought us here tonight in order to end the conflict that continues to tear Syria apart even this very day. We must continue to provide desperately needed humanitarian aid. And neither Assad nor anyone else should stand between that aid and the people who need it. Only when we do these things will we have fulfilled our responsibility to the Syrian people and to ourselves. Only then will we have advanced our own interests and our own security and that of our allies in the region. Only then will we have shown that the UN Security Council is meeting its responsibility to enforce international peace and security.
So we are here united tonight in support of our belief that international institutions do matter, that international norms matter. We say with one voice that atrocities carried out with the world’s most heinous weapons will not be tolerated. And when institutions like the Security Council stand up to defend the principles and values that we all share, when we put violent regimes on notice that the world will unite against them, it will lead not only to a safer Syria, but it will lead to a safer world.
Thank you.
Remarks at the United Nations Security Council
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 27, 2013
Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished minister members of the Security Council.
Five weeks ago, the world saw rows upon rows of murdered children lying on a hospital floor alone or beside slain parents, all wrapped in un-bloodied burial shrouds. And the world’s conscience was shocked, but our collective resolved hardened. Tonight, with a strong, enforceable, precedent-setting resolution requiring Syria to give up its chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council has demonstrated that diplomacy can be so powerful, it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war.
So tonight, we are declaring together, for the first time, that the use of chemical weapons, which the world long ago determined beyond the bounds of acceptable human behavior, are also a threat to international peace and security anywhere they might be used, anytime they might be used, under any circumstances. As a community of nations, we reaffirm our responsibility to defend the defenseless, those whose lives remain at risk every day that anyone believes they can use weapons of mass destruction with impunity. Together, the world, with a single voice for the first time, is imposing binding obligations on the Assad regime requiring it to get rid of weapons that have been used to devastating effect as tools of terror. This important resolution reflects what President Obama and President Putin and colleagues around the world set out to do.
I want to thank Foreign Minister Lavrov for his personal efforts and cooperation, beginning before Geneva and continuing through this week, so that we could find common ground. I also want to thank my good friends and counterparts, Foreign Secretary Hague and Foreign Minister Fabius, who have been partners every step of the way.
Our original objective was to degrade and deter Syria’s chemical weapons capability, and the option of military force that President Obama has kept on the table could have achieved that. But tonight’s resolution, in fact, accomplishes even more. Through peaceful means, it will for, the first time, seek to eliminate entirely a nation’s chemical weapons capability, and in this case specifically Syria’s. On-site inspections of the places that these weapons are stored will begin by November, and under the terms of this agreement, those weapons will be removed and destroyed by the middle of next year.
Our aim was also to hold the Assad regime publicly accountable for its horrific use of chemical weapons against its own people on August 21st. And this resolution makes clear that those responsible for this heinous act must be held accountable.
In this resolution, the Council has, importantly, endorsed the Geneva Communique, which calls for a transfer of power to a transitional governing body, paving the way for democratic elections and a government that can be chosen by the people of Syria to represent the people of Syria.
We sought a legally binding resolution, and that is what the Security Council has adopted. For the first time since Syria’s civil war began, the Security Council is spelling out in detail what Syria must do to comply with its legal obligations. Syria cannot select or reject the inspectors. Syria must give those inspectors unfettered access to any and all sites and to any and all people.
We also wanted a resolution that would be enforced. And again, that is what the Security Council has adopted. We are here because actions have consequences. And now, should the regime fail to act, there will be consequences. Progress will be reported back to the Security Council frequently, and in the event of noncompliance, the Council will impose measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Just two weeks ago, when the Syrian regime would not even acknowledge the vast supply of chemical weapons and say that they existed, this outcome, frankly, would have been utterly unimaginable. But thanks to the cooperation within the P-5 of the United Nations, and thanks to our friends and partners around the world, many of whom are here in this room, the Security Council has shown that when we put aside politics for the common good, we are still capable of doing big things. Provided this resolution is fully implemented, we will have eliminated one of the largest chemical weapons programs on earth from one of the most volatile places on earth.
The Assad regime carries the burden of meeting the terms of this agreement. And when it comes to those who murder their own citizens, the world’s patience needs to be short. But make no mistake: The rest of the world still carries the burden of doing what we must do to end mass killing by other means. We must work together with the same determination and the same cooperation that has brought us here tonight in order to end the conflict that continues to tear Syria apart even this very day. We must continue to provide desperately needed humanitarian aid. And neither Assad nor anyone else should stand between that aid and the people who need it. Only when we do these things will we have fulfilled our responsibility to the Syrian people and to ourselves. Only then will we have advanced our own interests and our own security and that of our allies in the region. Only then will we have shown that the UN Security Council is meeting its responsibility to enforce international peace and security.
So we are here united tonight in support of our belief that international institutions do matter, that international norms matter. We say with one voice that atrocities carried out with the world’s most heinous weapons will not be tolerated. And when institutions like the Security Council stand up to defend the principles and values that we all share, when we put violent regimes on notice that the world will unite against them, it will lead not only to a safer Syria, but it will lead to a safer world.
Thank you.
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HALE'S BRIEFING ON PLAN FOR GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Presenter: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert F. Hale September 27, 2013
News Briefing on the Department Of Defense's Plan for a Possible Government Shutdown
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT F. HALE: Ready to go? All right. So I think you know who I am. I'll say good afternoon. That's probably the high point of this discussion.
So I'm going to start with a few words, then I'll turn to your questions. Let me start by saying the administration firmly believes that a shutdown due to a lapse of appropriation should not occur.
The administration is working with Congress to try to prevent a lapse. Unfortunately, we may not know the outcome of those efforts until next Monday, conceivably even Monday night.
So we have to be prudent and plan for a lapse of appropriations. So what is involved in this planning? As I answer this question and everything I say today, let me say I'm going to focus on the Department of Defense, solely on DOD., but other federal agencies are definitely affected. I just don't -- I know less about them, so I'll focus on DOD.
First it's important to recognize that if DOD's appropriations lapse, we can only conduct limited activity specifically authorized by law. The lapse could lead to civilian furloughs, it will, in fact.
But these furloughs are very different than the sequester furloughs that occurred this summer. The sequester furloughs sought to reduce costs. And we had the authority to design them to reduce costs and to reflect policies like minimizing effects on readiness.
In the case of a lapse of appropriations, law governs, not policy. Specifically the law says that in the event of a lapse of appropriations, DOD can only conduct activities designed to protect safety of life and property and carry out a few other activities.
Administration lawyers interpret this to mean that DOD can support specific military operations that the secretary of defense has approved: Afghanistan, for example, and a number of others.
We can also maintain emergency services, police, fire, emergency medical. We label the activities that can continue as excepted activities, and you will hear me use that word repeatedly in the next couple of minutes.
So what would happen under a lapse of appropriations? First, government employees would be significantly affected. In the event of a lapse, all of our military personnel would be directed to remain on a normal duty status. Their military status means they can't be placed in a non-pay status, so we would direct them to continue in normal-duty status. Civilian workers who support these excepted activities, again Afghanistan emergency activities, they -- they would be directed to continue to work.
But all other civilian workers who do not primarily support excepted activities would be placed in a non-duty, non-pay status on an emergency no-notice basis at the time the lapse occurs. Based on planning in 2011, we would expect roughly half of our civilian personnel would go into this status, essentially a non-pay furlough status.
Pay of government employees could also be seriously affected, especially if the lapse continues for a period of time. During a lapse, DOD cannot pay military personnel and civilian personnel, even if they have been directed to work. Military and those civilians directed to work would be paid retroactively once the lapse of appropriation ends. Civilians on emergency furloughs, and those for the -- primarily doing non-excepted activities would be paid retroactively only if a law is enacted providing the authority to pay them.
Training and travel of military and civilian employees would be disrupted. Unless connected with excepted activities, training and travel would have to be stopped. It would either be stopped before it started, or if it's going on at the time the lapse occurs, then folks associated with -- on TDY associated with non-accepted travel would have to pack up and come home, although they could do that in an orderly fashion.
We would also be required to do some other bad things to our people. Just some examples, we couldn't immediately pay death gratuities to those who die on active duty during the lapse, we would have to close stateside commissaries, promotion boards and other similar important personnel activities would be disrupted, probably would have to be stopped, and a number of other actions.
DOD vendors would also be affected, especially if the lapse continues for a substantial period of time. Vendors working on contracts with funds obligated prior to the lapse in fiscal '13 or earlier funds could continue to work, assuming government personnel are available to provide any needed supervision. And, they could be paid for that work, but during the period of the lapse, we can't sign new contracts or extend old ones unless they're directly in support of excepted activities.
So if I haven't already confused you, let me try to sum up by saying how all these confusing actions affect the DOD mission. We can and will continue to support key military operations. We're allowed to do that by law, but the law would force us to disrupt many of our support activities. We wouldn't be able to do most training, we couldn't enter into most new contracts, routine maintenance would have to stop, we couldn't continue efforts to improve contracting and financial management, including our auto improvement efforts, for example. Even worse, a lapse of appropriations causes civilian furloughs and is one more blow to the morale of our civilian workforce, and that morale is already low and I think would get lower. And that adversely affects productivity and costs the taxpayers money.
Even if a lapse never occurs, the planning itself is disruptive. People are worrying right now about whether their paychecks are going to be delayed, rather than focusing fully on their mission. And while I can't quantify the time being spent to plan, it has or will consume a lot of senior management attention, probably thousands of hours in employee time better spent on supporting national security. For all these reasons, I very much hope that Congress acts to avert a lapse of appropriations, and though it will probably sound contradictory, I hope you will understand when I say that I hope we are all wasting our time planning for this lapse.
With that, I'll stop and I'll be glad to try to answer your questions. I'm going to get George, here.
Q: (inaudible), can you, since everyone lived through the furloughs recently, can you explain a little bit in detail the difference between the civilians who were furloughed under that, and the fact that there are fewer numbers being furloughed now?
If you could maybe give -- maybe an example, it would help so that people would understand what -- how that difference is, and I just have a second, one other, second question. I know contractors is a really hard thing to get your arms around, but is there any way to talk about the number of contractors as in people that could be affected by this?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, first on the furloughs. The ones we did in the summer were called administrative furloughs. It's a long notification process, if you remember, that we need to go through. They were designed to save money.
And, therefore, as I mentioned, we can -- we have the authority to design them based on criteria like readiness and cost-savings. These are specified by law. Anybody who is not -- any civilian not primarily working on an excepted activity has to be placed on furloughs.
Can I think of good examples for you? Well, here's one. Most of our working capital fund employees are going to not be furloughed immediately because the working capital funds have a cash balance that's based on funds obligated before the lapse, if you're following me. And so we have the funds and they don't have to be furloughed right away.
Now that would have to be gradually some of them if we run out of cash. Whereas most of our working capital fund employees were furloughed in the summer because we wanted to reduce costs.
As far as the contractors, just briefly, all of the ones working on contracts, as I said, that were obligated with money before the lapse would be able to continue if supervision was available.
I think in the early stages of a lapse, that would be the majority of our contractors because most are going to be working on contracts just almost by definition that were funded before. If the lapse continued, that number would fall. But I don't have specific numbers.
Q: I'm sorry, clarify on the difference between the contractors. If I'm not mistaken, there are about 650,000 that were affected over the summer. Now it's about 400,000. So a difference of a couple hundred thousand seems to be a lot. Am I...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Again, it's -- yes, the numbers are roughly right. I mean, I don't know exactly how many. Probably around half. So it will be close to that.
I mean, again, working capital funds alone are probably 100,000, 150,000 people that we'll keep this time and there are many others. And they're just totally different animals just because one is driven by law, one was driven by policy to save money. One is driven by law -- a specific law about excepted and non-excepted activities.
Q: But they weren't contractors, correct? I mean, these are government...
UNDER SEC. HALE: No. I'm talking government employees now. Contractors, most of them are probably going to be able to continue working if supervision is available because I think most of them would -- although I don't have numbers, most of them are going to be funded by contracts already that were funded with fiscal '13 or earlier money.
Q: For (OFF-MIKE) are looking towards that October 15th paycheck, can you give them a sense of how long this government shutdown might be able to go before their paycheck was definitely delayed? I mean, if Congress reached an agreement on the 4th, would these...
(CROSSTALK)
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yes, I think so. I think the earliest we'd start having trouble would be October 7th. And that's not a hard date. We'll push it as far as we can. But at some point we have to run the payroll.
Frankly, I'm in triage mode right now. I'm trying to help coordinate getting the department ready to shut down if we have to. And so I haven't focused on the problems that will occur if a lapse -- like that one, if the lapse occurs. I'll have to work with the Defense Financing and Accounting Service. We'll put it off as long as we can.
Clearly if the lapse extends to October 15th, there won't be a question. There may be some time prior to that when we'd be faced with either having to take a chance and go ahead and run the payroll and be ready, or delay it. But we have got a while.
Q: Can you talk about what happens to ships at sea, particularly those in the Mediterranean, and whether operations -- kinetic operations could be launched, such as by Special Operations Forces or even a hypothetical strike in Syria?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I mean, it would depend on whether it was a military operation. In the case you just mentioned, I think it surely would be and therefore it would be -- that is if we were -- hypothetically, the president were to authorize some action against Syria, it would be a military operation approved by the secretary and so it would be an excepted activity and, yes, we could go forward with it.
Q: And then ships at sea that are basically...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, again, the issue is, are they in direct support of excepted activities? I think many of them will be and therefore they will be excepted. And I might add the great majority of the people on there are military and they're going to remain at work. And so I don't think many of them will be disrupted.
But these are the sort of gray area decisions that our managers and commanders are making right now as they identify excepted and non- excepted. But I think most of the ships at sea would stay there.
If there were some that stayed strictly in training and weren't excepted, they would be able to stand down if they had to in an orderly fashion. And we'll have to make some judgment about what that means. Obviously you can't get the ship back immediately.
Q: Right. But obviously part of the mission at sea often involves planes going on training mission, it requires refueling, purchasing. Can those activities continue?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Again, and I don't want to sound like a stuck record. But it is going to depend on whether the judgment is that this is directly related to an excepted activity, which would be a military operation. I think in many cases, if they're in the Med, that's going to be true.
It would be harder if they're training off Newport -- or Norfolk, for example. That might not be true. Then the question is, are there civilians involved? Or can we go ahead and do it with the military? And I'm -- these are things that get delegated, and our commanders and managers are considering those issues right now.
(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)
Q: The memo talks about limiting movements from excepted areas. And I'm wondering if it could affect the draw-down from Afghanistan.
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, Afghanistan is excepted. So let me think. I mean, the -- the PCS [Permanent Change of Station] is -- we can move to an excepted area, so the troops going over to Afghanistan would be OK. From an excepted area if the commander judges that there would be problems created if the move is not carried out.
So that's a judgment General Dunford and his staff will have to make. And I'm not sure where they are on that. Again, I'm sounding like a stuck record, but I don't have all these details. This is what we've passed out to our commanders, managers, and asked them to make these judgments.
Q: (OFF-MIKE)
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, it's an excepted activity, so -- my lawyer here -- sounds like we should be able to go ahead with that.
Q: So just wondered if you could think back -- I don't know if you were comptroller in '95 and '96.
UNDER SEC. HALE: No.
Q: Probably not.
UNDER SEC. HALE: [inaudible]. I was the Air Force comptroller. (CROSSTALK)
Q: OK. So I know that in one of those shutdowns, Congress had passed an appropriation for DOD. And so -- but I can't remember which one. So just, could compare, you know, the two scenarios...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yeah.
Q: ... and why this would be...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, we shut down in '95, if my memory serves me right, for about a week in DOD. It was longer in the non-defense agencies. So they passed, I guess it was a CR [Continuing Resolution] -- I can't remember -- or whether it was a full appropriations bill earlier for defense.
I mean, there was a lot of similarity. We went through all of these machinations that we are engaged in right now to decide what to do at that time, and then of course executed that plan.
One thing I distinctly remember is that it was a horrendous blow to the civilians. I mean, there was months after that that I was hearing from them. We used a phrase that we have stopped using because it was wrong, essential and non-offensial -- essential back then.
And it's just not right because it's not whether you're essential. It's whether the law says you're doing an excepted activity. There are lots of essential items to keep this military going that don't deal directly with excepted activities.
We've stopped that. Maybe it'll help, but not too much, I mean, especially coming on the heels of the summer furloughs. I am very concerned about the effect this is going to have on our civilian work force.
Q: Just one last -- one other related question is, the shut-down plans in 2011 versus what you're having to, you know, come up with now, are there, you know, differences in operations now that make those shut-down plans not a complete blueprint for what you're doing?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Not many differences. I mean, we made a few exceptions kind of based on recent events. For example, because of the potential flaws to our security system, we exempted the Navy Yard investigation. Obviously, in 2011, that wasn't an issue. But they were pretty minor. I'd say the vast majority of the guidance is the same.
Q: Just to confirm, like troop death benefits would be delayed? Can you provide a little more information about that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: If the -- if the death -- this is ghoulish, but it's the law, not policy. Remember that. If the death occurred after the lapse took place, then the money would be obligated after the lapse took place, and we would have no authority to pay based on that money until the lapse ended. So in that case, they could be delayed.
If the death occurred prior to the lapse, then I -- and assuming we had enough people to process the payment, then I think it wouldn't be delayed.
Q: If the government doesn't shut down, you're still gonna be stuck with a CR come next Tuesday. In the past, you've communicated to Congress provisions you'd like to see in the CR to -- so programs such as ship building wouldn't be hampered. Have you done anything like that? And what...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yes, we always do through the Office of Management and Budget. I will say there are very few of them in the CR passed by the House and just passed by the Senate. But it's fairly short. This one I believe will go through November 15th.
So we can probably hold our breath for a while, but we would certainly appreciate it, and we would have liked more flexibility for new starts, for example, rate increases, and a variety of other activities that we won't be able to carry out under this CR. But yes, we did ask. We always ask.
Q: Also, if - if you do get funding, you will be facing sequestration again, right? How can you - have you thought about how that will affect?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yes, potentially. I mean, this CR will be only through, if it - if it's passed as the Senate version, through November 15th, and if it were extended through the whole year in that form, yes, it would generate a sequestration in January, probably around 4 percent, so we could be facing it. Just in general, I think whereas a year ago we said, I think I may have stood at this podium and said we're not going to sequester ourselves, we really thought this would be resolved, I think this time we will start operating at a somewhat lower level than - than certainly than the President's request. The CR itself cuts the DOD budget, or would result in a cut of around $30 billion. The sequester would take out another $20 [billion] or so, so we will start at a level below the President's budget in order to conserve resources until we get a better sense of where we're actually headed.
Q: (inaudible).
Q: Just one quick clarification, so that October 1st, all paychecks will go out October 1st, right?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Correct. There's a payday today for the civilians that of course is not affected, and one on October 1st to the military, and it's not affected because it's all for time before any lapse would occur, and then the reserves are trickier because they are paid at various times, and we're already struggling with some of that, but I mean, I'm hoping we can minimize or avoid any disruptions there too.
Q: And then I (inaudible) clarification of, so one of the things that - that's listed as excepted, and I guess this is under the - this is under the law, (inaudible), but is activities necessary to continue recruiting? So are we talking like air shows, and that kind of ...
(CROSSTALK)
UNDER SEC. HALE: No, I mean, we'll be talking about probably recruiting offices, the military entrance examination centers, the things more directly related to it.
Q: And I mean I know this is a - this is a - putting a linear question on like - on a very three-dimensional problem here, but - but I - I mean, why is it that if there is money that would be available if something were to happen and - and there was a need to send a force to, we'll just say Syria since it's, you know, topic of the day, but to Syria, but there's not money that's available somewhere to pay people. Is there a good reason?
UNDER SEC. HALE: It's - it's the - yeah, it's the difference between obligations and our ability to disperse. The law says that in the lapse of appropriations, we can obligate money, which means we can enter into a contract and legally commit the government, we can obligate money for items related to safety of life, preservation of property, that's with all military operations, but we can't disperse anything, actually send a check until we get an appropriation, so we can go ahead with the operation, we'd be committing the government, but they're not going to get paid, or the - the personnel at least aren't going to get paid until we actually get an appropriation. Does that make sense?
Q: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
Q: Are there any specific upcoming multinational training exercises that would have to be canceled if there's a shutdown?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I don't know. My guess is, I don't know. As I say, you know, I assume nobody knows of it either. If we get into this, you know, we're going to have to go one level of indenture down. I mean, somebody knows, PACOM [U.S. Pacific Command] or EUCOM [U.S. European Command] they certainly would know, but I'm not aware of any.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: (inaudible) Roughly 400,000 DOD employees?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Based on - Tony, we don't have the numbers yet. We're still gathering them for this year, but it was around 50 percent of our civilians who were excepted two and a half years ago. I would expect it to be in that vicinity again. That would be around 400,000 maybe a little less. Our foreign national employees who are part of that 800,000 are excepted if they are paid by foreign governments, so we take them off the top, it would probably be a little less than 400,000 when we're done.
Q: They should be around 800,000 of which 400,000 potentially could be, and most of those are outside of the Washington, D.C. area, is that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Eighty-six percent of our overall civilians are outside of Washington, so I think it's fair to say the majority of them will be.
Q: What is the thinking in terms of when RIF [Reduction in Force] notices or RIF packages would have to be pulled together, since you're not planning for furloughs in 2014?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, I mean, you will - we have planned some of them based on accommodating a $487 billion 10-year cut that we took in prior budgets, that - that over the next few months, I think some of those would be announced. The ones associated with these cuts takes awhile to formulate these, and - and so it will probably be a period of time and I'm not sure exactly when before we'll have those out. But you're going to see some reductions in force actions over coming months, and some involuntary separations in the military as we begin this drawdown.
Q: (OFF-MIKE) potentially it was like 6,200 a couple - back in early August you were thinking of -- you and the department, any rough number of potential RIFs?
UNDER SEC. HALE: No, I don't want to give you a number, because I don't think we're far enough along to be specific. And that number is headline stuff. So I'd prefer not to.
Q: How will Arlington burials be affected?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yeah, we will exempt -- Arlington is actually paid to the Army. And I believe it will stay open, but I'd kind of like to check that.
We have decided -- based on mental health and other reasons -- to except funerals and dignified transfers. And so the people supporting those would be excepted and they will continue.
Q: And then just a follow up on the civilians expected to work but no guarantee of pay, is that unless something is passed in Congress?
UNDER SEC. HALE: It comes in two flavors. The ones who are associated with excepted activities, they will be directed to work. They will be paid retroactively -- as soon as we get an appropriation. And that will be automatic. The ones who are put on furlough, that would require an act of Congress in order to pay them retroactively.
Q: Are there any very significant differences between this guidance and the guidance from April 2011 or any of the ...
UNDER SEC. HALE: No, it's pretty modest -- I gave you the one example of the Navy Yard investigation, and there may be a couple others, but they are very modest. Unfortunately, we're getting good at this.
Q: In addition to having to worry about FY [fiscal year] '14, you have to develop an FY '15 budget concurrently. Can you update us on how that's going, and is all the time and attention you have to deal with for planning for a shutdown taking away from that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I mean, absolutely. It's taking away from everything we do, at least anything of the people who are related to budget. Yes, it's slowing it down.
But we have to press forward, and it's a particularly demanding task this year, because we really feel we have to plan for a range of outcomes. We just don't know where we're gonna end up. A decision the president will ultimately make in December as to the size of the '15 budget and the plan beyond. So we're really planning for a pretty wide range of spending.
Q: Have the services given you everything they need for that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: They are in the process of doing that. They have submitted briefings on what we call our program objectives memoranda, and are submitting detail data right now.
Q: You had mentioned some ability to do -- to sign new contracts in the event of a government shutdown. The guidance mentions that it would be allowed when delaying contracting would endanger national security, but I wonder for some of your bigger weapons programs and vehicles and things how would you legally be able to decide what delays would endanger?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I mean, we can (inaudible) sign new contracts or extend old ones if they are in direct support of excepted activities. I think it would probably be a stretch for a major acquisition to qualify there, although it's extremely important -- that's another good difference between excepted and non-excepted and essential and non-essential. I mean, we need these weapons, but they'd probably be hard to relate them directly to a current military operation.
Now, the good news is, this coming at the beginning of the year, you don't tend to have a lot of those decisions facing you early on. So -- and those that you have, you could delay. I think if a lapse occurs, I definitely hope it doesn't, but the severity of the effects would grow quickly as it - if it turns out to be long. If it's short, it will be damaging, but less so. If it's long, it will be increasingly so, because it will catch more issues like that.
Q: Can you talk some more about the extent to which you would expect military personnel to be performing the duties of furloughed civilians as opposed to their normal day jobs? And I guess the same question for any contractors who might be able to stick around because they're paid the prior years.
Well, on the military side, I mean, they would have their normal jobs and they would continue that. I think there could be circumstances, for example, if there was an important contract funded with money before the lapse, and supervision was needed and the civilian was furloughed that, maybe the person had the capability to do that, I could see them doing that. But I think for the most part they will be doing their same jobs.
Same with the contractors, in general, they're going to be doing the jobs they were assigned. They can't -- the contractors would never be allowed -- furlough -- shutdown or not, to do inherently governmental work. There could be some circumstances, an admin assistant who was a contractor answering phones because a -- a person – a civilian was furloughed. It could be some of that, but for the most part, they're gonna go ahead and do the jobs they were assigned to.
(UNKNOWN): Thank you very much. Mr. Hale, thanks.
Presenter: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert F. Hale September 27, 2013
News Briefing on the Department Of Defense's Plan for a Possible Government Shutdown
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT F. HALE: Ready to go? All right. So I think you know who I am. I'll say good afternoon. That's probably the high point of this discussion.
So I'm going to start with a few words, then I'll turn to your questions. Let me start by saying the administration firmly believes that a shutdown due to a lapse of appropriation should not occur.
The administration is working with Congress to try to prevent a lapse. Unfortunately, we may not know the outcome of those efforts until next Monday, conceivably even Monday night.
So we have to be prudent and plan for a lapse of appropriations. So what is involved in this planning? As I answer this question and everything I say today, let me say I'm going to focus on the Department of Defense, solely on DOD., but other federal agencies are definitely affected. I just don't -- I know less about them, so I'll focus on DOD.
First it's important to recognize that if DOD's appropriations lapse, we can only conduct limited activity specifically authorized by law. The lapse could lead to civilian furloughs, it will, in fact.
But these furloughs are very different than the sequester furloughs that occurred this summer. The sequester furloughs sought to reduce costs. And we had the authority to design them to reduce costs and to reflect policies like minimizing effects on readiness.
In the case of a lapse of appropriations, law governs, not policy. Specifically the law says that in the event of a lapse of appropriations, DOD can only conduct activities designed to protect safety of life and property and carry out a few other activities.
Administration lawyers interpret this to mean that DOD can support specific military operations that the secretary of defense has approved: Afghanistan, for example, and a number of others.
We can also maintain emergency services, police, fire, emergency medical. We label the activities that can continue as excepted activities, and you will hear me use that word repeatedly in the next couple of minutes.
So what would happen under a lapse of appropriations? First, government employees would be significantly affected. In the event of a lapse, all of our military personnel would be directed to remain on a normal duty status. Their military status means they can't be placed in a non-pay status, so we would direct them to continue in normal-duty status. Civilian workers who support these excepted activities, again Afghanistan emergency activities, they -- they would be directed to continue to work.
But all other civilian workers who do not primarily support excepted activities would be placed in a non-duty, non-pay status on an emergency no-notice basis at the time the lapse occurs. Based on planning in 2011, we would expect roughly half of our civilian personnel would go into this status, essentially a non-pay furlough status.
Pay of government employees could also be seriously affected, especially if the lapse continues for a period of time. During a lapse, DOD cannot pay military personnel and civilian personnel, even if they have been directed to work. Military and those civilians directed to work would be paid retroactively once the lapse of appropriation ends. Civilians on emergency furloughs, and those for the -- primarily doing non-excepted activities would be paid retroactively only if a law is enacted providing the authority to pay them.
Training and travel of military and civilian employees would be disrupted. Unless connected with excepted activities, training and travel would have to be stopped. It would either be stopped before it started, or if it's going on at the time the lapse occurs, then folks associated with -- on TDY associated with non-accepted travel would have to pack up and come home, although they could do that in an orderly fashion.
We would also be required to do some other bad things to our people. Just some examples, we couldn't immediately pay death gratuities to those who die on active duty during the lapse, we would have to close stateside commissaries, promotion boards and other similar important personnel activities would be disrupted, probably would have to be stopped, and a number of other actions.
DOD vendors would also be affected, especially if the lapse continues for a substantial period of time. Vendors working on contracts with funds obligated prior to the lapse in fiscal '13 or earlier funds could continue to work, assuming government personnel are available to provide any needed supervision. And, they could be paid for that work, but during the period of the lapse, we can't sign new contracts or extend old ones unless they're directly in support of excepted activities.
So if I haven't already confused you, let me try to sum up by saying how all these confusing actions affect the DOD mission. We can and will continue to support key military operations. We're allowed to do that by law, but the law would force us to disrupt many of our support activities. We wouldn't be able to do most training, we couldn't enter into most new contracts, routine maintenance would have to stop, we couldn't continue efforts to improve contracting and financial management, including our auto improvement efforts, for example. Even worse, a lapse of appropriations causes civilian furloughs and is one more blow to the morale of our civilian workforce, and that morale is already low and I think would get lower. And that adversely affects productivity and costs the taxpayers money.
Even if a lapse never occurs, the planning itself is disruptive. People are worrying right now about whether their paychecks are going to be delayed, rather than focusing fully on their mission. And while I can't quantify the time being spent to plan, it has or will consume a lot of senior management attention, probably thousands of hours in employee time better spent on supporting national security. For all these reasons, I very much hope that Congress acts to avert a lapse of appropriations, and though it will probably sound contradictory, I hope you will understand when I say that I hope we are all wasting our time planning for this lapse.
With that, I'll stop and I'll be glad to try to answer your questions. I'm going to get George, here.
Q: (inaudible), can you, since everyone lived through the furloughs recently, can you explain a little bit in detail the difference between the civilians who were furloughed under that, and the fact that there are fewer numbers being furloughed now?
If you could maybe give -- maybe an example, it would help so that people would understand what -- how that difference is, and I just have a second, one other, second question. I know contractors is a really hard thing to get your arms around, but is there any way to talk about the number of contractors as in people that could be affected by this?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, first on the furloughs. The ones we did in the summer were called administrative furloughs. It's a long notification process, if you remember, that we need to go through. They were designed to save money.
And, therefore, as I mentioned, we can -- we have the authority to design them based on criteria like readiness and cost-savings. These are specified by law. Anybody who is not -- any civilian not primarily working on an excepted activity has to be placed on furloughs.
Can I think of good examples for you? Well, here's one. Most of our working capital fund employees are going to not be furloughed immediately because the working capital funds have a cash balance that's based on funds obligated before the lapse, if you're following me. And so we have the funds and they don't have to be furloughed right away.
Now that would have to be gradually some of them if we run out of cash. Whereas most of our working capital fund employees were furloughed in the summer because we wanted to reduce costs.
As far as the contractors, just briefly, all of the ones working on contracts, as I said, that were obligated with money before the lapse would be able to continue if supervision was available.
I think in the early stages of a lapse, that would be the majority of our contractors because most are going to be working on contracts just almost by definition that were funded before. If the lapse continued, that number would fall. But I don't have specific numbers.
Q: I'm sorry, clarify on the difference between the contractors. If I'm not mistaken, there are about 650,000 that were affected over the summer. Now it's about 400,000. So a difference of a couple hundred thousand seems to be a lot. Am I...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Again, it's -- yes, the numbers are roughly right. I mean, I don't know exactly how many. Probably around half. So it will be close to that.
I mean, again, working capital funds alone are probably 100,000, 150,000 people that we'll keep this time and there are many others. And they're just totally different animals just because one is driven by law, one was driven by policy to save money. One is driven by law -- a specific law about excepted and non-excepted activities.
Q: But they weren't contractors, correct? I mean, these are government...
UNDER SEC. HALE: No. I'm talking government employees now. Contractors, most of them are probably going to be able to continue working if supervision is available because I think most of them would -- although I don't have numbers, most of them are going to be funded by contracts already that were funded with fiscal '13 or earlier money.
Q: For (OFF-MIKE) are looking towards that October 15th paycheck, can you give them a sense of how long this government shutdown might be able to go before their paycheck was definitely delayed? I mean, if Congress reached an agreement on the 4th, would these...
(CROSSTALK)
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yes, I think so. I think the earliest we'd start having trouble would be October 7th. And that's not a hard date. We'll push it as far as we can. But at some point we have to run the payroll.
Frankly, I'm in triage mode right now. I'm trying to help coordinate getting the department ready to shut down if we have to. And so I haven't focused on the problems that will occur if a lapse -- like that one, if the lapse occurs. I'll have to work with the Defense Financing and Accounting Service. We'll put it off as long as we can.
Clearly if the lapse extends to October 15th, there won't be a question. There may be some time prior to that when we'd be faced with either having to take a chance and go ahead and run the payroll and be ready, or delay it. But we have got a while.
Q: Can you talk about what happens to ships at sea, particularly those in the Mediterranean, and whether operations -- kinetic operations could be launched, such as by Special Operations Forces or even a hypothetical strike in Syria?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I mean, it would depend on whether it was a military operation. In the case you just mentioned, I think it surely would be and therefore it would be -- that is if we were -- hypothetically, the president were to authorize some action against Syria, it would be a military operation approved by the secretary and so it would be an excepted activity and, yes, we could go forward with it.
Q: And then ships at sea that are basically...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, again, the issue is, are they in direct support of excepted activities? I think many of them will be and therefore they will be excepted. And I might add the great majority of the people on there are military and they're going to remain at work. And so I don't think many of them will be disrupted.
But these are the sort of gray area decisions that our managers and commanders are making right now as they identify excepted and non- excepted. But I think most of the ships at sea would stay there.
If there were some that stayed strictly in training and weren't excepted, they would be able to stand down if they had to in an orderly fashion. And we'll have to make some judgment about what that means. Obviously you can't get the ship back immediately.
Q: Right. But obviously part of the mission at sea often involves planes going on training mission, it requires refueling, purchasing. Can those activities continue?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Again, and I don't want to sound like a stuck record. But it is going to depend on whether the judgment is that this is directly related to an excepted activity, which would be a military operation. I think in many cases, if they're in the Med, that's going to be true.
It would be harder if they're training off Newport -- or Norfolk, for example. That might not be true. Then the question is, are there civilians involved? Or can we go ahead and do it with the military? And I'm -- these are things that get delegated, and our commanders and managers are considering those issues right now.
(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)
Q: The memo talks about limiting movements from excepted areas. And I'm wondering if it could affect the draw-down from Afghanistan.
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, Afghanistan is excepted. So let me think. I mean, the -- the PCS [Permanent Change of Station] is -- we can move to an excepted area, so the troops going over to Afghanistan would be OK. From an excepted area if the commander judges that there would be problems created if the move is not carried out.
So that's a judgment General Dunford and his staff will have to make. And I'm not sure where they are on that. Again, I'm sounding like a stuck record, but I don't have all these details. This is what we've passed out to our commanders, managers, and asked them to make these judgments.
Q: (OFF-MIKE)
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, it's an excepted activity, so -- my lawyer here -- sounds like we should be able to go ahead with that.
Q: So just wondered if you could think back -- I don't know if you were comptroller in '95 and '96.
UNDER SEC. HALE: No.
Q: Probably not.
UNDER SEC. HALE: [inaudible]. I was the Air Force comptroller. (CROSSTALK)
Q: OK. So I know that in one of those shutdowns, Congress had passed an appropriation for DOD. And so -- but I can't remember which one. So just, could compare, you know, the two scenarios...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yeah.
Q: ... and why this would be...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, we shut down in '95, if my memory serves me right, for about a week in DOD. It was longer in the non-defense agencies. So they passed, I guess it was a CR [Continuing Resolution] -- I can't remember -- or whether it was a full appropriations bill earlier for defense.
I mean, there was a lot of similarity. We went through all of these machinations that we are engaged in right now to decide what to do at that time, and then of course executed that plan.
One thing I distinctly remember is that it was a horrendous blow to the civilians. I mean, there was months after that that I was hearing from them. We used a phrase that we have stopped using because it was wrong, essential and non-offensial -- essential back then.
And it's just not right because it's not whether you're essential. It's whether the law says you're doing an excepted activity. There are lots of essential items to keep this military going that don't deal directly with excepted activities.
We've stopped that. Maybe it'll help, but not too much, I mean, especially coming on the heels of the summer furloughs. I am very concerned about the effect this is going to have on our civilian work force.
Q: Just one last -- one other related question is, the shut-down plans in 2011 versus what you're having to, you know, come up with now, are there, you know, differences in operations now that make those shut-down plans not a complete blueprint for what you're doing?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Not many differences. I mean, we made a few exceptions kind of based on recent events. For example, because of the potential flaws to our security system, we exempted the Navy Yard investigation. Obviously, in 2011, that wasn't an issue. But they were pretty minor. I'd say the vast majority of the guidance is the same.
Q: Just to confirm, like troop death benefits would be delayed? Can you provide a little more information about that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: If the -- if the death -- this is ghoulish, but it's the law, not policy. Remember that. If the death occurred after the lapse took place, then the money would be obligated after the lapse took place, and we would have no authority to pay based on that money until the lapse ended. So in that case, they could be delayed.
If the death occurred prior to the lapse, then I -- and assuming we had enough people to process the payment, then I think it wouldn't be delayed.
Q: If the government doesn't shut down, you're still gonna be stuck with a CR come next Tuesday. In the past, you've communicated to Congress provisions you'd like to see in the CR to -- so programs such as ship building wouldn't be hampered. Have you done anything like that? And what...
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yes, we always do through the Office of Management and Budget. I will say there are very few of them in the CR passed by the House and just passed by the Senate. But it's fairly short. This one I believe will go through November 15th.
So we can probably hold our breath for a while, but we would certainly appreciate it, and we would have liked more flexibility for new starts, for example, rate increases, and a variety of other activities that we won't be able to carry out under this CR. But yes, we did ask. We always ask.
Q: Also, if - if you do get funding, you will be facing sequestration again, right? How can you - have you thought about how that will affect?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yes, potentially. I mean, this CR will be only through, if it - if it's passed as the Senate version, through November 15th, and if it were extended through the whole year in that form, yes, it would generate a sequestration in January, probably around 4 percent, so we could be facing it. Just in general, I think whereas a year ago we said, I think I may have stood at this podium and said we're not going to sequester ourselves, we really thought this would be resolved, I think this time we will start operating at a somewhat lower level than - than certainly than the President's request. The CR itself cuts the DOD budget, or would result in a cut of around $30 billion. The sequester would take out another $20 [billion] or so, so we will start at a level below the President's budget in order to conserve resources until we get a better sense of where we're actually headed.
Q: (inaudible).
Q: Just one quick clarification, so that October 1st, all paychecks will go out October 1st, right?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Correct. There's a payday today for the civilians that of course is not affected, and one on October 1st to the military, and it's not affected because it's all for time before any lapse would occur, and then the reserves are trickier because they are paid at various times, and we're already struggling with some of that, but I mean, I'm hoping we can minimize or avoid any disruptions there too.
Q: And then I (inaudible) clarification of, so one of the things that - that's listed as excepted, and I guess this is under the - this is under the law, (inaudible), but is activities necessary to continue recruiting? So are we talking like air shows, and that kind of ...
(CROSSTALK)
UNDER SEC. HALE: No, I mean, we'll be talking about probably recruiting offices, the military entrance examination centers, the things more directly related to it.
Q: And I mean I know this is a - this is a - putting a linear question on like - on a very three-dimensional problem here, but - but I - I mean, why is it that if there is money that would be available if something were to happen and - and there was a need to send a force to, we'll just say Syria since it's, you know, topic of the day, but to Syria, but there's not money that's available somewhere to pay people. Is there a good reason?
UNDER SEC. HALE: It's - it's the - yeah, it's the difference between obligations and our ability to disperse. The law says that in the lapse of appropriations, we can obligate money, which means we can enter into a contract and legally commit the government, we can obligate money for items related to safety of life, preservation of property, that's with all military operations, but we can't disperse anything, actually send a check until we get an appropriation, so we can go ahead with the operation, we'd be committing the government, but they're not going to get paid, or the - the personnel at least aren't going to get paid until we actually get an appropriation. Does that make sense?
Q: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
Q: Are there any specific upcoming multinational training exercises that would have to be canceled if there's a shutdown?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I don't know. My guess is, I don't know. As I say, you know, I assume nobody knows of it either. If we get into this, you know, we're going to have to go one level of indenture down. I mean, somebody knows, PACOM [U.S. Pacific Command] or EUCOM [U.S. European Command] they certainly would know, but I'm not aware of any.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: (inaudible) Roughly 400,000 DOD employees?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Based on - Tony, we don't have the numbers yet. We're still gathering them for this year, but it was around 50 percent of our civilians who were excepted two and a half years ago. I would expect it to be in that vicinity again. That would be around 400,000 maybe a little less. Our foreign national employees who are part of that 800,000 are excepted if they are paid by foreign governments, so we take them off the top, it would probably be a little less than 400,000 when we're done.
Q: They should be around 800,000 of which 400,000 potentially could be, and most of those are outside of the Washington, D.C. area, is that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Eighty-six percent of our overall civilians are outside of Washington, so I think it's fair to say the majority of them will be.
Q: What is the thinking in terms of when RIF [Reduction in Force] notices or RIF packages would have to be pulled together, since you're not planning for furloughs in 2014?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Well, I mean, you will - we have planned some of them based on accommodating a $487 billion 10-year cut that we took in prior budgets, that - that over the next few months, I think some of those would be announced. The ones associated with these cuts takes awhile to formulate these, and - and so it will probably be a period of time and I'm not sure exactly when before we'll have those out. But you're going to see some reductions in force actions over coming months, and some involuntary separations in the military as we begin this drawdown.
Q: (OFF-MIKE) potentially it was like 6,200 a couple - back in early August you were thinking of -- you and the department, any rough number of potential RIFs?
UNDER SEC. HALE: No, I don't want to give you a number, because I don't think we're far enough along to be specific. And that number is headline stuff. So I'd prefer not to.
Q: How will Arlington burials be affected?
UNDER SEC. HALE: Yeah, we will exempt -- Arlington is actually paid to the Army. And I believe it will stay open, but I'd kind of like to check that.
We have decided -- based on mental health and other reasons -- to except funerals and dignified transfers. And so the people supporting those would be excepted and they will continue.
Q: And then just a follow up on the civilians expected to work but no guarantee of pay, is that unless something is passed in Congress?
UNDER SEC. HALE: It comes in two flavors. The ones who are associated with excepted activities, they will be directed to work. They will be paid retroactively -- as soon as we get an appropriation. And that will be automatic. The ones who are put on furlough, that would require an act of Congress in order to pay them retroactively.
Q: Are there any very significant differences between this guidance and the guidance from April 2011 or any of the ...
UNDER SEC. HALE: No, it's pretty modest -- I gave you the one example of the Navy Yard investigation, and there may be a couple others, but they are very modest. Unfortunately, we're getting good at this.
Q: In addition to having to worry about FY [fiscal year] '14, you have to develop an FY '15 budget concurrently. Can you update us on how that's going, and is all the time and attention you have to deal with for planning for a shutdown taking away from that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I mean, absolutely. It's taking away from everything we do, at least anything of the people who are related to budget. Yes, it's slowing it down.
But we have to press forward, and it's a particularly demanding task this year, because we really feel we have to plan for a range of outcomes. We just don't know where we're gonna end up. A decision the president will ultimately make in December as to the size of the '15 budget and the plan beyond. So we're really planning for a pretty wide range of spending.
Q: Have the services given you everything they need for that?
UNDER SEC. HALE: They are in the process of doing that. They have submitted briefings on what we call our program objectives memoranda, and are submitting detail data right now.
Q: You had mentioned some ability to do -- to sign new contracts in the event of a government shutdown. The guidance mentions that it would be allowed when delaying contracting would endanger national security, but I wonder for some of your bigger weapons programs and vehicles and things how would you legally be able to decide what delays would endanger?
UNDER SEC. HALE: I mean, we can (inaudible) sign new contracts or extend old ones if they are in direct support of excepted activities. I think it would probably be a stretch for a major acquisition to qualify there, although it's extremely important -- that's another good difference between excepted and non-excepted and essential and non-essential. I mean, we need these weapons, but they'd probably be hard to relate them directly to a current military operation.
Now, the good news is, this coming at the beginning of the year, you don't tend to have a lot of those decisions facing you early on. So -- and those that you have, you could delay. I think if a lapse occurs, I definitely hope it doesn't, but the severity of the effects would grow quickly as it - if it turns out to be long. If it's short, it will be damaging, but less so. If it's long, it will be increasingly so, because it will catch more issues like that.
Q: Can you talk some more about the extent to which you would expect military personnel to be performing the duties of furloughed civilians as opposed to their normal day jobs? And I guess the same question for any contractors who might be able to stick around because they're paid the prior years.
Well, on the military side, I mean, they would have their normal jobs and they would continue that. I think there could be circumstances, for example, if there was an important contract funded with money before the lapse, and supervision was needed and the civilian was furloughed that, maybe the person had the capability to do that, I could see them doing that. But I think for the most part they will be doing their same jobs.
Same with the contractors, in general, they're going to be doing the jobs they were assigned. They can't -- the contractors would never be allowed -- furlough -- shutdown or not, to do inherently governmental work. There could be some circumstances, an admin assistant who was a contractor answering phones because a -- a person – a civilian was furloughed. It could be some of that, but for the most part, they're gonna go ahead and do the jobs they were assigned to.
(UNKNOWN): Thank you very much. Mr. Hale, thanks.
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT GLOBAL HEALTH EVENT WITH PARTNER COUNTRIES
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at a Global Health Event with Partner Countries (PEPFAR)
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Waldorf Hotel
New York City
September 25, 2013
Well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you very, very much for joining us here. It’s my great privilege to be joined by His Excellency, the President of Namibia, President Pohamba; His Excellency, the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame; and His Excellency, the Ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool from South Africa. And we’re very honored to have each of them here to take part. As all of you, we want to have a good discussion. We’re going to open it up with a few opening statements while the press is here. And then when the press leaves, we’ll have a chance to just talk and have a great dialogue about the future here.
We’re really at the cusp of a very exciting new frontier with respect to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known to everybody as PEPFAR. And I’m very proud to be joined by our global partners as well as a group of stakeholders here as we hopefully embrace and implement all of the tools at our disposal to be able to achieve an AIDS-free generation and to improve global healthcare by strengthening our commitments to PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
This has been an extraordinary journey, and I think everybody at this table understands that. A decade ago, PEPFAR created the world’s largest and the most successful foreign assistance program ever. And now, a disease that at one time seemed to be unstoppable is actually in retreat.
I have been gratified to be part of this fight since the beginning, really, and particularly will say to you that I’ve never been more optimistic than we are today, and I think you may share that. I remember the days in Congress when the words “AIDS” was very rarely spoken. And often if it was spoken, it was spoken pejoratively. And I can remember the early days working with Senator Bill Frist or Barbara Lee on the earliest efforts to engage the United States Government on a major global commitment. And it is really heartening to know that now, 10 years after PEPFAR was launched, we are actually able to see and reach out and hopefully touch the prospect of an AIDS-free generation.
So our commitment to this has not only been strengthened by the progress that we’ve made and the lives that we’ve saved, but science has shown the way and has provided us with the tools that we need in order to be able to continue our collective pursuit of what has always been an ambitious goal, remains ambitious but not ambitious without the capacity to realize the ambition, which is particularly exciting.
Last year – I’m sure many of you were there – I was privileged to attend with you the first International AIDS Society conference to be held on American soil in more than two decades. And we all know why it couldn’t be for so long. We finally got that changed. And I’m especially proud to announce today that the United States will host the Global Fund’s Fourth Replenishment in December.
Since its inception, the Global Fund has been a vital partner in supporting country-owned – and this is very important – country-owned responses to address HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. And the United States is proud to be the Global Fund’s largest donor, and we’re challenging other donors to step up their commitments at this critical moment and make the replenishment cycle a success. We’re already encouraged by the increased pledges from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, as well as those from Germany and France earlier this year, who agreed to extend their already current high level of commitment.
So we’re now entering the second decade of PEPFAR. And as you’re aware, the program has taken steps over the past few years to move from an emergency program to a sustainable initiative. U.S. programs, I think it’s fair to say, are still absolutely critical. But now, wherever possible, those programs are going to support countries’ own initiatives against this epidemic, and that’s what’s really exciting about it. That’s, frankly, exactly what our foreign assistance is supposed to do, is to help other countries to be able to take the reins and empower them to be able to confront challenges like HIV and AIDS themselves.
South Africa, Rwanda, Namibia are all on the front lines of this effort. And in the face of one of the greatest moral challenges of our time, each of those countries have responded in extraordinary ways in order to care for your own people. You’re not just investing in your own health capacity, but you are helping to lead the charge to define a new model for U.S. assistance. And we thank you for that. It’s one that empowers and emphasizes co-investment, collaboration, and true partnership. And none of these things can work if it isn’t transformed into sustainability, if it doesn’t become, really, a country’s own initiative.
That’s what country health partnerships are all about. They are about shared responsibility, shared accountability, budget transparency, and a commitment to investing strategically based on what we’ve learned from improved data collection and analysis. These partnerships are country specific to ensure that we are responsive to local needs. And they’ll also benefit from shared decision-making on how PEPFAR resources are allocated as part of a national response.
So make no mistake, please. The United States will continue to be responsible for the stewardship of its funds, and congressional mandates will remain in effect. But we believe that by sharing more decisions with countries, we can advance the principles of country ownership that President Obama and I believe in so strongly. And that will allow us to continue to make progress on prevention, on treatment, and awareness.
Fighting HIV/AIDS isn’t just a first-tier priority of our foreign policy and public health initiatives. And I’m blessed, as I look around the table speaking— we have a group of unbelievably qualified, incredibly experienced, and amazingly capable people at this table. You are the people, all of you, who made this happen over these last years. But beyond being sort of that foreign policy initiative, it’s also a test of our values. And we have to reaffirm our moral obligation, and we have to acknowledge that our shared humanity mandates that we continue to challenge ourselves until we defeat this devastating epidemic.
So with that, I want to turn to our country partners here today and ask each of them if they would offer their perspective on exactly how we take the next step forward together. So let me first, if I may, introduce President Pohamba of Namibia.
Remarks at a Global Health Event with Partner Countries (PEPFAR)
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Waldorf Hotel
New York City
September 25, 2013
Well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you very, very much for joining us here. It’s my great privilege to be joined by His Excellency, the President of Namibia, President Pohamba; His Excellency, the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame; and His Excellency, the Ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool from South Africa. And we’re very honored to have each of them here to take part. As all of you, we want to have a good discussion. We’re going to open it up with a few opening statements while the press is here. And then when the press leaves, we’ll have a chance to just talk and have a great dialogue about the future here.
We’re really at the cusp of a very exciting new frontier with respect to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known to everybody as PEPFAR. And I’m very proud to be joined by our global partners as well as a group of stakeholders here as we hopefully embrace and implement all of the tools at our disposal to be able to achieve an AIDS-free generation and to improve global healthcare by strengthening our commitments to PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
This has been an extraordinary journey, and I think everybody at this table understands that. A decade ago, PEPFAR created the world’s largest and the most successful foreign assistance program ever. And now, a disease that at one time seemed to be unstoppable is actually in retreat.
I have been gratified to be part of this fight since the beginning, really, and particularly will say to you that I’ve never been more optimistic than we are today, and I think you may share that. I remember the days in Congress when the words “AIDS” was very rarely spoken. And often if it was spoken, it was spoken pejoratively. And I can remember the early days working with Senator Bill Frist or Barbara Lee on the earliest efforts to engage the United States Government on a major global commitment. And it is really heartening to know that now, 10 years after PEPFAR was launched, we are actually able to see and reach out and hopefully touch the prospect of an AIDS-free generation.
So our commitment to this has not only been strengthened by the progress that we’ve made and the lives that we’ve saved, but science has shown the way and has provided us with the tools that we need in order to be able to continue our collective pursuit of what has always been an ambitious goal, remains ambitious but not ambitious without the capacity to realize the ambition, which is particularly exciting.
Last year – I’m sure many of you were there – I was privileged to attend with you the first International AIDS Society conference to be held on American soil in more than two decades. And we all know why it couldn’t be for so long. We finally got that changed. And I’m especially proud to announce today that the United States will host the Global Fund’s Fourth Replenishment in December.
Since its inception, the Global Fund has been a vital partner in supporting country-owned – and this is very important – country-owned responses to address HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. And the United States is proud to be the Global Fund’s largest donor, and we’re challenging other donors to step up their commitments at this critical moment and make the replenishment cycle a success. We’re already encouraged by the increased pledges from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, as well as those from Germany and France earlier this year, who agreed to extend their already current high level of commitment.
So we’re now entering the second decade of PEPFAR. And as you’re aware, the program has taken steps over the past few years to move from an emergency program to a sustainable initiative. U.S. programs, I think it’s fair to say, are still absolutely critical. But now, wherever possible, those programs are going to support countries’ own initiatives against this epidemic, and that’s what’s really exciting about it. That’s, frankly, exactly what our foreign assistance is supposed to do, is to help other countries to be able to take the reins and empower them to be able to confront challenges like HIV and AIDS themselves.
South Africa, Rwanda, Namibia are all on the front lines of this effort. And in the face of one of the greatest moral challenges of our time, each of those countries have responded in extraordinary ways in order to care for your own people. You’re not just investing in your own health capacity, but you are helping to lead the charge to define a new model for U.S. assistance. And we thank you for that. It’s one that empowers and emphasizes co-investment, collaboration, and true partnership. And none of these things can work if it isn’t transformed into sustainability, if it doesn’t become, really, a country’s own initiative.
That’s what country health partnerships are all about. They are about shared responsibility, shared accountability, budget transparency, and a commitment to investing strategically based on what we’ve learned from improved data collection and analysis. These partnerships are country specific to ensure that we are responsive to local needs. And they’ll also benefit from shared decision-making on how PEPFAR resources are allocated as part of a national response.
So make no mistake, please. The United States will continue to be responsible for the stewardship of its funds, and congressional mandates will remain in effect. But we believe that by sharing more decisions with countries, we can advance the principles of country ownership that President Obama and I believe in so strongly. And that will allow us to continue to make progress on prevention, on treatment, and awareness.
Fighting HIV/AIDS isn’t just a first-tier priority of our foreign policy and public health initiatives. And I’m blessed, as I look around the table speaking— we have a group of unbelievably qualified, incredibly experienced, and amazingly capable people at this table. You are the people, all of you, who made this happen over these last years. But beyond being sort of that foreign policy initiative, it’s also a test of our values. And we have to reaffirm our moral obligation, and we have to acknowledge that our shared humanity mandates that we continue to challenge ourselves until we defeat this devastating epidemic.
So with that, I want to turn to our country partners here today and ask each of them if they would offer their perspective on exactly how we take the next step forward together. So let me first, if I may, introduce President Pohamba of Namibia.
IMPROVING EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
US Labor Department awards nearly $24 million in Pay for Success grants
New York and Massachusetts awarded grants to improve employment outcomes for formerly incarcerated individuals
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced nearly $24 million in Workforce Innovation Fund grants to pilot the Pay for Success program, a new model of financing social service programs to help federal, state and local governments ensure that public funds only go to programs that achieve positive, measurable outcomes. Under this model, independent investors provide the financial capital to cover the operating costs for the programs, and the Department of Labor disburses funds when and if those programs demonstrate that they have achieved the targeted outcomes.
Two grants were awarded: one to the New York Department of Labor in the amount of $12,000,000 and the other to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development in the amount of $11,670,000. These grants will support programming that aims to increase employment and reduce recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals.
"The Pay for Success model is a promising strategy for expanding effective programs while ensuring maximum return on taxpayer dollars," said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "At a time when all levels of government are experiencing cutbacks, Pay for Success offers a new approach to strategically leverage resources to provide essential services for vulnerable populations through programs with measurable success rates."
The grants announced today represent amounts of committed funds, which the department will release in installments based on whether the grant outcomes were met. Both grantees are expected to employ rigorous evaluation methods in gauging the results of their respective programs, and the findings will be reviewed by independent validators at the end of grant performance period.
The robust evaluation component incorporated in Pay for Success projects will also help to: 1) the expand the body of knowledge about the intervention strategies being tested, 2) demonstrate the feasibility and viability of this funding model and 3) use taxpayer dollars wisely by shifting the investment risk to private investors and releasing funding based on results.
The original solicitation for Pay for Success grant applications announced that $20 million would be awarded. Because of the quality of applications received, the department elected to fully fund the top two grant applicants’ projects using funds from fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
REGULATORS ISSUE GUIDANCE ON ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Federal Regulators Issue Guidance on Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults
JOINT RELEASE
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Trade Commission
National Credit Union Administration
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
Securities and Exchange Commission
Seven federal regulatory agencies today issued guidance to clarify that the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally permit financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate authorities.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally requires that a financial institution notify consumers and give them an opportunity to opt out before providing nonpublic personal information to a third party. Today’s guidance clarifies that it is generally acceptable under the law for financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate local, state or federal agencies.
Older adults can be attractive targets for financial exploitation and may be taken advantage of by scam artists, financial advisors, family members, caregivers, or home repair contractors. Recent studies suggest that financial exploitation is the most common form of elder abuse and that only a small fraction of incidents is reported. Older adults often are targeted because they have retirement savings, accumulated home equity, or other assets. They also are more likely to experience cognitive decline, which can impair their capacity to recognize financial exploitation and scams.
Employees of financial institutions may be able to spot irregular transactions, account activity, or behavior that signals financial abuse. They can play a key role in preventing and detecting elder financial exploitation by reporting suspicious activities to the proper authorities.
The interagency guidance is being issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is issuing the document as staff guidance.
Federal Regulators Issue Guidance on Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults
JOINT RELEASE
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Trade Commission
National Credit Union Administration
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
Securities and Exchange Commission
Seven federal regulatory agencies today issued guidance to clarify that the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally permit financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate authorities.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally requires that a financial institution notify consumers and give them an opportunity to opt out before providing nonpublic personal information to a third party. Today’s guidance clarifies that it is generally acceptable under the law for financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate local, state or federal agencies.
Older adults can be attractive targets for financial exploitation and may be taken advantage of by scam artists, financial advisors, family members, caregivers, or home repair contractors. Recent studies suggest that financial exploitation is the most common form of elder abuse and that only a small fraction of incidents is reported. Older adults often are targeted because they have retirement savings, accumulated home equity, or other assets. They also are more likely to experience cognitive decline, which can impair their capacity to recognize financial exploitation and scams.
Employees of financial institutions may be able to spot irregular transactions, account activity, or behavior that signals financial abuse. They can play a key role in preventing and detecting elder financial exploitation by reporting suspicious activities to the proper authorities.
The interagency guidance is being issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is issuing the document as staff guidance.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
BERNIE MADOFF'S ACCOUNTANT CHARGED BY SEC WITH CREATION OF FALSE BOOKS AND RECORDS
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the longtime accountant for many of Bernard Madoff’s oldest and wealthiest clients for his role in the creation of false books and records used in the massive Ponzi scheme.
The SEC alleges that Paul Konigsberg’s assistance resulted in the formation of inaccurate trade confirmations each month as well as the development of phony data and records documenting the fabricated trades that were, in turn, falsely reflected in the ledgers and related books and records at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS).
“Konigsberg played a vital role in Madoff’s deception of his oldest and wealthiest clients over many years,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Konigsberg’s acquiescence, cooperation, and collaboration were essential to the Madoff fraud.”
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Konigsberg.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Konigsberg aided and abetted the falsification of books and records at BMIS from at least the mid-1990s to late 2008. Konigsberg provided tax or accounting services for more than 200 BMIS client accounts, including five of Madoff’s wealthiest and oldest clients who invested more than a billion dollars combined in BMIS. Konigsberg received fees directly from BMIS clients for the accounting services that he provided them, and BMIS and Madoff paid him a monthly fee of $15,000 or $20,000 as a “retainer” for providing accounting services to a wealthy and longtime Madoff client and his adult children.
The SEC alleges that Konigsberg coordinated with BMIS staff to:
Decide upon desired investment or tax gains and losses to be manufactured and reflected on BMIS account statements and in BMIS computer systems to ensure his clients enjoyed favorable tax treatment for their purported investment activity.
Confer about backdated trades and fictitious account activity entered into the computer systems to create the desired trading results.
Return or destroy his clients’ true BMIS account statements and design alternative fictitious account activity to be entered into the firm’s books and records and reflected on new phony account statements.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Konigsberg, who lives in Greenwich, Conn., aided and abetted the BMIS violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 17a-3, and Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act and Rule 204-2. The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and permanent injunctions against Konigsberg.
The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The SEC’s investigation is continuing.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the longtime accountant for many of Bernard Madoff’s oldest and wealthiest clients for his role in the creation of false books and records used in the massive Ponzi scheme.
The SEC alleges that Paul Konigsberg’s assistance resulted in the formation of inaccurate trade confirmations each month as well as the development of phony data and records documenting the fabricated trades that were, in turn, falsely reflected in the ledgers and related books and records at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS).
“Konigsberg played a vital role in Madoff’s deception of his oldest and wealthiest clients over many years,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Konigsberg’s acquiescence, cooperation, and collaboration were essential to the Madoff fraud.”
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Konigsberg.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Konigsberg aided and abetted the falsification of books and records at BMIS from at least the mid-1990s to late 2008. Konigsberg provided tax or accounting services for more than 200 BMIS client accounts, including five of Madoff’s wealthiest and oldest clients who invested more than a billion dollars combined in BMIS. Konigsberg received fees directly from BMIS clients for the accounting services that he provided them, and BMIS and Madoff paid him a monthly fee of $15,000 or $20,000 as a “retainer” for providing accounting services to a wealthy and longtime Madoff client and his adult children.
The SEC alleges that Konigsberg coordinated with BMIS staff to:
Decide upon desired investment or tax gains and losses to be manufactured and reflected on BMIS account statements and in BMIS computer systems to ensure his clients enjoyed favorable tax treatment for their purported investment activity.
Confer about backdated trades and fictitious account activity entered into the computer systems to create the desired trading results.
Return or destroy his clients’ true BMIS account statements and design alternative fictitious account activity to be entered into the firm’s books and records and reflected on new phony account statements.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Konigsberg, who lives in Greenwich, Conn., aided and abetted the BMIS violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 17a-3, and Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act and Rule 204-2. The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and permanent injunctions against Konigsberg.
The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The SEC’s investigation is continuing.
EDUCATION AWARDS $14 MILLION IN GRANTS TO 31 NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKA NATIVE ENTITIES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education Awards $14 Million in Grants to 31 Native American and Alaska Native Entities
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
The U.S. Department of Education today announced the award of about $14 million in grants to 31 Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Alaska Native entities to help them improve career and technical education programs.
Under the 2013 Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP) competition, the Department encouraged applicants to propose projects that included promoting science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and the use of technology within career and technical education programs. Career and technical education in the STEM fields is important to providing students with education that can lead to employment in high growth, in-demand industry sectors.
"In today's global and knowledge-based economy, it's critical that we prepare all students for jobs that lead to a success career," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "These grants will help underrepresented groups attain the necessary resources to earn an industry certification and postsecondary certificate or degree, while also strengthening our country’s global competitiveness."
The NACTEP requires the Secretary to ensure that activities will improve career and technical education for Native American and Alaska Native students. Additionally, NACTEP grants are aligned with other programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Act of 2006 that require recipients to provide coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards. NACTEP projects also include preparing students for the high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations in emerging or established professions.
Below is a list of the 2013 NACTEP Grantees:
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. (Alaska) $417,543
Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (Alaska) $470,022
Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Ariz.) $411,460
Hoopa Valley Tribe (Calif.) $470,130
Coeur d’ Alene Tribe (Idaho) $469,362
Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College (Mich.) $341,938
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Mich.) $452,804
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Miss.) $470,689
Aaniiih Nakota College (Mont.) $467,256
Blackfeet Community College (Mont.) $386,966
Blackfeet Tribal Employment Rights Office (Mont.) $464,890
Fort Peck Community College (Mont.) $469,785
Salish Kootenai College (Mont.) $471,559
Stone Child College (Mont.) $473,556
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (Neb.) $469,345
Cankdeska Cikana Community College (N.D.) $450,564
Fort Berthold Community College (N.D.) $452,874
Sitting Bull College (N.D.) $415,660
Turtle Mountain Community College (N.D.) $471,466
Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. (N.M.) $471,937
Coyote Canyon Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (N.M.) $473,912
Cherokee Nation (Okla.) $470,425
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Okla.) $468,923
Shawnee Tribe (Okla.) $434,613
Pawnee Nation College (Okla.) $470,956
Oglala Lakota College (S.D.) $467,835
Sinte Gleska University (S.D.) $466,900
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Wash.) $437,674
Northwest Indian College (Wash.) $416,097
The Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Wash.) $451,113
College of Menominee Nation (Wis.) $472,994
U.S. Department of Education Awards $14 Million in Grants to 31 Native American and Alaska Native Entities
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
The U.S. Department of Education today announced the award of about $14 million in grants to 31 Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Alaska Native entities to help them improve career and technical education programs.
Under the 2013 Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP) competition, the Department encouraged applicants to propose projects that included promoting science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and the use of technology within career and technical education programs. Career and technical education in the STEM fields is important to providing students with education that can lead to employment in high growth, in-demand industry sectors.
"In today's global and knowledge-based economy, it's critical that we prepare all students for jobs that lead to a success career," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "These grants will help underrepresented groups attain the necessary resources to earn an industry certification and postsecondary certificate or degree, while also strengthening our country’s global competitiveness."
The NACTEP requires the Secretary to ensure that activities will improve career and technical education for Native American and Alaska Native students. Additionally, NACTEP grants are aligned with other programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Act of 2006 that require recipients to provide coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards. NACTEP projects also include preparing students for the high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations in emerging or established professions.
Below is a list of the 2013 NACTEP Grantees:
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. (Alaska) $417,543
Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (Alaska) $470,022
Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Ariz.) $411,460
Hoopa Valley Tribe (Calif.) $470,130
Coeur d’ Alene Tribe (Idaho) $469,362
Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College (Mich.) $341,938
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Mich.) $452,804
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Miss.) $470,689
Aaniiih Nakota College (Mont.) $467,256
Blackfeet Community College (Mont.) $386,966
Blackfeet Tribal Employment Rights Office (Mont.) $464,890
Fort Peck Community College (Mont.) $469,785
Salish Kootenai College (Mont.) $471,559
Stone Child College (Mont.) $473,556
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (Neb.) $469,345
Cankdeska Cikana Community College (N.D.) $450,564
Fort Berthold Community College (N.D.) $452,874
Sitting Bull College (N.D.) $415,660
Turtle Mountain Community College (N.D.) $471,466
Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. (N.M.) $471,937
Coyote Canyon Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (N.M.) $473,912
Cherokee Nation (Okla.) $470,425
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Okla.) $468,923
Shawnee Tribe (Okla.) $434,613
Pawnee Nation College (Okla.) $470,956
Oglala Lakota College (S.D.) $467,835
Sinte Gleska University (S.D.) $466,900
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Wash.) $437,674
Northwest Indian College (Wash.) $416,097
The Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Wash.) $451,113
College of Menominee Nation (Wis.) $472,994
OFFICIALS APPEAR BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Officials Discuss Intelligence Programs at Senate Hearing
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2013 - At a hearing yesterday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. discussed a NSA-managed classified intelligence program, one of two made public by a security leak in June.
Joining Alexander and Clapper was Deputy Attorney General James Cole. All were called to testify about both programs leaked to the press by former NSA systems administrator Edward Snowden -- Section 215 of the Patriot Act, also known as NSA's 215 business records program, and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.
In the months since the leaks, media reports have said the programs involve secret surveillance by NSA of phone calls and online activities of U.S. citizens, and revealed unauthorized disclosures of information by NSA, generating distrust of the agency and calls for an end to the programs.
Section 702 of FISA and Section 215 of the Patriot Act both were authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, first approved by Congress in 1978.
Section 702 authorizes access, under court oversight, to records and other items belonging to foreign targets located outside the United States. Section 215 broadens FISA to allow the FBI director or other high-ranking officials there to apply for orders to examine telephone metadata to help with terrorism investigations.
In 2012, these programs resulted in the examination of fewer than 300 selectors, or phone numbers, in the NSA database, Alexander said during a congressional hearing in July.
In his remarks, Cole described the 215 program, explaining that it involves collecting only metadata from telephone calls.
"What is collected as metadata is quite limited. ... It is the number a telephone calls ... It doesn't include the name of the person called," Cole said. "It doesn't include the location of the person called. It doesn't include any content of that communication. It doesn't include financial information ... It is just the number that was called, the date and the length of the call."
"If you want any additional information beyond that, you would have to go and get other legal processes to find that information and acquire it," he added.
Such metadata can only be looked at when there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion for a specific phone number to be queried in the database, Cole said.
"Otherwise," he said, "we do not and cannot just roam through this database looking for whatever connections we may think are interesting or in any way look at it beyond the restrictions in the court order."
Only a small number of analysts can make such a determination, and that determination must be documented so it can be reviewed by a supervisor and later reviewed for compliance purposes, Cole added. The program is conducted according to authorization by the FISA Court, which must reapprove the program every 90 days.
"Since the court originally authorized this program in 2006, it has been reapproved on 34 separate occasions by 14 individual Article Three judges of the FISA Court," Cole said. "Each reapproval indicates the court's conclusion that the collection was permissible under Section 215 and satisfied all constitutional requirements."
Article Three of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government.
Oversight of the 215 program involves all three branches of government, including the FISA Court and the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both houses of Congress, Cole said. Every 90 days, the Department of Justice reviews a sample of NSA's queries to determine whether the reasonable articulable requirement has been met.
DOJ lawyers meet every 90 days with NSA operators and with the NSA inspector general to discuss the program's operation and any compliance issues that may arise, Cole explained.
With respect to Congress, "we have reported any significant compliance problems, such as those uncovered in 2009, to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both houses," he said.
"Those documents have since been declassified and released by the DNI to give the public a better understanding of how the government and the FISA court respond to compliance problems once they're identified," Cole said.
In his testimony, Alexander told the panel that NSA's implementation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act focuses on defending the homeland by linking foreign and domestic threats.
Section 702 of FISA focuses on acquiring foreign intelligence, he said, including critical information concerning international terrorist organizations, by targeting non-U.S. persons who are reasonably believed to be outside the United States.
NSA also operates under other sections of the FISA statute in accordance with the law's provisions, Alexander said.
"To target a U.S. person anywhere in the world, under the FISA statute we are required to obtain a court order based on a probable cause showing that the prospective target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power," he explained.
"As I have said before, these authorities and capabilities are powerful," Alexander said. "We take our responsibility seriously."
NSA stood up a directorate of compliance in 2009 and regularly trains the entire workforce in privacy protections and the proper use of capabilities, he said.
"We do make mistakes," Alexander noted.
"Compliance incidents, with very rare exceptions, are unintentional and reflect the sorts of errors that occur in any complex system of technical activity," he said.
The press has claimed evidence of thousands of privacy violations but that is false and misleading, Alexander said.
"According to NSA's independent inspector general, there have been only 12 substantiated cases of willful violation over 10 years. Essentially one per year," he said. "Several of these cases were referred to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution, and appropriate disciplinary action in other cases. We hold ourselves accountable every day."
Of 2,776 violations noted in the press, he said, about 75 percent were not violations of court-approved procedures but rather were NSA's detection of valid foreign targets that traveled to the United States. The targets are called roamers and failure to stop collecting on them as soon as they enter the United States from a foreign country is considered a violation that must be reported.
"NSA has a privacy compliance program that any leader of a large, complex organization would be proud of," Alexander said. "We welcome an ongoing discussion about how the public can, going forward, have increased information about NSA's compliance program and its compliance posture, much the same way all three branches of the government have today."
NSA's programs have contributed to understanding and disrupting 54 terrorism-related events, Alexander told the panel, with 25 in Europe, 11 in Asia, five in Africa, and 13 in the United States.
"This was no accident. This was not coincidence. These are the direct results of a dedicated workforce, appropriate policy, and well-scoped authorities created in the wake of 9/11, to make sure 9/11 never happens again," Alexander said.
In the week ending 23 Sept., he said, there were 972 terrorism-related deaths in Kenya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Another 1,030 people were injured in the same countries.
"The programs I've been talking about -- we need these programs to protect this nation, to ensure that we don't have those same statistics here," Alexander said.
With respect to reforms, he said, on Aug. 9 President Barack Obama laid out specific steps to increase the confidence of the American people in the NSA foreign intelligence collection programs.
"We are always looking for ways to better protect privacy and security," Alexander said. "We have improved over time our ability to reconcile our technology with our operations and with the rules and authorities. We will continue to do so as we go forward and strive to improve how we protect the American people, their privacy and their security."
In his remarks to the panel, Clapper said that over past 3 months he's declassified and publicly released a series of documents related to Section 215 Section 702.
"We did that to facilitate informed public debate about the important intelligence collection programs," he said. "We felt in the light of the unauthorized disclosures, the public interest in these documents far outweigh the potential additional damage to national security. These documents [allow them to] see the seriousness, thoroughness and rigor with which the FISA Court exercises its responsibilities."
Even in these documents, Clapper said, officials had to redact some information to protect sensitive sources and methods such as particular targets of surveillance.
"We'll continue to declassify more documents. It's what the American people want," he said. "It's what the president has asked us to do. And I personally believe it's the only way we can reassure our citizens that the intelligence community is using its tools and authorities appropriately."
But, Clapper said, "we also have to remain mindful of potentially negative long-term impact of over-correcting to the authorizations granted to the intelligence community."
Clapper added, "As Americans we face an unending array of threats to our way of life -- more than I've seen in my 50 years in intelligence. We need to sustain our ability to detect these threats. We welcome a balanced discussion about civil liberties but it's not an either-or situation. We need to continue to protect both."
Officials Discuss Intelligence Programs at Senate Hearing
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2013 - At a hearing yesterday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. discussed a NSA-managed classified intelligence program, one of two made public by a security leak in June.
Joining Alexander and Clapper was Deputy Attorney General James Cole. All were called to testify about both programs leaked to the press by former NSA systems administrator Edward Snowden -- Section 215 of the Patriot Act, also known as NSA's 215 business records program, and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.
In the months since the leaks, media reports have said the programs involve secret surveillance by NSA of phone calls and online activities of U.S. citizens, and revealed unauthorized disclosures of information by NSA, generating distrust of the agency and calls for an end to the programs.
Section 702 of FISA and Section 215 of the Patriot Act both were authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, first approved by Congress in 1978.
Section 702 authorizes access, under court oversight, to records and other items belonging to foreign targets located outside the United States. Section 215 broadens FISA to allow the FBI director or other high-ranking officials there to apply for orders to examine telephone metadata to help with terrorism investigations.
In 2012, these programs resulted in the examination of fewer than 300 selectors, or phone numbers, in the NSA database, Alexander said during a congressional hearing in July.
In his remarks, Cole described the 215 program, explaining that it involves collecting only metadata from telephone calls.
"What is collected as metadata is quite limited. ... It is the number a telephone calls ... It doesn't include the name of the person called," Cole said. "It doesn't include the location of the person called. It doesn't include any content of that communication. It doesn't include financial information ... It is just the number that was called, the date and the length of the call."
"If you want any additional information beyond that, you would have to go and get other legal processes to find that information and acquire it," he added.
Such metadata can only be looked at when there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion for a specific phone number to be queried in the database, Cole said.
"Otherwise," he said, "we do not and cannot just roam through this database looking for whatever connections we may think are interesting or in any way look at it beyond the restrictions in the court order."
Only a small number of analysts can make such a determination, and that determination must be documented so it can be reviewed by a supervisor and later reviewed for compliance purposes, Cole added. The program is conducted according to authorization by the FISA Court, which must reapprove the program every 90 days.
"Since the court originally authorized this program in 2006, it has been reapproved on 34 separate occasions by 14 individual Article Three judges of the FISA Court," Cole said. "Each reapproval indicates the court's conclusion that the collection was permissible under Section 215 and satisfied all constitutional requirements."
Article Three of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government.
Oversight of the 215 program involves all three branches of government, including the FISA Court and the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both houses of Congress, Cole said. Every 90 days, the Department of Justice reviews a sample of NSA's queries to determine whether the reasonable articulable requirement has been met.
DOJ lawyers meet every 90 days with NSA operators and with the NSA inspector general to discuss the program's operation and any compliance issues that may arise, Cole explained.
With respect to Congress, "we have reported any significant compliance problems, such as those uncovered in 2009, to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both houses," he said.
"Those documents have since been declassified and released by the DNI to give the public a better understanding of how the government and the FISA court respond to compliance problems once they're identified," Cole said.
In his testimony, Alexander told the panel that NSA's implementation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act focuses on defending the homeland by linking foreign and domestic threats.
Section 702 of FISA focuses on acquiring foreign intelligence, he said, including critical information concerning international terrorist organizations, by targeting non-U.S. persons who are reasonably believed to be outside the United States.
NSA also operates under other sections of the FISA statute in accordance with the law's provisions, Alexander said.
"To target a U.S. person anywhere in the world, under the FISA statute we are required to obtain a court order based on a probable cause showing that the prospective target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power," he explained.
"As I have said before, these authorities and capabilities are powerful," Alexander said. "We take our responsibility seriously."
NSA stood up a directorate of compliance in 2009 and regularly trains the entire workforce in privacy protections and the proper use of capabilities, he said.
"We do make mistakes," Alexander noted.
"Compliance incidents, with very rare exceptions, are unintentional and reflect the sorts of errors that occur in any complex system of technical activity," he said.
The press has claimed evidence of thousands of privacy violations but that is false and misleading, Alexander said.
"According to NSA's independent inspector general, there have been only 12 substantiated cases of willful violation over 10 years. Essentially one per year," he said. "Several of these cases were referred to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution, and appropriate disciplinary action in other cases. We hold ourselves accountable every day."
Of 2,776 violations noted in the press, he said, about 75 percent were not violations of court-approved procedures but rather were NSA's detection of valid foreign targets that traveled to the United States. The targets are called roamers and failure to stop collecting on them as soon as they enter the United States from a foreign country is considered a violation that must be reported.
"NSA has a privacy compliance program that any leader of a large, complex organization would be proud of," Alexander said. "We welcome an ongoing discussion about how the public can, going forward, have increased information about NSA's compliance program and its compliance posture, much the same way all three branches of the government have today."
NSA's programs have contributed to understanding and disrupting 54 terrorism-related events, Alexander told the panel, with 25 in Europe, 11 in Asia, five in Africa, and 13 in the United States.
"This was no accident. This was not coincidence. These are the direct results of a dedicated workforce, appropriate policy, and well-scoped authorities created in the wake of 9/11, to make sure 9/11 never happens again," Alexander said.
In the week ending 23 Sept., he said, there were 972 terrorism-related deaths in Kenya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Another 1,030 people were injured in the same countries.
"The programs I've been talking about -- we need these programs to protect this nation, to ensure that we don't have those same statistics here," Alexander said.
With respect to reforms, he said, on Aug. 9 President Barack Obama laid out specific steps to increase the confidence of the American people in the NSA foreign intelligence collection programs.
"We are always looking for ways to better protect privacy and security," Alexander said. "We have improved over time our ability to reconcile our technology with our operations and with the rules and authorities. We will continue to do so as we go forward and strive to improve how we protect the American people, their privacy and their security."
In his remarks to the panel, Clapper said that over past 3 months he's declassified and publicly released a series of documents related to Section 215 Section 702.
"We did that to facilitate informed public debate about the important intelligence collection programs," he said. "We felt in the light of the unauthorized disclosures, the public interest in these documents far outweigh the potential additional damage to national security. These documents [allow them to] see the seriousness, thoroughness and rigor with which the FISA Court exercises its responsibilities."
Even in these documents, Clapper said, officials had to redact some information to protect sensitive sources and methods such as particular targets of surveillance.
"We'll continue to declassify more documents. It's what the American people want," he said. "It's what the president has asked us to do. And I personally believe it's the only way we can reassure our citizens that the intelligence community is using its tools and authorities appropriately."
But, Clapper said, "we also have to remain mindful of potentially negative long-term impact of over-correcting to the authorizations granted to the intelligence community."
Clapper added, "As Americans we face an unending array of threats to our way of life -- more than I've seen in my 50 years in intelligence. We need to sustain our ability to detect these threats. We welcome a balanced discussion about civil liberties but it's not an either-or situation. We need to continue to protect both."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)