FROM: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
With Encouragement From Hagel, Cape Ray Leaves for Syria Mission
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2014 – The container ship M/V Cape Ray and its crew deployed from Portsmouth, Va., yesterday with a message of encouragement from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
M/V Cape Ray is the Defense Department’s primary contribution toward international efforts to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons material program, Pentagon officials said in a statement announcing the deployment.
“As you all know, your task will not be easy,” Hagel said in a message to the Cape Ray crew. “Your days will be long and rigorous. But your hard work, preparation and dedication will make the difference.
“You are ready,” the secretary continued. “We all have complete confidence in each of you. You represent the best of our nation, not only because of your expertise and commitment, but because of your willingness to serve when called upon. For that, we will always be grateful. We are also grateful to your families for the love and support they have given you. On behalf of our country and the American people, I wish you much success. Take care of yourselves. God bless you all.”
Hundreds of government and contract personnel have worked over the last several months to prepare the vessel to neutralize Syrian chemical materials and precursors using hydrolysis technology.
“The United States remains committed to ensuring its neutralization of Syria's chemical materials prioritizes the safety of people, protects the environment, follows verification procedures of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and with applicable standards,” officials said in the announcement. “All waste from the hydrolysis process on M/V Cape Ray will be safely and properly disposed of at commercial facilities to be determined by the OPCW. No hydrolysis byproducts will be released into the sea or air. M/V Cape Ray will comply with all applicable international laws, regulations and treaties.”
The Assad regime in Syria is responsible for transporting the chemical materials safely to facilitate their removal for destruction, officials said.
“The international community is poised to meet the milestones set forth by the OPCW, including the June 30 target date for the total destruction of Syria's chemical weapons materials, officials added. “The United States joins the OPCW and the United Nations in calling on the Assad regime to intensify its efforts to ensure its international obligations and commitment are met so these materials may be removed from Syria as quickly and safely as possible,” the statement concluded.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
VA ANNOUNCES MORE SHIPS ADDED TO AGENT ORANGE LIST
FROM: VETERANS AFFAIRS
U.S. Navy and Coast Guard Ships in Vietnam
VA maintains a list of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships associated with military service in Vietnam and possible exposure to Agent Orange based on military records.
This evolving list helps Veterans who served aboard ships, including "Blue Water Veterans," find out if they may qualify for presumption of herbicide exposure.
Veterans must meet VA's criteria for service in Vietnam, which includes aboard boats on the inland waterways or brief visits ashore, to be presumed to have been exposed to herbicides.
Veterans who qualify for presumption of herbicide exposure are not required to show they were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides when seeking VA compensation for diseases related to Agent Orange exposure.
Find your ship
Ships or boats that were part of the Mobile Riverine Force, Inshore Fire Support (ISF) Division 93 or had one of the following designations operated on the inland waterways of Vietnam. Veterans whose military records confirm they were aboard these ships qualify for presumption of herbicide exposure.
During your Vietnam tour, did your ship or boat have one of the following designations?
AGP (Assault Group Patrol/Patrol Craft Tender)
LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized)
LCU (Landing Craft, Utility)
LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel)
LST (Landing Ship, Tank)
PBR (Patrol Boat, River)
PCF (Patrol Craft, Fast or Swift Boat)
PG (Patrol Gunboat)
WAK (Cargo Vessel)
WHEC (High Endurance Cutter)
WLB (Buoy Tender)
WPB (Patrol Boat)
YFU (Harbor Utility Craft)
U.S. Navy and Coast Guard Ships in Vietnam
VA maintains a list of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships associated with military service in Vietnam and possible exposure to Agent Orange based on military records.
This evolving list helps Veterans who served aboard ships, including "Blue Water Veterans," find out if they may qualify for presumption of herbicide exposure.
Veterans must meet VA's criteria for service in Vietnam, which includes aboard boats on the inland waterways or brief visits ashore, to be presumed to have been exposed to herbicides.
Veterans who qualify for presumption of herbicide exposure are not required to show they were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides when seeking VA compensation for diseases related to Agent Orange exposure.
Find your ship
Ships or boats that were part of the Mobile Riverine Force, Inshore Fire Support (ISF) Division 93 or had one of the following designations operated on the inland waterways of Vietnam. Veterans whose military records confirm they were aboard these ships qualify for presumption of herbicide exposure.
During your Vietnam tour, did your ship or boat have one of the following designations?
AGP (Assault Group Patrol/Patrol Craft Tender)
LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized)
LCU (Landing Craft, Utility)
LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel)
LST (Landing Ship, Tank)
PBR (Patrol Boat, River)
PCF (Patrol Craft, Fast or Swift Boat)
PG (Patrol Gunboat)
WAK (Cargo Vessel)
WHEC (High Endurance Cutter)
WLB (Buoy Tender)
WPB (Patrol Boat)
YFU (Harbor Utility Craft)
CFTC COMMISSIONER O'MALIA ON STATE OF COMMODITY FUTURES INDUSTRY
FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Keynote Address by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia, State of the Industry 2014 Conference, Commodity Markets Council
We Can Do Better: It’s Time to Review Our Rules and Make Necessary Changes
January 27, 2014
Thank you very much for the kind introduction and for inviting me to speak here today.
While it is an honor to be offered a speaking spot, I am also very interested in participating in this conference to learn more about changes that are in store for the commodity merchant businesses. Recent headlines herald the exit of banks from this business. The landscape is changing since the Volcker rule now limits proprietary trading by banks and the Federal Reserve may start assessing new capital charges on bank commodity activities.
Let’s not forget the change that has already come to the commodity space as a result of Dodd-Frank, including the swap dealer definition rule, the position limits final rule and re-proposal, the evolving hedge definitions and the futurization of swaps.
Considering these changes, it is amazing you have let me within a mile of this place, let alone offered me a speaking slot.
Today, I will address three areas where the Commission must make changes. First, I will discuss positive developments in meeting the Commission’s data challenges and our much needed investment in technology. Next, I will discuss challenges in swap trade execution. Finally, I will talk about solutions and possible reforms to rules that negatively impact end-users.
In my opinion, the Commission must make the necessary adjustment to improve our rules when we encounter unexpected outcomes of our rulemakings. In fact, it would be irresponsible of the Commission to ignore problems and to continue implementing its unworkable regulations. The topics I will discuss today are candidates for rule revisions. In the case of data and end users, we will need significant changes. Swap trade execution, on the other hand, requires more targeted reforms.
1. The Commission’s Progress on the Data Front
First, I’d like to address the Commission’s ability to receive and utilize data. I am pleased to announce that the Commission is making progress towards improving the quality of its data. On January 21, the Commission announced that it will establish a cross-divisional team to identify data utilization problems faced by each division and to recommend appropriate solutions.
Until now, nobody has taken ownership to fix our data problems. At last, this will change. In March, the Commission will provide a comment period for market participants to offer suggestions to improve reporting. Based on the comments and its own self-evaluation, the data team will make recommendations to the Commission in June.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for the Commission to improve our data quality so it can have an accurate and complete picture of the swaps market. Our ability to perform risk assessments and market oversight will hinge on the quality of our data.
In this regard, I would also like to emphasize the importance of harmonizing the Commission reporting rules with the reporting rules of foreign jurisdictions.
I hope the Commission will reengage with the various jurisdictions that have trade repositories to come up with a global solution to data reporting. As you may know, the European Union reporting rules will be effective on Feb 12, 2014.
By recognizing E.U. trade repositories, we would eliminate the need for dual reporting by U.S. persons trading in Europe and non-U.S. persons trading in the United States. Both regimes can work together to agree on a data standard and taxonomy that can be readily used for identifying risk and performing market surveillance.
Speaking of market surveillance, the Commission’s major oversight functions will be severely impaired if we do not invest in new technology. Investing in technology must be the Commission’s top investment priority.
While on the subject of the Commission’s investment priorities, I would like to note that I appreciate Congressional efforts to provide the Commission with an appropriation of $215 million, a modest increase in current spending levels. It is quite clear from this funding level that the Commission will need to pick its funding priorities carefully.
Tony Blair once said, “It is not an arrogant government that choses priorities, it is an irresponsible government that fails to choose.” I look forward to working with my fellow Commissioners and staff to develop a responsible spending plan with clear deliverable goals that makes technology investment our top priority.
I realize that technology doesn’t run itself, but we must acknowledge we live in a digital age where over 90 percent of markets trade electronically. The future of our compliance and oversight mission must be electronic and data driven. In other words, this agency needs to become a 21st century regulator. So far, we have not articulated our mission and technology priorities, but I believe we can do better.
To ensure that we continue to identify the appropriate corrections, I have included a panel on data at the upcoming February 10 Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, which I chair. At the TAC meeting, the pertinent Commission Division Directors will share their challenges in utilizing our swaps data.
2. Swap Trade Execution–Positive Progress Report
Now let’s turn to my second topic: swap trade execution.
Although it has been off to a rocky start, we now have twenty-one temporarily registered and operational swap execution facilities (SEFs). I am excited about the opportunity for SEFs to bring transparency to the swaps market.
Still unknown is whether SEFs will become a spitting image of a designated contract market (DCM) or whether they open the door for competition, innovation and transparency in the derivatives markets. As the Commission progresses to the permanent registration phase, it is important to remember that Dodd-Frank did not intend SEFs to look like DCMs. SEFs’ trading protocols must reflect the diversity of market participants and diversity of products traded on these platforms. The Commission must resist the temptation to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to SEF platforms.
Unfortunately, we have already started seeing the results of the Commission’s overly prescriptive regulatory approach when Commission staff deemed certified Javelin and TrueEx’s made available to trade (MAT) requests for standard interest rate benchmark swaps. Staff also noted that any packaged transactions involving these mandatorily traded swaps are subject to the mandatory trade execution requirements. However, in the same breath, staff is now contemplating some relief from the mandatory trade execution requirement for packaged transactions.
In my view, the real break down in the MAT certifications process occurred when the Commission gave up its authority to review these first-of-a-kind products. The Commission and not staff should be making these decisions.
Today, the market trades multi-leg butterfly and curve trades as well as combinations of swaps and Treasury bonds that are subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jurisdiction. I understand it is more cost-effective to trade these products as a package. Unfortunately, the SEF rules have not caught up to the realities of today’s market. This is another area where we can do better.
I hope the Commission will identify the critical components of a solution that involves trading, clearing, and reporting of these packaged trades. The Commission must encourage trading on SEF platforms, while, at the same time, protecting the efficiency of trading various combination products. It is also important to recognize that the energy markets utilize packaged transactions. The solutions we develop today will likely impact energy market swaps trading in the future.
The TAC meeting will also address SEF trading to better understand the challenges and opportunities for SEF traded packaged transactions. In my view, Commission staff should have held a MAT roundtable prior to the effective date of the first MAT self-certification. But at least, we will discuss the available options at the TAC meeting before February 17, the mandatory trade execution deadline.
3. Let’s Help End-Users–We Must Do Better
Now, let me turn to my third topic, helping end-users. Yesterday, you heard from former Senator Chris Dodd, whose name appears on the landmark Dodd-Frank legislation. Senator Dodd was quite clear during the legislative debate about the importance of protecting end-users. And, in their letter to the House, both Senators Dodd and Lincoln emphasized the importance of allowing end-users to continue to hedge commercial risk and ensuring that Dodd-Frank regulatory reform does not make this legitimate activity prohibitively expensive.
Regrettably, it has been an uphill battle to get the Commission to follow the express directive from Congress to protect end-users from the reach of Dodd-Frank. As the Commission moves into the rule implementation phase, the impact of our regulations on end-users is becoming more visible. End-users must spend far too much time and resources in order to get the necessary reassurance from the Commission that they are in fact entitled to the protection that Congress afforded them in Dodd-Frank.
It is troubling that our rules require end-users to file numerous forms, filings and reports to validate their commercial behavior, only to be later second-guessed by the Commission regarding what is and what is not a legitimate commercial risk mitigating behavior.
The Swap Dealer Rule Should be Amended to Better Protect End-Users
One rule that must be revisited to provide end-users greater certainty is the swap dealer rule. 1 The rule broadly applies the swap dealer definition to all market participants and then allows for some limited conditional relief, but only if those end-users manage to navigate the market-making definition and do not fall into the trap of the de minimis threshold. To escape entanglement in this regulatory web, it is better to focus on the characteristics of entities rather than their activities.
To give end-users greater certainty, I propose a modest fix that would exclude all cleared trades from the calculation toward any de minimis threshold. This safe harbor would encourage end-users to clear their trades and would provide an additional buffer from being captured in this regulatory mesh. The swap dealer definition was meant to capture entities engaging in dealing activities that could become systemic to their counterparties.2 To the extent that end-users utilize clearing, they should never have been caught up in the de minimis calculation.
Another element of the swap dealer rule that must be corrected is the Special Entity definition. Under this rule, when dealing with Special Entities, such as state, city and county municipal utilities, the $8 billion threshold drops to $25 million. The reasoning behind this distinction was to afford Special Entities special protections, because any loss incurred by a Special Entity would result in members of the public bearing the brunt of the damage.3
That sounds like a noble intention. But, by reducing the threshold, the Commission has limited the number of swap counterparties to the Wall Street dealer banks. In a quick fix, the Commission has since raised the $25million de minimis threshold to $800 million, but this has done nothing to attract commercial participants. These municipal energy firms are large and savvy market participants and should be treated like any other commercial entity. The Commission must fix the paradoxical result of this rule so that commercial counterparties will come back to the market to do business with Special Entities, and Special Entities are not forced to trade exclusively with dealer firms.
Forward Contracts with Volumetric Optionality are Not Swaps
In addition, end-users have been struggling to decipher the Commission swap definition rules4 to determine whether and under what conditions a forward contract with embedded volumetric optionality falls within the forward exclusion.5 To determine whether a volumetric option is a forward or a swap, the rule applies a seven-part test. However, under the seventh factor, contracts with embedded volumetric optionality may qualify for the forward contract exclusion only if exercise of the optionality is based on physical factors that are outside the control of the parties.
This is in complete contradiction as to how volumetric options have been traditionally used by market participants. We need to fix the definition and create reliable and well-defined safe harbors. I also note that both Senators Lincoln and Dodd believe these contracts should not be captured by the swap definition.
Commission Rule 1.35 is Burdensome on Smaller Institutions
There are a handful of rules where the Commission has failed to carefully consider the impact to end-users due to the lack of appropriate cost-benefit analysis. Let’s take Rule 1.35 as an example. 6
This rule requires futures commission merchants (FCMs) and introducing brokers (IBs) to record all electronic communications as part of a trade record, including preliminary conversations that may occur over cell phones if they relate to trading or if they start a conversation that may lead to execution of orders.
In essence, the rule requires the use of hindsight to know if a certain personal conversation led to a trade further down the road, and then it requires that this conversation is recorded in a searchable format. To comply with this rule, FCMs and IBs will need to purchase expensive recording technology.
While large banking institutions will have the means to find a compliance solution, smaller institutions will take the heavy brunt of regulatory compliance. To avoid this situation, the Commission should have performed the necessary analysis beforehand to determine whether the cost, especially to small market participants, outweighed the benefits of this requirement.
The Commission Position Limits Re-proposal Does Not Reflect Commercial Realities
The Commission position limits re-proposal is yet another example of a rule that ignores the realities of end-users’ commercial and risk mitigation operations. For some reason, in the new and supposedly “improved” position limits re-proposal, the Commission has decided to scale back the bona fide hedging exemption.
To put things in perspective, a broader bona fide hedging definition has been in effect since the 1970s. To my knowledge, the previous hedging exemption worked well in the market and the Commission did not encounter any serious regulatory abuses or violations. More importantly, the hedging exemption did not contribute to the financial crisis.
With the passage of Dodd-Frank, Congress gave the Commission a difficult job in setting position limits. On one hand, the Commission is supposed to stop excessive speculation and manipulation, but on the other hand, the Commission must protect the essential price discovery and hedging function of the futures and swaps markets. This is not an easy line to walk.
The Commission must take caution before it prohibits these longstanding and legitimate hedging activities. Unfortunately, this is just another example of where end-users might feel they are on the short end of the stick when it comes to Commission rulemaking, especially when the statute specifically authorizes such activity.7
Again, I have just scratched the surface of some of the issues where the Commission has failed to heed Congressional mandates to protect end-users. Instead, it has imposed massive new documentation and compliance requirements that force end-users to justify their commercial and business operations. These entities did not contribute to the financial crisis, but they will spend an enormous amount of time, money, and effort navigating the new regulatory order.
I believe we can do better. When the Commission spots a rule that imposes unnecessary or undue burdens—or doesn’t have the data to validate the position—the Commission must consider revising the rule to offer cost-effective alternatives, not another barrage of reflexive no-action letters.
Conclusion
The Commission has an express directive from Congress to accomplish two competing objectives: reduce systemic risk in the derivatives markets and protect end-users. In a rush to reduce systemic risk, the Commission has neglected to safeguard end-users from costly compliance with our regulations. It is the Commission’s responsibility to provide the necessary relief to end-users.
I have shared with you three broad areas where I believe the Commission should reconsider its rules to make critical and necessary modifications to take into account commercial interests of end-users.
Finally, I am pleased that we are making the initial strides to improve data quality. But we cannot continue to ignore the technology needs of this Commission. It’s time to focus on technology. The Commission must make the investment that drives its mission. This will certainly make us better.
I look forward to working with the new Commission to address these issues.
1 Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security- Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant,” 77 Fed. Reg. 30595 (May 23, 2012).
2 Id. at 30744.
3 Id. at 30628, referring to documented cases of municipalities losing millions of dollars on swaps transactions because they did not fully understand the underlying risks of the instrument.
4 See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’ ’‘‘Security-Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap Agreement,’’ Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap, Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012).
5 The seventh criterion states that the exclusion applies only when “[t]he exercise or non-exercise of the embedded volumetric optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and influencing demand for, or supply of the nonfinancial commodity.” Id. at 48238 n. 341.
6 17 C.F.R. § 1.35.
7 7 U.S.C. § 6a.
Keynote Address by Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia, State of the Industry 2014 Conference, Commodity Markets Council
We Can Do Better: It’s Time to Review Our Rules and Make Necessary Changes
January 27, 2014
Thank you very much for the kind introduction and for inviting me to speak here today.
While it is an honor to be offered a speaking spot, I am also very interested in participating in this conference to learn more about changes that are in store for the commodity merchant businesses. Recent headlines herald the exit of banks from this business. The landscape is changing since the Volcker rule now limits proprietary trading by banks and the Federal Reserve may start assessing new capital charges on bank commodity activities.
Let’s not forget the change that has already come to the commodity space as a result of Dodd-Frank, including the swap dealer definition rule, the position limits final rule and re-proposal, the evolving hedge definitions and the futurization of swaps.
Considering these changes, it is amazing you have let me within a mile of this place, let alone offered me a speaking slot.
Today, I will address three areas where the Commission must make changes. First, I will discuss positive developments in meeting the Commission’s data challenges and our much needed investment in technology. Next, I will discuss challenges in swap trade execution. Finally, I will talk about solutions and possible reforms to rules that negatively impact end-users.
In my opinion, the Commission must make the necessary adjustment to improve our rules when we encounter unexpected outcomes of our rulemakings. In fact, it would be irresponsible of the Commission to ignore problems and to continue implementing its unworkable regulations. The topics I will discuss today are candidates for rule revisions. In the case of data and end users, we will need significant changes. Swap trade execution, on the other hand, requires more targeted reforms.
1. The Commission’s Progress on the Data Front
First, I’d like to address the Commission’s ability to receive and utilize data. I am pleased to announce that the Commission is making progress towards improving the quality of its data. On January 21, the Commission announced that it will establish a cross-divisional team to identify data utilization problems faced by each division and to recommend appropriate solutions.
Until now, nobody has taken ownership to fix our data problems. At last, this will change. In March, the Commission will provide a comment period for market participants to offer suggestions to improve reporting. Based on the comments and its own self-evaluation, the data team will make recommendations to the Commission in June.
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for the Commission to improve our data quality so it can have an accurate and complete picture of the swaps market. Our ability to perform risk assessments and market oversight will hinge on the quality of our data.
In this regard, I would also like to emphasize the importance of harmonizing the Commission reporting rules with the reporting rules of foreign jurisdictions.
I hope the Commission will reengage with the various jurisdictions that have trade repositories to come up with a global solution to data reporting. As you may know, the European Union reporting rules will be effective on Feb 12, 2014.
By recognizing E.U. trade repositories, we would eliminate the need for dual reporting by U.S. persons trading in Europe and non-U.S. persons trading in the United States. Both regimes can work together to agree on a data standard and taxonomy that can be readily used for identifying risk and performing market surveillance.
Speaking of market surveillance, the Commission’s major oversight functions will be severely impaired if we do not invest in new technology. Investing in technology must be the Commission’s top investment priority.
While on the subject of the Commission’s investment priorities, I would like to note that I appreciate Congressional efforts to provide the Commission with an appropriation of $215 million, a modest increase in current spending levels. It is quite clear from this funding level that the Commission will need to pick its funding priorities carefully.
Tony Blair once said, “It is not an arrogant government that choses priorities, it is an irresponsible government that fails to choose.” I look forward to working with my fellow Commissioners and staff to develop a responsible spending plan with clear deliverable goals that makes technology investment our top priority.
I realize that technology doesn’t run itself, but we must acknowledge we live in a digital age where over 90 percent of markets trade electronically. The future of our compliance and oversight mission must be electronic and data driven. In other words, this agency needs to become a 21st century regulator. So far, we have not articulated our mission and technology priorities, but I believe we can do better.
To ensure that we continue to identify the appropriate corrections, I have included a panel on data at the upcoming February 10 Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, which I chair. At the TAC meeting, the pertinent Commission Division Directors will share their challenges in utilizing our swaps data.
2. Swap Trade Execution–Positive Progress Report
Now let’s turn to my second topic: swap trade execution.
Although it has been off to a rocky start, we now have twenty-one temporarily registered and operational swap execution facilities (SEFs). I am excited about the opportunity for SEFs to bring transparency to the swaps market.
Still unknown is whether SEFs will become a spitting image of a designated contract market (DCM) or whether they open the door for competition, innovation and transparency in the derivatives markets. As the Commission progresses to the permanent registration phase, it is important to remember that Dodd-Frank did not intend SEFs to look like DCMs. SEFs’ trading protocols must reflect the diversity of market participants and diversity of products traded on these platforms. The Commission must resist the temptation to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to SEF platforms.
Unfortunately, we have already started seeing the results of the Commission’s overly prescriptive regulatory approach when Commission staff deemed certified Javelin and TrueEx’s made available to trade (MAT) requests for standard interest rate benchmark swaps. Staff also noted that any packaged transactions involving these mandatorily traded swaps are subject to the mandatory trade execution requirements. However, in the same breath, staff is now contemplating some relief from the mandatory trade execution requirement for packaged transactions.
In my view, the real break down in the MAT certifications process occurred when the Commission gave up its authority to review these first-of-a-kind products. The Commission and not staff should be making these decisions.
Today, the market trades multi-leg butterfly and curve trades as well as combinations of swaps and Treasury bonds that are subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jurisdiction. I understand it is more cost-effective to trade these products as a package. Unfortunately, the SEF rules have not caught up to the realities of today’s market. This is another area where we can do better.
I hope the Commission will identify the critical components of a solution that involves trading, clearing, and reporting of these packaged trades. The Commission must encourage trading on SEF platforms, while, at the same time, protecting the efficiency of trading various combination products. It is also important to recognize that the energy markets utilize packaged transactions. The solutions we develop today will likely impact energy market swaps trading in the future.
The TAC meeting will also address SEF trading to better understand the challenges and opportunities for SEF traded packaged transactions. In my view, Commission staff should have held a MAT roundtable prior to the effective date of the first MAT self-certification. But at least, we will discuss the available options at the TAC meeting before February 17, the mandatory trade execution deadline.
3. Let’s Help End-Users–We Must Do Better
Now, let me turn to my third topic, helping end-users. Yesterday, you heard from former Senator Chris Dodd, whose name appears on the landmark Dodd-Frank legislation. Senator Dodd was quite clear during the legislative debate about the importance of protecting end-users. And, in their letter to the House, both Senators Dodd and Lincoln emphasized the importance of allowing end-users to continue to hedge commercial risk and ensuring that Dodd-Frank regulatory reform does not make this legitimate activity prohibitively expensive.
Regrettably, it has been an uphill battle to get the Commission to follow the express directive from Congress to protect end-users from the reach of Dodd-Frank. As the Commission moves into the rule implementation phase, the impact of our regulations on end-users is becoming more visible. End-users must spend far too much time and resources in order to get the necessary reassurance from the Commission that they are in fact entitled to the protection that Congress afforded them in Dodd-Frank.
It is troubling that our rules require end-users to file numerous forms, filings and reports to validate their commercial behavior, only to be later second-guessed by the Commission regarding what is and what is not a legitimate commercial risk mitigating behavior.
The Swap Dealer Rule Should be Amended to Better Protect End-Users
One rule that must be revisited to provide end-users greater certainty is the swap dealer rule. 1 The rule broadly applies the swap dealer definition to all market participants and then allows for some limited conditional relief, but only if those end-users manage to navigate the market-making definition and do not fall into the trap of the de minimis threshold. To escape entanglement in this regulatory web, it is better to focus on the characteristics of entities rather than their activities.
To give end-users greater certainty, I propose a modest fix that would exclude all cleared trades from the calculation toward any de minimis threshold. This safe harbor would encourage end-users to clear their trades and would provide an additional buffer from being captured in this regulatory mesh. The swap dealer definition was meant to capture entities engaging in dealing activities that could become systemic to their counterparties.2 To the extent that end-users utilize clearing, they should never have been caught up in the de minimis calculation.
Another element of the swap dealer rule that must be corrected is the Special Entity definition. Under this rule, when dealing with Special Entities, such as state, city and county municipal utilities, the $8 billion threshold drops to $25 million. The reasoning behind this distinction was to afford Special Entities special protections, because any loss incurred by a Special Entity would result in members of the public bearing the brunt of the damage.3
That sounds like a noble intention. But, by reducing the threshold, the Commission has limited the number of swap counterparties to the Wall Street dealer banks. In a quick fix, the Commission has since raised the $25million de minimis threshold to $800 million, but this has done nothing to attract commercial participants. These municipal energy firms are large and savvy market participants and should be treated like any other commercial entity. The Commission must fix the paradoxical result of this rule so that commercial counterparties will come back to the market to do business with Special Entities, and Special Entities are not forced to trade exclusively with dealer firms.
Forward Contracts with Volumetric Optionality are Not Swaps
In addition, end-users have been struggling to decipher the Commission swap definition rules4 to determine whether and under what conditions a forward contract with embedded volumetric optionality falls within the forward exclusion.5 To determine whether a volumetric option is a forward or a swap, the rule applies a seven-part test. However, under the seventh factor, contracts with embedded volumetric optionality may qualify for the forward contract exclusion only if exercise of the optionality is based on physical factors that are outside the control of the parties.
This is in complete contradiction as to how volumetric options have been traditionally used by market participants. We need to fix the definition and create reliable and well-defined safe harbors. I also note that both Senators Lincoln and Dodd believe these contracts should not be captured by the swap definition.
Commission Rule 1.35 is Burdensome on Smaller Institutions
There are a handful of rules where the Commission has failed to carefully consider the impact to end-users due to the lack of appropriate cost-benefit analysis. Let’s take Rule 1.35 as an example. 6
This rule requires futures commission merchants (FCMs) and introducing brokers (IBs) to record all electronic communications as part of a trade record, including preliminary conversations that may occur over cell phones if they relate to trading or if they start a conversation that may lead to execution of orders.
In essence, the rule requires the use of hindsight to know if a certain personal conversation led to a trade further down the road, and then it requires that this conversation is recorded in a searchable format. To comply with this rule, FCMs and IBs will need to purchase expensive recording technology.
While large banking institutions will have the means to find a compliance solution, smaller institutions will take the heavy brunt of regulatory compliance. To avoid this situation, the Commission should have performed the necessary analysis beforehand to determine whether the cost, especially to small market participants, outweighed the benefits of this requirement.
The Commission Position Limits Re-proposal Does Not Reflect Commercial Realities
The Commission position limits re-proposal is yet another example of a rule that ignores the realities of end-users’ commercial and risk mitigation operations. For some reason, in the new and supposedly “improved” position limits re-proposal, the Commission has decided to scale back the bona fide hedging exemption.
To put things in perspective, a broader bona fide hedging definition has been in effect since the 1970s. To my knowledge, the previous hedging exemption worked well in the market and the Commission did not encounter any serious regulatory abuses or violations. More importantly, the hedging exemption did not contribute to the financial crisis.
With the passage of Dodd-Frank, Congress gave the Commission a difficult job in setting position limits. On one hand, the Commission is supposed to stop excessive speculation and manipulation, but on the other hand, the Commission must protect the essential price discovery and hedging function of the futures and swaps markets. This is not an easy line to walk.
The Commission must take caution before it prohibits these longstanding and legitimate hedging activities. Unfortunately, this is just another example of where end-users might feel they are on the short end of the stick when it comes to Commission rulemaking, especially when the statute specifically authorizes such activity.7
Again, I have just scratched the surface of some of the issues where the Commission has failed to heed Congressional mandates to protect end-users. Instead, it has imposed massive new documentation and compliance requirements that force end-users to justify their commercial and business operations. These entities did not contribute to the financial crisis, but they will spend an enormous amount of time, money, and effort navigating the new regulatory order.
I believe we can do better. When the Commission spots a rule that imposes unnecessary or undue burdens—or doesn’t have the data to validate the position—the Commission must consider revising the rule to offer cost-effective alternatives, not another barrage of reflexive no-action letters.
Conclusion
The Commission has an express directive from Congress to accomplish two competing objectives: reduce systemic risk in the derivatives markets and protect end-users. In a rush to reduce systemic risk, the Commission has neglected to safeguard end-users from costly compliance with our regulations. It is the Commission’s responsibility to provide the necessary relief to end-users.
I have shared with you three broad areas where I believe the Commission should reconsider its rules to make critical and necessary modifications to take into account commercial interests of end-users.
Finally, I am pleased that we are making the initial strides to improve data quality. But we cannot continue to ignore the technology needs of this Commission. It’s time to focus on technology. The Commission must make the investment that drives its mission. This will certainly make us better.
I look forward to working with the new Commission to address these issues.
1 Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security- Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant,” 77 Fed. Reg. 30595 (May 23, 2012).
2 Id. at 30744.
3 Id. at 30628, referring to documented cases of municipalities losing millions of dollars on swaps transactions because they did not fully understand the underlying risks of the instrument.
4 See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’ ’‘‘Security-Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap Agreement,’’ Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap, Agreement Recordkeeping, 77 FR 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012).
5 The seventh criterion states that the exclusion applies only when “[t]he exercise or non-exercise of the embedded volumetric optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and influencing demand for, or supply of the nonfinancial commodity.” Id. at 48238 n. 341.
6 17 C.F.R. § 1.35.
7 7 U.S.C. § 6a.
CONVICTED CHILD MURDERER EXTRADITED FROM MEXICO
FROM: U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
U.S. Marshals 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Edward Salas Extradited From Mexico
Washington – U.S. Marshals Service 15 Most Wanted fugitive and convicted child killer Edward Salas was extradited today from Mexico. Salas was returned to Curry County, New Mexico to serve the remainder of a previously-imposed prison sentence for murder.
Salas was arrested by Mexican authorities on Oct. 4, 2012 based upon a U.S. provisional arrest request, which sought his extradition to New Mexico. The U.S. Marshals Service worked closely with the Department of Justice Office of International Affairs and the Curry County (NM) District Attorney’s Office.
“Salas’ crimes were horrendous and his potential for continued violence made his arrest a priority for the U.S. Marshals Service” said U.S. Marshals Service Director Stacia A. Hylton. “His capture is both significant and rewarding, and we thank our state and local partners and Mexican officials for their tireless persistence in bringing this fugitive to justice.”
Salas was added to the Marshals 15 Most Wanted fugitive list in December 2011. He escaped from the Curry County Detention Center in Clovis, New Mexico, in August 2008, and had been on the lam ever since. At the time of his escape, he was serving a life sentence plus 56 years for his role in the murder of 10-year-old Carlos Perez.
“When a child suffers at the hands of a killer, the pain is endured by the family, community and our entire society and when this tragedy strikes, the law enforcement communities come together as an unyielding force until those responsible face justice for the horrific crimes committed,” said Conrad E. Candelaria, U.S. Marshal for the District of New Mexico. “Due to the tireless efforts of many law enforcement professionals, spanning many years and hundreds of hours of investigation from agencies throughout the State of New Mexico, the United States Marshals Service for the District of New Mexico, and the Marshals Service International Investigative Branch, partnering with Mexican authorities, fugitive Salas will face justice long awaited.”
In the early morning hours of Sept. 15, 2005, Salas, along with his brothers Orlando Salas and Demetrio Salas and two other individuals, planned to murder Ruben Perez, reportedly in retaliation for an argument that occurred the previous day at the Clovis High School. Instead they killed his brother, Carlos, who was sleeping in the same bedroom. The child died just one day before his 11th birthday.
U.S. Marshals 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Edward Salas Extradited From Mexico
Washington – U.S. Marshals Service 15 Most Wanted fugitive and convicted child killer Edward Salas was extradited today from Mexico. Salas was returned to Curry County, New Mexico to serve the remainder of a previously-imposed prison sentence for murder.
Salas was arrested by Mexican authorities on Oct. 4, 2012 based upon a U.S. provisional arrest request, which sought his extradition to New Mexico. The U.S. Marshals Service worked closely with the Department of Justice Office of International Affairs and the Curry County (NM) District Attorney’s Office.
“Salas’ crimes were horrendous and his potential for continued violence made his arrest a priority for the U.S. Marshals Service” said U.S. Marshals Service Director Stacia A. Hylton. “His capture is both significant and rewarding, and we thank our state and local partners and Mexican officials for their tireless persistence in bringing this fugitive to justice.”
Salas was added to the Marshals 15 Most Wanted fugitive list in December 2011. He escaped from the Curry County Detention Center in Clovis, New Mexico, in August 2008, and had been on the lam ever since. At the time of his escape, he was serving a life sentence plus 56 years for his role in the murder of 10-year-old Carlos Perez.
“When a child suffers at the hands of a killer, the pain is endured by the family, community and our entire society and when this tragedy strikes, the law enforcement communities come together as an unyielding force until those responsible face justice for the horrific crimes committed,” said Conrad E. Candelaria, U.S. Marshal for the District of New Mexico. “Due to the tireless efforts of many law enforcement professionals, spanning many years and hundreds of hours of investigation from agencies throughout the State of New Mexico, the United States Marshals Service for the District of New Mexico, and the Marshals Service International Investigative Branch, partnering with Mexican authorities, fugitive Salas will face justice long awaited.”
In the early morning hours of Sept. 15, 2005, Salas, along with his brothers Orlando Salas and Demetrio Salas and two other individuals, planned to murder Ruben Perez, reportedly in retaliation for an argument that occurred the previous day at the Clovis High School. Instead they killed his brother, Carlos, who was sleeping in the same bedroom. The child died just one day before his 11th birthday.
SEC COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER SPEECH: PERSPECTIVE ON SEC PRIORITIES
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
A Renewed Perspective on SEC Priorities
Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher
Forum for Corporate Directors, Orange County, California
Jan. 24, 2014
Thank you, Chris [Cox], for your generous introduction and your invitation to address this truly distinguished gathering. I was honored that Chris asked me to speak here today. But it was an even bigger honor to work for Chris when he was Chairman, both as his Counsel and as Deputy Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. Chris’s incredible intellect and leadership tremendously benefitted the agency during the worst of the financial crisis. I know I can speak for my colleagues who, like me, toiled in the trenches alongside Chris when I say that Chris was an island of calm in a sea of misguided government intervention.
* * *
This morning, I’d like to discuss two issues that, along with a holistic review of equity market structure, should be at the very top of the SEC’s agenda. The first is the revamping of our corporate disclosure system, and the other is a set of much needed reforms for the proxy advisory industry. Each of these issues demands our close attention despite the fact that – at the risk of sounding subversive – neither issue was the subject of a congressional mandate to the Commission. So while these issues are not among the fashionable diversions of the moment, addressing them would be consistent with what I like to call the Commission’s basic “blocking and tackling” mandates. We have spent far too little time on such core responsibilities over the last four years, and the neglect is evident.
* * *
Let’s begin with disclosure reform. The SEC is, first and foremost, a disclosure agency. Our bedrock premise is that public companies should be required to disclose publicly and in a timely fashion the information a person would need in order to make a rational and informed investment decision. That is the foundation of our securities law regime and the core principle by which we administer those laws. We can’t protect investors and foster capital formation in fair and efficient capital markets unless critically important information about public companies is routinely and reliably made available to the public.
At the same time, we need to take seriously the question of whether there can be too much disclosure. Justice Louis Brandeis famously called sunlight the best disinfectant.[1] No doubt – but, as my friend and former colleague Troy Paredes pointed out some years ago, investors can be “blinded by the light” of information overload.[2] From an investor’s standpoint, excessive illumination by too much disclosure can have the same effect as inundation and obfuscation — it becomes difficult or impossible to discern what really matters. More disclosure, in short, may not always yield better disclosure.
* * *
Investors often say that disclosure documents are lengthy, turgid, and internally repetitive. Today’s mandated disclosure documents are no longer efficient mechanisms for clearly conveying material information to investors, particularly ordinary, individual investors – myself included. A recent House of Representatives Appropriations Committee report put it like this:
“Voluminous, overly-complex, legalistic and immaterial corporate disclosures both increase investor confusion and discourage shareholder participation in important corporate governance matters.”[3]
The complexity of today’s disclosure requirements give the Commission cause for self-examination. SEC rules that require periodic corporate reporting, the detailed instructions that implement them, as well as pertinent staff interpretations and guidance, have been the principal forces shaping modern corporate disclosure. External forces, too, have played a role, most notably the risk of litigation – much of it absolutely frivolous and solely for the benefit of plaintiffs’ lawyers. When failing to make an anticipatory disclosure can prompt a shareholder lawsuit, it is rational for those who prepare corporate disclosure documents to prepare for the worst. The result is a perverse incentive to create prolix disclosure documents that are designed primarily to anticipate and defend against shareholder lawsuits rather than to provide intelligible and pertinent information to the average investor.
* * *
So what should we do? Should we jump in with both feet to begin a comprehensive review and overhaul of SEC-imposed disclosure requirements under the securities laws? Or should we take a more targeted approach, favoring smaller steps towards our ultimate reforming goals? Ordinarily, I would argue for a comprehensive approach to solving almost any problem in securities regulation, since actions in one area frequently have unforeseen and unintended effects in others.
Where disclosure reform is concerned, though, I would prefer to address discrete issues now rather than risk spending years preparing an offensive so massive that it may never be launched. I’ve been gratified to see that Chair White, too, has expressed an interest in disclosure reform,[4] so I hope and expect that, under her stewardship, the Commission can make real headway on this important issue.
Although the Dodd-Frank Act did not mandate disclosure reform, the JOBS Act required the SEC to study Regulation S-K, our fundamental regulation governing non-financial statement corporate disclosure, to determine where its requirements could be updated “to modernize and simplify the registration process and reduce the costs and other burdens associated with” it for emerging growth companies.[5] The resulting Commission staff report to Congress called for a reevaluation of the Commission’s disclosure requirements “in order to ensure that existing security holders, potential investors and the marketplace are provided with meaningful and … non-duplicative information upon which to base investment and voting decisions, that the information required to be disclosed by reporting companies continues to be material and that the disclosure requirements are flexible enough to adapt to dynamic circumstances.”[6]
The staff report further emphasized that “economic analysis must … inform any reevaluation of disclosure requirements.”[7] It’s hard to disagree with any of those conclusions.
* * *
So, notwithstanding the approximately sixty – yes, sixty - Dodd-Frank-mandated rules we have yet to complete, it’s my strong belief that it’s time to get started on disclosure reform. I’d like to share, based in large part on what I’ve heard from market participants, a few examples of some good, practical issues on which the Commission should focus.
One such issue is “layering disclosure” based on the recognition that some information is inherently material, such as a company’s financial statements, while some is not – for example, the pay-ratio calculation required by Dodd-Frank.[8]
Another issue is the need to streamline Form 8-K disclosure. Does each of the categories of information now required to be disclosed on Form 8-K really require almost immediate disclosure when a change occurs?
I also believe that we should make a targeted effort to reduce redundancy in filings by providing authoritative guidance explicitly telling issuers where they must disclose and where, by contrast, they need not disclose particular types of information. This would enable those looking for that information, including professional analysts and advisers, to find it or identify its absence easily.
Also in the name of reducing redundancy, it’s high time that we gave priority to streamlining proxy statements and registration statements. Permitting some of the required financial information to be included in an appendix to the proxy, for example all financial tables other than the summary compensation table, would aid both investors and issuers. As for registration statements, we could permit forward incorporation by reference in Form S-1 registration statements. That would permit a registrant automatically to incorporate reports filed pursuant to the Exchange Act subsequent to the effectiveness of the registration statement.
We also need to renew our focus on the potential of technology to improve corporate disclosure, acknowledging that our present requirements are almost certainly not those we would have devised for today’s technology-enabled world.[9] Here, I would be remiss if I did not cite data tagging as an investor-empowering analytic tool for ensuring that information is disclosed and presented in a manner that promotes ease of comparison and analysis. The SEC’s move to data tagging is an innovation for which Chairman Cox deserves the lion’s share of the credit, and it took vision and persistence, not to mention one heck of a terrific staff. But make no mistake: we have not come anywhere close to realizing the potential technology holds for improving our disclosure system.
One small way to further integrate technology into our disclosure regime would be to test a standardized, online disclosure system that requires one-time online disclosure of basic corporate information, mandating that it be updated as necessary with changes tracked, rather than rotely repeated each year in annual disclosure documents.
In addition, we could increase the reliability and authoritativeness of SEC disclosure guidance by issuing significant guidance only with the explicit endorsement of the Commission, rather than as staff guidance. Guidance issued under a Commission imprimatur would allow registrants to feel more confident in relying on it – especially, I’d note, from a litigation standpoint.
We must also recognize politically-motivated disclosure mandates as the ill-advised anomalies they are and, as an independent, bipartisan agency, express our opposition to the use of the securities disclosure regime to advance policy objectives unrelated to providing investors with information material to investment decisions. Our new Form SD, adopted to implement a pair of wholly social policy mandates,[10] serves as an example of such policy-driven forays.
These are just examples, and I’m sure that all of you could supplement this short list.
* * *
But we can’t stop there. No discussion of disclosure reform would be complete without addressing the issue of corporate governance – and no discussion of corporate governance would be complete without considering the role of the proxy advisory industry. I have spoken about this issue repeatedly, and I’ve been glad to see that the subject of proxy advisor reform has, over the past twelve months, been the subject of a Congressional hearing, academic articles, media reports, rulemaking petitions and even, I’m especially happy to say, a recent SEC roundtable.
Proxy advisory firms have gained an outsized role in corporate governance, both in the United States and abroad. In the United States, I am sorry to say this is largely a result of the unintended consequences of SEC action. In 2003, the SEC adopted new rules and rule amendments that required an investment adviser exercising voting authority over its clients’ proxies to adopt policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it votes those proxies in the best interests of its clients.[11] By adopting this rule, the Commission sought to address, among other goals, an investment adviser’s potential conflicts of interest when voting a client’s securities on matters that affected its own interests. The Commission’s adopting release noted that “an adviser could demonstrate that the vote was not a product of a conflict of interest if it voted client securities, in accordance with a pre-determined policy, based upon the recommendations of an independent third party.”[12]
Proxy advisory firms realized the potential windfall offered by these new rules, and sought guidance from the SEC staff accordingly. The result was the issuance of two staff no-action letters that effectively blessed the practice of investment advisers rotely voting the recommendations of proxy advisors.[13] I have spoken frequently and at length about the perceived safe harbor that these letters created and the fiduciary and other concerns they raise, and I have called for prompt Commission action to address the harm they have done.[14]
In a 2010 concept release often called the “proxy plumbing release,” the Commission revisited the question of proxy advisory firms by highlighting several issues, including conflicts of interest and the lack of accuracy and transparency in formulating voting recommendations.[15] Attention to proxy advisory firms has, since then, increased both in the United States and abroad.[16]
Last month’s Commission roundtable on the issue brought together a distinguished and diverse group of participants to discuss the role of proxy advisory firms and the services they provide. Participants included representatives from proxy advisory firms, institutional shareholders, pension funds, investment advisors, legal practitioners and groups representing corporate secretaries and directors. Among the topics discussed were the influence of proxy advisers on institutional investors, the lack of competition in this market, the lack of transparency in the proxy advisory firms’ vote recommendation process and, significantly, the obvious conflicts of interest when proxy advisory firms provide advisory services to issuers while making voting recommendations to investors.[17]
The feedback we have received confirms that the roundtable was an important first step towards proxy advisory reform. While not everyone agrees on what the next steps should be, I see a common thread: there is a clear need for reform and sustained SEC attention. The spirited, in depth discussions that took place at the roundtable and a burgeoning proxy advisory services comment file are evidence enough.[18] In that vein, I want to take this opportunity to ask each of you to join in thinking about the influence of proxy advisory firms and I encourage you to provide your views to the Commission. Start by asking yourselves whether the current role of proxy advisory firms and rote reliance on them by institutional investors advances the best interests of shareholders. I think the answer is obvious, but the Commission can benefit from your views on which reforms would be most impactful.
* * *
In conclusion, I very much hope you will engage vigorously in the conversation regarding reforms to both our corporate disclosure system and the proxy advisory industry. We need to hear directly from those of you who are daily and directly affected by the status quo. As helpful as they have been, we don’t need any more concept releases or roundtables. In both of these priority areas, we have a good idea of the problems and what needs to be done to fix them – and even where to begin, which is often the hardest part of enacting reforms. There is no reason for further delay. We have an opportunity to make good, incremental progress in this area. We should not let a fixation on the perfect put at risk, or even delay getting started making such progress.
I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you this morning and look forward to your engagement – as well as your questions.
[1] Louis D. Brandeis, Other People’s Money at 92 (1914).
[2] Troy A. Paredes, “Blinded by the Light: Information Overload and Its Consequences for Securities Regulation,” 81 Wash. U. L. Q. 417 (2003). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/lawreview/vol81/iss2/7 .
[3] House Rep’t 113-172, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2014, at 71.
[4] M. J. White, “The Path Forward on Disclosure,” speech to the National Association of Corporate Directors — Leadership Conference 2013 (Oct. 15, 2013). Available at: http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370539878806.
[5] JOBS Act, sec. 108(a). The SEC Staff’s report was issued on December 20, 2013. See, “Report on Review of Disclosure Requirements in Regulation S-K” (Dec. 2013) (“S-K Report”), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2013/reg-sk-disclosure-requirements-review.pdf.
[6] S-K Report at 93.
[7] Id. at 94.
[8] Section 953(b).
[9] Professor (and former SEC Commissioner) Joe Grundfest and former SEC Director of Corporation Finance Alan Beller made this point in their 2008 paper, “Reinventing the Securities Disclosure Regime: Online Questionnaires as Substitutes for Form-Based Filings,” Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford University, Working Paper Series No. 2 (Aug. 4, 2008). Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1235082.
[10] The Commission adopted Form SD (17 CFR 249.448), in conjunction with adopting its rule to implement Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Conflict Minerals”) (Rel. No. 34-67716 (Aug. 22, 2012)). That same day, the Commission also adopted a rule to implement Section 1504 (“Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers”) of that Dodd-Frank Act, to which Form SD would also apply (Rel. No. 34-67717 (Aug. 22, 2012)). Both rules were subsequently challenged in court. The district court upheld the conflict minerals rule; its decision was appealed and argued in the D.C. Circuit on January 7, 2014. The resource extraction rule was vacated and remanded to the Commission.
[11] Final Rule: Proxy Voting by Investment Advisers, 68 FR 6585, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2106.htm.
[12] Id. Emphasis added.
[13] See “Investment Advisers Act of 1940—Rule 206(4)-6: Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.” SEC letter to Mari Anne Pisarri, September 15, 2004, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/iss091504.htm and “Investment Advisers Act of 1940—Rule 206(4)-6: Egan-Jones Proxy Services,” SEC letter to Kent S. Hughes, May 27, 2004, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/egan052704.htm.
[14] See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks before the Corporate Directors Forum,” January 29, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171492142#.UpENB3cgqSo; See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at 12th European Corporate Governance & Company Law Conference,” May 17, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515712#.UpEMtXcgqSo; See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals,” July 11, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370539700301#.UpEMPHcgqSo; See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at Georgetown University’s Center for Financial Markets and Policy Event,” October 30, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540197480#.UpEL9HcgqSo.
[15] See Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System, July 14, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2010/34-62495.pdf.
[16] See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at Transatlantic Corporate Governance Dialogue Conference: The Realities of Stewardship for Institutional Owners, Activist Investors and Proxy Advisors,” December 3, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540436067#.UtVfr3f3Jn8.
[17] See SEC’s Proxy Advisory Services Roundtable Webpage available at
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxy-advisory-services.shtml.
[18] See Comments on Proxy Advisory Firm Roundtable available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-670/4-670.shtml.
A Renewed Perspective on SEC Priorities
Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher
Forum for Corporate Directors, Orange County, California
Jan. 24, 2014
Thank you, Chris [Cox], for your generous introduction and your invitation to address this truly distinguished gathering. I was honored that Chris asked me to speak here today. But it was an even bigger honor to work for Chris when he was Chairman, both as his Counsel and as Deputy Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. Chris’s incredible intellect and leadership tremendously benefitted the agency during the worst of the financial crisis. I know I can speak for my colleagues who, like me, toiled in the trenches alongside Chris when I say that Chris was an island of calm in a sea of misguided government intervention.
* * *
This morning, I’d like to discuss two issues that, along with a holistic review of equity market structure, should be at the very top of the SEC’s agenda. The first is the revamping of our corporate disclosure system, and the other is a set of much needed reforms for the proxy advisory industry. Each of these issues demands our close attention despite the fact that – at the risk of sounding subversive – neither issue was the subject of a congressional mandate to the Commission. So while these issues are not among the fashionable diversions of the moment, addressing them would be consistent with what I like to call the Commission’s basic “blocking and tackling” mandates. We have spent far too little time on such core responsibilities over the last four years, and the neglect is evident.
* * *
Let’s begin with disclosure reform. The SEC is, first and foremost, a disclosure agency. Our bedrock premise is that public companies should be required to disclose publicly and in a timely fashion the information a person would need in order to make a rational and informed investment decision. That is the foundation of our securities law regime and the core principle by which we administer those laws. We can’t protect investors and foster capital formation in fair and efficient capital markets unless critically important information about public companies is routinely and reliably made available to the public.
At the same time, we need to take seriously the question of whether there can be too much disclosure. Justice Louis Brandeis famously called sunlight the best disinfectant.[1] No doubt – but, as my friend and former colleague Troy Paredes pointed out some years ago, investors can be “blinded by the light” of information overload.[2] From an investor’s standpoint, excessive illumination by too much disclosure can have the same effect as inundation and obfuscation — it becomes difficult or impossible to discern what really matters. More disclosure, in short, may not always yield better disclosure.
* * *
Investors often say that disclosure documents are lengthy, turgid, and internally repetitive. Today’s mandated disclosure documents are no longer efficient mechanisms for clearly conveying material information to investors, particularly ordinary, individual investors – myself included. A recent House of Representatives Appropriations Committee report put it like this:
“Voluminous, overly-complex, legalistic and immaterial corporate disclosures both increase investor confusion and discourage shareholder participation in important corporate governance matters.”[3]
The complexity of today’s disclosure requirements give the Commission cause for self-examination. SEC rules that require periodic corporate reporting, the detailed instructions that implement them, as well as pertinent staff interpretations and guidance, have been the principal forces shaping modern corporate disclosure. External forces, too, have played a role, most notably the risk of litigation – much of it absolutely frivolous and solely for the benefit of plaintiffs’ lawyers. When failing to make an anticipatory disclosure can prompt a shareholder lawsuit, it is rational for those who prepare corporate disclosure documents to prepare for the worst. The result is a perverse incentive to create prolix disclosure documents that are designed primarily to anticipate and defend against shareholder lawsuits rather than to provide intelligible and pertinent information to the average investor.
* * *
So what should we do? Should we jump in with both feet to begin a comprehensive review and overhaul of SEC-imposed disclosure requirements under the securities laws? Or should we take a more targeted approach, favoring smaller steps towards our ultimate reforming goals? Ordinarily, I would argue for a comprehensive approach to solving almost any problem in securities regulation, since actions in one area frequently have unforeseen and unintended effects in others.
Where disclosure reform is concerned, though, I would prefer to address discrete issues now rather than risk spending years preparing an offensive so massive that it may never be launched. I’ve been gratified to see that Chair White, too, has expressed an interest in disclosure reform,[4] so I hope and expect that, under her stewardship, the Commission can make real headway on this important issue.
Although the Dodd-Frank Act did not mandate disclosure reform, the JOBS Act required the SEC to study Regulation S-K, our fundamental regulation governing non-financial statement corporate disclosure, to determine where its requirements could be updated “to modernize and simplify the registration process and reduce the costs and other burdens associated with” it for emerging growth companies.[5] The resulting Commission staff report to Congress called for a reevaluation of the Commission’s disclosure requirements “in order to ensure that existing security holders, potential investors and the marketplace are provided with meaningful and … non-duplicative information upon which to base investment and voting decisions, that the information required to be disclosed by reporting companies continues to be material and that the disclosure requirements are flexible enough to adapt to dynamic circumstances.”[6]
The staff report further emphasized that “economic analysis must … inform any reevaluation of disclosure requirements.”[7] It’s hard to disagree with any of those conclusions.
* * *
So, notwithstanding the approximately sixty – yes, sixty - Dodd-Frank-mandated rules we have yet to complete, it’s my strong belief that it’s time to get started on disclosure reform. I’d like to share, based in large part on what I’ve heard from market participants, a few examples of some good, practical issues on which the Commission should focus.
One such issue is “layering disclosure” based on the recognition that some information is inherently material, such as a company’s financial statements, while some is not – for example, the pay-ratio calculation required by Dodd-Frank.[8]
Another issue is the need to streamline Form 8-K disclosure. Does each of the categories of information now required to be disclosed on Form 8-K really require almost immediate disclosure when a change occurs?
I also believe that we should make a targeted effort to reduce redundancy in filings by providing authoritative guidance explicitly telling issuers where they must disclose and where, by contrast, they need not disclose particular types of information. This would enable those looking for that information, including professional analysts and advisers, to find it or identify its absence easily.
Also in the name of reducing redundancy, it’s high time that we gave priority to streamlining proxy statements and registration statements. Permitting some of the required financial information to be included in an appendix to the proxy, for example all financial tables other than the summary compensation table, would aid both investors and issuers. As for registration statements, we could permit forward incorporation by reference in Form S-1 registration statements. That would permit a registrant automatically to incorporate reports filed pursuant to the Exchange Act subsequent to the effectiveness of the registration statement.
We also need to renew our focus on the potential of technology to improve corporate disclosure, acknowledging that our present requirements are almost certainly not those we would have devised for today’s technology-enabled world.[9] Here, I would be remiss if I did not cite data tagging as an investor-empowering analytic tool for ensuring that information is disclosed and presented in a manner that promotes ease of comparison and analysis. The SEC’s move to data tagging is an innovation for which Chairman Cox deserves the lion’s share of the credit, and it took vision and persistence, not to mention one heck of a terrific staff. But make no mistake: we have not come anywhere close to realizing the potential technology holds for improving our disclosure system.
One small way to further integrate technology into our disclosure regime would be to test a standardized, online disclosure system that requires one-time online disclosure of basic corporate information, mandating that it be updated as necessary with changes tracked, rather than rotely repeated each year in annual disclosure documents.
In addition, we could increase the reliability and authoritativeness of SEC disclosure guidance by issuing significant guidance only with the explicit endorsement of the Commission, rather than as staff guidance. Guidance issued under a Commission imprimatur would allow registrants to feel more confident in relying on it – especially, I’d note, from a litigation standpoint.
We must also recognize politically-motivated disclosure mandates as the ill-advised anomalies they are and, as an independent, bipartisan agency, express our opposition to the use of the securities disclosure regime to advance policy objectives unrelated to providing investors with information material to investment decisions. Our new Form SD, adopted to implement a pair of wholly social policy mandates,[10] serves as an example of such policy-driven forays.
These are just examples, and I’m sure that all of you could supplement this short list.
* * *
But we can’t stop there. No discussion of disclosure reform would be complete without addressing the issue of corporate governance – and no discussion of corporate governance would be complete without considering the role of the proxy advisory industry. I have spoken about this issue repeatedly, and I’ve been glad to see that the subject of proxy advisor reform has, over the past twelve months, been the subject of a Congressional hearing, academic articles, media reports, rulemaking petitions and even, I’m especially happy to say, a recent SEC roundtable.
Proxy advisory firms have gained an outsized role in corporate governance, both in the United States and abroad. In the United States, I am sorry to say this is largely a result of the unintended consequences of SEC action. In 2003, the SEC adopted new rules and rule amendments that required an investment adviser exercising voting authority over its clients’ proxies to adopt policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it votes those proxies in the best interests of its clients.[11] By adopting this rule, the Commission sought to address, among other goals, an investment adviser’s potential conflicts of interest when voting a client’s securities on matters that affected its own interests. The Commission’s adopting release noted that “an adviser could demonstrate that the vote was not a product of a conflict of interest if it voted client securities, in accordance with a pre-determined policy, based upon the recommendations of an independent third party.”[12]
Proxy advisory firms realized the potential windfall offered by these new rules, and sought guidance from the SEC staff accordingly. The result was the issuance of two staff no-action letters that effectively blessed the practice of investment advisers rotely voting the recommendations of proxy advisors.[13] I have spoken frequently and at length about the perceived safe harbor that these letters created and the fiduciary and other concerns they raise, and I have called for prompt Commission action to address the harm they have done.[14]
In a 2010 concept release often called the “proxy plumbing release,” the Commission revisited the question of proxy advisory firms by highlighting several issues, including conflicts of interest and the lack of accuracy and transparency in formulating voting recommendations.[15] Attention to proxy advisory firms has, since then, increased both in the United States and abroad.[16]
Last month’s Commission roundtable on the issue brought together a distinguished and diverse group of participants to discuss the role of proxy advisory firms and the services they provide. Participants included representatives from proxy advisory firms, institutional shareholders, pension funds, investment advisors, legal practitioners and groups representing corporate secretaries and directors. Among the topics discussed were the influence of proxy advisers on institutional investors, the lack of competition in this market, the lack of transparency in the proxy advisory firms’ vote recommendation process and, significantly, the obvious conflicts of interest when proxy advisory firms provide advisory services to issuers while making voting recommendations to investors.[17]
The feedback we have received confirms that the roundtable was an important first step towards proxy advisory reform. While not everyone agrees on what the next steps should be, I see a common thread: there is a clear need for reform and sustained SEC attention. The spirited, in depth discussions that took place at the roundtable and a burgeoning proxy advisory services comment file are evidence enough.[18] In that vein, I want to take this opportunity to ask each of you to join in thinking about the influence of proxy advisory firms and I encourage you to provide your views to the Commission. Start by asking yourselves whether the current role of proxy advisory firms and rote reliance on them by institutional investors advances the best interests of shareholders. I think the answer is obvious, but the Commission can benefit from your views on which reforms would be most impactful.
* * *
In conclusion, I very much hope you will engage vigorously in the conversation regarding reforms to both our corporate disclosure system and the proxy advisory industry. We need to hear directly from those of you who are daily and directly affected by the status quo. As helpful as they have been, we don’t need any more concept releases or roundtables. In both of these priority areas, we have a good idea of the problems and what needs to be done to fix them – and even where to begin, which is often the hardest part of enacting reforms. There is no reason for further delay. We have an opportunity to make good, incremental progress in this area. We should not let a fixation on the perfect put at risk, or even delay getting started making such progress.
I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you this morning and look forward to your engagement – as well as your questions.
[1] Louis D. Brandeis, Other People’s Money at 92 (1914).
[2] Troy A. Paredes, “Blinded by the Light: Information Overload and Its Consequences for Securities Regulation,” 81 Wash. U. L. Q. 417 (2003). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/lawreview/vol81/iss2/7 .
[3] House Rep’t 113-172, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2014, at 71.
[4] M. J. White, “The Path Forward on Disclosure,” speech to the National Association of Corporate Directors — Leadership Conference 2013 (Oct. 15, 2013). Available at: http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370539878806.
[5] JOBS Act, sec. 108(a). The SEC Staff’s report was issued on December 20, 2013. See, “Report on Review of Disclosure Requirements in Regulation S-K” (Dec. 2013) (“S-K Report”), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2013/reg-sk-disclosure-requirements-review.pdf.
[6] S-K Report at 93.
[7] Id. at 94.
[8] Section 953(b).
[9] Professor (and former SEC Commissioner) Joe Grundfest and former SEC Director of Corporation Finance Alan Beller made this point in their 2008 paper, “Reinventing the Securities Disclosure Regime: Online Questionnaires as Substitutes for Form-Based Filings,” Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford University, Working Paper Series No. 2 (Aug. 4, 2008). Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1235082.
[10] The Commission adopted Form SD (17 CFR 249.448), in conjunction with adopting its rule to implement Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Conflict Minerals”) (Rel. No. 34-67716 (Aug. 22, 2012)). That same day, the Commission also adopted a rule to implement Section 1504 (“Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers”) of that Dodd-Frank Act, to which Form SD would also apply (Rel. No. 34-67717 (Aug. 22, 2012)). Both rules were subsequently challenged in court. The district court upheld the conflict minerals rule; its decision was appealed and argued in the D.C. Circuit on January 7, 2014. The resource extraction rule was vacated and remanded to the Commission.
[11] Final Rule: Proxy Voting by Investment Advisers, 68 FR 6585, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2106.htm.
[12] Id. Emphasis added.
[13] See “Investment Advisers Act of 1940—Rule 206(4)-6: Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.” SEC letter to Mari Anne Pisarri, September 15, 2004, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/iss091504.htm and “Investment Advisers Act of 1940—Rule 206(4)-6: Egan-Jones Proxy Services,” SEC letter to Kent S. Hughes, May 27, 2004, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/noaction/egan052704.htm.
[14] See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks before the Corporate Directors Forum,” January 29, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171492142#.UpENB3cgqSo; See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at 12th European Corporate Governance & Company Law Conference,” May 17, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515712#.UpEMtXcgqSo; See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals,” July 11, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370539700301#.UpEMPHcgqSo; See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at Georgetown University’s Center for Financial Markets and Policy Event,” October 30, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540197480#.UpEL9HcgqSo.
[15] See Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System, July 14, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2010/34-62495.pdf.
[16] See Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher, “Remarks at Transatlantic Corporate Governance Dialogue Conference: The Realities of Stewardship for Institutional Owners, Activist Investors and Proxy Advisors,” December 3, 2013 available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540436067#.UtVfr3f3Jn8.
[17] See SEC’s Proxy Advisory Services Roundtable Webpage available at
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxy-advisory-services.shtml.
[18] See Comments on Proxy Advisory Firm Roundtable available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-670/4-670.shtml.
GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES NEW REPORTING METHODS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY ORDERS
FROM: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, January 27, 2014
Joint Statement by Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on New Reporting Methods for National Security Orders
Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released the following joint statement Monday:
“As indicated in the Justice Department’s filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the administration is acting to allow more detailed disclosures about the number of national security orders and requests issued to communications providers, and the number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests including the underlying legal authorities. Through these new reporting methods, communications providers will be permitted to disclose more information than ever before to their customers.
“This action was directed by the President earlier this month in his speech on intelligence reforms. While this aggregate data was properly classified until today, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with other departments and agencies, has determined that the public interest in disclosing this information now outweighs the national security concerns that required its classification.
“Permitting disclosure of this aggregate data resolves an important area of concern to communications providers and the public. In the weeks ahead, additional steps must be taken in order to fully implement the reforms directed by the President.
“The declassification reflects the Executive Branch’s continuing commitment to making information about the Government’s intelligence activities publicly available where appropriate and is consistent with ensuring the protection of the national security of the United States.”
Monday, January 27, 2014
Joint Statement by Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on New Reporting Methods for National Security Orders
Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released the following joint statement Monday:
“As indicated in the Justice Department’s filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the administration is acting to allow more detailed disclosures about the number of national security orders and requests issued to communications providers, and the number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests including the underlying legal authorities. Through these new reporting methods, communications providers will be permitted to disclose more information than ever before to their customers.
“This action was directed by the President earlier this month in his speech on intelligence reforms. While this aggregate data was properly classified until today, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with other departments and agencies, has determined that the public interest in disclosing this information now outweighs the national security concerns that required its classification.
“Permitting disclosure of this aggregate data resolves an important area of concern to communications providers and the public. In the weeks ahead, additional steps must be taken in order to fully implement the reforms directed by the President.
“The declassification reflects the Executive Branch’s continuing commitment to making information about the Government’s intelligence activities publicly available where appropriate and is consistent with ensuring the protection of the national security of the United States.”
VA HEALTH CARE REPORT: UTILIZATION BY U.S. VETERANS
FROM: VETERANS AFFAIRS
VA Health Care Utilization by Recent Veterans
October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2013.
VA presents a report four times a year containing data on Veterans who have used VA health care and who served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), or Operation New Dawn (OND).
Findings
Approximately 58 percent (998,004) of all separated OEF/OIF/OND Veterans have used VA health care since October 1, 2001.
Between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013, a total of 605,527 of these Veterans accessed VA health care.
The frequency and percent of the three most common diagnoses were: musculoskeletal ailments (590,485 or 59.2 percent); mental disorders (552,169 or 55.3 percent); and symptoms, signs, and ill-defined conditions (conditions that do not have an immediately obvious cause or isolated laboratory test abnormalities) (545,771 or 54.7 percent). A Veteran can have more than one diagnosis.
About the report
The VA health care utilization report is created by comparing a Department of Defense roster of returning Veterans to VA’s electronic inpatient and outpatient health records.
The data used in the report provide valuable information about Veterans who have accessed VA health care. The report does not represent all recent Veterans who have become eligible for VA health care, who have ever served in OEF, OIF, or OND, or who are currently serving in these conflicts.
Carefully designed epidemiology studies are required to answer specific questions about the health of all Veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan.
VA Health Care Utilization by Recent Veterans
October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2013.
VA presents a report four times a year containing data on Veterans who have used VA health care and who served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), or Operation New Dawn (OND).
Findings
Approximately 58 percent (998,004) of all separated OEF/OIF/OND Veterans have used VA health care since October 1, 2001.
Between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013, a total of 605,527 of these Veterans accessed VA health care.
The frequency and percent of the three most common diagnoses were: musculoskeletal ailments (590,485 or 59.2 percent); mental disorders (552,169 or 55.3 percent); and symptoms, signs, and ill-defined conditions (conditions that do not have an immediately obvious cause or isolated laboratory test abnormalities) (545,771 or 54.7 percent). A Veteran can have more than one diagnosis.
About the report
The VA health care utilization report is created by comparing a Department of Defense roster of returning Veterans to VA’s electronic inpatient and outpatient health records.
The data used in the report provide valuable information about Veterans who have accessed VA health care. The report does not represent all recent Veterans who have become eligible for VA health care, who have ever served in OEF, OIF, or OND, or who are currently serving in these conflicts.
Carefully designed epidemiology studies are required to answer specific questions about the health of all Veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan.
$6 MILLION AVAILABLE IN GRANTS FOR WORKFORCE DATA QUALITY INITIATIVE PROGRAM
FROM: LABOR DEPARTMENT
Up to $6M in grants available to states to improve workforce data collection
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced the availability of approximately $6 million in grants for the fourth round of the Workforce Data Quality Initiative, a program designed to improve the quality and availability of workforce data and help states to better understand how education and workforce development programs complement each other.
These funds will enable up to 6 states to build or expand databases that connect workforce and education data in order to track the earnings of workers over the long term. Grantees will be expected to use these longitudinal databases to: conduct research and analysis aimed at determining the effectiveness of workforce and education programs and develop tools to better inform customers about the benefits of the publicly-funded workforce system.
"This funding will help the public workforce system improve how they deliver services to workers, while also providing those workers with information on which program will best serve their needs," said Eric M. Seleznow, acting assistant secretary of labor for employment and training.
This grant opportunity stems from the administration's focus on access to high-quality data, and it is a sister initiative to the U.S. Department of Education's Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program's efforts to build longitudinal education databases.
Grants awards are available across the country to single-state grantees. A total of 29 states have been awarded grants through the first three rounds of this program.
Successful applicants will be expected to achieve multiple goals during the three-year grant period. These include:
Workforce Data Quality Initiative Grantee Map, Rounds 1, 2, and 3
developing or improving state workforce longitudinal data systems with individual-level information;
enabling workforce data to be matched with education data to create longitudinal data systems;
improving the quality and breadth of the data in the workforce data systems;
using longitudinal data to provide useful information about program operations;
analyzing the performance of education and employment training programs; and
providing user-friendly information to consumers, in the form of scorecards or integrated digital platforms, to help them select the training and education programs that best suit their needs.
Up to $6M in grants available to states to improve workforce data collection
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced the availability of approximately $6 million in grants for the fourth round of the Workforce Data Quality Initiative, a program designed to improve the quality and availability of workforce data and help states to better understand how education and workforce development programs complement each other.
These funds will enable up to 6 states to build or expand databases that connect workforce and education data in order to track the earnings of workers over the long term. Grantees will be expected to use these longitudinal databases to: conduct research and analysis aimed at determining the effectiveness of workforce and education programs and develop tools to better inform customers about the benefits of the publicly-funded workforce system.
"This funding will help the public workforce system improve how they deliver services to workers, while also providing those workers with information on which program will best serve their needs," said Eric M. Seleznow, acting assistant secretary of labor for employment and training.
This grant opportunity stems from the administration's focus on access to high-quality data, and it is a sister initiative to the U.S. Department of Education's Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program's efforts to build longitudinal education databases.
Grants awards are available across the country to single-state grantees. A total of 29 states have been awarded grants through the first three rounds of this program.
Successful applicants will be expected to achieve multiple goals during the three-year grant period. These include:
Workforce Data Quality Initiative Grantee Map, Rounds 1, 2, and 3
developing or improving state workforce longitudinal data systems with individual-level information;
enabling workforce data to be matched with education data to create longitudinal data systems;
improving the quality and breadth of the data in the workforce data systems;
using longitudinal data to provide useful information about program operations;
analyzing the performance of education and employment training programs; and
providing user-friendly information to consumers, in the form of scorecards or integrated digital platforms, to help them select the training and education programs that best suit their needs.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ACQUIRES MAX ROACH COLLECTION
FROM: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Library Acquires Jazz Legend Max Roach’s Legacy Collection
Archive Includes Personal Papers, Musical Scores and Audiovisual Recordings
The life and music of jazz great Max Roach, one of the founding fathers of the modernist style known as bebop, will be forever memorialized for future generations in the nation’s library. The Library of Congress today celebrated the acquisition of Roach’s vast personal collection of papers, music, photos, and audio and video recordings. Over his decades-long career, Roach communicated and collaborated with some of the greatest names in jazz history.
Held at the Library’s majestic Jefferson Building in Washington, D.C., the celebratory event included a conversation with the people who best knew Roach’s life, work and advocacy—his children Daryl Roach, Maxine Roach, Ayo Roach, Dara Roach and Raoul Roach. "Our family is thrilled that our father's rich legacy has found a home at the Library of Congress," said his daughter Maxine, who is also founder of the Uptown String Quartet. "Our father had a sense of his place in the history of America’s original music and for decades he collected testaments to his mastery in the form of recorded sounds, video, photos, papers, letters, awards, collaborations, gifts, honors, struggles and friendships. All will be on display at this very great and prestigious institution. And though he is no longer here, his artistry and humanity will live on in this magnificent building. We thank the Library of Congress for this high honor for our father. We know he is pleased."
"As a drummer, composer, bandleader, educator and activist, Max Roach had a profound impact on American music," said Librarian of Congress James H. Billington. "His collection will have high research value not just for musicians and jazz scholars, but for anyone exploring the rise of political consciousness among African-Americans in the post-World War II period. His collection will now be preserved in the nation’s library so that his legacy and works might inspire generations to come."
"I attended the University of the streets in the ‘Harlems’ of the USA," Roach wrote on a hotel stationery notepad, which can be found in this multifaceted collection. "My professors were Duke Ellington, Sonny Greer, Baby Dodds, Louis Armstrong … My classmates were Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Charlie Mingus, Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis …"
Born on Jan. 14, 1924 in New Land, North Carolina, Roach grew up in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant and attended the Manhattan School of Music. He played with Ellington and Parker as a teenager and, over a 60-year career, became one of the leading innovators in jazz. Roach was a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and became the first jazz musician to receive a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant." He was posthumously honored with the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2008.
Roach’s personal archive features musical scores, manuscripts, business papers, correspondence, lesson plans, photographs, prints and drawings, and rare audiovisual recordings. Materials from Roach’s musical, theatrical, dance and multimedia collaborations are meticulously detailed in the collection, including ongoing exchanges with Parker, Gillespie, Monk, Mingus, Nina Simone, Alvin Ailey, and playwrights Sam Shepard and Amiri Baraka.
Roach gave voice to his black consciousness and the African-American experience through his music as well as his activism. There is revealing correspondence about his work with such civil rights organizations as the NAACP and SNCC, as well as with writer Maya Angelou and various associates of Malcolm X.
This extraordinary rich collection totals more than 100,000 items, comprising about 80,000 manuscripts and papers; 7,500 photographic materials; 1,000 music manuscripts; and hundreds of sound and video recordings. Highlights from the collection include:
An unpublished draft of his autobiography, written with the late Amiri Baraka
A holograph score from "We Insist! Max Roach’s Freedom Now Suite"
An unpublished recording—dated Nov. 14, 1964—of legendary pianist Hassan Ibn Ali
A "Solo on the Drums" rehearsal for the television program "With Ossie & Ruby," featuring Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Billy Taylor and Max Roach
An unpublished 1969 recording of Max Roach with former wife Abbey Lincoln in Iran
An unpublished Cecil Taylor and Max Roach duet in Italy in 2000
The "An Evening with Max Roach" broadcast, Sept. 8, 1964
Interviews and performances with Max Roach, Gary Bartz, Woody Shaw, Stanley Cowell and Reggie Workman for Tokyo radio in 1977
Rarely seen photos of Roach with Art Blakey, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Kenny Clarke, Thelonious Monk, Clifford Brown, Sonny Rollins, Abbey Lincoln and many more
The Max Roach Collection will be available in the Library’s Performing Arts Reading Room on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The collection will complement the Library’s existing collections of Charles Mingus, Billy Taylor, Gerry Mulligan, Alvin Ailey, Dexter Gordon, Louis Bellson and Shelly Manne.
Library Acquires Jazz Legend Max Roach’s Legacy Collection
Archive Includes Personal Papers, Musical Scores and Audiovisual Recordings
The life and music of jazz great Max Roach, one of the founding fathers of the modernist style known as bebop, will be forever memorialized for future generations in the nation’s library. The Library of Congress today celebrated the acquisition of Roach’s vast personal collection of papers, music, photos, and audio and video recordings. Over his decades-long career, Roach communicated and collaborated with some of the greatest names in jazz history.
Held at the Library’s majestic Jefferson Building in Washington, D.C., the celebratory event included a conversation with the people who best knew Roach’s life, work and advocacy—his children Daryl Roach, Maxine Roach, Ayo Roach, Dara Roach and Raoul Roach. "Our family is thrilled that our father's rich legacy has found a home at the Library of Congress," said his daughter Maxine, who is also founder of the Uptown String Quartet. "Our father had a sense of his place in the history of America’s original music and for decades he collected testaments to his mastery in the form of recorded sounds, video, photos, papers, letters, awards, collaborations, gifts, honors, struggles and friendships. All will be on display at this very great and prestigious institution. And though he is no longer here, his artistry and humanity will live on in this magnificent building. We thank the Library of Congress for this high honor for our father. We know he is pleased."
"As a drummer, composer, bandleader, educator and activist, Max Roach had a profound impact on American music," said Librarian of Congress James H. Billington. "His collection will have high research value not just for musicians and jazz scholars, but for anyone exploring the rise of political consciousness among African-Americans in the post-World War II period. His collection will now be preserved in the nation’s library so that his legacy and works might inspire generations to come."
"I attended the University of the streets in the ‘Harlems’ of the USA," Roach wrote on a hotel stationery notepad, which can be found in this multifaceted collection. "My professors were Duke Ellington, Sonny Greer, Baby Dodds, Louis Armstrong … My classmates were Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Charlie Mingus, Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis …"
Born on Jan. 14, 1924 in New Land, North Carolina, Roach grew up in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant and attended the Manhattan School of Music. He played with Ellington and Parker as a teenager and, over a 60-year career, became one of the leading innovators in jazz. Roach was a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and became the first jazz musician to receive a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant." He was posthumously honored with the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2008.
Roach’s personal archive features musical scores, manuscripts, business papers, correspondence, lesson plans, photographs, prints and drawings, and rare audiovisual recordings. Materials from Roach’s musical, theatrical, dance and multimedia collaborations are meticulously detailed in the collection, including ongoing exchanges with Parker, Gillespie, Monk, Mingus, Nina Simone, Alvin Ailey, and playwrights Sam Shepard and Amiri Baraka.
Roach gave voice to his black consciousness and the African-American experience through his music as well as his activism. There is revealing correspondence about his work with such civil rights organizations as the NAACP and SNCC, as well as with writer Maya Angelou and various associates of Malcolm X.
This extraordinary rich collection totals more than 100,000 items, comprising about 80,000 manuscripts and papers; 7,500 photographic materials; 1,000 music manuscripts; and hundreds of sound and video recordings. Highlights from the collection include:
An unpublished draft of his autobiography, written with the late Amiri Baraka
A holograph score from "We Insist! Max Roach’s Freedom Now Suite"
An unpublished recording—dated Nov. 14, 1964—of legendary pianist Hassan Ibn Ali
A "Solo on the Drums" rehearsal for the television program "With Ossie & Ruby," featuring Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Billy Taylor and Max Roach
An unpublished 1969 recording of Max Roach with former wife Abbey Lincoln in Iran
An unpublished Cecil Taylor and Max Roach duet in Italy in 2000
The "An Evening with Max Roach" broadcast, Sept. 8, 1964
Interviews and performances with Max Roach, Gary Bartz, Woody Shaw, Stanley Cowell and Reggie Workman for Tokyo radio in 1977
Rarely seen photos of Roach with Art Blakey, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Kenny Clarke, Thelonious Monk, Clifford Brown, Sonny Rollins, Abbey Lincoln and many more
The Max Roach Collection will be available in the Library’s Performing Arts Reading Room on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The collection will complement the Library’s existing collections of Charles Mingus, Billy Taylor, Gerry Mulligan, Alvin Ailey, Dexter Gordon, Louis Bellson and Shelly Manne.
READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL TO PRESIDENT HADI OF YEMEN
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Readout of the President’s Call with President Hadi of Yemen
President Obama called President Abdo Rabu Mansour Hadi of Yemen today to congratulate him on the successful conclusion of Yemen’s National Dialogue, a major milestone in Yemen’s political transition. The two leaders agreed on the need for Yemen to complete the transition roadmap outlined in the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative and to turn the National Dialogue’s vision for a more just and democratic future into reality. The President emphasized that the United States will continue to strongly support Yemen in these endeavors. President Obama also reiterated the U.S. government’s support for efforts to strengthen Yemen’s economy during this time of transition, so that the Yemeni people’s hard-won gains can be sustained well into the future. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to a strong security partnership, including by building the capacity of the Yemeni security services to defeat al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
Readout of the President’s Call with President Hadi of Yemen
President Obama called President Abdo Rabu Mansour Hadi of Yemen today to congratulate him on the successful conclusion of Yemen’s National Dialogue, a major milestone in Yemen’s political transition. The two leaders agreed on the need for Yemen to complete the transition roadmap outlined in the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative and to turn the National Dialogue’s vision for a more just and democratic future into reality. The President emphasized that the United States will continue to strongly support Yemen in these endeavors. President Obama also reiterated the U.S. government’s support for efforts to strengthen Yemen’s economy during this time of transition, so that the Yemeni people’s hard-won gains can be sustained well into the future. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to a strong security partnership, including by building the capacity of the Yemeni security services to defeat al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
JUSTICE SAYS STRIKE FORCE SET RECORD FOR HEALTH CARE FRAUD PROSECUTIONS
FROM: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, January 27, 2014
Medicare Fraud Strike Force Set Record Numbers for Health Care Fraud Prosecutions
The Justice Department’s Medicare Fraud Strike Force has set record numbers for health care prosecutions in Fiscal Year 2013, demonstrating the targeted and coordinated approach remains strong as the strike force enters its eighth year of fighting fraud against the government’s health care programs.
“These record results underscore our determination to hold accountable those who take advantage of vulnerable populations, commit fraud on federal health care programs, and place the safety of others at risk for illicit financial gain,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “By targeting our enforcement efforts to ‘hot spots’ in nine cities, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force is allowing us to fight back more effectively than ever before.”
“The Medicare Fraud Strike Force is one of this country’s most productive investments,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “We are not only putting hundreds of criminals who steal from Medicare in prison, but also stopping their theft in its tracks, recovering millions of dollars for taxpayers, and deterring potential criminals who ultimately decide the crime isn’t worth it.”
“Those perpetrating Medicare fraud cheat both taxpayers and vulnerable patients, and our Strike Forces are successfully fighting back – holding criminals accountable and recovering stolen dollars,” said Inspector General Daniel R. Levinson of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Our joint commitment to bring the fight against fraud to criminal hotspots around the country is steadfast.”
Under the supervision of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force is formed by coordinated teams of investigators and prosecutors – including personnel from the Justice Department, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI – who analyze Medicare claims data to target specific geographic areas showing unusually high levels of Medicare billing.
By focusing on the worst offenders engaged in current fraud schemes in the highest intensity regions, the strike force seeks to deter fraud in the target community and prevent it from spreading to other areas. The strike force is currently operating in nine cities: Baton Rouge, La.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; Chicago; Dallas; Detroit; Houston; Los Angeles; Miami and Tampa, Fla. S ince its inception in March 2007, strike force prosecutors have charged more than 1,700 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program more than $5.5 billion.
In Fiscal Year 2013, the strike force set records in the number of cases filed (137), individuals charged (345), guilty pleas secured (234) and jury trial convictions (46). In addition, the defendants who were charged and sentenced are facing significant time in prison – an average of 52 months in prison for those sentenced in FY 2013, and an average of 47 months in prison for those sentenced since 2007.
According to a recent report by the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for every dollar the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services have spent fighting health care fraud, they have returned an average of nearly eight dollars to the U.S. Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund and others.
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force is part of an unprecedented partnership between the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services called HEAT (Health care Enforcement and Prevention Action Team). Formed in May 2009, this partnership brings together high-level leaders from both departments to share information, spot trends, coordinate strategy and strengthen our fraud prevention efforts.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Medicare Fraud Strike Force Set Record Numbers for Health Care Fraud Prosecutions
The Justice Department’s Medicare Fraud Strike Force has set record numbers for health care prosecutions in Fiscal Year 2013, demonstrating the targeted and coordinated approach remains strong as the strike force enters its eighth year of fighting fraud against the government’s health care programs.
“These record results underscore our determination to hold accountable those who take advantage of vulnerable populations, commit fraud on federal health care programs, and place the safety of others at risk for illicit financial gain,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “By targeting our enforcement efforts to ‘hot spots’ in nine cities, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force is allowing us to fight back more effectively than ever before.”
“The Medicare Fraud Strike Force is one of this country’s most productive investments,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “We are not only putting hundreds of criminals who steal from Medicare in prison, but also stopping their theft in its tracks, recovering millions of dollars for taxpayers, and deterring potential criminals who ultimately decide the crime isn’t worth it.”
“Those perpetrating Medicare fraud cheat both taxpayers and vulnerable patients, and our Strike Forces are successfully fighting back – holding criminals accountable and recovering stolen dollars,” said Inspector General Daniel R. Levinson of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Our joint commitment to bring the fight against fraud to criminal hotspots around the country is steadfast.”
Under the supervision of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force is formed by coordinated teams of investigators and prosecutors – including personnel from the Justice Department, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI – who analyze Medicare claims data to target specific geographic areas showing unusually high levels of Medicare billing.
By focusing on the worst offenders engaged in current fraud schemes in the highest intensity regions, the strike force seeks to deter fraud in the target community and prevent it from spreading to other areas. The strike force is currently operating in nine cities: Baton Rouge, La.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; Chicago; Dallas; Detroit; Houston; Los Angeles; Miami and Tampa, Fla. S ince its inception in March 2007, strike force prosecutors have charged more than 1,700 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program more than $5.5 billion.
In Fiscal Year 2013, the strike force set records in the number of cases filed (137), individuals charged (345), guilty pleas secured (234) and jury trial convictions (46). In addition, the defendants who were charged and sentenced are facing significant time in prison – an average of 52 months in prison for those sentenced in FY 2013, and an average of 47 months in prison for those sentenced since 2007.
According to a recent report by the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for every dollar the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services have spent fighting health care fraud, they have returned an average of nearly eight dollars to the U.S. Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund and others.
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force is part of an unprecedented partnership between the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services called HEAT (Health care Enforcement and Prevention Action Team). Formed in May 2009, this partnership brings together high-level leaders from both departments to share information, spot trends, coordinate strategy and strengthen our fraud prevention efforts.
FINDING ENGINEERING INSIGHTS FROM ANIMAL DRINKING STUDIES
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Scientists apply biological behavior to human engineering
Study of animals' water drinking motions could lead to better water pumps and new insights into locomotion and propulsion
Have you ever watched your cat or dog drink water?
Their lapping motions, which differ from the way humans drink--and also differ in some respects from each other--are an evolutionary marvel of nature.
Cats and dogs, many other animals, have developed survival mechanisms over time that help them adapt to their environments, in this case, figuring out a way to get water into their mouths when the location of the water is low and the animals' location is high.
The way they do it provides important information for scientists trying to apply biological behavior to human engineering, especially in the field of fluid mechanics, which studies liquids and gases and the forces upon them.
"Nature has spanned billions of years finding the best designs for its many systems," says Sunghwan Jung, an assistant professor of engineering, science and mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. "Human engineering can learn much from how nature does it."
Jung and his colleagues--Jake Socha, also an assistant professor of engineering, science and mechanics at Virginia Tech, and Pavlos Vlachos, a professor of mechanical engineering--all National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded scientists, have been studying the drinking behavior of both domestic animals.
Their findings could have significant applications in the development of novel coating/dipping systems for materials engineering, as well as in designing new types of pumps to transport water, with potential uses in the military, in industry and recreation.
The cat's method relies on its instinctive ability to calculate when gravitational forces overcome inertia, causing the water to fall. A cat curves the upper side of its tongue downward so that the tip lightly touches the surface of the water, then pulls it upward at a high speed, creating a column of water behind it. At the very moment that gravity starts to pull the column down, the cat closes its jaws over the jet of water and swallows it.
The dog, on the other hand, appears to scoop water into its mouth, using its highly curled tongue. The amount of water ingested depends on the lapping frequency, and the size of the air cavity created by its tongue.
Both animals create columns of water when they do this, but only the dog's tongue uses a scooping motion.
"Cats and dogs have a mouth structure very different from us," Jung says. "They have incomplete cheeks. Humans don't have a large mouth opening, but have a complete cheek. We drink water, rather than lap. But cats and dogs have incomplete cheeks, so they can't lower the pressure inside their mouths. If they did, they would just suck air. So they developed a lapping mechanism."
Their research could influence the future design of water pumps, Jung says. There are two main types used today, pressure-driven pumps and inertia-driven pumps. The former involves sucking water up through a tube, while the latter uses a moving part--a water wheel, for example--to move water from a low place to a high place.
The water drinking methods used by dogs and cats are examples of inertia-driven pumps. "Their tongues are the moving parts," Jung says. "There may be places where you cannot use a pressure driven pump. Perhaps we can design some bio-inspired pump by learning how cats and dogs drink water."
Jung and his colleagues are conducting their research with a grant from NSF's Physics of Living Systems program, which supports theoretical and experimental research exploring the most fundamental physical processes that living systems use to perform their functions in dynamic and diverse environments. The focus is on understanding basic physical principles that underlie biological function.
As part of their experiments, the team will create artificial three-dimensional tongues of both dogs and cats and plans to "actuate these artificial tongues in rotational motion, mimicking what cats and dogs do, to understand the fluid dynamics," Jung says. "We want to see how fluids move due to the tongues' motion, and how water is transported upward."
Along with water drinking, the scientists also are studying how some animals--lizards and frogs, for example--move effortlessly across a water surface or jump from it to capture insects for food. The idea is to gain new insights about locomotion and propulsion.
"Since there are no engineered systems that operate under conditions similar to these reptiles and amphibians, we have an opportunity to learn how nature effectively uses the interaction of these forces," Jung says.
In addition to faster dipping and coating processes, their findings also could produce "water-walking robots," he says.
"Nature is very smart," he adds. "In nature, animals both move around a lot and also drink fluids. Those two are everyday essential behaviors. Most animals have evolved to optimize these behaviors, and their methods can teach us quite a bit."
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Investigators
John Socha
Sunghwan Jung
Pavlos Vlachos
Related Institutions/Organizations
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Scientists apply biological behavior to human engineering
Study of animals' water drinking motions could lead to better water pumps and new insights into locomotion and propulsion
Have you ever watched your cat or dog drink water?
Their lapping motions, which differ from the way humans drink--and also differ in some respects from each other--are an evolutionary marvel of nature.
Cats and dogs, many other animals, have developed survival mechanisms over time that help them adapt to their environments, in this case, figuring out a way to get water into their mouths when the location of the water is low and the animals' location is high.
The way they do it provides important information for scientists trying to apply biological behavior to human engineering, especially in the field of fluid mechanics, which studies liquids and gases and the forces upon them.
"Nature has spanned billions of years finding the best designs for its many systems," says Sunghwan Jung, an assistant professor of engineering, science and mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. "Human engineering can learn much from how nature does it."
Jung and his colleagues--Jake Socha, also an assistant professor of engineering, science and mechanics at Virginia Tech, and Pavlos Vlachos, a professor of mechanical engineering--all National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded scientists, have been studying the drinking behavior of both domestic animals.
Their findings could have significant applications in the development of novel coating/dipping systems for materials engineering, as well as in designing new types of pumps to transport water, with potential uses in the military, in industry and recreation.
The cat's method relies on its instinctive ability to calculate when gravitational forces overcome inertia, causing the water to fall. A cat curves the upper side of its tongue downward so that the tip lightly touches the surface of the water, then pulls it upward at a high speed, creating a column of water behind it. At the very moment that gravity starts to pull the column down, the cat closes its jaws over the jet of water and swallows it.
The dog, on the other hand, appears to scoop water into its mouth, using its highly curled tongue. The amount of water ingested depends on the lapping frequency, and the size of the air cavity created by its tongue.
Both animals create columns of water when they do this, but only the dog's tongue uses a scooping motion.
"Cats and dogs have a mouth structure very different from us," Jung says. "They have incomplete cheeks. Humans don't have a large mouth opening, but have a complete cheek. We drink water, rather than lap. But cats and dogs have incomplete cheeks, so they can't lower the pressure inside their mouths. If they did, they would just suck air. So they developed a lapping mechanism."
Their research could influence the future design of water pumps, Jung says. There are two main types used today, pressure-driven pumps and inertia-driven pumps. The former involves sucking water up through a tube, while the latter uses a moving part--a water wheel, for example--to move water from a low place to a high place.
The water drinking methods used by dogs and cats are examples of inertia-driven pumps. "Their tongues are the moving parts," Jung says. "There may be places where you cannot use a pressure driven pump. Perhaps we can design some bio-inspired pump by learning how cats and dogs drink water."
Jung and his colleagues are conducting their research with a grant from NSF's Physics of Living Systems program, which supports theoretical and experimental research exploring the most fundamental physical processes that living systems use to perform their functions in dynamic and diverse environments. The focus is on understanding basic physical principles that underlie biological function.
As part of their experiments, the team will create artificial three-dimensional tongues of both dogs and cats and plans to "actuate these artificial tongues in rotational motion, mimicking what cats and dogs do, to understand the fluid dynamics," Jung says. "We want to see how fluids move due to the tongues' motion, and how water is transported upward."
Along with water drinking, the scientists also are studying how some animals--lizards and frogs, for example--move effortlessly across a water surface or jump from it to capture insects for food. The idea is to gain new insights about locomotion and propulsion.
"Since there are no engineered systems that operate under conditions similar to these reptiles and amphibians, we have an opportunity to learn how nature effectively uses the interaction of these forces," Jung says.
In addition to faster dipping and coating processes, their findings also could produce "water-walking robots," he says.
"Nature is very smart," he adds. "In nature, animals both move around a lot and also drink fluids. Those two are everyday essential behaviors. Most animals have evolved to optimize these behaviors, and their methods can teach us quite a bit."
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Investigators
John Socha
Sunghwan Jung
Pavlos Vlachos
Related Institutions/Organizations
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Monday, January 27, 2014
U.S. MILITARY CONDEMNS DETAINEE RELEASE IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Pentagon Condemns Afghan Release of Bagram Detainees
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2014 – An Afghan government order to release 37 of 88 detainees who U.S. Defense Department leaders have deemed to be legitimate threats to national security drew condemnation from a Pentagon spokesman today.
Army Col. Steve Warren said strong evidence or investigative leads support the detainees’ prosecution or further investigation.
A special government panel called the Afghan Review Board, or ARB, ordered that the 37 detainees be released from the Afghan-supervised detention facility at Bagram Airfield.
“ARB is releasing dangerous insurgents, and the [United States] has provided extensive information and evidence on each of these 88 detainees,” Warren said. “We strongly condemn the extrajudicial release of these detainees.”
Warren also noted that of the 37 detainees, 17 are linked to the production of or attacks using improvised explosive devices, three participated in or had knowledge of direct attacks wounding or killing 11 Afghan national security forces members, and four participated in or had knowledge of direct attacks wounding or killing 42 U.S. or coalition service members.
The colonel described the detainees as “bad guys” and “individuals with U.S., coalition and Afghan blood on their hands.”
Pentagon Condemns Afghan Release of Bagram Detainees
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2014 – An Afghan government order to release 37 of 88 detainees who U.S. Defense Department leaders have deemed to be legitimate threats to national security drew condemnation from a Pentagon spokesman today.
Army Col. Steve Warren said strong evidence or investigative leads support the detainees’ prosecution or further investigation.
A special government panel called the Afghan Review Board, or ARB, ordered that the 37 detainees be released from the Afghan-supervised detention facility at Bagram Airfield.
“ARB is releasing dangerous insurgents, and the [United States] has provided extensive information and evidence on each of these 88 detainees,” Warren said. “We strongly condemn the extrajudicial release of these detainees.”
Warren also noted that of the 37 detainees, 17 are linked to the production of or attacks using improvised explosive devices, three participated in or had knowledge of direct attacks wounding or killing 11 Afghan national security forces members, and four participated in or had knowledge of direct attacks wounding or killing 42 U.S. or coalition service members.
The colonel described the detainees as “bad guys” and “individuals with U.S., coalition and Afghan blood on their hands.”
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day
Each year on this day the world comes together to commemorate a barbaric crime unique in human history. We recall six million Jews and millions of other innocent victims who were murdered in Nazi death camps. We mourn lives cut short and communities torn apart.
Yet even on a day of solemn remembrance, there is room for hope. For January 27th is also the day Auschwitz was liberated 69 years ago. The noble acts of courage performed by liberators, rescuers, and the Righteous Among Nations remind us that we are never powerless. In our lives, we always have choices. In our time, this means choosing to confront bigotry and hatred in all of its forms, especially anti-Semitism. It means condemning any attempts to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. It means doing our part to ensure that survivors receive some measure of justice and the support they need to live out their lives in dignity.
On this International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Michelle and I join the American people and our friends in the State of Israel and around the world as we reaffirm our obligation not just to bear witness, but to act. May God bless the memory of the millions, and may God grant us the strength and courage to make real our solemn vow: Never forget. Never again.
Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day
Each year on this day the world comes together to commemorate a barbaric crime unique in human history. We recall six million Jews and millions of other innocent victims who were murdered in Nazi death camps. We mourn lives cut short and communities torn apart.
Yet even on a day of solemn remembrance, there is room for hope. For January 27th is also the day Auschwitz was liberated 69 years ago. The noble acts of courage performed by liberators, rescuers, and the Righteous Among Nations remind us that we are never powerless. In our lives, we always have choices. In our time, this means choosing to confront bigotry and hatred in all of its forms, especially anti-Semitism. It means condemning any attempts to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. It means doing our part to ensure that survivors receive some measure of justice and the support they need to live out their lives in dignity.
On this International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Michelle and I join the American people and our friends in the State of Israel and around the world as we reaffirm our obligation not just to bear witness, but to act. May God bless the memory of the millions, and may God grant us the strength and courage to make real our solemn vow: Never forget. Never again.
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR JANUARY 27, 2014
FROM: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS
AIR FORCE
Rolls Royce Corp., Indianapolis, Ind., has been awarded an $182,658,644 firm-fixed-price, requirements contract modification (P00023) for an existing contract (FA8504-07-D-0001) for C-130J propulsion system sustainment. The contract modification provides for the exercise of the seventh annual option, a one-year ordering period for sustainment services including logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data in support of the C-130J propulsion system. Work will be performed at Indianapolis, Ind., and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2015. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity.
Azimuth Corp., Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a $23,734,700 cost-reimbursable, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity modification (P00006) to an existing contract (FA8650-09-D-5434) to advance research and development efforts for the Hardened Materials Research and Survivability Studies Program. The contract modification is to transition and advance the state-of-the-art in materials technologies, hardening concepts, and survivability applications associated with the protection and sustainability of Air Force aircrews and systems from a host of threats associated with photonic light and electromagnetic energy sources. Key technical areas in the program include optical materials and processing, hardening materials and processing, electro-optic/infrared sensor protection, warfighter protection, structural protection, optical technology, computational and theoretical studies on functional materials, proactive threat defeat, and high energy laser source materials. Work will be performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 21, 2015. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 research and development and operations and maintenance funds will be used upon availability. Air Force Research Laboratory/RQKMA, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
General Dynamics Information Technology Inc., Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a $23,734,700 cost-reimbursable, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity modification (P00006) to an existing contract (FA8650-09-D-5430) to advance research and development efforts for the Hardened Materials Research and Survivability Studies Program. The contract modification is to transition and advance the state-of-the-art in materials technologies, hardening concepts, and survivability applications associated with the protection and sustainability of Air Force aircrews and systems from a host of threats associated with photonic light and electromagnetic energy sources. Key technical areas in the program include optical materials and processing, hardening materials and processing, electro-optic/infrared sensor protection, warfighter protection, structural protection, optical technology, computational and theoretical studies on functional materials, proactive threat defeat, and high energy laser source materials. Work will be performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 21, 2016. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 research and development and operations and maintenance funds will be used upon availability. Air Force Research Laboratory/RQKMA, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Four Thirteen Inc.*, Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0004); Blackhawk Milcon LLC, San Antonio, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0005); Altec Inc., Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0006); PentaCon LLC, Catoosa, Okla. (W911RQ-14-D-0007); American Contractor and Technology Inc., Scott, La. (W911RQ-14-D-0008); Abba Construction Inc., Jacksonville , Fla. (W911RQ-14-D-0009); Jireh Group LLC doing business as Blackwood Services, Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0010); LeeTex Construction LLC, Dallas, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0011); Heritage Constructors Inc., Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0016); JAM-MAP Joint Venture, San Antonio, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0017); and Bering Straits Technical Services, LLC, Anchorage, Alaska (W911RQ-14-D-0018) were awarded a $48,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the construction, alteration, repair, and rehabilitation of buildings, highways and other real property on the Red River Army Depot. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is Jan. 26, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with 24 received. Army Contracting Command, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas, is the contracting activity.
CV International, Inc.*, Bend, Ore., was awarded a $15,916,531 firm-fixed-price contract for a modernized maintenance platform for CH-47, UH-60, AH-64, and OH-58 helicopters and for Unmanned Aerial System aircraft. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is Jan. 27, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with four received. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-14-D-0047).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Thermo PAC LLC, Stone Mountain, Ga., has been awarded a maximum $20,428,312 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract for various food items. This contract is a sole-source acquisition. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. Location of performance is Georgia with a Jan. 26, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM3S1-12-D-Z122).
NAVY
L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Miss., is being awarded a $13,764,771 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-D-0007) to exercise an option for organizational, selected intermediate and limited depot level maintenance for F-16, F-18, H-60 and E-2C aircraft operated by the adversary squadrons based at Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nev. Work will be performed in Fallon, Nev., and is expected to be completed in October 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy Reserve funds in the amount of $13,764,771 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., McLean, Va., is being awarded $12,502,113 for task order NS27 under a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, six-month bridge contract (N00178-04-D-4024) for program management office support for the Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems, Naval Enterprise Networks (NEN) office. Services being acquired are program management, financial management and administrative services in support of the NEN program office. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C. (98 percent) and San Diego, Calif. (2 percent) and is expected to be completed by July 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funding in the amount of $12,502,113 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured and is issued on a sole source basis in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Space and Naval Warfare System Command, San Diego, Calif., awarded the contract on behalf of its organizational partner, Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems, and is the contracting activity (N00039-14-C-0036).
*Small Business
CONTRACTS
AIR FORCE
Rolls Royce Corp., Indianapolis, Ind., has been awarded an $182,658,644 firm-fixed-price, requirements contract modification (P00023) for an existing contract (FA8504-07-D-0001) for C-130J propulsion system sustainment. The contract modification provides for the exercise of the seventh annual option, a one-year ordering period for sustainment services including logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data in support of the C-130J propulsion system. Work will be performed at Indianapolis, Ind., and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2015. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity.
Azimuth Corp., Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a $23,734,700 cost-reimbursable, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity modification (P00006) to an existing contract (FA8650-09-D-5434) to advance research and development efforts for the Hardened Materials Research and Survivability Studies Program. The contract modification is to transition and advance the state-of-the-art in materials technologies, hardening concepts, and survivability applications associated with the protection and sustainability of Air Force aircrews and systems from a host of threats associated with photonic light and electromagnetic energy sources. Key technical areas in the program include optical materials and processing, hardening materials and processing, electro-optic/infrared sensor protection, warfighter protection, structural protection, optical technology, computational and theoretical studies on functional materials, proactive threat defeat, and high energy laser source materials. Work will be performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 21, 2015. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 research and development and operations and maintenance funds will be used upon availability. Air Force Research Laboratory/RQKMA, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
General Dynamics Information Technology Inc., Dayton, Ohio, has been awarded a $23,734,700 cost-reimbursable, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity modification (P00006) to an existing contract (FA8650-09-D-5430) to advance research and development efforts for the Hardened Materials Research and Survivability Studies Program. The contract modification is to transition and advance the state-of-the-art in materials technologies, hardening concepts, and survivability applications associated with the protection and sustainability of Air Force aircrews and systems from a host of threats associated with photonic light and electromagnetic energy sources. Key technical areas in the program include optical materials and processing, hardening materials and processing, electro-optic/infrared sensor protection, warfighter protection, structural protection, optical technology, computational and theoretical studies on functional materials, proactive threat defeat, and high energy laser source materials. Work will be performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 21, 2016. Fiscal 2014 and 2015 research and development and operations and maintenance funds will be used upon availability. Air Force Research Laboratory/RQKMA, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Four Thirteen Inc.*, Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0004); Blackhawk Milcon LLC, San Antonio, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0005); Altec Inc., Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0006); PentaCon LLC, Catoosa, Okla. (W911RQ-14-D-0007); American Contractor and Technology Inc., Scott, La. (W911RQ-14-D-0008); Abba Construction Inc., Jacksonville , Fla. (W911RQ-14-D-0009); Jireh Group LLC doing business as Blackwood Services, Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0010); LeeTex Construction LLC, Dallas, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0011); Heritage Constructors Inc., Texarkana, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0016); JAM-MAP Joint Venture, San Antonio, Texas (W911RQ-14-D-0017); and Bering Straits Technical Services, LLC, Anchorage, Alaska (W911RQ-14-D-0018) were awarded a $48,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the construction, alteration, repair, and rehabilitation of buildings, highways and other real property on the Red River Army Depot. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is Jan. 26, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with 24 received. Army Contracting Command, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas, is the contracting activity.
CV International, Inc.*, Bend, Ore., was awarded a $15,916,531 firm-fixed-price contract for a modernized maintenance platform for CH-47, UH-60, AH-64, and OH-58 helicopters and for Unmanned Aerial System aircraft. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Estimated completion date is Jan. 27, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with four received. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-14-D-0047).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Thermo PAC LLC, Stone Mountain, Ga., has been awarded a maximum $20,428,312 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract for various food items. This contract is a sole-source acquisition. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. Location of performance is Georgia with a Jan. 26, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM3S1-12-D-Z122).
NAVY
L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Miss., is being awarded a $13,764,771 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-D-0007) to exercise an option for organizational, selected intermediate and limited depot level maintenance for F-16, F-18, H-60 and E-2C aircraft operated by the adversary squadrons based at Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nev. Work will be performed in Fallon, Nev., and is expected to be completed in October 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy Reserve funds in the amount of $13,764,771 are being obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., McLean, Va., is being awarded $12,502,113 for task order NS27 under a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, six-month bridge contract (N00178-04-D-4024) for program management office support for the Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems, Naval Enterprise Networks (NEN) office. Services being acquired are program management, financial management and administrative services in support of the NEN program office. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C. (98 percent) and San Diego, Calif. (2 percent) and is expected to be completed by July 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funding in the amount of $12,502,113 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured and is issued on a sole source basis in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Space and Naval Warfare System Command, San Diego, Calif., awarded the contract on behalf of its organizational partner, Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems, and is the contracting activity (N00039-14-C-0036).
*Small Business
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH PAKISTAN'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SARTAJ AZIZ
FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Pakistan's National Security and Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
January 27, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY: Please, everybody.
Well, good morning to all, to our friends from Pakistan, As-Salaam Alaikum. We’re very happy to welcome you here to Washington. A little cold, but at least it’s not snowing today.
It’s a great pleasure for me to welcome Mr. Aziz and his team to the State Department for this strategic dialogue. And today is a – it’s another opportunity for our two countries to build on what we have achieved during Prime Minister Sharif’s visit here to Washington last October, and also for me to return the favor of the hospitality that you afforded me during my visit to Pakistan last summer.
I’m delighted not only to welcome this important, high-level, impressive delegation, but all my interagency colleagues who are here with us over on the other side of the table here. And their presence really demonstrates our commitment on the part of the United States to strengthen and to deepen our relationship, and to try to build as constructively as possible. We all know there’ve been occasional hiccups and challenges, but we really believe that there are fundamental interests that we need to unite around, and particularly in economic and security spheres. I’m particularly happy to welcome our Ambassador Olson back in Washington. He’s one of our most accomplished diplomats, and we’re glad that throughout your visit during the week, you’re going to have an opportunity to be able to meet with a lot of high-level administration personnel: Secretary Hagel, National Security Advisor Rice, and Energy Secretary Moniz. So I think we have a good series of meetings planned.
I want you to know – I want to emphasize to you – I think many of you know this, but building stronger ties with the people of Pakistan – I emphasize, with the people of Pakistan broadly writ – has been a personal commitment of mine for some period of time. I was privileged to sponsor what became known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill in the Congress, which provided significant economic assistance and still does – I checked even as of this morning, we are continuing. There is a latest recommendation from the Secretary of Defense, which is before the Congress now, and so we are continuing to provide a connection between the people of the United States and the people of Pakistan.
Particularly since I was nominated by President Obama to serve as Secretary of State, I’ve been pleased to work to elevate this relationship to a true partnership. And the strategic dialogue that we’re engaged in now is really just the latest indication of our common commitment to escalating shared prosperity and helping to resolve some of the economic challenges that Pakistan faces, and also to recognize the importance of the strength and vitality of our security relationship.
Since Pakistan’s historic election last May, we have enjoyed even greater cooperation and a strengthening of ties across the entire spectrum of issues, from energy to security to education. And I want to commend the tough choices the prime minister and his cabinet have made to reinvigorate Pakistan’s economy and the commitment that you have made to engage in serious reforms that will help to tap into the enormous potential of the people of Pakistan. The United States has no doubt that Prime Minister Sharif’s policies will put Pakistan on a path towards a more prosperous future, and we fully support his goal of making Pakistan’s marketplace a tiger economy for the 21st century. Indeed, greater trade and investment between the United States and Pakistan will make both of our countries more prosperous, and it’s really a critical part of our efforts this week.
Our energy-related ties are a preview of our economic relationship’s potential. Since the fall of 2009 the United States has already helped to add 1,000 megawatts of capacity to Pakistan’s grid, and we’ve been able to do much of it with renewable energy. We believe there are additional areas where we can collaborate in order to support greater energy production, and also improve distribution and reforms that will attract greater investment.
The United States has also partnered with Pakistan to make significant investments in traditional infrastructure, including the construction of 900 kilometers of roadways in regions that border Afghanistan, including the four main trade routes between the two countries. More broadly, the United States and Pakistan continue to have a vital, shared, strategic interest in pursuit of a Pakistan that is at the center of an economically diverse region and a dynamic South Asian marketplace.
Our two nations understand that the most important road to prosperity for the next generation is education. In keeping with that commitment, the United States now invests more in our Fulbright program in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world. We have also built and renovated over 600 schools in Pakistan and provided 12,000 students with scholarships in order to attend local universities. All of this comes on top of the partnership between our universities, and their shared collaboration and investments in research, development, and innovation.
At the same time, the U.S.-Pakistan Women’s Council is also fostering cooperation between our citizens in order to promote women’s economic advancement. Our U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Women’s Focus Issues[1], Cathy Russell, will be in Pakistan shortly in order to listen to your government officials in order to listen to leaders in civil society, and leading businesswomen who are working to bring citizens of both countries together in order to empower women and create opportunity across our societies.
We believe very strongly that Pakistan is stronger for the diversity and dynamism of its people, and is strongest when every man and woman in Pakistan, regardless of religion or sect or gender, participates in full in society. We appreciate the efforts of the Pakistani Government and the civil society to stand up against extremists, and your struggle to develop a Pakistan where every Pakistani has a say and a stake in Pakistan’s success against extremism.
When few – I think few have suffered more at the hands of terrorists and extremists than the people of Pakistan. Many people in the world are not aware of how many of your citizens you have lost in this struggle. And we also have a common cause and a common obligation to be partners for one another’s prosperity in the fight against those who want to limit opportunity and take Pakistan backwards. That is also why it remains essential for the United States and Pakistan to continue to find avenues of cooperation on counterterrorism, on nuclear security.
We recognize that Pakistan is a vital partner in supporting a secure Afghanistan, and we know how closely Pakistan’s own security is linked to Afghanistan’s success. That’s why addressing the threats posed to both Pakistan and Afghanistan by cross-border militancy is a key aspect of our conversations this week.
The reinvigoration of this Strategic Dialogue, we believe, is a important symbol of our strengthening ties across a broad spectrum of our mutual interests. And where we have differences, we pledge to work through them, as friends and as partners do, in an effort to make our relationship stronger and more open for the long term. We really do look forward to strengthening our relationship with the people of Pakistan. You know how many Pakistanis live here in our country. We have an enormous American-Pakistan diaspora. We are proud of their contributions to our country. And I know you are proud of their continued affection and ties to Pakistan.
So we look forward to working together in the days to come, and I think this dialogue is a very important continuation of our effort to understand our common interests, to define our differences where they exist, and to work to try to minimize them.
So with that, Mr. Advisor on National Security and Mr. Foreign Minister, I welcome you here. We’re really delighted to have you back, and I look forward to our continued conversation.
MR. AZIZ: (Inaudible) Secretary Kerry, members of the U.S. delegation, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by thanking Secretary Kerry for a very positive and constructive opening statement. I’ll also like to convey my deep appreciation to Secretary Kerry for convening this session of the Strategic Dialogue, and for providing this opportunity to review all elements of the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relations, regional concerns, and to further build the positive momentum for taking this relationship to a new and higher plane.
Your commitment and dedication for strengthening Pakistan-U.S. relationship, Secretary Kerry, over the years, is widely acknowledged in Pakistan. As you and your colleagues are aware, the Strategic Dialogue at ministerial level was initiated in 2010, and three sessions were held in quick succession in March, July, and October that year. But after 2011, a succession of events and irritants interrupted the process. The resumption of this dialogue after a gap of three years symbolizes the inherent resilience and significance of this relationship, and the commitment of both sides not to let transient irritants or disagreements overshadow the strategic relevance and enduring utility of this relationship of both countries.
We are fully conscious that this resumed ministerial review is taking place in the backdrop of significant developments within Pakistan, in U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relation, and in the region as a whole. The historic democratic transition in Pakistan in May 2013, as you mentioned, has opened numerous doors of cooperation between our two countries. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s landmark visit to the U.S. in October last year, and the comprehensive joint statement issued thereafter not only provided the vision and future direction of this relationship, but also laid out a comprehensive framework for mutually beneficial collaboration based on common goals of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights.
The ongoing drawdown of ISAF forces in Afghanistan also creates new challenges and new opportunities for cooperation. In pursuing this goal of a responsible end to the long war in Afghanistan, we have to ensure that Afghanistan successfully transitions into a period of stability and that past mistakes are not repeated. Pakistan is therefore very keen to work together with the U.S. and other countries in the region to encourage an Afghan-led reconciliation process for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. This then is the overbearing and sobering background in which we are meeting to explore ways and means for transforming the post-2014 U.S.-Pakistan transactional relationship into a strategic partnership.
Ever since your important visit to Pakistan in August 2013, I’ve been thinking as hard as I could to discover the real meaning of this strategic partnership. At what stage does a normal transactional relationship become strategic? Are there one or more thresholds that must be crossed before a relationship can qualify as a strategic partnership? In this search, I’ve carefully read the minutes of the first three sessions of this dialogue that took place in 2010. Let me share with you, Secretary Kerry, my preliminary conclusions.
The most important prerequisite for a strategic partnership, in my view, is mutual trust at all levels and among all key institutions. Once this trust is restored, then any unexpected incident or accident or disagreement on a policy or a tactic will not be able to derail the relationship, as happened in 2011 and 2012.
The second most important element from our perspective is the expectation that U.S. will not look at Pakistan from the two specific lenses of Afghanistan and terrorism. These are legitimate U.S. concerns, but these must be balanced by giving due importance to Pakistan’s own security concerns. There is, in fact, need for a careful attention to the long-term effect of U.S. policies on Pakistan’s security. I’m sure most of you will agree that historically Pakistan’s security concerns were not taken into account when the U.S. decided to withdraw from Afghanistan in the early ’90s after the defeat of the Soviet forces with Pakistan’s active support, or even when invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.
Similarly, there’s a strong perception in Pakistan that a lot of pressure is exerted on Pakistan on issues of concern to India. Our legitimate concerns are not conveyed to India with the same intensity. If these important prerequisites are met, then the contribution of other elements of this important relationship, such as expanded trade, high level of private investment, long-term partnership on some major projects, will become far more significant and mutually reinforcing.
An important manifestation of such a partnership will be closer contacts among the people of the two countries because, as you just said, all enduring relationship have to be built on the feelings and attitudes of the people and their chosen representative. That is why President Obama and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif agreed that our interaction should focus on people-centered initiatives and result-oriented outcomes. Mr. Secretary Kerry, the challenge for all of us as we assemble in this room, we on our part are ready to take up this challenge if you are.
I’m confident that our exchanges during this ministerial review would enable us to comprehensively review the status of implementation of the decision taken both at the summit meeting in October and the working group meetings already held and provide guidance and directions for the future. In the past three months, the three working groups on energy, security, strategic stability, and nuclear nonproliferation and defense consultative groups have met under the revived Strategic Dialogue process. The other two working groups will also be meeting shortly and, we’ll be previewing them today.
In this context, may I also suggest, since you just emphasized the importance of education, that we might revive the sixth working group on education to provide a more systematic framework for cooperation in this important field.
Gentlemen and – ladies and gentlemen, the government is committed to effectively tackle the whole range of economic, security and energy-related challenges that we confront today. As Secretary Kerry said, the Prime Minister’s team believes in a good and accountable governance and are determined to turn around the economy, work on the energy crisis, and seek peace and security in the region.
We have a lot to show for the six months that we have been in office so far. Just to name a few: improved economic indicators, better fiscal management, rising investment flows, a resurgent stock market, some respite in the energy crisis through the addition of 1,700 megawatts of electricity onto the national grid, peace and friendship initiatives in our neighborhood.
The – we are happy to see that there is better appreciation vote both bilaterally and regionally of the step that Pakistan has already taken and which the government wishes to move in the future. We are confident that the U.S. has been a country to be an important ally and partner in helping Pakistan achieve its national priorities and advancing goals for promoting peace, prosperity, and greater economic integration in the region.
Recognizing the seriousness of the energy crisis that we face in Pakistan, we are hopeful that U.S. will respond urgently by sending the much-needed help that we need in the sector, especially in developing our hydrogen resources. Our government also firmly believes in expanded trade opportunities as the key for economic resurgence and revival of Pakistan. In this regard we are grateful for the help extended by the European Union over the last decade and recently accorded GSP-plus status to Pakistan.
We do hope that U.S., as a key ally and close partner, would also help by extending preferential access to Pakistani export to the U.S. market. This will go a long way in helping Pakistan turn around its economy, which is already crucial in fighting terrorism and extremism as well as in reducing poverty. While taking stock of how far we have come, we should also endeavor to lay down a forward-looking agenda for the next year.
Ladies and gentlemen, Pakistan has on its part paid a very heavy price in flesh and blood in fighting terrorism over the last decade and remains committed to bringing this fight to an end through all available means, both internally as well as regionally. Although the war in Afghanistan may be winding down, just as in the past Pakistan will have to face the brunt of any instability that may engulf Afghanistan after 2014. The people of Pakistan have continued to sacrifice in this war against extremist elements. And despite its heavy toll on our people, Pakistan has supported the international community because a stable and peaceful Afghanistan is in the interest of the region and Pakistan.
We support, as you said, an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process, and at the same time hope that our security concerns are comprehensively addressed. Pakistan is ready to help in every possible way in facilitating peace and stability in Afghanistan, including through a comprehensive reconciliation process. We remain committed to facilitate a smooth and responsible U.S. drawdown from Afghanistan, and a continued flow of the lines of communication.
The overwhelming majority of the people in Pakistan support the normalization of our relations with India and believe that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute would result in achieving this goal. The prime minister’s bold vision of normalizing relations with India is being pursued with full commitment.
Ladies and gentlemen, 2013 was a significant year of our bilateral relationship. The progress we have made, particularly in the past six months, should be a source of satisfaction for all of us. 2014 promises to be a more important year for the relationship as Pakistan takes steps to further consolidate democracy and overcome various internal challenges. We look forward to the U.S. for meaningful support. The Strategic Dialogue process will therefore provide the most suitable mechanism for this cooperation.
Let me conclude by once again expressing our gratitude to you, Secretary Kerry, and your colleagues for hosting us today. I am confident that today’s meetings and my other interactions during this visit will open new avenues of cooperation between our two countries.
Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Sartaj. I really appreciate your very constructive comments. And I must say I take note of the progress that you’ve cited and also the suggestion conceivably about adding education as an area.
[1] Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issue
Remarks at the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Pakistan's National Security and Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
January 27, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY: Please, everybody.
Well, good morning to all, to our friends from Pakistan, As-Salaam Alaikum. We’re very happy to welcome you here to Washington. A little cold, but at least it’s not snowing today.
It’s a great pleasure for me to welcome Mr. Aziz and his team to the State Department for this strategic dialogue. And today is a – it’s another opportunity for our two countries to build on what we have achieved during Prime Minister Sharif’s visit here to Washington last October, and also for me to return the favor of the hospitality that you afforded me during my visit to Pakistan last summer.
I’m delighted not only to welcome this important, high-level, impressive delegation, but all my interagency colleagues who are here with us over on the other side of the table here. And their presence really demonstrates our commitment on the part of the United States to strengthen and to deepen our relationship, and to try to build as constructively as possible. We all know there’ve been occasional hiccups and challenges, but we really believe that there are fundamental interests that we need to unite around, and particularly in economic and security spheres. I’m particularly happy to welcome our Ambassador Olson back in Washington. He’s one of our most accomplished diplomats, and we’re glad that throughout your visit during the week, you’re going to have an opportunity to be able to meet with a lot of high-level administration personnel: Secretary Hagel, National Security Advisor Rice, and Energy Secretary Moniz. So I think we have a good series of meetings planned.
I want you to know – I want to emphasize to you – I think many of you know this, but building stronger ties with the people of Pakistan – I emphasize, with the people of Pakistan broadly writ – has been a personal commitment of mine for some period of time. I was privileged to sponsor what became known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill in the Congress, which provided significant economic assistance and still does – I checked even as of this morning, we are continuing. There is a latest recommendation from the Secretary of Defense, which is before the Congress now, and so we are continuing to provide a connection between the people of the United States and the people of Pakistan.
Particularly since I was nominated by President Obama to serve as Secretary of State, I’ve been pleased to work to elevate this relationship to a true partnership. And the strategic dialogue that we’re engaged in now is really just the latest indication of our common commitment to escalating shared prosperity and helping to resolve some of the economic challenges that Pakistan faces, and also to recognize the importance of the strength and vitality of our security relationship.
Since Pakistan’s historic election last May, we have enjoyed even greater cooperation and a strengthening of ties across the entire spectrum of issues, from energy to security to education. And I want to commend the tough choices the prime minister and his cabinet have made to reinvigorate Pakistan’s economy and the commitment that you have made to engage in serious reforms that will help to tap into the enormous potential of the people of Pakistan. The United States has no doubt that Prime Minister Sharif’s policies will put Pakistan on a path towards a more prosperous future, and we fully support his goal of making Pakistan’s marketplace a tiger economy for the 21st century. Indeed, greater trade and investment between the United States and Pakistan will make both of our countries more prosperous, and it’s really a critical part of our efforts this week.
Our energy-related ties are a preview of our economic relationship’s potential. Since the fall of 2009 the United States has already helped to add 1,000 megawatts of capacity to Pakistan’s grid, and we’ve been able to do much of it with renewable energy. We believe there are additional areas where we can collaborate in order to support greater energy production, and also improve distribution and reforms that will attract greater investment.
The United States has also partnered with Pakistan to make significant investments in traditional infrastructure, including the construction of 900 kilometers of roadways in regions that border Afghanistan, including the four main trade routes between the two countries. More broadly, the United States and Pakistan continue to have a vital, shared, strategic interest in pursuit of a Pakistan that is at the center of an economically diverse region and a dynamic South Asian marketplace.
Our two nations understand that the most important road to prosperity for the next generation is education. In keeping with that commitment, the United States now invests more in our Fulbright program in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world. We have also built and renovated over 600 schools in Pakistan and provided 12,000 students with scholarships in order to attend local universities. All of this comes on top of the partnership between our universities, and their shared collaboration and investments in research, development, and innovation.
At the same time, the U.S.-Pakistan Women’s Council is also fostering cooperation between our citizens in order to promote women’s economic advancement. Our U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Women’s Focus Issues[1], Cathy Russell, will be in Pakistan shortly in order to listen to your government officials in order to listen to leaders in civil society, and leading businesswomen who are working to bring citizens of both countries together in order to empower women and create opportunity across our societies.
We believe very strongly that Pakistan is stronger for the diversity and dynamism of its people, and is strongest when every man and woman in Pakistan, regardless of religion or sect or gender, participates in full in society. We appreciate the efforts of the Pakistani Government and the civil society to stand up against extremists, and your struggle to develop a Pakistan where every Pakistani has a say and a stake in Pakistan’s success against extremism.
When few – I think few have suffered more at the hands of terrorists and extremists than the people of Pakistan. Many people in the world are not aware of how many of your citizens you have lost in this struggle. And we also have a common cause and a common obligation to be partners for one another’s prosperity in the fight against those who want to limit opportunity and take Pakistan backwards. That is also why it remains essential for the United States and Pakistan to continue to find avenues of cooperation on counterterrorism, on nuclear security.
We recognize that Pakistan is a vital partner in supporting a secure Afghanistan, and we know how closely Pakistan’s own security is linked to Afghanistan’s success. That’s why addressing the threats posed to both Pakistan and Afghanistan by cross-border militancy is a key aspect of our conversations this week.
The reinvigoration of this Strategic Dialogue, we believe, is a important symbol of our strengthening ties across a broad spectrum of our mutual interests. And where we have differences, we pledge to work through them, as friends and as partners do, in an effort to make our relationship stronger and more open for the long term. We really do look forward to strengthening our relationship with the people of Pakistan. You know how many Pakistanis live here in our country. We have an enormous American-Pakistan diaspora. We are proud of their contributions to our country. And I know you are proud of their continued affection and ties to Pakistan.
So we look forward to working together in the days to come, and I think this dialogue is a very important continuation of our effort to understand our common interests, to define our differences where they exist, and to work to try to minimize them.
So with that, Mr. Advisor on National Security and Mr. Foreign Minister, I welcome you here. We’re really delighted to have you back, and I look forward to our continued conversation.
MR. AZIZ: (Inaudible) Secretary Kerry, members of the U.S. delegation, ladies and gentlemen, may I begin by thanking Secretary Kerry for a very positive and constructive opening statement. I’ll also like to convey my deep appreciation to Secretary Kerry for convening this session of the Strategic Dialogue, and for providing this opportunity to review all elements of the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relations, regional concerns, and to further build the positive momentum for taking this relationship to a new and higher plane.
Your commitment and dedication for strengthening Pakistan-U.S. relationship, Secretary Kerry, over the years, is widely acknowledged in Pakistan. As you and your colleagues are aware, the Strategic Dialogue at ministerial level was initiated in 2010, and three sessions were held in quick succession in March, July, and October that year. But after 2011, a succession of events and irritants interrupted the process. The resumption of this dialogue after a gap of three years symbolizes the inherent resilience and significance of this relationship, and the commitment of both sides not to let transient irritants or disagreements overshadow the strategic relevance and enduring utility of this relationship of both countries.
We are fully conscious that this resumed ministerial review is taking place in the backdrop of significant developments within Pakistan, in U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relation, and in the region as a whole. The historic democratic transition in Pakistan in May 2013, as you mentioned, has opened numerous doors of cooperation between our two countries. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s landmark visit to the U.S. in October last year, and the comprehensive joint statement issued thereafter not only provided the vision and future direction of this relationship, but also laid out a comprehensive framework for mutually beneficial collaboration based on common goals of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights.
The ongoing drawdown of ISAF forces in Afghanistan also creates new challenges and new opportunities for cooperation. In pursuing this goal of a responsible end to the long war in Afghanistan, we have to ensure that Afghanistan successfully transitions into a period of stability and that past mistakes are not repeated. Pakistan is therefore very keen to work together with the U.S. and other countries in the region to encourage an Afghan-led reconciliation process for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. This then is the overbearing and sobering background in which we are meeting to explore ways and means for transforming the post-2014 U.S.-Pakistan transactional relationship into a strategic partnership.
Ever since your important visit to Pakistan in August 2013, I’ve been thinking as hard as I could to discover the real meaning of this strategic partnership. At what stage does a normal transactional relationship become strategic? Are there one or more thresholds that must be crossed before a relationship can qualify as a strategic partnership? In this search, I’ve carefully read the minutes of the first three sessions of this dialogue that took place in 2010. Let me share with you, Secretary Kerry, my preliminary conclusions.
The most important prerequisite for a strategic partnership, in my view, is mutual trust at all levels and among all key institutions. Once this trust is restored, then any unexpected incident or accident or disagreement on a policy or a tactic will not be able to derail the relationship, as happened in 2011 and 2012.
The second most important element from our perspective is the expectation that U.S. will not look at Pakistan from the two specific lenses of Afghanistan and terrorism. These are legitimate U.S. concerns, but these must be balanced by giving due importance to Pakistan’s own security concerns. There is, in fact, need for a careful attention to the long-term effect of U.S. policies on Pakistan’s security. I’m sure most of you will agree that historically Pakistan’s security concerns were not taken into account when the U.S. decided to withdraw from Afghanistan in the early ’90s after the defeat of the Soviet forces with Pakistan’s active support, or even when invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.
Similarly, there’s a strong perception in Pakistan that a lot of pressure is exerted on Pakistan on issues of concern to India. Our legitimate concerns are not conveyed to India with the same intensity. If these important prerequisites are met, then the contribution of other elements of this important relationship, such as expanded trade, high level of private investment, long-term partnership on some major projects, will become far more significant and mutually reinforcing.
An important manifestation of such a partnership will be closer contacts among the people of the two countries because, as you just said, all enduring relationship have to be built on the feelings and attitudes of the people and their chosen representative. That is why President Obama and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif agreed that our interaction should focus on people-centered initiatives and result-oriented outcomes. Mr. Secretary Kerry, the challenge for all of us as we assemble in this room, we on our part are ready to take up this challenge if you are.
I’m confident that our exchanges during this ministerial review would enable us to comprehensively review the status of implementation of the decision taken both at the summit meeting in October and the working group meetings already held and provide guidance and directions for the future. In the past three months, the three working groups on energy, security, strategic stability, and nuclear nonproliferation and defense consultative groups have met under the revived Strategic Dialogue process. The other two working groups will also be meeting shortly and, we’ll be previewing them today.
In this context, may I also suggest, since you just emphasized the importance of education, that we might revive the sixth working group on education to provide a more systematic framework for cooperation in this important field.
Gentlemen and – ladies and gentlemen, the government is committed to effectively tackle the whole range of economic, security and energy-related challenges that we confront today. As Secretary Kerry said, the Prime Minister’s team believes in a good and accountable governance and are determined to turn around the economy, work on the energy crisis, and seek peace and security in the region.
We have a lot to show for the six months that we have been in office so far. Just to name a few: improved economic indicators, better fiscal management, rising investment flows, a resurgent stock market, some respite in the energy crisis through the addition of 1,700 megawatts of electricity onto the national grid, peace and friendship initiatives in our neighborhood.
The – we are happy to see that there is better appreciation vote both bilaterally and regionally of the step that Pakistan has already taken and which the government wishes to move in the future. We are confident that the U.S. has been a country to be an important ally and partner in helping Pakistan achieve its national priorities and advancing goals for promoting peace, prosperity, and greater economic integration in the region.
Recognizing the seriousness of the energy crisis that we face in Pakistan, we are hopeful that U.S. will respond urgently by sending the much-needed help that we need in the sector, especially in developing our hydrogen resources. Our government also firmly believes in expanded trade opportunities as the key for economic resurgence and revival of Pakistan. In this regard we are grateful for the help extended by the European Union over the last decade and recently accorded GSP-plus status to Pakistan.
We do hope that U.S., as a key ally and close partner, would also help by extending preferential access to Pakistani export to the U.S. market. This will go a long way in helping Pakistan turn around its economy, which is already crucial in fighting terrorism and extremism as well as in reducing poverty. While taking stock of how far we have come, we should also endeavor to lay down a forward-looking agenda for the next year.
Ladies and gentlemen, Pakistan has on its part paid a very heavy price in flesh and blood in fighting terrorism over the last decade and remains committed to bringing this fight to an end through all available means, both internally as well as regionally. Although the war in Afghanistan may be winding down, just as in the past Pakistan will have to face the brunt of any instability that may engulf Afghanistan after 2014. The people of Pakistan have continued to sacrifice in this war against extremist elements. And despite its heavy toll on our people, Pakistan has supported the international community because a stable and peaceful Afghanistan is in the interest of the region and Pakistan.
We support, as you said, an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process, and at the same time hope that our security concerns are comprehensively addressed. Pakistan is ready to help in every possible way in facilitating peace and stability in Afghanistan, including through a comprehensive reconciliation process. We remain committed to facilitate a smooth and responsible U.S. drawdown from Afghanistan, and a continued flow of the lines of communication.
The overwhelming majority of the people in Pakistan support the normalization of our relations with India and believe that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute would result in achieving this goal. The prime minister’s bold vision of normalizing relations with India is being pursued with full commitment.
Ladies and gentlemen, 2013 was a significant year of our bilateral relationship. The progress we have made, particularly in the past six months, should be a source of satisfaction for all of us. 2014 promises to be a more important year for the relationship as Pakistan takes steps to further consolidate democracy and overcome various internal challenges. We look forward to the U.S. for meaningful support. The Strategic Dialogue process will therefore provide the most suitable mechanism for this cooperation.
Let me conclude by once again expressing our gratitude to you, Secretary Kerry, and your colleagues for hosting us today. I am confident that today’s meetings and my other interactions during this visit will open new avenues of cooperation between our two countries.
Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Sartaj. I really appreciate your very constructive comments. And I must say I take note of the progress that you’ve cited and also the suggestion conceivably about adding education as an area.
[1] Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)