FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC: Scammers Hit New Low by Sending Fake “Funeral Notices”
Scam artists are forever trying to trick people into clicking on links that will download malware to their computers. But the latest scam takes the trick to a new low. Scammers are sending bogus emails with the subject line “funeral notification.” The message appears to be from a legitimate funeral home, offers condolences, and invites you to click on a link for more information about the upcoming “celebration of your friend’s life service.” But instead of sending you to the funeral home’s website, the link downloads malware to your computer.
In “Fake funeral notice can be deadly – for your computer,” the FTC’s new blog post about this scam, consumers will find tips to reduce the risk of downloading unwanted malware and spyware.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
CFTC, EC ANNOUNCE PROGRESS ON 2013 PATH FORWARD AGREEMENT
FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Statement by the CFTC and the European Commission on progress relating to the implementation of the 2013 Path Forward Statement
CFTC Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen and European Commissioner Michel Barnier announce continued progress regarding European Trading Platforms under July 2013’s Path Forward Statement.
Washington, DC – Today Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen and European Commissioner Michel Barnier announced that staff of the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and staff of the European Commission (EC) have made significant progress towards harmonizing a regulatory framework for CFTC-regulated swap execution facilities (SEFs) and EU-regulated multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), as contemplated under the Path Forward statement issued in July 2013.
“The two commissions have provided confirmation this week that a global race-to-the-top in derivatives regulation is possible,” said Acting Chairman Wetjen. “As the CFTC moves forward with the swap trading mandate in the United States, it must and will continue to work with its counterparts in Europe and elsewhere to meet the G20 commitments and ensure that standardized trading on regulated platforms protects global liquidity formation and provides much-needed pre-trade transparency to market participants.”
Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for the Single Market and services said: “Following the trilogue agreement on MIFID2 last month, this is an important further step in implementing a joined up, consistent global approach to ensure that financial markets work for the benefit of the real economy. In particular this agreement shows how, as G20 commitments move from words to action, regulators can and should work together to ensure that their respective rules interact with each other in the most effective and efficient fashion. This needs to be done without creating regulatory overlaps or loopholes this creating a global level playing field for operators. Today is an important step but far from the final one on the road towards global convergence. We will continue to work closely with the US authorities in implementing the Path Forward agreement.”
The Path Forward statement set out that the CFTC and EC would work together on extending appropriate, time-limited transitional relief to certain MTFs, in the event that the CFTC’s trade execution requirement was triggered before March 15, 2014; provided these platforms were subject to, among other things, sufficient pre- and post-trade price transparency requirements, comparable provisions providing for non-discriminatory access by market participants, and appropriate governmental oversight.
Accordingly, CFTC and EC have engaged in further dialogue regarding the treatment of MTFs under the CFTC’s regulatory regime, building upon the common objective to rigorously and expeditiously implement the G-20 commitments, particularly with regard to mandatory trading on regulated and organized platforms. As a result, CFTC staff today issued two no-action letters providing relief to certain EU-regulated MTFs.
Subject to certain important conditions that will preserve and incentivize harmonization of key transparency and risk mitigation safeguards, CFTC staff issued a “Conditional No-Action Letter” which provides no-action relief for (1) qualifying MTFs from the SEF registration requirement under section 5h(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA); (2) parties executing swap transactions on qualifying MTFs from the trade execution mandate under CEA section 2(h)(8); and (3) swap dealers and major swap participants executing swap transactions on qualifying MTFs from certain requirements under the CFTC’s business conduct rules and for which these registrants otherwise would receive or be subject to similar regulatory treatment if executing swap transactions on SEFs. CFTC’s staff separately issued a Short-Term No-Action Letter to provide limited relief for all registered MTFs through March 24, 2014, in order to provide sufficient time for MTFs to identify themselves to the CFTC as a condition to the relief and comply with certain other conditions for obtaining relief pursuant to the Conditional No-Action Letter.
The Conditional No-Action Letter’s relief would be based on an MTF meeting certain reporting and clearing-related requirements and a number of conditions previously discussed in the Path Forward statement, including having a multilateral trading scheme, a sufficient level of pre-trade and post-trade price transparency, non-discriminatory access by market participants, and an appropriate level of oversight. The MTFs are presently regulated under MIFID and are expected to meet the CFTC requirements under the conditions set out in the Conditional No-Action Letter.
The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight also is currently developing a rulemaking to set out a process under section 5h(g) of the Commodity Exchange Act for foreign-based swap trading platforms to seek appropriate regulatory treatment under U.S. law. That rulemaking is based on authority provided by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and builds upon the framework of the Conditional No-Action Letter. The Conditional No-Action Letter will expire upon the effective date of such rulemaking.
On 14 January an agreement was reached by the European Parliament and the Council on updated rules for markets in financial instruments (MiFID 2). These new rules are a key step towards establishing a safer, more open and more responsible financial system and restoring investor confidence in the wake of the financial crisis. In particular these rules implement a number of the G-20 commitments, such as the introduction of a trading obligation for derivatives ensuring that these instruments are traded on transparent and multilateral venues.
As the Path Forward statement recognized, and continued dialogue and cooperation between CFTC and EC staff has demonstrated, the United States and the European Union have a close working relationship. By coordinating our efforts, we are providing a model for other jurisdictions working to implement all G-20 commitments. In particular, we believe that implementation of the requirement to trade standardized derivatives on organized trading platforms is a critical piece of the global reform effort.
Last Updated: February 12, 2014
Statement by the CFTC and the European Commission on progress relating to the implementation of the 2013 Path Forward Statement
CFTC Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen and European Commissioner Michel Barnier announce continued progress regarding European Trading Platforms under July 2013’s Path Forward Statement.
Washington, DC – Today Acting Chairman Mark Wetjen and European Commissioner Michel Barnier announced that staff of the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and staff of the European Commission (EC) have made significant progress towards harmonizing a regulatory framework for CFTC-regulated swap execution facilities (SEFs) and EU-regulated multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), as contemplated under the Path Forward statement issued in July 2013.
“The two commissions have provided confirmation this week that a global race-to-the-top in derivatives regulation is possible,” said Acting Chairman Wetjen. “As the CFTC moves forward with the swap trading mandate in the United States, it must and will continue to work with its counterparts in Europe and elsewhere to meet the G20 commitments and ensure that standardized trading on regulated platforms protects global liquidity formation and provides much-needed pre-trade transparency to market participants.”
Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for the Single Market and services said: “Following the trilogue agreement on MIFID2 last month, this is an important further step in implementing a joined up, consistent global approach to ensure that financial markets work for the benefit of the real economy. In particular this agreement shows how, as G20 commitments move from words to action, regulators can and should work together to ensure that their respective rules interact with each other in the most effective and efficient fashion. This needs to be done without creating regulatory overlaps or loopholes this creating a global level playing field for operators. Today is an important step but far from the final one on the road towards global convergence. We will continue to work closely with the US authorities in implementing the Path Forward agreement.”
The Path Forward statement set out that the CFTC and EC would work together on extending appropriate, time-limited transitional relief to certain MTFs, in the event that the CFTC’s trade execution requirement was triggered before March 15, 2014; provided these platforms were subject to, among other things, sufficient pre- and post-trade price transparency requirements, comparable provisions providing for non-discriminatory access by market participants, and appropriate governmental oversight.
Accordingly, CFTC and EC have engaged in further dialogue regarding the treatment of MTFs under the CFTC’s regulatory regime, building upon the common objective to rigorously and expeditiously implement the G-20 commitments, particularly with regard to mandatory trading on regulated and organized platforms. As a result, CFTC staff today issued two no-action letters providing relief to certain EU-regulated MTFs.
Subject to certain important conditions that will preserve and incentivize harmonization of key transparency and risk mitigation safeguards, CFTC staff issued a “Conditional No-Action Letter” which provides no-action relief for (1) qualifying MTFs from the SEF registration requirement under section 5h(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA); (2) parties executing swap transactions on qualifying MTFs from the trade execution mandate under CEA section 2(h)(8); and (3) swap dealers and major swap participants executing swap transactions on qualifying MTFs from certain requirements under the CFTC’s business conduct rules and for which these registrants otherwise would receive or be subject to similar regulatory treatment if executing swap transactions on SEFs. CFTC’s staff separately issued a Short-Term No-Action Letter to provide limited relief for all registered MTFs through March 24, 2014, in order to provide sufficient time for MTFs to identify themselves to the CFTC as a condition to the relief and comply with certain other conditions for obtaining relief pursuant to the Conditional No-Action Letter.
The Conditional No-Action Letter’s relief would be based on an MTF meeting certain reporting and clearing-related requirements and a number of conditions previously discussed in the Path Forward statement, including having a multilateral trading scheme, a sufficient level of pre-trade and post-trade price transparency, non-discriminatory access by market participants, and an appropriate level of oversight. The MTFs are presently regulated under MIFID and are expected to meet the CFTC requirements under the conditions set out in the Conditional No-Action Letter.
The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight also is currently developing a rulemaking to set out a process under section 5h(g) of the Commodity Exchange Act for foreign-based swap trading platforms to seek appropriate regulatory treatment under U.S. law. That rulemaking is based on authority provided by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and builds upon the framework of the Conditional No-Action Letter. The Conditional No-Action Letter will expire upon the effective date of such rulemaking.
On 14 January an agreement was reached by the European Parliament and the Council on updated rules for markets in financial instruments (MiFID 2). These new rules are a key step towards establishing a safer, more open and more responsible financial system and restoring investor confidence in the wake of the financial crisis. In particular these rules implement a number of the G-20 commitments, such as the introduction of a trading obligation for derivatives ensuring that these instruments are traded on transparent and multilateral venues.
As the Path Forward statement recognized, and continued dialogue and cooperation between CFTC and EC staff has demonstrated, the United States and the European Union have a close working relationship. By coordinating our efforts, we are providing a model for other jurisdictions working to implement all G-20 commitments. In particular, we believe that implementation of the requirement to trade standardized derivatives on organized trading platforms is a critical piece of the global reform effort.
Last Updated: February 12, 2014
DOD SAYS SPECIAL OPS FORCES ARE IN TRANSITION
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Special Ops Forces in Transition, Pentagon Official Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2014 – Like the rest of the Defense Department, the special operations community is in transition, and officials are working on how best to shape the force for the future, a senior Pentagon official said here yesterday.
Michael D. Lumpkin spoke at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 25th annual Special Operations/Low-intensity Conflict Symposium. He is the assistant secretary of defense for special operation and low-intensity conflict, performing the duties of the undersecretary of defense for policy.
The end of the war in Iraq and the scaling down of the conflict in Afghanistan has opened a new chapter for the Defense Department, Lumpkin said. “We must adapt to a changing world in which global security threats are taking new forms and arising more swiftly and unpredictably than ever before,” he added.
Defense officials and industry partners must rethink the roles, missions and purpose of the entire military. “But this time of transition is especially important for the special operations community,” the retired Navy SEAL said.
Lumpkin said special operators will have an appreciably different and more active role for the future, noting that while the wars concentrated efforts in the U.S. Central Command area, the mission going forward will be more global. “The business of [special operations forces] will not be business as usual,” he said.
The period of post-9/11 combat operations is coming to an end, Lumpkin said. “Nearly every al-Qaida member involved in [the 9/11] attacks is either dead or in jail,” he told the conference audience. “The core al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan or Pakistan has been decimated.”
But the terror group has metastasized to areas with security vacuums, he acknowledged. “The threat of terrorism and attacks is one we take very seriously,” he said. “Al-Qaida’s most capable affiliate – al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula – poses a major threat to the U.S. and its allies. We work closely with our Yemeni partners to disrupt and defeat their plots.”
Other affiliates – such as the al-Nusra Front in Syria, al-Qaida in the Islamic Mahgreb and Al-Shabaab in Somalia – are currently regional or local threats, but their violent attacks have great potential to harm or kill Americans, Lumpkin said. He pointed to the attack on an oil refinery in Algeria last year as an example of this threat.
“With regard to these and other terror attacks across the Middle East and North Africa, let me say this: We will never make the mistake of letting up in pursuit of terrorist groups that threaten our nation, wherever they may be,” the assistant secretary said.
The winding down of two long wars gives the United States the chance to act in its interests as a truly global power. “It is time to widen our scope and to deploy our forces and our energy in a manner more consistent with the deeper economic and geopolitical realities of our age,” he said.
This is the logic underlying the military’s rebalance toward the Pacific. The Asia-Pacific-Indian Ocean area is a rising region. The United States does about $1.4 trillion worth of two-way trade with Asia every year, and half of the world’s shipping by tonnage passes through the South China Sea. The region is home to more than half the world’s population. Seven of the 10 largest standing militaries in the world are in the region as is five of the world’s declared nuclear nations.
“It is in our clear economic and strategic interest to move our focus to the Pacific,” Lumpkin said. “This geographic shift hints at something even more fundamental: a fundamental shift in how we use and think of special operations forces in a post-9/11 era.”
The United States has been the bulwark of security in the region and is working to perpetuate the relative peace and stability, Lumpkin said. The United States accomplished this by building and maintaining a series of bilateral relationships and addressing potential sources of conflict before they create larger problems, he added.
This work centers on security cooperation, building partner capacity and building awareness of local conditions, he explained, and leans heavily on special operations capabilities. “The ability of [special operations forces] to operate in a low-visibility way will only become more important in the future of a globally dispersed and irregular threats,” he said.
He cited the Philippines as a good example. “With a task force of about 500 operators and general-purpose force enablers, we helped that nation degrade what was once considered a grave internal threat,” he said. “Just think what the cost would have been in dollars, and perhaps lives as well, if violent extremists had succeeded in establishing a sanctuary in a place like the Philippines, so centrally located along the shipping routes of the South China Sea.”
The timely and effective deployment of special operations forces and their supporting personnel made this possible, he said.
The Philippine example can be used as a model for the rest of the world, Lumpkin said, a model that would rely less on direct action and more on indirect efforts.
Colombia is another nation where this has been successful, the assistant secretary said. “We provided significant military aid, counterinsurgency training and humanitarian assistance in a broad-based initiative to prevent narcotics traffickers from establishing sanctuaries in that country,” he said. “‘Plan Colombia’ was a sustained commitment to building the capacity of a vitally important nation.
“This was no third-grade soccer team where everybody ran to the ball,” he continued. “It was patient, it was painstaking, and it worked on several problems at once.”
Special operators were just one part of the overall plan, Lumpkin said. They helped Colombia build a professional and capable military giving the nation the ability to solve its own security challenges, and to take ownership of the long process of eliminating terrorist and insurgent sanctuaries within its borders.
“But Plan Colombia also involved an interagency effort to assist the Colombians in eradicating narcotics and building stronger financial institutions,” he added. “The work paid off. Colombia is not only a far more secure and prosperous nation now, it has emerged as an exporter of regional security.”
The United States is moving from perpetual war to perpetual engagement, Lumpkin said, and the special operations forces community is going to be busy because of unpredictable threats and uncertain budgets.
“We in the SOF world have long known that when it comes to national security and global stability, an ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure, but a ton of cure,” he said.
The response to rising threats will grow shorter, Lumpkin said. “In the past, the traditional Iron Triangle of Congress, the Defense Department and industry were always able to assemble the resources in time to meet various challenges to our national security,” he said. This was because the threats of the past usually arose from nation states with their own political and industrial bureaucracies, he explained.
A major factor in this change is the rise of the Internet in general and social media in particular, “which has transformed the local into the global and the tactical into the strategic,” he said. “As a result, the traditional players don’t have the same power to shape events that they have had in the past.”
The increasing connectivity of people around the world can challenge traditional hierarchal struggles, Lumpkin noted. “When an idiosyncratic pastor in Florida issues statements that set off riots in Pakistan, you know something has changed,” he said.
“On a more significant scale, we saw in the Arab Spring how populations can rally in only minutes because of social media, with little warning from traditional analysis,” Lumpkin said.
Over the long run, Lumpkin said, flattening of communications works to benefit the United States and favors the spread of democratic values worldwide. “But the process will not be linear, and it will not be smooth, as we have seen increased connectivity present security threats as well as opportunities,” he added.
Network threats present new challenges and require new ways of planning, the assistant secretary told the audience, and cyber operations come to mind first. “As we continue to work our doctrine for response in the cyber realm,” he said, “it is entirely possible that SOF units, or even individuals, would be called upon to act online or offline to address these threats.”
Beyond cyber, Lumpkin said, the special operations community is concentrating on understanding the human domain – the totality of physical, cultural, political and social environments within a conflicted region.
Special Ops Forces in Transition, Pentagon Official Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2014 – Like the rest of the Defense Department, the special operations community is in transition, and officials are working on how best to shape the force for the future, a senior Pentagon official said here yesterday.
Michael D. Lumpkin spoke at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 25th annual Special Operations/Low-intensity Conflict Symposium. He is the assistant secretary of defense for special operation and low-intensity conflict, performing the duties of the undersecretary of defense for policy.
The end of the war in Iraq and the scaling down of the conflict in Afghanistan has opened a new chapter for the Defense Department, Lumpkin said. “We must adapt to a changing world in which global security threats are taking new forms and arising more swiftly and unpredictably than ever before,” he added.
Defense officials and industry partners must rethink the roles, missions and purpose of the entire military. “But this time of transition is especially important for the special operations community,” the retired Navy SEAL said.
Lumpkin said special operators will have an appreciably different and more active role for the future, noting that while the wars concentrated efforts in the U.S. Central Command area, the mission going forward will be more global. “The business of [special operations forces] will not be business as usual,” he said.
The period of post-9/11 combat operations is coming to an end, Lumpkin said. “Nearly every al-Qaida member involved in [the 9/11] attacks is either dead or in jail,” he told the conference audience. “The core al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan or Pakistan has been decimated.”
But the terror group has metastasized to areas with security vacuums, he acknowledged. “The threat of terrorism and attacks is one we take very seriously,” he said. “Al-Qaida’s most capable affiliate – al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula – poses a major threat to the U.S. and its allies. We work closely with our Yemeni partners to disrupt and defeat their plots.”
Other affiliates – such as the al-Nusra Front in Syria, al-Qaida in the Islamic Mahgreb and Al-Shabaab in Somalia – are currently regional or local threats, but their violent attacks have great potential to harm or kill Americans, Lumpkin said. He pointed to the attack on an oil refinery in Algeria last year as an example of this threat.
“With regard to these and other terror attacks across the Middle East and North Africa, let me say this: We will never make the mistake of letting up in pursuit of terrorist groups that threaten our nation, wherever they may be,” the assistant secretary said.
The winding down of two long wars gives the United States the chance to act in its interests as a truly global power. “It is time to widen our scope and to deploy our forces and our energy in a manner more consistent with the deeper economic and geopolitical realities of our age,” he said.
This is the logic underlying the military’s rebalance toward the Pacific. The Asia-Pacific-Indian Ocean area is a rising region. The United States does about $1.4 trillion worth of two-way trade with Asia every year, and half of the world’s shipping by tonnage passes through the South China Sea. The region is home to more than half the world’s population. Seven of the 10 largest standing militaries in the world are in the region as is five of the world’s declared nuclear nations.
“It is in our clear economic and strategic interest to move our focus to the Pacific,” Lumpkin said. “This geographic shift hints at something even more fundamental: a fundamental shift in how we use and think of special operations forces in a post-9/11 era.”
The United States has been the bulwark of security in the region and is working to perpetuate the relative peace and stability, Lumpkin said. The United States accomplished this by building and maintaining a series of bilateral relationships and addressing potential sources of conflict before they create larger problems, he added.
This work centers on security cooperation, building partner capacity and building awareness of local conditions, he explained, and leans heavily on special operations capabilities. “The ability of [special operations forces] to operate in a low-visibility way will only become more important in the future of a globally dispersed and irregular threats,” he said.
He cited the Philippines as a good example. “With a task force of about 500 operators and general-purpose force enablers, we helped that nation degrade what was once considered a grave internal threat,” he said. “Just think what the cost would have been in dollars, and perhaps lives as well, if violent extremists had succeeded in establishing a sanctuary in a place like the Philippines, so centrally located along the shipping routes of the South China Sea.”
The timely and effective deployment of special operations forces and their supporting personnel made this possible, he said.
The Philippine example can be used as a model for the rest of the world, Lumpkin said, a model that would rely less on direct action and more on indirect efforts.
Colombia is another nation where this has been successful, the assistant secretary said. “We provided significant military aid, counterinsurgency training and humanitarian assistance in a broad-based initiative to prevent narcotics traffickers from establishing sanctuaries in that country,” he said. “‘Plan Colombia’ was a sustained commitment to building the capacity of a vitally important nation.
“This was no third-grade soccer team where everybody ran to the ball,” he continued. “It was patient, it was painstaking, and it worked on several problems at once.”
Special operators were just one part of the overall plan, Lumpkin said. They helped Colombia build a professional and capable military giving the nation the ability to solve its own security challenges, and to take ownership of the long process of eliminating terrorist and insurgent sanctuaries within its borders.
“But Plan Colombia also involved an interagency effort to assist the Colombians in eradicating narcotics and building stronger financial institutions,” he added. “The work paid off. Colombia is not only a far more secure and prosperous nation now, it has emerged as an exporter of regional security.”
The United States is moving from perpetual war to perpetual engagement, Lumpkin said, and the special operations forces community is going to be busy because of unpredictable threats and uncertain budgets.
“We in the SOF world have long known that when it comes to national security and global stability, an ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure, but a ton of cure,” he said.
The response to rising threats will grow shorter, Lumpkin said. “In the past, the traditional Iron Triangle of Congress, the Defense Department and industry were always able to assemble the resources in time to meet various challenges to our national security,” he said. This was because the threats of the past usually arose from nation states with their own political and industrial bureaucracies, he explained.
A major factor in this change is the rise of the Internet in general and social media in particular, “which has transformed the local into the global and the tactical into the strategic,” he said. “As a result, the traditional players don’t have the same power to shape events that they have had in the past.”
The increasing connectivity of people around the world can challenge traditional hierarchal struggles, Lumpkin noted. “When an idiosyncratic pastor in Florida issues statements that set off riots in Pakistan, you know something has changed,” he said.
“On a more significant scale, we saw in the Arab Spring how populations can rally in only minutes because of social media, with little warning from traditional analysis,” Lumpkin said.
Over the long run, Lumpkin said, flattening of communications works to benefit the United States and favors the spread of democratic values worldwide. “But the process will not be linear, and it will not be smooth, as we have seen increased connectivity present security threats as well as opportunities,” he added.
Network threats present new challenges and require new ways of planning, the assistant secretary told the audience, and cyber operations come to mind first. “As we continue to work our doctrine for response in the cyber realm,” he said, “it is entirely possible that SOF units, or even individuals, would be called upon to act online or offline to address these threats.”
Beyond cyber, Lumpkin said, the special operations community is concentrating on understanding the human domain – the totality of physical, cultural, political and social environments within a conflicted region.
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2014
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS
AIR FORCE
Sallyport Global Services (part of KS International, LLC), McLean, Va., has been awarded a $215,000,000 firm-fixed-price, undefinitized contract action for Iraq base renovation and reconstruction of key facilities at Balad Air Base, Iraq, in support of the upcoming arrival of F-16 aircraft in September 2014. Work will be performed at Balad Air Base, Iraq, and is expected to be completed by June 2015. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. This requirement is 100 percent foreign military sales for the government of Iraq. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WWMK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-14-C-6021).
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., has been awarded a $51,233,782 firm-fixed-price modification (P00023) to an existing firm-fixed-price contract (FA8634-12-C-2651) for the procurement of integration of additional weapons, integration of ARC-210 RT 1990 Gen 5 radios, and integration of Honeycomb structure to the aircraft on the F-15SA aircraft for the Royal Saudi Air Force. Work will be performed at St. Louis, Mo., and will be completed by Feb. 29, 2020. Foreign military sales funds for Saudi Arabia in the amount of $19,835,000 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a $16,814,091 bilateral modification (P00171) for an existing firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (FA8611-08-C-2897) for engineering change proposal (ECP) 0533, follow-on agile sustainment for the F-22 Raptor, Reliability and Maintainability Maturation Program Project AF100 Acceleration Plan. This effort is to procure retrofit kits that will provide a more durable material for the actuated doors on the bottom of the aircraft to improve availability of the aircraft. ECP 0533 is the first of two phases to incorporate the new material on the doors and panels of the aircraft. Work will be performed at Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be complete by September 2016. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $16,814,091 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WWUK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Honeywell International Inc., Tempe, Ariz., was awarded a $9,943,752 modification (P00004) to firm-fixed-price, sole-source, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract W911N2-13-D-0011 to exercise option year one for the purchase of 58 (estimated) gas turbine engines to support the Aviation Ground Power Unit reset at Letterkenny Army Depot. Funding and performance location will be determined with each order. The estimated completion date is Feb. 14, 2015. The U.S. Army Contracting Command-Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pa., is the contracting activity.
HNTB Corp., Kansas City, Mo., was awarded a $9,500,000 firm-fixed-price ‘Architect and Engineering’ indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for civil works and military projects throughout the Corps of Engineers and environmental projects throughout the Kansas City district of the Corps of Engineers. Funding and performance location will be determined with each order. The contract was solicited via the Web with 11 bids received. The estimated completion date is Feb. 11, 2019. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Kansas City District, Kansas City, Kan., is the contracting activity (W912DQ-14-D-1000).
NAVY
Statistical Research Inc.*, Tucson, Ariz. (N62473-14- D-1412); Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc.*, Davis, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1413); Ultra Systems Environmental Inc.*, Irvine, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1414); ASM Affiliates Inc.*, Carlsbad, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1415), and Tierra Environmental Services Inc.*, San Diego, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1416), are each being awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple-award contract for cultural resources services at various locations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility (AOR) and other locations nationwide. The maximum dollar value including the base period and four option years for all five contracts combined is $50,000,000. The work to be performed provides for the contractors to furnish all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials, travel, lodging/subsistence, equipment, and transportation to provide cultural resources related studies, investigations, preparation of historic and archaeological documents, and implementation of plans in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. These five contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. No task orders are being issued at this time. All work on this contract will be performed primarily within the NAVFAC Southwest AOR which includes California (94 percent), Arizona (1 percent), Colorado (1 percent), Nevada (1 percent), New Mexico (1 percent), and Utah (1 percent). Work may also be performed in the remainder of the continental U.S. (1 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of February 2019. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $25,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with seven proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Sealaska Environmental Services LLC*, Juneau, Alaska, is being awarded a maximum amount $30,794,172 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for long term monitoring, operations, and maintenance environmental remediation services for facilities in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest areas of responsibility. Task order 0001 is being awarded at $421,091 for operation and maintenance of two environmental remediation systems located at Naval Base Kitsap, Silverdale, Wash. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by March 2015. Work on this contract will be performed at various installations including but not limited to Washington (75 percent), Alaska (21 percent), Idaho (1 percent), Montana (1 percent), Oregon (1 percent), and Wyoming (1 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of March 2019. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $421,091 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with six proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Silverdale, Wash., is the contracting activity (N44255-14-D-9011).
The Boeing Co., St Louis, Mo., is being awarded $18,977,907 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 0050 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N68335-10-G-0012) for procurement of major structural repair and maintenance equipment for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo., and is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement, Navy funds in the amount of $18,977,907 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity.
L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Miss., is being awarded a $6,530,626 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract for maintenance and logistics services in support of the KC-130J aircraft for the government of Kuwait under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed at Al Mubarak Airbase, Kuwait, and is expected to be completed in August 2015. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of $6,530,626 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; four offers were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-14-D-0015).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Fujifilm SonoSite Inc., Bothell, Wash., has been awarded a maximum $39,672,731 modification (P00104) exercising the fifth option year on a one-year base contract (SPM2D1-09-D-8339) with seven one-year option periods for radiology systems, subsystems and components. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. Location of performance is Washington with a Feb. 18, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Tullahoma Industries Inc.*, Tullahoma, Tenn., has been awarded a maximum $9,201,000 modification (P00102) exercising the second option year on a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-12-D-1024) with two one-year option periods for universal camouflage pattern jackets. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Locations of performance are Tennessee and Alabama with a Feb. 15, 2015 performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Honeywell International Inc., Minneapolis, Minn., has been awarded a maximum $8,642,970 firm-fixed-price contract for inertial navigation units. This contract is a sole-source acquisition. Location of performance is Minnesota with a May 31, 2016 performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Maritime, Mechanicsburg, Pa., (SPM4A1-11-G-0010-1002).
*Small Business
CONTRACTS
AIR FORCE
Sallyport Global Services (part of KS International, LLC), McLean, Va., has been awarded a $215,000,000 firm-fixed-price, undefinitized contract action for Iraq base renovation and reconstruction of key facilities at Balad Air Base, Iraq, in support of the upcoming arrival of F-16 aircraft in September 2014. Work will be performed at Balad Air Base, Iraq, and is expected to be completed by June 2015. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. This requirement is 100 percent foreign military sales for the government of Iraq. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WWMK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-14-C-6021).
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., has been awarded a $51,233,782 firm-fixed-price modification (P00023) to an existing firm-fixed-price contract (FA8634-12-C-2651) for the procurement of integration of additional weapons, integration of ARC-210 RT 1990 Gen 5 radios, and integration of Honeycomb structure to the aircraft on the F-15SA aircraft for the Royal Saudi Air Force. Work will be performed at St. Louis, Mo., and will be completed by Feb. 29, 2020. Foreign military sales funds for Saudi Arabia in the amount of $19,835,000 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a $16,814,091 bilateral modification (P00171) for an existing firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (FA8611-08-C-2897) for engineering change proposal (ECP) 0533, follow-on agile sustainment for the F-22 Raptor, Reliability and Maintainability Maturation Program Project AF100 Acceleration Plan. This effort is to procure retrofit kits that will provide a more durable material for the actuated doors on the bottom of the aircraft to improve availability of the aircraft. ECP 0533 is the first of two phases to incorporate the new material on the doors and panels of the aircraft. Work will be performed at Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be complete by September 2016. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $16,814,091 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WWUK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity.
ARMY
Honeywell International Inc., Tempe, Ariz., was awarded a $9,943,752 modification (P00004) to firm-fixed-price, sole-source, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract W911N2-13-D-0011 to exercise option year one for the purchase of 58 (estimated) gas turbine engines to support the Aviation Ground Power Unit reset at Letterkenny Army Depot. Funding and performance location will be determined with each order. The estimated completion date is Feb. 14, 2015. The U.S. Army Contracting Command-Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pa., is the contracting activity.
HNTB Corp., Kansas City, Mo., was awarded a $9,500,000 firm-fixed-price ‘Architect and Engineering’ indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for civil works and military projects throughout the Corps of Engineers and environmental projects throughout the Kansas City district of the Corps of Engineers. Funding and performance location will be determined with each order. The contract was solicited via the Web with 11 bids received. The estimated completion date is Feb. 11, 2019. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Kansas City District, Kansas City, Kan., is the contracting activity (W912DQ-14-D-1000).
NAVY
Statistical Research Inc.*, Tucson, Ariz. (N62473-14- D-1412); Far Western Anthropological Research Group Inc.*, Davis, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1413); Ultra Systems Environmental Inc.*, Irvine, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1414); ASM Affiliates Inc.*, Carlsbad, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1415), and Tierra Environmental Services Inc.*, San Diego, Calif. (N62473-14- D-1416), are each being awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple-award contract for cultural resources services at various locations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility (AOR) and other locations nationwide. The maximum dollar value including the base period and four option years for all five contracts combined is $50,000,000. The work to be performed provides for the contractors to furnish all labor, management, supervision, tools, materials, travel, lodging/subsistence, equipment, and transportation to provide cultural resources related studies, investigations, preparation of historic and archaeological documents, and implementation of plans in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. These five contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. No task orders are being issued at this time. All work on this contract will be performed primarily within the NAVFAC Southwest AOR which includes California (94 percent), Arizona (1 percent), Colorado (1 percent), Nevada (1 percent), New Mexico (1 percent), and Utah (1 percent). Work may also be performed in the remainder of the continental U.S. (1 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of February 2019. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $25,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with seven proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.
Sealaska Environmental Services LLC*, Juneau, Alaska, is being awarded a maximum amount $30,794,172 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for long term monitoring, operations, and maintenance environmental remediation services for facilities in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest areas of responsibility. Task order 0001 is being awarded at $421,091 for operation and maintenance of two environmental remediation systems located at Naval Base Kitsap, Silverdale, Wash. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by March 2015. Work on this contract will be performed at various installations including but not limited to Washington (75 percent), Alaska (21 percent), Idaho (1 percent), Montana (1 percent), Oregon (1 percent), and Wyoming (1 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of March 2019. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy contract funds in the amount of $421,091 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with six proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Silverdale, Wash., is the contracting activity (N44255-14-D-9011).
The Boeing Co., St Louis, Mo., is being awarded $18,977,907 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 0050 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N68335-10-G-0012) for procurement of major structural repair and maintenance equipment for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo., and is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2013 aircraft procurement, Navy funds in the amount of $18,977,907 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity.
L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Miss., is being awarded a $6,530,626 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract for maintenance and logistics services in support of the KC-130J aircraft for the government of Kuwait under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed at Al Mubarak Airbase, Kuwait, and is expected to be completed in August 2015. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of $6,530,626 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; four offers were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-14-D-0015).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Fujifilm SonoSite Inc., Bothell, Wash., has been awarded a maximum $39,672,731 modification (P00104) exercising the fifth option year on a one-year base contract (SPM2D1-09-D-8339) with seven one-year option periods for radiology systems, subsystems and components. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. Location of performance is Washington with a Feb. 18, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Tullahoma Industries Inc.*, Tullahoma, Tenn., has been awarded a maximum $9,201,000 modification (P00102) exercising the second option year on a one-year base contract (SPM1C1-12-D-1024) with two one-year option periods for universal camouflage pattern jackets. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. Locations of performance are Tennessee and Alabama with a Feb. 15, 2015 performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Honeywell International Inc., Minneapolis, Minn., has been awarded a maximum $8,642,970 firm-fixed-price contract for inertial navigation units. This contract is a sole-source acquisition. Location of performance is Minnesota with a May 31, 2016 performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Maritime, Mechanicsburg, Pa., (SPM4A1-11-G-0010-1002).
*Small Business
FDA APPROVES EXPANDED USE OF IMBRUVICA TO TREAT CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA
FROM: FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
FDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Feb. 12, 2014
FDA approves Imbruvica to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the approved use of Imbruvica (ibrutinib) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients who have received at least one previous therapy.
CLL is a rare blood and bone marrow disease that usually gets worse slowly over time, causing a gradual increase in white blood cells called B lymphocytes, or B cells. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 15,680 Americans were diagnosed and 4,580 died from the disease in 2013.
Imbruvica works by blocking the enzyme that allows cancer cells to grow and divide. In November 2013, the FDA granted Imbruvica accelerated approval to treat patients with mantle cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive type of blood cancer, if those patients received at least one prior therapy.
“Today’s approval provides an important new treatment option for CLL patients whose cancer has progressed despite having undergone previous therapy,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The FDA completed its review of Imbruvica’s new indication under the agency’s accelerated approval process, which played a vital role in rapidly making this new therapy available to those who need it most.”
Under the agency’s accelerated approval process, the FDA may approve a drug based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Drugs receiving accelerated approval are usually subject to an agreement to conduct confirmatory trials verifying and describing clinical benefit. Imbruvica for CLL also received priority review and orphan-product designation because the drug demonstrated the potential to be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment of a serious condition and is intended to treat a rare disease, respectively.
The FDA’s accelerated approval of Imbruvica for CLL is based on a clinical study of 48 previously treated participants. On average, participants were diagnosed with CLL 6.7 years prior to the study and had received four previous therapies. All study participants received a 420 milligram orally administered dose of Imbruvica until the treatment reached unacceptable toxicity or the disease progressed. Results showed nearly 58 percent of participants had their cancer shrink after treatment (overall response rate). At the time of the study, the duration of response ranged from 5.6 to 24.2 months. An improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not been established.
The most common side effects observed in the clinical study include low levels of platelets in the blood (thrombocytopenia), diarrhea, bruising, a decrease in infection-fighting white blood cells (neutropenia), low red blood cells (anemia), upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, pain in the muscles and bones (musculoskeletal pain), rash, fever (pyrexia), constipation, swelling of tissues (peripheral edema), joint pain (arthralgia), nausea, mouth sores (stomatitis), sinus infection (sinusitis) and dizziness.
Imbruvica is manufactured by Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Pharmacyclics.
FDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Feb. 12, 2014
FDA approves Imbruvica to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today expanded the approved use of Imbruvica (ibrutinib) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients who have received at least one previous therapy.
CLL is a rare blood and bone marrow disease that usually gets worse slowly over time, causing a gradual increase in white blood cells called B lymphocytes, or B cells. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 15,680 Americans were diagnosed and 4,580 died from the disease in 2013.
Imbruvica works by blocking the enzyme that allows cancer cells to grow and divide. In November 2013, the FDA granted Imbruvica accelerated approval to treat patients with mantle cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive type of blood cancer, if those patients received at least one prior therapy.
“Today’s approval provides an important new treatment option for CLL patients whose cancer has progressed despite having undergone previous therapy,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The FDA completed its review of Imbruvica’s new indication under the agency’s accelerated approval process, which played a vital role in rapidly making this new therapy available to those who need it most.”
Under the agency’s accelerated approval process, the FDA may approve a drug based on a surrogate or intermediate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Drugs receiving accelerated approval are usually subject to an agreement to conduct confirmatory trials verifying and describing clinical benefit. Imbruvica for CLL also received priority review and orphan-product designation because the drug demonstrated the potential to be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment of a serious condition and is intended to treat a rare disease, respectively.
The FDA’s accelerated approval of Imbruvica for CLL is based on a clinical study of 48 previously treated participants. On average, participants were diagnosed with CLL 6.7 years prior to the study and had received four previous therapies. All study participants received a 420 milligram orally administered dose of Imbruvica until the treatment reached unacceptable toxicity or the disease progressed. Results showed nearly 58 percent of participants had their cancer shrink after treatment (overall response rate). At the time of the study, the duration of response ranged from 5.6 to 24.2 months. An improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not been established.
The most common side effects observed in the clinical study include low levels of platelets in the blood (thrombocytopenia), diarrhea, bruising, a decrease in infection-fighting white blood cells (neutropenia), low red blood cells (anemia), upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, pain in the muscles and bones (musculoskeletal pain), rash, fever (pyrexia), constipation, swelling of tissues (peripheral edema), joint pain (arthralgia), nausea, mouth sores (stomatitis), sinus infection (sinusitis) and dizziness.
Imbruvica is manufactured by Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Pharmacyclics.
HHS TOUTS HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE ENROLLMENT INCREASES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace increases by 53 percent in January
27 percent of January enrollees are young adults – up 3 percentage points
from the previous reporting period
Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace continued to rise in January, with a 53 percent increase in overall enrollment over the prior three month reporting period, with young adult enrollment outpacing all other age groups combined, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.
Nearly 3.3 million people enrolled in the Health Insurance Marketplace plans by Feb. 1, 2014 (the end of the fourth reporting period for open enrollment), with January alone accounting for 1.1 million plan selections in state and federal marketplaces. In January, 27 percent of those who selected plans in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace are between the ages of 18 and 34, a three percentage point increase over the figure reported for the previous three month period. Young adult enrollment grew by 65 percent in January, from 489,460 at the end of December to 807,515 as of Feb. 1, while all other age groups combined grew by 55 percent.
The report for the first time also includes information on the type of plans selected (Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc.) distributed across demographic factors such as gender and age. For example, it shows that 81 percent of young adults ages 18 to 34 selected plans at the Silver metal level or higher (Silver, Gold and Platinum plans).
“These encouraging trends show that more Americans are enrolling every day, and finding quality, affordable coverage in the Marketplace,” Secretary Sebelius said. “There is still plenty of time for you and your family to sign up in a private plan of your choice, so visit HealthCare.gov to learn more and sign up. Open enrollment ends March 31.”
Key findings from today’s report include:
Nearly 3.3 million (3,299,500) people selected Marketplace plans from Oct. 1, 2013, through Feb. 1, 2014, including 1.4 million in the State Based Marketplaces and 1.9 million in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace.
Of the almost 3.3 million:
55 percent are female and 45 percent are male;
31 percent are age 34 and under;
25 percent are between the ages of 18 and 34;
62 percent selected a Silver plan, while 19 percent selected a Bronze plan; and
82 percent selected a plan and are eligible to receive Financial Assistance, up from 79 percent during the Oct. 1 through Dec 28, 2013 reporting period.
Today’s report details state-by-state information where available. In some states, only partial datasets were available.
The report features cumulative data for the four-month reporting period because some people apply, shop, and select a plan across monthly reporting periods. Enrollment is measured as those who selected a plan.
To read the report visit: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Feb2014/ib_2014feb_enrollment.pdf
To hear stories of Americans enrolling in the Marketplace visit: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/mystory/index.html
Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace increases by 53 percent in January
27 percent of January enrollees are young adults – up 3 percentage points
from the previous reporting period
Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace continued to rise in January, with a 53 percent increase in overall enrollment over the prior three month reporting period, with young adult enrollment outpacing all other age groups combined, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.
Nearly 3.3 million people enrolled in the Health Insurance Marketplace plans by Feb. 1, 2014 (the end of the fourth reporting period for open enrollment), with January alone accounting for 1.1 million plan selections in state and federal marketplaces. In January, 27 percent of those who selected plans in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace are between the ages of 18 and 34, a three percentage point increase over the figure reported for the previous three month period. Young adult enrollment grew by 65 percent in January, from 489,460 at the end of December to 807,515 as of Feb. 1, while all other age groups combined grew by 55 percent.
The report for the first time also includes information on the type of plans selected (Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc.) distributed across demographic factors such as gender and age. For example, it shows that 81 percent of young adults ages 18 to 34 selected plans at the Silver metal level or higher (Silver, Gold and Platinum plans).
“These encouraging trends show that more Americans are enrolling every day, and finding quality, affordable coverage in the Marketplace,” Secretary Sebelius said. “There is still plenty of time for you and your family to sign up in a private plan of your choice, so visit HealthCare.gov to learn more and sign up. Open enrollment ends March 31.”
Key findings from today’s report include:
Nearly 3.3 million (3,299,500) people selected Marketplace plans from Oct. 1, 2013, through Feb. 1, 2014, including 1.4 million in the State Based Marketplaces and 1.9 million in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace.
Of the almost 3.3 million:
55 percent are female and 45 percent are male;
31 percent are age 34 and under;
25 percent are between the ages of 18 and 34;
62 percent selected a Silver plan, while 19 percent selected a Bronze plan; and
82 percent selected a plan and are eligible to receive Financial Assistance, up from 79 percent during the Oct. 1 through Dec 28, 2013 reporting period.
Today’s report details state-by-state information where available. In some states, only partial datasets were available.
The report features cumulative data for the four-month reporting period because some people apply, shop, and select a plan across monthly reporting periods. Enrollment is measured as those who selected a plan.
To read the report visit: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Feb2014/ib_2014feb_enrollment.pdf
To hear stories of Americans enrolling in the Marketplace visit: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/mystory/index.html
JUDGEMENTS ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANDANTS IN IBM PURCHASE OF SPSS INSIDER TRADING CASE
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Court Enters Judgments Against All Defendants in Insider Trading Action
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on January 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York signed a final judgment by consent against defendant David J. Weishaus ("Weishaus") in the SEC's insider trading case, SEC v. Thomas C. Conradt, et al., Civil Action No. 12-8676-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). Previously, on December 26, 2013, the Court entered judgments by consent against the other two defendants in the action, Thomas C. Conradt ("Conradt") and Trent Martin ("Martin").
Each of the judgments permanently enjoins the respective defendant from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The final judgment entered against Weishaus orders him to disgorge his trading profits of $227,485, plus prejudgment interest of $20,414.24, and to pay a civil penalty of $227,485. Under the judgments entered against Conradt and Martin, Conradt is ordered to disgorge his trading profits of $2,533.60 plus prejudgment interest of $333.40, and Martin is ordered to disgorge his trading profits of $7,625, plus prejudgment interest of $1,111.46. The Court reserved the issue of whether to impose a civil penalty on Conradt and Martin pending their continued cooperation with the Commission.
The Commission's complaint alleged, among other things, that Martin misappropriated material nonpublic information about International Business Machines Corporation's 2009 acquisition of SPSS Inc. from his friend, an associate at a large law firm; illegally traded on the basis of that information; and tipped that information to his roommate, Conradt. The Commission further alleged that Conradt used that information to illegally trade, and also tipped the information to Weishaus who traded. The Commission alleged that, by knowingly or recklessly engaging in the conduct described in the complaint, Martin, Conradt, and Weishaus violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Each of these defendants also pled guilty to criminal charges brought by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO") based on the same conduct alleged in the Commission's complaint. U.S. v. Conradt,et al., 12 Cr. 887.
In related administrative proceedings, the Commission permanently suspended each of the defendants by consent from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent; and bars him from participating in any offering of a penny stock. In the Matter of Trent Martin, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15682 (January 23, 2014); In the Matter of Thomas C. Conradt, Admin. Proc. File No. 34-71429 (January 28, 2014); In the Matter of David J. Weishaus, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15743 (February 6, 2014). Conradt was also suspended by consent from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney. In the Matter of Thomas C. Conradt, Esq., Admin. Proc. File No. 34-71428 (January 28, 2014).
The SEC's litigation was conducted by Catherine E. Pappas and G. Jeffrey Boujoukos of the Philadelphia Regional Office. The SEC's investigation was conducted by enforcement staff Kristina Littman and Kingdon Kase, under the supervision of Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the Division of Enforcement's Market Abuse Unit and Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the USAO and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter
Court Enters Judgments Against All Defendants in Insider Trading Action
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on January 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York signed a final judgment by consent against defendant David J. Weishaus ("Weishaus") in the SEC's insider trading case, SEC v. Thomas C. Conradt, et al., Civil Action No. 12-8676-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). Previously, on December 26, 2013, the Court entered judgments by consent against the other two defendants in the action, Thomas C. Conradt ("Conradt") and Trent Martin ("Martin").
Each of the judgments permanently enjoins the respective defendant from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The final judgment entered against Weishaus orders him to disgorge his trading profits of $227,485, plus prejudgment interest of $20,414.24, and to pay a civil penalty of $227,485. Under the judgments entered against Conradt and Martin, Conradt is ordered to disgorge his trading profits of $2,533.60 plus prejudgment interest of $333.40, and Martin is ordered to disgorge his trading profits of $7,625, plus prejudgment interest of $1,111.46. The Court reserved the issue of whether to impose a civil penalty on Conradt and Martin pending their continued cooperation with the Commission.
The Commission's complaint alleged, among other things, that Martin misappropriated material nonpublic information about International Business Machines Corporation's 2009 acquisition of SPSS Inc. from his friend, an associate at a large law firm; illegally traded on the basis of that information; and tipped that information to his roommate, Conradt. The Commission further alleged that Conradt used that information to illegally trade, and also tipped the information to Weishaus who traded. The Commission alleged that, by knowingly or recklessly engaging in the conduct described in the complaint, Martin, Conradt, and Weishaus violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Each of these defendants also pled guilty to criminal charges brought by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO") based on the same conduct alleged in the Commission's complaint. U.S. v. Conradt,et al., 12 Cr. 887.
In related administrative proceedings, the Commission permanently suspended each of the defendants by consent from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent; and bars him from participating in any offering of a penny stock. In the Matter of Trent Martin, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15682 (January 23, 2014); In the Matter of Thomas C. Conradt, Admin. Proc. File No. 34-71429 (January 28, 2014); In the Matter of David J. Weishaus, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15743 (February 6, 2014). Conradt was also suspended by consent from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney. In the Matter of Thomas C. Conradt, Esq., Admin. Proc. File No. 34-71428 (January 28, 2014).
The SEC's litigation was conducted by Catherine E. Pappas and G. Jeffrey Boujoukos of the Philadelphia Regional Office. The SEC's investigation was conducted by enforcement staff Kristina Littman and Kingdon Kase, under the supervision of Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the Division of Enforcement's Market Abuse Unit and Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the USAO and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter
STATEMENTS ON COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING STRATEGY
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Statements of Associate Attorney General Tony West and Acting Assistant Attorney General of Enrd on the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking
Today, the White House released the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking. The Department of Justice, along with the Departments of State and the Interior, are co-chairs of the U.S. Task Force established by President Obama to lead the implementation of this strategy. On Thursday, Associate Attorney General Tony West will lead the U.S. Delegation’s participation at the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade.
"The Department is pleased to be a part of this interagency approach to combating illegal wildlife trafficking,” said Associate Attorney General West. “Record high demand for wildlife products, coupled with inadequate preventative measures and weak institutions, has resulted in an explosion of illicit trade in wildlife in recent years, with the increasing involvement of organized transnational criminal syndicates. This trade undermines security, fuels corruption and contributes to the spread of disease, and it is decimating iconic animal populations. The National Strategy identifies priority areas for interagency coordination, with the objectives of harnessing and strategically applying the full breadth of U.S. government resources. Combating this problem will also require the shared understanding, commitment, and efforts of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, corporations, civil society and individuals. At this week’s London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, we hope other countries will join us in taking ambitious action to combat wildlife trafficking.”
The Department of Justice has long worked to protect threatened and endangered wildlife species through its enforcement of the Lacey Act and Endangered Species Act, as well as related criminal statutes.
“The president has called upon DOJ and more than a dozen other federal agencies to combine forces to more effectively battle this pernicious trade, which is growing at an alarming rate and threatens the survival of protected species both at home and abroad,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert Dreher for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The release of today’s National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking is a welcome next step in our longstanding efforts to protect threatened and endangered wildlife species. Strong enforcement is critical to stopping those who kill and traffic in these animals, whether on land or in the oceans. At the same time, the Strategy recognizes that enforcement alone is not enough to stop traffickers. We must also work to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products. This is not a fight that the United States can win alone; under the Strategy, we will build relationships with local and global partners who share our commitment to ending wildlife trafficking.”
The Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country bring criminal prosecutions under these laws against, for example, people who are found smuggling wildlife and plants into the United States. There is a major worldwide black market for some endangered species or products made from them. The main federal agencies that the Division represents in this area are the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Statements of Associate Attorney General Tony West and Acting Assistant Attorney General of Enrd on the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking
Today, the White House released the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking. The Department of Justice, along with the Departments of State and the Interior, are co-chairs of the U.S. Task Force established by President Obama to lead the implementation of this strategy. On Thursday, Associate Attorney General Tony West will lead the U.S. Delegation’s participation at the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade.
"The Department is pleased to be a part of this interagency approach to combating illegal wildlife trafficking,” said Associate Attorney General West. “Record high demand for wildlife products, coupled with inadequate preventative measures and weak institutions, has resulted in an explosion of illicit trade in wildlife in recent years, with the increasing involvement of organized transnational criminal syndicates. This trade undermines security, fuels corruption and contributes to the spread of disease, and it is decimating iconic animal populations. The National Strategy identifies priority areas for interagency coordination, with the objectives of harnessing and strategically applying the full breadth of U.S. government resources. Combating this problem will also require the shared understanding, commitment, and efforts of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, corporations, civil society and individuals. At this week’s London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, we hope other countries will join us in taking ambitious action to combat wildlife trafficking.”
The Department of Justice has long worked to protect threatened and endangered wildlife species through its enforcement of the Lacey Act and Endangered Species Act, as well as related criminal statutes.
“The president has called upon DOJ and more than a dozen other federal agencies to combine forces to more effectively battle this pernicious trade, which is growing at an alarming rate and threatens the survival of protected species both at home and abroad,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert Dreher for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The release of today’s National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking is a welcome next step in our longstanding efforts to protect threatened and endangered wildlife species. Strong enforcement is critical to stopping those who kill and traffic in these animals, whether on land or in the oceans. At the same time, the Strategy recognizes that enforcement alone is not enough to stop traffickers. We must also work to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products. This is not a fight that the United States can win alone; under the Strategy, we will build relationships with local and global partners who share our commitment to ending wildlife trafficking.”
The Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country bring criminal prosecutions under these laws against, for example, people who are found smuggling wildlife and plants into the United States. There is a major worldwide black market for some endangered species or products made from them. The main federal agencies that the Division represents in this area are the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
FOX WARNS ABOUT RIVAL MILITARY POWERS, ANTI-SHIP MUNITIONS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Fox Discusses Posture, Threats in Asia-Pacific Region
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11, 2014 – Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine H. Fox warned today against assuming a permissive environment for U.S. naval air and sea assets, saying threats continue to grow from rival military powers as well as from the proliferation of more advanced anti-ship munitions around the globe.
Speaking at a defense industry conference in San Diego, Fox said only through re-shaping and re-balancing the United States’ defense institutions will the resources be available to buy modern capabilities and invest in the next generation of electronic warfare.
As the DOD completes its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, Fox said it will continue to convey the need for American military power and leadership, but in light of the fiscal realities, the department cannot postpone further difficult decisions about the military’s size and operating costs.
“When all is said and done, an enterprise of the U.S. military’s size, complexity and global reach requires a substantial administrative and support operation,” she said.
Meanwhile, without tough choices based on strategic priorities like the maritime strategy, Fox noted, readiness and modernization will continue to suffer as security threats grow and multiply.
Overall signs point to the military getting smaller over the next five years, which Fox said is not an ideal course of action and not without its risks. “[G]iven current realities, it is the only plausible way to generate the savings necessary to adequately fund training, readiness, modernization, and avoid the prospect of a ‘hollow force’ in the future.”
Even so, Fox said the Defense Department has already committed to focusing 60 percent of the Navy’s fleet on the Pacific Command area of responsibility. “The Marines … began rotational deployments in Australia, the first of its kind since the Korean War … and up to four Littoral Combat Ships will deploy regularly to Singapore.”
In Japan, Fox noted, U.S. force posture will shift by moving several thousand Marines from Okinawa to Guam with plans to relocate the naval-air station at Futenma. “These efforts will all help maintain a well-distributed and politically sustainable force posture throughout the Pacific.”
Of China’s economic dynamism, Fox described the country’s regional and global growth as a “welcome development,” but she also emphasized the importance of carefully managing U.S. ties to strengthen transparency and trust.
“Improving that defense relationship and understanding China’s intentions is so important because of the comprehensive military modernization program being pursued by the People’s Liberation Army,” Fox said. “It is no secret that China is developing its military capabilities designed to thwart the freedom of movement of others in the region and to expand their influence.”
And in an era when China’s defense budget is increasing at around 10 percent annually, the United States – due to a variety of political and fiscal factors – is disproportionately reducing the very investments that are intended to sustain its technological superiority, Fox said.
But despite the ebbs and flows of U.S. relations with any country, she explained, the U.S. must maintain its decisive advantage against other military powers or risk the loss of influence, increase in regional rivalries and security dilemmas and even risk conflict due to miscalculation.
Christine H. Fox was appointed by President Obama as Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense on December 5, 2013. With her appointment, Ms. Fox becomes the highest-ranking female official in history to serve in the Department of Defense.
Ms. Fox most recently served as a Senior Advisor to the National Security Analysis Department at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) from August 2013 through November 2013.
Prior to joining APL, Ms. Fox served as the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She was appointed to that position in November 2009. A Presidential appointee confirmed by the United States Senate, Ms. Fox served as the principal staff assistant to the Secretary of Defense for analyzing and evaluating plans, programs, and budgets in relation to U.S. defense objectives and resource constraints.
Ms. Fox possesses three decades of experience as an analyst and research manager focusing on defense issues, with a special emphasis on operations. She formerly served as the President of the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, and as the scientific analyst to the Chief of Naval Operations. Prior to her appointment as President of CNA, Ms. Fox was the Vice President and Director of CNA’s Operations Evaluation Group, responsible for approximately 85 field representatives focused on helping operational commanders execute their missions. She oversaw CNA’s analysis of real-world operations, including the operations in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, operations in Afghanistan immediately following the September 11th attacks, and the operation in Iraq in early 2003.
Ms. Fox served as a member of NASA’s Return to Flight Task Group, chartered by the NASA Administrator to certify the recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. She was also a member of the Advisory Board of the Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington from 2007 until 2009.
Ms. Fox holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics, George Mason University, and a B.S. in Mathematics, George Mason University.
Fox Discusses Posture, Threats in Asia-Pacific Region
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11, 2014 – Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine H. Fox warned today against assuming a permissive environment for U.S. naval air and sea assets, saying threats continue to grow from rival military powers as well as from the proliferation of more advanced anti-ship munitions around the globe.
Speaking at a defense industry conference in San Diego, Fox said only through re-shaping and re-balancing the United States’ defense institutions will the resources be available to buy modern capabilities and invest in the next generation of electronic warfare.
As the DOD completes its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, Fox said it will continue to convey the need for American military power and leadership, but in light of the fiscal realities, the department cannot postpone further difficult decisions about the military’s size and operating costs.
“When all is said and done, an enterprise of the U.S. military’s size, complexity and global reach requires a substantial administrative and support operation,” she said.
Meanwhile, without tough choices based on strategic priorities like the maritime strategy, Fox noted, readiness and modernization will continue to suffer as security threats grow and multiply.
Overall signs point to the military getting smaller over the next five years, which Fox said is not an ideal course of action and not without its risks. “[G]iven current realities, it is the only plausible way to generate the savings necessary to adequately fund training, readiness, modernization, and avoid the prospect of a ‘hollow force’ in the future.”
Even so, Fox said the Defense Department has already committed to focusing 60 percent of the Navy’s fleet on the Pacific Command area of responsibility. “The Marines … began rotational deployments in Australia, the first of its kind since the Korean War … and up to four Littoral Combat Ships will deploy regularly to Singapore.”
In Japan, Fox noted, U.S. force posture will shift by moving several thousand Marines from Okinawa to Guam with plans to relocate the naval-air station at Futenma. “These efforts will all help maintain a well-distributed and politically sustainable force posture throughout the Pacific.”
Of China’s economic dynamism, Fox described the country’s regional and global growth as a “welcome development,” but she also emphasized the importance of carefully managing U.S. ties to strengthen transparency and trust.
“Improving that defense relationship and understanding China’s intentions is so important because of the comprehensive military modernization program being pursued by the People’s Liberation Army,” Fox said. “It is no secret that China is developing its military capabilities designed to thwart the freedom of movement of others in the region and to expand their influence.”
And in an era when China’s defense budget is increasing at around 10 percent annually, the United States – due to a variety of political and fiscal factors – is disproportionately reducing the very investments that are intended to sustain its technological superiority, Fox said.
But despite the ebbs and flows of U.S. relations with any country, she explained, the U.S. must maintain its decisive advantage against other military powers or risk the loss of influence, increase in regional rivalries and security dilemmas and even risk conflict due to miscalculation.
 |
| DOD PHOTO |
Christine H. Fox
Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense
Ms. Fox most recently served as a Senior Advisor to the National Security Analysis Department at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) from August 2013 through November 2013.
Prior to joining APL, Ms. Fox served as the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She was appointed to that position in November 2009. A Presidential appointee confirmed by the United States Senate, Ms. Fox served as the principal staff assistant to the Secretary of Defense for analyzing and evaluating plans, programs, and budgets in relation to U.S. defense objectives and resource constraints.
Ms. Fox possesses three decades of experience as an analyst and research manager focusing on defense issues, with a special emphasis on operations. She formerly served as the President of the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, and as the scientific analyst to the Chief of Naval Operations. Prior to her appointment as President of CNA, Ms. Fox was the Vice President and Director of CNA’s Operations Evaluation Group, responsible for approximately 85 field representatives focused on helping operational commanders execute their missions. She oversaw CNA’s analysis of real-world operations, including the operations in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, operations in Afghanistan immediately following the September 11th attacks, and the operation in Iraq in early 2003.
Ms. Fox served as a member of NASA’s Return to Flight Task Group, chartered by the NASA Administrator to certify the recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. She was also a member of the Advisory Board of the Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington from 2007 until 2009.
Ms. Fox holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics, George Mason University, and a B.S. in Mathematics, George Mason University.
CHILDREN'S GAMING COMPANY SETTLES CHARGES IT VIOLATED SAFE HARBOR PRIVACY FRAMEWORK
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Settles with Children’s Gaming Company For Falsely Claiming To Comply With International Safe Harbor Privacy Framework
A children’s online entertainment company has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely claimed it was abiding by an international privacy framework known as the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor that enables U.S. companies to transfer consumer data from the European Union to the U.S. in compliance with EU law.
According to a complaint filed by the FTC, Fantage.com, the maker of a popular multiplayer online role-playing game directed at children ages 6-16, deceptively claimed, through statements in its privacy policy, that it held current certifications under the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework. The U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission.
To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with the seven privacy principles required to meet the EU’s adequacy standard: notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. A participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework may also highlight for consumers its compliance with the Safe Harbor by displaying the Safe Harbor certification mark on its website.
The FTC complaint charges Fantage.com with representing that it held a current Safe Harbor certification, even though the company had allowed its certification to lapse. The Commission alleged that this conduct violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. However, this does not necessarily mean that the company committed any substantive violations of the privacy principles of the Safe Harbor framework or other privacy laws.
Under the proposed settlement agreement, which is subject to public comment, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting the extent to which it participates in any privacy or data security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization.
Consumers who want to know whether a U.S. company is a participant in the U.S-EU Safe Harbor program may visit http://export.gov/safeharbor to see if the company holds a current self-certification.
This case is being brought with the valuable assistance of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The company was also the subject of complaints filed in 2013 by Chris Connolly and Galexia, Inc.
The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment were 4-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through March 13, 2014, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in electronic form should be submitted online. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.
FTC Settles with Children’s Gaming Company For Falsely Claiming To Comply With International Safe Harbor Privacy Framework
A children’s online entertainment company has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely claimed it was abiding by an international privacy framework known as the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor that enables U.S. companies to transfer consumer data from the European Union to the U.S. in compliance with EU law.
According to a complaint filed by the FTC, Fantage.com, the maker of a popular multiplayer online role-playing game directed at children ages 6-16, deceptively claimed, through statements in its privacy policy, that it held current certifications under the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework. The U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission.
To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with the seven privacy principles required to meet the EU’s adequacy standard: notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. A participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework may also highlight for consumers its compliance with the Safe Harbor by displaying the Safe Harbor certification mark on its website.
The FTC complaint charges Fantage.com with representing that it held a current Safe Harbor certification, even though the company had allowed its certification to lapse. The Commission alleged that this conduct violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. However, this does not necessarily mean that the company committed any substantive violations of the privacy principles of the Safe Harbor framework or other privacy laws.
Under the proposed settlement agreement, which is subject to public comment, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting the extent to which it participates in any privacy or data security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization.
Consumers who want to know whether a U.S. company is a participant in the U.S-EU Safe Harbor program may visit http://export.gov/safeharbor to see if the company holds a current self-certification.
This case is being brought with the valuable assistance of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The company was also the subject of complaints filed in 2013 by Chris Connolly and Galexia, Inc.
The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment were 4-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through March 13, 2014, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in electronic form should be submitted online. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.
TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS BY SEC COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER AT FORUM FOR CORPORATE DIRECTORS, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Remarks to the Forum for Corporate Directors, Orange County, California
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 benefited 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.
Remarks to the Forum for Corporate Directors, Orange County, California
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 benefited 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.
REMARKS AT COUNTERING NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL SMUGGLING WORKSHOP
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Welcome and Introductory Remarks at the Countering Nuclear and Radiological Smuggling Workshop
Remarks
Simon Limage
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Programs, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Institute for Transuranium Elements
Karlsruhe, Germany
February 11, 2014
(As Prepared)
Good morning. Thank you, Dr. Fanghänel, for your kind introduction. I would also like to thank the European Union, the European Commission, and specifically the Joint Research Centre’s Institute for Transuranium Elements, for opening these impressive facilities to host this workshop — which marks a significant step toward strengthened capacities to counter transnational nuclear and radiological smuggling. I would also like to recognize all of the workshop participants — representing more than 35 Nuclear Security Summit countries and international organizations — who have traveled from around the world to contribute to this week’s activities. I believe the work we do together this week will represent a significant step toward preventing terrorists, criminals and all other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear or radioactive materials that could be used in nuclear weapons or radiological dispersal devices. Achieving this objective remains one of the most important security challenges that we all face in the years to come, and I am proud to be a part of this important work.
Through our collective efforts in support of the Nuclear Security Summit process, our governments have together made great strides in creating and promoting global awareness of, and cooperation on nuclear security. Steps taken by the international community since the first Nuclear Security Summit in Washington four years ago have been extensive. Within the United States, we have taken steps to further strengthen our domestic nuclear security framework. Internationally, important work done by programs such as the Department of Energy’s Material Protection, Control and Accounting program and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program have resulted in nuclear facilities that are more secure today than ever before.
At the first Nuclear Security Summit, Leaders from participating governments endorsed a Work Plan that included promoting national capacities in the areas of nuclear forensics, and exploring ways to enhance cooperation among local, national and international customs and law enforcement bodies to prevent illicit trafficking and acts of nuclear terrorism.
At the Seoul Summit in 2012, our leaders outlined specific steps that we have taken and intend to take — both collectively and individually — to meet these goals. Some of these steps are reflected in the 2010 and 2012 Nuclear Security Summit Communiqués, and in the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit “Statement of Activity and Cooperation to Counter Nuclear Smuggling.” Over the past several years, our governments have pursued many counter nuclear smuggling activities at the national and international levels that reinforce Summit objectives. Our activities here this week will further complement the commitments and steps our Leaders pledged at the Summits.
Now as we prepare for the third Nuclear Security Summit next month in The Hague, we must not only consider the progress we have made, but also acknowledge the work that remains to be done to prevent nuclear or radiological terrorism. Current and past inabilities to secure nuclear and radioactive materials continue to mean that materials are vulnerable to theft, or are now already outside regulatory control, and vulnerable to terrorists or other malicious actors. Despite our many nuclear security successes, the threat that highly enriched uranium or plutonium could be obtained by terrorists or other criminals intent to cause harm continues to represent one of the most pressing threats to global security.
As President Barack Obama stated in 2012, “There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials, and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places. It would not take much -- just a handful or so of these materials -- to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”
Seizures of weapon-grade nuclear material in Georgia in 2010 and Moldova in 2011 suggest that such materials remain in illegal circulation on the black market, and we must work together to locate and secure materials currently outside regulatory control. To do this, we must take action to investigate smuggling networks, remove trafficked material from the black market and arrest the individuals involved—which is the focus of our work this week.
One of the most successful methods for recovering nuclear or radioactive material outside regulatory control focuses on establishing national mechanisms to bring together law enforcement, intelligence and technical experts to investigate nuclear smuggling networks. This national-level effort might utilize, for example, information collectors to gather data on nuclear smuggling networks; intelligence analysts to review this information and look for connections between cases and individuals involved; law enforcement officers to conduct investigations and arrest smugglers; and technical experts to conduct nuclear forensics analyses of materials that are seized.
In addition to national-level competencies in all of these areas, international information-sharing mechanisms are integral to ensuring information on seized materials and the criminals who traffic them is made available to the relevant law enforcement and technical experts working to prevent these activities in the future. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) is recognized as the most well-established information-exchange mechanism for incidents involving nuclear and radioactive materials that have fallen outside regulatory control. Within the global law enforcement community, INTERPOL’s Operation Fail Safe provides a mechanism for sharing information on known nuclear smugglers with police officers around the world. I would encourage all of you to consider participating in this newly created program that fills a unique information-sharing gap in addressing the nuclear and radiological smuggling threat. We are honored to have representatives from each of these agencies deliver the keynote address for us this morning, and participate in the week’s events by sharing their expertise in this important area of international security.
This week, all of you will work together to explore new and emerging techniques for investigating nuclear smuggling networks, detecting nuclear and radioactive materials outside regulatory control, and analyzing seized material to trace its illicit movement.
The hands-on demonstrations, exercises, and scenario-based activities that you will participate in this week represent a collective next step toward advancing key capabilities to counter nuclear and radioactive materials smuggling and reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. Together, we can—and will—make the world a safer place. Thank you.
Welcome and Introductory Remarks at the Countering Nuclear and Radiological Smuggling Workshop
Remarks
Simon Limage
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Programs, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Institute for Transuranium Elements
Karlsruhe, Germany
February 11, 2014
(As Prepared)
Good morning. Thank you, Dr. Fanghänel, for your kind introduction. I would also like to thank the European Union, the European Commission, and specifically the Joint Research Centre’s Institute for Transuranium Elements, for opening these impressive facilities to host this workshop — which marks a significant step toward strengthened capacities to counter transnational nuclear and radiological smuggling. I would also like to recognize all of the workshop participants — representing more than 35 Nuclear Security Summit countries and international organizations — who have traveled from around the world to contribute to this week’s activities. I believe the work we do together this week will represent a significant step toward preventing terrorists, criminals and all other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear or radioactive materials that could be used in nuclear weapons or radiological dispersal devices. Achieving this objective remains one of the most important security challenges that we all face in the years to come, and I am proud to be a part of this important work.
Through our collective efforts in support of the Nuclear Security Summit process, our governments have together made great strides in creating and promoting global awareness of, and cooperation on nuclear security. Steps taken by the international community since the first Nuclear Security Summit in Washington four years ago have been extensive. Within the United States, we have taken steps to further strengthen our domestic nuclear security framework. Internationally, important work done by programs such as the Department of Energy’s Material Protection, Control and Accounting program and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program have resulted in nuclear facilities that are more secure today than ever before.
At the first Nuclear Security Summit, Leaders from participating governments endorsed a Work Plan that included promoting national capacities in the areas of nuclear forensics, and exploring ways to enhance cooperation among local, national and international customs and law enforcement bodies to prevent illicit trafficking and acts of nuclear terrorism.
At the Seoul Summit in 2012, our leaders outlined specific steps that we have taken and intend to take — both collectively and individually — to meet these goals. Some of these steps are reflected in the 2010 and 2012 Nuclear Security Summit Communiqués, and in the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit “Statement of Activity and Cooperation to Counter Nuclear Smuggling.” Over the past several years, our governments have pursued many counter nuclear smuggling activities at the national and international levels that reinforce Summit objectives. Our activities here this week will further complement the commitments and steps our Leaders pledged at the Summits.
Now as we prepare for the third Nuclear Security Summit next month in The Hague, we must not only consider the progress we have made, but also acknowledge the work that remains to be done to prevent nuclear or radiological terrorism. Current and past inabilities to secure nuclear and radioactive materials continue to mean that materials are vulnerable to theft, or are now already outside regulatory control, and vulnerable to terrorists or other malicious actors. Despite our many nuclear security successes, the threat that highly enriched uranium or plutonium could be obtained by terrorists or other criminals intent to cause harm continues to represent one of the most pressing threats to global security.
As President Barack Obama stated in 2012, “There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials, and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places. It would not take much -- just a handful or so of these materials -- to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”
Seizures of weapon-grade nuclear material in Georgia in 2010 and Moldova in 2011 suggest that such materials remain in illegal circulation on the black market, and we must work together to locate and secure materials currently outside regulatory control. To do this, we must take action to investigate smuggling networks, remove trafficked material from the black market and arrest the individuals involved—which is the focus of our work this week.
One of the most successful methods for recovering nuclear or radioactive material outside regulatory control focuses on establishing national mechanisms to bring together law enforcement, intelligence and technical experts to investigate nuclear smuggling networks. This national-level effort might utilize, for example, information collectors to gather data on nuclear smuggling networks; intelligence analysts to review this information and look for connections between cases and individuals involved; law enforcement officers to conduct investigations and arrest smugglers; and technical experts to conduct nuclear forensics analyses of materials that are seized.
In addition to national-level competencies in all of these areas, international information-sharing mechanisms are integral to ensuring information on seized materials and the criminals who traffic them is made available to the relevant law enforcement and technical experts working to prevent these activities in the future. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) is recognized as the most well-established information-exchange mechanism for incidents involving nuclear and radioactive materials that have fallen outside regulatory control. Within the global law enforcement community, INTERPOL’s Operation Fail Safe provides a mechanism for sharing information on known nuclear smugglers with police officers around the world. I would encourage all of you to consider participating in this newly created program that fills a unique information-sharing gap in addressing the nuclear and radiological smuggling threat. We are honored to have representatives from each of these agencies deliver the keynote address for us this morning, and participate in the week’s events by sharing their expertise in this important area of international security.
This week, all of you will work together to explore new and emerging techniques for investigating nuclear smuggling networks, detecting nuclear and radioactive materials outside regulatory control, and analyzing seized material to trace its illicit movement.
The hands-on demonstrations, exercises, and scenario-based activities that you will participate in this week represent a collective next step toward advancing key capabilities to counter nuclear and radioactive materials smuggling and reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. Together, we can—and will—make the world a safer place. Thank you.
TRANSCRIPT OF SECRETARY KERRY'S VIRTUAL PRESS CONFERENCE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at LiveAtState Virtual Press Conference
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Linda Thomas-Greenfield
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs
Washington, DC
February 11, 2014
MS. JENSEN: Hi. Welcome to LiveAtState, the State Department’s interactive web-chat platform for engaging international media. I’m your host, Holly Jensen, and I would like to welcome all of you joining us today. I would like to send a special shout-out to those of you joining us at our 20 watch parties in 18 countries hosted by our embassies and posts around the continent.
As you know, Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield is here today. She will be discussing U.S. policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. But what you don’t know is she is joined by Secretary of State John Kerry, who has come by to say a few words about our U.S. policy and the importance of our relationship with Africa. He’s also graciously agreed to take one question before he departs. As you know, he’s a very, very busy man.
So Mr. Secretary, thank you for being the first ever Secretary of State to join us on LiveAtState.
SECRETARY KERRY: Wow. I didn’t realize that. I’m very excited by that. Thank you.
MS. JENSEN: Great.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, Holly. I’m very – I’m really happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be joining all of you. Thanks for being part of this incredible network of watch parties. And it’s my privilege to be here with our terrific Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who is firefighting in lots of different places. She’s doing an incredible job of reaching out and trying to help us to end some conflicts where they exist and prevent them where they might be starting. And there are huge challenges.
But what is happening in Africa is so exciting overall. And we are really deeply engaged. And the President has instructed us to really try to light our fire under our efforts in – throughout the continent. When you look at it, and you think that over the course of the next 20, 30 years half the workforce or a quarter of the workforce of the world, I guess it is, is going to wind up coming from Africa, being in Africa. And 60 percent of the population under the age of 30 presents us not just with an enormous challenge, because we need to provide education, we need to provide opportunity, but it also provides us with the chance to really define the future. And that’s what we’re trying to do with our programs like Trade Africa, with our Power Africa initiative, with the Young African Leaders Initiative. All of these things are exciting. The President is very committed to trying to build on this through the African Summit that’s coming down the road.
I’d just say very quickly that I’ve been personally involved in the issues of the Central African Republic, where we are trying to build the capacity to deal with the violence. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, we got Special Envoy Russ Feingold, who’s done a superb job working with Mary Robinson. We’ve been able to secure the framework agreement that recently came out of Kampala and that will now reduce the violence, we hope, with the disarming of M23 and hopefully create an agenda going forward around which we can develop and build capacity.
And then of course Sudan, South Sudan – an enormous challenge. We’ve been deeply engaged there. Again, we have a special envoy. We work with very, very hard. I’ve personally been on the telephone with President Kiir, with former Vice President Riek Machar, with the Ethiopians, with the Ugandans, and others in efforts to try to prevent the deterioration, which only impacts the people of the South Sudan. And we want to avoid going back to what was once the longest war in the history of Africa.
So there are many, many challenges. And I can just say to all of you on a personal level – I think many of you know – my wife was born in Mozambique, in what is now Maputo is where she lived, and she was educated in South Africa, in Johannesburg and Durban, actually. And I recall myself going back there with her and just visiting up in the mountains a school where we were engaged in trying to prevent AIDS and deal with people who had it. It was a very moving experience for me. We’ve made enormous progress, a huge reduction in the incidence of AIDS. We may be able to have the first generation of children born AIDS-free as a result of our efforts. There’s been a 40-fold increase in the provision of antiretroviral drugs.
So it’s an amazing story, and I think it’s a measure of the full engagement of the United States and all of us in trying to help Africa to define its own future in the way that it wants to, but to give the lift necessary to do that.
So my privilege to be here with Linda, and apologize that I can only stay for one question. But we have the French President Hollande visiting, and I need to go over to the White House for our meeting. So thank you.
MS. JENSEN: Great. The first question – and only question – comes from Latif Mukasa from Record TV. And he would like to know: “What is the U.S.’s interest in South Sudan? And what’s the way forward for peace to prevail?”
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the United States has always been interested in South Sudan, regardless of administration label, Republican or Democrat alike. Former Senator John Danforth spent a great deal of time, at President Bush’s designation, to help create the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA. And I personally became engaged there because I was struck by the fact that so many people had died, maybe as many as 2 million people in what was Africa’s longest war.
Here we had a young nation that – or an aspiring nation at that time – that wanted its independence. That’s part of the American story. It’s something we respect, the democracy, the opportunity to be able to define your own future. And so we were very supportive of that. I personally visited. I was personally involved. I was there the day of the referendum. We feel invested.
We also feel deeply committed, given past lessons, to try to prevent the chaos and the genocide that too often comes of the violence that can occur if things break down. We all have an interest – and everybody has an interest – in not letting that happen.
So here we have this new nation that is already in extremis, and we helped give birth to it. We feel this is the part of our responsibility. And we don’t want this to cascade into a more violent repetition of the past. So that’s why we’re committed. We believe this is part of the defining of the future of Africa, and we will remain deeply committed and personally engaged in an effort to try to help the people of South Sudan define their own future in peace and prosperity, hopefully.
MS. JENSEN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.
MS. JENSEN: I know you have to make your way out.
SECRETARY KERRY: I do have to run. I apologize. Have fun.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you so much for joining us.
SECRETARY KERRY: You’re going to have a great time.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you. I don’t know how I can follow you, but thank you.
MS. JENSEN: Don’t forget to cut your mike off.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Take care. Thanks.
MS. JENSEN: Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks.
Remarks at LiveAtState Virtual Press Conference
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Linda Thomas-Greenfield
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs
Washington, DC
February 11, 2014
MS. JENSEN: Hi. Welcome to LiveAtState, the State Department’s interactive web-chat platform for engaging international media. I’m your host, Holly Jensen, and I would like to welcome all of you joining us today. I would like to send a special shout-out to those of you joining us at our 20 watch parties in 18 countries hosted by our embassies and posts around the continent.
As you know, Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield is here today. She will be discussing U.S. policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. But what you don’t know is she is joined by Secretary of State John Kerry, who has come by to say a few words about our U.S. policy and the importance of our relationship with Africa. He’s also graciously agreed to take one question before he departs. As you know, he’s a very, very busy man.
So Mr. Secretary, thank you for being the first ever Secretary of State to join us on LiveAtState.
SECRETARY KERRY: Wow. I didn’t realize that. I’m very excited by that. Thank you.
MS. JENSEN: Great.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, Holly. I’m very – I’m really happy to be here. And I’m very happy to be joining all of you. Thanks for being part of this incredible network of watch parties. And it’s my privilege to be here with our terrific Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who is firefighting in lots of different places. She’s doing an incredible job of reaching out and trying to help us to end some conflicts where they exist and prevent them where they might be starting. And there are huge challenges.
But what is happening in Africa is so exciting overall. And we are really deeply engaged. And the President has instructed us to really try to light our fire under our efforts in – throughout the continent. When you look at it, and you think that over the course of the next 20, 30 years half the workforce or a quarter of the workforce of the world, I guess it is, is going to wind up coming from Africa, being in Africa. And 60 percent of the population under the age of 30 presents us not just with an enormous challenge, because we need to provide education, we need to provide opportunity, but it also provides us with the chance to really define the future. And that’s what we’re trying to do with our programs like Trade Africa, with our Power Africa initiative, with the Young African Leaders Initiative. All of these things are exciting. The President is very committed to trying to build on this through the African Summit that’s coming down the road.
I’d just say very quickly that I’ve been personally involved in the issues of the Central African Republic, where we are trying to build the capacity to deal with the violence. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, we got Special Envoy Russ Feingold, who’s done a superb job working with Mary Robinson. We’ve been able to secure the framework agreement that recently came out of Kampala and that will now reduce the violence, we hope, with the disarming of M23 and hopefully create an agenda going forward around which we can develop and build capacity.
And then of course Sudan, South Sudan – an enormous challenge. We’ve been deeply engaged there. Again, we have a special envoy. We work with very, very hard. I’ve personally been on the telephone with President Kiir, with former Vice President Riek Machar, with the Ethiopians, with the Ugandans, and others in efforts to try to prevent the deterioration, which only impacts the people of the South Sudan. And we want to avoid going back to what was once the longest war in the history of Africa.
So there are many, many challenges. And I can just say to all of you on a personal level – I think many of you know – my wife was born in Mozambique, in what is now Maputo is where she lived, and she was educated in South Africa, in Johannesburg and Durban, actually. And I recall myself going back there with her and just visiting up in the mountains a school where we were engaged in trying to prevent AIDS and deal with people who had it. It was a very moving experience for me. We’ve made enormous progress, a huge reduction in the incidence of AIDS. We may be able to have the first generation of children born AIDS-free as a result of our efforts. There’s been a 40-fold increase in the provision of antiretroviral drugs.
So it’s an amazing story, and I think it’s a measure of the full engagement of the United States and all of us in trying to help Africa to define its own future in the way that it wants to, but to give the lift necessary to do that.
So my privilege to be here with Linda, and apologize that I can only stay for one question. But we have the French President Hollande visiting, and I need to go over to the White House for our meeting. So thank you.
MS. JENSEN: Great. The first question – and only question – comes from Latif Mukasa from Record TV. And he would like to know: “What is the U.S.’s interest in South Sudan? And what’s the way forward for peace to prevail?”
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the United States has always been interested in South Sudan, regardless of administration label, Republican or Democrat alike. Former Senator John Danforth spent a great deal of time, at President Bush’s designation, to help create the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA. And I personally became engaged there because I was struck by the fact that so many people had died, maybe as many as 2 million people in what was Africa’s longest war.
Here we had a young nation that – or an aspiring nation at that time – that wanted its independence. That’s part of the American story. It’s something we respect, the democracy, the opportunity to be able to define your own future. And so we were very supportive of that. I personally visited. I was personally involved. I was there the day of the referendum. We feel invested.
We also feel deeply committed, given past lessons, to try to prevent the chaos and the genocide that too often comes of the violence that can occur if things break down. We all have an interest – and everybody has an interest – in not letting that happen.
So here we have this new nation that is already in extremis, and we helped give birth to it. We feel this is the part of our responsibility. And we don’t want this to cascade into a more violent repetition of the past. So that’s why we’re committed. We believe this is part of the defining of the future of Africa, and we will remain deeply committed and personally engaged in an effort to try to help the people of South Sudan define their own future in peace and prosperity, hopefully.
MS. JENSEN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.
MS. JENSEN: I know you have to make your way out.
SECRETARY KERRY: I do have to run. I apologize. Have fun.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you so much for joining us.
SECRETARY KERRY: You’re going to have a great time.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you. I don’t know how I can follow you, but thank you.
MS. JENSEN: Don’t forget to cut your mike off.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Take care. Thanks.
MS. JENSEN: Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks.
ISS SOLAR PANELS AND EARTH
FROM: NASA
ISS038-E-042665 (5 Feb. 2014) --- Solar array panels on the Russian segment of the International Space Station and a blue and white part of Earth are photographed by an Expedition 38 crew member while the crew watches for the arrival of the ISS Progress 54 cargo spacecraft, loaded with 2.8 tons of food, fuel and supplies for the station crew. The new Progress, which docked to the station at 5:22 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Feb. 5, is loaded with 1,764 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds of oxygen, 926 pounds of water and 2,897 pounds of spare parts, experiment hardware and other supplies. Progress 54 is slated to spend about two months docked to the complex before departing to make way for ISS Progress 55. Image Credit: NASA
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
"U.S. MARSHALS OFFER REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO CAPTURE OF GEORGIA ESCAPEES"
FROM: U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
U. S. Marshals Offer Reward for Information Leading to Capture of Georgia Escapees
SAVANNAH, Ga. – The U.S. Marshals Service is offering dual $2,500 rewards for information that leads to the arrests of two Tattnall County Jail escapees. Chad Everette Dasher and Raymond Thomas Smith escaped from the Tattnall County Jail on Jan. 24. They executed an elaborate plan to breach jail security and escaped through the jail’s roof. They are considered armed and extremely dangerous.
Dasher was being held on multiple charges for a multi-county crime spree that occurred in Georgia in 2012. Dasher is a white male, 5’9” tall and 140 pounds. He has green eyes and brown hair. Dasher has an extensive criminal history, including arrests for burglary, firearms, fraud, narcotics, resisting arresting and traffic offenses. He has a history of fleeing from law enforcement.
mith was being held on multiple counts of aggravated child molestation. Smith is a white male, 6’1” tall and 200 pounds. He has brown hair and brown eyes. InRaymond Thomas Smith addition to Smith’s arrest for sex offenses, he has prior arrests for assault, firearms, and obstruction.
If you have any information about these escapees, call the Tattnall County Sheriff’s Office at 912-557-6777 or the U.S. Marshals Service Communications Center at 1-800-336-0102. Tips can also be emailed to usms.wanted@usdoj.gov. All information is confidential. A $2,500.00 reward is being offered for information that leads to the arrest of each of these fugitives. In order to collect the reward, tipsters should be prepared to give their name and contact information to law enforcement officials manning the tip lines.
Established in 1789, the U.S. Marshals Service is the nation’s oldest federal law enforcement agency. The U.S. Marshals Service is the federal government’s primary agency for fugitive investigations. In fiscal year 2013, the Marshals apprehended approximately 36,000 federal fugitives and cleared approximately 39,000 felony warrants. Marshals-led fugitive task forces arrested 74,200 state and local fugitives and cleared approximately 95,000 state and local felony warrants in FY 2013.
The U. S. Marshals Service Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force (SERFTF) was created by the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000. Congress recognized the U.S. Marshals expertise in tracking and apprehending dangerous fugitives and ordered the creation of regional fugitive task forces (RFTFs) in core cities throughout the country. Via this mandate, SERFTF was created in 2003 and has offices in Atlanta, Macon and Savannah to assist state, county and local agencies as a central investigative base to identify, locate and apprehend dangerous offenders.
In FY2013, SERFTF arrested approximately 2,534 fugitives and cleared roughly 4,048 warrants statewide in Georgia. Locally, the Savannah Division of SERFTF is composed of state and local law enforcement officers from the Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia Parole, the Chatham County Sheriff’s Office, the Savannah Chatham Metro Police Department, the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office, the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office, the Hampton County Sheriff’s Office, and the McIntosh County Sheriff’s Office.
U. S. Marshals Offer Reward for Information Leading to Capture of Georgia Escapees
SAVANNAH, Ga. – The U.S. Marshals Service is offering dual $2,500 rewards for information that leads to the arrests of two Tattnall County Jail escapees. Chad Everette Dasher and Raymond Thomas Smith escaped from the Tattnall County Jail on Jan. 24. They executed an elaborate plan to breach jail security and escaped through the jail’s roof. They are considered armed and extremely dangerous.
Dasher was being held on multiple charges for a multi-county crime spree that occurred in Georgia in 2012. Dasher is a white male, 5’9” tall and 140 pounds. He has green eyes and brown hair. Dasher has an extensive criminal history, including arrests for burglary, firearms, fraud, narcotics, resisting arresting and traffic offenses. He has a history of fleeing from law enforcement.
mith was being held on multiple counts of aggravated child molestation. Smith is a white male, 6’1” tall and 200 pounds. He has brown hair and brown eyes. InRaymond Thomas Smith addition to Smith’s arrest for sex offenses, he has prior arrests for assault, firearms, and obstruction.
If you have any information about these escapees, call the Tattnall County Sheriff’s Office at 912-557-6777 or the U.S. Marshals Service Communications Center at 1-800-336-0102. Tips can also be emailed to usms.wanted@usdoj.gov. All information is confidential. A $2,500.00 reward is being offered for information that leads to the arrest of each of these fugitives. In order to collect the reward, tipsters should be prepared to give their name and contact information to law enforcement officials manning the tip lines.
Established in 1789, the U.S. Marshals Service is the nation’s oldest federal law enforcement agency. The U.S. Marshals Service is the federal government’s primary agency for fugitive investigations. In fiscal year 2013, the Marshals apprehended approximately 36,000 federal fugitives and cleared approximately 39,000 felony warrants. Marshals-led fugitive task forces arrested 74,200 state and local fugitives and cleared approximately 95,000 state and local felony warrants in FY 2013.
The U. S. Marshals Service Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force (SERFTF) was created by the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000. Congress recognized the U.S. Marshals expertise in tracking and apprehending dangerous fugitives and ordered the creation of regional fugitive task forces (RFTFs) in core cities throughout the country. Via this mandate, SERFTF was created in 2003 and has offices in Atlanta, Macon and Savannah to assist state, county and local agencies as a central investigative base to identify, locate and apprehend dangerous offenders.
In FY2013, SERFTF arrested approximately 2,534 fugitives and cleared roughly 4,048 warrants statewide in Georgia. Locally, the Savannah Division of SERFTF is composed of state and local law enforcement officers from the Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia Parole, the Chatham County Sheriff’s Office, the Savannah Chatham Metro Police Department, the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office, the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office, the Hampton County Sheriff’s Office, and the McIntosh County Sheriff’s Office.
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT LUNCH FOR FRENCH PRESIDENT HOLLANDE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at a State Lunch for French President Francois Hollande
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
French President Francois Hollande
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
February 11, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, all. We are really privileged to welcome the President of France Francois Hollande and his delegation here to the State Department for this luncheon. And we are very honored by the presence of Vice President Biden, who’s obviously joining us here, and all of you who have come here today. And I am particularly grateful to see three former Secretaries of State: Secretary Henry Kissinger, Secretary Colin Powell, and Secretary Madeleine Albright. Thank you all for being here with us. (Applause.)
This afternoon, we will share a wonderful meal prepared by a special chef, who I will talk about later, from New Orleans, and we will share it at these tables around in the Ben Franklin Room. And tonight, we will do so around tables on the South Lawn of the White House. But it’s the table right over here that really is historic and an important symbol of the strength of the deep roots of our friendship. It was on this desk, Mr. President, that Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Hay[1] signed the Treaty of Paris that brought to an end our great War of Independence. And it is clearly a triumph that we perhaps never would have marked without the special help of the French, and we thank you even now.
(Via Interpreter.)
President Hollande and the people of France, more than 230 years later we have not forgotten your friendship and we will forever cherish our partnership.
How appropriate for us to gather in the Ben Franklin Room. Not only did Franklin come to be called the first American, but he was also the father of the Foreign Service and he was our first ambassador to France. It was also Franklin who wrote many of the first rules for decorum in America, and then from the moment he arrived in Paris made every effort to break them all. (Laughter.) I don’t think we could get him confirmed by the Senate today. (Laughter.)
But what Franklin did to bring the best of the frontier spirit to France, Thomas Jefferson did in sharing France’s cultural vitality with America. From Monticello’s dome, which you saw yesterday, Mr. President, with President Obama, and which was modeled after a palace on the Seine, to the Paris Market Wallflowers on Jefferson’s magnificent estate, to Voltaire and Rousseau’s influence on the founders’ belief in the consent of the governed and the connection between education and liberty, France has been an inspiration from our very start.
For many of us, the bonds between our two nations are rooted not just in history, but also in family. We know about Vice President Biden’s grandparents, the Finnegans, but with his middle name, Robinette, his family honored his French roots.
My own parents, Americans abroad, first met and fell in love on the coastline of France, in Brittany, only to be separated by the coming war in the late 1930s. My mother, then living in Paris, had become a nurse and was treating the wounded at Montparnasse. The day before the Nazis entered the city, she escaped with her sister, ahead of their advances on a bicycle and proceeded to forage her way across France while German fighters were strafing them en route. And she made her way to Portugal eventually, where she boarded a ship that brought her to the United States and brought me here.
When my mother returned to France for the first time after the war, Mr. President, I went with her, a very young child. And one of my first memories was holding her hand and walking through the bombed-out and burned-down remains of her family’s home, which had been used as a headquarters by the Germans, and then in retreat as Patton came through, they burned it and bombed it. When we walked through, only a chimney and a stone staircase stood up, rising into the sky.
With my father in the Foreign Service posted to Europe, the France that we knew then was one that was still marked by the remains of war. My father once took me to visit the beaches of Normandy, the pilgrimage still to this day, where as a young child I could see still some of the detritus of war, some of the skeletons of Higgins boats and tanks and the burned-out bunkers, where I would even play. It wasn’t until years later, walking those beaches after I had been to war in Vietnam, that I fully understand the incredible price, the full price, of peace and liberty that both of our Greatest Generations paid, from the French Resistance to the citizen-soldiers who left farms and factories to make the world safe from tyranny.
We are all deeply honored that a man who was willing to pay that price at that time in 1944 is here today. Seventy years ago, when he was just 23 years old and the youngest in his unit, he flew missions aboard a B-17 over Normandy. Please join me in saying a special thank you to First Lieutenant Art Ordel of the United States Army. He’s right here, ladies and gentlemen. (Applause.)
We remember today that it really took an entire generation of heroes like Art to free France from fascism. And we remember that generations earlier, at our moment of maximum need, when the odds were against us in those uncertain days of the American Revolution, the United States might not have survived beyond our infancy without France by our side. We remember that when both our nations confronted existential challenges it was our deep friendship, which is rooted in our shared principles and values, that carried us through.
Still today, we give greater meaning to that friendship with our work together in almost every part of the world that is in conflict today – in Libya, in Syria, in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, in the fight against AIDS, and in the fight to deal with climate change.
So today, I want to ask all of you to join me in a toast.
Mr. President, when we had dreams of being a nation free from tyranny, when men like Franklin and Jefferson gathered in Philadelphia to map out a road to liberty and independence, they knew that they would hang at the end of a British rope if they failed. Instead, it was Franklin who famously said, “We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” And after the war, Jefferson famously said, “Every man has two countries, his own and France.” And today, we all say that our shared history and shared values had special meaning then, and they still do today, and that with our work together throughout the world, our friendship will stay strong for future generations.
So I ask you to raise your glasses and join me in a toast to a special friendship and to a special alliance. Merci.
(Toast.)
We are very lucky to have a Vice President who understands the vital importance of aligning our interests and our values at the same time, and that is why he believes so strongly in the vitality of our friendship with France. The Vice President and I have been friends for perhaps 40 years now, and of course, he has long been a great friend of France. It’s been a personal privilege to have been a colleague of his in the Senate and to see how deeply he values his personal relationships and also those on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for joining us today. (Applause.)
(Vice President Biden delivers remarks.)
PRESIDENT HOLLANDE: Mr. Vice President, Mr. State Secretary, ladies and gentlemen, I’m very proud to be there, but I obliged to speak in French because of a tradition that French presidents speak in French. (Laughter.) It’s a protection, also, for him. (Laughter.)
(Via interpreter) I’d like to thank you for this warm reception extended to me and my delegation, and I salute Mrs. Albright, Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Colin Powell, three former secretary of States, and all the personalities that are present in this room. As you’ll recall, Mr. Vice President, Secretary of State, France and the United States have always been allies, and this was confirmed in Thomas Jefferson’s house, who, if there hadn’t been such a big estate, could have been located in Paris, because we knew all his objects were familiar to us, this bust of Voltaire. Even Turgot’s bust was there. So we felt at home. It was like a French museum. There was even a very good cellar where the most prestigious wines were kept – not dating back 200 years admittedly, but they – they’re a witness to a taste for French culture.
Today, we have to address new challenges. Times have changed. But what is fascinating and has been fascinating over the past few years is the fact that France and the United States always act together. France is the United States’ ally or are the United States allies of France? It’s not always easy to have France as an ally, but it’s not always easy to have the United States as an ally for France. But what makes our friendship so special is precisely the fact that it is based on independence, sovereignty, and respect. We are guided by the same principles and the same values. We are two nations who are proud of holding messages for the whole world. We don’t do it for ourselves, for our glory, for power, for interests. We do it because we want to send the same messages as the one we received from our founding fathers – human rights, emancipation of peoples.
France carries out its duty where it feels the most committed – in Africa. We did it in Mali. And this operation was only successful because our American and our European friends helped us along the way, as did our African friends. Today, we are in the Central African Republic to prevent a massacre. Some even talk of a genocide. Because again, we feel that this is our responsibility, and we know we can count on our American friends’ support.
We also stand together to solve the Syrian issue, to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fight against the risk – the Iranian or North Korean potential risk. We stand together every time peace is at stake, and we supported John Kerry’s initiative for the resumption of negotiation between Palestinians and Israeli. We always stand side by side when it comes to defending a conception of our planet, when it comes to making sure that the climate as a challenge is addressed. And this is precisely why France will host an extremely important conference for the very future of our planet. We stand side by side thanks to our will to be part of an alliance, NATO, in which we want to define new goals because the international situation has changed.
John Kerry and Laurent Fabius today are mobilized to work for Ukraine. Ukraine is very far away from the United States. It’s not all that close to France either. But in a way, it is very near us in that these men and women have expectations, have wishes for freedom. They don’t want to be separated from their neighbors. They just want to be able to make their own choices. We also have to address commercial challenges. That’s no mean task for – we need to open up new markets, we need to intensify trade relations, and we also need to defend some of our interests. And again, we do it whilst respecting a number of principles.
France is very attached to the cultural exception, l'exception culturelle. It’s not about protecting. It’s about plurality. It’s about diversity of languages, of cultures throughout the world. We know that revolution is underway at the moment. It came from the United States, as often it is – the digital revolution. We need to promote the digital agenda. We need to enhance it and strengthen it in order for it to produce economic advantages, and we need to support it and accompany it, because it is our responsibility.
This is why I entirely trust this confidence between France and the United States. This is a state visit, not the first one. Other state visits took place here. General De Gaulle came here on a state visit. He was a loyal ally of the United States, even though he wasn’t all that keen on showing it in all the various ways of expressing it. But every time the United States had to call for France’s solidarity, France was there, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then Georges Pompidou came here. He stayed quite a while. Back then, French presidents of the Republic could stay a week, sometimes two weeks, sometimes even longer. Happy days. (Laughter.)
The Vice President gives me his authorization to stay longer. Unfortunately, it is impossible. President Pompidou came and it was a challenging reception because he was defending his policy in the Middle East. But he was warmly received. He was welcome because he was working for peace. Then President Giscard d'Estaing came here and President Francois Mitterrand. I was telling this anecdote: President Francois Mitterrand went to the Silicon Valley and one young business leader – I wouldn’t say contradict him – but called upon him. He didn’t know exactly who he was. He thought it was just a small American company or a medium-sized American company. Maybe it was. It was Steve Jobs. That was the young lad. Well, we never forgot it.
And President Jacques Chirac came to see you, I am here, and President Sarkozy came here on an official visit. So this is a tradition we’re in. Every single time, we were able to strengthen our ties to make headway in terms of friendship between France and America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
This afternoon, we will share a wonderful meal prepared by a special chef, who I will talk about later, from New Orleans, and we will share it at these tables around in the Ben Franklin Room. And tonight, we will do so around tables on the South Lawn of the White House. But it’s the table right over here that really is historic and an important symbol of the strength of the deep roots of our friendship. It was on this desk, Mr. President, that Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Hay[1] signed the Treaty of Paris that brought to an end our great War of Independence. And it is clearly a triumph that we perhaps never would have marked without the special help of the French, and we thank you even now.
(Via Interpreter.)
President Hollande and the people of France, more than 230 years later we have not forgotten your friendship and we will forever cherish our partnership.
How appropriate for us to gather in the Ben Franklin Room. Not only did Franklin come to be called the first American, but he was also the father of the Foreign Service and he was our first ambassador to France. It was also Franklin who wrote many of the first rules for decorum in America, and then from the moment he arrived in Paris made every effort to break them all. (Laughter.) I don’t think we could get him confirmed by the Senate today. (Laughter.)
But what Franklin did to bring the best of the frontier spirit to France, Thomas Jefferson did in sharing France’s cultural vitality with America. From Monticello’s dome, which you saw yesterday, Mr. President, with President Obama, and which was modeled after a palace on the Seine, to the Paris Market Wallflowers on Jefferson’s magnificent estate, to Voltaire and Rousseau’s influence on the founders’ belief in the consent of the governed and the connection between education and liberty, France has been an inspiration from our very start.
For many of us, the bonds between our two nations are rooted not just in history, but also in family. We know about Vice President Biden’s grandparents, the Finnegans, but with his middle name, Robinette, his family honored his French roots.
My own parents, Americans abroad, first met and fell in love on the coastline of France, in Brittany, only to be separated by the coming war in the late 1930s. My mother, then living in Paris, had become a nurse and was treating the wounded at Montparnasse. The day before the Nazis entered the city, she escaped with her sister, ahead of their advances on a bicycle and proceeded to forage her way across France while German fighters were strafing them en route. And she made her way to Portugal eventually, where she boarded a ship that brought her to the United States and brought me here.
When my mother returned to France for the first time after the war, Mr. President, I went with her, a very young child. And one of my first memories was holding her hand and walking through the bombed-out and burned-down remains of her family’s home, which had been used as a headquarters by the Germans, and then in retreat as Patton came through, they burned it and bombed it. When we walked through, only a chimney and a stone staircase stood up, rising into the sky.
With my father in the Foreign Service posted to Europe, the France that we knew then was one that was still marked by the remains of war. My father once took me to visit the beaches of Normandy, the pilgrimage still to this day, where as a young child I could see still some of the detritus of war, some of the skeletons of Higgins boats and tanks and the burned-out bunkers, where I would even play. It wasn’t until years later, walking those beaches after I had been to war in Vietnam, that I fully understand the incredible price, the full price, of peace and liberty that both of our Greatest Generations paid, from the French Resistance to the citizen-soldiers who left farms and factories to make the world safe from tyranny.
We are all deeply honored that a man who was willing to pay that price at that time in 1944 is here today. Seventy years ago, when he was just 23 years old and the youngest in his unit, he flew missions aboard a B-17 over Normandy. Please join me in saying a special thank you to First Lieutenant Art Ordel of the United States Army. He’s right here, ladies and gentlemen. (Applause.)
We remember today that it really took an entire generation of heroes like Art to free France from fascism. And we remember that generations earlier, at our moment of maximum need, when the odds were against us in those uncertain days of the American Revolution, the United States might not have survived beyond our infancy without France by our side. We remember that when both our nations confronted existential challenges it was our deep friendship, which is rooted in our shared principles and values, that carried us through.
Still today, we give greater meaning to that friendship with our work together in almost every part of the world that is in conflict today – in Libya, in Syria, in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, in the fight against AIDS, and in the fight to deal with climate change.
So today, I want to ask all of you to join me in a toast.
Mr. President, when we had dreams of being a nation free from tyranny, when men like Franklin and Jefferson gathered in Philadelphia to map out a road to liberty and independence, they knew that they would hang at the end of a British rope if they failed. Instead, it was Franklin who famously said, “We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” And after the war, Jefferson famously said, “Every man has two countries, his own and France.” And today, we all say that our shared history and shared values had special meaning then, and they still do today, and that with our work together throughout the world, our friendship will stay strong for future generations.
So I ask you to raise your glasses and join me in a toast to a special friendship and to a special alliance. Merci.
(Toast.)
We are very lucky to have a Vice President who understands the vital importance of aligning our interests and our values at the same time, and that is why he believes so strongly in the vitality of our friendship with France. The Vice President and I have been friends for perhaps 40 years now, and of course, he has long been a great friend of France. It’s been a personal privilege to have been a colleague of his in the Senate and to see how deeply he values his personal relationships and also those on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for joining us today. (Applause.)
(Vice President Biden delivers remarks.)
PRESIDENT HOLLANDE: Mr. Vice President, Mr. State Secretary, ladies and gentlemen, I’m very proud to be there, but I obliged to speak in French because of a tradition that French presidents speak in French. (Laughter.) It’s a protection, also, for him. (Laughter.)
(Via interpreter) I’d like to thank you for this warm reception extended to me and my delegation, and I salute Mrs. Albright, Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Colin Powell, three former secretary of States, and all the personalities that are present in this room. As you’ll recall, Mr. Vice President, Secretary of State, France and the United States have always been allies, and this was confirmed in Thomas Jefferson’s house, who, if there hadn’t been such a big estate, could have been located in Paris, because we knew all his objects were familiar to us, this bust of Voltaire. Even Turgot’s bust was there. So we felt at home. It was like a French museum. There was even a very good cellar where the most prestigious wines were kept – not dating back 200 years admittedly, but they – they’re a witness to a taste for French culture.
Today, we have to address new challenges. Times have changed. But what is fascinating and has been fascinating over the past few years is the fact that France and the United States always act together. France is the United States’ ally or are the United States allies of France? It’s not always easy to have France as an ally, but it’s not always easy to have the United States as an ally for France. But what makes our friendship so special is precisely the fact that it is based on independence, sovereignty, and respect. We are guided by the same principles and the same values. We are two nations who are proud of holding messages for the whole world. We don’t do it for ourselves, for our glory, for power, for interests. We do it because we want to send the same messages as the one we received from our founding fathers – human rights, emancipation of peoples.
France carries out its duty where it feels the most committed – in Africa. We did it in Mali. And this operation was only successful because our American and our European friends helped us along the way, as did our African friends. Today, we are in the Central African Republic to prevent a massacre. Some even talk of a genocide. Because again, we feel that this is our responsibility, and we know we can count on our American friends’ support.
We also stand together to solve the Syrian issue, to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fight against the risk – the Iranian or North Korean potential risk. We stand together every time peace is at stake, and we supported John Kerry’s initiative for the resumption of negotiation between Palestinians and Israeli. We always stand side by side when it comes to defending a conception of our planet, when it comes to making sure that the climate as a challenge is addressed. And this is precisely why France will host an extremely important conference for the very future of our planet. We stand side by side thanks to our will to be part of an alliance, NATO, in which we want to define new goals because the international situation has changed.
John Kerry and Laurent Fabius today are mobilized to work for Ukraine. Ukraine is very far away from the United States. It’s not all that close to France either. But in a way, it is very near us in that these men and women have expectations, have wishes for freedom. They don’t want to be separated from their neighbors. They just want to be able to make their own choices. We also have to address commercial challenges. That’s no mean task for – we need to open up new markets, we need to intensify trade relations, and we also need to defend some of our interests. And again, we do it whilst respecting a number of principles.
France is very attached to the cultural exception, l'exception culturelle. It’s not about protecting. It’s about plurality. It’s about diversity of languages, of cultures throughout the world. We know that revolution is underway at the moment. It came from the United States, as often it is – the digital revolution. We need to promote the digital agenda. We need to enhance it and strengthen it in order for it to produce economic advantages, and we need to support it and accompany it, because it is our responsibility.
This is why I entirely trust this confidence between France and the United States. This is a state visit, not the first one. Other state visits took place here. General De Gaulle came here on a state visit. He was a loyal ally of the United States, even though he wasn’t all that keen on showing it in all the various ways of expressing it. But every time the United States had to call for France’s solidarity, France was there, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then Georges Pompidou came here. He stayed quite a while. Back then, French presidents of the Republic could stay a week, sometimes two weeks, sometimes even longer. Happy days. (Laughter.)
The Vice President gives me his authorization to stay longer. Unfortunately, it is impossible. President Pompidou came and it was a challenging reception because he was defending his policy in the Middle East. But he was warmly received. He was welcome because he was working for peace. Then President Giscard d'Estaing came here and President Francois Mitterrand. I was telling this anecdote: President Francois Mitterrand went to the Silicon Valley and one young business leader – I wouldn’t say contradict him – but called upon him. He didn’t know exactly who he was. He thought it was just a small American company or a medium-sized American company. Maybe it was. It was Steve Jobs. That was the young lad. Well, we never forgot it.
And President Jacques Chirac came to see you, I am here, and President Sarkozy came here on an official visit. So this is a tradition we’re in. Every single time, we were able to strengthen our ties to make headway in terms of friendship between France and America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)