Wednesday, May 28, 2014

BACKGROUND CONFERENCE CALL REGARDING PRESIDENT'S COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS AT WEST POINT

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Background Conference Call on the President's Commencement Address at West Point

11:15 A.M. EDT
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just say a few things and then take your questions.  So in the President’s speech today he was focused on defining, as we come out of a period dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what the next phase of our foreign policy is, both as it relates to our counterterrorism mission and also our broader role in the world.  You heard him speak at length about that.  I’ll only comment on a number of things.
First of all, as we laid out yesterday, we have a commitment now and a decision about how to wind down the war in Afghanistan that involves keeping a force of 9,800 U.S. servicemembers at the beginning of 2015, and then stepping down to a security presence in our embassy in Kabul, as we did in Iraq, by the end of 2016. 
Having made that decision and that announcement yesterday, today the President wanted to discuss the counterterrorism strategy that comes next, what replaces the approach that was focused on the large-scale deployments that we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And he made very clear that that approach needs to match our resources to the threat, which has changed as al Qaeda core has been severely degraded, but other al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged in different parts of the region from South Asia to the Sahel. 
The President was very clear that the focus of our efforts must be capacity building.  We need to build essentially a network of partners across this region so that we can deal with the terrorist threat.  And we will support that series of partnerships in different ways.  In some instances, we will provide training and equipping.  In some instances, we will facilitate actions like we were doing in Mali for the French.  We have resources that range from intelligence to special operations to trainers.  And, of course, we will take direct action against a terrorist when it is necessary for our own security.
In order to provide funding and resources for this capacity building, the President announced that he will be working with Congress to establish a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion.  And the purpose of this fund is to make sure that we have the resources available, and the flexibility available, to support all these different missions. 
We highlight the challenge of Syria as both a huge humanitarian crisis and a growing counterterrorism issue.  And the President indicated that this additional funding will support, for instance, Syria’s neighbors who are dealing with a terrorist threat that crosses borders.  He also made very clear that we will continue to find ways to support the Syrian opposition.  And we have, as we’ve told you, provided different types of support, including military support, to the Syrian opposition and we are doing more to increase that support.  And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do going forward.  And we will work with Congress, as he indicated, to find ways to increase that support for the Syrian opposition.
Beyond counterterrorism, he laid out his vision for U.S. leadership in the world, one that is rooted in the United States strengthening existing international institutions and norms, but also working to establish clear rules of the road for emerging challenges from cybersecurity to maritime issues to climate change.  And you heard him highlight two of our key priorities, Iran and Ukraine, where we have worked through collective action with the international community to achieve our objectives.
And, of course, you heard the President speak about our ongoing commitment to promote our values around the world, both through support for democratic transitions in countries like Burma and in the Middle East and North Africa, but also through an increased focus on broadening our relationships and networks with peoples around the world.
With that, I’m happy to move to questions about any elements of the speech or any of the policies that the President touched on. 
Q    On Syria, could you give some more details on what the President means when he says he will work with Congress to find ways to ramp up support for the opposition?  Is the administration considering an open effort by the U.S. military to train and arm in some way the opposition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, it’s a good question.  So, first of all, we have an ongoing effort to ramp up our support for the moderate opposition, and that is an effort that we coordinate very closely with our Arab partners and our European allies.  And we believe that the trajectory of that assistance has been upward and can make a real difference in strengthening the moderate opposition.
We also, as I indicated, are going to commit additional resources to the neighbors -- Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq -- who are dealing with both refugee and counterterrorism challenges.  But as we look for additional ways to strengthen the opposition, we want to review a variety of different options.  We believe, again, that strengthening the opposition is both the best counterweight to Assad and also the best counterweight to the extremist elements within Syria.  And we do want to work to review the possibility of the United States military participating in that effort.
I would draw your attention, for instance, to a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which indicates support for and authorities for the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition.  I think that indicates an emerging view in Congress that is supportive of providing that type of authority for the United States military to participate in support for the opposition.
So this is a conversation that we want to have with Congress as they develop their approaches, as we develop ideas for how to increase resources that can flow to the Syrian opposition.  So this is something, again, we’ll be discussing with Congress in the coming weeks and months.  I think the basic principle is, what are the best ways for us to provide support to the Syrian opposition; what are the different means of doing so; how can we increase resources, as the President spoke about; and how do we explore areas like authorities that are within that provision that I think was an initiative of Carl Levin, but also then drew broad support in the Armed Services Committee -- I believe it passed 26 to 1 23-3.
So this will be an ongoing focus for us as we head into the summer.
Q    After listening to your answer just now it’s still not entirely clear to me whether the U.S. will train an armed Syrian opposition.  Are you able to give a yes or no answer to that?  And secondly, the President talked about giving more support to Syria’s neighbors.  Is there a monetary figure on that support?  Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have been very clear that we do provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition, the armed Syrian opposition.  We don’t detail the specifics of that support. 
What we’re saying today, in addition to that, is not only do we want to continue to increase the assistance that we provide to the Syrian opposition, but we do want to have this discussion with Congress about the potential for there to be a role for the U.S. military in that effort.  We would need authorities to do that, obviously, and that is what, for instance, is in the Levin provision that I mentioned.
So this is something that we have to work with Congress on going forward.  But again, we are, as we said, providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition, and it’s something that will continue to be a focus given both the need to counter Assad but also to deal with the counterterrorism challenge within Syria.
In terms of the neighbors, this would be a part of this fund, again, that is up to $5 billion to deal with different contingencies across the region.  So I don’t want to break down the specific dollar amounts for individual countries; that’s something that we’ll be reviewing within the administration and the Congress as well. 
But the fact is, we want a fund like this precisely so we have flexibility, so that if we need to surge particular resources to a particular counterterrorism partner we can do that, even as we have steady support in places like Yemen or Somalia for security forces and peacekeeping forces.
So it will be a part of that Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund that the President discussed today. 
Q    Just a little more on that counterterrorism fund.  You all are asking for that money.  What’s sort of the plan if Congress doesn’t go along and actually fund that counterterrorism fund?  Do you have a second idea how you want to approach that?  And would you call the section of the speech where the President talked about our role in the world being less effective if perception takes hold, that we are conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens, the Edward Snowden effect?  And how much did the Edward Snowden leaks play into how the speech was developed?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So on your first question, obviously, we need the support of Congress for any type of additional funding above and beyond what’s already established.  I think that, generally, we’ve had broad bipartisan support for counterterrorism missions in Congress, so we’re optimistic that this is the type of approach that can sustain that support as we discuss our overseas contingency funding with Congress in the coming weeks. 
Again, we also I think would say that this is substantially less funding than was required for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So for instance, recently, at the height of the Afghan war, we were spending $10 to $15 billion a month in Afghanistan.  Part of what we’re able to do, even with the type of presence that we’re going to have in Afghanistan next year, is have a substantial drawdown in resources and funding dedicated to Afghanistan.  We want to take some of those resources and apply it to this type of fund for counterterrorism partnerships. 
That’s part of reallocating our resources across the region to match the threat.  The threat is not overwhelmingly in Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore; in fact, it’s much more dispersed.  This is an effort to reallocate resources to match the threat so that we’re spending less in Afghanistan and we’re able to dedicate more resources to the partnerships that the President talked about in the Middle East and North Africa.
On your second question, this is not a focus of the speech.  Obviously, the speech that the President gave at the Justice Department earlier this year dealt broadly with not just the disclosures by Mr. Snowden, but our approach to bulk collection and other intelligence activities.
What the President was making a point of today is we must hold ourselves to high standards as a part of maintaining American leadership; that the legitimacy that the United States has to lead the world flows from the fact that we don’t act outside of the international standards that we’ve helped to establish, and that the confidence of other nations and people that work with us is rooted in their belief that the United States has a commitment, for instance, to the rule of law and to human rights.
And again, as a part of that, we do believe that we need to give greater confidence to not just the American people, but to foreign publics as well, that the United States is not engaged in bulk collection for the purpose of conducting surveillance on ordinary people; they were focused on threats.  And so we’re taking a number of steps that the President outlined earlier this year to give those additional protections to citizens in other countries to provide assurances about what our intelligence is focused on and what it’s not focused on.
So this is going to be a significant focus for us in the next two and a half years.  And it’s a part of how we lead not just through our extraordinary capabilities in areas like intelligence, but in our commitment to use those capabilities in a way that people have confidence is not violating their privacy unnecessarily. 
Q    It’s a two-parter.  On climate change, since it’s a mention in the national security context, I’m wondering whether the administration is considering or committed to both framing the rollout of coal stuff and other climate change stuff in a national security framework, and also using that as sort of executive power authorization to do climate change policy. 
And then, I’m sorry to beat the dead horse -- I’m just a little slow -- on the Syria consideration of U.S. military to do some of the rebel training, can you review real quickly what you think Hagel can do now and what you think it is that he needs congressional authority to do?  And would the training be in Syria or in neighboring countries? 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the climate change issue, I think, broadly, climate change is a challenge that cuts across many different areas.  One of those is national security, because, as the President said, this is going to pose increasing national security dangers to the United States, and we’re going to be called upon to respond to conflicts or situations that have connections to climate change.  You can’t draw a red line, but clearly there has been an uptick in extreme weather events. 
When there’s a typhoon in Southeast Asia, when there’s a tsunami, the U.S. military is often called in for disaster response.  As the President referenced today, when there are refugees or conflicts over basic resources like food and water, that ultimately can have a bearing on national security.  So there’s a very clear intersection, we believe, between a changing climate and our national security interests. 
I think what’s important to note here is that our efforts domestically do intersect with our leadership internationally.  Next year, we are aiming to conclude a global climate framework agreement that has been a process of negotiation since Copenhagen in 2009.  Any successful international climate agreement is going to depend on many nations, including the United States, making commitments to reduce their emissions.  So in other words, actions that nations take domestically are going to have to be a part of how we build an international response, because everybody has to step up to the plate.  Of course, one of the things we said is we’re willing to take steps to reduce our emissions, but we need countries like China and India that are emerging emitters to take steps as well.
So the Climate Action Plan that we’ve developed over the course of the last year or so informed America’s commitment that we can then make as we pursue this type of global climate agreement.  These are steps that are important to take in their own right for the sake of the American people, and they’re also steps that will allow us to meet the types of commitments that we made in Copenhagen, whether you’re talking about fuel efficiency standards or coal-fired power plants. 
I won’t get into the specifics of those development elements beyond saying that they do intersect with the way in which we’re going to lead, as the President said, in pursuing this global climate framework agreement next year.  And that’s a big piece of business for us, and it’s going to demand U.S. leadership -- because, frankly, this is not the type of agreement that’s going to work if it’s only a handful of nations.  We really need the entire international community to make their commitments, to stand by those commitments in a transparent manner.  And that’s what we’ll be pursuing.
On Syria, I think if you look at the different options for providing assistance, the U.S. military would need certain additional authorities and resources to be able to step up with assistance to the Syrian opposition.  And you see in the language of the Levin provision that just moved through committee the types of authorities to the Secretary of Defense that would enable him to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition. 
So that is something where there needs to be coordination and a dialogue between the administration and Congress.  That’s a discussion that’s ongoing that we’ll continue to have.  And again, that is one option available for looking at ways to increase support to the Syrian opposition.  We’re working across many lines of effort.  We provide many types of assistance, from humanitarian to nonlethal, to the types of military support we’ve indicated, to the Syrian opposition.  That’s one area where we want to explore whether we can come to some understanding with Congress about the best way to maximize our resources and to get additional support to the Syrian people.
Q    To continue on this same subject of the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, first, do you envision that as being both a Title 10 and Title 50 available fund -- in other words, able to do both types of CT missions? 
Second, you’ve talked a lot about the role that the military might play in Syria, and you seem to be focusing on a training role.  But can you envision emerging from these discussions with Congress something broader in which the military would assist in some ways in providing greater security in the zones that the opposition now holds in the north and south? 
And finally, you’ve said again and again we’re going to have discussions with Congress, we have to talk about this with Congress.  Has the administration itself made up its mind what it wants to propose yet?  It sounds to me as if you haven’t. 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So on your first question, this is military funding title, so this would not get at the intelligence community; this would be for security support for a range of different purposes.  The President said a couple of examples today where we’ve dedicated some resources.  We dedicate resources to Mali to facilitate French actions with intelligence, with logistical support that is essential for their operations.  We train Yemeni security services.  We provide support to AMISOM in Somalia.  We equip Iraqi security forces. 
So these are all different missions that have a common thread of building capacity for partners, and the assistance would take place in that context.  The intelligence community has a separate budgeting process.
On Syria -- and your question overlaps with part of Margaret’s -- look, no, this is not -- we’re talking specifically about assistance to the opposition; we’re not talking about activities within Syria by the United States military.  That is not something that we’re contemplating. 
So I think the way to characterize the last part of your question is that we have decided that we need to continue to find ways to increase support to the opposition.  We have different ways to do that, both through our own actions, to the manner in which we collaborate with allies and partners in Europe and the Gulf, and we also want to consider whether an approach that involves the U.S. military could add to that capability.
So I think we’re looking across many different means that we have to provide this assistance.  And this is an additional option that we want to pursue with Congress and make a determination then about whether it’s the best way to increase that support.
But I think irrespective of that, clearly our trajectory is more support to the neighbors, more support to the opposition, more coordination with, for instance, the countries in the London 11, and then consideration of this additional alternative means of providing support to the opposition. 
Q    Yes, let me try this one more time, because I don’t think we’re getting a straight answer here.  Is it safe to say the White House has not decided whether to endorse the Senate language here?  Because that’s really the only thing on the table in Congress, and they’re quite clear that they have the Pentagon train and support and provide assistance to the rebels.  Have you not decided that yet?  Is that where we are? 
And if that’s the case, what do you say to critics who say, listen, you should have trained and armed the rebels two years ago when the entire national security establishment said, do so.  So what do you say to them that this whole notion of coordinating and dialogue is just delaying?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, first of all, we have been providing assistance to the opposition for some time now.  So we’re not at a standing start here when it comes to support for the armed opposition in Syria. 
With respect to the Levin provision, clearly we think that it puts forward a good concept, which is why we made a point today of indicating the fact that we want to pursue these discussions with Congress.  The fact of the matter is this is not something we can do alone as an administration; this is something that we have to do in partnership with Congress.  So I think that’s why we want to see this discussion move forward between the executive branch and the legislative branch. 
And we also want to make sure that wherever we land in terms of those discussions, that it fits appropriately into our broader strategy as it relates to how we’re working with the partners in the Arab World, how we’re working with our allies.  All these pieces need to fit together.
So this would be an additional piece, and we’re looking carefully at it.  We do think that language in the Levin provision is positive and puts forward a good concept, but we want to take the time necessary to ensure that we get this right and that we fold this into a broader strategy that supports our objectives inside of Syria. 
Q    On Syria, again -- what’s the White House’s sense of timing on this, with increasing evidence that the opposition is losing militarily after the fall of Aleppo?  What’s the timeframe for making a decision and actually beefing up military assistance if that’s indeed what the White House wants to do?  Is there a sense of urgency here? 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are two questions here.  We are beefing up our assistance.  That is an ongoing process.  So resources are reaching the opposition, resources are reaching the armed opposition.  Coordination has improved with our partners in the Arab World, particularly in the Gulf. 
So there is that upward trajectory already.  That’s not in question at all.  And additional funding that can support that effort and support the neighbors is a focal point of how we look at building partnerships across the region, which is what the President said today. 
Then there’s the separate question of simply what additional authorities might be necessary for the U.S. military to participate in our efforts.  And that’s the question that we’ll be pursuing in the coming weeks.  But again, that doesn’t foreclose the fact that we are working this already, we are increasing our support already, we are coordinating better with partners already.  That’s going to continue to be the case no matter what. 
Q    I wanted to just turn to China and ask you, what is the message to China here?  I mean, we heard the President talk about the use of military action to defend the security of U.S. allies, which of course includes Japan and the Philippines.  But he also called out the U.S. Senate for not ratifying UNCLOS.  So what’s the message to China?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The message is that the United States is going to support basic international rules of the road that should apply to everyone.  And we’ve said many times our Asia rebalance strategy is not aimed at China.  It’s focused on strengthening U.S. engagement in the region, but also strengthening the rules of the road across the region -- whether it’s on trade through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whether it’s on maritime security where we would like to see disputes resolved consistent with international law.
So the bottom line is that the United States would like to see China act consistent with those rules of the road.  And we believe that they have an opportunity to do so, for instance, through negotiation of a code of conduct with the ASEAN countries or through taking the different claims that are at stake in the South China Sea to international law and dispute resolution.  At the same time, though, we are going to be very clear that we object to bigger nations bullying smaller ones; that the United States is going to support those nations that abide by rules of the road and work to isolate those nations that don’t. 
So for China we would like to see them as a part of an Asia Pacific community that is adhering to high standards of trade, that is resolving disputes peacefully, consistent with international law, that is respecting basic rules and norms.  But if China acts outside of those norms, as they’ve done, for instance, on cyber issues, we’re going to call them out.
With respect to the Law of the Sea, the President made very clear that part of how the United States shows our own commitment to those rules and norms is by upholding them ourselves.  And we act consistent with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but it would send an important message for the Senate to ratify it, because that is the means by which we want to see disputes resolved. 
So, again, we lead on behalf of an international order that can uphold peace and security both by what we do in regions like the Asia Pacific and on issues like trade and cyber and maritime, but we also have to lead on behalf of that international order through our own example.  And that’s why we believe the Senate has long passed the time when they should have ratified the Law of the Sea.
Q    Just one subject that the President didn’t bring up and I was hoping you might be able to lend some clarity to would be the status of -- about a year ago, the President called for a review and even repeal of the AUMF.  I’m wondering whether the administration is planning to send Congress specific language in terms of fixing it, any timetable in terms of when they want to work with Congress in terms of getting that repealed.  And if you could provide a little bit of maybe a window into the administration’s thinking in terms of how to approach this subject.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I’d say a couple of things.  The point the President made at NDU is that we shouldn’t just have open-ended authorities for the use of military force that continue indefinitely; that we shouldn’t be in a permanent war here; that the AUMF in 2001 was written for a specific purpose and time.  And I think in terms of the timeframe, we look at the end of 2014 as a very important milestone as our combat mission comes to a close in Afghanistan and as our mission shifts there.  And so we look at a whole host of issues as intersecting with the end of 2014. 
The AUMF, which was written in the context of us going to Afghanistan -- we’ll want to talk to Congress about the AUMF as we approach the end of the year.  That’s a good time to have that discussion because we will be pivoting from where our combat mission is today and the type of role we’ll be playing in Afghanistan after 2014.  
GTMO is another issue that is relevant here.  GTMO was opened, after all, when we went into Afghanistan.  And the initial detainee population was heavily weighted with people who were taken off the battlefield in Afghanistan.  So we believe, again, as we bring our combat mission to an end in Afghanistan, that this is an appropriate year to make a redoubled effort to close GTMO.  So this is the context for how we’re approaching the AUMF as well.  I think this is a discussion we’ll have as we get closer to the end of the year.
I think in terms of what we’re looking for, we’re not looking for simply layering on more and more and more authorities within the existing AUMF.  The point here is to not just keep expanding some universal AUMF that applies to every challenge.  As the President said at NDU, what we want to do is narrow and refine authorities so that they’re focused on specific groups that do pose a direct threat to the United States.  And so that’s the approach that we would take into this discussion, which is how do we make sure that we have authorities that are focused on those groups who pose a direct threat to the United States and not simply stacking on additional authorities in the existing AUMFs. 
So this will be a part of how we wind down the war in Afghanistan and pivot to a more sustainable and focused counterterrorism effort across the region. 
Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  We can stay in touch on these issues.  And the only thing I’d say in closing is we said to you, I think, in the run-up to this that we weren’t solely focused on one speech here.  The President will obviously be going to Europe next year -- or next week.  In Poland, he’ll be able to talk about our commitment to European security, our commitment to NATO and our NATO allies.  He’ll have a G7.  He’ll speak at Normandy.  Other members of the administration will talk about different elements of our foreign policy priorities.  The President laid out I think a pretty clear roadmap of the types of issues he wants to get done in the next two and a half years. 
And I think you’ll hear different administration figures speak to different pieces of that agenda in the coming weeks as well.  So we’ll look forward to staying in touch.
MS. HAYDEN:  Thanks, everyone, for joining us.  Again, a reminder this call is on background to senior administration official.  And, as he noted, feel free to be in touch with us with other questions you have.  But everyone have a great day.  Thanks.
END
11:55 A.M. EDT

CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS U.S. "NOT POLITICALLY EXHAUSTED"

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Dempsey Rejects Notion of Exhausted United States
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, May 28, 2014 – The United States is not politically exhausted, “and it would be a mistake to come to that conclusion,” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said during an interview here today.

“In fact, it would be a mistake to decide that we are politically exhausted or weary militarily,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Sky News.

Many in the Persian Gulf region believe that the United States is exhausted from 13 years of war. They point to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the coming drawdown in Afghanistan as proof of this weariness, and they extrapolate a U.S. withdrawal from the region at large.

But this is not the case, Dempsey said, citing what has happened to al-Qaida as an example. Al-Qaida was a centralized organization based out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States and its allies -- including the United Arab Emirates -- put pressure on the terror organization. Central al-Qaida is a shadow of its former self, but the group has adapted, the chairman said.

“They have taken advantage of unsettled and ungoverned spaces elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa,” the general said. “The terror group is a long-term problem and not one the United States is giving up on.”

Rather than being weary or wary, Dempsey said, the United States is “rebalancing our efforts to build partners, to enable others and to do certain things ourselves -- but that should be our last resort.”

“For the most part,” he added, “we ought to address these challenges collaterally and collaboratively with partners.”

U.S. forces do face fiscal challenges, the chairman said, but he doesn’t see that affecting the Persian Gulf region. “We are going through a period of retraction in our budget, but it’s a matter of history,” he explained. “We go through this about every 20 years, and the United States still has the military capability to do many more than one thing at a time.”

The United States doesn’t face a choice to be either in the Atlantic or the Pacific, in Europe or the Middle East, or in Asia or Africa, Dempsey said.

“We have global responsibilities. We have global partnerships,” the chairman said. “One of the greatest strengths of the United States is its alliances, its partnerships, unlike some others who aspire to be great powers, but they don’t have friends, they don’t have partners. They try to go it alone. We, on the other hand, see our strength through our partners.”

U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR MAY 28, 2014

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

CONTRACTS

ARMY

BAE Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire, was awarded a $447,051,113 modification (P00004) to contract W58RGZ-13-D-0245 to increase the ceiling by the announcement amount for the acquisition of Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS) and associated spare parts, and systems engineering, technical, and logistics support services for both CMWS and Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures (ATIRCM). This modification is to establish negotiated prices for all part numbers in all ranges and increase the ceiling for both hardware and services support. Funding and work location for systems and services will be determined with each order. The estimated completion date is Sept. 29, 2016. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

MEB General Contractors, Chesapeake, Virginia, was awarded an $8,433,000 firm-fixed-price contract for construction services to alter the KC-46A apron fuels distribution system, including supporting facilities, and to relocate fuel vents/valves at the 3-bay hangar and 2-bay hangars at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 3, 2015. Bids were solicited via the Internet with two received. Fiscal 2014 military construction funds in the amount of $8,433,000 are being obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, is the contracting activity (W912DQ-14-C-4010).

TSS-Garco JV*, Richland, Washington, was awarded a $7,716,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the construction of multi-purpose machine gun range PN54106 at the Yakima Training Center, Yakima, Washington, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 27, 2015. Bids were solicited via the Internet with 12 received. Fiscal 2014 military construction funds in the amount of $7,716,000 are being obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington, is the contracting activity (W912DW-14-C-0012).

NAVY

Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, is being awarded a maximum amount $30,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, architect-engineer contract for environmental restoration projects at various activities in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest area of responsibility. No task orders are being issued at this time. Work will be performed at various government installations including but not limited to Washington (75 percent); Alaska (22 percent); Idaho (1 percent); Montana (1 percent); and Oregon (1 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months with an expected completion date of May 2019. Fiscal 2014 environmental restoration (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $10,000 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with three proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Silverdale, Washington, is the contracting activity (N44255-14-D-9013).

Northrop Grumman Guidance and Electronics Co., Inc., Woodland Hills, California, is being awarded $24,964,058 for delivery order 0002 against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-11-G-0016) for the procurement of 119 H-1 upgrade tech refresh mission computers for the UH-1Y and AH-1Z aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Woodland Hills (79 percent); Salt Lake City, Utah (13 percent); and Baltimore, Maryland (8 percent); it is expected to be completed in October 2017. Fiscal 2013 and 2014 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,908,664 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Force 3, Inc., Crofton, Maryland, is being awarded a $10,518,147 five-year, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the upgrade and maintenance support of Marine Corps outer routers. This contract contains four one-year options, which if exercised, would being the maximum dollar value to $13,760,881. Work will be performed in Crofton and is expected to be completed May 2015. If all options are exercised, work will continue through May 2019. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with seven offers received. The Marine Corps System Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M67854-14-D-4400).

CORRECTION: The contract announcement on Dec. 23, 2013, for BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Rockville, Maryland (N00421-14-C-0011), for $48,860,666, was announced with an incorrect award amount and incorrect funding types and obligated amount. The correct award amount should have read $36,144,645. The correct obligated amount should have read fiscal 2011 and 2013 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2013 operating expense (Coast Guard); and fiscal 2014 working capital funds in the amount of $4,589,425, were obligated at the time of award.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Invivo Corporation, Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a maximum $11,788,948 modification (P00101) exercising the third option period on a one-year base contract (SPM2D1-11-D-8346) with seven one-year option periods. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for radiology systems, subsystems and components. Location of performance is Florida with a May 31, 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, Pennsylvania.

*small business

MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM REVIEW ORDERED

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel Orders Comprehensive Military Health System Review
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 28, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered a comprehensive review of the Military Health System.

Dr. Jonathan Woodson, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, will lead the review, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a statement.

The review, Kirby said, will focus on access to care and an assessment of the safety and quality of health care, both in military treatment facilities and in health care that the Defense Department purchases from civilian providers.
Expected to last for 90 days, the review will examine whether current access to care meets the department's standards, Kirby said. It will also examine the safety and quality of the care provided to all DOD beneficiaries, he added.

“Following the review, the secretary will receive recommendations on areas for improvement,” the admiral said, “with a specific focus on those areas where we are not meeting a nationally defined standard or a DOD policy-directed standard.”
Hagel will meet this morning with Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work and the service secretaries to discuss the review’s parameters and his expectations for it, Kirby said.

The Military Health System provides health care for more than 9.6 million beneficiaries, including active duty service members, retirees and eligible family members.

U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF AZERBAIJAN ON THEIR REPUBLIC DAY

FROM:   U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

On the Occasion of Azerbaijan's Republic Day

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 27, 2014


On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the government and people of Azerbaijan as you observe Republic Day on May 28.
The Republic of Azerbaijan and the United States share a commitment to diversifying energy supplies and promoting regional security. We are especially grateful for Azerbaijan’s partnership on the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

The United States remains committed to working with Azerbaijan to strengthen its democratic institutions, promote the development of its open market economy, and find a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

As you celebrate this special day, the United States remains committed to this relationship and to a brighter future for all Azerbaijanis.

U.S. AND EUROPEAN SOLDIERS PARTICIPATE DURING COMBINED RESOLVE II IN HOHENFELS, GERMANY

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT



U.S. and Albanian soldiers dismount from U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles to conduct urban assault training during Combined Resolve II at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany, May 17, 2014. U.S. Army photo by Capt. John Farmer.




U.S. Army Sgt. Kara Yost, foreground, huddles on the ground with Kajo, his military working dog, as a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter takes off during Combined Resolve II at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany, May 17, 2014. Yost, a military police dog handler, and Kajo are assigned to the 131st Military Working Dog Detachment, 615th Military Police Company. U.S. Army photo by Capt. John Farmer.

COURT ORDERS OWNERS, COMPANIES TO PAY $108 MILLION RELATED TO PRECIOUS METALS FRAUD SCHEME

FROM:  COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 
CFTC Wins Fraud Trial against Hunter Wise Related Precious Metals Firms and Their Owners

Federal court orders Fred Jager, Harold E. Martin, Jr. and the Hunter Wise Companies to Pay over $108 Million in Restitution and Penalties

Court Calls Fraudulent Conduct “repeated, callous and blatant”

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that on May 16, 2014, a federal court in Florida entered an Order finding in the CFTC’s favor following a trial against four Hunter Wise related companies and their owners on charges that they had fraudulently misrepresented the nature of precious metals transactions that resulted in millions of dollars in customer losses.

Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, Hunter Wise Services, LLC, Hunter Wise Credit, LLC, and Hunter Wise Trading, LLC and the individuals running the companies, Fred Jager and Harold Edward Martin, Jr., have been ordered to pay, jointly and severally, $52.6 million in restitution to the defrauded customers, and to pay a civil monetary penalty, jointly and severally, of $55.4 million, the maximum provided by law.

“This result makes clear that the CFTC will aggressively act to protect customers from fraud. Customers are entitled to know the truth of how their hard-earned money is being used. Here, customers thought Defendants were purchasing precious metals on their behalf and they were not,” said Gretchen L. Lowe, Acting Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement. “This is also another excellent example of how the CFTC is using its new enforcement authority under Dodd-Frank to go after fraudsters.”

The CFTC charged Hunter Wise, Martin, Jager, and others in December 2012 (see CFTC Press Release 6447-12, December 5, 2012). The Court entered a Preliminary Injunction against all of the Defendants on February 22, 2013 (see CFTC Press Release 6522-13, February 27, 2013). Defendants appealed that ruling, arguing that the CFTC lacked jurisdiction over the conduct at issue, and lost when the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower’s court’s issuance of the preliminary injunction (see CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, Case No. 13-10993, April 15, 2014).

In his 58-page Opinion and Order (see under Related Links), Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, found that Jager and Martin knowingly defrauded more than 3,200 retail customers for more than 16 months, between July 2011 and February 2013.  The Court found that Jager and Martin’s fraudulent conduct was “repeated, callous and blatant.”

According to the Order, Hunter Wise orchestrated a multi-level marketing scheme in which so-called retail dealers served a sales function for Hunter Wise, soliciting customer accounts. The dealers advertised and claimed that they sold physical metals, including gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and copper, to retail customers on a financed basis, and forwarded customer funds to Hunter Wise, whose identity was not disclosed to the customers.

As explained in the Order, using marketing materials and training provided to them by Jager, Martin and other Hunter Wise employees, the dealers claimed to arrange loans for the purchase of physical metals, and advised customers that their physical metals would be stored in a secure depository. The Order finds that customers were then charged “exorbitant interest” on the purported loans and storage fees for the metal they thought they had purchased. In fact, the Order finds that neither Hunter Wise nor any of the dealers purchased any physical metals, arranged actual loans for their customers to purchase physical metals, or stored physical metals for any customers participating in their retail commodity transactions – in other words, there was “no metal at the end of the rainbow.” According to the Order, over 90 percent of the retail customers lost money.

The Court found that Jager and Martin knew that they were defrauding customers and violating the law. “[Jager and Martin] purposefully decided to risk criminal and civil liability by continuing Hunter Wise’s fraudulent and illegal operations. … The house cannot win when, in violation of the law, the game is rigged.”

The Court further found Martin and Jager’s proferred excuses for their conduct “implausible,” “disingenuous” and “highly unreasonable.” For example, the Court noted that Hunter Wise’s attorneys had advised them to change their business or shut down, so that Jager and Martin were keenly aware of the choices available to them and the possible criminal consequences of continuing to operate, to the extent that Martin wrote in an email to Jager, “With any luck we will have adjoining cells.”

In considering the appropriate penalties, the Court noted that the fraudulent scheme was “egregious and recurrent” and “calculated to deceive retail customers.” The Court held that the likelihood of future violations was “strong” given that Jager and Martin did not acknowledge any wrongdoing. Further, the “systematic and pervasive nature” of the fraud necessitated full restitution for all customers who lost money between July 16, 2011 and February 25, 2013.

In a separate Order, the District Court entered default judgments against C.D. Hopkins Financial Group, LLC, Hard Asset Lending Group, LLC, and their principal, Chadewick Hopkins (CD Hopkins Defendants), and Blackstone Metals Group, LLC and its principal Baris Keser (Blackstone Defendants). CD Hopkins Defendants were ordered to pay $1,158,278.78 in restitution and $3,474,000 in civil penalties. Blackstone Defendants were ordered to pay $617,818.93 in restitution and $1,853,000 in civil penalties.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this action are Carlin Metzger, Joseph Konizeski, Heather Johnson, Nancy Hooper, Jeff LeRiche, Peter Riggs, Jennifer Chapin, Thaddeus Glotfelty, Stephen Turley, Brigitte Weyls, Scott Williamson, Rosemary Hollinger, and Richard Wagner.

The CFTC thanks the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority for their assistance in this matter.

Recent CFTC Precious Metals Enforcement Actions

The CFTC has taken action against numerous precious metals telemarketing firms that unlawfully solicited precious metals orders from retail customers to be executed through Hunter Wise, including:

• London Metals LLC (CFTC Press Release 6680-13);

• Matthew Hall d/b/a Pacific Exchange Group (CFTC Press Release 6681-13);

• Lloyds Commodities LLC (CFTC Press Release 6850-14);

• Newbridge Metals, LLC (CFTC Press Release 6705-13);

• Joseph Glenn Commodities, LLC (CFTC Press Release 6542-13);

• Newbridge Alliance, Inc. & U.S. Capital Trust, LLC (CFTC Press Release 6903-14);

• Pan American Metals of Miami (CFTC Press Release 6653-13);

• Secured Precious Metals (CFTC Press Release 6503-13);

• Barclay Metals (CFTC Press Release 6503-13);

• Vertical Integration Group (CFTC Press Release 6824-14);

• Lions Wealth (CFTC Press Release 6729-13);

• Yorkshire Group (CFTC Press Release 6713-13);

• PGS Capital Wealth Management and Rockwell Asset Management (CFTC Press Release 6909-14);

• Empire Sterling Metals Corp. and I.P.M. Investments, Inc. (CFTC Press Release 6912-14); and,

• Palm Beach Capital LLC (CFTC Press Release 6931-14).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SAYS DATA BROKERS NEED TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT

FROM:  U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
FTC Recommends Congress Require the Data Broker Industry to be More Transparent and Give Consumers Greater Control Over Their Personal Information

Agency Report Shows Data Brokers Collect and Store Billions of Data Elements Covering Nearly Every U.S. Consumer

In a report issued today on the data broker industry, the Federal Trade Commission finds that data brokers operate with a fundamental lack of transparency. The Commission recommends that Congress consider enacting legislation to make data broker practices more visible to consumers and to give consumers greater control over the immense amounts of personal information about them collected and shared by data brokers.

The report, “Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability” is the result of a study of nine data brokers, representing a cross-section of the industry, undertaken by the FTC to shed light on the data broker industry. Data brokers obtain and share vast amounts of consumer information, typically behind the scenes, without consumer knowledge. Data brokers sell this information for marketing campaigns and fraud prevention, among other purposes. Although consumers benefit from data broker practices which, for example, help enable consumers to find and enjoy the products and services they prefer, data broker practices also raise privacy concerns.

“The extent of consumer profiling today means that data brokers often know as much – or even more – about us than our family and friends, including our online and in-store purchases, our political and religious affiliations, our income and socioeconomic status, and more,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “It’s time to bring transparency and accountability to bear on this industry on behalf of consumers, many of whom are unaware that data brokers even exist.”

The report finds that data brokers collect and store billions of data elements covering nearly every U.S. consumer. Just one of the data brokers studied holds information on more than 1.4 billion consumer transactions and 700 billion data elements and another adds more than 3 billion new data points to its database each month.

Among the report’s findings:

Data brokers collect consumer data from extensive online and offline sources, largely without consumers’ knowledge, ranging from consumer purchase data, social media activity, warranty registrations, magazine subscriptions, religious and political affiliations, and other details of consumers’ everyday lives.
Consumer data often passes through multiple layers of data brokers sharing data with each other. In fact, seven of the nine data brokers in the Commission study had shared information with another data broker in the study.

Data brokers combine online and offline data to market to consumers online.
Data brokers combine and analyze data about consumers to make inferences about them, including potentially sensitive inferences such as those related to ethnicity, income, religion, political leanings, age, and health conditions. Potentially sensitive categories from the study are “Urban Scramble” and “Mobile Mixers,” both of which include a high concentration of Latinos and African-Americans with low incomes. The category “Rural Everlasting” includes single men and women over age 66 with “low educational attainment and low net worths.” Other potentially sensitive categories include health-related topics or conditions, such as pregnancy, diabetes, and high cholesterol.

Many of the purposes for which data brokers collect and use data pose risks to consumers, such as unanticipated uses of the data. For example, a category like “Biker Enthusiasts” could be used to offer discounts on motorcycles to a consumer, but could also be used by an insurance provider as a sign of risky behavior.

Some data brokers unnecessarily store data about consumers indefinitely, which may create security risks.

To the extent data brokers currently offer consumers choices about their data, the choices are largely invisible and incomplete.

To help rectify a lack of transparency about data broker industry practices, the Commission encourages Congress to consider enacting legislation that would enable consumers to learn of the existence and activities of data brokers and provide consumers with reasonable access to information about them held by these entities.

For data brokers that provide marketing products, Congress should consider legislation to:

Centralized Portal. Require the creation of a centralized mechanism, such as an Internet portal, where data brokers can identify themselves, describe their information collection and use practices, and provide links to access tools and opt- outs;

Access. Require data brokers to give consumers access to their data, including any sensitive data, at a reasonable level of detail;

Opt-Outs. Require opt-out tools, that is, a way for consumers to suppress the use of their data;

Inferences. Require data brokers to tell consumers that they derive certain inferences from from raw data;

Data Sources. Require data brokers to disclose the names and/or categories of their data sources, to enable consumers to correct wrong information with an original source;

Notice and Choice. Require consumer-facing entities – such as retailers – to provide prominent notice to consumers when they share information with data brokers, along with the ability to opt-out of such sharing; and Sensitive Data. Further protect sensitive information, including health information, by requiring retailers and other consumer-facing entities to obtain affirmative express consent from consumers before such information is collected and shared with data brokers.

For brokers that provide “risk mitigation” products, legislation should:

When a company uses a data broker’s risk mitigation product to limit a consumers’ ability to complete a transaction, require the consumer-facing company to tell consumers which data broker’s information the company relied on;
Require the data broker to allow consumer access to the information used and the ability to correct it, as appropriate.

For brokers that provide “people search” products, legislation should:

Require data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information, opt-out of having the information included in a people search product, disclose the original sources of the information so consumers can correct it, and disclose any limitations of an opt-out feature.    
           
The nine data brokers in the study are Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future. In December 2012, the Commission voted to issue orders requiring these data brokers to produce the information that was used in the study.

The Commission vote approving the issuance of the report was 4-0, with Commissioner McSweeny not participating.

DOJ INDICTS ALASKAN PLASTIC SURGEON FOR HIDING BANK ACCOUNTS IN PANAMA AND COSTA RICA

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Friday, May 23, 2014
Alaska Plastic Surgeon Indicted on Tax Evasion Charges for Concealing Bank Accounts in Panama and Costa Rica

The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today that a federal grand jury in Anchorage, Alaska, returned a superseding indictment yesterday charging Michael D. Brandner, an Anchorage physician specializing in plastic surgery, on three counts of tax evasion.  Brandner has also been charged with seven counts of wire fraud in an indictment returned in September 2013.

According to the superseding indictment, Brandner engaged in various activities to evade his taxes for 2008, 2009 and 2010, including making false and misleading statement to IRS special agents and filing false tax returns for each of the three years.  In the three false returns, Brandner failed to report the existence of financial accounts in Panama and Costa Rica over which he had signature authority, and also failed to report foreign interest income of more than $9,000 for 2008, more than $150,000 for 2009, and more than $150,000 for 2010.  The indictment also alleges that Brandner attempted to evade more than $600,000 in federal income taxes over the three years.

According to court documents, Brandner engaged in a scheme to hide and conceal millions of dollars of assets from the Alaska courts and from his wife of 28 years who was divorcing him.  Shortly after the divorce was filed, Brandner left Alaska and drove to Central America after converting assets into five cashier’s checks worth over $3,000,000.

An indictment is merely an allegation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  If convicted, Brandner faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison for each of the three tax evasion charges and a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for each of the seven wire fraud charges.

The case was investigated by IRS-Criminal Investigation and by Homeland Security Investigations and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ignacio Perez de la Cruz of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bryan Schroder for the District of Alaska.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

U.S. WILL KEEP ALMOST 10,000 TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN IN 2015

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Obama: U.S. to Keep Nearly 10,000 Troops in Afghanistan in 2015
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 27, 2014 – President Barack Obama today announced the United States plans to keep nearly 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan next year -- a level largely in line with what U.S. commanders had requested -- and that nearly all U.S. forces will leave the country by the end of 2016, bringing to an end a U.S. military mission that began in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“The bottom line is it’s time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama said in a televised address from the White House Rose Garden.
In laying out his military plan for Afghanistan once the U.S.-led NATO mission there ends in December, Obama said keeping 9,800 American troops in the country to train Afghan forces and to support counterterrorism operations will be contingent upon Afghanistan’s next president signing a bilateral security agreement with the United States, something outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai has refused to do.

“The two final Afghan candidates in the runoff election for president have each indicated they would sign this agreement promptly after taking office, so I’m hopeful we can get this done,” Obama said, emphasizing the growing and increasing competence of the Afghan security forces as well as the success of April’s first round of presidential elections -- despite threats by the Taliban to disrupt them -- as key to the timing of today’s announcement.

“This transition has allowed us to steadily draw down our own forces from a peak of 100,000 U.S. troops to roughly 32,000 today,” the president said. “Together with our allies and the Afghan government, we have agreed this is the year we will conclude our combat mission in Afghanistan.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said he strongly supports Obama’s decision. In a statement issued after the president spoke, Hagel said the proposed U.S. troop presence “will help us sustain the significant progress we have made in training and equipping the Afghan national security forces.”

As the nation brings an end to its longest war, “all Americans are grateful for the sacrifice and service of the men and women who deployed there over the past 13 years,” the secretary said.

For months, U.S. officials have been deliberating over post-2014 U.S. troop levels and had even raised the prospect of a complete pullout of all U.S. forces if the Afghan government refused to sign the bilateral security agreement, a move that would have triggered an end to billions of dollars in foreign aid, upon which the government in Kabul relies heavily.

The post-2014 U.S. troop levels would be in addition to contributions from NATO countries, and a senior administration official said discussion about NATO commitments will continue during an alliance defense ministers conference in Brussels next week. But in his address today, Obama made clear that beginning next year, Afghanistan’s security will be fully in the hands of Afghans while U.S. troop levels in the country will continue to be reduced, with those remaining consolidated at Kabul and at Bagram Airfield.

“We have to recognize Afghanistan will not be a perfect place, and it is not America’s responsibility to make it one,” he said. “The future of Afghanistan must be decided by Afghans.”

By the end of 2016, Obama said, the U.S. military presence in the country will be pared back even further, to a level required to maintain security at the U.S. embassy, along with a security assistance component, similar to current U.S. force levels in Iraq.

Obama’s announcement about the way forward in Afghanistan comes two days after he made a brief, unannounced visit to U.S. commanders and troops in the country but did not meet with Karzai, whose relations with the United States have grown increasingly tense. White House officials told reporters the trip was meant to be a visit with troops. Obama and Karzai did speak by phone.

And today’s address comes a day before Obama is set to deliver the commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., during which he will outline his foreign policy and national security agenda for the remainder of his second term, including redirecting some of the resources saved by ending the war to “respond more nimbly to the changing threat of terrorism while addressing a broader set of priorities.”

“I’m confident that if we carry out this approach, we can not only responsibly end our war in Afghanistan and achieve the objectives that took us to war in the first place, we’ll also be able to begin a new chapter in the story of American leadership around the world,” he said.


U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR MAY 27, 2014

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

CONTRACTS

ARMY

EADS North America, Inc., Herndon, Virginia, was awarded a $33,797,867 modification (P00795) to W58RGZ-06-C-0194 to increase funds and exercise an option for contractor logistic support for the Utility Helicopter-72A.  Work is to be performed in Columbus, Mississippi, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2016.  Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance (Army) appropriations in the amount of $33,797,867 are being obligated at award.  Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal (Aviation), Alabama, is the contracting activity.
Nolin Rural Electric Cooperative, Elizabethtown, Kentucky, was awarded a $10,412,675 modification (P00087) to contract DABT23-01-C-0030 for one year of electrical distribution system services.  Work is to be performed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2015.

Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance (Army) appropriations in the amount of $4,338,614 will be obligated at award.  Army Contracting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, is the contracting activity.

CGI Federal Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, was awarded a $7,788,744 modification (P00009) to W52P1J-13-F-3024 to extend the computer network defense and information assurance labor until the re-compete can be awarded.  This contract will continue the service of protecting the computer systems at the Pentagon and the National Capital Region.  Work is to be performed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 29, 2014.  Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance (Army) appropriations in the amount of $1,576,449 are being obligated at award.  Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity.

AAI Corporation, Hunt Valley, Maryland, was awarded a $7,690,948 modification (P00010) to W58RGZ-13-C-0108 to develop, verify, and validate noise signature reduction design improvements for the unmanned aerial vehicle engines Limited 1102 and Block 3 propulsion system engines.  The modification also covers efforts required to update software and integrate the small mission computer into the RQ-7BV2.  Work will be performed in Hunt Valley, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 20, 2015.  Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $6,691,009 and fiscal 2014 other procurement funds in the amount of $999,938 are being obligated at award.   Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal (Aviation), Alabama, is the contracting activity.

NAVY

MN-FST Joint Venture, Norfolk, Virginia, is being awarded a maximum $30,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, architect-engineering services contract for waterfront civil design and engineering services in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic area of responsibility, primarily within the NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic Northeast and Hampton Roads regions.  Work will be performed at various Navy and Marine Corps facilities and other government facilities located in the NAVFAC Atlantic AOR, primarily within the NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic Northeast and Hampton Roads regions.  The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of May 2019.  Task order JN01 is being awarded at $103,387 for the design and construction of a rock jetty with integrated boat ramp and floating pier in Kiunga, Kenya.  Work for this task order is expected to be completed by November 2016.  Fiscal 2011 FMS funds in the amount of $103,387 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with six proposals received.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N40085-14-D-8113).

Teradyne, Inc., North Reading, Massachusetts, is being awarded a $6,975,538, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for automated test system hardware and software to test circuit card assemblies for the MK41 Vertical Launch System program.  Work will be performed in North Reading, Massachusetts, and is expected to be completed by May 2018.  Fiscal 2011 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $1,391,938 are being obligated at contract award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured and is being issued pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, since there is only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.  The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N00178-14-D-1001).

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

ICAD, Inc.,* Nashua, New Hampshire, has been awarded a maximum $12,000,000 modification (P00101) exercising the fourth option period on a one-year base contract (SPM2D1-10-D-8332) with seven one-year option periods.  This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for radiology systems, subsystems, and components.  Location of performance is New Hampshire with a May 26, 2015 performance completion date.  Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies.  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, Pennsylvania (Awarded May 23, 2014)

Digirad Corporation,* Poway, California, has been awarded a maximum $10,923,649 modification (P00101) exercising the fifth option period on a one-year base contract (SPM2D1-09-D-8330) with seven one-year option periods.  This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for radiology systems, subsystems, and components.  Location of performance is California with a May 31, 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, Pennsylvania.

AIR FORCE

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Sunnyvale, California, has been awarded a $7,400,000 cost-plus-award-fee modification (P00788) to F04701-95-C-0017 to generate simulation scenarios in support of Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center’s initial operational test and evaluation at Space- Based Infrared Systems Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Block 20.  The tasks required to perform this effort consist of collection and checkout of backgrounds, as well as generation of scenarios, including scenario checkouts and documentation of the checkouts.  Work will be performed at Sunnyvale and Azuza, California, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 30, 2016.  Fiscal 2014 research and development funds in the amount of $1,595,900 are being obligated at time of award.   Infrared Space Systems Contracts Division, Space and Missile Systems Center, El Segundo, California, is the contracting activity.

*Small Business

U.S. SENDS BEST WISHES TO THE PEOPLE OF ETHIOPIA ON THEIR NATIONAL DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Ethiopia's National Day

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 27, 2014


On behalf of the government and the people of the United States, I send my best wishes to the government and people of Ethiopia as you celebrate your national day on May 28.
It was a great pleasure to return to Addis Ababa earlier this month and see first-hand examples of the longstanding partnership between the United States and Ethiopia.

During a visit to Gandhi Memorial Hospital and a conversation with the doctors, nurses and patients there, I was moved and proud to see results of our joint efforts to fight HIV/AIDS.
I was also delighted to celebrate the impressive contributions to society of Ethiopian youth and look forward to welcoming several to the United States to participate in the Young African Leaders Initiative Summit.

These are just two examples of our support of Ethiopia’s peaceful and prosperous future. The United States is committed to promoting Ethiopia’s economic growth and development, democratic governance and respect for human rights, and peace and security in the region.
As you gather with family and friends on your national day, the government and people of the United States wish you a most festive celebration.

U.S. SENDS WARMEST WISHES TO PEOPLE OF ERITREA ON THEIR NATIONAL DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Eritrean National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 27, 2014

On behalf of the American people, I welcome the opportunity to send my warmest wishes to the people of Eritrea on the 23rd anniversary of your independence which took place May 24. Know that the government and people of the United States stand beside you in your continued search for the promise of a free, prosperous, and democratic Eritrea.

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY KERRY ON ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

The Way Forward in Afghanistan

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 27, 2014


These have been encouraging days for Afghanistan's future. We've witnessed a first round of free elections where millions of Afghans made their voices heard, in what promises to be the first democratic transfer of power in Afghanistan's history. Both of the leading candidates unequivocally support signing a Bilateral Security Agreement with the United States as they look towards a long and lasting relationship between our two nations. Now, with President Obama's announcement today of what America's presence will look like in Afghanistan after combat operations end in 2014, our nation’s longest war is coming to a responsible end.
The Afghan people have an opportunity now to build on the progress that's been made, to achieve a more secure, more prosperous, and more peaceful future. President Obama has made it clear that as they do, the United States will stand with them.

The President’s plan for our military footprint in Afghanistan would not have been possible without the decision to surge both troops and diplomacy, and without the tremendous performance of our men and women in uniform, as well as the diplomats, civil servants, and local staff who have also served there proudly. They have worked day-by-day with Afghanistan’s own security forces to support them as they take the reins and have contributed to the tremendous gains the Afghan people have made.

Along with our Allies and partners, who have shared in this long struggle, we will continue providing training, advice, and assistance to the Afghan security forces, as well as critical development aid, to support the Afghans as they work to prevent their territory from ever again becoming a haven for Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Routing out Al Qaeda's core leadership has been our most important mission in Afghanistan, and because of our focused and targeted efforts, we have significantly degraded the terrorist group's capabilities there. But more work remains, and that is why the United States is committed to keeping up the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and wherever else its murderous mission has taken root.
On Memorial Day yesterday, we remembered the more than 2,100 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan. We continue to honor the fallen, and all those who came home from the battlefield with injuries both visible and invisible. We also remember the many Afghans who stood up courageously for their country. By standing together, Americans and Afghans will continue the march towards peace just as faithfully as we did in the struggle of war.

READOUT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL WITH UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT-ELECT PETRO POROSHENKO

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Readout of the President’s Call with President-elect Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine

President Obama called President-elect Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine today to congratulate him on his victory and offer the full support of the United States as he seeks to unify and move his country forward.  The President stressed the importance of quickly implementing the reforms necessary for Ukraine to bring the country together and to develop a sustainable economy, attractive investment climate, and transparent and accountable government that is responsive to the concerns and aspirations of all Ukrainians.  The United States will continue assisting Ukraine in these efforts.  The two leaders agreed to continue their conversation during the President’s upcoming trip to Europe.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS BRIEFING ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Background Briefing by a Senior Administration Official

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Joint Base Andrews
 1:35 A.M. (local)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I just wanted to give you guys a background readout here.  Upon taking off, the President called President Karzai of Afghanistan because they weren’t able to see each other.  They discussed progress that’s been made by the Afghan National Security Forces.  The President referenced that he’d heard very positive readouts of the progress in his briefings with Ambassador Cunningham and General Dunford.  They discussed the success of the first round of the elections and the preparations that are being made for the second round of elections. 
The President praised the Afghan electoral institutions for the work that they’re doing, as well as the Afghan National Security Forces’ work in securing those elections.  The President also reiterated his continued support for a process of Afghan-led reconciliation that President Karzai is committed to.
With respect to the BSA, the President reiterated his interest in concluding a BSA with President Karzai’s successor and agreed to stay in touch with President Karzai as we make determinations about what potential post-2014 presence could go along with a BSA. 
Q    What did Karzai say about that -- the BSA?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just that they agreed to stay in touch on it and that President Obama would be in touch before we articulate publicly any decision-making.  But I think it’s understood by both of them that [the] BSA is something that his successor would conclude; we crossed that bridge earlier in the year.  And again, I think we saw good statements from both Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani in recent days about their interest in signing a BSA. 
Q    Do you have any more information on how much of a heads up Karzai got?  Because it seemed like from the statement you guys had with the offer for him to come to Bagram, it was basically an offer that was made so late that he would never have been able to make it anyways.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I don’t know the exact timing of when he was notified.  That’s handled by the embassy.  I do think -- look, in the past, President Karzai has not traveled to Bagram when we’ve been there, so it’s not our expectation that he would.  He prefers to host President Obama at the palace.  Again, the nature of this visit was such that we were really keeping it focused on the troops and not looking to get into Afghan politics at this time.  So we weren’t surprised, but we did want to make sure that President Obama could speak to him given his travel to Afghanistan and the briefings he got from his senior [staff].
Q    So they spoke after we were wheels up, right?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right after the plane was wheels up, yes.
Q    Do you know about how long the call lasted?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I think the call lasted about 15 to 20 minutes.
Q    And did he tell him -- I’m sorry, I wasn’t sure if I understood -- did the President tell President Karzai that he will let him know before he makes an announcement whether it’s at West Point or whatever about the plans for residual troop numbers?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, he would, as a matter of course, consult with President Karzai before publicly articulating an announcement like that.
Q    And was this call that articulation?  Or there will be another --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This call was about having been in Afghanistan and wanting to touch base with him.  And actually, the only other thing I left out is they also talked about the recent attack on the Indian Consulate in Afghanistan and the context of President Karzai also traveling to India tomorrow for Prime Minister-designate Modi’s inauguration.
Q    When exactly did the President invite Karzai to Bagram?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think the embassy extended that invitation sometime before our arrival.  I don’t know the exact time.
Q    When Obama had his briefing with Dunford and others, what was the conversation like about the post-2014 plan?  I mean, are they still in the stage where he’s actually getting guidance and advice?  Or was it more him telling the Commander and others what he’s thinking about announcing?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I mean, it’s both.  He’s been getting their advice over the last few weeks.  He was able to share some of his thinking.  I think they really wanted to, given the context of how they see things on the ground.  I think the principal message that we heard from General Dunford and Ambassador Cunningham is that there are a number of factors converging here that do make it an opportune moment for the United States to articulate its commitment -- that the Afghan National Security Forces have performed, in some respects better than we anticipated; they have moved into the lead for combat; the elections have created a sense of optimism in Afghanistan. 
So there’s an environment in which there are some good strains that are converging that make a potential U.S. articulation of our commitment to Afghanistan worthwhile; also, the commitments from the two leading candidates.  So I think their message was that different parts of this puzzle are coming together in Afghanistan in this year of transition and that there is a continued investment that the United States can make that can help the new administration in Afghanistan when it does take power to have a stable beginning.
They also reviewed the ongoing security challenges that we face in Afghanistan -- how we are going about the training mission; how we are helping the Afghan National Security Forces not just build their combat force, but also be able to sustain some of the functions of a national army.  So I think they covered in some detail the state of the Afghan National Security Forces and then discussed the challenges of securing the second round of the elections.  The Afghans will be in the lead for that as well.  We’re simply providing advice and counsel on that.
Q    So the progress that they’re making, does that suggest that a smaller force would be fine, like of 5,000?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, it suggests how do we focus on supporting those functions of the Afghan National Security Forces that are going to be necessary for sustainability so that not only can they serve as a combat force in the field, but how are they building out the structures and institutions of a national army, and also how we’re going to coordinate with our allies, some of whom have also indicated a commitment to a post-2014 Afghanistan.
Q    But is it fair to say that short of whoever wins the election, not signing the BSA, that the zero option is off the table at this point?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If there’s not a BSA, we will not keep troops in Afghanistan.
Q    Right.  But if the BSA is signed, you guys will move forward with --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, yes, I think the President has indicated that, and you saw in his comments today that it’s our expectation that if there is a BSA we’d look at how -- what force structure could fulfill those missions.  And that’s what he’ll have a chance to speak to in the coming days.
Q    Ten thousand has been the high number that we’ve been using.  Is there -- we shouldn’t use that number anymore when we talk about the range?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m not going to get into numbers.
Q    Has the President called, or is he planning on calling on this flight either anyone in the leadership of Ukraine or in Russia?  And can you talk about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We don’t have any current calls scheduled, but I would expect that he will call at the first opportunity the newly elected President.  I think, obviously, we want to monitor how they are certifying those results.  What I will say is that the President was commenting about how well the election went from his perspective.  Clearly, the Ukrainians turned out in significant numbers.  Clearly, the message they were sending was one of national unity and a commitment to democracy.  Even in some of the more difficult provinces you saw people working to vote. 
I think the statements you saw after the election from leaders like Poroshenko, they underscore national unity and send very positive signals about the future of Ukraine, not just its relations with its neighbors, but in reaching out to the east.  So again, I think the overarching message from the election was extraordinarily positive when you look at the difficulties of the last several weeks -- for Ukraine it’s a turnout of those numbers and to have such a clear result.  And in support of policies of national unity, inclusion, economic stabilization, I think sets a very good groundwork for our relationship with Ukraine going forward.
Q    -- was that Poroshenko got more than the 50 percent-plus one, so there’s no run-off and they kind of move ahead, instead of being in limbo for another month or so.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, again, that’s up to the Ukrainians.  I do think, though, that the sense of stability in getting to work that comes from a clear election result could be extraordinarily positive.  It provides some assurance and legitimacy at a time where Ukraine has been dealing with significant challenges.  And again, what we’ve always said is this election will settle the legitimacy question.  There were questions raised by Russia and others after the Yanukovych government collapsed and he fled town.  Now the people of Ukraine have spoken, and I don’t think there can be any questioning the legitimacy of a result that reflects such a broad cross-section of the Ukrainian public.
So I think we made clear that the United States, our European allies will be there for this new government to help them deal with some very difficult challenges -- stabilizing the economy and trying to calm this conflict.  And we hope that Russia will choose to play a constructive role in respecting this result.
Q    No calls to Putin expected?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  None expected.
Q    Is there anything -- any color from behind the scenes that we couldn’t see, either in the hospital visit or in his interactions with troops that you want to talk about?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Like I said, the only thing I’d say is that he -- or a couple of things.  He was able to tour kind of the -- some of the operation centers.  And in each place that he went he made a point of going around to each desk and shaking everybody’s hand and thanking them.  As he mentioned in his remarks, in the operation center he saw a poster of the Twin Towers, which clearly resonated with him, and he referred to the fact that, in his private remarks to the troops in those operation centers, that it reminded him of why we’re here. 
When he finished those briefings and walked towards the hangar, he went through the Hall of Honor that they have there, where they have photos of the fallen from Afghanistan.  So he was able to look at photos of many troops who had been lost in Afghanistan and thought that was obviously particularly profound on Memorial Day weekend to see those photos, even as he was then able to go and spend some time with the troops as well.
So I think he was, as always, moved by the visit and inspired by what these troops are doing every single day on behalf of the United States.
Q    How many soldiers was he able to meet with at the hospital?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t know.  I’ll check that for you.  The other thing he did -- he was able to give out some awards.  Did we get you the background on that?
Q    No.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll get that for you.  A number of Purple Hearts and other awards.  So we’ll get that for you.
Q    Were there new awards done tonight that was part of this?  We don’t have that.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, he -- well get you what he gave out there, yes.
Thanks, guys.
END          
1:48 A.M. (local) 

PATH TO MARS, HUMAN HABITATION ON MARS, GOALS, SPACE EXPLORATION

FROM:  NASA 


NASA's Human Path to Mars

NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s – goals outlined in the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and in the U.S. National Space Policy, also issued in 2010.
Mars is a rich destination for scientific discovery and robotic and human exploration as we expand our presence into the solar system. Its formation and evolution are comparable to Earth, helping us learn more about our own planet’s history and future. Mars had conditions suitable for life in its past. Future exploration could uncover evidence of life, answering one of the fundamental mysteries of the cosmos: Does life exist beyond Earth?

While robotic explorers have studied Mars for more than 40 years, NASA’s path for the human exploration of Mars begins in low-Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station. Astronauts on the orbiting laboratory are helping us prove many of the technologies and communications systems needed for human missions to deep space, including Mars. The space station also advances our understanding of how the body changes in space and how to protect astronaut health.

Our next step is deep space, where NASA will send a robotic mission to capture and redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon. Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft will explore the asteroid in the 2020s, returning to Earth with samples. This experience in human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit will help NASA test new systems and capabilities, such as Solar Electric Propulsion, which we’ll need to send cargo as part of human missions to Mars. Beginning in FY 2018, NASA’s powerful Space Launch System rocket will enable these “proving ground” missions to test new capabilities. Human missions to Mars will rely on Orion and an evolved version of SLS that will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown.

A fleet of robotic spacecraft and rovers already are on and around Mars, dramatically increasing our knowledge about the Red Planet and paving the way for future human explorers. The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover measured radiation on the way to Mars and is sending back radiation data from the surface. This data will help us plan how to protect the astronauts who will explore Mars. Future missions like the Mars 2020 rover, seeking signs of past life, also will demonstrate new technologies that could help astronauts survive on Mars.
Engineers and scientists around the country are working hard to develop the technologies astronauts will use to one day live and work on Mars, and safely return home from the next giant leap for humanity. NASA also is a leader in a Global Exploration Roadmap, working with international partners and the U.S. commercial space industry on a coordinated expansion of human presence into the solar system, with human missions to the surface of Mars as the driving goal.

FTC TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON DECEPTIVE PATENT DEMAND LETTERS

FROM:  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

FTC Testifies on Patent Assertion Entities and Legislation to Prohibit Deceptive Patent Demand Letters

The Federal Trade Commission testified on consumer protection issues involving patent demand letters, patent assertion entities (PAEs), and proposed legislation to prohibit deceptive patent demand letters.

Delivering testimony before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Lois Greisman, Associate Director of the FTC’s Division of Marketing Practices at the Federal Trade Commission, provided lawmakers with comments on a draft bill regarding deceptive patent demand letters, and recognized that demand letters raise broader issues about patents and the U.S. patent system.

 “The Commission shares this Subcommittee’s goal of stopping deceptive patent demand letters while respecting the rights of patent holders to assert legitimate claims, and recognizes that achieving this goal is not easy,” the testimony states.

The testimony states that the activities of PAEs and the related issue of demand letters have been a topic of increasing interest and concern. The Commission is proceeding with a proposed study of PAE behavior, which was first announced last year.

The Commission believes that the agency’s authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act can and should be brought to bear with respect to demand letters where appropriate, the testimony states. The testimony also addresses proposed legislation that would grant the FTC civil penalty authority in this area. The Commission believes such authority would have potential benefit and may deter some bad actors. The testimony also notes potential concerns about a knowledge requirement that would apply to some violations under the proposed legislation.  The testimony further notes that the Commission is pleased that the proposed legislation would supplement, rather than replace, the Commission’s existing authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The Commission vote approving the testimony and its inclusion in the formal record was 5-0.

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.


Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed