"Quality early child care programs create positive outcomes for children," Minzenberg said. "Governor Corbett knows and has recognized in his budget proposal that ensuring higher quality standards in early childhood learning centers across the state will help prevent crime, foster workforce development and assist our children in reaching their full potential."

The Keystone STARS program is a nationally recognized program that increases the quality of child care programs throughout Pennsylvania. Child care and Head Start programs that participate in Keystone STARS earn a STAR 1 to STAR 4 rating by meeting evidence-based standards for teacher quality, classroom environment, partnering with families, and solid business practices.

The Rising STARS initiative promotes greater access for at-risk children to higher quality child care to better prepare them for kindergarten success. It gives incentives to providers through tiered reimbursement to adopt quality practices and targets resources for STAR 1 child care providers to encourage them to increase their quality rating on the STARS scale.

The event was held at Small World II, a Keystone STARS 4-star child care facility in Pittsburgh with nearly 80 percent of its children receiving subsidized care.

Minzenberg was joined by representatives from Mission: Readiness, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, and the Early Learning Investment Commission. The organizations thanked the governor for his proposal and commitment to early childhood learning, emphasizing its impact in the military, law enforcement and business communities.

For more information, visit .

Media contact: Carey Miller, 717-425-7606

SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

However it's not always clear if our new labors to save species are herculean or Sisyphean. The only hope for sustaining America's whooping cranes might be men dressed in white costumes flying ultralight aircraft. Rescuing a single humpback whale may inadvertently leave a unique butterfly habitat destroyed. To save endangered salmon, humans might find themselves hazing sea lions with firecrackers. The future oflooks more and more complicated as humans become entangled in the lives of animals, and people can't always tell if their efforts will ultimately be futile, or worse, do more harm than good.

In his new book "Wild Ones" (Penguin), which hit shelves today (May 16), Jon Mooallem tackles this maddening uncertainty through the eyes of people working with animals that have fallen victim to human whims among them, birds dependent on people to survive,feeling the pressures of climate change, and butterflies boxed into a broken habitat. Mooallem, who is a contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine, talked to LiveScience this week about his book and how to decide which species to save and why. The following is an interview, edited for length and clarity. []

LiveScience: An underlying theme in your book seems to be that humans are uncomfortable with admitting how much power we have over other living things on the planet. Why do you think this is especially the case with animals?

Jon Mooallem: In just a very basic way, animals are the creatures we share the planet with. They're not like trees and rocks. They're not part of the scenery. They seem to have lives of their own going on, and that makes us really curious about them. And for a long time in human history, a lot of animals were also our competitors. We had to deal with predators. We were afraid of them, or we were trying to catch the same fish. Now we've evolved to a point where we really have so much of the planet on lockdown that even these rivals or these animals we've looked up to are under our control, and it's an incredibly uncomfortable thought. We shouldn't have that kind of purchase over these other beings.

LS: Some , like the Lange's metalmark butterfly featured in your book, are already living outside of their original context in the wild and, at this point, their extinction wouldn't seem to tear a big hole in the ecosystem. Is there an ultimate argument for saving a species even when their importance in the ecosystem is not so obvious?

JM: That gets at a core confusion in how we think about a lot of endangered species. Some of the arguments that we use to justify working to save these animals really aren't applicable and they really aren't the most powerful arguments either. Sometimes we try to make scientific arguments for species where it really comes down to a matter of emotion or even nostalgia. We'd like to preserve some of these things maybe because they're beautiful, maybe because we don't want to feel guilty about having exterminated them. I think those can be two really valid reasons for working very hard to save an . There's something gorgeous about trying to preserve something that we care about in an aesthetic sense or an emotional sense. Conservation, I find, doesn't really know how to talk through those arguments that well yet, and oftentimes people are wary of making them.

LS: Do you think revising our definition of wildness would change the way we look at animals and conservation?

JM: That's one of the real challenges right now, to figure out what it is we want to preserve when we say we want to preserve wilderness or wildness. The fact is that preserving a lot of species involves a kind of hands-on management that is completely at odds with our more romantic ideas of what wildness is. That doesn't necessarily mean that those projects aren't worth undertaking. I think it means we need to recalibrate our idea of what wildness is.

LS: You touch on how our emotional attachment to certain animals, like polar bears, colors the way we interact with them. Did you find yourself feeling sympathetic to any of your animal subjects?

JM: Amazingly, no. I was surprised by that. Doing reporting about wild animals actually involves very little exposure to actual animals. You always have to see the animal through the filter of the people who have access to it. I didn't write a book where I just wandered around the woods hoping to encounter a mountain lion. I went to the polar bear capital of the world in Manitoba to look at polar bears in a place where 10,000 tourists come every year to look at them. And in that context, I felt like the animals did become obscured somehow like they were part of the scenery individual animals, in any case. When I went to the place where they were breeding endangered butterflies it was basically a ramshacklefarm where the butterflies were in plastic deli containers on plants, so it was hard to form a one-on-one, gushy bond with the animals. []

LS: Did any of your human subjects emerge as personal heroes for you?

JM: I found something heroic in almost everyone in the book. Maybe not a storybook form of heroism, where you see an obstacle and you work very hard and you surmount it. It's more like a Zen heroism, where you see an obstacle and you try to surmount it, and you realize that it's going to be much more complicated and perhaps never-ending, and you still try to surmount it anyway. I think that there's a real nobility in that. I think the people at Operation Migration the nonprofit that flies ultralight aircraft in front of whooping cranes to teach them to migrate I think that they're a really exaggerated example of that in the sense that they're spending all fall on the road and trying to get these birds to Florida amid tons of very idiosyncratic frustrations, but somehow they're still able to wake up in the morning at dawn and check the wind and see if it's a good day to fly. I think, not just in terms of being a conservationist but in terms of being a human being, there's some really valuable lessons to be learned there. []

LS: Did you have a different idea about how this book was going to turn out when you started writing it?

JM: I don't know that I had expectations that were upended or anything like that. I will say I was pretty amazed at how much chance played into the stories of these people and the stories of these animals. When you scratch the surface of a lot of these recoveries and try to figure out, 'How do we get to this point where there's only 40 some-odd butterflies on a piece of land?' or 'How did this project get so elaborate that we have men in costumes flyingin front of birds?' when you try to trace back those histories and bring them up to the present you realize there isn't any grand design. The endangered species are so reliant on humankind right now that simple things like when a committed lepidopterist who's working to save the butterflies suddenly gets a rash and he has to give up his work little accidents like this, little freak occurrences, have humungous repercussions for the animals themselves.

LS: After immersing yourself in this world for a while, do you have any recommendations for conservationists or do you see any problems that they are going to need to confront in the near future?

JM: Conservation is a national project. Under the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws, it's a project that our government has taken on and thinks there's going to have to be some really substantive policy talks about how that work is going to move forward. Just from a sheer funding standpoint, there's going to be some difficult decisions to make as a lot of the threats against these species continue to ramp up, and the work gets even more involved and in some cases more futile. I don't know at this point that I have policy talking points because I think the problem right now is that we're just not asking the right questions in a lot of cases. It's not a matter of having the right answers but basic questions like, Why are we saving this particular creature? Are we saving it because we want it to be part of this ecosystem, or are we saving it more for aesthetic reasons? What happens when the needs of an endangered species conflict with the needs of a person on the same land? I think we just need a clearer sense of what our priorities actually are and why we're doing what we're doing before we can go about trying to do it better.

Follow Megan Gannon onandFollow us ,& . Original article on .

New vehicle sales in Saudi Arabia are booming. New passenger car sales in 2012 were more than700,000 units, an increase of 18percent over the previous year, according to a recent report by Business Monitor International. Driving this demand is a rising level of disposable income and a large youth population two-thirds of the population is under 30 years of age.

Saudi Arabia's automobile accessories, repair, and after-sales service equipment market has been valued at more than $2.5 billion while the Middle East spare parts and accessories trade is valued at around $11 billion.

OEMs are also giving Saudi Arabia a new look. Isuzu began light truck assembly in the country in 2012 and Jaguar/Land Rover (JLR) has signed a Letter of Intent to build a manufacturing plant that could be producing 50,000 vehicles per year by 2017. Among OEM suppliers, Johnson Controls and Denso already have active joint venture operations in the country.

The USSABC conference will bring together Saudi government and industry leaders as well as U.S. corporations such as GM, Ford, Chrysler, Dow, Alcoa, ExxonMobil Chemical, Johnson Controls and others who are benefiting from the market now. Saudi dealers for Chrysler, GM, Ford and Toyota, as well as some of the country's leading auto parts importers are also members of the visiting Saudi delegation.

"The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council is excited to bring the key players in the Saudi auto market to Detroit's backyard," said Edward Burton, CEO and President of the Business Council. "There are lots of opportunities for U.S. companies in the Saudi market and this program is just the beginning of what we expect will be a long term program of ongoing activity between Detroit and Saudi Arabia."

Saudi Arabia is positioning itself as a new automotive production and distribution hub for the MENA region and beyond. In addition to a package of incentives and infrastructure support, the country boasts a competitive advantage because of its extensive base of companies providing manufacturing input materials for the auto industry. Saudi Arabia is home to Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), a world leader in plastics technology that has one of the industry's broadest portfolios of material solutions for the automotive sector, including up to 60 percent of the plastics used in cars today. SABIC sits at the apex of a broad network of Saudi-based companies producing petrochemical-based products with offerings down the value chain.

Providing another important material input, Alcoa and their local joint venture partner, Saudi Arabian Mining Company, will operate one of the largest and lowest cost integrated aluminum facilities in the world. The $10.8 billion joint venture comprises a bauxite mine, aluminum refinery, aluminum smelter, and rolling mill. Tata Motors' Chairman Ratan Tata was quoted in an Indian car magazine as saying that one of the reasons his company is interested in setting up an operation in Saudi Arabia is to be near the Alcoa complex. JLR is one of the mainstream motoring brands that has adopted aluminum bodies insome of its road cars to help reduce vehicle weight.

For registration and additional information about the program go to .

About the USSABC The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council (USSABC) was established in December 1993 to improve the mutual knowledge and understanding between the private sectors of the U.S and Saudi Arabia and to promote and facilitate increased trade and investment between the two countries. The USSABC has built a membership base of approximately 400 leading companies in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and serves as the central source of information and assistance for companies that want to pursue specific business activities in Saudi Arabia. The USSABC organizes conferences and seminars in both countries to promote dialogue between the two private sectors, as well as trade and investment missions that provide networking opportunities for U.S. and Saudi companies. For more information on the Business Council, please visit .

Contact:David CallahanVice President, Business Advisory ServicesU.S.-Saudi Arabian Business CouncilPhone:(703) 962-9300E-mail:

SOURCE U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council

RELATED:

Unlike the people over at OMGPOP, former_zyngite didn't expect this at all:

I had no idea this was coming. Totally out of the blue. I knew things weren't great at the company but I wasn't expecting layoffs at this point and I wasn't expecting to be part of it if it did happen. I did get a nice severance package and benefits. So I'm pretty well set for a while and I have a lot of friends and former co-workers in other parts of the industry. So I've got a lot of leads already.

Exactly how awesome was that severance package?

I got four months salary plus an additional week for each partial year. I worked almost two years, so I got 4.5 months paid. Plus insurance is paid on top of that.

In general, Zynga was actually pretty generous with employees:

They really try hard to keep morale high. They give so many perks that you really get accustomed to it. I ate two out of three meals for free at work every day. It was awesome. And they provided healthy options! They promoted volunteering. Going green. They really tried hard to be a good place to work and a socially conscious company. In that way, they're really great.

Though, some employees got better perks than others:

There were things that were available to everyone in the company, like the gym and free food. But if you were on a top grossing team then you got additional perks, like trips to Vegas and other off-site excursions.

Despite all those trappings of a successful Silicon Valley tech company, "their business strategy is terrible:"

Their major issues are the inability to adjust to the changing market. They did great when Facebook gaming was on the rise, but now it's declining and Mobile is on the rise. They're trying to change over, but employ too many of the same game development "best practices" that were developed for Facebook games. These just don't translate to the mobile market, which is why they're suffering in that market.

That's partly because of management issues:

A lot of micro-management from the top down that stifles the creativity and hinders the production of many games.

An over reliance on every game being a blockbuster hit which makes the fun aspect of games suffer while making the money grabbing tactics all too transparent to the users.

And a serious lack of foresight over all. Too many major decisions are quick reactions to sudden changes in the market. If some games jumps to the top of the Top Grossing charts then everyone need to drop everything and change to follow it. Which wastes time, makes for bad design and ultimately puts projects behind schedule. It just means they're always late to the party, and whatever game they're trying to compete with has already faded away by the time their own version hits the market.

And all of that comes out in the quality of the games:

There always seemed to be a lot of games like that. They were 70 percent awesome. They just needed a little push to make them great. But the teams weren't left alone to make the final adjustments. Someone up top would always feel like they knew what had to be done. So some major (and often uninformed) changes were pushed on the team and they would be forced to change features that would ultimately disrupt the rest of the game and cause the entire project to fail.

Getting into gambling probably won't save them, either:

They are pushing the legislation to make it legal in the US. But if it passes, there are other companies who have been doing it longer and better than zynga who will jump on the US market first. Zynga might jump on at the same time, but who are you going to trust your real money with? The company that has been managing online casinos for a decade or the company that is trying to jump into it now?

I don't blame Zynga for going after this market, and I honestly believed this could be the saving grace for Zynga. But they are Johnny-come-lately to this market.

But for now, they do make money off games:

The big games deal in Millions of DAU (Daily Average Users). If 3 million users pay an average of $0.20 you're getting $600k a day!

That's huge numbers!!

The company is also weirdly obsessed with dogs:

The culture was...weird. At least for me. I've never been a corporate kind of person. So it was hard to adjust. One of the weirder things was the obsession with dogs.

I like dogs. They're great. I grew up with them. Never really wanted to take one to work. But it's highly encouraged there. And kind of obsessed over. Some of the dogs were cool. Some were barking assholes I wanted to punch in the face. It's kind of like a crying baby on an airplane. It sucks, and there's nothing you can do about it.

And, no, he doesn't think Zynga is that evil: 

I hated Zynga going into the company. I wasn't hired. I was acquired through a studio that was bought by Zynga. I had no love for the company. But over time I learned that the company itself isn't evil. It's the perception of hardcore vocal gamers that think it's evil.

Why do people think Zynga is evil? Because they copy the games of smaller developers and do it blatantly and obviously. They've made way more money than those companies did on the same games. Hence: evil.

[More from BGR: ]

This article was

In his first major foreign policy speech ahead of the September election, Peer Steinbrueck criticized Merkel's handling of the debt crisis that has engulfed the 17-nation eurozone and pushed the region into recession.

Throughout Europe's financial crisis, Merkel's government has insisted that indebted countries make dramatic spending cuts and reform their economies. Such austerity measures have been obligatory and particularly harsh for countries like Greece or Portugal that have received billions in emergency loans from their European partners.

But with Europe stuck in a recession and unemployment at record highs in several countries, critics have said that these policies have worsened the economic downturn, lowered government revenues and made it harder to meet agreed deficit targets.

Steinbrueck noted that some countries were being forced to cut spending by up to five percent of annual economic output in one year.

"Have you any idea what would happen if Germany had to save five percent each year?" he said in his speech to students at Berlin's Free University. "You wouldn't be here, you'd be out on the streets."

Steinbrueck, a former finance minister, said he too believed in keeping public spending under control. "There's no question that they need to consolidate their state budgets, the question is over what time frame."

Recalling the massive U.S. economic aid program for Europe after World War II, Steinbrueck called for a new Marshall Plan to avoid a "diabolical spiral" toward further joblessness and economic despair.

Such a program could be funded in part by new taxes on financial transactions and would invest heavily in job training and education, he said.

Steinbrueck's Social Democratic Party is trailing Merkel's Christian Democrats in the polls three months before the Sept. 22 general election. But if Merkel's preferred coalition partner, the pro-business Free Democrats, failed to clear the five percent threshold for parliament then a grand coalition with Steinbrueck's party is possible as happened during Merkel's first term from 2005-2009.

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) - Robin Roberts will release a memoir in April 2014 detailing her battle against her life-threatening illness and return to the "Good Morning America" anchor desk.

Grand Central Publishing, a division of Hachette Book Group, is publishing the book, which Jamie Raab, president and publisher of Grand Central Publishing, will edit.

"I am humbled that many have an interest, and draw strength from my ongoing journey," said Roberts. "I'm grateful for the prayers and well wishes of so many people. I'm thrilled that Jamie Raab and Grand Central Publishing will help me tell my story."

Said Raab: "I have long admired Robin Roberts's career and courage and am so honored to be publishing her book. Her story is both dramatic and inspiring, and will capture the incredible spirit that has endeared her to all of us who have followed her remarkable career and life."

Roberts joined ABC News from ESPN in 1995 and is now co-anchor of the top-rated "GMA." During her tenure, the show has won three consecutive Emmy Awards for Outstanding Morning Program, and Roberts has interviewed newsmakers including President Barack Obama.

She received a Peabody Award this month for "Robin's Journey," a series of reports about her battle with the blood disorder myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS. She took a leave of absence late last year to undergo a bone marrow transplant, returning to "GMA" this year.

Roberts' first book, "From the Heart, 7 Rules to Live By," was a New York Times bestseller.

The shows are highlighting the work of 16 Peruvian designers of clothes, jewelry and accessories as well as the collection of Spanish designer Agatha Ruiz de la Prada, who was invited as a special participant.

One dress presented by designer Sitka Semsh gave a contemporary spin to an Inca princess, while Ani Alvarez Calderon showed designs based on styles from the Puno and Lake Titicaca region. Amaro Casanova showed off a designed playing on the celebration of the Feast of Candlemas in the same area.

Ruiz de la Prada, meanwhile, flooded the catwalks with bold color and patterns.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Standing conventional stock market wisdom on its head, investors may wish for weaker-than-expected employment numbers next Friday.

A strong jobs report could prompt an early end to the Federal Reserve's policy of pumping money into the banking system to rescue the economy and set off the stock market's long-awaited pullback.

The Fed's loose monetary policy since the end of 2008 has kept interest rates low and propelled stocks to record highs.

Last week, stocks fell and bond yields surged after Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. central bank may decide to taper its stimulus programs in the next few policy meetings if data shows the economy is gaining traction.

Stocks posted their second straight week of losses on Friday, mostly on fears that the Fed would curb its bond-buying program sooner than most people expected.

"We're in a mindset where the market seems to be very fearful of the Fed beginning a tapering," said Quincy Krosby, market strategist at Prudential Financial in Newark, New Jersey.

"Those who are in the market based on easy money ... will probably exit" if the May jobs number exceeds expectations, she said.

The market has managed to climb this year without any substantial pullback. Concerns about the Fed's next move have increased speculation that a major bout of selling is ahead.

A stronger-than-expected jobs number "would continue to produce the concerns you've seen manifested in the market over the last couple of days," said Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia, which manages about $58 billion in assets.

Economists say job gains of at least 200,000 per month over several months are needed to significantly reduce high unemployment.

The Fed has said it will keep interest rates at historic lows until the U.S. unemployment rate drops to 6.5 percent.

Employers are expected to have added 168,000 jobs to their payrolls in May, according to economists polled by Reuters. That's slightly above April's count of 165,000 new positions.

The U.S. unemployment rate is expected to hold steady at 7.5 percent in May.

To be sure, better-than-expected jobs data would be evidence of strength in the economy, a positive for the market in the long run, so any pullback could be short-lived, analysts said.

"If it's a short-term correction, I think that would have to be opportunistic, in the sense that investors should take advantage of moving any sideline money into the equity market," Luschini said.

Even with the recent losses - the Standard & Poor's 500 indexfell 1.1 percent this week - the index rose 14.34 percent for the first five months of 2013. That gain marked the S&P 500's best first five months of any year since 1997.

DITCHING DIVIDEND STOCKS

A rotation out of high-yielding dividend stocks has already begun because of the rise in U.S. Treasury bond yields.

Dividend stocks had been among the market's leaders for much of this year's rally as investors favored those shares over fixed-income securities in a low interest-rate environment.

"The first crack we've seen is, as bond yields have been going up, people are moving out of that area," said Eric Kuby, chief investment officer of North Star Investment Management Corp., in Chicago.

"Managers are starting to look at things other than consumer staples with nice dividends and stable businesses. So within the stock market, you're seeing more volatility within sectors."

The S&P 500 gained 2.1 percent for the month of May, while the S&P utilities sector indexlost 9.6 percent and the S&P consumer staples indexdropped 2.4 percent.

The spread between the S&P 500 dividend yield and the 10-year U.S. Treasury note's yield this week hit its narrowest in about a year. The S&P 500 dividend yield was at 2.39 percent, while the 10-year note's yield hit 2.235 percent during the week.

By comparison, the dividend yield on the utilities sector stands at about 4 percent.

The move out of dividend-paying and other defensive shares should continue as the economy improves, Kuby said, though he pointed out that the market is still a "long way" from seeing high interest rates.

"The fact that rates are likely to creep up over time, that's a given. And it's not going to be sudden or dramatic. It's going to be more gradual."

IT'S RAINING NUMBERS

Next week will bring a snapshot of U.S. manufacturing activity from the Institute for Supply Management, which releases its May index on Monday. Economists polled by Reuters expect a reading of 50.5 for May, compared with 50.7 in April.

Monday's economic agenda also calls for April construction spending - forecast up 0.8 percent after a drop of 1.7 percent in March.

Domestic car and truck sales for May, also expected on Monday, are projected to have increased to 15.1 million units from April sales of about 14.9 million units, the Reuters Poll showed.

The U.S. international trade deficit, set for release on Tuesday, is forecast to have widened slightly to $41 billion in April from $38.8 billion in March.

A preview of the jobs picture will come on Wednesday with the release of a report from payrolls processor ADP. Economists polled by Reuters have forecast that the ADP data will show private-sector employers added 165,000 jobs in May, compared with 119,000 in April.

Wednesday's numbers to watch will include the ISM's release of its U.S. services-sector Purchasing Managers' Index for May. A reading of 53.4 is forecast for May, up from April's 53.1.

The Fed's Beige Book is expected on Wednesday afternoon. That report will give a look at the economy in 12 regional Federal Reserve bank districts.

On Thursday, initial claims for unemployment benefits will grab attention - on the day before the big payrolls report from the U.S. government. Initial jobless claims are projected to have slipped to 345,000 in the week ended June 1 from 354,000 in the previous week.

(Wall St Week Ahead runs every Friday. Questions or comments on this column can be emailed to: caroline.valetkevitch(at)thomsonreuters.com )

(Editing by Jan Paschal)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For years, Apple Inc kept a low profile in Washington as it grew into one of the most valuable companies in the world. Now the iPad maker has taken the lead, perhaps inadvertently, on a top priority for U.S. business: simplifying America's tax code.

Chief Executive Tim Cook, who was called before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on Tuesday to answer questions about Apple's alleged tax avoidance, used his appearance to plead for an overhaul of corporate taxes. That marked a sharp turnabout for a company that until now has been content to let rivals like Google and Microsoft fight Washington policy battles.

And even though the scrutiny Apple has come under in Washington could further challenge the company as it copes with a sagging stock price, rising competition and questions about its labor practices, it may have little choice but to commit fully to the fight over the corporate tax code.

"They are very, very tactical," said a former Apple lobbyist who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company. "They only join issues they really care about."

Recently, Apple has backed unsuccessful legislation that would have allowed international companies to bring overseas profits back home without paying the 35 percent corporate income tax.

Repatriation of profits has been a top concern for U.S. companies, which collectively have more than $1.5 trillion sitting offshore. Most say they keep the money there to avoid the taxes they would face by bringing it home.

Bowing to increasing shareholder pressure to distribute some of the $100 billion it keeps overseas, Apple has opted to borrow money at low interest rates rather than bring the cash home and take the tax hit.

Apple's Washington office referred questions to its California headquarters. Officials there declined to comment.

Apple has spent far less than other corporate titans on Washington lobbying over the past decade, records show, and the company has often declined to work with other technology companies on issues affecting the industry as a whole. It dropped out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2009 after it disagreed with the business lobby's stance on climate change.

The company spent about $2 million on lobbying last year, up from $180,000 in 1999, records show. This year it is on pace to nearly double last year's figure.

Apple's lobbying expenditures still pale in comparison with those of Microsoft Corp., which spent $8.1 million in 2012, and Google, which spent $16.5 million, records show.

And unlike other businesses such as AT&T and Exxon Mobil, Apple has not set up a political action fund to distribute employee contributions to congressional allies - a common tool for wielding influence in Washington.

"Clearly, Apple does not have a huge footprint for the tech sector. I don't mean to denigrate almost $2 million (spent on)lobbying - that's a lot of money - but it's not as much as other tech companies have been spending," said Bill Allison, editorial director for the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit that deals with money in politics.

Lobbyists not associated with the firm privately said Apple's minimal Washington presence could have put it in the crosshairs of the Senate subcommittee, which on Monday accused the company of ducking $9 billion in U.S. taxes through offshore subsidiaries. The lobbyists pointed to the example of Microsoft, which had little presence in Washington before antitrust investigators at the Department of Justice nearly succeeded in splitting the company up in the 1990s.

Though Apple, like many other Silicon Valley companies, served as an important source of campaign money for Democratic candidates in the 2012 election, it has enlisted experienced Republicans to make its case in Washington.

Apple's chief lobbyist, Catherine Novelli, served as a top trade official in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Other in-house lobbyists have worked as aides to senior Republican lawmakers, including Texas Representative Joe Barton, who used to oversee tech issues as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, records show.

The company also has hired outside firms to extend its reach in Congress and throughout government. Lobbyists at Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock and Capitol Tax Partners have worked for the Bush administration and top Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Glover Park Group and the Franklin Square Group have provided lobbyists from the Democratic side of the aisle who lobby on tax, broadband, electronic waste and spectrum issues.

The company has also enlisted Jon Bernstein, a former Democratic staffer at the Federal Communications Commission, to lobby that agency and the White House on subsidies for broadband access and technology-related legislation.

None of the lobbyists immediately responded to requests for comment.

The company does have one ace in its pocket: its sleek gadgets. Even lawmakers who grilled Cook on Apple's tax practices said they were avid iPhone and iPad users.

"I love Apple!" Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill declared.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan and Gabriel Debenedetti in Washington and Poornima Gupta in San Francisco; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Tim Dobbyn)