STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner, Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 30, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:58 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Friday. Yay. First of all, I want to welcome – I think we have a number of students from the International Student House. Is that right, guys? Hey. As well as – led by Barbara Slavin, who’s known to many of you and formerly part of the noble State Department press corps. And anyway, welcome to the State Department.
QUESTION: You mean it’s that bad today? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: I am not above pandering, really, honestly. It’s – if it makes this thing any quicker. Anyway, welcome to the State Department.
Also, before beginning, I do want to mention how very pleased we all here at State of the large number of nominees who were confirmed by the Senate yesterday, including our very own Mike Hammer, which is the reason why I’ve donned a purple tie today, because it’s his favorite color. So kudos to Mike, as well as Tara D. Sonenshine, who’s our new Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. So, congratulations. There’s a long list, you’ve all seen it, but indeed we’re very pleased that these individuals can now begin their work in earnest. And we also will continue to work with Congress on the remaining nominees.
And then, just before taking your questions, I do want to note – and we’ll be putting out a Media Note later, right after the briefing – that Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman will be traveling to New Delhi and to Patna, India, April 1st through 4th. In New Delhi, Under Secretary Sherman will meet with Foreign Secretary Mathai as well as other senior Government of India officials to discuss preparations for the upcoming U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, which will be held here in Washington in mid-June.
On April 4th, she’ll travel to Kathmandu, Nepal, where she’ll meet with Prime Minister Bhattarai as well as other Government of Nepal officials. And then she’ll travel on to Dhaka, Bangladesh on April 5th, where she’ll meet with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and Foreign Minister Moni, as well as other Bangladeshi officials. And she’ll also go on to visit the Grameen Borrower Group site outside of Dhaka.
So we’ll put this out just after the briefing with all the details. That’s it.
QUESTION: I want to go back to something we talked about yesterday involving Russia and Ambassador McFaul.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: What – have you all decided on what course of action you’re going to take about what’s been going on?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we put out a taken question. At least, it should’ve gone out shortly – a short time ago. Did it not? Is it a go? Okay.
QUESTION: Saying what?
MR. TONER: Basically saying that – answering the question that was raised at yesterday’s briefing, which is that have we raised this with the Government of Russia, and indeed we have. So --
QUESTION: And, well, I mean, what have you raised with the Government of Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, we’ve raised our concerns. There’s been a number of incidents since his arrival there that have caused us to have some concerns about his security and safety. So as we would in any – following normal protocol, we’ve raised that with the Government of Russia.
QUESTION: Do you have any concerns at all about just – I mean in general about the tweets that he’s been sending out?
MR. TONER: No. I think I said yesterday that we have full confidence in our chiefs of mission to use Twitter as a way to communicate to a number of followers, whether they be in Russia – in Mike McFaul’s case, but – or outside. And I did note, having looked at his Twitter account – we had an exchange yesterday – but there’s quite a few of his followers who respond in Cyrillic, so he does have some measure. I don’t have any way to measure that, but you questioned --
QUESTION: One of his followers appears to be someone with the name the – at least the Twitter handle Prostitutkamila. Do you have any – (laughter) – whose avitar is crossed legs. Do you have any – I mean, he is going back and forth with Prostitutkamila about this situation yesterday. Do you have any concerns or problems with that? Is that appropriate for – I mean, God knows who this person actually is, but --
MR. TONER: Right. Exactly, Matt. You well know, as I do, even though we’re not of the – this generation that uses Twitter – well, maybe you do, maybe you are, I don’t mean to age you – but that avitars come in all shapes and forms.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but, I mean, here he’s having a discussion saying that he was accosted by Cossacks at this event where these journalists – there were not just journalists there, there were men in military uniform, and I just – do you think that ambassadors should be routinely engaged in Twitter conversations with people who identify themselves as prostitutes?
MR. TONER: Again, he’s engaged with his followers. I’m not going to get – regulate or talk about from this podium who within his followers he should be talking to. Twitter – his tweets go out to a broad audience.
QUESTION: Did your concerns with – over his security and safety predate his Twitter activities yesterday?
MR. TONER: Yeah. I mean, I would say that. There’s been a number of incidents. I’m not going to go into them in detail but – because they do pertain to his security, but we’ve raised this.
QUESTION: Okay. And did you raise the concerns with the Russians before or after that exchange yesterday?
MR. TONER: Before. And we’re going to raise the latest concerns as well.
QUESTION: The latest concern being about his security, maybe --
MR. TONER: Well, and about --
QUESTION: My understanding was previous – the ones previous were about the anti-American incidents that --
MR. TONER: That’s right.
QUESTION: And then – but the new concern comes from the fact that he seems to be being followed around and --
MR. TONER: That’s my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: -- thinks that his phone and --
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Have the Russians said anything in response to this latest --
MR. TONER: No. I don’t have any details about what their response has been.
QUESTION: Have they responded to the previous concerns about his being followed?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Going back to the Senate confirmations, India is now, for a long time, without any U.S. ambassador, and now – we have now, you said, Strategic Dialogue is coming up and a lot of (inaudible) are going back to – back and forth to India and to New Delhi to Washington. Have Secretary – she’s making any plea to the Senate for the confirmation of --
MR. TONER: Who? We --
QUESTION: -- for --
MR. TONER: Nancy Powell was --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: -- was on my list of those confirmed yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: So --
QUESTION: There is an ambassador to India now --
MR. TONER: Yeah. There is an ambassador to India. I was somewhat confused.
QUESTION: -- as well as an ambassador to many other countries that are --
MR. TONER: Absolutely. I didn’t go through the long laundry list that --
QUESTION: -- that also didn’t have ambassadors for a long time.
MR. TONER: Right. Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: And she’ll – when’s she leaving?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I’m sure as soon as possible. I was just confused because your question seemed based on the premise that she was not confirmed, so --
QUESTION: No, because you did not answer – I mean, you didn’t mention --
MR. TONER: I didn’t go through the laundry – I mean, there’s a long list of people, so I just gave a shout-out to the folks in PA.
QUESTION: The question sort – also on India, the deadline’s looming for the President on sanctions on – regarding oil to Iran, to give --
QUESTION: It’s here.
QUESTION: It’s here – to give exemptions. Is that something the State Department will be handling, or does that come in from the White House?
MR. TONER: I think I’d refer you to the White House on his --
QUESTION: Just the exemptions for countries, what – about the – about purchasing oil from Iran.
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: A lot of the sanctions --
MR. TONER: We continue to – I mean, we already announced a number of those exemptions, and we continue to have a dialogue with a number of countries, including India. And when we have – and when we’re ready to announce a new round of exemptions, then we’ll do so, but nothing planned.
QUESTION: Syria?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Those discussions are ongoing.
QUESTION: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs told reporters as he was returning from Latin America that the message has been sent from the U.S. to the Syrian opposition that it would be helpful if they would basically consolidate who they are and consolidate their actions. I know – I’m asking, here at State, has that message indeed been sent to the various parts of the broader Syrian opposition that it’s better to get behind one banner at this point?
MR. TONER: Well, indeed. I mean, it’s going to be one of the topics of discussion in Istanbul. And the Secretary herself spoke to it the other day about this need for a unifying vision for the Syrian opposition, recognizing, of course, the challenges that are inherent in this process, which is that you’ve – they’re under relentless pressure by the Assad regime trying to basically survive, much less come up with a vision statement. And then you’ve got elements of the opposition who are outside the country and obviously many more who are within the country. So it’s a difficult task. We recognize that.
QUESTION: Does that kind of solidification make it easier for the U.S. to figure out exactly how it’s going to provide assistance if you actually have some sort of organization that you can direct countries to, such as what we saw with the NTC in Libya?
MR. TONER: Well, certainly. As we move forward on the path set out by the Annan plan that foresees a dialogue and then a transition, it’s absolutely essential that we’ve got a strong unified opposition. We believe that’s happening, but it’s just taking time.
QUESTION: Mark, conversely – a follow up to Ros’ question. I mean, is it – doesn’t that – the fact that they have a hundred different group make it really very difficult for you to provide aid and, in fact, frustrates whatever aid that might be forthcoming, and, in fact, may have nixed whatever possible military support to the opposition groups?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, it depends, Said, what we’re talking about. I mean, our humanitarian assistance is ongoing, and that’s metered out through – basically through the ICRC, but other international organizations. When you’re talking about assistance, the President and others have mentioned a possibility of non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and that’s going to be one of the topics of discussion in Istanbul.
QUESTION: You said that --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a follow up. Should the opposition feel now be – or should the opposition be resigned to the fact that no military aid is forthcoming, at least not in the foreseeable future?
MR. TONER: Look, we’ve – our position hasn’t changed on that. We’re focused on political, economic pressure on Assad to choke off his options, as well as ramping up humanitarian assistance. And as I’ve said, talking about non-lethal assistance or aid to the Syrian opposition to help them come together and become more coherent.
QUESTION: You said as we move forward with the Annan plan. Do you see any indication that that plan is actually moving forward at this stage?
MR. TONER: Well, look, I talked yesterday about giving him the diplomatic space that he needs to operate. He continues to consult. We haven’t seen – I think what you’re asking – we haven’t seen any signs by Assad or his regime that they’re following the first element of that plan is for a ceasefire.
QUESTION: So when does it – when do you make the calculation that giving him diplomatic space to operate is also giving Assad physical space to keep on mowing down his people? I mean --
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- you’re – it seems --
MR. TONER: This isn’t a – no. I mean, it’s a fair question, but this isn’t – when I talk about giving him the diplomatic space to operate, I’m not at all implying that we’re relenting in any way in our other efforts to apply economic and political pressure on Assad. I mean, these things are concurrent.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Mark, Syrian sources say that the Bashar al-Assad is getting ready to give a major speech in about a week. And it is expected that during that speech, he will announce ceasing fire. Is that good enough?
MR. TONER: Look, we want to see immediate ceasefire on the ground. If they said – and they sent through a letter to Kofi Annan that said that they were – that they agreed with the plan, then they should take immediate steps to halt the violence.
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MR. TONER: We’ve seen – look, I’m not – the Secretary and others spoke to this. We’re not going to – we’re going to remain skeptical until we see real action on the ground, real steps being taken.
QUESTION: But you don’t think that Kofi Annan told them, “Okay. We’ll give you one more week to finish up your business,” so to speak.
MR. TONER: I think – I can’t speak for him. I think he’s working equally hard to stop the violence as soon as possible.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: In India yesterday, five fastest growing economies including India – Brazil, India, China, Russia, and South Africa, they met and established a, what it called, BRICS. And what they’re saying is, like, challenging the IMF and the World Bank. And also they are calling on the United States that there should be some kind of change as far as the way World Bank and IMF is works. And any – and also, they want to do business in their own local currencies rather than in dollar.
MR. TONER: Well, in answer to your first question, I don’t – or your question implied that they was established – I think that BRICS been around for a few years as a multilateral organization. We enjoy good relations with all the countries within the BRIC. We have ongoing bilateral dialogues with all of them. So we understand their positions on a broad range of multilateral issues and we welcome the BRICS’ efforts to engage constructively on global issues, and we’re going to continue to talk with them about the range of global issues.
QUESTION: And also, at the same time, the U.S. Commerce Secretary John Bryson was in India – he’s in India. So where do we stand as far as U.S.-India trade and commerce is concerned today?
MR. TONER: Well, I haven’t had a chance to get a readout from his visit, but I’m fairly certain that we’re on solid footing in terms of trade with India.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead. You had a question.
QUESTION: Do you mind going back to Iran?
MR. TONER: I don’t mind going back to Iran.
QUESTION: On the issue of the Iranian sanctions slated to take place at the end of June, how concerned is the Administration with the fact that these increased sanctions will have an effect on oil prices, gas prices back here?
MR. TONER: Well, look, I think the fact that we’re having very deliberate and ongoing consultations with many of our friends and allies around the world to impress upon them the need to stop their import of Iranian crude and then to move to other sources shows that we’re going about this in a very deliberative way. We want to – and certainly the announcement a couple weeks ago of those countries that we believe have made substantial progress in this indicate that there’s a – that we’re confident that we can do this in a very coherent, deliberative fashion that’s not going to affect the market.
QUESTION: It seems to be (inaudible) White House (inaudible).
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip, I’m wondering if you have any readouts from the U.S. side on what the Secretary is doing, since she’s gone there without her faithful band of followers and the only word we have now is from the Saudi Foreign Ministry. So can you tell us?
MR. TONER: And precisely because of that, I don’t have much of a readout for you because my faithful --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: My faithful colleague, Toria, is on that same second plane. As many of you know, the Secretary’s plane developed some mechanical problems yesterday. She went forward, I believe, with just a few skeleton staff to carry out her meetings, bilateral meetings on the ground. And then the larger plane followed with the rest of her staff, including Toria, of course, and the press corps. So I don’t have a readout. We’ll try to get it to you.
QUESTION: You’re not likely to get anything until Toria actually gets on the ground? I mean, there are other senior U.S. officials with the Secretary.
MR. TONER: I understand that, and I know she’s coordinating with them to try to get something.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. On Palestinian issue, today the Israelis – and in fact Haaretz – exposed that the Israelis have plans to annex 10 percent of the West Bank and allocate it for a settlement. Do you have any comment on that? They published the maps and that actually will turn the West Bank, the area designated for a Palestinian state, into basically a discontiguous, Swiss cheese area.
MR. TONER: I really don’t. I haven’t seen the story. I don’t know what it’s based on. You know our policy on – our position regarding settlements.
QUESTION: Well, it’s a major expose in an Israeli –
MR. TONER: Well, we’ll certainly take a look at it --
QUESTION: -- a most respectable (inaudible) --
MR. TONER: I’m pretty sure our position is going to remain the same, which is --
QUESTION: Yeah. But I mean, beside your position remaining the same, if this is the case, if there are actually secret plans to annex – I mean --
MR. TONER: But, Said, you’re asking me to comment on secret plans. I mean, I – just it’s impossible for me right now to do that. I’ll take a look at the article and – but you know what our position is.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: I think you --
QUESTION: Can we stay on that for a second?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: And this has to do with Jerusalem, but it’s not the same question from the other day. Do you know if you all have taken a position on the construction of this Museum of Tolerance that the Israelis are building? It’s supposed – there’s some controversy about it because it’s going to be built on a Muslim cemetery.
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question, Matt. I don’t know what our position is.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mark, is the Armenia and Turkish relation, the genocide topic or the church property issues, part of the Secretary’s discussions in Turkey?
MR. TONER: You know what? I can’t speak to – I know she’s going to have some bilateral discussions on the side and, of course, on the margins of the Syrian – Friends of Syria meeting. It’s impossible for me to judge. Of course, those issues, those topics are a constant source of – or a issue that we discuss with Turkey and with Armenia, in fact. So we want to see the rapprochement process continue in that regard.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan?
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: On the reports that Usama bin Ladin’s wife is saying that he was always in Pakistan, is it your assessment that the Pakistani Government was consistently lying to the U.S. Government over the years?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t think we have an assessment. We have – as you know, immediately after the Abbottabad raid, we asked the Pakistani Government the question of whether there was a larger network at play here or there was some kind of network of support, I guess, for bin Ladin when he was there. We have not received any information that indicates that there was such a network of support there. So I don’t really have anything new for you on that.
QUESTION: So you don’t believe that they were lying?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so. Again, we haven’t received any indications that indicate that there was some broader network, no.

Go ahead, Shaun.
QUESTION: On Burma, Myanmar?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up real quick?
MR. TONER: On Pakistan? Yeah, go ahead. Let’s stay on Pakistan.
QUESTION: A just quick one that Pakistanis are again angry at the U.S. because of this recent attack, drones and also --
MR. TONER: Recent? I’m sorry. Recent --
QUESTION: Missile attack.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Over Pakistan. I believe they are saying three people were killed and they are asking the U.S. that they should stop this as far as drone attacks and missiles are concerned in order to have good relations or opening of the doors and all so forth.
MR. TONER: Well, you know where we’re at on this, Goyal. We continue to await the results of the parliamentary review. That’s still ongoing. But I think that in terms of our relations, we continue to have engagement at all levels within the Pakistani Government. And we certainly respect the review process that’s underway and we look forward to the results, and then we’ll be willing to discuss some of the issues raised by that. But as to this incident, I don’t have any comment.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Burma. Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: The bi-elections, of course, are coming up this weekend.
MR. TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Aung San Suu Kyi overnight made some remarks about the elections, saying that while obviously Burma is not a perfect democracy yet, but that what’s – what she saw as problems, irregularities, and that that’s well beyond what’s acceptable. What’s your read so far? What’s the State Department’s read so far on the elections –
MR. TONER: I’m sorry, just to go back to the tail end of what her comments were --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that the level of irregularities were not acceptable. What’s the State Department’s read on how the bi-elections are going?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we just have – as you guys all know very well, that we’re going to have representatives of the National Democratic Institute as well as the International Republican Institute who are going to actually be on the ground – I believe they actually are on the ground – to observe the – Sunday’s elections. We view that, in and of itself, this invitation to – of the international community to observe the elections, as a – as something that’s positive in terms of the country’s democratic development.
They’ve been very clear that they cannot do a proper election observation in that short a window, but certainly, we’ll look forward to their analysis leading up to it. I think we have raised our concerns, though, about – going into this about some of the irregularities that we’ve seen. But we’re going to have folks on the ground on Sunday to observe how they’re carried out.
QUESTION: Sure. Just to expand on that a little bit --
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I mean, is there – the overall conduct of these, that you’ve raised concerns about some irregularities, is – I mean, is – at this point, do you see it as credible? Do you see the by-elections as – or is it too early to judge?
MR. TONER: Well, I think – no, I think – first of all, this is a really – this is an important moment for Burma. These by-elections would demonstrate – if they are seen as free and fair – would demonstrate the government’s continued commitment to democratization. So we certainly want to see free and fair elections on Sunday. This would certainly propel further momentum in our bilateral relations, but we have noted some of these irregularities, and we’re just going to – as we move forward through Sunday, we’re going to assess.
QUESTION: Speaking of the bilateral relationship, how is the process of trying to establish an embassy going there?
MR. TONER: Well, it’s ongoing. I mean, we talked a little bit about this yesterday. If you’re asking about naming an ambassador --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. TONER: What? Oh, of course. Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.) We do have an embassy. I jumped to the conclusion you’re talking about naming an ambassador, and that’s really something for the White House. Thank you, Matt.
Yeah. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: In fact, the northern region of Kurdistan. The president of the northern region of Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, is coming to town. I think he arrives tomorrow. And --
MR. TONER: And you want to know if we’re meeting with him and what we’re doing with him?
QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. Is the Secretary –
MR. TONER: I’ll find out for you, Said.
QUESTION: Please, yeah.
MR. TONER: I don’t have that in front of me. Thanks, though.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: A different topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mali.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The coup leader, if you want to call – yeah, the coup leader – Captain Sonogo, is, I believe, his name – he made a statement saying – appealing for help, saying that there’s quite a drastic situation with the rebellion, the Tuareg rebellion. What’s the level of concern that the U.S. has with this situation in Mali, both the –
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- since the coup and with the rebellion?
MR. TONER: Well, we are very concerned. You saw that ECOWAS heads of state held an emergency meeting in Abidjan yesterday, and they presented the mutineers with an ultimatum that they must step down and return Mali to constitutional rule within 72 hours. And if they don’t comply, ECOWAS is going to impose economic, financial, and – financial and other sanctions on Mali. And these would include, I believe, closing the borders with ECOWAS countries and freezing Mali’s account within the West African Central Bank.
We echo ECOWAS’s call for the mutineers to step down and allow for a swift return to democratic rule and for presidential elections to – ultimately to take place. We have seen these reports you’re talking about, advances by the Tuareg rebels. We are very concerned. Toria spoke to this last week when she said that if these mutineers are so concerned, then why are they occupied with events in Bamako rather than pressing the fight against the Tuaregs in the north of Mali.
So we are very concerned about this. I know ECOWAS has offered to mediate between the Tuaregs and the Government of Mali. And we do recognize that these mutineers have some grievances against the government, but their actions to date have not been the right way to get – have anyone to address those grievances in any kind of productive way.
QUESTION: Has the situation risen to the level of needing a Security Council meeting?
MR. TONER: I simply don’t know where the discussion is on that yet. I mean, we believe that ECOWAS has taken an appropriate leadership role to date on this.
QUESTION: But if we get to Monday and the general is still holding press conferences and talking to any media come --
MR. TONER: We still believe there’s time for this to reverse itself and for democratic rule to return to Mali and for elections to take place.
QUESTION: And what do you know about the security of the president right now?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I don’t have any updates on his whereabouts. We’ve been told he’s secure and safe, but I don’t have any confirmation of that.
QUESTION: And you will have – now having had a week, you have those numbers for us?
MR. TONER: I believe we’re getting close on those numbers.
QUESTION: Oh? Where – how close would that be?
MR. TONER: We’ll release them at 8 o’clock tonight, how about that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: How about 4:00 in the morning?
MR. TONER: That’s right. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Just on --
QUESTION: North Korea --
MR. TONER: Point taken, Matt. We – I can’t say it enough that these are complicated. Military assistance has stopped and we’re de-conflicting all of the assistance that goes directly to the Malian Government. But these are pots of money within programs, and it simply takes time for us to --
QUESTION: Yeah, but five days?
MR. TONER: I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.
Yes.
QUESTION: Just if I may, a quick follow – Shaun’s question on Burma quickly?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Burmese community here – I meant what they are saying is that they’ve been waiting for a free Burma for the last 20-plus years and they are optimistic that as far as free and fair elections, unless U.S. really takes a closer look and gets involved because that’s what happened in the 1990 elections when she – Aung San Suu Kyi was cheated or her party. So what’s new or different now in the previous 1990 elections and today – I mean, this coming one?
MR. TONER: Well, we’re taking a step-by-step approach in Burma. You are very well aware we’ve had the Secretary out there visiting. We’ve had this positive momentum in the relationship. The government has indeed taken many steps, including the freeing up of – or the freeing of political prisoners inter alia that have led us to engage with the Burmese Government. But we’re obviously going to be looking to these elections on Sunday as another indication of what direction the country’s moving in.
QUESTION: But Mark, what they’re saying is that the international community, including the U.S., been dealing with the dictator for the last 20 years. How come?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. What are you – I didn’t hear the last question, that we’ve been --
QUESTION: The international community and the U.S. been dealing with a dictator, a military dictator.
MR. TONER: I don’t think that’s true at all. We’ve had a very strong sanctions program against Burma. We have had this period of the two-track approach, and we believe its borne fruit.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. One more thing going back to the Palestinian issue --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Today is Land Day. It’s a day that the Palestinians celebrate every year. And Israel imposed very severe restrictions on the movement of people, and there are actually some violent clashes that the Israeli Army committed against the Palestinian demonstrators. I wonder if you have a comment on that.
MR. TONER: Well, we certainly don’t want to see any violence on a – by either side. We certainly, as you all know, support the rights of people everywhere to protest peacefully, and so we would just call for restraint.
QUESTION: They actually imposed a great many closures. I mean, people are not able to move from one place to another. They closed the West Bank, Gaza --
MR. TONER: No, I’m aware of those. And again, we would want people to be able to peacefully protest, of course.
Yeah. In the back.
QUESTION: Mark, I recall last time when the Secretary of State was in Armenia, she mentioned that it’s up to Turkey now to make a step towards reconciliation. I think she said, “The ball is on Turkey’s side.” I was wondering if this is the same message that this building is trying to deliver to Ankara authorities as well.
MR. TONER: You know what? Let me, frankly, take the question. I mean, I know that we continue to look for movement on this issue, but as to where it is exactly and where that ball is, let me take the question.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: For modern times some uncharacteristically tough language from Tokyo about this planned missile launch in mid-April. Has the U.S. talked to Tokyo about its threats to intervene militarily to keep this from happening?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about which comments specifically?
QUESTION: That they’ve authorized this response if North Korea goes ahead with its planned satellite launch.
MR. TONER: Well, of course, we consult extremely closely with Japan, with our other allies in the region, and we’re certainly understanding of their concerns, which is why we’ve been so vocal about asking or telling North Korea that this planned missile launch is a mistake, that they should back away from it, and that it’s jeopardizing the Leap Year agreement.
QUESTION: That is certainly different from what Chinese officials were saying, which is basically, “North Korea, reconsider what you’re doing.” This is actually elevating or escalating the rhetoric, as it were. Does that worry this building at all?
MR. TONER: Well, again, let’s be very clear that it’s the intentions stated by North Korea that are elevating tensions, which is why we are asking them to back away from that decision.
QUESTION: Is this building telling Tokyo that perhaps it should be a little more careful in its language if trying to manage the situation is the goal here?
MR. TONER: Look, we continue to consult very closely with the Japanese on this situation, and as I said, we share their concerns.
QUESTION: Was there any sense that Tokyo could make good on its threats?
MR. TONER: That’s a question for Japan.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On North Korea. The State Department has consistently been saying that they are working to encourage North Korea to back away. Concretely, what has this meant? What forms has this encouragement taken?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, we’ve been very publicly vocal about our concerns and the fact that this launch, if it goes forward, would call into question the credibility of all North Korea’s commitments. So beyond that, we continue to consult with our allies and partners within the Six-Party process about next steps. I know China and others have also been vocal as well about expressing their concerns.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I – forgive me if I’ve missed this detail, but could you give me a rundown of exactly what contact the U.S. has had with North Korea since the announcement of the launch? I remember on March 16th, a few hours before North Korea put out their statement --
MR. TONER: That’s correct.
QUESTION: -- they had contacted the U.S. though the New York channel.
MR. TONER: That’s correct. And as far as I’m aware – I have not spoken with Glyn Davies in a couple of days, but I’m not aware that we’ve had any contact with them since then. I can check.
Yeah. In the back.
QUESTION: Yeah. For old time’s sake if I get to ask a question, there’s a report in Foreign Policy by Mark Perry that the Israelis are – have a deal with Azerbaijan to use military bases, air bases there, as a contingency perhaps to attack Iran. Does the U.S. State Department have any comment on that?
MR. TONER: We do not. Nope. I took this question yesterday, and I said the same thing. You know where we are in terms of Iran, and the President’s been very clear that we believe there’s still time for diplomacy to work here. We want to see Iran return to the negotiating table willing to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program in a real, substantive, and ongoing manner – not just one meeting but indeed a process here where we can really discuss and reach agreement on these issues.
QUESTION: Have you raised it with the Azerbaijanis?
MR. TONER: We have not.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Back to North Korea.
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. planning to have any direct communication or meetings with the North Koreans before this proposed launch in mid-April?
MR. TONER: Again, we continue to consult with our Six-Party allies and partners. I don’t have anything to preview for you in terms of direct conversations with North Korea. It’s not something we usually do, in fact.
QUESTION: Okay. And one on Japan, please?
QUESTION: There’s been no contact through – there’s been no contact through the New York channel?
MR. TONER: No. I just said I’m not aware of – the last is what she cited, which is the conversation we had up to – right before North Korea decided to make its announcement.
Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: On Japan and the Koreas. Secretary Clinton, at the beginning of this month, said as soon as possible she wanted to have a trilateral meeting with the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. Has a date been set for that?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware that a date has been set. Once we have something to announce, we’ll let you know. But I don’t think it has been.
QUESTION: Okay. Is there an intention to try to schedule it around the time that a lot of Japanese officials will be coming here in April, including foreign minister --
MR. TONER: It could be. I mean, we always look for – look, I don’t have a date for you, simply put. I mean, we try to, obviously, accommodate foreign leaders as well as the Secretary’s own schedule as much as we can.
Is that it?
QUESTION: Just one quick one. I just got – today, there was a hearing for this Dr. Fai as far as his connection working for Pakistan. He has been sentenced for 24 months because his connection with Pakistan and working against the U.S. Any comments on that?
MR. TONER: I don’t have any comments.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. And finally, Secretary, are you buying any Mega tickets? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Oh yeah. I wish. (Laughter.) You wouldn’t see me at the podium on Monday, if that were the case. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you, Mark.

U.S. TO SEND $200 MILLION IN HUMANITARIAN AID TO SAHEL REGION OF AFRICA

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail: 
Humanitarian Assistance to Sahel Region
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
March 29, 2012
The United States is deeply concerned about the humanitarian emergency in the Sahel region of Africa. Around 10 million people are in need of emergency assistance due to erratic rainfall, failed harvests, high food prices and conflict across the region that includes Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. In response to current needs, including protection and assistance for refugees, and to prevent a potentially much more serious situation, I am pleased to announce that the United States is providing an additional $120 million in emergency assistance. With these funds, the U.S. Government is providing nearly $200 million this fiscal year in humanitarian assistance to the Sahel region.

We are currently providing targeted humanitarian assistance that addresses acute malnutrition and hunger and builds resilience, and we are also focused on long-term approaches to establish lasting food security. We are making highly nutritious therapeutic food available for malnourished children. In addition to providing life-saving food, we are working to help vulnerable families and communities buy locally-available food and services, while developing small-scale projects and infrastructure that can help build the resilience necessary to withstand future drought.

In partnership with other donors, we have taken early action in response to early warnings. We are targeting specific pockets of great need while working toward sustainable, longer term development. Together, we are saving lives, mitigating impact, and building resilience.

U.S. EMBASSY IN MADAGASCAR RECEIVES GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations Announces LEED® Silver Certification for U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations announced today that the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) has awarded the newly constructed U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar the Silver Level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Certification.

This U.S. Embassy is the first building in Madagascar to earn LEED® Certification, and only the fifth LEED® certified building in Africa, four of which are U.S. diplomatic facilities.

Antananarivo joins U.S. Embassies and Consulates in Sofia, Bulgaria; Panama City, Panama; Johannesburg, South Africa; Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo; and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso as LEED® certified U.S. diplomatic facilities.

The embassy was designed to reduce energy costs by incorporating sun shades for the façade, occupancy sensors, and solar hot water. The building conserves water through the installation of low-flow and low-flush plumbing fixtures. All consumed water is treated at an on-site wastewater treatment plant. The cleansed water is reused for irrigation and infiltrated on-site, replenishing the ground water.

LEED® certification is the recognized standard for measuring building sustainability. LEED® certified buildings are designed to lower operating costs while increasing asset value, reduce waste sent to landfills, conserve energy and water, be healthier and safer for occupants, and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

The Embassy in Antananarivo was constructed by B.L. Harbert International of Birmingham, Alabama; and designed by Page Southerland Page of Arlington, Virginia. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing design was completed by H&A Architects and Engineers of Glen Allen, Virginia.

Since 1999, as part of the Department’s Capital Security Construction Program, OBO has completed 88 new diplomatic facilities and has an additional 41 projects in design and construction. The program has successfully moved more than 27,000 people in safer facilties, furthering OBO’s mission to provide safe, secure and functional facilities that represent the U.S. Government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities should represent American values and the best in American architecture, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.

BUZZ AND LORI ADDRESS THE SMITHSONIAN

The following photo and excerpt are from the NASA website:
NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver addresses the audience with Buzz Lightyear, left, of the film "Toy Story" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's Moving Beyond Earth Gallery, Thursday, March 29, 2012, in Washington. Launched May 31, 2008 aboard the space shuttle Discovery (STS-124) and returned on Discovery 15 months later with STS-128, the 12-inch action figure is the longest serving toy in space and became part of the museum's popular culture collection. Image Credit: NASA/Paul E. Alers

SPACE: THE STABLE ENVIRONMENT FRONTIER

The following excerpt is from the U.S. State Department website:
Laying the Groundwork for a Stable and Sustainable Space Environment
Remarks Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Space Security Conference
Geneva, Switzerland
March 29, 2012
Thank you for the kind introduction. It is my pleasure to be back in Geneva, speaking at what has become one of my favorite conferences to discuss space security. This year’s theme, “Laying the Groundwork for Progress,” seems to me to be particularly fitting when we consider the efforts that have been, and will be, underway this year to ensure the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security of the space environment.

Before I discuss the approaches towards ensuring space security that we can and are taking today, I’d like to look at how we are using space today and consider the consequences of a future without access to space. Today, several nations use communications satellites to enable health services for remote segments of their populations. Dubbed “telehealth,” the satellite link provides patients with access to the medical knowledge and experience necessary to diagnose conditions and prescribe treatment. For example, Burkina Faso, one of several West African nations using telehealth, relies upon donated transponder time to transmit abnormal ultrasound images from village clinics to specialists in a few regional hospitals. Communication satellites have a direct impact on Burkina Faso’s women and children, and the loss of this service could greatly affect the country’s ability to meet its health care delivery needs.

The use of communications satellites to transmit health care data across countries and across the globe is only one of the many uses of space on which we rely. Telephone calls, news reports, television broadcasts, and financial transactions are also relayed through satellites. Financial markets, power grids, and wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcast industries all use GPS satellites for precise timing, and ships, planes, automobiles, and individual people use them for navigation. Meteorological satellites provide weather and environmental forecasts, while remote-sensing satellites provide imagery used in agriculture, resource exploration, land use planning, treaty verification, and disaster relief, amongst other things. Clearly the use of space assets and the information we derive from them permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives. The telehealth scenario I have just mentioned is only one example of how important the utilization of space is, and clearly shows that the loss of space systems, even for a short period of time, can have damaging consequences. Extrapolating from this, we must ask ourselves “What will the consequences be if the space environment were to become unusable?”

Recognizing the need to prevent such a future, and to ensure the long-term sustainability and stability of the space environment, the question becomes “What can we do today to ensure that the generations that come after us can access and benefit from space?” I’m sure that each speaker on this panel, and probably in this conference, would answer this question slightly, if not very, differently. Some of us would suggest we pursue legally-binding arms control agreements. While the United States is prepared to engage in substantive discussions on space security as part of a Conference on Disarmament’s consensus program of work, and is willing to “consider” space arms control proposals and concepts that are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the United States and our allies, we have not yet seen a proposal that meets these criteria. However, it is important to focus on those areas that unite us rather than divide us. While each speaker may have differing views on how to best ensure stability and security in space, there are many ways forward in which we do agree. It is in those areas, I believe, we should focus on making progress in the near term.

Orbital Debris Mitigation
Considering the serious and long-lasting threat posed by orbital debris, I think we can all agree that cooperation is necessary to address and mitigate this growing problem. The fact was illustrated by events this past weekend, when the astronauts on the International Space Station were forced to take shelter when a piece of debris came close to the station. Had that debris collided with the space station, it could have caused catastrophic damage to the station and placed the lives of the crew at serious risk.

In 2002, international guidelines to minimize debris were established by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. These guidelines served as the basis for similar guidelines then adopted by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. It is important that we continue to make progress in encouraging nations to adopt and implement these guidelines.

From a national perspective, we in the United States also recognize the importance of preventing collisions between satellites and/or orbiting objects, due to the resulting debris creation. The United States is currently reaching out to all space-faring nations and organizations to ensure that our Joint Space Operations Center, or JSpOC, has current contact information for both government and private sector satellite operations centers to provide notifications of potentially hazardous conjunctions. In 2011 alone, we provided over 1,100 notifications to nations around the world, including Russia and China.

UNCOPUOS
We can also all agree that there is great value in efforts to adopt best practice guidelines through “bottom-up” initiatives developed by government and private sector satellite operators, such as the work done in the multi-year study of “long-term sustainability of space activities” within the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) of UNCOPUOS. The STSC Working Group on the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities is a key forum focusing on the international development of “best practices guidelines” for space activities, in particular in the areas of space debris, space operations, and space situational awareness. The United States believes that many of the best practice guidelines addressed by this working group will be integral to international efforts to enhance spaceflight safety and to preserve the use of space for the long-term.

Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures
Finally, we can all agree that the development of near-term, voluntary, and pragmatic space transparency and confidence-building measures can enhance the stability and security of the space environment. TCBMs, whether they address important areas such as hazards to spaceflight safety and collision avoidance, or reduce tensions through the sharing of information, help to increase familiarity and trust and encourage openness among space actors. One opportunity for the international community to cooperate in this area is through the Group of Government Experts (or GGE) on Outer Space TCBMs, established by UN General Assembly Resolution 65/68. We look forward to working with our international colleagues this year in a GGE that serves as a constructive mechanism to examine voluntary and pragmatic TCBMs that have the potential to mitigate the dangers and risks in an increasingly contested and congested space environment, enhance stability and security, and promote responsible operations in space.

Another opportunity for the international community to cooperate on TCBMs is through the development and adoption of an “International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.” As many of you are aware, on January 17, 2012, the United States announced that it had decided to join with the European Union and other spacefaring nations to develop an International Code of Conduct.

In her written statement announcing the decision, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “the long-term sustainability of our space environment is at serious risk from space debris and irresponsible actors … Unless the international community addresses these challenges, the environment around our planet will become increasingly hazardous to human spaceflight and satellite systems, which would create damaging consequences for all of us.”

We were pleased that Japan, Australia, and other countries have also stated their support for the development of a Code of Conduct, and we encourage other spacefaring nations to consider playing an active role in the multilateral meetings of experts in 2012 that the European Union intends to schedule. We view the European Union’s draft Code of Conduct as a good foundation for developing a non-legally binding International Code focused on the use of voluntary and pragmatic TCBMs. An International Code of Conduct, if adopted, would establish a political commitment to reduce the hazards of accidental and purposeful debris-generating events and would increase the transparency of operations in space to minimize the danger of collisions, furthering cooperation in areas we all recognize as crucial for ensuring stability and sustainability in space. We look forward to engaging with the rest of the international community on this initiative in the months to come.

Looking Towards the Future
The world is increasingly interconnected through, and increasingly dependent on space systems. While there is no way of knowing when, or if, we will reach a “tipping point” when it comes to debris and our access to space, it is clear that the long-term sustainability of our space environment is at serious risk from space debris and irresponsible actors. Because of our disparate histories and situations, there will always be differing views on how to best ensure stability and sustainability in space. We should not focus on what divides us, but instead on those efforts we can agree to now that will lay the groundwork for progress and sustain space for future generations.

U.S. CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF GEN. DEMPSEY SEEKS TO EXPAND MILITARY TIES TO BRAZIL

The following excerpt is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Dempsey Looks to Expand Military Ties With Brazil

By Jim Garamone

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT, March 29, 2012 - Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, on his way back from Brazil today, said he hopes to expand military-to-military relations with the country he said is "clearly, an economic engine globally."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he was pleased with "wide-ranging" discussions he had with Brazilian Defense Minister Antonio Celoso Amorim and top-ranking military official Gen. Jose Carlos de Nardi.

Dempsey also flew yesterday to Bogota, Colombia, then directly to the headquarters of the Amazon Military Command in Manaus.

The U.S. relationship with Brazil is a partnership of equals, U.S. Southern Command officials said. After years of promise, Brazil's economy recently became the sixth largest in the world. With a population of 220 million, an educated workforce and abundant raw materials, the nation is poised to climb even higher.

National power is the aggregate of economic, diplomatic and military power, and Brazil already regards itself as an economic and diplomatic world power. Dempsey discussed how military power fits into the equation.

The leaders discussed common interests – transnational organized crime, border controls, intelligence sharing, technology transfers and cyber. "I went in hoping that we wouldn't get bogged down in a single weapons system or on technology transfer, and we didn't," Dempsey said.

The chairman said he was not surprised that Brazil has the same concern as the United States about cyber. "The better they do economically and the more influence they have internationally, the more they see what we see, which is cyber is both our greatest opportunity and our greatest vulnerability," he said, adding that cyber defense may be an area where the two military partners can work together.

Brazilian officials briefed the chairman on their military's deployments, which the country limits to only those in which there is a United Nations mandate Brazil commands the U.N. mission in Haiti and serves in various other peacekeeping missions, Brazilian leaders told Dempsey.

"They are concerned about the Mideast, the long-term implications of the Arab Spring, whether we think Iran will respond to sanctions," the chairman said. "They were interested in Libya and how the mission evolved from stopping the violence to trying to stabilize the land."

They also discussed the regional picture. Brazil is at ease with the relationships it has with all its neighbors. "They see Colombia in a special light because they feel Colombia has made significant progress in containing the FARC insurgency," Dempsey said. "That worried the Brazilians because they were afraid of spillover."

Brazilian leaders told Dempsey they must deal with transnational organized crime. Brazil is second only to the United States in cocaine consumption, officials said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AT NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT

The following except is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail:  

President Cites Progress at Nuclear Security Summit

By Elaine Sanchez
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2012 - While progress has been made toward security and peace, it's "undeniable" that a nuclear terror threat remains, President Barack Obama said in Seoul, South Korea, today.

"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials, and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," Obama said at the opening session of the Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea's capital city, where leaders from more than 50 nations have gathered.

"It would not take much -- just a handful or so of these materials -- to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people," he added. "And that's not an exaggeration; that's the reality that we face."

Obama recalled hosting the first Nuclear Security Summit two years ago in Washington. "There were those who questioned whether our nations could summon the will to confront one of the gravest dangers of our time," he said. "In part because it involves a lot of technical issues, in part because the world was still grappling with a whole host of other issues like the economy and the global recession, there was some skepticism that we would be able to sustain an effort around this topic. But that's exactly what we've done."

Leaders agreed that nuclear terrorism is one of the most urgent and serious threats to global security, Obama said, and they agreed to the goal of securing the world's nuclear materials in four years. They knew this goal would require sustained and effective international cooperation, the president said, and an architecture in which they could share best practices, sustain commitments and ensure ongoing progress.

Over the past two years, they've backed their words up with deeds, Obama said.

"We are improving security at our nuclear facilities. We are forging new partnerships. We are removing nuclear materials, and in some cases, getting rid of these materials entirely," he said. "And as a result, more of the world's nuclear materials will never fall into the hands of terrorists who would gladly use them against us."

However, one nation can't tackle this challenge alone, the president said. It will require working together as an international community.

"What we did in Washington, what we're now doing in Korea, becomes part of a larger global architecture designed to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, but also allows us then to more safely and effectively pursue peaceful uses of nuclear energy," he said.

Once again, nations have gathered to make commitments, and to take "more real, tangible steps," the president noted. And, as a consequence, more people will be safeguarded from the danger posed by nuclear terrorism.

"We've come a long way in a very short time, and that should encourage us," Obama said. "And that should not lead us to complacency, however; it should fortify our will as we continue to deal with these issues.

"I believe we can maintain that will and that focus," he continued. "I believe we must, because the security of the world depends on the actions that we take."

CDC SAYS U.S. CANCER DEATH RATES ARE DECLINING

The graphs and following excerpt are from the Centers for Disease Control website:
Report to the nation finds continuing declines in cancer death rates since the early 1990s
Special feature highlights cancers associated with excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity

Death rates from all cancers combined for men, women, and children continued to decline in the United States between 2004 and 2008, according to the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2008. The overall rate of new cancer diagnoses, also known as incidence, among men decreased by an average of 0.6 percent per year between 2004 and 2008.  Overall cancer incidence rates among women declined 0.5 percent per year from 1998 through 2006 with rates leveling off from 2006 through 2008.

The report is co–authored by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. It appears early online in the journal CANCER, and will appear in print in the May issue.

The special feature section highlights the effects of excess weight and lack of physical activity on cancer risk. Esophageal adenocarcinoma, cancers of the colon and rectum, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, endometrial cancer, and breast cancer among postmenopausal women are associated with being overweight or obese. Several of these cancers also are associated with not being sufficiently physically active.

“This report demonstrates the value of cancer registry data in identifying the links among physical inactivity, obesity, and cancer,” said CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden, M.D. “It also provides an update of how we are progressing in the fight against cancer by identifying populations with unhealthy behaviors and high cancer rates that can benefit from targeted, lifesaving strategies, and interventions to improve lifestyle behaviors and support healthy environments.”

For more than 30 years, excess weight, insufficient physical activity, and an unhealthy diet have been second only to tobacco as preventable causes of disease and death in the United States.  However, since the 1960s, tobacco use has declined by a third while obesity rates have doubled, significantly impacting the relative contributions of these factors to the disease burden.  Excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and arthritis, as well as many cancers.

“In the United States, 2 in 3 adults are overweight or obese and fewer than half get enough physical activity,” said John R. Seffrin, Ph.D., chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society. “Between children and youth, 1 in 3 is overweight or obese, and fewer than 1 in 4 high school students get recommended levels of physical activity. Obesity and physical inactivity are critical problems facing all states. For people who do not smoke, excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity may be among the most important risk factors for cancer.”

The Report to the Nation was first issued in 1998. In addition to drops in overall cancer mortality and incidence, this year's report also documents the second consecutive year of decreasing lung cancer mortality rates among women. Lung cancer death rates in men have been decreasing since the early 1990s.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates also decreased among men and women from 1999 through 2008.  Breast cancer incidence rates among women declined from 1999 through 2004 and plateaued from 2004 through 2008.  Incidence rates of some cancers, including pancreas, kidney, thyroid, liver, and melanoma, increased from 1999 through 2008.

“The continued declines in death rates for all cancers, as well as the overall drop in incidence, is powerful evidence that the  nation's investment in cancer research produces life–saving approaches to cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment,” said NCI Director Harold E. Varmus, M.D.  “But, it is also important to note that investments we make today are critical if we hope to see these declines in incidence and death from cancer reflected in future Reports to the Nation.”

Among children aged 19 years or younger, cancer incidence rates increased 0.6 percent per year from 2004 through 2008, continuing trends from 1992, while death rates decreased 1.3 percent per year during the same period. These patterns mirror longer–term trends.

Among racial and ethnic groups, the highest cancer incidence rates between 2004 and 2008 were among black men and white women. Cancer death rates from 2004 through 2008 were highest among black men and black women, but these groups showed the largest declines for the period between 1999 and 2008, compared with other racial groups. The differences in death rates by racial/ethnic group, sex, and cancer site may reflect differences in risk factors, as well as access to and use of screening and treatment.

“While the sustained decline in cancer mortality rates is good news, the persistence of disparities among racial and ethnic groups continues to concern us,” said Betsy A. Kohler, executive director of NAACCR. “The collection of comprehensive cancer surveillance data on all patients may provide clues to understanding these differences and addressing them.”

The report notes that continued progress against cancer in the United States will require individual and community efforts to promote healthy weight and sufficient physical activity among youth and adults.
.

STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT BEFORE CONGRESS ON JOBS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN EUROPE AND EURASIA

The following excerpt is from the U.S. State Department website:
Creating Jobs: Economic Opportunities in Europe and Eurasia
Testimony
Robert D. Hormats
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Testimony Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Europe
Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meeks and Members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, thank you for inviting me to testify today. In my remarks, I’d like to focus on the importance of our economic relationship with Europe and how the Obama Administration is working to maximize the potential of that relationship to boost America’s international competitiveness and create jobs in the United States.

With news headlines focused on the Eurozone crisis and the dynamic growth of the emerging economies, we sometimes lose track of the breadth and depth of our trade and investment relationship with Europe. Europe is a priority.

We look to Europe to attract more foreign investment into the United States that can produce high-quality jobs and bring us new technologies. We look to Europe for new opportunities for our exporters of industrial and consumer goods, services and agriculture products -- and as a place where large numbers of American companies have been operating successfully for many decades and seek new market opportunities. We work closely with our European partners to ensure an open trade and investment climate in third markets. And, of course, we recognize Europe as a staunch ally – and it has been for decades.

I will give you concrete examples of economic progress, and ways we are working to achieve even better results.

We look forward to continued cooperation with the Congress and the private sector -- as well as our governors and mayors -- as we work to realize our shared objectives.
The example of your district around Indianapolis, Mr. Chairman, is quite instructive. I was struck by the fact that Indianapolis is located within one day’s drive of 55% of all Americans – or 50 million households.

Your district’s successful reorienting of its economic growth by taking advantage of its location and traditional manufacturing base, while developing its strengths in other competitive industries, such as higher education, health care/pharmaceuticals, transport/distribution services, is exemplary. Lessons learned from your District and your leadership are important to examine and emulate in other U.S. regions, as well as in Europe, as we seek to unlock new sources of jobs and economic growth so important for our recovery.

And the Ranking Member’s district is in New York City, one of the world’s truly international cities. The district is also the home of John F. Kennedy Airport, our nation’s main aviation gateway to Europe. Ranking Member Meeks – a fellow New Yorker – has helped create many jobs in his district and throughout the country by his support of trade expansion in Europe and around the world.

The Importance of the United States – European Union Economic Relationship
I would like to begin with just a few words on the U.S.-EU bilateral economic relationship. It is one of the central drivers of the world economy and accounts for almost 50 percent of global GDP. To put this in perspective, the value of United States goods and services exports to the European Union is several times the value of our exports to China. Trade flows between the United States and the EU exceed $2.7 billion per day.

Foreign Direct Investment has created millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. At last measure in 2010, U.S. Foreign Direct Investment into the EU -- $1.95 trillion -- was more than twice U.S. Foreign Direct Investment into any other region in the world. The EU’s 2010 Foreign Direct Investment of almost $1.5 trillion in the United States is approximately four times the amount from any other region – and a huge job creator here.
Given the importance of transatlantic trade and investment in supporting high-quality jobs in the United States, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of making further efforts to remove barriers to commerce between the United States and the EU.
And this is not only in America’s interest – it is in the EU’s as well. Given the absolute size of our relationship, even small gains in any sector can mean significant economic benefits – more trade, more jobs, and more business opportunities for U.S. firms and U.S. workers and farmers.

The President has said, “Europe is the cornerstone of our engagement with the world.” And this is true, not only in our shared foreign policy objectives, but in the economic sphere as well. We have similar values and embrace shared market economic principles that have stood the test of time.

Together, we also can spur multilateral liberalization in our globalized world, in such fora as the G8, G20, WTO and OECD -- promoting an open, transparent, and non-discriminatory trade and investment climate in third countries.

We work with the EU and other European partners in the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, strengthening existing global financial regulatory and supervisory structures. As the world’s two largest donors, the United States and the EU promote effective and complementary development assistance. We also work together to improve supply chain security through the World Customs Organization and other fora.

Even as we focus on achieving positive multilateral results, the United States and the EU have every interest in promoting strong market-based, rules-based approaches to economic policies in third countries, including in particular Russia, China, Brazil and India.

The United States and the European Union can both benefit if we work together to promote the adoption of market principles worldwide. This creates a level playing field for our firms around the world. We have made joint efforts, for example, to help China improve the safety of the toys, pharmaceuticals, and other products it exports, which is essential to the health and well-being of our consumers.

In the U.S. – EU Intellectual Property Working Group we have worked to promote legitimate copyright content among Chinese Internet Service Providers, and trademark law reform in China, and to conduct joint IPR enforcement operations at U.S. and EU ports. In 2012, the group will focus on protecting trade secrets, particularly in China. Our newly created U.S. - EU Investment Dialogue is another example of our joint commitment to promote market-friendly, rules-based economic policies in third countries.

Effects of Eurozone Crisis
Our ties to Europe are deep and longstanding, and we have continued to collaborate closely through the global financial crisis and, more recently, the Eurozone crisis.
It has been U.S. policy for almost seven decades to support a Europe whole, free and at peace. We will continue to work with our European partners to promote financial stability and sustainable, balanced growth.

We have seen a commitment by the EU to address current economic challenges not only through fiscal consolidation aimed at improving debt sustainability, but also by facilitating job creation and structural improvements and putting in place measures to assist member states in finding a path back to economic growth.

European Union member states are developing strategies to safeguard the region’s economic future, improve competitiveness, and achieve stability. There's a lot more hard work ahead and many difficult choices to make. But our European partners have laid a solid foundation on which to build.

The United States is encouraged by European leaders’ efforts to address the region’s crisis. We have a huge stake in the health and vitality of the EU. European growth and financial stability are important not only for Europe, but also for the global economy, and for creating and sustaining jobs in the United States.

We know from our own experience that moving from crisis to recovery depends on swift and aggressive action to restore market confidence. We have every reason to believe that with continued decisive action by European leaders, fiscal financial sector, and competitiveness challenges can be resolved.

There is no doubt that the debt crisis has put serious strains on the European Union and its members, both politically and economically. But the commitment to a united Europe remains strong and European integration remains attractive because it makes economic sense over the long-term.

Realizing that fiscal consolidation can be facilitated by complementary growth-enhancing reforms, we are seeing similar debates in Europe as in the U.S. on how to support jobs and growth.

It is clear that slower growth and tighter budgets in Europe may have an impact on some of our foreign policy objectives, so we are actively searching for opportunities to leverage our individual and collective resources in our efforts to advance shared transatlantic goals.
Europe is an indispensable partner in promoting peace and prosperity through development assistance. Together we can stretch the impact of our assistance through targeted cooperation efforts in developing countries and countries in transition across the globe.  The EU and its Member States account for over 55 percent of net Official Development Assistance to developing countries, with aid from the fifteen wealthiest EU member states rising by 6.7percent in 2010 to just over $70 billion.

The EU and its member states have taken the lead on post-conflict aid operations in Liberia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Darfur and Chad. The EU has also taken on lead roles in the democratic transitions occurring in Libya, Tunisia and in the Middle East and North African region.

We have been key partners in transforming Europe’s frontier regions in the Balkans, South Caucasus, and Central Asia, in cementing ties to Euro-Atlantic institutions and in promoting reforms to support transition to market economies. Our collective assistance helps these countries become robust trade and investment partners; helping them make economic decisions based on market principles and embrace international norms; increasing the transparency of the governments’ banking, financing and procurement operations; and reducing impediments such as corruption and over-regulation in order to level the playing field for U.S. firms. And I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Meeks, that when U.S. businesses and U.S. labor are able to compete on a level playing field, their products and services can win in markets the world over.
Defense spending faces continued pressure in Europe. The Secretary of Defense told the Allies last fall that “we are at a critical moment for our defense partnership.” Overall, defense spending in Europe has decreased during the past decade and is less than half of U.S. military spending.

Whatever happens on the financial and economic front, our foreign policy message has been consistent: It is important that we continue to spend the money required to meet our key priorities, and maintain critical deployments, both military and civilian. Reduced outlays overall should not mean reduced engagement in critical parts of the world.

U.S. Efforts to Deepen Economic Ties with Europe
While we work through these issues, the effort to expand our economic ties has not taken a back seat.

The Obama Administration is committed to deepen and broaden our economic relationship with Europe. Secretary Clinton has said, “We need to forge an ambitious agenda for joint economic leadership with Europe that is every bit as compelling as our security cooperation around the world.” I would like to outline for you how we at the State Department are actively expanding trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies in Europe.

The State Department works closely in this effort with partners throughout the U.S. Government, including the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Treasury.

We also are working closely with other partners in regulatory and technical agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office -- as well as research institutions, many of which have developed very inventive ideas for advancing collaboration and increased trade.

U.S.- EU scientific, research and development cooperation is increasingly key to many of the issues facing us today, including fostering economic growth and creating jobs in our countries in emerging sectors. Pursuing regulatory and standards-setting cooperation will benefit our economies.

Economic Statecraft
In October 2011, Secretary Clinton announced her vision of Economic Statecraft as a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy, that is, how we use the tools of diplomacy abroad to support trade and the rights of U.S. investors, leverage the strengths and expertise of the U.S. private sector in our economic engagement overseas and use diplomacy and our overseas presence to grow our economy at home by attracting foreign investment to the United States.

We have established an Economic Statecraft Task Force to elevate economic and commercial diplomacy goals and to ensure that we have the right people, support tools, and engagement platforms. The Task Force covers four principal areas of work: human capital; internal tools; external engagement; and policy opportunities.
We are doing much of this work already, especially at our overseas posts, to support such programs as the National Export Initiative and Select USA (which promotes job-creating foreign investment in the United States). The State Department puts special emphasis on support for entrepreneurship. Under the Secretary’s Economic Statecraft Initiative, we will scale up our efforts.

Several examples of how our State Department colleagues in Embassies abroad are already supporting U.S. companies include:

Embassy Berlin advocated in favor of Volkswagen’s decision to build a new $1 billion manufacturing plant in Chattanooga.

Embassy Bern’s advocacy and assistance to Virginia-based Aurora Flight Sciences led to its successful bid under an open procurement competition for a contract worth $5 million with the Swiss government. This medium-sized, new-to-export firm had to navigate a complex path of export controls in order to receive permission for the lease of its product. Aurora is now wellpositioned to bid on a much larger Swiss government tender worth as much as $250 million and that would create 300 well-paid, high-quality jobs in the United States.

Embassy Skopje advocated for the liberalization of our aviation relationship with Macedonia, resulting in the initialing of an Open Skies agreement that will benefit consumers and businesses in both countries. In addition, in 2012 Johnson Controls launched its second investment in Macedonia of approximately €20 million , complementing its parent activities in the United States while supporting Macedonia’s efforts to establish a sustainable, market-based economy.

Embassy Kyiv worked with the Commerce Department’s Commercial Law Development Program to combat counterfeit medicines. As a result, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation providing for stiffer sentences for individuals convicted of trafficking in counterfeit medicines.

Embassy Sarajevo, working closely with several U.S. software firms, encouraged the government of Bosnia to purchase licensed American software. In December 2010, the Bosnian government made its first payment on a $7.5 million licensing agreement with Microsoft for government workstations. This represents a great step forward in the protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Bosnia.

Embassy Moscow had a number of dramatic successes befitting Russia’s large, growing market. Over the course of 2011 the Embassy supported many major business deals – such as Boeing’s sale of 50 aircraft to Aeroflot and 40 planes to Russian airline UTAir, a joint venture between Exxon-Mobil and Rosneft to explore for oil and gas in the Arctic, and GE’s joint ventures with two Russian partners. I am confident that our advocacy both in Moscow and by officials here in Washington made a real difference.

High level U.S. advocacy with the Turkish government has been crucial in winning multimillion dollar bids for U.S. companies. In April 2011, helicopter producer Sikorsky was selected to negotiate a contract, with a potential value of $1.3 billion, to co-produce utility helicopters in Turkey. In January 2012, the Turkish National Police began final negotiations with Bell Helicopters for the sale of 15 Bell 429s with an option to purchase five additional aircraft.

Embassy Astana provides critical support to U.S. businesses seeking to benefit from Kazakhstan’s growing commercial potential, its intensified efforts to complete accession to the WTO, and its central role as a transit hub for EU-China trade. As the New Silk Road develops, Kazakhstan is almost certain to emerge as one of the vital links -- and vital avenues for private U.S. engagement -- across the region. Over the course of fiscal year 2011, our mission had 57 concrete export successes valued at $7.8 million and two commercial diplomacy successes valued at $3.4 million. On February 5, 2012, Air Astana, the national flag carrier of Kazakhstan, announced that it has agreed to purchase seven Boeing aircraft worth US $1.3 billion.

Beyond advocacy for specific business deals, we are also working to level the playing field for U.S. workers and businesses in Europe and around the world. One example is the agriculture sector. The volume of U.S. agricultural exports to the EU is strong and growing. Our 2011 agricultural exports to the EU were valued at $9.5 billion, up 8.2 % from the prior year. The USDA estimates that every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports supports about 7,800 American jobs across a variety of sectors. We want to push those numbers even higher.

Business is telling us there is more we can do to help them grow in an increasingly challenging world – and we at State want not only to respond boldly, but also to exceed their expectations. On February 21-22, Secretary Clinton invited 200 representatives of U.S. business support organizations and the private sector to participate in the Department’s first ever Global Business Conference. I was pleased to participate in several sessions. This is part of the Department’s effort to increase engagement with the private sector and support U.S. business.

Transatlantic Economic Council and Regulatory Cooperation
The business community, consumer organizations and other stakeholders in the United States and in Europe have also been an active and vocal constituency in support of the Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC. The TEC, established in 2007 and led by the White House and the European Commission, engages our most senior economic policymakers to promote economic growth and job creation on both sides of the Atlantic -- in particular by addressing regulatory barriers and fostering innovation.

As tariffs have fallen in recent decades, non-tariff measures or “behind the border” barriers to trade and investment have come to pose the most significant obstacles to our trade. Regulators in both the EU and the United States aim essentially for the same strong protections for the health and safety of our citizens, for our environment, and for our financial systems.

But differing approaches to regulation and to the development of standards can create barriers and slow the growth of trade and investment. Reducing unnecessary differences can create opportunities.

One way we are seeking to minimize the impact of unnecessary regulatory divergences on trade and investment is to examine closely our respective regulatory processes and to try to identify ways to make them more compatible and accessible. The TEC and the U.S. - EU High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, led by OMB, have spurred new discussion on our respective approaches to risk analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and the assessment of the impact of regulation on trade.

One of the highlights of the November 2011 TEC meeting was a comprehensive work plan on electric vehicles and associated infrastructure, in cooperation with the U.S.-EU Energy Council, business, standard-setting bodies, and scientists on both sides of the Atlantic.

A key component of this work plan is a decision to establish “interoperability centers” which will allow scientists from both sides of the Atlantic to share data, equipment, and testing methodologies. This in turn should set a foundation for compatible approaches and regulations in both markets and lead to interoperable e-cars and related infrastructure, such as charging stations and smart grids.

And while we have a common purpose on electric vehicles, the work that is done in the private sector to prioritize and develop the standards adopted for and applied to these new technologies is also critical. The standards-setting process is very complex with vital roles for government, business and standard-setters.

If the EU and the United States can together promote the creation of compatible, high quality, transatlantic standards in a variety of sectors or product areas in the short-to- medium term, our countries can encourage other nations to adhere to them and reduce the clutter of disjointed, unilateral standards that would impede trade and serve as protectionist devices.

Businesses then will be able to deploy technologies more effectively and more quickly across the globe, where demand for these products will only grow over time, supporting our shared desire for new sources of jobs and growth.

Additionally, common transatlantic approaches to regulation can serve as a model for other nations, in particular Russia, China, Brazil and India. Together we can provide incentives for others to embrace science-based strategies and approaches, working toward regulatory convergence and enabling mutual access to markets with fewer impediments and avoiding protectionist regulation.

This is an important point. Many countries don’t share our regulatory principles. Many are inclined to devise approaches that make it more difficult for our companies to do business in their markets – which over time will Balkanize the trading system.

The United States and the EU can both benefit if we work together to promote the adoption in third countries of market principles and internationally-accepted rules governing trade, finance, intellectual property, and investment. Better economic policies in third countries will help ensure fair competition and market access, increasing opportunities to generate exports and jobs in the United States and Europe.
I would also like to highlight our work on investment. We are very close to finalizing a set of investment principles that we have developed with the EU as part of the TEC Investment Working Group. We are hopeful that these principles can be used in our joint efforts on investment in third countries, as well as with our multilateral efforts at the OECD, UNCTAD, and elsewhere. In the months ahead, we will keep you informed how we intend to operationalize this set of principles.

We reference in the principles support for the OECD work on a preliminary set of criteria on State-owned and State-supported enterprises. This new breed of SOE can crowd out more innovative, smaller competitors, hurting both the host economy and foreign competitors.

We are working with the EU and others to push further work by the OECD Trade and Investment Committees to examine the cross-border impact of these practices and build on the existing work of the Corporate Governance and Competition Committees. We believe the investment and trade dimensions are particularly important and they are substantially interrelated.

U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth
At the U.S.-EU Summit in November 2011, President Obama and EU leaders pledged to make the U.S.-EU trade and investment relationship even stronger. They called upon the TEC to create a High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, co-chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht.

The purpose of this group is to identify and assess options for strengthening the transatlantic economic relationship in areas including, but not limited to: conventional barriers to trade in goods; barriers to trade in services and in investment; opportunities to reduce or prevent unnecessary non-tariff barriers to trade; and enhanced cooperation on common concerns involving third countries.

All options are on the table. USTR has had initial consultations with EU counterparts and is seeking input from all stakeholders, including Congress, as it conducts its work. Several major private sector organizations have issued studies or reports that make compelling arguments for an ambitious agenda in this area.

Opportunities in Russia and Turkey
I would like to say a few words about emerging trade and investment opportunities in the regions bordering the EU, in particular Turkey and Russia.

Putting our relations with Russia on a more constructive course is one of the Adminstration’s top priorities. We work together where we have common interests, while speaking frankly about areas of disagreement, holding firm to our values and principles.

This year we have set as a goal the broadening and strengthening of our cooperation, particularly economic and commercial ties. The unprecedented sales of aircraft by Boeing, the ExxonMobil Arctic deal and General Electric’s new joint ventures are a few of our key economic and commercial successes reflecting that improved cooperation. This work is in America’s economic interest and part of the Adminstration’s efforts to create American jobs. In 2011, American exports to Russia rose 39 percent -- more than twice as fast as our goods exports to the world as a whole. But even this increase leaves our exports to Russia at $8.2 billion for 2011 – about one-half of one percent of our total exports.

We are working closely with Russia in a variety of fora, including the multilateral financial institutions, the G8 and the G20, and in APEC – the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum – which Russia hosts this year following the hosting of the 2011 forum in the U.S. – and increasingly in the OECD. Russia’s ratification of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention required the passage of new laws that criminalized foreign bribery, with penalties for those who bribe foreign public officials to gain business advantages. As a signatory, Russia will undergo detailed reviews of its anti-bribery laws to confirm these laws are effectively implemented.

The U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, launched by Presidents Obama and Medvedev in 2009, now includes 20 working groups on various fields of cooperation, including a group on business development and economic relations. That working group explores cooperative approaches to boost two-way trade and investment, increase energy efficiency, modernize industry, grow small and medium-sized businesses, and develop training programs for managers in innovative and high-technology sectors. We also have recently launched a Working Group on Innovation, of which I am the U.S. co-chair. Our aim is to have Russian and American innovators cooperate in our mutual interest to produce benefits for both societies, and the first meeting of the group will take place March 27, the date of this hearing, in Silicon Valley.

In December 2011, Russia received an invitation to join the WTO. The Duma must now ratify Russia’s WTO accession package, which it is expected to do no later than July 2012. Thirty days later Russia will become a full-fledged member of the WTO. President Obama in his most recent State of the Union Address urged Congress to ensure “that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing… new markets like Russia.” If Congress does not enact the necessary legislation to terminate Jackson-Vanik with regard to Russia, when Russia becomes a member of the WTO U.S. exporters will not get the full benefits of Russia’s WTO membership, but our competitors will. This puts many of our industries at a serious disadvantage. Unlike other WTO members, the United States will not be able to turn to the WTO mechanisms, including dispute settlement procedures to ensure compliance in areas such as application of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, intellectual property, services market access, or WTO rules on antidumping.

We should not underestimate the opportunity to expand U.S. exports further to the world’s seventh largest economy. The trend is promising for American manufacturers, service industries, farmers, and U.S. job creation. And the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration estimates that every billion dollars of U.S. exports supports over 5,000 jobs.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment – enacted vis-à-vis the former Soviet Union -- long ago fulfilled its purpose: to support free emigration, particularly Jewish emigration. No such barriers to emigration exist in Russia today.

As U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said, terminating Jackson-Vanik “is not a gift to Russia. It’s a gift to America’s exporting businesses.” It means more jobs and economic growth here in the United States. Let me give you some concrete examples about how lifting Jackson- Vanik for Russia will help American business.

When Russia becomes a WTO Member, it will be required to comply with all provisions of the WTO’s Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures, including obligations related to the use of international standards and applying measures based on science. However, Russia would only be required to apply these rules to U.S. exports of meat, poultry, dairy, and other agricultural products if Congress terminates the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia. It is similar for intellectual property rights. Russia would be required to meet stronger requirements for enforcement of IPR held by American authors and inventors only if Congress lifts Jackson-Vanik application to Russia.
Make no mistake, Russia will join the WTO, but action is required from Congress to ensure that American companies reap the benefits.

Turkey is another strategic priority in Europe. We have seen significant growth in our trade relationship. From 2010 to 2011, trade between our two countries increased by 35 percent – however, exports from the United States still account for only about seven percent of Turkey’s total imports. Tremendous opportunities remain for enhanced two-way trade.

During their April 2009 meeting in Ankara, President Obama and Turkish President Gul pledged to strengthen the economic pillar of our relationship, leading to the creation of the cabinet-level Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation (FSECC). The FSECC and its various working level components advance discussions among experts from both governments on everything from protecting IPR to boosting energy trade, to positioning Istanbul as an international financial center.

These efforts have led, and will continue to lead, to new business opportunities – both trade and investment -- for U.S. companies. Moreover, they provide an opportunity to address barriers to trade that are affecting our exports, such as in agriculture biotechnology and pharmaceuticals in a constructive and meaningful manner.
Through the Economic Partnership Commission and the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement meetings, we are developing a more robust economic partnership with Turkey, and making progress towards resolving outstanding trade issues. I have had regular conversations with Deputy Prime Minister Babacan to explore what we both believe is the enormous potential for our countries to work more closely on a wide range of economic issues – both bilateral and multilateral. Turkey is one of the most dynamic economies in the world – and we value it as a strong current and future partner.

Turkey was designated one of six “Next Tier” markets with very high export potential for U.S. companies under the President’s National Export Initiative. In just two years, we have already doubled exports to that important country. Export promotion activities have focused on opportunities in Turkey’s aviation, defense, high-tech, and energy sectors, among others. Commerce Assistant Secretary Camunez in December 2011 led a trade mission to Turkey focused on renewable energy and energy efficiency, which is expected to generate significant business for U.S. companies.

Eurasia and Central Asia
I also want to comment on our work with the other countries in Eurasia and Central Asia. This region is rich in energy resources, growing at a fast pace economically, and strategically important.

Through U.S. assistance to improve the business-enabling environment, states such as Georgia have become leading reformers in the World Bank’s “Doing Business” index. In Kazakhstan, technical assistance co-funded by the United States and the Government of Kazakhstan helped to regularize the use of international standards for financial reporting. This helped improve the climate for investment, including substantial investments by U.S. energy companies

This region is also a key part of Secretary Clinton’s vision for the New Silk Road, which seeks to connect countries in the South and Central Asian region to each other through greater economic growth and trade.

Let me highlight Azerbaijan as one example. Since 2004, its economy has tripled in size. According to the World Bank, the poverty rate has dropped from 49 percent in 2003 to about 9 percent in 2009. Its imports from the United States, at $328 million in 2011, are about 30 percent greater than the 2010 total of $253 million. The Azerbaijan government has identified agriculture, information and communications technology, transportation, and tourism as priority economic sectors for development. U.S. firms can play a key role in this development. We are now re-launching the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission, which I plan to cochair with Azerbaijan’s Minister of Finance soon in Washington. And we support its efforts to become a member of the WTO.

Georgia is another example. Georgia has made remarkable progress since the Rose Revolution in carrying out reforms that have laid the foundation for future economic growth and development. To assist in these efforts, and following his meeting with President Saakashvili on January 30, President Obama announced the launch of a high-level bilateral dialogue to strengthen trade relations. We also continue to pursue avenues for deeper bilateral economic ties through the Economic Working Group of the Strategic Partnership Commission, which will next meet in Georgia later this year.

And finally, let me touch on Kazakhstan. We have established a number of bilateral dialogues, including the U.S. – Kazakhstan Energy Partnership, which is chaired by Deputy Secretary of Energy Poneman and Minister of Oil and Gas Mynbayev, an agreement on science and technology cooperation, and a memorandum of understanding on agricultural cooperation. U.S. exports are rising by 13 percent – from about $730 million in 2010 to more than $825 million in 2011. We are working with Kazakhstan to further integrate it into the world economy by supporting its negotiations to join the WTO, which should help to level the playing field and increase opportunities for U.S. firms in that market.

Conclusion
There is much work yet to be done, but our partnership with Europe -- and our partnerships with Eurasia and Central Asia -- have never been stronger or more important. I look forward to working closely with this subcommittee to further strengthen our relationship with this region and create more jobs and more opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses there and around the world.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

SEC ALLEGES INVESTING IN GOLD WAS LIKE CASINO GAMBLING

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:
March 26, 2012
SEC Charges Operator of Gold Coin Firm with Conducting Fraudulent Securities Offering
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed a civil injunctive action against David L. Marion of Minneapolis, Minnesota and his company, International Rarities Holdings, Inc. (“IR Holdings”), accusing them of conducting a fraudulent, unregistered offer and sale of approximately $1 million in securities.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, alleges that from at least November 2008 through July 2009, Marion and IR Holdings raised approximately $1 million from at least 26 investors through the offer and sale of IR Holdings securities. According to the complaint, Marion represented to investors that they were purchasing shares of IR Holdings, which he said was the parent company and 100% owner of International Rarities Corporation (“IR Corp.”). The complaint alleges that IR Corp. is a privately held Minneapolis based gold coin and bullion sales and trading firm that Marion also owned and operated. The complaint further alleges that Marion told investors that their investments were to be used to expand IR Holdings’ business and eventually take it public. According to the complaint, Marion’s representations were false because IR Holdings never owned IR Corp. and thus Marion sold investors shares of a worthless shell company. In addition, the complaint alleges that Marion did not use the investors’ funds to expand IR Holdings’ business and instead diverted the majority of the funds for his own personal use, including for casino gambling.

The SEC’s complaint charges Marion and IR Holdings with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, jointly and severally, against Marion and IR Holdings and a civil penalty against Marion.