ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKS AT NATIONAL FORUM ON YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION SUMMIT

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEBSITE
Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Summit Washington, D.C. ~ Monday, April 2, 2012
Thank you, Mary Lou [Leary].   I appreciate your kind words – and I’m especially grateful for your leadership of the Office of Justice Programs, and your commitment to the goals of this critical Forum.   I’d also like to thank the many Administration leaders, federal agency partners – and particularly OJP staff members – who have worked so hard to bring us together today.  Each of you has an essential role to play in advancing the Justice Department’s efforts to prevent and combat violence among – and directed toward – our nation’s young people.   And I am proud to stand with you this morning.

It’s a privilege to join my colleagues, Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius and Secretary [Shaun] Donovan, in welcoming such a diverse group of partners – including my good friend Congressman [Bobby] Scott and Mayor [Antonio] Villaraigosa – back to our nation’s capital for today’s Summit.   I’d like to thank each of you, as well as well as the United States Attorneys who are with us today – Pat Fitzgerald, Melinda Haag, Barb McQuade, Carmen Ortiz, and Ed Stanton – for your collaborative efforts in building a national dialogue about youth violence – and for your focus on sharing the resources and strategies we need to address every aspect of this problem – from law enforcement, to public health, to public housing – and far beyond.

This gathering constitutes the latest step forward in our ongoing conversation about some of the most urgent challenges our young people face.   And it marks an important opportunity – not only to assess and celebrate the progress we’ve made since last year’s Summit – but to explore strategies for taking this work to the next level.

Perhaps more than any other group, I know the people in this room understand the persistent threats – and the significant obstacles – that lie ahead.   I know each of you is here because you’ve seen the shocking statistics.   You’ve heard the stories from young people directly.   And – in communities across this country – you’ve stood on the front lines of the struggle against youth violence.

Especially in recent weeks – as the importance of protecting our children from harm has been at the forefront of our national discourse – the urgency of this challenge has been brought into stark focus.   And the need to take action has never been more clear.

Today, we know that the majority of our young people – more than 60 percent of them, in fact – have been exposed to crime, abuse, and violence.   We know that violence can take many forms, and that exposure can happen at home, during school, on our streets, and even online – where children face new and unprecedented threats every day.   And we’ve seen that exposure to violence – as a witness or a victim – can have devastating, long-term effects on our children – increasing their chances for depression, substance-abuse, and violent behavior.

Recent analysis by Casey Family Programs – one of our nation’s leading child welfare foundations – provides a vivid illustration of what we’re up against.   According to their findings, in just the last 24 hours – on average – more than 2,000 children were confirmed as victims of child abuse and neglect.   Approximately four of those children, most likely under the age of five, died as a result.   And roughly 16 young men between the ages of 10 and 24 became homicide victims.

This is not only alarming – it is unacceptable.   And your efforts have sent the clear signal it cannot, and will not, be tolerated – and that, in this country, we will never give up on our children.

Fortunately, the level of understanding we’ve attained – and the diversity of perspectives represented here today – have empowered us to fight back.   Since October, when we last came together to assess the Forum’s efforts, I know you’ve been busy putting your youth violence prevention plans into action at the local level, and bringing even more community leaders and stakeholders into this work.   And, as we gather this morning, I understand that you have promising updates and innovations to share; success stories to highlight; and additional plans to unveil.

I’m confident that we will all benefit from the lessons you’ve learned.   And I know everyone here is eager to capitalize on the sense of momentum you’ve helped to establish.   Like many of you, I have seen the devastating effects of youth violence throughout my career.   As a prosecutor and a judge, I saw the toll it exacts on communities, neighborhoods, and individual lives.   As a U.S. Attorney, as Deputy Attorney General, I was determined to make the progress that our nation’s young people deserve.   Today, as Attorney General – and as the father of three teenage children – I have made this work a top priority for our nation’s Department of Justice.

From the landmark Defending Childhood Initiative – which we launched in 2010 – to the work of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the groundbreaking research supported by the Office of Justice Programs – over the last few years, we’ve helped shed new light on complex youth violence issues and learn about the impacts of specific practices and policies.   In close partnership with other Cabinet-level agencies like the Department of Education, we’re developing new strategies for understanding and disrupting some of the most urgent challenges our children face – including what’s become known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” that, in far too many communities, transforms our schools from doorways to opportunity into gateways to our correctional system.   And in collaboration with state and local officials, academic experts, law enforcement officers, frontline practitioners, parents, coaches, and community leaders like all of you – from Boston to Chicago; from Detroit to Memphis; from Salinas to San Jose – we are reaching out, raising awareness – and making a meaningful, measurable difference in countless lives.

In fact, based on an independent assessment released last week, all six cities that are participating in this Forum have positive stories to report.   These results are preliminary – but there’s no question that they constitute promising indications that – already – your comprehensive efforts are working.   Our commitment is paying off.   And we stand poised to build upon the strong foundation you’ve established.

That’s why – this morning – I am pleased to announce that we are currently developing plans to expand the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention to four additional cities – bringing our total up to ten.   And we’ve released a new toolkit – which is available today at www.FindYouthInfo.gov – that will provide guidance on how to gather and use data on youth violence, identify community assets, and even enable additional communities to develop and implement comprehensive youth violence prevention plans of their own.

I am proud that the Justice Department has taken a central role in facilitating these efforts.   And I am confident that the strategies you’re implementing will move us toward a new era of engagement, cooperation, and collaboration across local jurisdictions, state lines, and federal agencies. On behalf of my colleagues across both the Justice Department and the entire Administration, I want to pledge our ongoing support for your work.

Continuing the progress we celebrate today is not simply our professional obligation – it is our moral duty.   Without question, we can be proud of all that the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention has already helped to accomplish.   But, as I know every person here agrees, we cannot yet be satisfied.   Today’s Summit presents an important opportunity to renew our commitment to these critical efforts, and to reaffirm our collective resolve: to protect our nation’s young people in every way we can.   To empower our kids as well as we know how.   And to challenge them to make good decisions – and to contribute to the work of strengthening our nation and honoring our founding principles of security, opportunity, and justice for all.

In advancing this work, I am grateful for your leadership.   I am proud to count you as colleagues and as partners.   And I look forward to where your efforts will take us from here.

Thank you.

VA SECRETARY ERIC SHINSEKI SAYS VA WILL MAKE GOOD ON PROMISES TO VETS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Shinseki Vows to Support Military Members, Vets

By Donna Miles

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2012 - Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki offered assurances that VA will make good on its promises to veterans and those currently serving in uniform, despite growth in demand for its services and benefits and federal belt-tightening initiatives.

Shinseki sat with American Forces Press Service during the 26th annual National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic this week in Snowmass Village, Colo., to discuss VA's $140.3 billion budget request for fiscal 2013 and what it means for those who serve or have served in uniform.

With a 4.5 percent increase in discretionary funding over fiscal 2012 funding levels, Shinseki said it sends a clear message to the nation's 22 million living veterans. "The nation honors and appreciates their service," he said. "It has not forgotten and will not forget."

The funding increases will go primarily toward medical care, disability pay and pensions, jobs and educational and training programs. They also will help build momentum in three priority areas Shinseki has identified: increasing access to care, benefits and services; eliminating the disability claims backlog; and ending veterans' homelessness.

Shinseki said the budget request -- up from $99.9 billion when he arrived at VA in 2009 -- was an easy sell to President Barack Obama, who he said has been a staunch advocate of veterans.

"He gets it, both that sense of obligation, and a responsibility to ensure that these men and women we have sent off to do the nation's business have an opportunity to get back to some kind of normalcy in their lives, and that VA is responsible for carrying that load," Shinseki said of the President's support for veterans.

The VA's workload is anticipated to grow, Shinseki said, with an estimated 1 million service members expected to leave the military during the next five years. And based on the experience of 1.4 million veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan who have left the military as of September, he said the newest veterans will be twice as likely as those from previous generations to take advantage of VA services and benefits.

Shinseki noted that 67 percent of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have come to VA for services or benefits ranging from health care to insurance, home mortgages and Post-9/11 G.I. Bill education. That's a far-higher percentage than for previous generations, he said, noting that roughly 8.8 million, or about one-third of all 22 million living U.S. veterans, are enrolled with the VA.

"So looking down the road, that percentage is going to be pretty significant," he said.

In some respects, VA has become a victim of its own successes and what Shinseki called a "very aggressive" outreach effort to encourage veterans to take advantage of VA programs. "In the last three years, we have pushed very hard to get the message out," he said. It's been a two-prong effort, he added, to educate new veterans, and to "reach out to those who may have tried us and been disappointed in the past to say, 'This is a new VA. Give us another try.'"

The message has clearly resonated, with about 800,000 new veterans enrolling with VA over the past three years and beginning to take advantage of its services.

"As a result, we have been able to present what I think is a good argument for why VA's budget needed to be reinforced, Shinseki said.

The VA budget request includes $52.7 billion for medical care, up 4.1 percent. VA officials estimate that 6.3 million veterans will use its health care services, including about 610,000 veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The request includes $6.2 billion for mental-health, up 5.3 percent from current levels. VA will use the additional funding to conduct more outreach and screenings, better address post-traumatic stress disorder and enhance programs that reduce the stigma of seeking mental-health care, officials said.

The budget also will fund expanded gender-specific care for women veterans and medical research focusing on traumatic brain injury, suicide prevention, PTSD and other needs, officials reported.

New funding in the 2013 budget request, officials said, will help veterans prepare for and secure jobs, building on a national program that includes tax credits for employers, corporate hiring pledges, job fairs and other initiatives.

The budget request will cover Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits for an estimated 606,000 service members, veterans and family members during fiscal 2013, officials said. A separate funding increase of $9 million would expand the "VetSuccess on Campus" program from 28 college campuses to 80 to provide outreach and supportive services for about 80,000 veterans transitioning from the military to college.

Meanwhile, VA's vocational rehabilitation and employment program will expand services to wounded, ill and injured service members to ease their transition to civilian life, officials said. Program participants are expected to increase from 108,000 in fiscal 2011 to 130,000 next fiscal year.

The budget request proposes $1 billion over five years for a Veterans Job Corp. This effort, projected to put 20,000 veterans to work, would leverage military-acquired skills for jobs protecting and rebuilding U.S. public lands.

Shinseki said VA and the Defense Department are collaborating better than ever before to ensure a smoother transition from the military to VA-assisted ranks.

A task force that blends both departments' expertise is exploring ways to improve transition assistance programs and weave health care, employment, education and entrepreneurship offerings into them. The idea, Shinseki explained, is to put transitioning service members "on a vector to that next phase of their lives, as opposed to the uniform coming off and then having them ask the question, 'What am I going to do now?'"

The goal, he said, is to gear transition assistance programs toward providing veterans "a clear set of choices," that both departments can help support.

Shinseki noted other areas where the close DOD-VA partnership already is helping service members and their families and veterans. VA is the insurer for everyone in the military carrying Servicemembers Group Life Insurance. VA administers Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for service members and their families as well as veterans. VA hospitals already provide specialized care to many active-duty patients.

"So the connection is there," Shinseki said. "And I want all service members and their families to understand that we are there for them, and that is our only mission."
 

EPA APPROVES INCREASE IN ETHANOL IN BLENDED GASOLINE

FROM: EPA E-MAIL
April 2, 2012
EPA to Allow 15 Percent Renewable Fuel in Gasoline
Agency approves first applications for registration of ethanol to make E15
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the first applications for registration of ethanol for use in making gasoline that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15. Ethanol is a renewable fuel that can be mixed with gasoline. For over 30 years ethanol has been blended into gasoline, but the law limited it to 10 percent by volume for use in gasoline-fueled vehicles. Registration of ethanol to make E15 is a significant step toward its production, sale, and use in model year 2001 and newer gasoline-fueled cars and light trucks.

To enable widespread use of E15, the Obama Administration has set a goal to help fueling station owners install 10,000 blender pumps over the next 5 years. In addition, both through the Recovery Act and the 2008 Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture have provided grants, loans and loan guarantees to spur American ingenuity on the next generation of biofuels.

Today’s action follows an extensive technical review required by law. Registration is a prerequisite to introducing E15 into the marketplace. Before it can be sold, manufactures must first take additional measures to help ensure retail stations and other gasoline distributors understand and implement labeling rules and other E15-related requirements. EPA is not requiring the use or sale of E15.

Ethanol is considered a renewable fuel because it is generally produced from plant products or wastes and not from fossil fuels. Ethanol is blended with gasoline for use in most areas across the country.  After extensive vehicle testing by DOE and other organizations, EPA issued two partial waivers raising the allowable ethanol volume to 15 percent for use in model year 2001 and newer cars and light trucks.

E15 is not permitted for use in motor vehicles built prior to 2001 model year and in off-road vehicles and equipment such as boats and lawn and garden equipment. Gas pumps dispensing E15 will be clearly labeled so consumers can make the right choice.

DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA SPEAKS OF EISENHOWER'S LEGACY

American Forces Press Service

Panetta Outlines Eisenhower's Legacy of Leadership

By Karen Parrish

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta offered his perspective at a gathering here yesterday evening on what he termed the "strategic turning point" facing the nation.

Accepting the 2012 Dwight D. Eisenhower Award, presented by members of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress during a dinner in his honor hosted by the group, Panetta said Eisenhower's legacy of "compromise, patience, [and] conviction ... remains valuable and instructive to all of us today."

Eisenhower's life of service, he added, offers lessons on the importance of statesmanship, of long-term strategic planning and of leadership in war and politics.

The secretary reminded the audience of the challenges America faces: the wear that follows 10 years of war; a diminished but determined terrorist threat; an uncertain global geopolitical situation; and a range of weapons that includes a growing nuclear menace and an elusive but pervasive cyber threat.

"At the same time we face this myriad of threat, we also face another national security threat: the long-term debt and the record deficits," Panetta said.

To meet that threat, Panetta noted, he and "the entire leadership" of the Defense Department did the painful but necessary work of crafting "a new defense strategy for the long haul," to shape a defense capability that will sustain the nation's global leadership in a constrained spending environment.

The department must do its part "to help America put its fiscal house in order," the secretary said.

"That's because I agree with what President Eisenhower said in his first state of the union speech," Panetta continued. "'To amass military power without regard to economic capacity would be to defend ourselves against one kind of disaster by inviting another.'"

The new defense strategy will produce a force that is small, agile, technologically advanced and able to confront aggression at any time or place, he said.

The process of developing that strategy and shaping defense spending plans to support it required the department, he said, to "make tradeoffs and that we put our long-term interest ahead of short-term political pressures."

"But that's the nature of governing," the secretary continued. Over his career in public service, Panetta added, he has learned "that governing requires people coming together to get things done, not to pound their fists on the table, not to stand in the way."

One of his greatest concerns as secretary, Panetta said, "is the dysfunction that we see in Washington.

"It threatens our security and it raises questions about the capacity of our democracy to respond to crisis," he added. "But dysfunction is a political crutch, It's a political excuse. It is not a part of the American spirit."

Panetta said he hopes Congress will work with the department to implement the strategy and the budget, and "ensure that we have the strong military the country needs for the future."

Another important lesson Eisenhower's legacy provides, the secretary said, is the service and sacrifice of a single generation can leave all of us a better life."

The Americans who have volunteered to be sent to faraway battlefields over the last 10 years are such a generation, Panetta said.

During his recent trip to Afghanistan, Panetta said he was "struck by how even in a tough situation, these dedicated young men and women remain intently focused on the long-term mission."

The strategy International Security Assistance Force commander Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen and his forces have in place in Afghanistan is effective, Panetta said. Violence is down, the secretary noted, the Taliban are weakened, and Afghan forces are fighting alongside their U.S. and ISAF counterparts.

"We cannot allow the outrages of war to undermine" that strategy, he said.

Panetta acknowledged that the American and Afghan people are tired of war. That is understandable, he said, "but we must summon the will to see this strategy through to success."

The secretary offered another quote from Eisenhower: "Without American leadership in the search, the pursuit of a just and enduring peace is hopeless. Nowhere in the world -- outside this land -- is there the richness of resources, and stamina, and will needed to lead what at times must be a costly and exhausting effort."

Americans and their leaders, Panetta said, must summon the will to "fight for that American dream for a better life, but most of all, fight for a government of, by and for all people."
 

SEC OBTAINS SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST PONZI MASTERMIND

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
March 27, 2012
SEC Obtains Summary Judgment against Serial Fraudster Matthew J. Gagnon
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on March 22, 2012, the Honorable George Caram Steeh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment against defendant Matthew J. Gagnon of Portland, Oregon and Weslaco, Texas. The Court found that Gagnon violated the registration, anti-fraud, and anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws by promoting and operating a series of securities offerings through his website, www.Mazu.com, and ordered Gagnon to pay $4.1 million in disgorgement with prejudgment interest and a $100,000 civil penalty.

The SEC filed this action against Gagnon on May 11, 2010, alleging that since 1997, Gagnon had billed himself as an Internet business opportunity expert and his website as “the world’s first and largest opportunity review website.” According to the SEC’s complaint, from January 2006 through approximately August 2007, Gagnon helped orchestrate a massive Ponzi scheme conducted by Gregory N. McKnight and his company, Legisi Holdings, LLC, which raised a total of approximately $72.6 million from over 3,000 investors by promising returns of upwards of 15% a month. The complaint also alleged that Gagnon promoted Legisi but in doing so misled investors by claiming, among other things, that he had thoroughly researched McKnight and Legisi and had determined Legisi to be a legitimate and safe investment. The complaint alleged that Gagnon had no basis for the claims he made about McKnight and Legisi. Gagnon also failed to disclose to investors that he was to receive 50% of Legisi's purported "profits" under his agreement with McKnight. According to the complaint, Gagnon received a net of approximately $3.8 million in Legisi investor funds from McKnight for his participation in the scheme.

The SEC's complaint further alleged that beginning in August 2007, Gagnon fraudulently offered and sold securities representing interests in a new company that purportedly was to develop resort properties. The complaint alleged that Gagnon, among other things, falsely claimed that the investment was risk-free and "SEC compliant," and guaranteed a 200% return in 14 months. In reality, however, Gagnon sent the money to a twice-convicted felon, did not register the investment with the SEC, and knew such an outlandish return was impossible. Gagnon took in at least $361,865 from 21 investors.
The SEC's complaint also alleged that in April 2009, Gagnon began promoting a fraudulent offering of interests in a purported Forex trading venture. Gagnon guaranteed that the venture would generate returns of 2% a month or 30% a year for his investors. Gagnon's claims were false, and he had had no basis for making them because Gagnon never reviewed his friend’s trading records before promoting the offering, which would have shown over $150,000 in losses over the previous nine months.

The SEC's complaint charged Gagnon with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief already obtained, the complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement, and civil penalties from Gagnon. On May 24, 2010, the SEC obtained an emergency order freezing Gagnon’s assets and other preliminary relief. Subsequently, on August 6, 2010, the Court granted an order of preliminary injunction against Gagnon pursuant to his consent.

In granting the Commission’s motion and entering final judgment, the Court found that Gagnon “purposefully built up an image of trustworthiness in the on-line investing community and exploited this trust.” The Court also found that Gagnon “repeatedly committed egregious violations of the federal securities laws” and “has shown no remorse for his conduct.”

The Court’s final judgment against Gagnon permanently enjoins him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and orders Gagnon to pay $3,613,259 in disgorgement, $488,570.47 in prejudgment interest, and a $100,000 civil penalty.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON'S INTERVIEW ON CNN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Interview With Jill Dougherty of CNN
Interview Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Istanbul Congress Center
Istanbul, Turkey
April 1, 2012
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for doing this. I want to start with the sanctions, with the pressure. If you look at all of this pressure, something doesn’t seem to be working because Assad is still there, and notably, you don’t have any major defections from the key top leadership, the people who are close to him. Why is that? Could one of the factors be that the United States and others are saying “we don’t want military action, and that could be emboldening him?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, I think the sanctions are beginning to have an effect, but we have to do more to implement them, and that’s why we formed a sanctions committee today. And the United States will be working with the Arab countries, the European countries, North African, and others to have them understand the most effective way to implement sanctions. Because, as one of them said to me, “The Americans have a lot of experience in doing sanctions. We don’t.” So we’re making progress.
Also the individual sanctions – the travel bans, the visa bans, the kinds of direct personal sanctions – are beginning to really wake people up. They’re looking around thinking for the rest of my life, I’m only going to be able maybe to go to Iran; that doesn’t sound like a great idea. So we hear a lot from the inside that these sanctions are happening in a timely way. Also, the reserves of the country are being drawn down, marketplaces are not as full of goods as they once were. So this does take time. We’re well aware that time is going by, people are being killed, it just is absolutely horrific what’s happening. But the Istanbul meeting today was quite consequential in terms of the outcomes, and really increasing the enforcement of sanctions was one of the best.

QUESTION: Let’s look at the opposition. A number of them are expats, people who have lived out of the country for years and years. Why should anybody who’s inside Syria right now trust them? And do they actually know the real situation on the ground?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what’s happening is that the Syrian National Council is expanding. I just met with four representatives, including a young woman who just escaped from Homs. I mean, she is someone who is bearing witness to the horrors of what the Assad regime did to the neighborhoods of her city. And she had very poignant stories of close friends who were tortured and are in hospital, and if they’re discovered as having been in the opposition, will be killed. I mean, it’s a terrible human tragedy, but she is a witness.

So I think, along with the people who started the Syrian National Council, who are in a position to do so – because they had been driven out by the Assads, father and son, over the course of many years – they’re now being joined and, frankly, their credibility is being enhanced by both civilian and military defections. And we think that’s significant.

QUESTION: If you stand back and look at this, you have right now – you talked about those broken promises, the broken promises – if you stand back and look at it, there’s kind of a pattern emerging. And you could say Syria, broken promises by President Assad, you would assert. You have broken promises, you also would assert, from Iran on the nuclear program. And you have North Korea, which also has broken promises.
So in this pattern, what explains that pattern? It’s similar to what I was asking first off, which is: Is there something that this Administration is doing, which is kind of standing back, not being as aggressive as some people might want you to be, that is emboldening them, allowing them to say we’ll just play out the clock?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I think if you look at what this Administration did, we put together an international coalition – a consensus, really, against both Iran and North Korea that had not existed before with UN Security Council resolutions, very tough sanctions enforcements. But you’re dealing with two regimes that are very difficult to reign in because they have no regard for even their own promises and obligations. With North Korea, that goes back decades. It’s been a constant challenge, and it’s been a process of really trying to prevent them from going too far with their provocative actions that could cause another war in the Korean Peninsula, which – you go to the memorial in Washington and you know what that cost the United States and our allies.

With Iran, we are very carefully building on and then acting on the pressure that we have put in place. We will begin to know, with the resumption of the P-5+1 talks, whether or not there is a deal to be had here. This is something that has to be explored. I think one of the reasons that the Iranians are even coming back to talk is because of the sanctions. But as President Obama has said, all options are on the table. Our policy is not containment with Iran. It is prevention of their getting a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: But there is that “All options are on the table” that continues to be the mantra, but nothing happens.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but Jill, I don’t think you want to rush to some of the options that are on the table. I think it’s very important and it’s a requirement of responsible leadership that you exhaust every diplomatic pathway. That is what we are doing. We are very clear about that. We want to have a peaceful resolution. We want Iran to begin to reenter the international community, to stop threatening their neighbors. As you know, I was in Riyadh yesterday. They’re not only worried about the nuclear program; they’re worried about Iran destabilizing countries, they’re worried about it exporting terrorism. And we’re going to test all of that just as hard as we can. I can’t, sitting here today, exactly predict to you what the outcome will be, except I know that we have to keep trying the diplomatic route, knowing that our policy is clear about no nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: And speaking of Iran, are you nervous that Israel will, on its own, take some action, but leave it to the United States to finish that action?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think Israel understands why we think it’s important to pursue the diplomatic route as far as we possibly can in a timely way. We’re not going to enter into endless talks that never see any kind of outcome. But we do want, with the full backing of the international community – because remember the P-5+1 include China and Russia. And they are on record publicly as saying they don’t want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. So I think Israel understands that there is a necessity for us to pursue the P-5+1, and we have certainly made it clear that – to them that all options are on the table, and we would be pursuing the diplomatic option.

QUESTION: I want to turn the corner to Russia. I was just there covering the election, in fact. And you have these interesting comments coming out from a candidate for president, Mr. Romney, who says that Russia is the biggest – the worst geopolitical foe the United States has. I don’t – let’s – I know you don’t like to talk politics.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But what do you think of that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, without getting into the political campaign, because that’s for others to comment on, I think if you take a look at the world today, we have a lot of problems that are not leftovers from the past, but are of the moment. We’ve just been talking about one, namely Iran. And in many of the areas where we are working to solve problems, Russia has been an ally. They’re in the P-5+1 talks with us, they have worked with us in Afghanistan and have been very helpful in the Northern Distribution Network and in other ways. So I think it’s somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don’t agree, but looking for ways to bridge the disagreements and then to maximize the cooperation.

QUESTION: Mr. Putin, soon to be President Putin again, accused you personally of sending some type of signal to the Russians to bring them out onto the streets.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And now, you have the United States – this Administration – pushing to release, I think, it is $50 million in democracy support funds, which is guaranteed, of course, not to go over well in Moscow. Why shouldn’t they look at this money and say that the United States – that maybe Hillary Clinton wants to send another signal? In other words, you’re stirring up trouble.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have to say I was a little perplexed that I would be imputed such power that a mere signal, a mere word, would cause thousands of people to turn out. In fact, I think the demonstrators in the street got it right. They laughed at that. I mean, they knew why there were there. They want democracy, they want freedom, they want a voice in their affairs, and we all support that. And we hope that in the years to come, there will be greater openness in Russia. The Russian people are so smart. You lived there. You know what incredibly talented people, well educated, the ability to really help shape the 21st century – stop the brain drain. Create an environment in which Russians are made to feel that they can build their own country, make a real stake in the future there. And that has nothing to do with us. It has to do everything with the Russian people themselves.

And we in the United States believe that every country would be better off if there were greater freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, because I think we represent that. We have had a great run, and I want it always to continue. I want the United States always to represent these values and to live them. And therefore, we’re going to continue to promote them around the world.

QUESTION: Quick question on Pakistan. The United States apparently is agreeing to a different way of using drones, a very controversial issue. When that happens, could that be to the detriment of the national security of the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, I’m not going to comment on any intelligence matter. That would not be appropriate. But I can assure you that the Obama Administration will not enter into any agreement that would be to the detriment of the national security of our country. I think this President has demonstrated conclusively that he’s ready to take the tough decisions when America’s security is at stake.

QUESTION: One last question. You were just in Burma not too long ago, historic elections. What are your thoughts as you look at that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m very hopeful for the people. The early reports are mostly positive. We want to see these elections conducted in a free, fair manner that is validated by the international community, and we want to see continuing progress. I was very touched by the visit that I made and the commitments that I received from members of the government who were quite sincere in their desire to move their country forward.
I know how difficult it is. I know that there are some who don’t agree with it, who will try to undermine it. That seems to be human nature everywhere in the world. But if this election goes as well as it is reported to have from the early reports, that will be a significant step. And I promised, when I was there meeting with leaders in Nay Pyi Taw, that the United States would match action for action. And we will do that.
QUESTION: Well, thank you very much Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 2, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:44 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. I’ve got one thing at the top and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. We want to call attention to the fact that April 1st, yesterday, the seven leaders of Iran’s Baha’i community marked a – the anniversary of their cumulative total of incarceration of 10,000 days in Iranian prison for their beliefs. We condemn Iran’s ongoing persecution and arrests of Baha’i community members, and we continue to be deeply concerned by the harassment and intimidation of all religious minorities in Iran, including its significant Sunni and Sufi populations, Christians like Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, the Zoroastrians, and others. And we renew our call on the Iranian authorities to release the seven Baha’i leaders and immediately guarantee all religious communities the right to practice their religion freely.
QUESTION: I’m sure we’ll get back to Iran in a minute, but I want to begin with Syria, because I’m a little confused. I wasn’t working yesterday, but I’ve tried to read up on what happened. But I don’t know exactly what the U.S. – what the Secretary committed the U.S. to doing. The 12 million – or the new aid that she announced, which brings it to 12 million, is that correct? That’s all in humanitarian aid, and none of it goes towards this fund which is going to pay the Free Syrian Army? Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Shall we take a moment and go through all of the outcomes --
QUESTION: Well, no. I don’t want to go through. I just --
MS. NULAND: -- or you just want to go through the money outcomes?
QUESTION: Well, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the U.S. is – what the Administration is doing differently now than it was before yesterday.
MS. NULAND: Okay. So let’s go through some of the results from the meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People yesterday. If you didn’t get a chance to see it, I call your attention to the Secretary’s press conference in Istanbul, where she went through all of these things. But let me just do it again for your purposes.
We’ve been talking about working along four lines – first of all, strengthening sanctions; second, increasing humanitarian support; third, working with and strengthening the opposition in Syria; and fourth now, beginning to help the Syrians to establish dossiers of accountability with regard to the atrocities that have been committed.
So on each of these, first with regard to sanctions, a number of countries, including the United States, announced new targeted sanctions on individuals. And the Friends of the Syrian People also yesterday established a Sanctions Working Group. The goal of this is to look across the lines at what various countries have committed to, to look at how sanctions are being implemented, to help countries implement them increasingly effectively, to shout out when countries are not supporting the general sanctions direction of the Friends of the Syrian People, and that – and also to try to broaden the number of countries who are putting sanctions on the regime. We have a number of countries in the Friends of the Syrian People who don’t have much of a tradition of using sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. A number of them have asked for help in how you implement sanctions, how you track whether they are being followed, so this will be, we hope, more effective.
And as you heard the Secretary say publicly yesterday in some of her TV interviews, we do believe that these sanctions are beginning to have a profound effect, and we’re seeing some cracks within the regime as well as a result of the pressure individuals are under as they find it harder to travel, to move their money, et cetera.
The second is the humanitarian. On the humanitarian side, as you know, many of the Friends of the Syrian People countries have been contributing to humanitarian relief that is delivered by UN humanitarian organizations – Red Cross, Red Crescent, et cetera. Yesterday, the Secretary announced an additional contribution on the U.S. side of 12 million in humanitarian aid, bringing the U.S. total contribution in humanitarian aid – this is food, medicine, et cetera – to almost 25 million, and we put out a fact sheet yesterday on exactly what we’re doing there.
The third line, support for the Syrian opposition. First and foremost, on the political side, I think you know the Secretary, President, other U.S. principals have been calling for the SNC to broaden its outreach to as many communities as possible within Syria and to issue a very clear statement of its goals and intentions for a transition to a democratic Syria. So they put out – as you know, a week ago, they met in Istanbul, and then they published on Saturday – we also pushed this – a copy of this to some of our travelers; if you need to see it we can pass it to you. On Saturday-Sunday, they published what they are calling the Covenant for a Future Syria, I think is the way they described it. But it goes through very clearly their aspiration to have a Syria that is based on rule of law, that is based on a new constitution that is ratified democratically, to have elections, et cetera, et cetera, and also states very clearly their intention to be for a Syria for all Syrians, to protect the human rights of all communities, et cetera.
So that was a very good step. As the Secretary said yesterday, when we met with the Syrian National Council, what we were seeing there is that they are having some success expanding their membership. We now have not only members who have long lived outside of Syria, but we have a number of new members, some of whom the Secretary met with yesterday, who are freshly out of Babr Amr, other parts of – Homs, Daraa, et cetera, and they are now contributing their insight to the group. So it is broadening in scope.
The Secretary also reiterated that we have been supporting the needs of the civilian opposition with communications support, medical support, that we are now looking at how we can expand that. We had a number of consultations on this trip, she did both in Saudi Arabia and in Istanbul, with other countries about the kinds of needs that the civilian opposition has. We haven’t put a public dollar figure on that. There are a number of reasons for that. Partly, we’re still working through all of the needs. But some of this has been moving.
But one of the things that was very much confirmed by the Secretary’s meetings with the opposition leaders, both those who are formally members of the SNC and those who are just affiliated, and particularly with those who are freshly out of Syria, is that one of the biggest issues that they face is communicating among themselves – communicating inside Syria, communicating even in the same city. The woman that she met with from Homs made clear that when Homs was under shelling attack, they didn’t even know what was happening on the other side of the city, let alone be able to talk to opposition leaders in cities across Syria, and also to connect the external opposition with the internal opposition.
So this is something that we are very much committed to and that we will be continuing to work on. Britain and a number of other countries have also indicated their support. Other countries made clear that they will be providing a different kind of support. They will be providing support directly to the Free Syrian Army. I won’t speak to them, but as the Secretary made clear yesterday, this is something that was very much welcomed by the SNC.
The last line here is the accountability line. So the Syrian opposition is trying now to keep good records of the atrocities that have been witnessed. There is a lot of international experience in how you build accountability dossiers that can be used later in trials. Whether they are domestic trials or whether they are ICC trials is an issue, obviously, to be decided by the Syrian people. But we announced this – after consulting with a number of countries, we announced this accountability hub center initiative, and we put out a fact sheet on that today. That will do a number of things. It’ll train Syrians in how to keep these records. It’ll will provide a safe and secure storage place for the records. It’ll start connecting a number of the groups internationally that do this, including the UN. And the message that we want to send with this is that people committing atrocities, particularly regime figures, but frankly anybody committing atrocities inside Syria, should know that justice will find you eventually.
QUESTION: So wait, wait. Hold on – I think – I – congratulations, by the way. I think, A, that was – you may have set two records.
MS. NULAND: The longest answers? Yeah.
QUESTION: One was the longest answer ever uninterrupted.
MS. NULAND: Good. Good. That was my goal.
QUESTION: And secondly, the longest answer that didn’t answer the question. (Laughter.)
MS. NULAND: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: What is the Administration doing differently today than it – which was my question, remember?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Back 10 minutes ago when – before you started? The question was: What is the Administration doing differently today than it was before Sunday?
MS. NULAND: It is supporting the sanctions working group to help tighten the --
QUESTION: Which you did before that, though, correct?
MS. NULAND: Well, every nation was involved in individual sanctions. We were not working together as intensely to try to strengthen them, to try to find the holes, to try to help countries that want to do more that don’t know how. We also obviously increased our own sanctions. We increased our humanitarian aid. Okay? That’s the second thing. We made clear in consultations with other countries and in working with the SNC that we are looking at how we can increase the nonlethal assistance that we provide to the civilian opposition. We consulted with countries that are doing other things to make sure that what we are doing and what they are doing is well-coordinated and worked with the opposition on how all of those things can work. And we stood up this accountability center.
QUESTION: But one, I remember the sanctions – this coordination of sanctions was discussed in Tunis as well back in the first --
MS. NULAND: Not in terms of a formal working group and at that --
QUESTION: All right. Two, you were providing --
MS. NULAND: -- and having staffs working on it permanently.
QUESTION: Two, you were providing humanitarian assistance before. Now, you’re just providing more, right?
MS. NULAND: We’re doubling it now. Yeah.
QUESTION: Three, you are providing communications equipment to the opposition? That is something that you were doing before, no?
MS. NULAND: We were doing it in a very modest way, and now we are looking at what more we can do, and we are trying to key it specifically to the needs that we’re hearing about.
QUESTION: Okay. So can you be more specific? When you say you were doing it in a modest way before, what does that mean? What – I mean, does that mean people were being given cell phones, computers? What was going on before, and what’s different about it now when you talk about more focused or directed – how is it going to be different than what was the modest program before?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with the goal here. As the Secretary said yesterday, the goal is to help the opposition communicate with itself, communicate with the outside world, to help it to organize better and to help it to have better situational awareness so it can evade a regime attack. So you can imagine that getting into precise specifics about exactly what we’re providing to whom and how we get it in there would defeat the purpose of helping them evade regime efforts to disrupt their communications, which have – which is precisely the goal here. So I’m not – we’re not going to talk publicly about exactly what this means, neither the kinds of equipment nor where it goes. What I will say is that we had a pretty modest program through MEPI, as we do in many countries. We will now be expanding this in scope.
QUESTION: Has that actually happened, or is it still in the process of happening?
MS. NULAND: It is beginning to happen.
QUESTION: Victoria.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell us why the term “clearing house”? Has this been used in this context before? I’m talking about the language, the term --
MS. NULAND: The accountability. Yeah.
QUESTION: Accountability clearing house.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: What is -- because I think the Arabic language, we don’t have a similar term, “clearing house.”
MS. NULAND: Well, I think what we were trying to convey here is that while our expectation is that there will be a small bricks-and-mortar center for this, probably in Turkey, it’s bigger than that, because there is a huge virtual web-based component where our goal is to build networks among organizations that have – keep accountability records, whether they are human rights NGOs or whether they are the UN agencies that do this, and to provide a way, web-based, for Syrians who are bearing witness to get their information in.
So when we say “clearing house,” that’s designed to convey this kind of hub-and-spoke relationship, but also to train Syrians outside and inside in how you store these kinds of things securely, because you can’t just throw stuff up on the internet and hope that it won’t be compromised. These kinds of records, particularly if you want people to come forward with very sensitive material, they have to be assured that it’ll be protected and that they won’t make their own personal situation worse by bearing witness.
QUESTION: So this will be a physical structure somewhere?
MS. NULAND: The hope is that there will be a small bricks-and-mortar structure for training, for coordination, but it’ll be a much larger effort in a virtual sense.
QUESTION: Okay. And a quick follow-up on topic of aid. When you say communication and when you say we welcome aiding by others, perhaps, the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian Free Army, are you advocating a militant aspect to this revolt now?
MS. NULAND: What I said was --
QUESTION: Has there been a marked change in your position?
MS. NULAND: What I said, and what the Secretary said yesterday, was that the Syrian National Council very much welcomed these initiatives. From a U.S. perspective, one of the things that was important on this trip was we had a chance to coordinate with a number of the countries that are providing different kinds of assistance than we are so that we can ensure that this is mutually supportive.
QUESTION: As I understand you correctly, you still officially oppose any kind of increase in violence or the committing of violence by different opposition groups, be it by the opposition groups or the regime, because you want the violence to end rather than increase; correct?
MS. NULAND: Of course we want the violence to end. We want an immediate ceasefire.
Please.
QUESTION: These communication materials you mentioned, who are you going to deliver exactly? It’s going to be civilians or it’s going to be FSA elements within Syria?
MS. NULAND: Our support will be for the civilian opposition. Again, I’m not going to talk about the details for obvious reasons because we don’t want to – we want this to be effective; let’s put it that way.
QUESTION: You stated before that you are not exactly happy with the coordination between SNC and the FSA after this latest Istanbul conference. How do you assess this?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’ve ever spoken, or we’ve ever spoken, to coordination between the groups. We are – what we have seen – and the Secretary spoke to this yesterday – is that the SNC, which began as a group primarily made up of longtime exiles from Syria, is now becoming more of an umbrella organization. And there are – both in terms of its membership – that you see folks who are – have recently fled Syria, joining – there were people at this conference under the SNC umbrella yesterday who we all had a chance to speak to who had been out for a week, for a month, for six weeks, and are able to provide a real perspective on what is needed and what will help. They also have very close contacts, more effective contacts, back into Syria, which is helping the SNC.
But the SNC is also adopting an approach where there’s the organization itself, but it’s also providing an umbrella for those who are not ready to necessarily sign up with the SNC, but want to be affiliated. So what this covenant does is it allows groups who don’t necessarily want to call themselves SNC to nonetheless say we support these goals and principles as outlined in the covenant.
QUESTION: One more question relates to Istanbul conference. Were you able to meet with the Kurdish part, Kurdish National Council, or – it appeared that their delegation walk out last week.
MS. NULAND: We – there were some – as you know, the Secretary’s senior advisor on this issue, Fred Hof, was at the conference the week before. He’s had a number of contacts all through the week with the Kurdish group. They continue to talk to the SNC about some of their issues. And again, when we talk about the SNC becoming more of an affiliated structure, this is part of what we’re talking about, that they are – even if some of these Kurdish groups haven’t signed up to the SNC, they’re nonetheless in dialogue and trying to work through principles.
QUESTION: I just have a couple quick questions.
MS. NULAND: Yeah, Andy.
QUESTION: First, on the accountability clearinghouse --
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: -- is it possible or likely that the Syrian Government could avail itself of these services to put forward its own arguments about atrocities that armed opposition may have undertaken?
MS. NULAND: Well, it would strike me as unlikely that the Assad regime would want to avail itself of the structure that grows out of the Friends of the Syrian People. But it is – the accountability clearinghouse is designed to receive information about atrocities of any kind committed by any group, so it’s --
QUESTION: So there isn’t any sort of barrier to them?
MS. NULAND: It’s – correct.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: It’s an equal-opportunity clearinghouse.
QUESTION: Okay. And the second one is on the proposal, or fact of various other members of the Friends of the Syrian People bankrolling some of the salary costs for the FSA. Was this an option that was presented to the United States and rejected, that you guys decided no, we don’t want to do that? And if so, why, if you think, broadly, as a member of this broader group, it’s a good idea?
MS. NULAND: It didn’t go that way. This was an initiative of some specific countries on which we were briefed.
QUESTION: And does the United – I mean, you presumably do back this as a good idea in that it’s a Friends of the Syrian People sort of – part of this broader initiative. Why is it a good idea?
MS. NULAND: Again, this was something that was put forward at the meeting to the SNC. As we’ve made clear, as the Secretary’s made clear, we are going to contribute in the ways that we’ve talked about. Other countries are going to contribute in the ways that they deem most appropriate. What’s most important is that the Syrian opposition get the help that it needs.
QUESTION: But isn’t there – is there any concern that by – in having this happen through a sort of Friends of the Syrian People process, that you are leaving yourselves open to the Assad regime accusations that you’re essentially funding an uprising against his regime, that you’re funding --
MS. NULAND: Again, this is not an initiative of the Friends. It doesn’t appear in the communique. It’s something that was made known in the context of the conference, but it’s a bilateral initiative, or an initiative of a few countries to the SNC.
QUESTION: But the point – I mean, is the Administration comfortable with the idea that some of its friends and allies are going to be paying – essentially paying mercenaries that fight the Assad regime?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’ve – the SNC made clear that this is very welcome. We are coordinating closely with these countries to make sure --
QUESTION: Well, I understand, but --
MS. NULAND: -- that our efforts are mutually reinforcing. I’m not going to give it a grade one way or the other.
QUESTION: Well, no, no, no, but – we’re not asking for --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: We’re not asking for a grade. We’re asking whether you think it’s – whether the Administration thinks it’s a good idea for these countries to do that.
MS. NULAND: Again, they are making their own sovereign decisions about what they think is important. We have not discouraged this initiative, and we are coordinating closely with them.
Please.
QUESTION: Okay. You haven’t – you have not discouraged the initiative?
MS. NULAND: Correct, correct.
QUESTION: Could I ask a quick follow-up --
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: -- on that? On the clearinghouse itself, on the secretariat, let’s say, if it has a secretariat, will we have organizations like the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, sent out there to vet whatever data and information that would come in?
MS. NULAND: If you look at the factsheet that we put out --
QUESTION: I did, yeah.
MS. NULAND: -- it talks about a steering group, right, which includes association with these other international organizations. Again, this is not designed to be the only place where accountability can be kept. It’s designed to be an enhancement to current, ongoing UN-NGO efforts at accountability. It’s designed to be a resource for Syrians and to be affiliated with all the other efforts.
QUESTION: I understand, but it will have an international dimension or a component where you have these organized --
MS. NULAND: No, of course, yes, and it’ll have links to all those organizations, yes.
QUESTION: On the clearinghouse --
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: -- is it at all a response to the recent criticism that there’s been human rights abuses committed by the opposition?
MS. NULAND: Primarily, this is an initiative to ensure that regime elements, who are continuing not only to obey the Assad orders to fire on their own people, but are also committing gross abuses themselves – some of this horrible reporting we’ve seen about the killing of children, about the impressing of young people, about the travel bans on men, about the mining – all of that stuff can be documented. But as I said in response to Andy’s question, obviously, it’s an opportunity to, if there are abuses that can be documented on the other side, there’s a place to catalogue them. But most importantly, we’re trying to send a political message here that those who are still carrying out his bloody orders, there are people bearing witness to that and they will be held to account. And folks anywhere who are committing atrocities need to know that justice will find them.
QUESTION: Do you hope that it will be a deterrent in the opposition?
MS. NULAND: That’s exactly the hope and the hope that it will --
QUESTION: But a deterrent for the opposition. For example, on Libya --
MS. NULAND: A deterrent for anyone who would commit atrocities in Syria.
QUESTION: Last week --
MS. NULAND: Are we still on Syria?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Last week, you said the world is more united against Syria regime. What is your understanding of China’s absence to the Friends of Syria meeting again?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, China was invited to attend this time and declined not to attend. I’ll refer you to the Chinese with regard to their decision there.
QUESTION: So – do you think the world is more united against – to the regime?
MS. NULAND: There’s no question. I mean, starting with the Security Council presidency statement, which China joined. Yeah.
QUESTION: So are you disappointed that China is not – didn’t --
MS. NULAND: It’s China’s choice whether it wants to attend the Friends group. We’ve made clear that the door is open.
QUESTION: Speaking about the UN Security Council --
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Kofi Annan’s told them a couple – a little while ago that the regime is ready to withdraw from civilian – withdraw troops from civilian areas by April 10th or on April 10th. Is that at all okay with you?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, after the Security Council meeting, Ambassador Rice, in her capacity both as presidency of the council this month and speaking in her U.S. hat, had a comment on --
QUESTION: I missed that.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. So --
QUESTION: What did she say?
MS. NULAND: I actually didn’t see the precise words. I spoke to her people, because we were coming out concurrently. But my understanding is that – and if I’m not right, then whatever she said is binding in terms of our response, but – that as you know, the Secretary and the Friends had called for a real timeline, that Kofi Annan has set a timeline now. Obviously, we all hope that the implementation will be as rapid as possible – will be more rapid than April 10th and that we will judge him by his actions, not by his words.
QUESTION: Right. But I mean this gives him another eight days – I mean, more than a week.
MS. NULAND: Again, we all want to see this happen immediately, and we will judge him by his actions.
QUESTION: Do you expect that – a week ago, you and the Russians were coming closer and closer. But today, Lavrov, the foreign minister, said that we don’t accept the idea of a timeline or a shelf life for this initiative by Kofi Annan. Do you expect that there will be some sort of animosity between you two?
MS. NULAND: Well again, I didn’t see what Lavrov had to say. It probably was just in the --
QUESTION: Well, in a press conference today, he was very clear on the issue of a timetable.
MS. NULAND: Well, we feel very strongly, as did all 80 of those countries that were represented yesterday, that we can’t allow Annan – we can’t allow Assad to do what he’s done time and time again, make promises and break them, that the time – as the Secretary said yesterday, that the time for excuses is over. So we were very firm, and the Secretary made absolutely clear again and again that a timeline is necessary.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the Russians are giving Assad a cover -- that they’re
stalling?
MS. NULAND: Again, we are determined that there not be cover created by the situation.
QUESTION: So (inaudible) one week if this deadline is correct and it’s going to be implemented. What is the plan B? Surely should be some plan for a short time. What kind of steps are you willing to take if Assad, again, doesn’t do what he promised to?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m obviously not going to prejudge where we’re going to be on April 10th, but I think if you look at the outcomes of the Friends of the Syrian People meeting, it’s very clear that our intention is to maintain as much pressure – build the pressure through all of these lines that we talked about on the regime. So --
QUESTION: On Egypt.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please – still on Syria? In the back. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. All I want to say is just to follow on something Matt, I think, was getting at.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Setting aside what you think about the (inaudible) plan, in particular, it seems pretty clear that the Saudis are stepping up their role in Syria and some of the Gulf countries too. Does the Administration worry at all that the conflict might start to be seen, even if it isn’t in fact, start to be perceived as a conflict between the Saudis, the Gulf countries, and the regime rather than between the people of Syria and the regime? Is that a concern at all?
MS. NULAND: Well, we had a chance to have broad consultations, as you know. The Secretary saw – we were in Riyadh on Saturday. The Secretary had a chance to talk to all of the GCC members about this. There is no daylight between us, that the number one goal here is to increase the pressure on Assad until he stops, and that we’ve got to do all that we can here. Countries are making their own decisions how to do that. What’s important is the coordination among us.
The additional thing I would say here is that there is no doubt that all of the countries, all 82 countries, join the SNC in our commitment that this new Syria that we seek, this democratic Syria we seek, has to be a Syria for all Syrians, not to replace one ruling clique with another ruling clique, that what we are seeking is a democratic Syria where all ethnic groups are welcome, are part of the political process, have their rights and their freedoms protected. And the Gulf countries made statements to that effect that was – those principles were in the statement that the GCC plus U.S. issued on Saturday.
Please.
QUESTION: New subject?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: A couple of questions. Victoria, have you been in touch with your allies in Azerbaijan and Israel over the reports of Israeli access to airbases in Azerbaijan on the Iranian border?
MS. NULAND: I think Mark spoke to this on Friday. We don’t have any information to indicate anything new on this front.
QUESTION: So since --
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please. Please.
QUESTION: What is going on with this P-5+1 meeting? Is it happening on the 13th in Istanbul, as someone who you know, we all know very well, said? Or is it not happening? Because she seems to be the only one who’s saying it’s going to happen on that time – at that time and that place.
MS. NULAND: We have made, as a P-5+1, a proposal to have this meeting on April 13th, 14th in Istanbul. There seems to be some issue as to whether the Iranians have accepted that, but we will be there if they are ready to accept those terms.
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re going to – so someone’s going to show up. Wendy Sherman or Bill Burns or whoever is going to be there on the 13th and 14th with a sign that says, “Welcome Iran.”
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously --
QUESTION: And if they don’t show up it’s their fault? Is that the idea? (Laughter.)
MS. NULAND: I mean, it’s simply been interesting to us that we are getting different signals out of Iran as to whether all of this is locked down. But we are – and we’ve been waiting for some time for the Iranians to – in all of their components – to confirm that they’re ready. But we are ready if they are ready at that date and venue.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay?
QUESTION: On Egypt?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: There’s been a lot of talk in the Egyptian media recently that one of the presidential candidates, Abu Ismail -- Hazem Abu Ismail’s mother has American citizenship and that under Egyptian electoral law this would disqualify him, because both of your parents are supposed to be only Egyptian nationals and nothing else. Recently, this presidential candidate himself has talked to the election commission in Egypt, which says that it’s investigating the matter.
So my question is: Has the U.S. Embassy in Cairo received any questions on this matter from the Egyptian election commission to verify this and if there’s – if this is something that you could verify or not?
MS. NULAND: Wow. That sounds like one I’m really not going to wade into. I’m going to send you to our Embassy in Cairo as to whether they’ve had any inquiries from the election commission. Frankly, we try very hard to stay out of these kinds of issues.
QUESTION: But this specifically has to do with somebody’s citizenship. Is this something that you could confirm or deny?
MS. NULAND: Can we verify citizenship?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. NULAND: Again, I will refer you to our Embassy in Cairo as to whether we’ve had any inquires of that – in that regard.
Please.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Al Jazeera has had a series of --
QUESTION: Can we stay on Egypt?
MS. NULAND: You want to stay on Egypt? Yeah, I’m sorry. Let’s do Egypt, and then --
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the new Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Al-Shater? He claims that he has the support of the United States of America.
MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary spoke to – she was asked this question yesterday --
QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry. I missed it.
MS. NULAND: -- and she spoke to the principles that we expect to govern these elections, which are the same principles that the Egyptians themselves went to Tahrir Square to have.
QUESTION: Okay. But let me tell you what he said today. He said he does enjoy support of the international community, implicitly saying the United States of America. Do you support --
MS. NULAND: We’re certainly not going to be – as we don’t anywhere in the world – endorsing any individual candidate. We want the Egyptian people to make their decision.
QUESTION: But do you look at the Brotherhood as a buffer against the Salafists, for instance?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m going to refer you to what the Secretary had to say about the principles that we espouse for this election.
Please.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So Al Jazeera found in a series of reports from Kunar province in Afghanistan that the Taliban has instituted a policy of persuading Afghans who have joined the security forces or the police to switch sides and join them. They’ve also have – are now playing the role of vice and virtue police, scrutinizing what people wear, their appearance, making women stay at home, et cetera. In lights of these revelations, is it the right strategy to continue negotiating with the Taliban, even indirectly, and to hand over control to the Afghan security forces?
MS. NULAND: Well, all of the things that you cite are not new in terms of what those Taliban who insist on fighting the Afghan constitution, fighting Afghan security forces, terrorizing the Afghan people have been up to. So our policy remains that those Taliban who want to continue to have their way by force, to try to overthrow the Afghan constitution, to fight the people of Afghanistan, fight the freedoms and human rights that they have attained, we are going to support the Afghans in meeting them on the battlefield.
However, we are also, as we’ve made clear, willing to support a process of reconciliation with those Taliban who are willing to renounce violence and get into talks. But we have to, as a next step, as we’ve made clear for a couple of weeks – given the multiple signals that we’ve had out of the Taliban and the multiple voices, the next step will be for those Taliban who want to sit down to issue a statement that renounces violence and makes clear that they are committed to a real peace process.
And then as we’ve said, at the end of the day, this process will only succeed if it results in a conversation with people who are ready to completely renounce violence, break ties with al-Qaida, support the constitution of Afghanistan in all of its manifestations, including the rights for women, minorities, and all Afghans.
QUESTION: Are you saying that talks are not ongoing?
MS. NULAND: As – you know what we’ve been saying forever, that we are at a preliminary stage of trying to support an Afghan-Afghan process. It’s been hard to get that going, but the door is open, but only if the Taliban are prepared to renounce violence.
Scott.
QUESTION: Colombia?
MS. NULAND: Colombia.
QUESTION: Move today to take possession of the last of the FARC hostages by the Colombian Government so reaction to that and any hope for what would happen next?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I saw some reporting that this last sort of move was happening today. I think if you don’t mind, Scott, we will respond to that one tomorrow when this operation is completed.
Okay. Please.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) back to my subject, so if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that this building does not possess enough valid information that backs these claims of Israeli access in Azerbaijan airfield and that is why you’re not going to follow up on this report, you’re not calling your allies --
MS. NULAND: I’m going to send you to the Azerbaijanis for whatever they may be talking to the Israelis about. I don't have any information to indicate that the reports that are out there have any basis in fact.
QUESTION: Are you aware of more --
MS. NULAND: What?
QUESTION: Are you aware of more than one report?
MS. NULAND: That one reporting is --
QUESTION: So it’s not plural? I mean, as far as you know?
MS. NULAND: I mean, I’ve only – I’ve seen the one. I don’t know if there are more out there.
Please.
QUESTION: Thank you, Victoria. Do you have anything on the result of U.S. and the North Korea delegation meeting in German -- Aspen meeting?
MS. NULAND: I think this was a track-two meeting. There was no government meeting, if that’s what you’re asking. There may have been some Track II encounter between North Koreans and Americans, but there was no government meeting.
I’m getting the high sign from Jonathan. As you know, the President’s going to go out with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico shortly, so we want to get off the air before that. Let’s take two more.
QUESTION: On Russia, last week, this whole thing with Ambassador McFaul kind of rose up. Mark said on Friday that you guys were going to go in to the Russians and express concerns about his safety or at least raise the situation with them. I’m wondering if you did, if you – if that has happened, and if it has, what their response was.
MS. NULAND: Well, just to be a little bit clearer, we have for some time now been raising concerns about harassment, not only of Ambassador McFaul, but of Embassy personnel. We have been making clear at all levels, frankly, that we expect our Ambassador, we expect our Embassy to be able to conduct their work free from harassment, free from intimidation. The Russians have consistently, on the government side, pledged to investigate individual incidents. And we are working with them on those issues.
QUESTION: Right, but there was – after he – what was said last week was that – or on Friday was that the specific problem of his schedule becoming public had raised new concerns, and I’m wondering if those – if you’re aware if those have been – if those were raised.
MS. NULAND: Those have been raised.
QUESTION: They have.
QUESTION: Turkey, Iran?
MS. NULAND: Let’s just do – can I just take Andy and just --
QUESTION: Just a quick one on Myanmar. We’ve seen the – we saw the White House statement on --
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: I’m wondering if you have anything further on the elections, and specifically, do you feel that the results of these elections – how will the conduct and result of these elections play into the U.S. consideration of sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Well, as we have said from the beginning, we are going to match action with action, so we are in the process of completely evaluating the results of the elections. I think that you saw the Secretary make clear, as we were congratulating the Burmese people and as we were congratulating the winners, that nonetheless we need to continue to make progress in the electoral systems and make sure that any irregularities here are investigated. But I don’t have anything to announce here in terms of our next steps, in terms of action for action, but we’ll be looking at that.
And the last one here, and then we got to go.
QUESTION: Are you hoping – Secretary spoke to this – the Turkish decision to cut exporting – imports on oil from Iran by a fifth. My question is: Is this enough for Turkey to get away from – escape from U.S. sanctions? Are you expecting any more from Turkey?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary did say how encouraged we are. We had a chance to talk to the Turkish Government about this. We now need to continue the discussions bilaterally, and we will be doing that in terms of what impact this might have, so we have to have some further conversations at the technical level.
Okay? Thank you all very much.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:23 p.m.)

WISCONSIN ELECTION WILL BE MONITORED BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Monday, April 2, 2012
Justice Department to Monitor Election in Wisconsin
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that the Civil Rights Division will monitor the election on April 3, 2012, in Milwaukee.  The monitoring will ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other federal voting rights statutes.  The Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the election process on the basis of race, color or membership in a minority language group.  In addition, the act requires certain covered jurisdictions to provide language assistance during the election process.  The city of Milwaukee is required to provide assistance in Spanish.

Justice Department personnel will monitor polling place activities in Milwaukee.  Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

Each year, the Justice Department deploys hundreds of federal observers from the Office of Personnel Management, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country.  To file complaints about discriminatory voting practices, including acts of harassment or intimidation, voters may call the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA ABOARD USS PELELIU

Secretary Panetta Gaggle Aboard USS Peleliu
  SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA:  Okay.  Are you all right?
Okay.
             Q:  Staff Sergeant Bales’ defense team says they’re facing an almost complete information blackout from the government that’s having a devastating effect.
            SEC. PANETTA:  Well, you know, the key here is to follow the procedures that we have under the military code of justice and we’ve made very clear that – I’ve made very clear that those procedures will be followed and that they’ll be entitled to whatever information we’d be entitled to under the military code of justice.  But I’ve been assured that this investigation now is going to continue, that charges have now been brought.  We’re going through an Article 32 process and the defendant, as I said, will be entitled to the rights that are provided under the military code of justice.
             Q:  (Inaudible) – since 2007.  And 75 percent have been in the last two years.  We’re wondering, with this situation can the partnership endure and what needs to be done and can be done?
             SEC. PANETTA:  No, you know, I really do think that General Allen has the right strategy for Afghanistan and that 2011 was an important turning point that we’ve made some significant gains there and that we’re in the process of transitioning areas to Afghan governance and control.  And I think we need to stick to that strategy.  As I’ve said, war is hell.  We’re going to run into these kinds of incidents.  That’s the nature of conflict, but we can’t allow those kinds of incidents to undermine our basic strategy.  We’re on the right track and we have to stick to it.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary –for the spring – what the strategy as far –
             SEC. PANETTA:  The –spring?  I think right now obviously our goal is to make sure that we continue to secure the key areas that we’re involved with and that we continue the transition.  There’s another transition that’s due to be made in this year and we’ve got about three more areas of transition to complete.  The final transition will take place about in the fall of 2013.  So our goal from General Allen is to do that.  The other goal, frankly, is that we are going to be withdrawing the remainder of the surge, which is about 23,000.  And so General Allen will present me with a plan sometime in April as to how we accomplish that by the end of this fighting season.
             Q:  Sir, I have a two-part question about BRAC.  If you secure approval for it, how might that affect Southern California?  If you don’t, what can the Department do on its own?  Are you prepared to close the smaller bases -- 300 and less personnel?
             SEC. PANETTA:  You know, the reason we’ve asked for BRAC authority here is because, you know, as we draw down the force over the next five to 10 years, that we’re going to have – you kow, we’ll have some excess infrastructure.  And that if we’re spending money on maintaining excess infrastructure, it’s money that is taken away from other areas in defense.
             The BRAC process, I know it’s a tough process.  I’ve been through BRAC, when I was a congressman in Monterey.  I went through the loss of Fort Ord, so I know what it means for a community.  But the BRAC process is at least the only approach we have trying to do this right.
             I believe that we ought to do it through that approach.  There is some de minimis closures that we have the right to do under the law, but my view is that for the kind of major installation, that ought to be done through the BRAC process.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary, have we taken any special precautions –
             SEC. PANETTA:  By the way, on Southern California, I mean, I think generally the bases here are pretty important to the strategy that we put in place in terms of our defense.  And I think most of those will largely be maintained.
             Q:  Particularly regarding the pivot to the Pacific or –
             SEC. PANETTA:  Yes, the pivot to the Pacific is important, but more importantly being able to maintain the facilities for our troops and our Navy, and particularly the Marine Corps.  Those are going to be essential elements to that strategy.
             Q:  Have we taken any special precautions should the North Koreans launch missiles?
             SEC. PANETTA:  We expressed our concern.  The president of the United States made very clear that the North Koreans should not do this.  It is provocative.  It’s dangerous and it violates the international law.  And so our hope is that they will not do it.  But as always takes place in these kinds of situations, we have to be fully prepared for any possibility -- and we are.
             Q:  Have we moved – (inaudible).
             SEC. PANETTA:  Put whatever assets in place that we need in order to deal with any contingency.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary, there’s a lot of concern on Capitol Hill about having sufficient ships in the Navy to do the Navy – (inaudible) – the Navy have pushed the decommissioning another year, but it’s going to be retired at some point.  The Marines are concerned and they want to make sure that there’s enough – (inaudible) – them.  How do you reconcile the two needs both from a budgetary perspective and also operationally having ships available to train and prepare and then deploy overseas?
             SEC. PANETTA:  We just – we actually just sent up the 30-year shipbuilding plan to the Congress.  And as I testified, our goal is to maintain the target of developing 300 ships in the Navy.  And we will do that by – I think the target right now is to do that by 2019.  So yes, there’ll be – yes, there’ll be some ups and downs and there are some ships that obviously we’ll draw down that are outdated.  But overall, we are going to maintain -- not only maintain, but increase our ships in the Navy.
             Q:  Are you concerned that there are – you know, the fleet has been ridden hard and put away wet?
             SEC. PANETTA:  It has and – you know – but these are great ships.  I had a chance to go on ships like this and I was just on the Enterprise, which is a carrier that’s being deployed for the last time in the Middle East, but, you know, they’ve served this country well.
             One of the things that I want to maintain is our industrial base for the future so that we can produce the ships we need for the future.  And I want to do it in American shipyards.  I don’t want to do it abroad.  So what I’ve got to do is to try to – and we’re committed to this – is to try to do this in a way that protects our industrial base so that it will be there if and when we need it for the future.
             Okay?  Thanks very much.

FDIC REPORTS COUNTERFEIT MONEY ORDERS IN CIRCULATION

FROM:  FDIC E-MAIL TO:	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (also of interest to Security Officer)
SUBJECT:	Counterfeit Money Orders
Summary:	Counterfeit money orders bearing the name Northrim Bank, Anchorage, Alaska, are reportedly in circulation.

Northrim Bank, Anchorage, Alaska, has contacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to report that counterfeit money orders bearing the institution's name are in circulation.

The counterfeit items display the routing number 125200934, which is assigned to Northrim Bank. The items are dissimilar to authentic money orders and when copied display a three- column "VOID" background. A security feature statement is embedded in a darkened top border and along the bottom border between two padlocks.
Authentic money orders display a three-sided ornate border with open squares in each top corner and solid circles in each lower corner. A security feature statement is centered below the top border. The wording "NOT VALID OVER $2,500.00" is printed below the dollar amount line.
 Be aware that the appearance of counterfeit items can be modified and that additional variations may be presented.

Information about counterfeit items, cyber-fraud incidents and other fraudulent activity may be forwarded to the FDIC's Cyber-Fraud and Financial Crimes Section, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, CH-11034, Arlington, Virginia 22226, or transmitted electronically to alert@fdic.gov. Questions related to federal deposit insurance or consumer issues should be submitted to the FDIC using an online form that can be accessed at http://www2.fdic.gov/starsmail/index.asp.

	Sandra L. Thompson
	Director Division of Risk Management Supervision

FEMA WARNS TO WATCH OUT FOR DISASTER SCAMS

FROM: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Be on the Lookout for Scams and Frauds After a Disaster
CHARLESTON, W. Va. -- West Virginia residents whose properties were damaged in the recent storms are warned to be alert for and report any potential fraud during recovery and rebuilding efforts, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials said today.
The aftermath of a disaster can attract opportunists and con artists. Homeowners, renters and businesses can follow some simple steps to avoid being scammed.
Be suspicious if a contractor:
Demands cash or full payment up front for repair work;
Has no physical address or identification;
Urges you to borrow to pay for repairs, then steers you to a specific lender or tries to act as an intermediary between you and a lender;
Asks you to sign something you have not had time to review; or
Wants your personal financial information to start the repair or lending process.
To avoid scams:
Question strangers offering to do repair work and demand to see identification;
Do your own research before borrowing money for repairs. Compare quotes, repayment schedules and rates. If they differ significantly, ask why;
Never give any personal financial information to an unfamiliar person; and
Never sign any document without first reading it fully. Ask for an explanation of any terms or conditions you do not understand.

Disasters also attract people who claim to represent charities but do not. The Federal Trade Commission warns people to be careful and follow some simple rules:

Donate to charities you know and trust. Be alert for charities that seem to have sprung up overnight.
If you’re solicited for a donation, ask if the caller is a paid fundraiser, who they work for, and the percentage of your donation that will go to the charity and to the fundraiser. If you don’t get a clear answer — or if you don’t like the answer you get — consider donating to a different organization.

Do not give out personal or financial information – including your credit card or bank account number – unless you know the charity is reputable.

Never send cash: you can’t be sure the organization will receive your donation.
Check out a charity before you donate. Contact the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance at www.give.org.

If you believe you are the victim of a contracting scam, price gouging or bogus charity solicitations, contact local law enforcement and report it to the West Virginia office of the Attorney General. Call the Consumer Helpline at 1-800-368-8808 or find a complaint form online at www.wvago.gov/consumers.cfm.

Many legitimate persons -- insurance agents, FEMA Community Relations personnel, local inspectors and real contractors -- may have to visit your disaster-damaged property. Survivors could, however, encounter people posing as inspectors, government officials or contractors in a bid to obtain personal information or collect payment for repair work. Your best strategy to protect yourself against fraud is to ask to see identification in all cases and to safeguard your personal financial information. Please keep in mind that local, state and federal employees do not solicit or accept money for public services.

All FEMA employees and contractors will have a laminated photo ID. A FEMA shirt or jacket alone is not proof of identity. FEMA generally will only request an applicant's Social Security or bank account numbers during the initial registration process. However FEMA inspectors may require verification of identity. FEMA and U.S. Small Business Administration staff never charge applicants for disaster assistance, inspections or help to fill out applications. FEMA inspectors verify damages but do not recommend or hire specific contractors to fix homes.

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.