U.S.-GEORGIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission's Democracy Working Group
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 16, 2012
Today at the State Department, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip H. Gordon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Eric Rubin, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Thomas Melia participated in the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission’s Democracy Working Group, along with Georgian National Security Advisor George Bokeria and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergi Kapanadze. Discussions focused on recognizing Georgia’s reform achievements to date and efforts to further strengthen democratic institutions and electoral processes, media freedom, rule of law, and judicial independence. Georgia will hold parliamentary elections this fall and presidential elections in 2013.

The U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership was signed by then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia Grigol Vashadze in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2009. The first meeting of the Strategic Partnership Commission, held in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2009, launched four bilateral working groups on priority areas identified in the Charter: democracy; defense and security; economic, trade, and energy issues; and people-to-people and cultural exchanges. Senior-level U.S. and Georgian policymakers have led subsequent meetings of each of these working groups to review commitments, update activities, and establish future objectives. Secretary Clinton co-chaired a meeting of the Strategic Partnership Commission on October 6, 2010, in Washington, DC.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AT THE CEO SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS PANEL DISCUSSION

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE

President Barack Obama participates in the CEO Summit of the Americas panel discussion at the Hilton Hotel, Cartagena, Colombia, April 14, 2012. President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff and President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos took part. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

April 14, 2012
Remarks by President Obama at CEO Summit of the Americas
Gran Salon Bolivar
Hilton Hotel
Cartagena, Colombia
10:43 A.M. COT
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I want to thank President Santos and the people of Colombia for the extraordinary hospitality in the beautiful city of Cartagena.  We're having a wonderful time.  And usually when I take these summit trips, part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation.  So we'll make sure to come back sometime in the near future.  (Applause.)
I want to acknowledge Luis Moreno of IDB, as well as Luis Villegas of the National Business Association of Colombia, for helping to set this up, and everybody who's participating.

As President Rousseff indicated, obviously we've gone through some very challenging times.  These last three years have been as difficult for the world economy as anything that we've seen in our lifetimes.  And it is both a result of globalization and it is also a result of shifts in technology.  The days when we could think of each of our economies in isolation, those days are long gone.  What happens in Wall Street has an impact in Rio. What happens in Bogota has an impact in Beijing.

And so I think the challenge for all of our countries, and certainly the challenge for this hemisphere, is how do we make sure that that globalization and that integration is benefiting a broad base of people, that economic growth is sustainable and robust, and that it is also giving opportunity to a growing, wider circle of people, and giving businesses opportunities to thrive and create new products and new services and enjoy this global marketplace.

Now, I think the good news is this hemisphere is very well positioned in this global economy.  It is remarkable to see the changes that have been taking place in a relatively short period of time in Latin and Central America and in the Caribbean.  When you look at the extraordinary growth that's taken place in Brazil, first under President Lula and now under President Rousseff, when you think about the enormous progress that's been made here in Colombia under President Santos and his predecessor, what you see is that a lot of the old arguments on the left and the right no longer apply.

And what people are asking is, what works?  How do we think in practical terms about delivering prosperity, training our people so that they can compete in the global economy?  How do we create rule of law that allows businesses to invest with some sense of security and transparency?  How do we invest in science and technology?  How do we make sure that we have open and free trade at the same time as we're making sure that the benefits of free trade are distributed both between nations but also within nations?
And the good news is I think that, through various international organizations and organizations here within the hemisphere, we've seen enormous progress.  Trade between the United States and Latin, Central -- South America, Central America and the Caribbean has expanded 46 percent since I came into office -- 46 percent.

Before I came to Cartagena, I stopped in Tampa, Florida, which is the largest port in Florida.  And they are booming and expanding.  And the reason is, is because of the enormous expansion of trade and commerce with this region.  It's creating jobs in Florida, and it's creating jobs in Colombia, and it's creating jobs in Brazil and throughout the region.  Businesses are seeing that if they have an outstanding product or an outstanding service, they don’t have to restrict themselves to one market, they now have a regional market and ultimately a global market in which they can sell their goods and succeed.

A couple of things that I think will help further facilitate this productive integration:  Number one, the free trade agreement that we've negotiated between Colombia and the United States is an example of a free trade agreement that benefits both sides.  It's a win-win.  It has high standards -- (applause) -- it's a high-standards agreement.  It's not a race to the bottom, but rather it says each country is abiding by everything from strong rules around labor and the environment to intellectual property protection.  And so I have confidence that as we implement this plan, what we're going to see is extraordinary opportunities for both U.S. and Colombian businesses.

So trade agreements of the sort that we have negotiated, thanks to the leadership of President Santos and his administration, I think point the way to the future.

In addition, I think there is the capacity for us to cooperate on problems that all countries face, and I'll take just one example -- the issue of energy.  All of us recognize that if we're going to continue to grow our economies effectively, then we're going to have to adapt to the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and demand is going up much faster than supply.  There are also, obviously, significant environmental concerns that we have to deal with.  So for us to cooperate on something like joint electrification and electric grid integration, so that a country like Brazil, that is doing outstanding work in biofuels or hydro-energy, has the ability to export that energy but also teach best practices to countries within the region, create new markets for clean energy throughout the region -- which benefits those customers who need electricity but also benefit those countries that are top producers of energy -- that's another example of the kind of progress that we can make together.

On the education front, every country in the region recognizes that if we're going to compete with Asia, if we're going to compete with Europe, we've got to up our game.  We have to make sure that we've got the best-trained workers in the world, we've got the best education system in the world.  And so the work that President Rousseff and I are doing together to try to significantly expand educational exchanges and send young people who are studying science and engineering and computer science to the United States to study if they're Brazilian, down to Brazil to study best practices in clean energy in Brazil -- there's enormous opportunity for us to work together to train our young people so that this hemisphere is filled with outstanding entrepreneurs and workers, and allows us to compete more effectively.

So there are a number of areas where I think cooperation is proceeding.  Sometimes it's not flashy.  I think that oftentimes in the press the attention in summits like this ends up focusing on where are the controversies.  Sometimes those controversies date back to before I was born.  (Laughter.)  And sometimes I feel as if in some of these discussions or at least the press reports we're caught in a time warp, going back to the 1950s and gunboat diplomacy and Yanquis and the Cold War, and this and that and the other.  That's not the world we live in today.

And my hope is, is that we all recognize this enormous opportunity that we've got.  And I know the business leaders who are here today, they understand it; they understand that we're in a new world, and we have to think in new ways.

Last point I want to make -- I think when you think about the extraordinary success in Brazil, the success in Colombia, a big piece of that is governance.  You can't, I believe, have, over the long term, successful economies if you don't have some basic principles that are being followed:  democracy and rule of law, human rights being observed, freedom of expression.  And I think -- and also personal security, the capacity for people to feel as if they work hard then they're able to achieve, and they have motivation to start a business and to know that their own work will pay off.

And I just want to compliment both Brazil and Colombia, coming from different political traditions, but part of the reason why you've seen sustained growth is governments have worked effectively in each country.  And I think that when we look at how we're going to integrate further and take advantage of increased opportunity in the future, it's very important for us not to ignore how important it is to have a clean, transparent, open government that is working on behalf of its people.

And that's important to business as well.  The days when a business feels good working in a place where people are being oppressed -- ultimately that's an unstable environment for you to do business.  You do business well when you know that it's a well-functioning society and that there's a legitimate government in place that is going to be looking out for its people.

So I just want to thank both of my outstanding partners here.  They're true leaders in the region.  And I can speak, I think, for the United States to say that we've never been more excited about the prospects of working as equal partners with our brothers and sisters in Latin America and the Caribbean, because that's going to be the key to our success.  (Applause.)

* * * *
MR. MATTHEWS:  President Santos, I guess there are some issues in America -- we have a very large Hispanic population.  Ten percent of our electorate is going to be Hispanic in background.  We are the second-largest Spanish-speaking country in the world after Mexico.  People have dual languages in the United States, of course, but there is so much Spanish speaking. You have the chance to sit next to President Obama now.  Do you want to ask him about the ways you think the United States could help your country in the drug war?
* * * *
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Do you want me to respond?

MR. MATTHEWS:  Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, this is a conversation that I've had with President Santos and others.  Just as the world economy is integrated, so, unfortunately, the drug trade is integrated.  And we can't look at the issue of supply in Latin America without also looking at the issue of demand in the United States.  (Applause.)

And so whether it's working with President Santos or supporting the courageous work that President Calderón is doing in Mexico, I, personally, and my administration and I think the American people understand that the toll of narco-trafficking on the societies of Central America, Caribbean, and parts of South America are brutal, and undermining the capacity of those countries to protect their citizens, and eroding institutions and corrupting institutions in ways that are ultimately bad for everybody.

So this is part of the reason why we've invested, Chris, about $30 billion in prevention programs, drug treatment programs looking at the drug issue not just from a law enforcement and interdiction issue, but also from a public health perspective. This is why we've worked in unprecedented fashion in cooperation with countries like Mexico on not just drugs coming north, but also guns and cash going south.

This is one of the reasons why we have continued to invest in programs like Plan Colombia, but also now are working with Colombia, given their best practices around issues of citizen security, to have not just the United States but Colombia provide technical assistance and training to countries in Central America and the Caribbean in finding ways that they can duplicate some of the success that we've seen in Colombia.
So we're mindful of our responsibilities on this issue.  And I think it is entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether the laws in place are ones that are doing more harm than good in certain places.

I personally, and my administration's position, is that legalization is not the answer; that, in fact, if you think about how it would end up operating, that the capacity of a large-scale drug trade to dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint could be just as corrupting if not more corrupting then the status quo.

Nevertheless, I'm a big believer in looking at the evidence, having a debate.  I think ultimately what we're going to find is, is that the way to solve this problem is both in the United States, us dealing with demand in a more effective way, but it's also going to be strengthening institutions at home.

You mentioned earlier, the biggest thing that's on everybody's minds -- whether it's the United States, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Jamaica -- is, can I find a job that allows me to support my family and allows my children to advance and feel secure.  And in those societies where you've got strong institutions, you've got strong business investment, you've got rule of law, you have a law enforcement infrastructure that is sound, and an economy that's growing -- that country is going to be like a healthy body that is more immune than countries that have weak institutions and high unemployment, in which kids see their only future as participating in the drug trade because nobody has actually trained them to get a job with Google, or Pepsi, or start their own small business.

And so I think that it's important for us not to think that if somehow we look at the drug issue in isolation, in the absence of dealing with some of these other challenges -- institutional challenges and barriers to growth and opportunity and the capacity for people to climb their way out of poverty, that we're going to be able to solve this problem.  The drug issue in this region is, in some ways, a cause, but it's also, in some ways, an effect of some broader and underlying problems.  And we as the United States have an obligation not only to get our own house in order but also to help countries in a partnership to try to see if we can move in a better direction.  (Applause.)
* * * *
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. President, do you want to respond?  I think the question that seems to be apparent here in the last couple of days is, first of all, tremendous enthusiasm, a zeitgeist here that's almost unusual in the world for positive optimism about the development in this part of the world.  It's not like it was -- just isn't the way it was we grew up with.

The challenge I think you just heard from the President of Brazil was the notion that Latin America is not interested in being our complementary economy anymore -- the agricultural end while we do the industrial end; they do the provision of raw materials and we do the finest and highest-level high-tech work. How do we either respond to Brazil's demand, really, to be partners and rivals -- they want to use our educational resources, they want to come north to learn how to compete with us -- right, Madam President?  You want to be equals.  You want to learn everything we know, and then take it back and shove it at us, right?  (Laughter.)  Isn't that it?

Well, anyway, that's the response -- I'd ask you for your response.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Chris, I'm not sure you're characterizing what President Rousseff said -- (laughter) -- but this is what happens when you get some of our U.S. political commentators moderating a panel.  (Laughter.)  They try to stir up things that may not always be there.  (Applause.)  And Chris is good at it.  He's one of the best.  (Laughter.)
But, look, this is already happening.  This is already happening.  Brazil has changed, Colombia has changed -- and we welcome the change.  The notion somehow that we see this as a problem is just not the case, because if we've got a strong, growing, prosperous middle class in Latin America, those are new customers for our businesses.  (Applause.)
Brazil is growing and that opportunity is broad-based, then suddenly they're interested in buying iPads, and they're interested in buying Boeing airplanes and -- (laughter.)

PRESIDENT ROUSSEFF:  Boeing -- Embraer.  (Laughter and applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I was just trying to see how she'd respond to that.  (Laughter.)  But the point is, is that that's a market for us.  So we in the United States should welcome not just growth, but broad-based growth, of the sort that President Rousseff described.
I'll give you just -- I said I was in Tampa.  All those containers that are coming in, they have, in some cases, commodities coming from Latin America, but they also have finished products that are coming in from Latin America.  We have commodities that are going into Latin America that we're sending back on those containers, as well as finished products.  And so this is a two-way street.

When I came into office, one of my first decisions was to say that the G20 was not a temporary thing to respond to the world economic crisis; this should be the permanent forum for determining and coordinating direction in the world economy.  And frankly, there were some folks who were members of the G8 who were upset with me about that determination, but realistically you can't coordinate world economic issues if you don't have China and Brazil and India and South Africa at the table -- and Mexico.  That's not possible.

So the world has changed.  I think the United States and U.S. businesses stand to benefit from those changes.  But it does mean that we have to adapt to that competitive environment.  And all the advantages that President Rousseff mentioned we have as the United States -- its flexibility, our scientific edge, our well-educated workforce, our top universities -- those are the things that we continue to have to build and get better at.  And that's true for every country here.
Every one of the businesses here are going to be making determinations about where you locate based on the quality of the workforce, how much investment you have to make in training somebody to handle a million-dollar piece of equipment.  Do you feel as if your intellectual property is going to be protected?  Do you feel as if there's a good infrastructure to be able to get your products to market?  And so I think this is a healthy competition that we should be encouraging.

And what I've said at the first summit that I came to, Summit of the Americas that I came to, was we do not believe there are junior partners and senior partners in this situation. We believe there are partners.  And Brazil is in many ways ahead of us on something like biofuels; we should learn from them.  And if we're going to be trying to mount a regional initiative, let's make sure that Brazil is taking the lead.  It doesn’t have to be us in every situation.

Now, the flip side is -- and I'll close with this -- I think in Latin America, part of the change in mentality is also not always looking to the United States as the reason for everything that happens that goes wrong.  (Applause.)

I was in an interview -- several interviews yesterday.  These were actually with Spanish-speaking television stations that have broadcast back in the United States.  And the first interviewer said, why hasn't the United States done more to promote democracy in the region, because you've done a lot in the Arab Spring but it seems as if you're not dealing with some of the problems here in Latin America.  The next questioner said, why are you being so hard on Cuba and promoting democracy all the time?  (Laughter and applause.)  That’s an example, I think, of some of the challenges we face that are rooted in legitimate historical grievances.  But it gets -- it becomes a habit.

When it comes to economic integration and exchanges, I am completely sympathetic to the fact that there are challenges around monetary policy in developed and less-developed countries. And Brazil, for example, has seen the Real appreciate in ways that had been hurtful.  I would argue a lot of that has to do with the failure of some other countries to engage in rebalancing, not the United States.  But having said that, I think there's not a country in Latin America who doesn’t want to see the United States grow rapidly because we're your major export market.

And so most of these issues end up being complicated issues. Typically, they involve both actions in the United States as well as actions in the other countries if we're going to optimize the kind of growth and prosperity and broad-based opportunity that both President Santos and President Rousseff have spoken about.

And the United States comes here and says:  We're ready to do business.  We are open to a partnership.  We don’t expect to be able to dictate the terms of that partnership, we expect it to be a negotiation based on mutual interest and mutual respect.  And I think we're all going to benefit as a consequence of that. (Applause.)

MR. MATTHEWS:  Thank you very much, President Rousseff, President Santos, and my President, President Obama.  Thank you. It's been an honor.
END

DR. KIM YONG KIM BECOMES NEW PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD BANK

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Dr. Jim Yong Kim Elected World Bank President
Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
April 16, 2012
I am delighted that the World Bank Board of Directors has selected Dr. Jim Yong Kim to serve as president through a transparent and competitive process. Dr. Kim is an excellent selection to lead the World Bank forward, build consensus with donor and borrowing countries, and encourage the increasingly important leadership role of developing countries. He has demonstrated a deep commitment to solving some of the most pressing challenges we face. For over 25 years, he has worked to fight disease and hunger by pioneering innovative solutions and investing in people and communities. We look forward to working with Dr. Kim as he shapes an even stronger World Bank. Together, we will help develop economies, build partnerships, and alleviate poverty.

DoD Briefing (Opening Remarks)

DoD Briefing (Opening Remarks)

BELARUS RELEASES TWO POLITICAL PRISONERS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Release of Political Prisoners in Belarus
Press Statement Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 16, 2012
The United States notes the release of former Belarusian presidential candidate Andrei Sannikau and his campaign manager Zmitser Bandarenka. This, coupled with previous releases, represents a significant step. We urge the Government of Belarus to immediately and unconditionally free all remaining political prisoners and ensure the full restoration of their civil and political rights. Enhanced respect for democracy and human rights remains central to improving relations between the United States and Belarus.

GSA'S ACTING ADMINISTRATOR DAN TANGHERLINI SPEAKS BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT/REFORM

FROM:  U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Statement of Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
April 16, 2012
WASHINGTON – Today GSA Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini will testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the GSA Inspector General’s Report on the 2010 Western Regions Conference. Following is the statement that Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini will submit for the record.
------------------
Good afternoon Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee.  My name is Daniel Tangherlini, and I am the Acting Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).

I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today.  First and foremost, I want to state my agreement with the President that the waste and abuse outlined in the Inspector General’s (IG) report is an outrage and completely antithetical to the goals and directives of this Administration.  We have taken strong action against those officials who are responsible and will continue to do so where appropriate.  We are taking steps to improve internal controls and oversight to ensure this never happens again.  I look forward to working in partnership with this Committee to ensure there is full accountability for these activities so that we can begin to restore the trust of the American people.

At the same time I am committed to renewing GSA’s focus on its core mission: saving taxpayers’ money by efficiently procuring supplies, services, and real estate, and effectively disposing of unneeded government property.  There is a powerful value proposition to a single agency dedicated to this work, especially in these fiscal times, and we need to ensure we get back to basics and conduct this work better than ever.

Promoting Efficiency and Reducing Costs –
The shocking activities and violations outlined in the IG report run counter to every goal of this Administration.  The Administration makes cutting costs and improving the efficiency of the Federal government a top priority.  On June 13, 2011, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government.”  This EO emphasized the importance of eliminating waste and improving efficiency, establishing the Government Accountability and Transparency Board to enhance transparency of Federal spending and advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse.

The President further established the goals of this Administration in E.O. 13589, “Promoting Efficient Spending,” which set clear reduction targets for travel, employee information technology devices, printing, executive fleets, promotional items, and other areas.  The President’s FY 2013 budget request for GSA would achieve $49 million in savings under this EO, including $9.7 million in travel.

Holding Officials Responsible –
It is important that those responsible for the abuses outlined in the IG’s report be held accountable.  We are taking aggressive action to address this issue and to ensure that such egregious actions will never occur again.  We have taken a series of personnel actions, including the removal of two senior political appointees.  We have also placed ten career employees on administrative leave, including five senior officials.

I intend to uphold the highest ethical standards at this agency and take any action that is necessary and appropriate.  If we find any irregularities, I will immediately engage the Inspector General.  As I indicated in my joint letter with GSA’s Inspector General, I intend to set a standard that complacency will not be tolerated, and waste, fraud, or abuse must be reported.

I believe this commitment is critical, not only because we owe it to the American taxpayers, but also because we owe it to the many GSA employees who conform to the highest ethical standards and deserve to be proud of the agency for which they work.

Taking Action –
I have taken a number of steps since I began my tenure on April 3, 2012  to ensure this never happens again.  GSA has consolidated conference oversight in the new Office of Administrative Services, which is now responsible for:
 Oversight of contracting for conference space, related activities, and amenities;
 Review and approval of proposed conferences for relation to GSA mission;
 Review and approval of any awards ceremonies where food is provided by the Federal government;
 Review and approval of conference budgets as well as changes to those budgets;
 Oversight and coordination with GSA conference/event planners and contracting officers on conference planning;

 Review of travel and accommodations related to conference planning and execution;
 Handling of procurement for all internal GSA conferences; and
 Development of mandatory annual training for all employees regarding conference planning and attendance

Additionally, we have cancelled the 2012 Western Regions Conference as well as a number of other conferences that only or primarily involved internal staff.  To date, I have cancelled 35 conferences*, saving taxpayers $995,686.  As we put in place greater controls and oversight, we are reviewing each event to make sure that any travel is justified by a mission requirement.

We have also begun review of employee relocations at government expense, and will require all future relocations to be approved centrally by both the Chief People Officer and the Chief Financial Officer.

To strengthen internal controls, we are bringing in all Public Buildings Service regional budgets under the direct authority of GSA’s Chief Financial Officer.  The autonomy of regional budget allocations is, in part, what led to this gross misuse of taxpayer funds on both the regional conference and the employee rewards program known as “Hats Off.” The additional approvals and centralized oversight are intended to mitigate the risk of these problems.

In response to concerns over spending on employee rewards programs, I have eliminated the “Hats Off” store that was operating in the Pacific Rim Region, as well as all similar GSA programs.
I am moving aggressively to recapture wasted taxpayer funds.  As a first step, on April 13th, I directed that letters be sent to Bob Peck, Jeff Neely, and Robert Shepard demanding reimbursement for private, in-room receptions at the Western Regions Conference.  I will pursue other fund recovery opportunities.

I am engaged in a top to bottom review of this agency. I will continue to pursue every initiative necessary to ensure this never happens again and to restore the trust of American taxpayers.

Conclusion –
The unacceptable and inappropriate activities at the Western Regions Conference stand in direct contradiction to the express goals of this agency and the Administration, and I am committed to ensuring that we take whatever steps are necessary to hold those responsible accountable and to make sure that this never happens again.  At the same time, I believe that the need for a high quality GSA is more acute today than in any time in its history. We need to refocus this agency and get back to the basics: streamlining the administrative work of the Federal government to save taxpayers money.

I look forward to working with this Committee moving forward and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.  Thank you.

*A conference is “a symposium, seminar, workshop, or other organized or formal meeting lasting portions of 1 or more days where people assemble to exchange information and views or explore or clarify a defined subject, problem or area of knowledge.”

KOA KAI 12-2 EXERCISE

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
PACIFIC OCEAN (April 4, 2012) Boatswain's Mate Seaman Gerald Dekle guides a Sikorsky S-61N twin-engine helicopter as it lands aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) during maritime exercise Koa Kai 12-2. Koa Kai is a semi-annual exercise in the waters around Hawaii designed to prepare independently deploying ships in multiple warfare areas and provide training in a multi-ship environment. (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Daniel Barker/Released)

UN PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT ON NORTH KOREAN MISSILE LAUNCH

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Fact Sheet: UN Security Council Presidential Statement on North Korea Launch
New York, NY April 16, 2012

The UN Security Council has swiftly and unanimously adopted a Presidential Statement (PRST) to "strongly condemn" North Korea's recent attempt to launch a satellite.

The Security Council underscored that any such launch -- no matter whether it's called a satellite or space launch -- is a "serious violation" of Security Council resolutions. The Council also deplored that this launch has caused grave security concerns in the region.

The Security Council demanded that North Korea not proceed with any further launches using ballistic missile technology and that North Korea comply with its obligations under previous Security Council resolutions by suspending all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish a moratorium on missile launches.

To ensure that there are consequences for North Korea's actions, the Council also provided for new sanctions:
· The Security Council directed its North Korea Sanctions Committee to designate new, additional North Korean companies that will be subject to an asset freeze.
· The Committee will also identify additional sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile technology that will be banned for transfer to and from North Korea.

· To tighten enforcement of existing UN sanctions, the Security Council also directed the Sanctions Committee to update public information about already-designated individuals and entities (e.g., new aliases or front companies), as well as to update control lists of technology already banned for transfer to and from North Korea.

· The Committee will also update an annual work plan that will enhance its ability to monitor and improve sanctions implementation.

If the Committee does not complete these actions within fifteen days, then the Security Council will do so within an additional five days.

This Council also demanded that North Korea comply immediately with its obligations under previous Security Council resolutions, including that it abandon its nuclear programs, cease all related activities and not conduct any further launch, nuclear test or any further provocations.

Critically, the Security Council made clear that there will be consequences to future North Korean launches or nuclear tests. If North Korea chooses to again defy the international community, then the Council has expressed its determination to take action accordingly.

This PRST is a stronger response than the Council's reaction to North Korea's last such launch in April 2009. It includes a stronger condemnation of the launch as a violation and explicitly includes sanctions (as in 2009), tightens further existing sanctions (which 2009 did not) and threatens additional action should the North Korea conduct another launch or nuclear test. This PRST was also adopted with unprecedented speed.

SEC CLOSES DOWN PONZI SCHEME THAT TARGETED PERSIAN-JEWISH COMMUNITY IN LOS ANGELES CA

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Shuts Down Ponzi Scheme Targeting Persian-Jewish Community in Los Angeles

04/13/2012 03:30 PM EDT

Washington, D.C., April 13, 2012 –The Securities and Exchange Commission today obtained an emergency court order to halt an ongoing Ponzi scheme that targeted members of the Persian-Jewish community in Los Angeles.

The SEC alleges that for the past two years, Shervin Neman raised more than $7.5 million from investors by claiming to be a hedge fund manager. Neman told investors that his purported hedge fund – Neman Financial L.P. – invested in foreclosed residential properties that would be quickly flipped for profit as well as in Facebook shares obtained in private transactions and other highly anticipated initial public offerings including Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie’s List. Although Neman promised investors exorbitant returns resulting from his investing acumen and access to pre-IPO shares of well-known companies, what they actually received was simply other investors’ money in hallmark Ponzi scheme fashion.

“Neman deceived members of his own community to raise money in this fraudulent Ponzi scheme,” said Michele Wein Layne, Associate Regional Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Office. “By exploiting investors’ trust in him, Neman was continually able to raise more money to pay back existing investors and finance an extravagant lifestyle.”

The Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against Neman and the entities he controlled.

.

FDA WEBSITE ARTICLE ON COLOR ADDITIVES AND COSMETICS

FROM:  U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Color Additives and Cosmetics
February 3, 2006; Updated April 29, 2007
Color additives are subject to a strict system of approval under U.S. law [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), sec. 721; 21 U.S.C. 379e]. Except in the case of coal-tar hair dyes, failure to meet U.S. color additive requirements causes a cosmetic to be adulterated [FD&C Act, sec. 601(e); 21 U.S. Code 361(e)]. Color additive violations are a common reason for detaining imported cosmetic products offered for entry into this country.

Some Basic Requirements
If your product (except coal-tar hair dyes) contains a color additive, by law [FD&C Act, Sec. 721; 21 U.S.C. 379e; 21 CFR Parts 70 and 80] you must adhere to requirements for:
Approval. All color additives used in cosmetics (or any other FDA-regulated product) must be approved by FDA. There must be a regulation specifically addressing a substance's use as a color additive, specifications, and restrictions.

Certification. In addition to approval, a number of color additives must be batch certified by FDA if they are to be used in cosmetics (or any other FDA-regulated product) marketed in the U.S.
Identity and specifications. All color additives must meet the requirements for identity and specifications stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Use and restrictions. Color additives may be used only for the intended uses stated in the regulations that pertain to them. The regulations also specify other restrictions for certain colors, such as the maximum permissible concentration in the finished product.

How are color additives categorized?
The FD&C Act Section 721(c) [21 U.S. C. 379e(c)] and color additive regulations [21 CFR Parts 70 and 80] separate approved color additives into two main categories: those subject to certification (sometimes called "certifiable") and those exempt from certification. In addition, the regulations refer to other classifications, such as straight colors and lakes.

Colors subject to certification. These color additives are derived primarily from petroleum and are sometimes known as "coal-tar dyes" or "synthetic-organic" colors. (NOTE: Coal-tar colors are materials consisting of one or more substances that either are made from coal-tar or can be derived from intermediates of the same identity as coal-tar intermediates. They may also include diluents or substrata. (See Federal Register, May 9, 1939, page 1922.) Today, most are made from petroleum.)

Except in the case of coal-tar hair dyes, these colors must not be used unless FDA has certified that the batch in question has passed analysis of its composition and purity in FDA's own labs. If the batch is not FDA-certified, don't use it.

These certified colors generally have three-part names. The names include a prefix FD&C, D&C, or External D&C; a color; and a number. An example is "FD&C Yellow No. 5." Certified colors also may be identified in cosmetic ingredient declarations by color and number alone, without a prefix (such as "Yellow 5").
Colors exempt from certification. These color additives are obtained primarily from mineral, plant, or animal sources. They are not subject to batch certification requirements. However, they still are considered artificial colors, and when used in cosmetics or other FDA-regulated products, they must comply with the identity, specifications, uses, restrictions, and labeling requirements stated in the regulations [21 CFR 73].
Straight color. "Straight color" refers to any color additive listed in 21 CFR 73, 74, and 81 [21 CFR 70.3(j)].

Lake. A lake is a straight color extended on a substratum by adsorption, coprecipitation, or chemical combination that does not include any combination of ingredients made by a simple mixing process [21 CFR 70.3(l)]. Because lakes are not soluble in water, they often are used when it is important to keep a color from "bleeding," as in lipstick. In some cases, special restrictions apply to their use. As with any color additive, it is important to check the Summary of Color Additives Listed for Use in the United States in Foods, Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical Devices and the regulations themselves [21 CFR 82, Subparts B and C] to be sure you are using lakes only for their approved uses.

How can I guard against color additive violations?

Several precautions can help you avoid color additive violations that will cause your cosmetic to be adulterated:
Do not confuse certified colors with their uncertified counterparts. For example, FD&C Yellow No. 5 is the certified form of tartrazine, and is approved for use in cosmetics generally. But tartrazine, which has not undergone FDA analysis and received FDA certification, must not be substituted for or identified in an ingredient declaration as FD&C Yellow No. 5.

Do not confuse certified colors with colors identified only by a Colour Index (CI) number, or by the E number sometimes used in European color identification. You must not use a color subject to certification unless FDA has certified the batch in question [FD&C Act, sec. 721(a)(1)(A). A CI or E number does not indicate FDA certification.

When purchasing color additives subject to certification, check the label. If the lot is certified, the color's label must state the legal name for the color (such as "FD&C Yellow No. 5"), or, if it is a mixture, the name of each ingredient; the FDA lot certification number; and the color's uses and restrictions as stated in the CFR [21 CFR 70.25).

Check the Summary of Color Additives on FDA's Web site. Although this table is not a substitute for the regulations, it is an easy-to-use reference that introduces you to FDA-approved color additives and directs you to the regulations addressing specific color additives.

Become familiar with the regulations themselves. The color additive regulations are in 21 CFR Parts 70 through 82. Specific color additives are addressed in Parts 73, 74, and 82. The color additive regulations are posted on FDA's Web site. To purchase printed copies of the CFR by credit card, call the Government Printing Office at (202) 512-1800, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. To pay by check, write to the Superintendent of Documents, Attn: New Orders, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Contact the Government Printing Office directly for current costs.
Confirm the status of color additives before use. There may be changes in color additive approvals and changes in the uses and restrictions that apply to a color additive. Such changes may affect colors subject to certification as well as colors exempt from certification. To stay current with the regulations, you can check the latest edition of the CFR and FDA Dockets.
.
When purchasing colors subject to certification, confirm that the manufacturer has requested certification. For example, you can choose a manufacturer from FDA's list of companies that have requested color certification within the past two years. If the company that appears on the color additive label is not on this list, you may contact FDA at to determine whether the company has in fact requested certification of its color additives.

Must I match colors with intended use?
Yes. No matter whether a particular color is subject to certification or exempt from certification, U.S. law prohibits its use in cosmetics (or any other FDA-regulated product) unless it is approved specifically for the intended use [FD&C Act, sec. 721(a)(1)(A); 21 U.S.C. 379e(a)(1)(A)].

The regulations also restrict intended use as follows:
Eye-area use: You may not use a color additive in the area of the eye unless the regulation for that additive specifically permits such use [21 CFR 70.5(a)]. The "area of the eye" includes "the area enclosed within the circumference of the supra-orbital ridge and the infra-orbital ridge, including the eyebrow, the skin below the eyebrow, the eyelids and the eyelashes, and conjunctival sac of the eye, the eyeball, and the soft areolar tissue that lies within the perimeter of the infra-orbital ridge" [21 CFR 70.3(s)]. Although there are color additives approved for use in products such as mascara and eyebrow pencils, none is approved for dyeing the eyebrows or eyelashes.

Externally applied cosmetics: This term does not apply to the lips or any body surface covered by mucous membrane. For instance, if a color additive is approved for use in externally applied cosmetics, you may not use it in products such as lipsticks unless the regulation specifically permits this use [21 CFR 70.3 (v)].
Injection: No color additive may be used in injections unless its listing in the regulations specifically provides for such use. This includes injection into the skin for tattooing or permanent makeup. The fact that a color additive is listed for any other use does not mean that it may be used for injections [21 CFR 70.5(b)]. There are no color additives listed in the regulations as approved for injections.

What about special effects and novelty use?
No matter how exotic or novel the color additive or its intended use, it is subject to the same regulations as the more everyday colors and products. The following items are a sampling of some out-of-the-ordinary color additives. This list is not exhaustive. Rather, it is intended to show how the regulations apply to such colors:
Color-changing pigments: Colors that change in response to such factors as change in pH or exposure to oxygen or temperature are subject to the same regulations as all other color additives.
Composite pigments: Color additives used in combination to achieve variable effects, such as those found in pearlescent products, are subject to the same regulations as all other color additives. Some color additives, when used in combination, may form new pigments, which may not be approved for the intended use. An example is a "holographic" glitter, consisting of aluminum, an approved color additive, bonded to an etched plastic film.

Fluorescent colors: Only the following fluorescent colors are approved for use in cosmetics, and there are limits on their intended uses: D&C Orange No. 5, No. 10, and No. 11; and D&C Red No. 21, No. 22, No. 27, and No. 28 [21 CFR 74.2254, 74.2260, 74.2261, 74.2321, 74.2322, 74.2327, and 74.2328].
Glow-in-the-dark colors: Luminescent zinc sulfide is the only approved glow-in-the-dark color additive [21 CFR 73.2995].

Halloween makeup: These products are considered cosmetics [FD&C Act, sec. 201(i); 21 U.S.C. 321(i)] and are therefore subject to the same regulations as other cosmetics, including the same restrictions on color additives.

Liquid crystal colors: These additives, which produce color motifs in a product through diffraction, are unapproved color additives. Their use in cosmetics is therefore illegal [FD&C Act, sec. 601(e); 21 U.S.C. 361(e)].

Tattoo pigments: As noted above, no color additives are approved for injection into the skin, as in tattoos and permanent makeup.

Theatrical makeup: Like Halloween makeup, these products are considered cosmetics [FD&C Act, sec. 201(i); 21 U.S.C. 321(i)] and are therefore subject to the same regulations as other cosmetics, including the same restrictions on color additives.

RESPONSE TO COORDINATED ATTACKS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Afghan Forces Respond to Coordinated Attacks

Compiled from International Security Assistance Force and ISAF Joint Command News Releases

WASHINGTON, April 16, 2012 - Afghan forces responded to a series of attacks in the Afghan capital of Kabul and in a few outlying provinces yesterday, military officials reported.

The Taliban called the attacks, which were concentrated in three clusters around the city, the start of their "spring offensive.

Consisting primarily of rocket-propelled grenade and small-arms fire, the attacks were largely ineffective, International Security Assistance Force officials said. Afghan crisis response units, along with Afghan police and army forces, deployed to repel the attacks.

The Afghan forces took light casualties while killing or capturing many of the suicide attackers in a matter of hours, officials said.

Afghanistan's national security directorate announced that two would-be suicide bombers were captured alive before they were able to reach their intended targets.

ISAF quick-reaction forces were prepared to respond, if required, but were not needed, officials said.

In operations today around Afghanistan:

-- An Afghan and coalition security force captured a Haqqani network facilitator in the Khost district of Afghanistan's Khost province. The facilitator coordinated the delivery of weapons, vehicles and equipment to insurgents in the region. The security force also detained two other insurgents and seized two assault rifles.

-- A combined force captured a Taliban facilitator, detained two additional insurgents and seized a 9 mm pistol, an assault rifle and a roadside-bomb pressure plate in the Jagori district of Ghazni province. The facilitator coordinated the movement of weapons, mortars and explosives.

In operations yesterday:

-- A combined force killed two insurgents, detained several otherss and seized an assault rifle during a search for a senior Taliban leader in the Pashtun Kot district of Faryab province. The leader is the head Taliban commissioner in the province, responsible for several kidnappings, suicide attacks, roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.

-- A combined force killed an insurgent leader along with several other insurgents and seized rocket-propelled grenade rounds, blasting caps and a mortar tube with mortar rounds during a search for a Taliban leader in the Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province. The insurgent leader killed in the operation had directed attacks against Afghan and coalition forces and provided insurgents with weapons, ammunition and equipment.

-- An Afghan-led force captured a Taliban leader and detained several suspects in the Baghlan-e Jadid district of Baghlan province. The leader directed roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.

-- A combined force detained several suspects while searching for a Taliban leader in the Nad-e Ali district of Helmand province. The leader oversees Taliban operations in the province's Marjah district, including roadside-bomb and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. He also attempts to impose Taliban law on Afghan civilians.

-- A combined airstrike killed several insurgents and destroyed a machine gun in the Nerkh district of Wardak province.

-- A combined force detained several suspects and seized an artillery round and a mortar round during a search for a Taliban leader in Ghazni's Khugyani district. The leader supervises roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. He also targets local Afghan officials and attempts to impose Taliban law on Afghan civilians.

-- An Afghan-led force detained several suspects and seized a military uniform, a grenade and 100 rounds of small-arms ammunition during a search for a Haqqani leader in Khost's Sabari district. The leader coordinates roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. He also supplies weapons and ammunition to insurgents.

In April 14 operations:

-- A combined force killed an Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan terrorist group leader who directed attacks against Afghan and coalition forces, along with another insurgent, in the Rustaq district of Takhar province. The security force also seized weapons and grenades.

-- A combined force captured a Taliban leader and two suspects in Helmand's Nahr-e Saraj. The leader directed roadside-bomb and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces in the Nahr-e Saraj and Sangin districts. He is also suspected in the assassination plot of an Afghan security forces commander.

-- A combined airstrike killed a Taliban leader and four other insurgents in the Muhammad Aghah district of Logar province. The leader planned and conducted roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. The security force also detained several other insurgents and seized two assault rifles.

-- A combined force captured a Haqqani facilitator and detained two other insurgents in Khost's Bak district. The facilitator coordinated suicide attacks and roadside bombings against Afghan and coalition forces in the area. He also is suspected of transporting suicide bombers for attacks across the country.

-- In the Sayyidabad district of Wardak province, a combined force captured a Taliban leader, detained another insurgent and seized an assault rifle and a grenade. The leader supervised the construction and placement of roadside bombs used to attack Afghan and coalition forces. He also facilitated the movement of Taliban fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

-- A combined force detained two suspects while searching for a Taliban leader in the Zurmat district of Paktia province. The leader coordinates roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces. He also attempts to impose Taliban law on Afghan civilians in the area.

In April 13 operations:

-- A combined force found and destroyed about 2,400 pounds of hashish in the Zharay district of Kandahar province.

-- A combined patrol found and destroyed 2,500 5.56 mm rounds, 50 .50-caliber rounds, three mortar tubes and two mortar base plates in the Shinkai district of Zabul province.

-- A coalition force found and destroyed seven makeshift bombs in the Zharay district of Kandahar province.

In other news, ISAF Commander Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen praised Afghan national security forces for a recent operation in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan province.

Afghan commando-led operations resulted in more than 32 enemy fighters killed, along with numerous equipment and fighting positions destroyed. The operation was conducted to deny insurgent safe havens and prevent insurgents from massing against Afghan forces in the area, officials said.

"This was yet another example of the successful transition we have been seeing throughout the past year, as the [Afghan forces] are planning, leading and executing very productive combat operations against the insurgency," Allen said. "We expect to see more of these types of successful [Afghan-led] operations as we progress further into the spring and summer."

The commando operations led to follow-on missions by Afghan soldiers and police, officials said.

DOL CITES BUSINESSES AFTER 6 DIE AND 2 INJURED IN GRAIN ELEVATOR EXPLOSION

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bartlett Grain in Atchison, Kan., cited for willful and serious violations by US Labor Department after 6 die, 2 injured in grain elevator explosion
Contractor Kansas Grain Inspection Services also cited
ATCHISON, Kan. — Bartlett Grain Co. L.P. faces five willful and eight serious safety violations cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration following an October 2011 grain elevator explosion in Atchison that killed six workers and left two others hospitalized.

The willful violations include allowing grain dust — which is nine times as explosive as coal dust — to accumulate, using compressed air to remove dust without first shutting down ignition sources, jogging (repeatedly starting and stopping) inside bucket elevators to free legs choked by grain, using electrical equipment inappropriate for the working environment and failing to require employees to use fall protection when working from heights.

"The deaths of these six workers could have been prevented had the grain elevator's operators addressed hazards that are well known in this industry," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Bartlett Grain's disregard for the law led to a catastrophic accident and heartbreaking tragedy for the workers who were injured or killed, their families and the agricultural community."

The serious violations involve a lack of proper preventive maintenance, certification and lubrication of grain handling equipment; inadequate emergency action plan training for employees and contractors; a lack of employee and contractor training on job hazards; and a housekeeping program that was deficient because it did not prevent grain dust accumulations.
The citations to Bartlett Grain, which is based in Kansas City, Mo., carry $406,000 in proposed fines.

Topeka-based Kansas Grain Inspection Services Inc., a contractor employed by Bartlett Grain, also is being cited for one willful violation involving a lack of fall protection for employees working on the top of rail cars; one serious violation, the lack of a hazard communication program; and one other-than-serious violation, not providing basic advisory information about respirators to employees. These violations carry total proposed penalties of $67,500.

"OSHA standards save lives, but only if companies comply with them," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "Bartlett Grain has shown what happens when basic safety standards are ignored, and this agency simply will not tolerate needless loss of life."

A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

Over the past 35 years, there have been more than 500 explosions in grain handling facilities across the United States that have killed more than 180 people and injured more than 675. Grain dust is the main source of fuel for explosions in grain handling. This dust is highly combustible and can burn or explode if enough becomes airborne or accumulates on a surface and finds an ignition source (such as a hot bearing, overheated motor or misaligned conveyor belt, as well as heat or sparks from welding, cutting and brazing operations). OSHA standards require that both grain dust and ignition sources be controlled in grain elevators to prevent potentially deadly explosions.

Both companies have 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Wichita, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.