10 STATES RECEIVED GRANTS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD SUPPORTS AND HOME VISITS

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health care law expands support for children and families

To improve the health and development of children, 10 states received grants to provide early childhood supports and home visits to families who volunteer to receive these services, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.

These awards are part of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) created by the Affordable Care Act. The nearly $72 million in funding announced today will allow states to expand or establish their home visiting program.

“Home visits from an experienced counselor can help provide skills and links to important services and early childhood education,” said Secretary Sebelius.

Today’s awards include states that have demonstrated a commitment to operating successful early childhood systems for pregnant women, parents, caregivers and children from birth-to-eight years of age.  The awards also include states that are developing new home visiting programs, using proven strategies, to support families and improve health and developmental outcomes.

“These investments will give states a significant boost in their efforts to keep children safe and healthy,” said Mary K. Wakefield, Ph.D., R.N., administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). 

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) collaborates with HRSA on the implementation of the home visiting program.  The two agencies provide states guidance and assistance in early learning and development, the prevention and identification of child maltreatment, the improvement of maternal and child health outcomes, and family engagement.

“Helping children and families succeed involves many approaches and voluntary home visits play a key role in strengthening families and putting children on solid footing,” said George Sheldon, the ACF acting assistant secretary.

Awardees include:   

The MIECHV program is one part of the Obama administration’s strong commitment to improve health outcomes for America’s children and families. 

Awardees include:   

Organization	City	State	Award
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment	Denver	Colo.	$3,717,761.00
State of Connecticut Department of Public Health	Hartford	Conn.	$8,677,222.00
Iowa Department of Public Health	Des Moines	Iowa	$6,600,000.00
Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Department for Public Health	Frankfort	Ky.	$6,971,342.00
Minnesota Department of Health	St. Paul	Minn.	$8,000,000.00
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services	Trenton	N.J.	$9,430,000.00
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania	Harrisburg	Pa.	$9,027,586.00
Tennessee Department of Health	Nashville	Tenn.	$6,571,353.00
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health	Richmond	Va.	$6,295,506.00
Washington State Department of Early Learning	Olympia	Wash.	$6,609,476.00
TOTAL			$71,900,246.00

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK ORDERED TO PAY $20 MILLION FOR MISHANDLING CUSTOMER FUNDS

FROM CFTC
April 4, 2012
CFTC Orders JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to Pay a $20 Million Civil Monetary Penalty to Settle CFTC Charges of Unlawfully Handling Customer Segregated Funds
CFTC charges relate to JPMorgan’s handling of Lehman Brothers, Inc.’s customer segregated funds.

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed and simultaneously settled charges against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan) for its unlawful handling of Lehman Brothers, Inc.’s (LBI) customer segregated funds. The CFTC order imposes a $20 million civil monetary penalty against JPMorgan. The order also requires JPMorgan to implement undertakings to ensure the proper handling of customer segregated funds in the future and to release customer funds upon notice and instruction from the CFTC.

The CFTC order finds that from at least November 2006 to September 2008, JPMorgan was a depository institution serving LBI, a futures commission merchant (FCM) registered with the CFTC. During this time, LBI deposited its customers’ segregated funds with JPMorgan in large amounts that varied in size, but almost always more than $250 million at any one time. According to the order, during the same time period, JPMorgan extended intra-day credit to LBI on a daily basis to facilitate LBI’s proprietary transactions, including repurchase agreements, or “repos.” JPMorgan would extend intra-day credit to LBI to the extent that LBI’s “net free equity” at JPMorgan was positive. As of November 17, 2006, JPMorgan included LBI’s customer segregated funds in its calculation of LBI’s net free equity, even though these funds belonged to LBI’s customers, not to LBI, the order also finds.

The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations prohibit depository institutions, like JPMorgan, from using or holding segregated funds that belong to an FCM’s customer as though they belong to anyone other than that customer, and also prohibit the extension of credit based on such funds to anyone other than that customer.

According to the order, JPMorgan violated these prohibitions in two ways. First, as stated in the order, JPMorgan extended intra-day credit to LBI for approximately 22 months based in part on LBI customers’ segregated funds because those funds were included in JPMorgan’s determination of LBI’s net free equity. Second, on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. Two days later, LBI requested that JPMorgan release LBI’s customers’ segregated funds. JPMorgan improperly declined the request based on JPMorgan’s determination that LBI no longer had positive net free equity held at JPMorgan. JPMorgan continued to refuse to release these funds for approximately two weeks thereafter, only to release the funds after being instructed by CFTC officials. The CFTC order does not find that there were any customer losses.

“The laws applying to customer segregated accounts impose critical restrictions on how financial institutions can treat customer funds, and prohibit these institutions from standing in the way of immediate withdrawal,” said David Meister, the Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement. “As should be crystal clear, these laws must be strictly observed at all times, whether the markets are calm or in crisis."

CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Joan M. Manley, A. Daniel Ullman II, and Alison B. Wilson. Ananda K. Radhakrishnan and Robert B. Wasserman, of the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk, also contributed to this matter.

U.S. OFFICIAL STATEMENT TO UNITED NATIONS DISARMAMENT COMMISSION

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Statement by Mr. John A. Bravaco, U.S. Representative United Nations Disarmament Commission 2012 Session
Mr. John A. Bravaco, U.S. Representative United Nations Disarmament Commission New York, NY April 4, 2012
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Good afternoon everyone.
On behalf of the United States Delegation, let me congratulate Peru on its election to the Chairmanship of the 2012 session of the UN Disarmament Commission. It is my great pleasure to be working with you again, sir. You may count on the full support of the United States as you fulfill your important responsibilities.

We also congratulate the other members of the Commission's Bureau for their elections. And we warmly welcome the new High Representative for Disarmament, Ms. Angela Kane, and express our gratitude for the contributions of the previous High Representative, Sergio Duarte.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Disarmament Commission is meeting on the eve of the first Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (NPT). Please allow me to touch on some of the activities, achievements, and commitments of the United States in the field of arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament.

The NPT is the Cornerstone
Mr. Chairman, in the forty-two years since the NPT entered into force it has become the most widely adhered to nonproliferation and disarmament agreement the world has ever known. As U.S. President Barack Obama said on April 5, 2009 in Prague: “The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.” Working together at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, States Party achieved agreement on an ambitious and forward-looking Action Plan across all three pillars of the NPT. As the 2015 Review Process begins, the United States looks forward to working with its NPT partners to strengthen implementation of all aspects of the Treaty and the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.

New START and Beyond
Two agreements between the United States and the Russian Federation that came into force last year serve as essential evidence of the United States’ commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement will result in the disposal of enough weapons-grade plutonium for many thousands of nuclear weapons. And the New START Treaty, the implementation of which is now well underway, will, we anticipate, set the stage for the pursuit of a future agreement with Russia for broad reductions in all categories of nuclear weapons – strategic, non-strategic, deployed and non-deployed. As we consider next steps, close consultations with Russia, as well as our allies, will remain essential.

P5 Transparency and Confidence Building on Nuclear Disarmament
Mr. Chairman, Action 5 of the 2010 NPT Review Conference Final Document Action Plan calls on the Nuclear Weapons States to engage on further reducing nuclear weapons and diminishing their role, reducing the risk of nuclear war, and enhancing transparency and mutual confidence. Building on the NPT RevCon and the engagement initiated at the 2009 London and 2011 Paris conferences, the P5 have continued discussions on these and other nonproliferation and disarmament issues, including reporting by the P5 to other NPT Parties on disarmament-related matters. This process continues. The United Kingdom hosted just today a P5 verification working group, as agreed at last year’s Paris P5 Conference. And this summer, the United States is pleased to be hosting the next P5 verification, transparency, and confidence building conference in Washington, DC.

Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty
Mr. Chairman, a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) remains an absolutely essential step on the path to global nuclear disarmament, one repeatedly endorsed by the international community. The reality of the situation is simply this: the longer an effectively verifiable FMCT is delayed, or more accurately, denied, the longer a world free of nuclear weapons will remain out of reach.
For this reason, we regret that the Conference on Disarmament (CD) did not agree to the recent compromise Program of Work that would have advanced efforts toward an FMCT, along with serious work on other important issues. We are disappointed at this lost opportunity, but appreciate the vigorous efforts of Egypt and the other “P-6” CD Presidency countries to move this issue forward. We are currently consulting with our P5 partners and others on the most appropriate next steps for an FMCT.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
The United States also remains committed to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) as another critical element of the nuclear disarmament process. The Administration is continuing its engagement with the United States Senate and the American public on the merits of the Treaty. As we move forward with our efforts to promote ratification, we call on all governments to declare or reaffirm their commitments not to conduct nuclear explosive tests. We thank and congratulate Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, and Indonesia for their recent ratifications of the Treaty. And we ask all the remaining States required for the Treaty’s entry into force to join us in moving toward ratification.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
Mr. Chairman, over the last several years, the United States has reinvigorated its efforts to support nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties as an important part of the multilateral arms control and nonproliferation architecture. On May 2, 2011, the Administration transmitted the relevant Protocols of the African and South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaties to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. Also last year, the Nuclear Weapon States and the states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations resolved long standing differences related to the South East Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone’s Protocol language. Upon completion of some procedural steps, we hope to be able to sign the Protocol to the Southeast Asian zone treaty this year. Regarding the Treaty of Semipalatinsk in Central Asia, we have had preliminary discussions with Kazakhstan and our P5 partners to consider ways to address outstanding issues. And, along with the other NPT depositary states, we strongly support the efforts of Finnish Under Secretary Jaako Laajava, the facilitator for the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone Conference.

Outer Space
Mr. Chairman in an effort to strengthen the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security of space, the United States earlier this year announced its decision to formally work with the European Union and spacefaring nations to develop and advance an “International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.” The European Union’s draft Code of Conduct is a good foundation for the development of a non-legally binding International Code of Conduct, which, if adopted, would establish guidelines for responsible behavior to reduce the hazards of debris-generating events and increase the transparency of operations in space to avoid the danger of collisions. We also look forward to practical work in the UN’s Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on outer space transparency and confidence-building measures that is scheduled to begin this summer.

The UNDC’S Agenda
Mr. Chairman, as we work to finalize agreement on the Commission’s agenda for the 2012-2014 issue cycle, please allow me to express my confidence in your ability to foster a compromise that takes account of the views of all delegations.
Conclusion
Once our agenda is agreed, the United States looks forward to addressing the issues before the Commission in the coming years, and will do its part to facilitate a positive outcome.
Mr. Chairman, this statement will be made available on the website of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
Thank you for your attention.

WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS ON MARCH UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
The Employment Situation in March
There is more work to be done, but today’s employment report provides further evidence that the economy is continuing to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is critical that we continue to make smart investments that strengthen our economy and lay a foundation for long-term middle class job growth so we can continue to dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began at the end of 2007.

Employer payrolls increased by 121,000 jobs in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ establishment survey. The unemployment rate ticked down to 8.2% in March, according to the household survey.  However, employment was virtually unchanged in the household survey.

Both surveys indicate the continuing challenges facing construction workers, as a result of the collapse in homebuilding following the bursting of the housing bubble.  The unemployment rate for construction workers stands at 17.2%, more than double the national average.  Because of weak private sector demand for construction investment and the nation’s continuing need for improved infrastructure, including maintenance of existing highways, bridges, and ports, the President’s Budget proposal to increase and modernize the nation’s infrastructure is well targeted to support the economy today and in the future.
Despite adverse shocks that have created headwinds for economic growth, including weak construction investment, the economy has added private sector jobs for 25 straight months, for a total of 4.1 million jobs over that period.

Manufacturing continues to be a bright spot and added 37,000 jobs in March.  After losing millions of good manufacturing jobs in the years before and during the recession, the economy has added 466,000 manufacturing jobs in the past 25 months—the strongest growth for any 25 month period since September 1995.  To continue the revival in manufacturing jobs and output, the President has proposed tax incentives for manufacturers, enhanced training for the workforce, and measures to create manufacturing hubs.

Other sectors with net job increases included leisure and hospitality (+39,000), professional and business services (+31,000), and financial activities (+15,000).  Retail trade lost 33,800 jobs, construction lost 7,000 jobs, and government lost 1,000 jobs.  State and local government job losses have moderated in recent months.  Almost three-quarters of the slower job growth in March relative to February was due to slower growth in temporary help services and health care and day care services.

As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.

   
                                                                   ALAN KRUEGER

ALPINE AEROSPACE CORPORATION SETTLES ARMS CONTROL VIOLATIONS WITH U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

The Department of State has reached administrative agreement with Alpine Aerospace Corporation and TS Trade Tech Incorporated of New Jersey to resolve violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) related to the export of significant military equipment.

The two companies, which share common ownership, procure and sell replacement parts to the aerospace industry. Many of the parts procured and sold by the Companies are designated as defense articles pursuant to § 38 of the AECA and the United States Munitions List (USML), § 121.1 of the ITAR and require authorization from the Department prior to export. Following an October 2010 filing of criminal information in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, the companies approached the Department to propose an administrative settlement and disclose additional violations.

From July 2005 through January 2007, the two companies arranged several foreign sales without obtaining the proper approvals prior to exporting, and in some instances, cited licenses that did not cover the companies' exports. In addition, the companies failed to obtain the appropriate non-transfer and use certifications for export of significant military equipment.

The Department proposed the following charges, which are resolved by the concluded agreements along with additional violations disclosed to the Department. Alpine engaged in six exports of parts for use on a Hawk missile system, and in a separate violation, failed to obtain a DSP-83 Non-Transfer and Use Certificate for these exports. Alpine cited an existing export license on export control documents for the exports which did not, in fact, authorize the export of parts for the Hawk missile system. TS Trade engaged in one export of aircraft parts and associated equipment without authorization.

Under the terms of the agreements, Alpine agrees to a civil penalty of $30,000 and TS Trade Tech agrees to a civil penalty of $20,000. The civil penalties are to be suspended on the condition that they are to be used for pre- and post-Consent Agreement expenditures for remedial compliance measures. Any portion of the penalty that is not so used will be forfeited at the conclusion of the thirty-month term of the agreements. The companies will implement additional remedial compliance measures, provide additional training to staff and principals, and will undergo two external audits of their compliance programs.

The companies have acknowledged the seriousness of the ITAR violations and have cooperated with the Department, expressed regret for their actions and taken steps to improve their compliance with law and regulations. For these reasons, the Department has determined that an administrative debarment of the companies is not appropriate at this time.

STUDENT VETERANS GROUP SUSPENDS 40 CHAPTERS FOR ADVERTISING INTEGRITY

FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Student Vets Group Revokes Over 40 Chapters at For-Profit SchoolsApril 5, 2012 by Alex Horton

There are over six thousand schools nationally that accept GI Bill benefits, and a good deal of them work hard to help Veterans make it through to graduation. But a concerning number of for-profit schools have violated one organization’s rules meant to protect student Vets, leading to their removal from a national network of student Veteran chapters.

Student Veterans of America today announced the decision to revoke chapter membership at over 40 for-profit schools after a review found they listed school administrators as student Veteran leaders on campus.

“The rule is in place to not only protect the integrity of our organization, but to ensure the interests of students are put ahead of the school,” said Brian Hawthorne, a member of the board of directors at SVA. “There’s a concern these schools were using our brand to advertise as Veteran friendly.”

According to SVA’s guidelines, only student Veterans should be charged with running campus chapters, which serve as points of contact with fellow student Vets.
About 10 percent of SVA chapters were revoked due to the decision, and can reapply for membership in a year after they demonstrate adherence to chapter guidelines. According to the organization, misrepresentation of student Veteran campus leaders is especially prolific at for-profit schools, which triggered the review of all for-profit chapters of SVA.
“We encourage students to start chapters at any school,” Hawthorne said. “We pride ourselves on our reach, but we will always remove chapters that violate terms of membership meant to protect students.”

VA takes the issues of student Veterans seriously and we’ll continue to monitor developments in situations where the success of student Veterans may be at risk.

HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS CHAIRMAN CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP ON HOUSE PASSED 2013 BUDGET

FROM HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS CHAIRMAN CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP'S WEBSITE

Last week, the House passed a 2013 budget that upholds the pledge by House Republicans to change the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars by reducing federal spending and working to balance the budget – without job-killing tax increases. Congressman Dave Camp knows change doesn't come easily. However, he remains committed to leading the way with real solutions that will put America back on the path to economic growth. The House-passed budget gets spending under control, incorporates the next steps for pro-growth tax reform to spur economic growth and job creation, and keeps a promise to current and future seniors by taking steps to save safety net programs from bankruptcy.

Congressman Camp is often asked when speaking to America's backbone, small businesses and their owners, "how can we help spur a climate so the private sector can create jobs?" Simply put, both parties agree we need to do everything we can to help small businesses. With this in mind the House Ways and Means committee led by Congressman Camp approved H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012. The legislation will allow businesses with fewer than 500 employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income and applies to business owners who pay their taxes at the individual or corporate

RADIATION ONCOLOGY PRACTICE SETTLES FALSE CLAIMS CASE

FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Georgia-Based Radiation Oncology Practice to Pay $3.8 Million to Settle False Claims Act Case
WASHINGTON – Radiotherapy Clinics of Georgia LLC, a radiation oncology practice, and its affiliates RCOG Cancer Centers LLC, Physician Oncology Services Management Company LLC, Frank A. Critz, M.D. and Physician Oncology Services L.P. (collectively, RCOG) agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle claims that they violated the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today.  RCOG, which is located in Decatur, Ga., allegedly billed Medicare for medical treatment that they provided to prostate cancer patients in excess of those permitted by Medicare rules and for services that were not medically necessary.
           
The civil settlement resolves complaints filed by two whistleblowers, called relators, under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by a former employee and a former doctor who both worked for RCOG.  The government alleged that RCOG overbilled Medicare for port films (X-ray images of the treatment area) and for simulations (the process by which radiation treatment fields are defined, filmed and marked on the skin in preparation for personalized radiation therapy).  Additionally, it was alleged that the practice overbilled Medicare for physics consults (production of complete special consultative reports for an individual patient) and for pre-plans ordered by Dr. Critz that were not medically necessary and/or never reviewed by the doctor.

“Protecting the integrity of the Medicare program, which over 47 million individuals rely on for their medical care, is one of the department’s highest priorities.  Health care providers are put on notice that they must bill only for medically appropriate care” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

The complaints, which were filed separately by the two relators, were consolidated into the case captioned United States ex rel. R. Jeffrey Wertz and Rebecca S. Tarlton v. Radiotherapy Clinics of Georgia, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-2244, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The relators, R. Jeffrey Wertz and Rebecca S. Tarlton, M.D., will receive $646,000 as their share of the proceeds.
Sally Quillian Yates, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said, “This settlement demonstrates our office's continued commitment to stop Medicare fraud. Unfortunately, otherwise legitimate businesses continue to take advantage of federal healthcare programs for their private profit. We will not ignore these violations.”
“The OIG would like to remind providers that if they know a claim to be false, it is their responsibility to bill the claim properly,” said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) for the Atlanta region.  “The OIG will continue to hold companies like RCOG responsible for improper claims.”

Brian D. Lamkin, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office, stated: “The FBI continues to dedicate many investigative resources to the protection of the federally funded Medicare program from individuals who would attempt to divert these much needed funds through fraud.  The public is reminded that anyone with information regarding healthcare fraud, to include Medicare fraud, related activity should contact their nearest FBI field office.”
This resolution is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $6.7 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department's total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $9 billion.
           
This case was investigated jointly by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the FBI and HHS-OIG.

U.S. SAYS IRAN HAS OPTION TO STOP ECONOMIC, DIPLOMATIC SANCTIONS

FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Iran Can Stop Economic, Diplomatic Sanctions, Official Says

By Jim Garamone

WASHINGTON, April 5, 2012 - Economic and diplomatic sanctions are "biting" Iran, but Iranian government leaders can stop the pain by ending their nuclear weapons program, a senior Pentagon official said today.

"Our assessment of the program remains the same. ... We are very concerned about where they might be headed," said George Little, acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. "An Iran with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."

The United States has made that point crystal clear that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from developing that capability, Little said in a meeting with reporters.

"We don't know, at this stage, whether they have made the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon," he said. "It would be unacceptable if they do move forward."

American experts are working to discern just what Iranian leaders have decided. "Our government has been very clear about what needs to happen," Little said. If Iran gives up its nuclear program, he noted, the country can rejoin the community of nations.

Little said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta believes the sanctions are working. Independent news reports out of Tehran also stress the sanctions are impacting Iranians much harder now than in months past.

"The Iranian regime is increasingly isolated because of these sanctions, and they know the impact they are having inside Iran," Little said. "Whether it factors into their calculus on the nuclear program is up to the Iranians."

RUSSIAN FINDS PLACE IN U.S. MARINES

AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Face of Defense: Russian Orphan Finds Home in Marine Corps
By Marine Corps Sgt. James Mercure
Regimental Combat Team 6, 1st Marine Division

FORWARD OPERATING BASE WHITEHOUSE, Afghanistan, April 4, 2012 - Growing up in Russia, Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Sergey Huber had a rough childhood and knew he had to run away from his abusive father.

When he was 10, Huber and his brother ran to a Russian military base. They lived there under the care of soldiers until the base commander had them taken to an orphanage, where they lived for several years.

"When we were first taken to the orphanage, we were put into an isolation room with bars on the windows that we bent enough to slide out and run for it later that night," said Huber, a squad automatic weapon gunner with 3rd Platoon, Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment. "I was caught several hours later, and it took them days to catch my brother. Over the years, we kept trying to escape, but after a while we realized we had nowhere to go, so we just lived our life at the orphanage."
After a few years had passed, the orphanage director told Huber he would be going to the United States to live with a family who wanted to adopt him.

"I went to America for a summer with my adopted parents, and I ended up falling in love with the place," Huber said. "I got to go to summer camp while my parents worked, and I couldn't believe how much stuff they had. It felt unreal."

As the summer ended, Huber had to go back to Russia while the adoption paperwork was finalized. Uncertain when his parents would come back to get him, Huber went back to his daily life at the orphanage.

"I remember it was cold, and I was sitting down to a bowl of soup, looking out the window, and I saw my parents walking toward the orphanage," Huber said. "I ran out in the snow barefoot, and my dad picked me up and said something in English that I didn't understand. But we were all smiling, and it was a happy time for me."
But as Huber grew up, he had more family trouble and found himself living out of his car at 17.

Showering at a local gym and still struggling to finish school, Huber was invited to live with one of his classmates -- Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Jim Roche, fire team leader, 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, and a man he now calls his brother.

"When I found out from a friend that he was living out of his car, my mom and I went down there and told him he was welcome to stay with us," said Roche, a 20-year-old from Wall Township, N.J. "He calls my parents Mom and Dad. He is a brother to me.

"After high school he didn't really have a plan, and I knew I was joining the Marines, so we went to boot camp together and the school of infantry," Roche continued. "We deployed together last year to Afghanistan and again this year. It's great having him around, because when you start to miss home, you've got family two tents away."

Huber said having Roche with him inspired him to make it through recruit training and to excel as a Marine.

"During boot camp I thought about quitting, but I would look over and see Jim standing there going through the same things, and I couldn't let him down," said Huber, 22. "I've been a SAW gunner for quite some time now, and last year, I was the best in the company.
Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Sergey Huber shows off a bird he found in an abandoned compound during an operation in Urmoz, Afghanistan. Born in Russia, Huber lived in an orphanage for several years before being adopted and brought to America as a child. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. James Mercure

But the most important part of this is teaching my junior guys how to be better. If they become more effective gunners, I've done my job."
Though he has faced many life struggles, Huber said, he looks on the bright side and is grateful to serve with the men to his left and right. He has found a home at last with his Marines.

"The United States has done so much for me," he said. "I have a family, I have a brotherhood, and when I decide to get out, I have all my guys I can call if I need anything, and they can do the same."

RESET OF U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS BRINGS RESULTS

FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Official Says U.S.-Russia 'Reset' Holds Challenge, Opportunity

By Karen Parrish

WASHINGTON, April 4, 2012 - The strategic "reset" of relations between the United States and Russia is gradually bringing results, a senior defense policy expert said today.

Celeste A. Wallander, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, discussed challenges and opportunities in U.S.-Russia relations with members of the Women's Foreign Policy Group here today.

The reset strategy is "to cooperate in areas where we can cooperate with Russia, in areas that serve American national interest ... and communicate clearly and honestly" on topics where the two governments don't agree, she said.

The United States and Russia have made some important progress, Wallander noted, including:

-- Implementing the "New START" nuclear arms reduction treaty;

-- Making progress toward agreement on Iran;

-- Achieving some cooperation in the NATO-led Afghanistan mission; and

-- Strengthening defense and security communication both between the two nations and between Russia and NATO.

"The New START treaty was an important achievement. ... It is another step in reducing global nuclear weapons stockpiles," she said. The treaty also re-established regular mutual nuclear weapons inspections and meetings involving American and Russian military leaders and nuclear experts, she added.

On Iran, Russia has ended a contract that would have provided that country with Russian-made "very dangerous air defense systems," Wallander said, and Russia supports the Afghanistan effort by allowing U.S. and NATO troops and cargo to travel through its territory.

The U.S.-Russian defense relations working group and the NATO-Russian council allow both regular high-level meetings and daily working-level discussions among U.S., NATO and Russian defense and strategy experts on security issues including countering piracy, narcotics trafficking and terrorism, she added.

Wallander also listed areas where the United States and Russia "don't see eye to eye," including Syria and the U.S. four-phase approach to European missile defense.

Both nations agree the violence in Syria must end, she said, and President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed during their March meeting in Seoul, South Korea, to support the mission to Syria that Kofi Annan has undertaken as a United Nations and Arab League representative.

The two countries have not agreed on whether or when other nations should take action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, she noted, but even in disagreement the U.S.-Russian relationship is "certainly in a better place" than in past years, when representatives and leaders "would have been talking at one another, not with one another."

The United States views Russia as occupying Georgian territory in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Wallander said. While U.S. leaders know Russia's policies about the disputed areas, she added, they "don't accept them."

Georgia and Russia have held regular bilateral talks in Geneva since they first clashed over the two republics in 2008, she noted. She added U.S. support to these talks demonstrates the "reset" strategy, emphasizing that even small steps build transparency and understanding, if not agreement, between Russia and the United States.

The United States takes a similar approach to Russia's objections to the U.S. European missile defense plan, she added. That plan calls for a steady buildup of sea- and land-based systems designed to protect European nations and U.S. troops in Europe from a growing threat of missile attack from the Middle East, particularly Iran, she explained.

Wallander said the plan is based on an assessment that over the next 10 years Iran poses a "small, relatively straightforward nuclear missile threat" to nations in Europe, and the defense systems called for in the phased approach will not have the capability to threaten Russia.

The United States has invited Russia to participate in planning and implementing the missile defense systems, but with little success, she noted. Still, the United States remains "committed to seeking cooperation" on this and other issues, she added.

Civil demonstrations around the recent Russian presidential election demonstrate the long-term potential of the "reset" approach, she noted. The U.S. strategy, she said, aims at a prosperous, secure, militarily modern Russia that has transitioned to fully democratic government and is committed to building regional stability.

"We've seen a Russian ... middle class that wants that, too," Wallander said. "The next couple of years will be really interesting and really important for Russia's future," she said.
 

MCMURDO STATION ANTARCTICA GETS HELP FROM THE ARMY

FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

The crane aboard the USNS Green Wave hoists pieces of a modular causeway system at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. The Army's 331st Transportation Company built a pier to unload supplies for the National Science Foundation base. U.S. Army photo by Capt. Christina Shelton  


Mission to McMurdo: Helping Science in Antarctica
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2012 - A recent mission for U.S. Transportation Command proves the service members of the command can get just about anything, anywhere.

The command stepped to the fore by building a pier in the southernmost harbor in the world: McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. This enabled the National Science Foundation to re-supply workers at McMurdo Station, the largest community on the frozen continent.

Normally, the re-supply ship docks at an ice pier built out into the sound. The ice bridge usually can take the weight of trucks, containers, heavy equipment and supplies. But this year, that was not the case.
"We were notified in November that the ice pier that is used accept cargo at McMurdo was unusable this year," said Air Force Col. Howard "Mac" McArthur, the West Branch chief at U.S. Transportation Command. To accept the heavy use, the ice pier has to be about 20 feet thick. This year, it was 9 feet. The National Science Foundation, which runs the Antarctic research effort, had a problem.
Whatever they were going to do had to happen quickly. About 150 personnel spend the winter at McMurdo Station, and there is only one annual supply ship for the entire year. It arrives just before winter sets in, and carries food, scientific instruments, general supplies and everything else needed to run the station and supply other research stations. Another ship – this year, the Maersk Perry – brings in about 6 million gallons of fuel.

"Through collaboration between Transcom, Pacific Command's Joint Task Force Support Forces to Antarctica and the National Science Foundation, it was determined that the Army's modular causeway system would work," said Army Lt. Col. Rich Whittingslow, Pacific Command branch chief at Transcom.
In early December, Army Capt. Christina Shelton, commander of the 331st Transportation Company based at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., got a phone call telling her to prepare her unit for movement to Antarctica. "I thought they were joking," she said.
The mission was to transport the system to Port Hueneme, Calif., load it aboard the USNS Green Wave and send it to Antarctica. Soldiers then would fly to McMurdo to be in place when the ship arrived, and build the pier so that the supplies aboard the Green Wave could be off-loaded.
Once that was done, they would have to disassemble the pier, load it back on the ship and go home. But nothing like it had been done before.

"We were very excited, because we train year-round for any type of global contingency operations, whether it is warfighting, humanitarian operations and anything of that nature," Shelton said.
But it usually is just training, and this "was a real-world mission," she said. "It was a chance to put our expertise to work."

Soldiers loaded the gear onto 52 commercial trucks for the trip to Port Hueneme. They loaded aboard the Green Wave, and the ship set sail Jan. 16.

Shelton knew there would be challenges, not the least of which was temperature. When the soldiers arrived Feb. 10, the temperature was a relatively balmy 28 degrees. "It quickly got colder, and much windier," the captain said. Temperatures dropped well below zero, and with the wind chill it was like working in 60-below-zero temperatures.

The National Science Foundation issued the soldiers the full set of gear to work in these conditions. "We had cold weather parkas, bunny boots, extreme cold-weather gloves, balaclavas, special wool socks – everything we needed to build the pier," Shelton said.

The Green Wave arrived at McMurdo Station on Feb. 13. Joining the soldiers were 50 sailors from the Navy Cargo Handling Battalion in Norfolk, Va.

Shelton separated the soldiers into two shifts – one day and one night. But since the sun was shining 24 hours a day, it took some effort to get used to the "night" shift, she said.
The first two items off the Green Wave were two working tugs, used to push and pull the pieces of the causeway in place. They next built the floating portions of the causeway aboard the ship and then lowered them into the water, where they fastened them together. These so-called "strings" were 80 feet long by 8 feet wide. "You put three strings together to make one section," Shelton said. They made the pier six sections wide and two deep.

The whole process took two and a half days. "We would have been done sooner, but it was the first time we had built these aboard ship and the first time we worked with sailors manning the on-board cranes," Shelton said. "We got better as we went along."
It took eight days to unload the ship.

Finally, the soldiers took 36 hours to take the pier apart and reload it aboard the Green Wave. The 331st soldiers were on the ground in Antarctica from Feb. 10-29. They flew to Christchurch, New Zealand, from Antarctica, and arrived back in Virginia in March.
The National Science Foundation is working to rebuild the ice pier for next year, but it may not be ready. If that's the case, they may need the steel pier again.
"With what we know now, we can do it even better next year," Shelton said.

STATE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON BURMA

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on Burma
Special Briefing Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
April 4, 2012
MODERATOR: Hi everyone. It’s [Moderator]. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. This afternoon’s call is on background. We have [Senior Administration Official One] as well as [Senior Administration Official Two] and from here on out they’ll be known as Senior Administration Official One and Two. So without further ado, I want to go ahead and turn it over to Senior Administration Official Number One. Go ahead, sir.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you very much, and we really appreciate you all joining us on such short notice today. And it’s a great to be on the call with my colleague and friend [Senior Administration Official Two]. What I’d like to do, since the Secretary has laid out some specific things today, is to provide you a little bit of context on each of them, and hopefully that will answer many of your questions. And then [Senior Administration Official Two] will jump in with a few other comments as well. And then if you have any particulars, we’ll be happy to follow up with you directly. So let me just go through.

The Secretary had some very strong words of support for the reform efforts, for the leadership that we’ve seen demonstrated by the government in Nay Pyi Taw. She singled out the president, I think, with some sincere comments of support for his courage and determination. She was also very congratulatory and thrilled to see Aung San Suu Kyi be elected with such a strong mandate into the parliament that will be seating – seated later this month.

In addition, she laid out some specific steps, and I’d to just kind of go through a few things about those steps if I can. And just the most important thing is what the Secretary has laid out. Really, they marked the beginning of a process. And every step along the way, both in the past, currently, and in the future, will involve very detailed consultations with Congress, friends and allies in Europe and Asia. As we speak now, Ambassador Mitchell is in Europe in consultations. And I’ve just come from backgrounding a variety of friends in Asia. And each of these steps that we’re taking are complex, they’re multifaceted, and they will take a period of time to implement. And we will be providing more details to you on several of them regarding timeframe and scope.

So let me just go through a few of the specifics if I can. We are very close to being able to name formally an ambassador. We are in the process now of what is called seeking agrement with the authorities in Nay Pyi Taw. That is the formal process whereby their government agrees to our nominee. We’ve been in close consultation with colleagues and friends on Capitol Hill about this, and we have high confidence that this will be announced formally in short order. To be perfectly honest, we haven’t done this in a long time, so we’ll – it’ll – I think it’ll move quickly, but we want to follow the appropriate procedures.

On the UN Development Program, just a few points of background: For the past decade, the United States has not permitted the UNDP to conduct what would be called a normal country program inside the country in Burma, and we have restricted UNDP activities to ensure that no funds benefit any level of the Burmese Government, including local officials. And as the Secretary indicated, we now believe that the conditions permit UNDP to pursue what we would call a normal country program. We think that such an effort will focus on pro-democracy and ethnic minority groups. Although they play a small role in parliament, we think supporting programs accordingly will be important.
We think that a number of the steps that the government has taken, most recently in terms of the currency and other steps, can be supported effectively by the UNDP. And so we will inform the United Nations and the UNDP specifically of our intention to support this, and we’ll emphasize the importance of ensuring that assistance is coordinated in an effective and transparent manner among key states and that we would very much like to see programs developed that are aimed at poverty alleviation, furthering the process of economic reform and the development of those most in need. And again, many of those are in ethnic minority areas.

In terms of USAID, at present USAID provides something over 35 million in annual assistance to the Burmese people. And our regional development mission in Bangkok is the hub responsible for managing this assistance. And we have a couple of USAID staff in country to monitor these programs. And so what we are proposing to do is to reestablish a formal USAID mission in Burma. This, I think, will help us in terms of making sure that we have full knowledge of how programs are being implemented, their successes, where there needs to be adjustments, and will give us the best opportunity to coordinate with other partner countries who are increasingly managing their operations from inside the country rather from surrounding states. So this is an appropriate step. It is in line with what Britain has done, what Australia is doing, and what other countries also involved are moving towards.

In terms of nonprofit activity that the Secretary described, there are sanctions that have impeded certain kinds of activities in the country. We have, in the past, supported certain humanitarian and religious activities, but other programs and projects have to go through a rather intense, and sometimes, laborious case-by-case basis. And we have made the determination to allow U.S. entities and individuals to pursue a much broader range of non-profit activities in Burma that promote democracy, public health, education, environmental conservation, and other non-commercial development related initiatives. And this, I think, is in line and supports the Secretary’s commitment during her visit to Burma in late 2011 to increase exchanges with people, civil society organizations, and the government.

We are working closely, as with everything that we’re doing inside the government, with the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, to create what we would call an expanded general license that will authorize this wider spectrum of activities. On a daily basis, we are being approached by universities, non-profit groups, student initiatives, all desiring to lend their shoulder to efforts aimed at reform and development in Burma – in Myanmar, and we believe that these steps will help move positively in this direction.

Key points in terms of facilitating travel; this is a little bit more complicated. The United States does not have one travel ban. Through a variety of sanctions – and remember, Burma is a – has a number of interlocking and overlapping sanctions – but through a variety of sanctions, including an executive proclamation and what is called the 2008 JADE Act, we currently restrict the travel of certain Burmese persons to the United States, such as leaders of the military, those involved in repression of human rights, and cabinet ministers and vice ministers.

Now we are going to begin the process of using our travel sanctions to facilitate travel to the United States, specifically for select reform-minded authorities who are constructively engaging with the United States and other members of the international community. We think easing these restrictions in a targeted manner will promote much greater dialogue, more confidence, and hopefully will allow us to gain greater confidence on some of our core concerns.

This is an important step and, frankly, we’ve had very little travel of senior officials to the United States. And I think it’s time, as the reform effort takes hold, for us to be able to invite senior and key players to Washington. You will see some invitations in the coming days that we look forward to reciprocating some of the hospitality that we have received on our visits there.

I think it is also the case that, as the Secretary indicated, that we will begin also a process of easing financial services and the investment ban. We have committed to a targeted easing of our ban on the exportation of financial services to Burma and U.S. investment in the country. This is going to be a step-by-step process.

We will identify, first of all, the areas and the sectors that we think are most likely to make an immediate impact on the livelihood of the people in the country, and we also will highlight areas that we believe, frankly, are impeding the process of reform. Let me just give you an example. Burma is one of the few countries in the world where you cannot use a credit card, and it makes it extraordinarily difficult for some of the most basic kinds of economic exchanges. And we think some small steps will allow businesses to flourish, certain opportunities to take hold.

This will be a very intensive process. It will involve very strong consultations with friends and allies and with key stakeholders on Capitol Hill. [Senior Administration Official Two] and myself, many others are involved almost on an hourly basis in these discussions, and they will go forward. We have consulted closely, not only with people in Congress, but also non-profit organizations. We have had detailed private interactions and more formal ones with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and many other members of civil society and inside the country. And we believe that we are – that our steps are true to their goals and ambitions, and they are broadly supported.
I think I’ll end there and ask [Senior Administration Official Two] to jump in, if that’s okay.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Thank you, [Senior Administration Official One]. Just one point I’d add to that. And I think they’re the two principles that underline – or underlie what we announced today.

First is the measured incremental approach that we’re taking here. The purpose is to send a clear signal of support for the reform process and reformers. At the same time, we have no illusions about the difficult road ahead in Burma and that there remain severe challenges down the road. And I think the Secretary laid out a number of those challenges in her statement today. I don’t need to go through them again. I think you all know the things that had not happened in Burma, as much as what has happened to date in the reform process. So the measured incremental approach, I think, is the number one principle.

The second fundamental principle here is that we are taking the bluntness out of the sanctions and we are now focusing and targeting on those areas as a fundamental principle, as we look to do this down the road, target and focus our efforts on the regressive elements, the corrupt elements, the elements that are not looking forward and consistent with reform going forward.

So those two are very fundamental and important principles that we are looking at as we implement this and put the details and meat on the bones of what was announced today and what [Senior Administration Official Two] laid out. So that’s the only thing I think I would add.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’re ready to go ahead with questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1. You will be prompted to un-mute your phone and record your name. Once again, it is *1 to ask a question. And our first question comes from Shaun Tandon of AFP. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks for doing this call. Just to follow up a little bit on the investment part, Senior Official Number One, you were talking about the credit cards. Is that something concrete that you think will be one of the first areas? And just if you could be a bit more specific about how long does it take to ease the restrictions on investment. And while it’s obviously up to the private sector, what – if there’s any ballpark figure for what you expect U.S. investment in Burma to look like?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes. Thank you, and I’ll have a – [Senior Administration Official Two] will also probably want to touch base on this. I can’t give you a specific timeframe because, frankly, some of these things – lifting sanctions is a challenging process. We have a strong determination to do it, but we want to work closely and carefully with our counterparts, our allies, and also with key players on Capitol Hill.
What you were referring to, Shaun, particularly on credit cards, really has to do with the financial sanctions as opposed to investment bans. And I think we will be taking some permanent – some steps on the financial side soon, and those will be to allow a certain kind of electronic commerce. We are looking carefully at sectors, and I think I’d like to ask [Senior Administration Official Two] to talk a little bit about how we’re thinking about this at this current time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, let me just add a different point, aside from the sectoral side of things, which is we need to be careful, as we look at Burma, that even as we ease bans on investment or bans on financial services, businesses around the world have not had these restrictions on them. They have gone in and looked around and they’ve walked back with their tail between their legs. And what they say is, look, the business environment is not conducive for investment; it’s not appropriate for their activity. I don’t think there’s going to be a huge rush right now. There will be a rush, I think, in terms of looking fresh at Burma.

But what this does, in essence, if done carefully and right, it puts the ball in the Burmese court to create now the conditions. They can’t blame the international community or the West for the problems. They now have to create the right conditions for responsible investment and responsible engagement, and right now those conditions don’t exist. So in terms of timelines of when anything would be set up or how fast folks should move in or – that’s all going to be based on the conditions on the ground, which are not necessarily very good right now. And I think we can’t really predict how that will be going down the road, but that ball now is in the Burmese – will be in the Burmese court more and more going forward.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’re ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Could Senior Administration Official Number Two follow up on what Official Number One had said in terms of giving us some sense of the kinds of sectors that you are looking at in terms of easing the – both the financial and the investment bans? Can you give us any greater clarity on what kinds of things U.S. companies might ultimately be able to do? What are the sectors? Is – on the investment side, is it all mineral resources and timber, things like that? And on the financial side, tangibly what kinds of exports – financial services exports are you willing to or are you looking at allowing?
And one question for Official Number One: I noticed you used the – you described the country in question as Myanmar at one point, although I think the government – U.S. Government policy has been to refer to it as Burma. Is there any change in that policy?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Let me answer the sectoral question first. Again, the principle I think we’re going to be using to underline anything we do in terms of easing is what has the most benefit has the most benefit for the average Burmese. And so what sectors can provide the greatest bang in terms of employment and development for those who have been hurt by the system for so long? And certain sectors I think jump out at you. I mean, agriculture is one. I think many have looked at tourism as another. Some have looked at potentially telecommunications as another.

I don’t want to go into every different sector, but there are certain sectors that seem to have greater benefit for the broader cross-section that don’t get to, as I said, regressive elements the Burmese economy and Burmese society. And as you get into things like the resource questions – timber, gems – I think you get into those more regressive sectors, those that are in the ethnic minority areas and therefore are done on the backs, oftentimes, of local populations and those that are most interested in a national reconciliation with the government in good faith. That’s – we have to be very careful in that regard. So I don’t want to – this is all sort of general thinking on this. There have been no decisions – final decisions on this type of thing. But just to give you a sense of the general thinking and the principles behind it, I think gives you some sense.

QUESTION: That was on the investment side, presumably – agricultural, tourism, telecommunications – as general possibilities. How about on financial services? Can you give us a general sense of what area? Are we talking about Citibank opening up branches?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are we talking about people – investment banks being able to help Burma –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- issue bonds? I mean, what --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think another sector could be in the banking sector as well, on that list for consideration, because that as well can help with the financial system some of the, again, regressive elements and that are still on our designated enemy list. And the one thing that’s not changing, as you know, are the specific targeted designated entities and individuals that we are sanctioning. Those remain in place, and some of those are banks within the system. So banks are a possibility here because they can help create a more open, transparent, principled system of economic activity.
So when you talk about financial services, I think it would parallel what I’m talking about in terms of investment. I think you would see them in tandem. So if you’re going to lift it on investment – or really the other way around – if you’re going to lift it on financial services, you’d want to lift it on investment as well to allow companies also to engage productively and responsibly.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And then on the first question, thank you very much. The – I think as you know, there are only two countries really who use the term Burma officially in the current context. That is the United States and Great Britain. Many publications, most of our interlocutors in Southeast Asia and elsewhere – we in almost all circumstances use the term Burma in official settings. And occasionally in private meetings, we will refer to the country either by its capital name Nay Pyi Taw, Burma, or Myanmar.

It is the case that in certain meetings that government officials are – in the country are occasionally unhappy with the use of the term, because in their view, our concern has always been Aung San Suu Kyi’s concern, which is not the name itself as much as the process of how the decision was made to change the official name from Burma to Myanmar.

For some of the country, however, it is the concern about the name itself. Remember that Myanmar/Burma is a multiethnic country, and Burmans are a majority group but there are a number of others. The name Myanmar has been used historically, and in fact, Burma is the bastardization; it is what some of the British original settlers thought they heard when the people they interacted first used the term Myanmar. And even members of the NLD and others, when they write their country out in a letter, they use the word “Myanmar.” However, it is the case that we – official practice – and you will have seen it today when Secretary Clinton spoke – is to continue to use the term “Burma.”
QUESTION: Great. Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Could I just add one more thing on the first question, which is that the Burmese Government retains restrictions on international investment in the banking sector, so that still remains, I believe, a constraint on any international investment. So in the hypothetical that you raised – and I should probably not go into hypotheticals, just talking more in principle – but there are still restrictions I think the Burmese place on that kind of activity that would have to be lifted even if we wanted to lift restrictions on that sector.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Operator, next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Steve Myers with New York Times. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, gentlemen. Thanks so much. I wanted to follow up on the sanctions question, because as you mentioned, there’s this whole raft of sanctions covering all sorts of things, the JADE Act being just the latest one. It sounds like what you’re saying is you’re not looking to remove any of those sanctions from the books but simply look at ways that you can target some investment that would be waived or allowed through the presidential authority that you have already under those laws. Is that correct?
And then on the second thing, could you just spell out the travel ban a little bit more? Do you know how many officials now are on that list, even roughly, and then how many might be allowed – or taken off the list soon? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me take the second question and let [Senior Administration Official Two] take the first. There is no travel ban per se. There is no list. There is a travel ban, but there is no list. We have, as a general practice, prohibited and discouraged until very recently – I think as you know, [Senior Administration Official Two] hosted the foreign minister this fall when he came to Washington, and this is a part of a process where not only will we change that approach, we will encourage visitors, we will be inviting senior officials. The Secretary has invited the foreign minister to visit. We expect the minister of health to be visiting the Washington area in the near future.

Our intention here is to assertively engage and invite our key interlocutors, particularly those who have been supportive of reform, to the United States. So that’s really the direction that we’re seeking today.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: My apologies; if you can say the first question again.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up specifically on the question of the sanctions, because there are many sanctions that are on the books now passed by Congress.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Oh, you mean legislative sanctions, is what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. As well as executive sanctions as well, right? So the question – it sounds like – are you removing any of those, or are you simply looking for ways that you can make exceptions to them under the authorities that already exist, or are you going to go to Congress and say, “Let’s take this one off the books”?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We haven’t come to a conclusion on what we’d go to Congress with. I think we’re still figuring out what we want to do, and then we’ll figure out a way to do it. And the sanctions are byzantine, to put it mildly, in terms of executive orders that overlap and legislation that overlaps with something else. So we’ll need to figure out how to navigate that, but we think we have the ability, always in consultation with Congress though. Clearly, we want to move in sync with Congress or at least get their understanding as we go. But there’s no plan at the current time to ask them to get rid of anything legislative. I think the current idea is to use waiver authorities and we can rescind executive orders to at least do much of what we’re looking to do.

QUESTION: Great. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Operator, next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from William Wan of Washington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks, guys. Yeah, I feel like you guys covered the sanctions pretty well. There was one question I was wondering. In her speech, the Secretary kind of drew this long narrative arc stretching back to the beginning of the Administration, this policy of engagement, Obama’s speech of reaching out with an open hand, et cetera. It seemed to me like perhaps a first or the most kind of forceful kind of assertion of some small victory in this sector and that – I just was wondering, is this a sign that you guys see these reforms as being more permanent, or what caused that kind of tracing of the history of engagement that brought you here? I just wanted some kind of read on that, if you have any insight on that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I can start with that and then I’d love to hear [Senior Administration Official Two]’s perspective. I would say that it’s – for some people who are just tuning in now, right, it’s important to underscore just how far we’ve come in seven months, really since August. It’s just – it’s remarkable. And so it’s important to look at these elections, which are indeed historic and dramatic. But it’s also important to put this in the context of a number of substantial steps that the government has taken – the release of political prisoners, some elements in civil society, some new legal provisions – that all point in a positive direction.

But it was also important when you laid that out to do it in such a way so that you can also indicate that there are a number of areas where we are still looking for more progress: a final release of all political prisoners. It’s been very impressive, but there’s still more to be done. An unconditional release and a waiver of legal restrictions on those that have been freed from prison, steps relating to the military relationship with North Korea, these are areas that we’re looking for more progress. And in particular, what we hear again and again is that while there has been substantial progress in urban areas, many of the circumstances are unchanged – the brutality along the border in ethnic areas. And that’s the point that the Secretary wanted to make: Put the progress clearly out front but also indicate that this is – that we seek further steps in these other areas as well.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Let me just add I fully endorse what [Senior Administration Official One] said. I would add, of course, the ethnic minority situation is an absolute large concern of ours. We will not forget that there continue to be terrible abuses in Kachin State and in Shan State and in Chin and elsewhere that continue to offend the conscience of the international community and will prevent us from having a normal relationship as long as they go on. We need access to internally displaced persons who are in dire need. There’s still all the atrocities going on.

We do not want to give any sense that this is somehow a time where we are turning the page, we feel things are fine, and they’re on some irreversible track forward. And from the beginning, what we’ve tried to do is put wind in the sails of reform and give encouragement to reformers, empower the reformers, and to put our weight behind the progressive elements of the society that are doing, frankly, what’s good for the country and its long-term interests and is good for stability in the region and that conforms to our values.

And this is just another point in that process that we feel that we ought to get in and assist that in a tangible way, as a tangible moment that obviously was not a perfect process. There are a lot of concerns about the electoral process. They have a lot of work to do leading to 2015, which is the next point – one major point, not just the next one but a major milestone down the road. But we feel that we’ve seen enough movement, enough encouragement that there are people trying to do some serious things, and that we can play a constructive role in that, and we should get in and try and do that the best we can. And if we see it fail or reversed, then we will recalibrate our approach accordingly.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Can I also just – on that point, I really like what [Senior Administration Official Two] said. But I would just underscore that all of these things – first of all, they can be turned off or reversed quickly if there is backtracking. That’s number one. Number two, I think the Secretary determined in close consultation with the President that right now, given what has taken place, that the United States wanted to send a very strong signal that we support, we acknowledge, and we are grateful for the steps that have taken, and we want to be assisting in that process. And I think that’s the inspiration behind this, and again, the – [Senior Administration Two] has been a key architect in helping us think about how we go about this overall process.

QUESTION: Can I just ask – I forgot to ask about this. Is there a timeline for these sanctions, or where – can – is there even kind of a general, vague sketch of that? Like how – when you’re rolling these things out, what are you talking about? Weeks or months? And is there a point at which it’ll – you’ll start looking at, like a permanent lifting of sanctions and what that might take? And is that years? Or how far away is that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: If I could take that, it’s hard to assess. I mean, I think we’re talking – we’re in a continual process now, in a very intense process of considering how and what scope we want to make this lifting of restrictions and to implement what we’ve done, particularly on the services and investment side. The others are fairly straightforward but will take a little bit of a process. I think the others can be in a matter of days and weeks.

The – in terms of overall sanctions, legislative sanctions and such, I don’t think we have a timeframe. It really depends on the conditions on the ground and whether momentum continues, whether Aung San Suu Kyi is fully integrated in her party, and the others in the opposition are fully integrated as respected members of governance. There are a lot of issues still that remain to be worked on, along with all the other things we listed earlier of concern. So I wouldn’t put a timeframe on lifting all sanctions or normalizing the relationship. I think we’re going to take it a step at a time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think that’s actually maybe a good place to end this. I think you’ve probably gotten enough from us. Moderator, do you think that’s okay?

MODERATOR: Yeah. We’re okay to end the call. Thank you so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. Thank you all very much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON AND KOSOVAN PRIME MINISTER HASHIM THACI

FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With Kosovan Prime Minister Hashim Thaci After Their Meeting
Remarks Treaty Room
Washington, DC
April 4, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, everyone. It’s a great pleasure for me to welcome Prime Minister Thaci back to Washington and here to the State Department. The prime minister has shown great leadership, and he has helped to promote democracy, stability, and the rule of law in Kosovo. And he is leading his country toward the future that the people of Kosovo desire and that the United States wants to see for them, full partnership in European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.

The prime minister and I had the opportunity to discuss the progress that Kosovo is making in promoting its European future. The United States strongly supports the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, facilitated by the European Union, and we welcome the agreements that have been reached to date. It’s a credit to the leaders of both countries that they are able to compromise to find the best way forward.
And the United States remains absolutely committed to Kosovo’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The agreements reached in the dialogue reinforce these while setting the conditions for Kosovo’s participation in forums with its neighbors in which Kosovo will finally have an equal voice on regional concerns. We urge both countries to stay committed to the dialogue and to fully implement what has been agreed to.
I’m going to go in English, and then we’ll translate for you. Okay? Is that all right?

PRIME MINISTER THACI: It’s okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay. I also want to applaud the EU on its decision to launch a feasibility study for a stabilization and association agreement with Kosovo. This represents a step toward European Union membership for Kosovo, and it shows that leaders in Kosovo and in the EU are committed to strengthening their relationship.
Finally, the International Steering Group for Kosovo recently announced the start of preparations to end supervised independence for Kosovo in 2012. Although more work remains, the government is enacting the legislation and building the institutions that will promote democratic reform and effective rule of law for all the people of Kosovo. This decision signals that a stable and independent Kosovo is ready for full participation and partnership in the international community.

Again, Prime Minister, the United States is standing side by side with the people of Kosovo as they chart the course for their country’s future, and I want to thank and applaud you for all that you have done for the progress that we celebrate today.

PRIME MINISTER THACI: Madam Secretary Clinton, members of the press, as always it is a great pleasure to be in D.C., especially now in April with the cherry blossom, it is so beautiful. (Laughter.) The United States of America and you personally have always inspired Kosovar people with the values of freedom, democracy, and justice.
Kosovo is a young democracy. We still have a long way ahead with reforms – strengthen the institutions and economy, good governance, fight against corruption, and other affirmative agenda – in order to transform our society and make positive changes. But some things will never change. That is our freedom, our independence, our territorial integrity and sovereignty, our right to exist as a proud nation in the big family of the nations.
I use this opportunity to thank Madam Secretary Clinton for her personal role and contribution in reaching the latest agreements between Kosovo and Serbia on regional representation and IBM, integrated border management. My vision for Kosovo and the region is a future with open borders and good neighborhood relations.

Today, we discussed also about many important bilateral issues. I am proud of our eternal friendship between our two nations. We both believe that the latest agreements help open a new chapter in the relationship between Kosovo and EU as well.

All countries in the region share the same goal and the same vision for the European integration and NATO membership. But to make that happen, we still need the strong focus and presence of the United States of America and EU, not only in Kosovo but also in the rest of the Western Balkans.
Madam Secretary Clinton, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much.

MR. TONER: We have time for two questions today. The first goes to Brad Klapper of Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thank you. In the last couple of days, Iranian officials have floated alternative venues to Istanbul as the possible site for future P-5+1 talks: Baghdad, Beijing, even Damascus. (Laughter.) Are the United States and its P-5+1 partners willing to go to any of these places to hold the talks? And more importantly, what does this weeks-long haggling over dates and venues instead of substance suggest about the seriousness of Iran’s intentions, especially at a time when many officials, including yourself, have suggested that time is running short for a peaceful diplomatic solution?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Bradley, the EU High Representative Lady Ashton and her team are consulting with their Iranian counterparts. We understand that these consultations are at an advanced stage, and we expect that Lady Ashton will formally announce the date and place of the talks once it is finally confirmed.
Now in its response to Lady Ashton’s letter, Iran expressed its readiness to resume negotiations and engage in a sustained dialogue. And as I’ve said before, we are not interested in talks for the sake of talks. We want to engage in serious discussions that will lead to concrete results. So I want again to urge the Iranian Government to take this opportunity to begin addressing the international community’s concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program.

As I said just Sunday in Istanbul, there is still time and space to pursue the objectives that we seek through diplomacy. We want to see a peaceful resolution of the international community’s concerns. But the time for diplomacy is not infinite, and all options remain on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And until Iran comes into compliance with its international obligations and demonstrates the peaceful intent of its nuclear program, they will continue to face strong pressure and isolation. So the sooner that we can begin talks, the better it will be, and I await Lady Ashton’s confirmation of the details.

MR. TONER: All right. Our next questioner on the Kosovo side is (inaudible) of Radio Television Kosovo.

QUESTION: The question is for Secretary Clinton. The United States with the EU countries help Kosovo to be independent. Will you continue to support in Kosovo in the future for process of integration in Euro-Atlantic institution here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. I believe strongly in Kosovo’s independence and territorial integrity and in its aspiration to become a full partner in the international community and a member of the European Union, and eventually, NATO. The United States will continue to support Kosovo and work with the European Union to resolve the outstanding issues that exist between Kosovo and Serbia.

But I am encouraged by the progress that Kosovo has made, not only with respect to European integration, but economically. The prime minister told me Kosovo has grown five percent this year. That’s a very strong signal of the kind of progress that Kosovo is making, and we want to help fully integrate, particularly the young people of Kosovo, into Europe and the international community.
Thank you all very much.

NASA - Mars’ Whirling Dust Devil

NASA - Mars’ Whirling Dust Devil