DOD NEWS BRIEFING WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA AND GENERAL DEMPSEY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
DoD News Briefing with Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey from the Pentagon
            SECRETARY LEON E. PANETTA:  Good afternoon.
            It's been an interesting few weeks since we last met, and I am sure you'll have some interesting questions, but before I do that, let me -- let me summarize some key points.
            On Afghanistan, last week we held extensive consultations with Afghan Minister of Defense Wardak and Minister of Interior Mohammadi. With the two MOUs that we signed on detention operations and special operations, I believe this relationship is on the right path.  And we are continuing to make progress on the strategic partnership agreement as well.  
            There will be challenges, continuing challenges, as we saw over the weekend, but our partnership remains strong, the Afghans are providing greater security, and the strategy that General Allen has put in place is succeeding.
            On the Middle East, we hosted Prince Salman, the Saudi minister of defense.  We had a productive discussion on security challenges emanating from the Middle East, where Iran's nuclear program remains a pressing concern and where in Syria, the Assad regime's violence is increasingly intolerable.  And obviously, they continue to raise questions about their adherence to the cease-fire agreement.
            On North Korea, we have been in very close contact with our counterparts in South Korea and Japan as we monitored the provocative, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt by the North Korean government to conduct a missile launch.  We will continue to be fully prepared for any future provocations should they occur.  We hope that won't be the case, but we continue to be prepared in the event that that happens.
            On NATO, I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a joint NATO ministerial with Secretary Clinton in Brussels, the last high-level meeting that will take place before the Chicago summit in May.  We're at a pivotal point for the alliance as we build on the gains that have been made in Afghanistan and try to chart the course for the future in that -- in that area.
            We'll also be working to ensure that NATO itself has the right military capabilities that will be needed for the future in order for NATO to assume the responsibilities that it must as we proceed.
            But even as we deal with these global security challenges, we have another great challenge here at home, which is working with the Congress to implement our new defense strategy.  Let me just give you a quick update on where I think things stand at this point.
            Since the president's budget request was released on February 13th, the budget and strategy that we've developed have been subject to intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill.  Chairman Dempsey and I went up to the Hill to testify five times before the key committees as many of you know.  But there have been more than 50 additional congressional hearings with the service secretaries, the service chiefs, the combatant commanders and other senior civilian and military leaders. A lot of tough questions were asked, but I believe that both our strategy and our budget proposals have held up very well under this very intense scrutiny.  As a result, we continue to strongly believe that this is the right strategy and the right budget to meet our responsibilities to a strong national security and to tough fiscal requirements.  
            Military and civilian leaders here at the department all stand unified behind our strategy and our budget because, I think, we believe we've developed that strategy and the budget together as a team.  In a word, the key elements of the strategy -- I think they're familiar with -- to all of you -- but let me just quickly summarize those key points.  
            First, the force will be smaller and leaner, but it must be agile and flexible and deployable and technologically advanced.  Second, we will rebalance our global posture, emphasizing the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.  Third, we'll strengthen key alliances and partnerships through rotational deployments and other innovative ways to sustain our presence elsewhere.  
            Fourth, we'll ensure our military can confront aggression and defeat any opponent anytime, anywhere.  And lastly, we will protect investments in new technologies such as ISR, space, cyberspace, global strike, special ops and the capacity to quickly mobilize.
            Of course, in the end, it's up to Congress.  In the coming weeks they will begin considering the defense authorization and appropriations bills.  Our hope is that Congress will carefully consider the new defense strategy and the budget decisions that resulted from that strategy.
            The key is that this is a zero-sum game.  Because of the Budget Control Act, any change in any one area of the budget and force structure will inevitably require offsetting changes elsewhere.  And that carries the real risk that this is -- if this is not done right, the result could be a hollow, unbalanced or weaker force.  Our hope is that our strategy will not be picked apart piece by piece.
            If, for example, we're prevented from carrying out all of the six major weapons terminations that we have proposed, the result will be a need to find as much as $9.6 billion in savings from other areas over five years.  And that could mean less money to buy high-priority ships or acquire the next-generation aircraft.  If Congress rejects all of the modest changes we've proposed in TRICARE fees and copays for retirees, than almost $13 billion in savings over the next five years will have to be found in other areas such as readiness, or we could be forced to further reduce our troop strength.
            So the message we wanted to send Congress today is that there is very little margin for error with this package.  That's the reality that all of us are living with.  The strategy we developed will maintain, we believe, the strongest military in the world by every measure, and that's essential because of the nature of the security challenges that we're facing.
            I believe we're at a critical point in our nation's history.  We need to rise to meet the challenges that are facing us in this dangerous and uncertain world, and we can't afford to have the Congress resort to bitter partisanship or parochialism at this critical time.
            We owe it to the American people to ensure that the right decisions are made to protect our nation and our national security from the full scope of modern threats, including the threat of our debt and our deficits.
            Above all, we owe it to the American people to find a way to avoid sequester.  The clock is ticking.  It's been 121 days since the supercommittee failed, and Congress has yet to find a way to avoid the threat of sequester.
            I still remain optimistic that we can hopefully find a way to avoid this disaster.  But it's going to take Congress and all of us working together to find consensus and provide strong bipartisan leadership to protect our economy, our quality of life and our national security.
            That's what the American people expect of their leaders.  It's what we at the Department of Defense have made in an -- in an -- in the effort to do this with the defense strategy that we put in place for the future.
            And let me just close by noting that in the spirit of that partnership between DOD and Congress, General Dempsey and I will be meeting tonight with members of Congress, the Caucus on Women in the Military and the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, to discuss the next series of steps that the department will be taking with regards to sexual assault.
            As I've said before, sexual assault has no place in the military, and we have made it a top priority to combat this crime.  We will continue to develop our strategies; we'll continue to devote our energy and our intention to enforcing our department's zero tolerance policy on sexual assault, and building a zero tolerance culture in the military for sexual assault.
            My goal is to do everything possible -- I think our goal has been to do everything possible to open up the military to everyone who wants to serve this country.  To do that, we must effectively deal with this kind of threat.
            Marty.
            GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY:  Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
            Good afternoon.  Secretary Panetta rightly observes that the past several weeks have been pretty remarkable, actually.  These last seven days alone remind us yet again that we live in an extraordinarily complex and increasingly competitive world.
            In fact, today we face a security paradox:  a time that may appear, on the surface, to be less dangerous but that underneath the surface is actually more dangerous.  Levels of violence are by some accounts at an evolutionary low point.  But destructive technologies are also proliferating down and out, to groups and individuals as well as formerly middleweight powers.  As a consequence, there simply are more actors with more potential to do us harm.
            This is not a time for comfort or complacency, which is why our nation's senior civilian and military leaders came together last year to develop a new strategy.  
            The strategy affirms our solemn duty to protect our country and its citizens.  It's informed by a security environment that is changing in unprecedented ways.  It applies the lessons of a decade of war.  And it calls for a joint force that is ready to deter and defeat any threat along the spectrum of conflict.
            As I've mentioned before, the fiscal year '13 budget is an essential first step toward Joint Force 2020.  Our strategy and the budget constitute a carefully balanced set of choices.  The decisions we made are not about doing more with less, or certainly not less with less.  They are about making sure we have the right talent and the right tools to keep America immune from coercion.  Put another way, we updated our strategy to responsibly meet the nation's security needs, nothing more and nothing less than that.
  I'm confident that this approach honors our commitment to our military family and the American people.
            Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
            Q:  Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask both of you about the multipronged attacks in Afghanistan yesterday.  Is it your assessment at this point that these attacks were organized and led by the Haqqani network?  And if so, what does it say about the severity of the threat posed by the Haqqanis and about the inability of the Pakistani government to crack down on the Haqqanis?
            SEC. PANETTA:  The intelligence indicates that the Haqqanis were behind the attacks that took place.  And we had received a great deal of intelligence indicating that the Haqqanis were planning these kinds of attacks.  And obviously, we're always concerned about the attacks that take place.  They reflect that the Taliban is resilient, that they remain determined.
            And yet I think we're also confident that the Afghans have increased their capability to deal with these kinds of attacks.
            There were no tactical gains here.  These are isolated attacks that are done for symbolic purposes, and they have not regained any territory.  They haven't been able to really conduct an organized attack since last year.  And what it told us -- and I think General Allen pointed this out -- is that it confirms that the Afghan army and police did a great job of reacting to these attacks.  They quickly restored order, they quickly restored security in those areas, and it gave us an indication that they really are improving in terms of their capability to provide security.  Having said all of that, this is clearly the beginning of the spring offensive that the Taliban engages in, and we are, I think, fully confident that, combined with the Afghan army, we can confront that threat.  
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  And I'll just add, Bob, that though the evidence leads us to believe that the Haqqani network was involved in this, it doesn't lead back into Pakistan at this time.  The threat -- you know, the Haqqani network exists on both sides of the border.  So I'm -- we're not prepared to suggest this emanated out of Pakistan.  I mean, the evidence may at some point lead us there, but we're not there yet.  
            Secondly, you know, you ask, what does it mean?  It means we're still in a fight, and I don't -- I don't think any of us have ever suggested there wouldn't be fighting to -- still needing to be done. In fact, we've been talking quite openly about the fact that we've got three more fighting seasons with which to both build the ANSF and diminish the capability of the Taliban and the associated movements.  
            Thirdly, as the secretary said, we did have intel.  But it -- we weren't trying to protect a discrete moment like we were at the loya jirga.  
            And if you remember, when President Karzai called for the loya jirga, the security was remarkable.  I mean, there wasn't a single incident that occurred around that, even though the ANSF was completely in the lead in that regard.  And so this is a little bigger challenge, though, when you have kind of intelligence that is vague about timing and you have to, you know, keep you guard up constantly.
            And the last thing is -- and I've worked, as you know, with both the Iraqi security forces and the Afghan security forces.  And I'll tell you, the Afghan security forces perform their duties admirably when attacked, even though it was on very short notice over the last 48 hours.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- I want to follow up on what you had to say about the Afghan ministers here last week, the defense minister and the interior minister.  The interior minister told us that he received assurances from you about training assistance and equipment assistance after 2014.  And I wonder if you could just expand on those assurances.  What do you think the U.S. role and mission will look like after 2014?
            SEC. PANETTA:  Well, we're going to be discussing that in Brussels and Chicago.  And obviously, we'll want to work closely with our ISAF partners to determine what that enduring presence will look like.  But clearly, it's -- it -- you know, any future presence will focus on areas like counterterrorism and focus also on training assistance and advice, as we've provided and probably will continue to provide in the future.
            Q:  Do you assume there'll be hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers still on the ground in 2014?
            SEC. PANETTA:  I don't -- I don't think we ought to comment on what we're assuming at this point, mainly because we really want to engage in serious consultation with our partners as to what that presence ought to look like.
            Q:  But there will be some U.S. presence, correct?
            SEC. PANETTA:  That's -- I think that'll be the case.
            Q:  Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey, I wanted to follow up with -- on the attacks over the weekend.  These kind of attacks are -- amount to something like guerrilla warfare.  Couldn't that in itself be effective enough to undermine the confidence of the Afghan people, to undermine the effort to try to stabilize Afghanistan in the long run and for the Afghan security forces to be able to deal with these attacks if you're -- you know, every few months you have an attack like this in a major population area?
            SEC. PANETTA:  Well, look, you know, it's -- I -- as General Dempsey pointed out, we are in a war, and we are going to confront this enemy in these kinds of attacks.  But I don't think any of this detracts from the fundamental conclusion that 2011 was, I think, a clear turning point.  We did seriously weaken the Taliban.  They have not been able since that time to put together any organized attack to regain any territory that was lost.
            The Afghan people themselves, particularly in these areas that were once dominated by the Taliban, are rejecting the Taliban, and that's a very good point.
            The Afghan army and police are becoming much more capable at engaging in operations and providing security.  We have successfully been transitioning areas to Afghan governance and security.  We're in the process of completing the second tranche of areas.
            That will represent 50 percent of the Afghan people will be under Afghan security and governance.  When we complete the third tranche, hopefully this year, we'll have 75 percent of the Afghan people under governance -- Afghan governance and Afghan security.
            So significant progress is being made here.  At the same time as we've gone through that, we continue to experience IEDs.  We continue to experience, you know, periodic attacks by the Taliban.  We're going to continue to see suicide attacks.  We're going to continue to see efforts by them to try to undermine confidence in Afghanistan that we're headed in the right direction.
 It hasn't worked in the past.  I don't think it'll work in the present, mainly because it is clear that we are headed in the right direction right now.  And I think the Afghan people believe that.
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  Yeah, the only thing I'd add is, you know, it's never been our goal to drive attacks to zero and then hand over responsibility to the Afghan national security forces.  The idea here has been to -- you know, to continue to assist them in becoming increasingly more and more capable of taking over the fight.  And I think, you know, what you saw them -- how you saw them react today, with very, very -- or yesterday, with very little help from us, I think, is an indicator that that strategy is sound.
            Q:  Can you -- you said it required air power at the end to --
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  Not much.  The French provided a couple of helicopters.  We provided a couple of helicopters.  But this was very much an Afghan show.
            SEC. PANETTA:  Yeah, over here.
            Q:  Mr. Secretary, when you have the kind of failed rocket launch we saw with North Korea, do you expect them to do something provocative to try to save face?  And specifically, are you expecting a nuclear test in the weeks and months ahead?
            SEC. PANETTA:  You know, whether their launch was a success or a failure, the bottom line was that it was provocative and that they should not have taken that step because it violates the U.N. resolution and it was, you know, clearly something that they had been urged not to do by the international community.
            They went ahead, did it; it failed.  Our hope is that they will not engage in any further provocation.  But I can assure you that we have -- we have taken all of the steps necessary to deal with any contingency.  But, again, our hope is that they will not engage in provocation, but that they'll go back to the negotiating table and try to resolve these issues, as they should, on a diplomatic basis.
            Q:  (Off mic)
            Q:  Did you say a nuclear test?
            Q:  -- to detonate another nuclear warhead, as they've threatened to do or talked about doing?  
            SEC. PANETTA:  I -- all we've ever -- I heard the same rumors you have.  I haven't seen anything specifically.
            Q:  (Off mic) --
            STAFF:  Let me start here.  
            Q:  We asked about sequestration.  It was eight months ago, at your first press conference, you said you needed to better educate the Hill on -- to avoid the doomsday mechanism.  Eight months later, there doesn't seem to be a lot of movement here.  When does your optimism turn to just hard-eyed, cold -- this isn't going to work; we need to plan for it?  And to both of you, what impact does the specter of sequestration have -- having on the defense industrial base, the contractors you depend on?  You don't -- you don't talk much about that but -- (inaudible) --
            SEC. PANETTA:  Yeah -- (inaudible) --
            Q:  -- you need to plan for it.
            SEC. PANETTA:  -- I think, you know, the shadow of sequestration is there.  And I don't think we're kidding anybody by saying that somehow, you know, it's not having some impact.  Clearly in the -- you know, the industrial community is concerned about the potential for its impact.  It continues to be a concern that we have as far as the possibility that that could happen.
            But you know, I continue to urge the Congress.  There isn't any member I've talked to that doesn't think that sequester is a disaster. There isn't any member who's said to me, you know, oh, it'll be great. All of them understand that it's the wrong way to go.  And I just have to hope that ultimately, they will find the courage and leadership to be able to address that issue, de-trigger sequester, deal with the other challenges that are out there and try to do it as soon as possible because frankly, the longer this drags on, the more of an impact it has in terms of the planning process and in terms of the budget process.  And frankly, even though we're not planning for sequester to take place because it is such a disastrous step if it occurs, it still has an impact within the department and outside the department for planning purposes.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- to talk a little bit --
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  Well, just if the past is prologue, you know, we were -- we confronted a new fiscal reality in late summer last year, and it took us every bit of energy we had to get from there to the budget submission in February.  So I mean, I would anticipate that we would have to begin doing some planning in the mid to late summer if we have any chance at all of reacting to it should it trigger.
            Q:  Do you agree with that, Secretary Panetta?  In mid to late summer you're going to have to start planning?  Because that is not a strategy that --
            SEC. PANETTA:  Yeah, I would -- I would assume that OMB at that point would have to indicate, you know, to not just the Department of Defense, but to other agencies that we would have to begin to do some preliminary planning.  Even though I think all of us believe that ultimately, this will not happen, we still have to take that precaution.
            Yes.
            Q:  General Dempsey, how embarrassed should the U.S. military be that members of the U.S. military were potentially involved in whatever went on in Colombia surrounding the president's visit?
            How concerned are you about this?
            And Mr. Secretary, a quick follow-up.  You've made a very impassioned plea so many times about the budget and spending.  With respect, are you thinking about adjusting your own travel schedule out to California, since you have racked up -- pardon me -- assumed a tab of about a million dollars in -- close to a million dollars in taxpayer money?  Understanding you require security and communications, sir, nonetheless, the question being the cost that it is to the taxpayer.
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  We are embarrassed.  I mean, I can -- I can't -- you said how embarrassed is the military.  I can -- I can speak for myself and my fellow chiefs.  We're embarrassed by what occurred in Colombia, though we're not sure exactly what it is, but what we do know is that we distracted -- that several of our members distracted the issue from what was a very important regional engagement for our president.  So we let the boss down, because nobody's talking about what went on in Colombia other than this incident.  So to that extent, we let him down.
            The investigation's ongoing.  It'll chart a path for us.  And we'll hold those accountable if it turns out that they violated orders or policies or laws.
            SEC. PANETTA:  Let me just, on that, say that you know, whether our -- whether our forces are in Colombia or any other country, or here in this  country, we expect them to abide by the highest standard of behavior.  That's a requirement.  And for that reason, we will -- we are conducting a full investigation into this matter.
            The Southern Command under General Fraser is doing that.  And hopefully, we will determine exactly what took place here.  I don't want to prejudge it, but obviously, if violations are determined to have been the case, then these individuals will be held accountable, and that's as it should be.
            With regards to the other question, as you know, for 40 years that I've been in this town, I've gone home because my wife and family are there and because, frankly, I think it's healthy to get out of Washington periodically just to get your mind straight and your perspective straight.
            But clearly, in this job, you know, I -- normally, I've flown home commercially; in this job, I'm obligated to be in touch with communications, and that -- I have to fly on a secure plane.  I regret that it does -- you know, that it does add costs that the taxpayer has to pick up.  The taxpayer would have to pick up those costs with any secretary of state -- or secretary of defense.
            But having said that, I am trying to look at what are -- what are the alternatives here that I can look at that might possibly be able to save funds and at the same time be able to fulfill my responsibilities not only to my job, but to my family.
            Q:  Mr. Secretary --
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  Hey, let me -- Tony, let me help the boss here, because if I couldn't get a hold of him, we'd have a really different relationship.  So I mean, there really is a legitimate reason for him to -- and by the way, he doesn't get much rest in California, based on the number of times I know that I'm in contact with him.
            The other thing is I've noticed that he consistently finds another -- it's not just he flies from here to -- out to California. He'll go to visit Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines all in and around the United States.  So it's not a -- out and back.
            I'm -- you know, I just want you to know this is not about him just using that airplane to get himself back and forth to the West Coast every weekend.
            SEC. PANETTA: Yes.
            Q:  Secretary Panetta, why have you decided to make sexual assault a top priority at this time?  And can you comment on the size of the problem and the urgency in finding better prevention strategies?  And also, you mentioned building a zero-tolerance culture.  In your opinion, is there a culture of tolerance now?  And what do you think is responsible for that?
            SEC. PANETTA:  Well, you know, I've been very concerned about the sexual assault issue because the reports we have indicate -- I think we just issued a report that indicates that there's about 3,000 reported incidents of sexual assault, but the fact is that there are a larger number of unreported incidents.
            And I don't -- you know, I'm not kidding myself or anybody else. These are tough issues, tough to prove.  But the reality is that when they take place and nothing happens, it really is the kind of indication that somehow, you know, we're not going to take the steps that we have to take when these criminal violations take place.
            And for that reason, I think there's a series of steps -- we're going to discuss it with the Congress -- that we can take in order to make clear that we're going to go after that kind of violation, because, as I said, we're trying to open up -- the military should be available to all of those who want to serve this country, and if -- if sexual assault is one of those areas that is not being aggressively gone after and dealt with, then it sends a terrible signal to those that want to serve.  And that's the reason I think General Dempsey and I want to move as aggressively as we feel necessary to deal with that issue.
            STAFF:  We'll take one or two more.
            Q:  General Dempsey, you mentioned you had advance intelligence about the attack yesterday.
            Can you be a little more specific about that?  Was the intelligence -- did it indicate multiple attacks around the country?  Did it indicate attacks in Kabul?  President Karzai has criticized NATO for not -- for the -- for failure to act on the intelligence.  Can you respond to that?
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  Sure.  Yeah, the -- there was intelligence suggesting that as the winter became the spring and the fighting season reopened on or about the 21st of March, you know, the beginning of the new year in some societies, that the Taliban wanted to make a statement that they were back.  And so I mean, that was kind of one thread.  And then the other thread was that the simultaneity of attacks across the country would, in their view, have -- you know, kind of attenuate or actually accent that.  But there was no specificity regarding location or time.  And so that's about as much as I can say about the intelligence.
            SEC. PANETTA:  Yes.
            Q:  On the attacks and the Haqqani network, Admiral Mullen said last year that the -- that these Haqqanis were essentially -- or basically a virtual arm of the -- of the Pakistani intelligence.  Is that still the case?  Or are you saying since they didn't -- since they can't be traced back to them this time, has that changed?  Have they distanced themselves?
            SEC. PANETTA:  Well, you know, I think that there's no question that the Haqqanis have a base in Pakistan.  But they also have, you know, moved across the border and have operated in enclaves in Afghanistan as well.  But there is a concern that they continue to find safe haven back in Pakistan.  And that's the kind of situation that has concerned us and that we have made very clear to the Pakistanis it's not tolerable.
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  Yeah, I have nothing to add.  They've been -- you know, they've been in Pakistan for 20 years.
            Joe.
            Q:  Thank you.  Thank you.  I have a question on Syria.
            Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I mean, before your meeting with Prince Salman, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar have both expressed their intentions to arm the Syrian rebels.  I would like to know from you what's the Pentagon's position in regards to this matter?  And one more thing -- if President Assad keeps in his violence, what's next in Syria?
            GEN. DEMPSEY:  I think, you know --
            SEC. PANETTA:  It's something that General Dempsey and I have testified on the Hill, will testify on Thursday, with regards to Syria as well.  I think our view has been that, first of all, with the thousands of lives that have been lost there, that the government of Syria has lost its legitimacy and that Assad must step down.  I mean, we continue to take that position.  At the same time, I think, we believe that we have to continue to work with the international community to keep putting pressure on Assad.
            Sanctions have been applied.  The international community continues to work to try to do everything possible to try to resolve that terrible situation.  And the pressure is continuing, and other countries are applying pressure as well.  
            I think that's the clear course we ought to continue on.  We continue to plan for all alternatives.  We -- we're -- we continue to be prepared to respond, should the president ask us to take any additional steps.  But, at the present time, this is a diplomatic issue and an international issue, and that's where it should be in terms of trying to resolve this issue.  
            STAFF:  Thank you, everyone.  
            Q:  Secretary, (one) --
            STAFF:  All right, we're all -- (off mic).  Thank you.

RAISING THE BAR FOR EARLY LEARNING

Raising the Bar for Early Learning

FDA'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HAND HELD X-RAY DEVICES

FROM:  U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Hand-held Dental X-Ray Units: FDA Safety Communication - Unreviewed Products May Not Be Safe or Effective
[Posted 02/10/2012]
AUDIENCE: Dentistry

ISSUE: FDA notified healthcare professionals, including dentists, dental care professionals and veterinarians, about the illegal sale of hand-held dental X-ray units that have not been reviewed by the FDA. The FDA is aware of hand-held dental X-ray units being sold online by manufacturers outside the U.S. and directly shipped to customers in the U.S. These devices may not be safe or effective and could potentially expose the user and the patient to unnecessary and potentially harmful X-rays.

BACKGROUND: All hand-held dental X-ray units that have been certified by the manufacturer to meet the FDA’s radiation safety standards bear a certification label/tag, a warning label, and an identification (ID) label/tag on the unit's housing. All labels/tags should be in the English language and permanently affixed or inscribed on each product so that they are legible and readily accessible when the X-ray unit is fully assembled for use.

RECOMMENDATION: Healthcare professionals should:
Verify that your device bears certification, warning and ID labels as described in the FDA Safety Communication.
Ask your vendor whether the device has been reviewed and cleared by the FDA.
Access the FDA Medical Device Approvals and Clearances searchable database to verify that the X-ray unit you are using has been reviewed by the FDA.
If you become aware of a device that you think is hazardous or does not meet FDA’s radiation safety or premarket clearance requirements, contact your state regulatory agency, which will then notify the FDA. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD)   website has a list of contacts for each state

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 16, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

MR. TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. Very briefly before getting to your questions, I did want to congratulate the people of Timor-Leste, the institutions of government, and civil society on the successful conduct of a peaceful and orderly presidential election on April 16. So far the information available to us suggests that the elections was free and fair. We understand that Timor-Leste electoral authorities are continuing to tabulate the official results of this second round e
Provisional results should be forthcoming in the next 24 hours or so, but clearly we congratulate the people of Timor-Leste. We strongly support the country in its efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and consolidate peace and security. And of course, this election constitutes a significant step in that process.
That’s all I have for the top. Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah. I wonder if we can start with Iran.
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I realize that there’s been some comment about the results of the meeting on Saturday, including from the President yesterday. But I’m just wondering, what is it that the United States thinks was achieved?
MR. TONER: Well, I think going into this we were looking for, as the Secretary and others said, a sustained process. We’re already looking to a second meeting next month in Baghdad. I think this was – I don’t think anyone’s trying to characterize this as more than a beginning and a first step, if you will. We said that we want to Iran come up with some concrete proposals moving forward, and that if that were to happen, we would look at ways – Cathy Ashton’s statement said as much – to reciprocate. But we view this as a good, positive, initial first step.
QUESTION: She described it – Catherine Ashton described it as constructive and useful. But it seems to me that the only thing that resulted from it is an agreement to meet again. That’s a pretty low bar. We used to kind of make fun of results like that, where the only thing that you can say that they managed to accomplish was they agreed to meet each other again.
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t think anyone’s under any illusions that we were going to come away from this first meeting advancing the ball far down the field, to use a sports metaphor. We were looking for, as we’ve said all along, the beginning step of a sustained process.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Secretary and President have been very clear that there’s still time for diplomacy. But there is an urgency here, so we want to see it move forward.
QUESTION: All right. So the goal is to have a sustained process?
MR. TONER: Not – no. Ultimately the goal is to have Iran take concrete steps that obviously address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. But we recognize that that’s going to take time.
QUESTION: Can you describe for me where a sustained process has worked in the past to achieve the result that you were looking for? In particular, I think of the sustained processes that I’ve dealt with, and not a single one of them has ever achieved any success.
MR. TONER: Well, I would just – look, this is so apples and oranges to compare one negotiation to another --
QUESTION: No, I don’t know. I mean, if it’s the process --
MR. TONER: -- and one type of engagement to another. We did have a – our engagement and our sanctions – our two-track approach, if you will, to Burma has borne fruit, in the sense that Burma’s really opened up and taken steps. But it’s a completely different issue. Don’t really want to go down there. You asked me for a comparison.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but except that you weren’t talking with the Burmese before. There wasn’t a sustained process at all. The only place you’ve had a sustained process is in the Middle East, and it’s gone absolutely nowhere. So I’m just wondering why you think that the immediate goal – not the end goal, but the immediate goal of getting a sustained – of establishing a sustained process, why you think that that’s the right way to go.
MR. TONER: Well, Matt, no one’s – by sustained process, no one’s trying to downplay the urgency and the need for concrete action.
QUESTION: All right. Well, the problem with --
MR. TONER: So we are moving to another step. This was a beginning meeting. We came away with looking towards Baghdad, but we’re obviously going to look for serious engagement and action on the part of the Iranians.
QUESTION: One last thing, then.
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: And that is that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not seem too pleased with this and he said basically you’ve given them another five weeks to keep enriching and to do whatever they want without any pressure at all. Why is he not right?
MR. TONER: Well, the President spoke to this yesterday. It’s – there’s no freebie for Iran.
QUESTION: The President gave --
MR. TONER: We’ve got the strongest sanctions in history against Iran right now, and they’re going to get stronger as we move into the summer. And there’s no sense that Iran’s getting some kind of freebie here.
QUESTION: Well, just – can you say – is it in fact correct that Iran will be able to, until the next meeting at least, continue to do whatever it wants?
MR. TONER: Again, Iran is – and we’ve seen --
QUESTION: Well, isn’t that right or not?
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR. TONER: We’ve seen the effects that these sanctions are having on Iran. It’s strangling its economy. The rial has fallen in value. So the idea that they’re getting some kind of free pass is not true.
QUESTION: Well, the question is, what is there right now – why is Netanyahu wrong? Why does this not mean that Iran now has another five weeks to do whatever it wants?
MR. TONER: Again, because it’s not as though Iran were free and clear. They are operating under very difficult, if not crippling, international sanctions, and they are aware of that. So they have every motivation to engage constructively and come to the table with concrete proposals.
QUESTION: And why --
QUESTION: Were there any particular --
QUESTION: Why five weeks, not two weeks?
MR. TONER: I don’t know why that time frame. But they’re looking to Baghdad.
Yeah.
QUESTION: As a result of the Istanbul meeting, is Iran really closer to the U.S. or international position on the issue of, let’s say, uranium enrichment?
MR. TONER: Again, I’m not going to get into those specific discussions, and I’m not going to negotiate this from the podium. I think --
QUESTION: It is your understanding that they are closer, that they have actually moved towards the position of the United States and other international community members?
MR. TONER: I think that they came to the table serious. The talks focused on the nuclear issues of concern here, which has not always been the case in the past. But we’re very much at a beginning stage here. But we feel it was a foundation for next talks.
QUESTION: And that does give you reason to believe that Iran is headed in the right direction as far as coming clean on its nuclear program?
MR. TONER: I think we’re going to wait and see what they actually come to the table with in terms of proposals, and then we’ll be ready to --
QUESTION: So in five weeks, you could say we have another five weeks to meet, let’s say, this time somewhere else?
MR. TONER: I don’t think – I think the Secretary – the President was very clear there is a window that remains open, but that window is closing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mark, Tehran’s already asking for the West to start canceling the sanctions. Is that where it comes into place before the Baghdad meeting?
MR. TONER: No. We’re not there yet. Sanctions remain in place and – until we – no one’s talking about any sanctions being reversed or canceled at all.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On North Korea?
MR. TONER: I think – did you have another question, Shaun, or --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. TONER: Okay. Do you want to switch? Are we done with Iran?
QUESTION: Just one Iran.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Actually, a follow-up. If there will be a result on the – in negotiation in Baghdad. The sanction regime will be started on June 28th. There will be a change in the sanction regime if – I mean, according to the results of – Baghdad result, in Baghdad conference?
MR. TONER: I think you’re – that’s just a very speculative question. Let’s wait till we get to Baghdad and see.
QUESTION: No, I mean – and to understand the process.
MR. TONER: No. I mean, look, nobody’s talking about ending or suspending the sanctions regime that’s in place.
QUESTION: Except the Iranians.
MR. TONER: Except for the Iranians, but we’re definitely not there.
Yeah, go ahead. North Korea?
QUESTION: On North Korea, regarding North Korean missile launch, does the United States have any additional separate sanctions against North Korea?
MR. TONER: Does the U.S. have --
QUESTION: Any additional separate sanctions against North Korea?
MR. TONER: You mean aside from existing UN sanctions or --
QUESTION: Yeah, U.S. sanctions.
MR. TONER: I believe we do have, clearly, bilateral sanctions against North Korea. We’ve got very strong sanctions in place against North Korea, clearly. But you raise North Korea and I did want to note you’ve obviously all seen reports out of New York that the presidential statement was adopted earlier today that condemns North Korea’s recent attempt to launch a satellite. Ambassador Rice spoke to it more eloquently than I ever could, but she obviously stressed that this was an extremely quick response by the Security Council and a swift and unanimous adoption is what she said, and it’s very true.
QUESTION: Freezing of North Korean financial sanctions against North --
MR. TONER: I think what – again, what this presidential statement referred to is they’re going to refer it to the Sanctions Committee to look at ways that they can tighten – always when there’s sanctions in place – and we do this across the board whether it’s Iran or Syria or indeed North Korea – there’s always ways to look at how to tighten the implementation and strengthen the implementation of the sanctions. So I think that’s one of the things we’re looking at.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: North Korea told a State Department official that it will not accept IAEA inspections because those were based on the condition of nutritional assistance. So what is the U.S. view on this?
MR. TONER: I would just refer you to the IAEA. I don’t know. I haven’t seen any of those reports, so it’s really their response that matters here.
Go ahead, Shaun. Okay, Ros.
QUESTION: What’s the sense of whether or not North Korea might still be planning to launch any underground nuclear tests?
MR. TONER: I mean, others have spoken. I had mentioned on Friday there is very often a cycle or a pattern to these kinds of actions. It’s impossible, frankly, for us to say at this point, but we strongly, strongly discourage it from moving down that track.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you want to go down this road, but --
MR. TONER: (Inaudible) not. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Not a good preface. But Kim Jong-un, he spoke for the first time in public. Any observations from – from – about the leadership transition, about how it’s going? Maybe give us --
MR. TONER: No. Honestly, it’s a pretty opaque system, so it’s really difficult to make any kind of judgments. He spoke about their further military industrialization, or however you want to term it. What we’ve said before is something I would just say again, which is North Korea needs to focus less on further militarization and more on meeting the needs and aspirations of its people.
QUESTION: Was this a speech his father could have given?
MR. TONER: No idea.
QUESTION: So U.S. options on the table for sanctions against North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yes. I mean, we’re always looking at – I’m not sure what the – you’re saying --
QUESTION: Any particular options do you have it? I mean, U.S. have --
MR. TONER: I mean, we’re always looking at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, whether it’s bilateral or multilateral through the UN, especially in light of North Korea’s actions.
Yeah. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
QUESTION: No. Let’s stay here.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Do – are there any plans to talk to the North Koreans, to tell them what, if anything, they could do to get – to revive the February 29th agreement? Is there anything that they can do to revive that?
MR. TONER: Well, I think it’s pretty clear with the satellite launch that they’ve dug themselves into a hole, if you will, of further isolation. They’ve walked away from the statements or the commitments that they made on Leap Day that you just mentioned. I’m not aware that there’s going to be any further engagement with the North Koreans moving forward. Nothing is certainly planned. The President said the other day that if they do come back and appear to engage or are willing to engage constructively, then we can move forward down that track. But again, we’ve not seen any indication that they’re going to do that.
QUESTION: You and numerous other officials have constantly been referring to North Korea and have used the phrase, “We’re not going to – we’ve seen that movie once; we’re not going to watch it again.”
MR. TONER: We have a lot of --
QUESTION: Yeah. Why are you willing --
MR. TONER: A lot of cliches flying around.
QUESTION: Why are you willing to watch the movie again still?
MR. TONER: Well, you were – you’re saying that we are, in fact, watching this movie again.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just wondering. I mean, if – are they irredeemable? And if they’re not irredeemable, why not? And how can you ever trust anything that they say again?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question, Matt. I mean, and one I frankly can’t answer. I think all we can do is offer a different path, the opportunity for North Korea to engage constructively with the rest of the world. That opportunity is clearly in their interest. We can see it. They for some reason cannot. But they have to, again, cease, come in line with existing UN Security Council resolutions. That’s the bare minimum. They’ve been unable to do that.
QUESTION: The U.S. had essentially conceded that there was some sort of food emergency inside North Korea. Now, with this attempted missile launch and the suspension of the food aid, how serious does the U.S., does the World Food Program, judge what’s happening inside North Korea right now?
MR. TONER: I mean, I frankly don’t have the latest assessments in front of me. We are moving into the growing season, but really, I’d have to refer you to the experts in Rome or the World Food Program, who can give you a better judge of that. It’s unfortunate that we no longer can move forward with this program. Our hearts go out to the North Korean people who are suffering, but it’s clear that we can’t have any confidence that this program will be implemented in the way that we want to see it implemented.
QUESTION: Campbell mentioned that the trilateral meeting between U.S., Japan, and South Korea will happen sometime after --
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- next month. Is there any update as to where this will happen, or the when?
MR. TONER: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Just stay tuned, but no, I don’t have any further information.
Are we ready to move on from North Korea?
QUESTION: I think the North – North Korea doesn’t care about the sanctions against North Korea, the UN Resolution 1780 – 1718 or 1874, whatever. They don’t care about – they ignore their sanctions. How can, continually, North Koreans ignore it?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, they – it’s their own – it’s – you’re saying that they simply ignore these existing resolutions --
QUESTION: Yes, sir.
MR. TONER: And as long as they continue to do so, the door for further engagement will remain shut and they’ll remain under sanctions. And it’s clearly not in their interest, as I said to Matt. We can all see that, but they cannot. But we do remain ready to engage them. But again, at the bare minimum, they need to come in line with existing UN Security Council resolutions.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR. TONER: Let’s go to Syria, then I’ll get over to you guys.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask if you have any update on the conduct or the ability of the UN observers with a blue cap --
MR. TONER: Right. My understanding in terms of – that there are – there is an advance group of monitors there on the ground now, I believe six monitors. Obviously, the full complement, I think, is 31, so we’re looking at another 25 remaining in the next couple of days.
But overall, the news has not been good. We’ve seen sporadic fighting continuing in parts of Syria. I think we’ve all seen reports out of Homs that the government forces continue to shell parts of the city. So it’s very clear that Assad has not complied with the six points in terms of allowing democratic or peaceful demonstrations to take place, releasing political prisoners. There’s no movement on any of the other five points, and it appears that the fragile ceasefire is eroding as well.
QUESTION: Didn’t you say last week that --
QUESTION: So once it’s completely eroded, once it’s --
MR. TONER: I don’t know that you can say it’s completely eroded. I can say that the Syrian opposition --
QUESTION: No, no. I said “once,” once this happens, if you are saying that it’s eroding quickly, so we are going to get to a point where it is completely eroded. So what is the next step?
MR. TONER: Well, I do think that we’re looking at the advance team of monitors’ deployment as an important test of the Syrian Government’s intentions going forward. These individuals, as – sorry, but these individuals, as they get on the ground, as we’ve said, need to be out and have access to all parts of Syria.
QUESTION: Well, the regime has already suggested that it has the right to turn back any monitor whose nationality it has a problem with, and it also says that it’s going to put in whatever restrictions it feels are necessary on the team’s movements. Is that already a capitulation that they’re not going along with this? I mean, how effective can these monitors be if they’re already walking into these roadblocks?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, clearly if they can’t get out to see the parts of the country that they need to see, then they’re not going to be very effective. So let’s let them get the full complement on the ground and look at it from there. But at the same time, we’re under no illusions that the Syrian Government has time and time again said it was complying with the Assad plan, with the peace plan set out by the Arab League, with the Turkish initiative, and has only used it to stall for time.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I realize this is a UN operation, but since you are the president of the Security Council – not you personally, but the United States is the president of the Security Council this month – I figure you have something to do with it. Are 31 monitors enough to do the job? And who came up with this idea? Why not 33? Why not 37?
MR. TONER: I stopped short of that. I think that’s right and not a typo that I’m not – it’s not 30 monitors. I don’t know the answer to that.
QUESTION: Well still, who came up with it?
MR. TONER: I don’t know and I don’t – I mean, the Secretary has called for a robust mission --
QUESTION: Thirty-one?
MR. TONER: I think we’d like to see more monitors on the ground and going forward --
QUESTION: Can you ask --
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question behind the number.
QUESTION: I think it’s somewhere around like 250.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Is that sufficient, in your view?
MR. TONER: I mean, again, we want to see as many – I think it’s a better number, certainly, than 30. But again, we’re going to let this mission move forward --
QUESTION: But --
MR. TONER: -- and we’re going to – again, the proof here is whether these individuals can actually get out and are not thwarted in their attempt to view different parts of Syria and really to be able to guarantee or to certify that the ceasefire is, in fact, in place.
QUESTION: How do you determine – how do you determine how many you need? Like you look at the Kosovo or the Balkans example back in the ‘90s and so on. How do you decide that we need X number of monitors in Syria or in the very – in Homs or Daraa and Deir al-Zour and so on? How do you decide that?
MR. TONER: That’s probably a better question for the UN, even though Matt correctly points out we’re the president of the Security Council. But I’d really have to refer you to the experts. I think what we’ve been on the record saying is we want as robust a mission as possible, so we would rather see more rather than fewer.
Yeah. Go ahead, Ros.
QUESTION: Where’s the deterrence effect in all this in terms of keeping the regime from continuing to attack people in areas where they feel that they need to be put down, for lack of a better expression?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think the idea behind monitors is you can actually get them out into all areas of the country, then they do become a deterrence factor insofar as their eyes and ears on the ground bearing witness to what’s going on. The other deterrence factor is we’ve not let up, if you will, on the gas on increased sanctions, on increased political pressure. And that’s going to stay absolutely in place until we see Syria take – the Syrian Government take concrete steps to implement the Annan plan.
QUESTION: But isn’t that ascribing these monitors a level of moral authority that somehow the intrinsic dignity of the people themselves don’t seem to have on the regime?
MR. TONER: Not at all. Not at all. It’s simply providing, as we would with – we’ve advocated for as robust as possible an international media presence on the ground, because we recognize that these so-called impartial observers can add a measure of credibility to reports that we’re already well aware of that are happening, of the atrocities that are happening on the ground. And it’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to – out of the last Friends of Syria meeting, this group that – accountability group that’s going to take – that’s going to begin compiling evidence of these atrocities, because as we’ve said many times, the Syrian Government – those officials who have been – are implicit – or complicit, rather, in this – in the regime’s abuses are going to be held accountable.
QUESTION: There are some activists who have argued that sending in the monitors is all well and fine, but what they really need are weapons to fight back against the regime.
MR. TONER: Well look, as I noted earlier, it’s the – the Syrian opposition has courageously refrained, in large part, from engaging in this latest assault by the government’s forces, by Assad’s regime’s artillery shells. And that, I think, speaks to their commitment to a peaceful way forward.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Ambassador Ford. Is he in any way in touch with the internal opposition?
MR. TONER: Yes. He still maintains contact. He obviously has a Facebook page that’s still seen throughout Syria, and he uses that as a platform to show, as you’ve seen, satellite photos and other imagery --
QUESTION: So he only communicates --
MR. TONER: -- that shows some of the regime’s abuses.
QUESTION: -- through that medium, through Facebook?
MR. TONER: He can. And we’ve also got, obviously, other – I mean, as much as – clearly communication is an issue here. That’s some of the things we’ve talked about before. But he does remain in contact with members of the opposition.
QUESTION: How long will they stay this time – monitors in Syrian cities?
MR. TONER: You know what? I don’t – I apologize. I don’t have the – I mean, I think they’ll stay as long as they can to ensure that the Annan plan is indeed being implemented. I don’t have a timeframe.
QUESTION: Long way to go. So will there be any Americans within the group?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware of. We are obviously supporting this – supporting the mission financially, but we don’t expect to deploy U.S. monitors.
QUESTION: About the buffer zone, there’s some circles they discussed this buffer zone option on Syria in the – over the weekend, including the spokesman of Kofi Annan. Have you started to discuss with allies the buffer zone option in Syria?
MR. TONER: Again, we’ve been pretty clear that it’s – a buffer zone is a pretty complex undertaking, and there’s obviously – it’s not necessarily as easy as it sounds to implement. We talked about – I know the Turkish Government officials have made reference to some type of buffer zone. We’d certainly be willing to listen to any ideas that are on the table; but what we want to see, what we’ve been focused on, is a ceasefire and then humanitarian access to those areas that desperately need it.
QUESTION: Humanitarian corridor is an alternative to buffer zone for you?
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re always willing to look at various alternatives while recognizing the difficulties inherent in some of these operations. And there are indeed serious challenges. But I think, as we said, our focus right now – we’ve got the Annan plan. Let’s see this ceasefire take hold, strengthen, and then we can get the kind of humanitarian access that’s needed to people --
QUESTION: So you’re expecting this idea from Turks or other neighborhood countries in the region?
MR. TONER: Yes. I mean, that – we certainly would be open to ideas.
QUESTION: And the last question about the refugees in Turkey. Have you offered any aid to Turkish Government for – to handle this refugee problem?
MR. TONER: You know what? I haven’t checked on that lately. I mean, I believe we have, as well as other international organizations. Turkey’s played just a remarkable leadership role in this crisis and especially with regard to hosting these refugees on Turkish soil. I’m not – I do know at the beginning of the crisis when refugees started crossing the border into Turkey that we had offered and Turkey had declined. I’m not sure where we’re at. I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: The Palestinian issue?
QUESTION: No.
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: One. Since no matter how imperfect or initial or preliminary this ceasefire is, if it really is even a ceasefire since fighting continues, does the Administration, despite that it was – in fact, that is was signed, is the Administration still planning to ramp up its aid to the Syrian opposition?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about the non-lethal?
QUESTION: Uh-huh.
MR. TONER: I think that’s moving forward, yes.
QUESTION: So that’s going to go ahead regardless of whether the ceasefire actually takes hold and --
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- whether the regime agrees to all the steps in the Annan plan?
MR. TONER: Well again, right. I mean, this is a way to allow --
QUESTION: It’s going to continue no matter what the government does?
MR. TONER: My understanding is yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Because what we’re trying to do is build --
QUESTION: And then --
MR. TONER: Sorry, just to complete the thought. I mean, what we’re trying to do is help the peaceful opposition coalesce, to be able to communicate and coordinate themselves. And indeed, if they were looking down the road at some kind of democratic transition, that would be useful.
QUESTION: And then the second thing is: What’s your understanding about the next Friends of Syria meeting? Is there one scheduled?
MR. TONER: Yeah. I did check on that. I think we’re still obviously open to it, but we haven’t seen any announcements out of Paris. So we’ll wait and see how that develops, but certainly the Secretary remains ready to go.
QUESTION: One more on that. Ambassador Ford’s engagement with Syrian Government officials – how much has he had --
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. You said Syrian Government officials?
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: I’m not aware that he’s had any contacts with Syrian Government officials. I’ll have to check. I don’t think so.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Mark, tomorrow the Palestinians are getting ready to hand in a much touted and talked about letter to the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu. And now my question to you (inaudible) from a report from Haaretz. They’re saying that initially the letter had a threat by Abbas that they will dissolve the Authority, but under a great deal of pressure from the Government of the United States, that he backed down. Could you confirm or deny that?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Can you just rewind there? I didn’t get all of it.
QUESTION: Did you exercise a great deal of pressure on Palestinian President – Authority Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw a clause in his letter that threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority?
MR. TONER: It’s --
QUESTION: Are you aware of the letter that I’m talking about?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware of the letter. We had a Quartet meeting here last week. You saw the statement. I can’t confirm any letter, and I’m certainly not going to get into the contents of any letter that I don’t know whether it exists.
QUESTION: Well, because this was also published --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and the full text was --
MR. TONER: The full text of the letter?
QUESTION: -- published by the AFP, I mean, today. It would be a good thing to look at to see what is your response to some of the points that were made in the letter.
My second question on the Palestinian issue: Israel has blocked about 1,500 pro-Palestinian activists, mainly from Europe, to come to the West Bank – Bethlehem and Ramallah and other places. Do you have a position on this issue? Are you aware of it?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about the so-called “flytilla?”
QUESTION: Yeah. The international “flytime.” Yeah.
MR. TONER: Well, just to finish on the – speaking more broadly, I mean, obviously I can’t confirm there’s a letter. I can’t – I’m not – and if I was able to, I wouldn’t get into the contents.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: But we do – sorry, just to finish my thought – we do support direct communication between the parties. I mean, we think that’s in and of itself a good thing. In terms of the “flytilla,” I would just say Israel is a sovereign nation like any sovereign nation that has a right to control the flow of people and goods through its ports.
QUESTION: But you do agree that Area A, at least Area A in the Palestinian territory, which includes Bethlehem and Ramallah and so on, is basically a sovereign area. So they can conceivably go visit Palestinian territories, correct?
MR. TONER: You’ve heard our positions.
Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Yeah. Hi, Mark. And with respect to Cartagena, did the Embassy there learn about the alleged conduct of Secret Service agents from the local authorities? And what steps did Embassy personnel take after learning that – those allegations?
MR. TONER: I’d – first of all, I’d have to refer you to the Secret Service for any details about the investigation into the incident. I don’t have details of how it came to light. But again, the President spoke to this yesterday in Cartagena, saying there’s an investigation underway. Let’s wait for all the details to emerge. I’m not sure, frankly, if the Embassy had any direct role.
QUESTION: Well, Congressman King – I mean, he’s quoted on the record saying that they were brought in by the police. But I’m wondering if that kicked off either an internal investigation within State or them calling the U.S. State Department to inform the status.
MR. TONER: Well, as you know, I mean, very often there’s – in these advance groups that go down or go anywhere for a trip that there are many representatives of the United States there on the scene. I’m not sure what the Embassy’s precise role was, if any. I’ll have to take the question.
But in terms of the investigation, the President spoke to it. It needs to be fully played out. But he also spoke to the need for any American official who’s abroad to recognize the fact that they are representatives of the United States and conduct themselves appropriately.
QUESTION: And just last --
QUESTION: And was a message given to the employees of Diplomatic Security, just as a friendly reminder?
MR. TONER: I don’t know of any updated information. We certainly expect any U.S. diplomat overseas at all times to behave accordingly and behave appropriately, and to recognize that when they are overseas, they are seen as representatives of the United States.
QUESTION: I wasn’t aware that you had moved your Embassy from Bogota to Cartagena.
MR. TONER: I didn’t – did I – I didn’t mean to imply that.
QUESTION: There is a consulate in Cartagena, yeah?
MR. TONER: I believe so.
QUESTION: And would they have been the ones who were involved in this?
MR. TONER: That’s what I – I don’t know, Matt. I don’t know. I mean --
QUESTION: Or how much of the Embassy staff was up in Cartagena for --
MR. TONER: That’s what I was trying to get at is that, obviously, for a presidential visit --
QUESTION: Yeah. But there is a consulate --
MR. TONER: -- there would be a detail of Embassy staff as part of the advance team.
QUESTION: There is a consulate in Cartagena, yeah?
MR. TONER: I’ll check. I believe so.
QUESTION: On Turkey? Just one.
MR. TONER: Actually, maybe Patrick. No? No.
QUESTION: There is no embassy. There is no consulate in Cartagena.
MR. TONER: No consulate.
QUESTION: Why not?
MR. TONER: I have no idea.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you’re opening them the middle of nowhere Brazil all of the sudden. Why not --
MR. TONER: I mean, very often consulates are based on reciprocity, so it probably has something to do with the number of consulates that we would have in any country would be based on the number of consulates and embassies that that country – given country would have in the United States. That’s often the way it works.
QUESTION: Okay. I --
MR. TONER: But you stumped me on Cartagena, so --
QUESTION: Colombia doesn’t --
MR. TONER: -- you can give me that smug smile. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Colombia has fewer than two consulates in the United States? Somehow I find that hard to believe.
MR. TONER: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Different issue?
QUESTION: Can I follow on that, Mark?
MR. TONER: Sure. Yeah, go ahead. Finish.
QUESTION: Well, just that you’re aware, I’m sure, the Secretary was photographed out having fun in Cartagena. Does – what’s your comment? Some have criticized her for doing that in light of this scandal investigation, that she’s out appearing to be partying. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. TONER: I can confirm that she indeed did have a very good time and was just enjoying some of the nightlife in Cartagena with colleagues. And it’s a – it’s kind of a dog-bite-man story. There’s no – there’s nothing to it.
Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, you had your hand raised.
QUESTION: On Argentina, it has been announced in the past couple of hours that the Argentinean Government is taking over the country’s top oil producer. It’s controlled by Spain. It’s a privately held company in Spain but there is also American investment in the company, and the Argentinean Government is taking over 51 percent of the company. The European Union has filed complaints, public complaints. And it has been said during the weekend that the American Government was planning to file a complaint against – in front of the World Trade Organization if this happens, so I wanted to ask you about that.
MR. TONER: And I’ll have to take the question. I’m not aware that – of the – in fact that – of the story, so I’ll have to look into that, and we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: Egypt.
QUESTION: I wonder if you have any comment on the panel striking out three candidates? Omar Suleiman, who fell short (inaudible) by 31 out of 30,000 – 31 votes out 30,000 addition – whatever – and Khairat el-Shater and Salah Abu Ismail. Do you have a comment on that?
MR. TONER: Well, this is obviously a very hot issue, if you will, in Egypt. We’ve been very clear all along, as this process moves forward through parliamentary elections, through the constitution writing, and now into the presidential race, our only concern is that this is a free and fair and transparent process, that it move forward in a way that meets the aspirations of the Egyptian people. But it’s not for us to comment on the political process itself.
QUESTION: Do you have a first-hand exposure as to the process that they have used to weed out applicants?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: You don’t – I mean, the U.S. Government, I’m saying – that --
MR. TONER: You’re talking about --
QUESTION: I’m talking about the vetting process to who qualifies and who does not qualify as a candidate. Does the U.S. in any way through its nongovernment organizations or directly have an exposure or have a window onto this process?
MR. TONER: On to that vetting process or whatever? Yeah, I mean, look, they’ve come out publicly with their explanation for their decisions. Again, our interest is only seeing that this process move forward towards presidential elections in June in a way that’s perceived by the Egyptian people as free and fair and democratic. But in terms of a window onto their process, I don’t have anything particularly to add to that. And you mentioned NGOs, so I’ll just say we do believe that nongovernment organizations can play a very objective, but important, role in these kinds of political processes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Sudan?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see your assessment about how things stand right now. Obviously, there’s the reported incursion by the south (inaudible) area.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And then following that, the parliament in Khartoum today declared that South Sudan is considered an enemy, an enemy state. What’s your assessment of how things stand now, and is there a risk of all-out war?
MR. TONER: Well, we strongly condemn the bombing by the Sudan armed forces of the UN Mission in South Sudan. They had a community support base in Mayom Unity State, which is located in South Sudan. And of course, we denounce the continued aerial bombardment by the Sudanese armed forces of South Sudan, which includes civilian areas. As we said last week, we strongly condemn the offensive military incursion into Sudan by the SPLA and the seizure of Heglig and we want to see South Sudan to withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally from Heglig.
So I mean, we want to see bottom line an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities. South Sudan needs to withdraw from Heglig and Sudan needs to stop its aerial bombardments, and both sides need to get back to the AU mechanism for resolving these outstanding issues. The tensions are far too high, the fighting has to cease, and humanitarian access has to be granted.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on that.
MR. TONER: And just a note – I’m sorry, just to – sorry. I do want to note that our Special Envoy, Princeton Lyman, did meet with South Sudan President Salva Kiir earlier today in Juba and they had a meaningful dialogue about how to deescalate the tensions.
QUESTION: When Sudan has their – during that meeting, were there any discussions about what might happen if they don’t withdraw from Heglig?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think our very strong urging here is for both sides to recognize the fact that this is really a no-win situation and the only way to resolve these differences is to get back to the high-level implementation panel process overseen by the AU. I mean, that’s how you’re going to resolve these territorial issues, these border issues, as well as issues of equity in terms of resources.
Right now, both sides are losing as a result of this fighting.
QUESTION: But the U.S. is one of the primary funders of the new Government of South Sudan. So does the U.S. not have undue influence on --
MR. TONER: Well, again, what we’re trying to do here is to move forward. We’ve seen the CPA process stall or break down. We’ve seen a return to fighting. So we need to get both countries back on track.
QUESTION: That was the process I was thinking of earlier – the one that was a success.
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: Yeah. Where’s it gotten you now?
MR. TONER: I mean, we’re still getting through it. But anyway.
QUESTION: Brief follow-up. President Kiir of the South, China has invited him to come to Beijing. China, of course, in the past has faced criticism, particularly on Capitol Hill, over its relationship to Khartoum. Do you have an assessment of the invitation? Is this a positive step? Is it – what role could the Chinese play in this?
MR. TONER: Well, obviously, we would want to see them convey the very same message in this regard, that it’s to no one’s gain to continue to fighting. Both sides need to step back and return to the table.
QUESTION: But you don’t think that the Chinese invitation has everything to do with the fact that they’re not getting any oil out of South Sudan because they’re not pumping any of it?
MR. TONER: Well, again, regardless of their motives, what’s important here is --
QUESTION: So you don’t care if the Chinese are acting purely out of self-interest here?
MR. TONER: What is important here is that – the fact that there is no agreement on sharing these resources is hurting both Sudan and South Sudan.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Yeah, on Pakistan?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Pakistani parliament has approved its recommendation to reset U.S.-Pakistan relation and looks like they’re willing to restore NATO supply line. But it seems like Islamabad is very clear about telling Washington first stop drone attacks, apology on NATO strike on November 24th. So what is your response on this? It seems like they are very clear about these conditions. So where we go from here now?
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, I think the parliamentary review process, while it has in fact left – parliament is still – has not been approved by the cabinet, I can, I think, confirm that Secretary Clinton spoke with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar a few hours ago, and they did discuss next steps in the U.S.-Pakistani dialogue in light of the conclusion of this parliamentary review. They also, of course, discussed yesterday’s attacks in Afghanistan. But they did raise the parliamentary review process and our willingness to engage in a dialogue with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Speaking of Afghanistan, I know that the Secretary spoke with Ambassador Crocker on Sunday.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And then we have this criticism from President Karzai that essentially it was NATO intelligence failures that led to this sustained attack. I thought the Afghans were in charge of security for Kabul.
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, you’re right that the Secretary did speak to Ambassador Crocker yesterday. Obviously, we condemn the terrible attacks that took place yesterday in Kabul. And we also offer our deepest condolences to all the victims and their families. And I think one of the positive stories, if you can term it that way, out of yesterday’s attacks is a quick response and professionalism of the Afghan security forces. I know General Allen noted that in his statement. They did respond quickly. They required, frankly, little or no ISAF support. So it really showed how far they’ve come in increasing their capabilities and their professionalism.
QUESTION: But doesn’t it beg the question that you have someone such as the Afghan president basically blaming the West for the second sort of attack of this nature in the last six months when he’s been insisting, “My people should be able to take control”?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think the response of the Afghan security forces showed that they have made great strides in being able to respond to these kinds of attacks. Bottom line, Ros, is that intelligence is great. But you’re never going to be able to prevent every attack. And I think that the fact that they were able to respond so quickly, that they were able to minimize the casualties from this attack and basically thwart the Taliban’s actions very quickly and effectively speaks volumes.
QUESTION: But it does beg the question, though. I mean, these attacks took place in supposedly the safest area of Kabul, where the U.S. and other Western countries have their embassies.
MR. TONER: But again, also --
QUESTION: And for the amount of infiltration that’s alleged to have happened in the past week leading up to Sunday’s attack does raise some questions about whether or not the Afghans can be trusted to actually protect the foreign diplomats and others --
MR. TONER: Look --
QUESTION: -- who were there trying to work with them.
MR. TONER: Sure. I mean, there’s no place that’s immune to the type of attack that took place in Kabul. We’ve seen that in our own country. We can speak to the fact that a lone terrorist or a small group of terrorists hell-bent on violence can attack almost anywhere. What I think is important is that security forces are able to respond quickly, effectively, and to squelch it before it becomes something more deadly than it already has been.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to Pakistan for a moment?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You mentioned that Secretary Clinton’s expressed willingness to discuss the issues with Foreign Minister Khar. What – how specific did it get? I mean, is – I mean, some of the demands that have been issued by the Pakistani parliament include an end to drone attacks, an apology. Did they get into the specifics? Did the Secretary say she’s willing talk about these --
MR. TONER: I can’t get into the specifics of whether they discussed the specifics. I think – look, our posture right now is we recognize that this has been a long and difficult road for Pakistan. It speaks, frankly, to the strength of the – of Pakistan’s democratic institutions that this parliamentary review has taken place, that the civilian government has taken the lead on this issue, has owned it, and has come up with a series of recommendations. I think it’s incumbent on us now to engage with them in a discussion about some of those recommendations.
QUESTION: On the Secretary’s call with Foreign Minister Khar, that was from Brazil?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Not from the plane?
MR. TONER: I don’t know, Matt. I’ll find out. I think it was from – no, it was from Brazil, because she’s on the ground in Brazil. Yeah. If that’s different, I’ll let you know. But I’m almost positive it was from Brazil.
QUESTION: And was there any other – was there anything else discussed, other than the attacks on Afghanistan and the parliamentary review?
MR. TONER: The parliamentary review and the attacks on Afghanistan.
QUESTION: That was it? What did the Secretary tell the foreign minister about what the U.S. thinks of the parliamentary review, other than that you respect it and think that the Pakistanis can --
MR. TONER: Well, again, I can’t get into the exact details of the conversation. Frankly, I didn’t get a readout.
QUESTION: Well, we went through this a little bit on Thursday so --
MR. TONER: Sure. What did we get in --
QUESTION: Is everything on – is everything that the Pakistanis raised something that you’re willing to talk about?
MR. TONER: I’m not going to say that we’re going to address every issue on that list. I think, as I said, our posture regarding this review is that we’re willing to listen to the concerns and try to address them as best we can.
QUESTION: Are you willing to listen to their concerns on every issue?
MR. TONER: And again, I know where you’re leaning or getting at on this, and I can’t talk about that.
QUESTION: I’m leaning towards nothing, really.
MR. TONER: Okay. I mean, I think we’re willing to listen, to hear them out on --
QUESTION: So nothing is off the table, right?
MR. TONER: -- all the issues that are – I think we’re willing to listen and to hear them out on all the issues that were raised in this review that are of concern to them. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So nothing is off the table?
MR. TONER: Okay. If that --
QUESTION: Anything that they want to talk about, you’ll talk about?
MR. TONER: No, I think we said that it’s in the parliamentary review. I don’t think we’re going to ask them about --
QUESTION: No, that’s what I mean. Anything in the – no, I’m not expecting you to raise some issue that’s unrelated or them to raise some issue like, I don’t know, Canada about – but everything that they have in the review --
MR. TONER: I think we’re --
QUESTION: -- you’re willing to talk --
MR. TONER: I think we’re willing to listen to their concerns that were raised in the parliamentary review. However, I’m not going to --
QUESTION: Are you willing to do anything about them?
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re going to listen to them and we’re going to engage in them as any bilateral relationship would, and talk about – talk through these issues.
QUESTION: Is it problematic when the Pakistani parliament publicly – and the cabinet start debating and talking about something that you’re not allowed to talk about because it’s classified; yet everybody and their mother is aware that it’s going on, and it happens virtually every day?
MR. TONER: It’s not problematic, because I’m not going to address it.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Ambassador Sherry Rehman just returned from Islamabad. Is she going to meet some State Department official to present those recommendation?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Ambassador?
QUESTION: Sherry Rehman, the Pakistan ambassador.
MR. TONER: Oh, sure. Okay.
QUESTION: She’s just --
MR. TONER: Right. I don’t know, frankly. I don’t know if she has any meetings planned. I’ll look into it.
QUESTION: Are any U.S. diplomats traveling to Pakistan or anybody --
MR. TONER: Nothing to announce. That it? Thanks, guys.

NAVY'S ENERGY DASHBOARD TO HELP REDUCE FUEL CONSUMPTION

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
Navy photo by Cmdr. Jane Campbell  
Energy Dashboard to Help Fleet Reduce Fuel Consumption
From Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communications
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) installed the Energy Dashboard proof-of-concept system in USS Kidd (DDG 100), April 2.

Energy Dashboard is one of several shipboard energy efficiency initiatives that provides Sailors with a real-time assessment of energy usage and recommended actions to reduce fuel and electrical power consumption.

"Energy Dashboard is similar to the systems in today's newer vehicles that show drivers their instantaneous miles per gallon, allowing drivers to modify their driving behaviors to maximize fuel efficiency," said Glen Sturtevant, Team Ships director for Science and Technology. "Energy Dashboard ties into other shipboard computer software systems to tell Sailors the same thing about their ship."

In addition to Kidd, NAVSEA has installed the Energy Dashboard on board USS Truxtun (DDG 103), USS Sampson (DDG 102) and USS James E. Williams (DDG 95). USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108) will receive the system by August.

Energy Dashboard uses the existing Integrated Condition Assessment System to collect data from shipboard equipment, calculate and display instantaneous and daily energy consumption rates.

"Energy Dashboard will raise shipboard situational awareness of how certain engineering plant line-ups and equipment affect fuel consumption rates, and will build ownership in energy conservation efforts by showing how the actions instantly and dramatically affect consumption rates," said Bob Steele, director, Fleet Readiness Engineering Office.

Energy Dashboard is anticipated to be fielded in all surface ships by 2017.

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.”