Friday, April 20, 2012
U.S TREASURY ON WALL STREET REFORM
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Wall Street Reform for U.S. Department of the Treasury
As prepared for delivery
NEW YORK – Good afternoon. It is a privilege to address the International Section of the American Bar Association, and to be speaking about international regulatory reform. The subject matter is particularly timely given that the world’s finance ministers will gather in Washington, D.C. for the G-20 this weekend.
We have learned from recent events, including the financial crisis, that financial systems and markets around the world are more integrated than ever. Therefore, financial reforms around the globe must be consistent and convergent.
I will touch on three key priorities that were agreed upon by the G-20 – capital, resolution, and OTC derivatives – as well as insurance regulation.
We are transitioning now from regulatory design to implementation. We must acknowledge that the task is both difficult and complex. We must work together through the G-20 and the Financial Stability Board to make the new rules effective. We all share a common interest in a global financial system that is safe and resilient, and that supports growth.
The Importance of Reform
Let me begin by retreading familiar ground: the financial crisis revealed that the risks facing our system can be correlated and crosscutting, and that they can affect multiple firms, markets, and countries simultaneously. The crisis laid bare the fundamental weaknesses of the previous financial regulatory infrastructure.
To preserve financial stability, it became essential to establish a regulatory structure that could properly assess the financial system as a whole, not simply its component parts – a regulatory structure in which the failure of one firm, or problems in one corner of the system, would not risk bringing down the entire financial system. It was important to establish a modern regulatory framework that could keep pace with financial sector innovations, restore market discipline, and safeguard financial stability in both the United States and abroad. The United States has played a leading role in this global financial reform by enacting the Dodd-Frank Act.
Some have argued that these new rules and standards put U.S. financial firms at a competitive disadvantage. While we must always work towards having a level competitive playing field, I believe such arguments are misplaced.
First, by moving quickly, we in the United States have been able to lead from a position of strength in setting the international reform agenda.
Second, there is already evidence that our actions – both the immediate response to the crisis and permanent reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act – have bolstered the recovery of the U.S. financial system. Bank balance sheets are stronger. Tier 1 common equity at large bank holding companies has increased by more than 70 percent or by $560 billion since the first quarter of 2009. Additionally, at the four largest bank holding companies, for example, reliance on short-term wholesale financial debt has decreased from a peak of 36 percent of total assets in 2007 to 20 percent at the end of 2011. The firms’ liquidity positions are more robust and their funding sources are more reliable. Firms have significantly reduced leverage. Recent stress tests showed that the bank holding companies are better able to withstand significant shocks.
Third, I believe that consumers, investors, and businesses feel more secure when they deal with financial institutions that are well-regulated and transparent, because these attributes engender trust. Trust is essential for the financial system to perform its most basic functions, including credit intermediation. For many years, investors from all over the world have trusted the U.S. financial system. Regulation that is both strong and sensible is essential to continue that trust.
Over the past three years, we have made substantial progress in restoring this trust to our financial system and thereby improving financial stability. Long-term economic growth and credit intermediation are only sustainable under a model in which there is confidence in financial stability.
International Coordination
All of this being said, it is nevertheless important to remember that financial systems are interconnected and that risks both transcend and migrate across national borders. Therefore, we must work towards building a system where there is broad global agreement on the basic rules of the road.
Global coordination is important not only for maintaining a level playing field, but also for promoting financial stability. We can ill afford the risk of regulatory arbitrage. If riskier activities migrate unchecked to jurisdictions with inadequate rules and supervision, the threats that will emerge will have implications not just for the host country, but for the global financial system. The financial crisis exposed the failure of weak regulation.
Europe has taken important steps toward reform. The EU is working through its most extensive financial services reform. It has proposed or adopted around thirty reform measures, including almost all of the key measures agreed to by the G-20. The United States and the EU are aligned on the fundamental goals of regulatory reform, and are united by a shared view that it is necessary to complete at an international level the work that is underway. Treasury and U.S. regulatory agencies have worked closely with our counterparts in the European Commission and the European Supervisory Agencies to align our regulations more closely.
It is unlikely that we and our European counterparts will attain perfect alignment. But most of the differences between us are technical, not matters of principle. While we must work diligently to resolve our technical differences, we should not let them overshadow our shared commitment to reform. We must also see to it that other regions follow through on implementing reforms, particularly Asia, given the importance of financial centers like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo. The global financial system will continue to strengthen as a result of our efforts. Backtracking on reforms is not an option.
G-20 and the Joint Reform Agenda
The G-20 has been, and will continue to be, a key vehicle for coordinating our reform efforts. Since the first meetings of the G-20, and especially since the Pittsburgh meetings during the height of the financial crisis in 2009, the Group has worked to increase the strength and effectiveness of the international regulatory framework through a comprehensive agenda for reform. This agenda has been reaffirmed and further developed at each subsequent Summit. The Financial Stability Forum, which was expanded and strengthened as the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in 2009, has also played a key role in this process, with support from the global standard-setting bodies.
This year in the G-20, the United States is emphasizing progress on implementation in three key areas: capital, resolution, and OTC derivatives. Let me now turn to discussing these three priorities as well as international coordination around insurance, which will also be an area of focus in the coming year.
Capital
The crisis showed that financial institutions were not sufficiently capitalized to withstand significant market pressures. To maintain financial stability, taxpayers in countries across the globe had to provide capital support to financial institutions in order to prevent their failure. There was little question that, going forward, banks needed to be more resilient, with better quality capital buffers.
The international regulatory community acted with dispatch and urgency to achieve consensus on Basel 2.5 and Basel III capital standards. The new Basel capital standards provide a uniform definition of capital across jurisdictions, and it requires banks to hold significantly more and higher-quality capital. The reforms to the Basel Capital Standards also establish a mandatory leverage ratio and a liquidity coverage ratio.
More work remains with respect to the Basel Capital Standards. International agreement on standards must be followed with implementation by G-20 members. Moreover, important debates continue around issues such as liquidity run-off ratios and measurement of capital deductions. The Basel Committee is now working toward more consistent measurement of risk-weighted assets across jurisdictions.
While these points are relatively technical, it is important that the new rules be consistent not only in principle, but also in practice. Consistent cross-border application of capital standards is important to maintaining a level playing field.
Resolution
Strengthening cross-border resolution regimes is complicated. But it is a critically important topic.
The U.S. experience with Lehman Brothers showed the potentially devastating consequences to financial stability of the disorderly bankruptcy of a financial firm. Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for orderly resolution of financial companies, including non-bank financial institutions. The FDIC and Federal Reserve have already adopted a number of rules pursuant to these new authorities, including a “living wills” rule that requires large bank holding companies and designated nonbank financial companies to prepare resolution plans. The largest bank holding companies will submit the first living wills in July.
The goal of international convergence was furthered this year when the G-20 endorsed the “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions.” This new international standard addresses such critical issues as the scope and independence of the resolution authority, the essential powers and authorities that a resolution authority must possess, and how jurisdictions can facilitate cross-border cooperation in resolutions of significant financial institutions. The Key Attributes provide guidelines for how jurisdictions should develop recovery and resolution plans for specific institutions and for assessing the resolvability of their institutions. This new international standard also sets forth the elements that countries should include in their resolution regimes while avoiding severe systemic consequences or taxpayer loss.
Therefore, much progress has already been made and even more will be completed by the end of this year: cross-border crisis management groups for the largest firms have been established, additional cross-border cooperation agreements will be put in place, and recovery and resolution plans are being developed.
Derivatives
The crisis also showed that we did not have a sufficient understanding of derivatives, which are an important means of interconnection between firms. The flaws attendant to this area of financial transactions were many: poor access to useful data such that, at critical times, neither supervisors nor counterparties knew who owed what to whom; poor risk management such that firms were not able to satisfy their contractual obligations with respect to collateral; and a generally fragmented and opaque market. It is common ground that the lack of oversight in the derivatives markets exacerbated the financial crisis.
The Dodd-Frank Act creates a comprehensive framework of regulation for the OTC derivatives markets. The elements of this framework include regulation of dealers, mandatory clearing, trading, and transparency. The framework established under the Dodd-Frank Act is consistent with that of the G-20. The CFTC and SEC are well into their rule-making process. Once again, the United States and the EU have closely cooperated in this area, and have adopted parallel approaches to important issues such as central clearing, trading platforms, and reporting to trade repositories.
While the reforms set forth a framework for on-exchange-traded derivatives, it is also important for us to make progress on establishing a global regime for margin for bespoke, un-cleared derivatives transactions. Both the United States and the EU support international work on global margin standards for trades that are not cleared through a central counterparty. Margin requirements are critical to promoting the safety and soundness of the dealers, and thereby lower risk in the financial system.
While we have made some progress, there is still much work to be done on derivatives, including completing the implementation efforts and meeting agreed G-20 timetables.
Insurance
Finally, I would like to turn to insurance regulation. Important strides have been made in this area. The Dodd-Frank Act created and placed within the Treasury Department the Federal Insurance Office (FIO). While FIO is not a regulator, it has broad responsibilities to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and is the first federal office in this sector. Among its duties, FIO is charged with coordinating federal efforts and developing federal policy on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including representing the United States in the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, or IAIS. Notably, FIO recently joined the Executive Committee of the IAIS.
FIO’s establishment coincides with the rapid internationalization of the insurance sector and work ongoing in various international regulatory bodies that will affect U.S.-based companies operating around the world. FIO’s international priorities include the IAIS initiative to create a common framework for the supervision of internationally active insurance groups, or ComFrame. FIO is also engaged in the IAIS work stream to develop a methodology that will identify globally significant insurance institutions, an assignment given to the IAIS by the Financial Stability Board. Finally, FIO is leading an insurance dialogue between the United States and the EU that aims to establish a platform for insurers based on both sides of the Atlantic to compete fairly and on a level playing field.
Conclusion
We must continue to work with our partners in the G-20 and the Financial Stability Board to ensure a consistent international financial reform agenda. It is not enough to mitigate risk within the United States. Reform must be global in nature.
But, financial reform cannot just respond to events of the past. It must be forward-looking and it must help lay the foundations for sustainable growth. Financial reform, embodied by responsible and robust regulation, is critical to establishing and maintaining confidence. Confidence is critical for long-term financial stability and growth.
Our past experience confirms our current judgment. In the decades following the Great Depression, the United States set the highest standards for disclosure and investor protection, the strongest protections for depositors, and sophisticated market rules. We did not lower our standards even when others might have. Financial regulation became a source of strength for our financial system and led to a period of significant growth and prosperity.
Today, as our predecessors did in the wake of the Great Depression, we also have the opportunity to restore trust in the global financial system through a smart regulatory framework that could support sustainable economic expansion.
Thank you.
USO CONTINUES TO ENTERTAIN MILITARY PERSONNEL
PHOTO: WIKIMEDIA
Date1 May 1986
Bob Hope and Elizabeth Taylor perform in a United Service Organization (USO) show aboard the training aircraft carrier USS Lexington (AVT 16) stationed at Naval Air Station, Pensacola during the celebration of the 75th anniversary of naval aviation.
FROM: AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
USO Spring Tour Thrills Wounded Warriors, Base-wide Crowd
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service
SOUTHWEST ASIA, April 17, 2012 – The USO’s spring tour, lead by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his “Vice Squad,” continued to entertain service members overseas as its fourth stop brought morale and high spirits to wounded warriors and other troops serving here today.
“We are here to see you and thank you so much for coming out to see us,” Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr. told an enthusiastic audience. “This is the opportunity for some really fantastic people who have come out to do this USO tour, some real terrific celebrities – people who love our country and who loves soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, to come out here and thank you all for what you're doing for your country.”
Following a brief visit and show on the USS Enterprise as it patrolled the seas, the Vice Squad arrived here to an excited, base-wide crowd who were treated to barbecue and other refreshments.
Service members listened to a short monologue from each USO celebrity before a short performance and photo opportunities with comedian/actor Anthony Anderson; Major League Baseball pitcher Randy “Big Unit” Johnson; performer Jason “Wee-Man” Acuna, actor and pitchman Dennis Haysbert; Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders Allyson Traylor, Brittany Evans and Kelsi Reich; and American Idol contestants Diana DeGarmo and Ace Young.
Before the show, the vice chairman celebrated those who sacrificed for the nation and recognized a special group attending the USO show.
“You are the people who have volunteered to come out here,” Winnefeld noted. “You've deployed away from your wonderful families, serving your country, doing the right thing and supporting our troops on the ground.
“And by the way, can we get a round of applause for our eight wounded warriors we've got here tonight?” he added. “Thank you guys – we're with you all the way.”
Winnefeld also recognized the USO for their years of commitment to the military dating back to the Vietnam War era.
“I want you to know, the USO has been doing this for a long time – many, many decades,” he said. “It goes all the way back to Bob Hope and Vietnam and a lot of giving, wonderful people over the years.”
“And I want to thank the USO folks for setting this tour up for us,” Winnefeld said. “This is a remarkable audience and it's going to be a really unique evening for us to have a chance to meet you [all].”
F
NASA SELECTS SCIENCE INSTRUMENT UPGRADE FOR FLYING OBSERVATORY
WASHINGTON -- NASA has selected a science instrument upgrade to the
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airborne
observatory. The instrument, the High-resolution Airborne Wideband
Camera (HAWC), will provide a sensitive, versatile and reliable
imaging capability to the SOFIA user community. The upgrade involves
two proposals that will allow the observatory to measure the
structure and strength of magnetic fields in diverse objects
throughout the universe, such as star-forming clouds and galaxies.
This will help astronomers better understand how stars, planets and
galaxies form and evolve.
SOFIA is a highly modified Boeing 747SP aircraft that carries a
telescope with a 100-inch (2.5-meter) diameter reflecting mirror that
conducts astronomy research not possible with ground-based
telescopes. By operating in the stratosphere at altitudes up to
45,000 feet, SOFIA can make observations above the water vapor in
Earth's lower atmosphere.
"SOFIA has the ability to become a world-class airborne observatory
that complements the Hubble, Spitzer and Herschel space telescopes,"
said John Grunsfeld, NASA's Science Mission Directorate associate
administrator. "This upgrade will greatly broaden SOFIA's
capabilities."
Last August, the agency released an Announcement of Opportunity for
SOFIA second-generation instrument investigations and received 11
proposals. The selected proposals were judged to have the best
science value and feasible development plans.
The selected proposals are:
-- The High-resolution Airborne Wideband Camera Polarization
(HAWC-Pol), Charles Dowell, principal investigator, NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. This investigation upgrades
the HAWC instrument to include the capability to make polarimetric
observations at far-infrared wavelengths. The investigation's main
goals are to measure the magnetic field in the interstellar medium,
star forming regions and the center of the Milky Way.
-- HAWC++, Johannes Staguhn, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This
investigation will provide a sensitive, large-format detector array
to the HAWC-Pol investigation, increasing its observing efficiency
and providing a broader range of targets.
SOFIA is a joint project of NASA and the German Aerospace Center and
is based and managed at NASA's Dryden Aircraft Operations Facility in
Palmdale, Calif. NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffett Field,
Calif., manages the SOFIA science and mission operations in
cooperation with the Universities Space Research Association,
headquartered in Columbia, Md., and the German SOFIA Institute at the
University of Stuttgart.
SECRETARY OF LABOR SPEAKS ON EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on Equal Pay Day
Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on Equal Pay Day
WASHINGTON — Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis today issued the following statement regarding Equal Pay Day:
"It has been nearly half a century since the Equal Pay Act was signed to abolish wage discrimination on the basis of sex. In that time, women from all walks of life have demonstrated extraordinary leadership, patriotism, scientific and artistic vision, and great personal sacrifice — both at home and in the workplace. Still, women continue to earn less than men. As a nation, we continue to work toward the fundamental promise of equal pay for equal work.
"Today, on Equal Pay Day, we reflect on the challenges that millions of women — particularly those of color, single mothers and women with disabilities — continue to face in securing the pay they deserve.
"Women now make up nearly half of the nation's workforce, and 60 percent of all women work full time. In almost two-thirds of families led by single mothers or two parents, mothers are either the primary or co-breadwinner. Pay equity is not simply a question of fairness; it is an economic imperative with serious implications not just for women, but for their families, their communities and our nation. Moreover, when women start at a disadvantage, they stay there.
"Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Department of Labor. We will recognize the achievements of our past and look to a future committed to increasing incomes and education, eliminating wage and income inequality, and putting more women on a path into the middle class.
"Closing the pay gap requires closing the information gap. For more than 90 years, our Women's Bureau has been instrumental in this important effort for women, most recently by hosting a series of dialogues across the country to make sure women are educated about their worth and empowered to advocate for it. We're also working with researchers, experts and the brightest minds in the field of Web technology to create new tools that will make useful information about wages readily accessible to workers.
"Additionally, for more than 45 years now, our Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has been building a strong record of identifying and eliminating gender-based discrimination for federal contractors. Last year, this office successfully resolved 134 cases of employment discrimination affecting women and minorities, resulting in more than $12 million in remedies for victims of discrimination.
"I am proud of the steps we've taken to close the pay gap. But I recognize that we still have so much work to do. This Equal Pay Day, while progress has been made, let us all renew our commitment to advancing the progress of working women and their families. Let us continue to pursue pay equity with both passion and determination."
ORION SPACECRAFT TESTED BY PUSHING OUT THE DOOR
A test model of the Orion spacecraft with its parachutes was tested the skies high above the U.S. Army’s Proving Grounds in Yuma, Ariz. on Feb. 29, 2012. This particular drop test examined the wake -- or the disturbance of the air flow behind Orion -- that is caused by the spacecraft. The U.S. Space Launch System, or SLS, will provide an entirely new capability for human exploration beyond Earth orbit and the Orion capsule is a major part of this program. The Orion spacecraft will replace the space shuttle as NASA's vehicle for human space exploration and is designed to accommodate four to six astronauts traveling into space. It also will supplement commercial and international partner transportation services to the International Space Station. Designed to be flexible for crew or cargo missions, SLS will continue America's journey of discovery from the unique vantage point of space. Image Credit: NASA
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA REMEMBERS THE HOLOCAUST
Holocaust Remembrance Day Observance
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, The Pentagon Auditorium, Washington D.C., Thursday, April 19, 2012
Thank you Secretary Mabus.
Minister Barak, distinguished guests, members of the DoD family: Thank you all for taking the time to come together on this day of remembrance of one of the most painful and horrific chapters in the history of the Jewish people and, more importantly, in the history of the world.
Today we pause to remember and honor six million souls who were murdered not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were. They will always be in our memory, they will always be in our prayers, and they will always be in our hearts.
We also honor those who survived, who endured unimaginable pain and suffering. They saw their family; mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, other family members and friends taken from them. They bore witness to evil and to tragedy, but in their strength we all find inspiration to fight against the intolerance and indifference that allowed this to happen.
Today we also celebrate the en
during strength of the Jewish people, who overcame this tragedy and built a strong and vibrant Jewish state in Israel. They have flourished there, they have flourished here in America, and indeed across the world, and that too is an inspiration to all of us.
In my faith, the resurrection from the dead is fundamental to our hope and to our faith. In the Jewish faith, resurrection from tragedy is fundamental to their hope and to their faith.
I just had the opportunity to meet with my friend Ehud Barak, and we are deeply honored that he was able to join us here today in this observance. Ehud, thank you for changing your schedule so that you could be here with us, we understand that you have tight schedule and that you'll have to depart a little early today.
Ehud's life has been a living tribute to the memory of the Holocaust, and to the memory of his two grandparents who were murdered at the Treblinka death camp.
Ehud has helped build and strengthen the state of Israel, rising to be a highly decorated soldier, Prime Minister, and now Defense Minister.
Ehud, I am proud to be your partner, and I am proud to be your friend, and to work with you in continuing to strengthen the U.S.-Israel defense relationship.
It is an honor for me to be able to participate in this event with all of you. Today the world comes together to mark Yom Ha'Shoah – Holocaust Remembrance Day.
It was my privilege to have served in the U.S. House of Representatives when we passed a law recognizing the days surrounding Yom Ha'Shoah as a national civic commemoration, a law that also established the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I believed it was important then when I cast that vote, and it is important today, to mark these days of remembrance, because through commemorations like this, large and small, within families at home, we send a strong message that we will never forget, and that we will never allow this to happen again.
That solemn responsibility is shared by us as human beings, by us as Americans, and by us as men and women of the Department of Defense, who could be asked, when the time comes, to act, to make sure that it never happens again.
For the United States Armed Services, these events are not a distant memory. Our modern military was forged in the crucible of World War II. It was forged in the fight against Nazi tyranny. To defeat Hitler we mobilized all of the strength that we could muster, and in that effort we witnessed many of our finest hours as a military and indeed, as a country.
Today we carry forward the proud legacy of men and women of the United States Army who played a vital role in liberating the camps at Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbürg, Dachau, and Mauthausen.
American forces not only brought freedom to the survivors of Nazi horrors, they also made sure that in its aftermath the world would know what had happened.
In the days after Allied forces captured the first concentration camps, General Eisenhower, General Patton and General Bradley themselves inspected a camp, and learned and saw atrocities that had occurred. They were, in Eisenhower's words, atrocities "beyond the American mind to comprehend."
Eisenhower ordered every American soldier in the area who was not on the front lines to take the time to tour these camps, so that they could themselves see what they were fighting against, and why they were fighting. These soldiers became not only liberators, but witnesses to one of the greatest atrocities in history.
The commitment of our forces to the survivors of Nazi atrocities did not end with liberation. In the aftermath of war, we cared for survivors and we helped reunite families. We provided physical nourishment, and we provided spiritual nourishment as well.
For example, upon learning that there was not a single complete edition of the Talmud in Germany, General Joseph McNarney, commander of the American zone of Occupied Germany, undertook an effort to print a Talmud for survivors.
And when American forces discovered enormous caches of looted cultural materials, they set about ensuring that these objects were treated with the greatest respect.
Ultimately, thanks to these efforts, millions of objects and sacred texts were returned to their rightful heirs or held in trust by Jewish successor organizations.
The leader of that effort, a U.S. Army Captain named Seymour Pomrenze, was a hero whose actions embodied the professionalism and dedication of the uniform he wore.
The contributions of American service members like Captain Pomrenze make all of us proud, and we remember them as we come together as a community today to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Though we will always know what good was done and that lives were saved, we must always remember that we were unable to save the six million Jews who perished under Hitler's cruel reign.
That is a burden that all of us must carry. Not just the generation of World War II, but every generation must carry that burden. It is one that we have turned into shared determination, a shared determination to ensure that this never happens again.
Today we renew that commitment. That is what this day is truly all about. We do so by coming together to bear witness, just as our service members did more than sixty-five years ago. In a moment, we will be privileged to hear from Charlene Schiff, who has dedicated her life to making sure that the lives of those who perished in the Holocaust are never forgotten.
Charlene, it is our honor to be witnesses to your story. And it is our honor to affirm to you that we will never stop fighting in the memory of those who perished – fighting for a better future, and fighting for a world safe from aggression, from tyranny and from injustice.
Out of the darkness that was the Holocaust comes the eternal hope that never again, never again, will we allow that to happen. I would now like to invite Minister Barak and the Service Secretaries to join me and Charlene in lighting memorial candles.
These candles symbolize unity and hope, and our shared commitment to honor the memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust.
UNEMPLOYMENT DATA FOR WEEK ENDING APRIL 14, 2012
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA
In the week ending April 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 386,000, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 388,000. The 4-week moving average was 374,750, an increase of 5,500 from the previous week's revised average of 369,250.
In the week ending April 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 386,000, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 388,000. The 4-week moving average was 374,750, an increase of 5,500 from the previous week's revised average of 369,250.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent for the week ending April 7, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.6 percent.
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 7 was 3,297,000, an increase of 26,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,271,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,317,750, a decrease of 21,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,339,250.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 367,550 in the week ending April 14, a decrease of 22,916 from the previous week. There were 381,834 initial claims in the comparable week in 2011.
The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.7 percent during the week ending April 7, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.7 percent. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,432,102, a decrease of 37,981 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 3.1 percent and the volume was 3,893,218.
The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending March 31 was 6,765,080, a decrease of 187,807 from the previous week.
Extended benefits were available in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin during the week ending March 31.
Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,295 in the week ending April 7, an increase of 136 from the prior week. There were 2,564 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, an increase of 287 from the preceding week.
There were 21,384 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending March 31, a decrease of 1,684 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 40,306, a decrease of 1,254 from the prior week.
States reported 2,775,134 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending March 31, a decrease of 19,419 from the prior week. There were 3,527,093 claimants in the comparable week in 2011. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending March 31 were in Alaska (5.6), Oregon (4.3), Puerto Rico (4.3), California (3.8), New Jersey (3.8), Pennsylvania (3.8), Rhode Island (3.8), Idaho (3.7), Connecticut (3.6), Montana (3.6), and Wisconsin (3.6).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending April 7 were in Pennsylvania (+7,483), California (+6,587), Washington (+5,985), New Jersey (+5,735), and Indiana (+4,984), while the largest decreases were in Tennessee (-670), Vermont (-78), and North Dakota (-49).
USS SOMERSET NAMED IN HONOR OF FLIGHT 93 WHICH CRASHED ON 9-11
AVONDALE, La. (NNS) -- The future USS Somerset (LPD 25) launched April 14 from Huntington Ingalls Industries' (HII) Avondale Shipyard, marking a key milestone in the ship's construction process.
LPD 25 is the ninth ship of the San Antonio class, and is named in honor of the courage of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pa., on 9/11.
Over the weeks following the Flight 93 crash, recovery personnel retrieved more than 95 percent of the airplane's wreckage from the crash site. An American flag was hoisted on the top of a power shovel or "dragline" on a hill dominating the area. The dragline had been used in coal stripping at one time, and the equipment with the flag became a symbol of the effort.
In the summer of 2008, steel from the dragline's bucket was melted down and cast into LPD 25's bow stem. Somerset is the final of three ships named to honor heroes of the September 11th attacks, joining the USS New York (LPD 21) and USS Arlington (LPD 24), respectively. LPD 25 is the fifth U.S. Navy ship named Somerset.
"As the ninth ship of the San Antonio class, LPD 25's launch represents an important success for the entire program," said Jay Stefany, LPD 17 program manager for the Navy's Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. "The Navy and the shipbuilder have incorporated many lessons learned and driven efficiencies into the production, resulting in the most complete ship at launch to date for the LPD 17 class. I look forward to HII delivering this critical capability to the Navy."
These versatile ships incorporate both a flight deck to accommodate CH-46 helicopters and MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and a well deck that can launch and recover landing craft and amphibious vehicles. The San Antonio class' increased vehicle space and substantial cargo carrying capacity make it a key element of twenty-first century Amphibious Ready Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups, and Joint Task Forces.
In addition to performing their primary mission, Somerset's sister ships have supported anti-piracy operations and provided humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster relief operations in Haiti after the earthquake.
Six ships from the San Antonio class have been delivered to the Navy, including USS San Antonio (LPD 17), USS New Orleans (LPD 18), USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), USS Green Bay (LPD 20), USS New York (LPD 21) and USS San Diego (LPD 22). LPD 22 recently transited from the shipyard to the homeport in San Diego. The commissioning ceremony for San Diego is scheduled for May 19, in San Diego. Early construction activities are underway for LPD 26 in Pascagoula, Miss., and material for LPD 27 is on order.
As one of the Defense Department's largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships, a Naval Sea Systems Command affiliated PEO, is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all major surface combatants, amphibious ships, special mission ships, support ships, and special warfare craft. Currently, the majority of shipbuilding programs managed by PEO Ships are benefiting from serial production efficiencies, which are critical to delivering ships on cost and schedule.
LPD 25 is the ninth ship of the San Antonio class, and is named in honor of the courage of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pa., on 9/11.
Over the weeks following the Flight 93 crash, recovery personnel retrieved more than 95 percent of the airplane's wreckage from the crash site. An American flag was hoisted on the top of a power shovel or "dragline" on a hill dominating the area. The dragline had been used in coal stripping at one time, and the equipment with the flag became a symbol of the effort.
In the summer of 2008, steel from the dragline's bucket was melted down and cast into LPD 25's bow stem. Somerset is the final of three ships named to honor heroes of the September 11th attacks, joining the USS New York (LPD 21) and USS Arlington (LPD 24), respectively. LPD 25 is the fifth U.S. Navy ship named Somerset.
"As the ninth ship of the San Antonio class, LPD 25's launch represents an important success for the entire program," said Jay Stefany, LPD 17 program manager for the Navy's Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. "The Navy and the shipbuilder have incorporated many lessons learned and driven efficiencies into the production, resulting in the most complete ship at launch to date for the LPD 17 class. I look forward to HII delivering this critical capability to the Navy."
These versatile ships incorporate both a flight deck to accommodate CH-46 helicopters and MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and a well deck that can launch and recover landing craft and amphibious vehicles. The San Antonio class' increased vehicle space and substantial cargo carrying capacity make it a key element of twenty-first century Amphibious Ready Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups, and Joint Task Forces.
In addition to performing their primary mission, Somerset's sister ships have supported anti-piracy operations and provided humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster relief operations in Haiti after the earthquake.
Six ships from the San Antonio class have been delivered to the Navy, including USS San Antonio (LPD 17), USS New Orleans (LPD 18), USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), USS Green Bay (LPD 20), USS New York (LPD 21) and USS San Diego (LPD 22). LPD 22 recently transited from the shipyard to the homeport in San Diego. The commissioning ceremony for San Diego is scheduled for May 19, in San Diego. Early construction activities are underway for LPD 26 in Pascagoula, Miss., and material for LPD 27 is on order.
As one of the Defense Department's largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships, a Naval Sea Systems Command affiliated PEO, is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all major surface combatants, amphibious ships, special mission ships, support ships, and special warfare craft. Currently, the majority of shipbuilding programs managed by PEO Ships are benefiting from serial production efficiencies, which are critical to delivering ships on cost and schedule.
STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 19, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:14 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. It’s a beautiful spring day. Hint, hint. I don’t have anything for you at the top, so I’ll take your questions.
QUESTION: Well, I’m presuming that since your two minutes turned into, what, ten minutes, that you were on the phone taking an urgent call from the Secretary’s traveling party. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: That’s not correct.
QUESTION: Then you don’t have an answer for me for the – (laughter) – you don’t have an answer for me.
MR. TONER: On the --
QUESTION: Yes. On --
MR. TONER: Your question has been relayed and I have no answer.
QUESTION: But do you – but you have no answer?
MR. TONER: No, not yet.
QUESTION: Is there anything --
MR. TONER: As we speak in code.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Got anything else?
QUESTION: We’re talking about the Flyers’ game last night. (Laughter.)
Do you know if – or do you have anything to say about the Argentina Repsol situation?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I don’t have a great deal beyond what I said yesterday, no – that we’ve expressed our concerns to the Argentineans, the Argentine Government at the highest levels on numerous occasions, that these types of actions can adversely affect the investment climate for U.S. businesses, for other businesses, for other nations’ companies. So just along the lines of what I said yesterday, nothing new.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t – do you know if this subject was raised when the Secretary spoke with the Spanish foreign minister?
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t. I can’t confirm it was raised. I’ll try to get the information, some more information about that.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have something on that --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- because the foreign minister, after the meeting, spoke to press in Brussels, and he said that the Secretary had expressed a compromise to work with Spain on ways to pressure Argentina to change its decision, and that she also said that this was a violation of international law. Can you confirm any of that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm. I haven’t gotten the readout from that bilateral, and we’re not particularly forthcoming when we talk about the substance of our private diplomatic meetings.
QUESTION: Will there be a readout?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Will there be a readout today or --
MR. TONER: Again, I’ll see what I can get. That’s in line with what Matt was asking about, whether it came up in the meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: But, yeah, publicly, again, we were very clear yesterday that we find these kinds of actions to be non-constructive in creating the kind of investment climate that we want to see countries like Argentina promote.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: In you statement yesterday, you said that the United States has raised concerns like this with Argentina. Has this case specifically been raised with Argentina, or are you just talking more broadly about the investment climate?
MR. TONER: I think speaking more broadly, but I also think we’ve raised this particular case as well.
QUESTION: Since the decision was announced?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know how it was raised?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Most likely through our bilateral Embassy contacts, but I don’t know.
QUESTION: I see.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know – well, since you haven’t --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- been in touch with them, do you know if the Secretary has given her intervention yet in Paris at the meeting?
MR. TONER: She has, I believe.
QUESTION: She has? Okay. So I haven’t seen – I presume that that’s out? Can you talk about it?
MR. TONER: I can’t, really. I don’t have any details. I mean, obviously, on Syria today, the center of gravity is in – both in New York as well as in Paris. But haven’t – I think she just concluded.
QUESTION: Well, more broadly –
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can you talk about what kind of options you’re looking at as it becomes increasingly clear that the ceasefire isn’t working?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think Ambassador Rice spoke a little bit about where we’re at, and of course, the Secretary as well. But where we’re at, when she walked – she just gave a presser, I believe, in New York a short while ago – concerns that, obviously that the ceasefire is eroding, as I mentioned yesterday, that we want to see a UN monitoring mission move forward, but as she said, many members expressed their concern that all the conditions had not met. We clearly want to see this monitoring mission move forward in an environment that is conducive to its success.
QUESTION: Right, but as – but as it is not, or as it doesn’t look like that’s happening, are you or are you not preparing options in terms of if and when it becomes clear that this mission has – or that this initiative has failed?
MR. TONER: And again, I think those are conversations that are ongoing in New York as well as in Paris, so I don’t want to get out ahead of that.
QUESTION: Right, but – well, are you or are you not?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we’re always looking – as I discussed more broadly yesterday, we’re working within the UN on Syria, but we’re also with the Friends of Syria, with other likeminded nations, on ways we can continue to apply pressure.
QUESTION: But – no, I mean in the specific event that the – that Kofi Annan’s plan doesn’t work.
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re – we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of the plan. We want to see it implemented. The onus is obviously on Assad and – to live up to the commitments that his regime has made, but I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: But would the – I mean, the next step on that on that would be a new resolution which would allow for an expanded monitoring operation, as is called for under the plan. Would the U.S. support that, given that Assad’s only partially complied with the ceasefire element?
MR. TONER: Again, I think Ambassador Rice addressed this to – in some fashion in New York, where she talked about the fact that we want to see a monitoring mission move forward, but one – but we also are concerned that not all the conditions have been met yet. So we need appropriate conditions on the ground for that mission to move forward. But again, let’s let them continue to talk about this in New York and in Paris.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yes, Mark. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the blame did not only fall on the regime itself, but also on those who support the regime. Is that – does that usher in, like, another period of tension with Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we talked about this, and it was one of the outcomes of the previous Friends of Syria meeting that we are committed to holding those accountable --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: -- who are responsible for these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR. TONER: I’m not sure. I think she was speaking more directly to those around Assad, his cronies, his colleagues who are carrying out or helping him commit these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Okay. So when she was saying that she was not pointing to any sort of outside group or --
MR. TONER: That was my interpretation. We’ve been clear that --
QUESTION: Like, it doesn’t mean, like, Russia or Iran or China?
MR. TONER: That’s what – again, that was – it was my interpretation, Said. I think she was speaking about those – those around Assad need to look long and hard in the mirror and decide what side they’re on.
QUESTION: Okay. So do you expect the kind of harmony that was shown in the last session to be shown again if the point comes up before the Security Council once more?
MR. TONER: Again, I think that with the Annan plan, we do have this kind of unity, that this is a way forward that can lead to the democratic transition, the end of violence that ultimately we all want to see happen in Syria.
QUESTION: And lastly, just to follow up --
MR. TONER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: -- on Matt’s points, you are not – at this point, at least, you’re not prepared to say that this mission is about to collapse or it’s really headed towards a brick wall, so to speak?
MR. TONER: I’m really going to defer to folks in New York and in Paris because this is fast-moving, that there’s – as I said, these centers of gravity are there rather than here this – today. But I don’t want to get out in front of the diplomacy.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Are you focusing more now on the idea of having buffer zones in Syria with Turkey?
MR. TONER: We’ve – our position on buffer zones hasn’t really changed from what I said the other day. Our focus, frankly, is on ways to increase humanitarian assistance to those in need. We think the Annan plan, if it were actually fulfilled, would provide that opportunity, but it hasn’t been. But there’s clear logistical challenges to any kind of buffer zone.
QUESTION: There’s a report today that the Administration is putting more focus now on taking this idea more seriously.
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think that our focus is on humanitarian assistance. We’ve obviously focused funding for those kinds of efforts. But I can’t speak any more about any buffer zone.
QUESTION: Sorry, Mark.
MR. TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: If U.S. allies in the GCC, in the Gulf Cooperation Council, decide to sort of increase their involvement or their support of the opposition groups by arming them, does that in any way – are you concerned that this may actually lead to sort of a Sunni-Shia schism with polarization of Iran and its allies on the one side, and Saudi Arabia and its allies on the other?
MR. TONER: Well, without even addressing the crux of your question, I can say that we have been very concerned that Syria can slide into civil war. The Secretary said this. Others have said it. We still believe there’s time – a little time, but time – for a diplomatic solution to this, and that’s where we’re focusing our efforts.
QUESTION: So do you take pause when you are consulting with your allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to back off a little bit from supporting these groups, especially by arms, once this happens?
MR. TONER: Well, the GCC has played a clear leadership role in trying to address the terrible violence that’s happening in Syria. We consult with them frequently through the Friends of Syria meetings and also bilaterally on the way forward in Syria. Obviously, they’re going to make their own sovereign decisions moving forward. We’ve said, for our part, that we don’t believe in a further militarization of what’s going – of Syria.
Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: North Korea. Congressman Mike Turner sent a letter to Secretary Clinton about new mobile missile shown at the military parade in Pyongyang, and he says that the photos of this new missile suggest cooperation and support from China. And he’s asking if such any cooperation would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and if so, what the Administration is going to do. So what’s your response to that?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I’ve seen – I think there’s been some press reports out about this. China has provided repeated assurances that it is complying fully with both Resolution 1718 as well as 1874. We’re not presently aware of any UN probe into this matter, so I’d refer you to the UN.
Yes.
QUESTION: Has China specifically given assurances on this since the rocket launch?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware, no. But they have said – they’ve said in the past that they’ve been compliant with 1874 and 1718. I’m not aware that they’ve given any direct response to these reports.
QUESTION: Sure. And the U.S. is confident of that? The U.S. can take China at its word that there isn’t that type of cooperation?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we take them at their word. There is a UN mechanism. There’s a UN sanctions committee that exists to look into these allegations.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to make sure, you do believe them?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Palestinian issue.
QUESTION: Did you clarify whether Mr. Hale received a copy of the letter?
MR. TONER: I did clarify. I don’t believe he has a copy. This is an internal document between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
QUESTION: But you – being the sort of the sponsor of these talks historically --
MR. TONER: I can’t imagine --
QUESTION: -- would either side have shared with you --
MR. TONER: I think the answer to your question, Said, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t know the contents of such a letter. He’s obviously – and I can add here that he’s obviously engaged with the parties as they follow up from their meeting on April 17th. And in fact, I can note that he’s traveling to the region today to engage with the parties. He’s going to meet with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, frankly, to discuss next steps out of this meeting.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, where is he going specifically?
MR. TONER: I don’t have a detailed itinerary yet. He’s going to go to the region, and then he’s going to travel to the Gulf to brief senior officials there. I’ll try to get you a – I mean, do you want – kind of where he’s going to be, what day?
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: Granularity?
QUESTION: Not necessarily that level of granularity, but, I mean, the region – when you say the region, doesn’t – usually that includes the Gulf. But the region you’re talking about – the very small region – meaning Israel and the Palestinian territories?
MR. TONER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: But then he’s going to go to the Gulf as well?
MR. TONER: Correct. That is correct.
QUESTION: But he’s not going to go to, say, other countries in the region, like Syria?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Lebanon?
MR. TONER: I don’t know where he’s going in the Gulf.
QUESTION: Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’ll try to get better – I’ll try to get more clarity on that.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: I realize that it’s --
QUESTION: Why is he going to go to the Gulf?
MR. TONER: I think just a part of regular consultations.
QUESTION: He didn’t do this before.
MR. TONER: I wouldn’t read anything into it, Samir. But I’ll try to find out what countries – specific countries he’s visiting. It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: Will he also visit Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’m being sloppy in my geography. What?
QUESTION: Will Jordan be part of that region?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I can assume, but I don’t know what precise countries. I think that he’s going to the region, he’s going to go to the – then he’s going to consult with other Gulf countries. Sometimes these things are quite fluid. These meetings are set up on the fly, if you will. It’s the nature of the negotiations so I just don’t know specifics.
QUESTION: Do you have an inclination of what the focus of the discussion will be?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the focus is, as I said, next steps out of the April 17th meeting and with the ultimate aim of trying to get direct negotiations up and running again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On another subject. On – India has now launched that ICBM, and I’m just wondering if you have anything more to say on that. Yesterday, it seemed as – though you essentially thought it was no worries.
MR. TONER: Well, I think, as I noted yesterday, I think, we urged all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding their nuclear and missile capabilities. But you’re right. They did launch the Agni-V ballistic missile earlier today. So I don’t have any further comment to what I said.
QUESTION: Does that mean – I mean, would you – when you urge restraint, does that include testing new long-range ballistic missiles? Do you think that that generally falls under the rubric of restraint?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: And it would have been better --
MR. TONER: Go ahead. Go ahead finish your --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: Do you think that they heeded your admonition for restraint by launching this missile?
MR. TONER: Again, I just – India’s been very much engaged in the international community and nonproliferation issues. They’ve attended both the nuclear security summits, the one in D.C. and the one in Seoul. So we believe they’re – they have a solid nonproliferation record and that they’re playing a significant role internationally on the issue. I would just refer you to them. I think I’ll let my comments stand on --
QUESTION: Okay. One more --
QUESTION: Right. But the thing is that it’s not question of proliferation here. I mean, no one’s saying – no one’s suggesting that they’re going to give this missile away or sell it to anybody.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: The question is whether you – whether or not you think that they heeded your call for restraint in the nuclear and ballistic missile technologies by going ahead with the launch, and whether you have any concerns that it could affect the security and stability in a very volatile region of the world.
MR. TONER: Well, again – and I think that’s why I’d refer you to the --
QUESTION: Well, can you ask – get SCA to --
MR. TONER: -- very strong record on nonproliferation issues, but --
QUESTION: Well, that’s great.
MR. TONER: -- with regards to the --
QUESTION: This isn’t a question of proliferation.
MR. TONER: -- to the missile launch, I’ve said that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So --
MR. TONER: I think my statement’s been clear.
QUESTION: I know it’s been cleared.
MR. TONER: Clear.
QUESTION: That’s probably why it says nothing, because – are you talking about when they say that they have a great record of nonproliferation, are you talking about in terms of giving or selling the technology away?
MR. TONER: Yes, I am. I am.
QUESTION: Because they seem to be doing a great job of self-proliferation. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t be testing a new long-range missile.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So they are proliferating internally.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: That doesn’t suggest a great record on nonproliferation.
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I think I’m – I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you take – can you ask to see if there is – well, it’s significant. If you guys don’t think that it’s worthy of a comment – that the fact they launched this thing --
MR. TONER: I don’t. I think I --
QUESTION: -- it suggests that --
MR. TONER: -- answered the question with my comment, which is that we always urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: But does – the question is whether or not this launch is – fits in with your definition of exercising restraint. So – I mean, if, in fact, you choose to say nothing about the fact that they actually went ahead with the launch, that would suggest that you don’t think it’s that big of a deal, like what Andy said. But I just want to make sure that you’ve been given – this building or the Administration has been given the opportunity --
MR. TONER: We’ve been given the opportunity. We recognize that.
QUESTION: And you’re saying nothing.
MR. TONER: We recognize that we’ve been given the opportunity.
QUESTION: So it is not a big deal to you?
MR. TONER: I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma. Yesterday, Kurt Campbell mentioned that the Burmese foreign minister will be coming to the U.S. next month. And it’s a little ways ahead still, but I’m wondering if you have any details on that yet.
MR. TONER: I really don’t beyond, obviously, the confirming the visit. But, obviously, as we get closer, we’ll be able to provide more detail.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the U.S-Azerbaijani meeting yesterday, specifically on Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if I have any specific information on Afghanistan. I can say that we’re going to put out a Media Note later today on these meetings that have been taking place. I think they’re in the rubric of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission. So this is a strategic dialogue that explores opportunities for economic and commercial cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. I can say, looking at this, that we – they did discuss Afghanistan, but I don’t have any details.
QUESTION: Do you have any more to say on the question yesterday about the Yomiuri Shimbun report about North Korean refugees saying that China has suspended repatriation to North Korea? I’m sorry, that China has suspended --
MR. TONER: Right, right, right. Well, I think yesterday I expressed our concern about the repatriation of these refugees. We’ve been, obviously, clear on that in the past. The report itself – I’m sorry --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that China has suspended repatriation of refugees to North Korea. The article was saying that this was in response to concerns over the rocket launch, the lack of consultation. But obviously, there are longstanding concerns about what actually happens to these refugees if they’re turned back.
MR. TONER: Right. Well, I mean, we obviously hope that the media reports are true. I don’t have much new information to add, though. But we’ve obviously raised in the past, as I just said, our concerns about alleged reports of North Koreans detained in China. So we consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations as part of the UN Convention on Refugees.
Please.
QUESTION: Anything more or new to say on Guinea-Bissau? I mean, the World Bank and African Development Bank today suspended their aid. I looked at the website, and it looks like most of your aid, if not all of it, is humanitarian. So I’m wondering if that’s sort of in play or --
MR. TONER: There is. There was some – there was some IMET money, military training funds that have already been suspended, frankly, before the events of the last couple weeks. So we’re obviously looking at the broader aid package and, a la Mali, we’re going to look at what actually went to the Government of Guinea-Bissau. But that’s – that’ll take some more time. But --
QUESTION: Weeks, probably?
MR. TONER: Not necessarily weeks, but – anyway, but it’s about – there’s various programs and pots of money, but I just – there’s $10,000 that went to civil-military relations that was already suspended.
QUESTION: $10,000? Okay.
MR. TONER: Sorry. Just giving you the facts there.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: It’s a small country. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq. With all the explosions and violence today, do you still think that this meeting proposed for the 23rd of May to follow on the Istanbul meeting can still be held in Baghdad?
MR. TONER: Oh, absolutely. We are – first of all, I want to strongly condemn today’s attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it’s cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are – they just hosted a very successful Arab League summit, and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
Yes, Scott.
QUESTION: Venezuela – you took a question on that yesterday and deferred it to DOJ. Could you tell us if the United States Government provided the transport for Judge Aponte to leave Venezuela for Costa Rica?
MR. TONER: I can’t. At this point, I’m not – I don’t have that answer. I think Department of Justice would be better able to answer that question.
Anything else? Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have anything for us on Sudan? President Bashir is threatening to topple the SPLM Government in the South.
MR. TONER: Yeah, I think I’ll let – I mean, you may or may not be aware, but we’re going to do a call with Princeton Lyman at 2 p.m.
QUESTION: In 20 minutes.
MR. TONER: In 20 minutes. So I don’t want to steal his thunder.
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: Well, I think we sent it out to the broader press corps.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: That’s it? Thanks.
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 19, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:14 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. It’s a beautiful spring day. Hint, hint. I don’t have anything for you at the top, so I’ll take your questions.
QUESTION: Well, I’m presuming that since your two minutes turned into, what, ten minutes, that you were on the phone taking an urgent call from the Secretary’s traveling party. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: That’s not correct.
QUESTION: Then you don’t have an answer for me for the – (laughter) – you don’t have an answer for me.
MR. TONER: On the --
QUESTION: Yes. On --
MR. TONER: Your question has been relayed and I have no answer.
QUESTION: But do you – but you have no answer?
MR. TONER: No, not yet.
QUESTION: Is there anything --
MR. TONER: As we speak in code.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Got anything else?
QUESTION: We’re talking about the Flyers’ game last night. (Laughter.)
Do you know if – or do you have anything to say about the Argentina Repsol situation?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I don’t have a great deal beyond what I said yesterday, no – that we’ve expressed our concerns to the Argentineans, the Argentine Government at the highest levels on numerous occasions, that these types of actions can adversely affect the investment climate for U.S. businesses, for other businesses, for other nations’ companies. So just along the lines of what I said yesterday, nothing new.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t – do you know if this subject was raised when the Secretary spoke with the Spanish foreign minister?
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t. I can’t confirm it was raised. I’ll try to get the information, some more information about that.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have something on that --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- because the foreign minister, after the meeting, spoke to press in Brussels, and he said that the Secretary had expressed a compromise to work with Spain on ways to pressure Argentina to change its decision, and that she also said that this was a violation of international law. Can you confirm any of that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm. I haven’t gotten the readout from that bilateral, and we’re not particularly forthcoming when we talk about the substance of our private diplomatic meetings.
QUESTION: Will there be a readout?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Will there be a readout today or --
MR. TONER: Again, I’ll see what I can get. That’s in line with what Matt was asking about, whether it came up in the meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: But, yeah, publicly, again, we were very clear yesterday that we find these kinds of actions to be non-constructive in creating the kind of investment climate that we want to see countries like Argentina promote.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: In you statement yesterday, you said that the United States has raised concerns like this with Argentina. Has this case specifically been raised with Argentina, or are you just talking more broadly about the investment climate?
MR. TONER: I think speaking more broadly, but I also think we’ve raised this particular case as well.
QUESTION: Since the decision was announced?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know how it was raised?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Most likely through our bilateral Embassy contacts, but I don’t know.
QUESTION: I see.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know – well, since you haven’t --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- been in touch with them, do you know if the Secretary has given her intervention yet in Paris at the meeting?
MR. TONER: She has, I believe.
QUESTION: She has? Okay. So I haven’t seen – I presume that that’s out? Can you talk about it?
MR. TONER: I can’t, really. I don’t have any details. I mean, obviously, on Syria today, the center of gravity is in – both in New York as well as in Paris. But haven’t – I think she just concluded.
QUESTION: Well, more broadly –
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can you talk about what kind of options you’re looking at as it becomes increasingly clear that the ceasefire isn’t working?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think Ambassador Rice spoke a little bit about where we’re at, and of course, the Secretary as well. But where we’re at, when she walked – she just gave a presser, I believe, in New York a short while ago – concerns that, obviously that the ceasefire is eroding, as I mentioned yesterday, that we want to see a UN monitoring mission move forward, but as she said, many members expressed their concern that all the conditions had not met. We clearly want to see this monitoring mission move forward in an environment that is conducive to its success.
QUESTION: Right, but as – but as it is not, or as it doesn’t look like that’s happening, are you or are you not preparing options in terms of if and when it becomes clear that this mission has – or that this initiative has failed?
MR. TONER: And again, I think those are conversations that are ongoing in New York as well as in Paris, so I don’t want to get out ahead of that.
QUESTION: Right, but – well, are you or are you not?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we’re always looking – as I discussed more broadly yesterday, we’re working within the UN on Syria, but we’re also with the Friends of Syria, with other likeminded nations, on ways we can continue to apply pressure.
QUESTION: But – no, I mean in the specific event that the – that Kofi Annan’s plan doesn’t work.
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re – we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of the plan. We want to see it implemented. The onus is obviously on Assad and – to live up to the commitments that his regime has made, but I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: But would the – I mean, the next step on that on that would be a new resolution which would allow for an expanded monitoring operation, as is called for under the plan. Would the U.S. support that, given that Assad’s only partially complied with the ceasefire element?
MR. TONER: Again, I think Ambassador Rice addressed this to – in some fashion in New York, where she talked about the fact that we want to see a monitoring mission move forward, but one – but we also are concerned that not all the conditions have been met yet. So we need appropriate conditions on the ground for that mission to move forward. But again, let’s let them continue to talk about this in New York and in Paris.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yes, Mark. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the blame did not only fall on the regime itself, but also on those who support the regime. Is that – does that usher in, like, another period of tension with Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we talked about this, and it was one of the outcomes of the previous Friends of Syria meeting that we are committed to holding those accountable --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: -- who are responsible for these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR. TONER: I’m not sure. I think she was speaking more directly to those around Assad, his cronies, his colleagues who are carrying out or helping him commit these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Okay. So when she was saying that she was not pointing to any sort of outside group or --
MR. TONER: That was my interpretation. We’ve been clear that --
QUESTION: Like, it doesn’t mean, like, Russia or Iran or China?
MR. TONER: That’s what – again, that was – it was my interpretation, Said. I think she was speaking about those – those around Assad need to look long and hard in the mirror and decide what side they’re on.
QUESTION: Okay. So do you expect the kind of harmony that was shown in the last session to be shown again if the point comes up before the Security Council once more?
MR. TONER: Again, I think that with the Annan plan, we do have this kind of unity, that this is a way forward that can lead to the democratic transition, the end of violence that ultimately we all want to see happen in Syria.
QUESTION: And lastly, just to follow up --
MR. TONER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: -- on Matt’s points, you are not – at this point, at least, you’re not prepared to say that this mission is about to collapse or it’s really headed towards a brick wall, so to speak?
MR. TONER: I’m really going to defer to folks in New York and in Paris because this is fast-moving, that there’s – as I said, these centers of gravity are there rather than here this – today. But I don’t want to get out in front of the diplomacy.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Are you focusing more now on the idea of having buffer zones in Syria with Turkey?
MR. TONER: We’ve – our position on buffer zones hasn’t really changed from what I said the other day. Our focus, frankly, is on ways to increase humanitarian assistance to those in need. We think the Annan plan, if it were actually fulfilled, would provide that opportunity, but it hasn’t been. But there’s clear logistical challenges to any kind of buffer zone.
QUESTION: There’s a report today that the Administration is putting more focus now on taking this idea more seriously.
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think that our focus is on humanitarian assistance. We’ve obviously focused funding for those kinds of efforts. But I can’t speak any more about any buffer zone.
QUESTION: Sorry, Mark.
MR. TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: If U.S. allies in the GCC, in the Gulf Cooperation Council, decide to sort of increase their involvement or their support of the opposition groups by arming them, does that in any way – are you concerned that this may actually lead to sort of a Sunni-Shia schism with polarization of Iran and its allies on the one side, and Saudi Arabia and its allies on the other?
MR. TONER: Well, without even addressing the crux of your question, I can say that we have been very concerned that Syria can slide into civil war. The Secretary said this. Others have said it. We still believe there’s time – a little time, but time – for a diplomatic solution to this, and that’s where we’re focusing our efforts.
QUESTION: So do you take pause when you are consulting with your allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to back off a little bit from supporting these groups, especially by arms, once this happens?
MR. TONER: Well, the GCC has played a clear leadership role in trying to address the terrible violence that’s happening in Syria. We consult with them frequently through the Friends of Syria meetings and also bilaterally on the way forward in Syria. Obviously, they’re going to make their own sovereign decisions moving forward. We’ve said, for our part, that we don’t believe in a further militarization of what’s going – of Syria.
Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: North Korea. Congressman Mike Turner sent a letter to Secretary Clinton about new mobile missile shown at the military parade in Pyongyang, and he says that the photos of this new missile suggest cooperation and support from China. And he’s asking if such any cooperation would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and if so, what the Administration is going to do. So what’s your response to that?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I’ve seen – I think there’s been some press reports out about this. China has provided repeated assurances that it is complying fully with both Resolution 1718 as well as 1874. We’re not presently aware of any UN probe into this matter, so I’d refer you to the UN.
Yes.
QUESTION: Has China specifically given assurances on this since the rocket launch?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware, no. But they have said – they’ve said in the past that they’ve been compliant with 1874 and 1718. I’m not aware that they’ve given any direct response to these reports.
QUESTION: Sure. And the U.S. is confident of that? The U.S. can take China at its word that there isn’t that type of cooperation?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we take them at their word. There is a UN mechanism. There’s a UN sanctions committee that exists to look into these allegations.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to make sure, you do believe them?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Palestinian issue.
QUESTION: Did you clarify whether Mr. Hale received a copy of the letter?
MR. TONER: I did clarify. I don’t believe he has a copy. This is an internal document between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
QUESTION: But you – being the sort of the sponsor of these talks historically --
MR. TONER: I can’t imagine --
QUESTION: -- would either side have shared with you --
MR. TONER: I think the answer to your question, Said, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t know the contents of such a letter. He’s obviously – and I can add here that he’s obviously engaged with the parties as they follow up from their meeting on April 17th. And in fact, I can note that he’s traveling to the region today to engage with the parties. He’s going to meet with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, frankly, to discuss next steps out of this meeting.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, where is he going specifically?
MR. TONER: I don’t have a detailed itinerary yet. He’s going to go to the region, and then he’s going to travel to the Gulf to brief senior officials there. I’ll try to get you a – I mean, do you want – kind of where he’s going to be, what day?
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: Granularity?
QUESTION: Not necessarily that level of granularity, but, I mean, the region – when you say the region, doesn’t – usually that includes the Gulf. But the region you’re talking about – the very small region – meaning Israel and the Palestinian territories?
MR. TONER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: But then he’s going to go to the Gulf as well?
MR. TONER: Correct. That is correct.
QUESTION: But he’s not going to go to, say, other countries in the region, like Syria?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Lebanon?
MR. TONER: I don’t know where he’s going in the Gulf.
QUESTION: Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’ll try to get better – I’ll try to get more clarity on that.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: I realize that it’s --
QUESTION: Why is he going to go to the Gulf?
MR. TONER: I think just a part of regular consultations.
QUESTION: He didn’t do this before.
MR. TONER: I wouldn’t read anything into it, Samir. But I’ll try to find out what countries – specific countries he’s visiting. It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: Will he also visit Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’m being sloppy in my geography. What?
QUESTION: Will Jordan be part of that region?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I can assume, but I don’t know what precise countries. I think that he’s going to the region, he’s going to go to the – then he’s going to consult with other Gulf countries. Sometimes these things are quite fluid. These meetings are set up on the fly, if you will. It’s the nature of the negotiations so I just don’t know specifics.
QUESTION: Do you have an inclination of what the focus of the discussion will be?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the focus is, as I said, next steps out of the April 17th meeting and with the ultimate aim of trying to get direct negotiations up and running again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On another subject. On – India has now launched that ICBM, and I’m just wondering if you have anything more to say on that. Yesterday, it seemed as – though you essentially thought it was no worries.
MR. TONER: Well, I think, as I noted yesterday, I think, we urged all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding their nuclear and missile capabilities. But you’re right. They did launch the Agni-V ballistic missile earlier today. So I don’t have any further comment to what I said.
QUESTION: Does that mean – I mean, would you – when you urge restraint, does that include testing new long-range ballistic missiles? Do you think that that generally falls under the rubric of restraint?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: And it would have been better --
MR. TONER: Go ahead. Go ahead finish your --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: Do you think that they heeded your admonition for restraint by launching this missile?
MR. TONER: Again, I just – India’s been very much engaged in the international community and nonproliferation issues. They’ve attended both the nuclear security summits, the one in D.C. and the one in Seoul. So we believe they’re – they have a solid nonproliferation record and that they’re playing a significant role internationally on the issue. I would just refer you to them. I think I’ll let my comments stand on --
QUESTION: Okay. One more --
QUESTION: Right. But the thing is that it’s not question of proliferation here. I mean, no one’s saying – no one’s suggesting that they’re going to give this missile away or sell it to anybody.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: The question is whether you – whether or not you think that they heeded your call for restraint in the nuclear and ballistic missile technologies by going ahead with the launch, and whether you have any concerns that it could affect the security and stability in a very volatile region of the world.
MR. TONER: Well, again – and I think that’s why I’d refer you to the --
QUESTION: Well, can you ask – get SCA to --
MR. TONER: -- very strong record on nonproliferation issues, but --
QUESTION: Well, that’s great.
MR. TONER: -- with regards to the --
QUESTION: This isn’t a question of proliferation.
MR. TONER: -- to the missile launch, I’ve said that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So --
MR. TONER: I think my statement’s been clear.
QUESTION: I know it’s been cleared.
MR. TONER: Clear.
QUESTION: That’s probably why it says nothing, because – are you talking about when they say that they have a great record of nonproliferation, are you talking about in terms of giving or selling the technology away?
MR. TONER: Yes, I am. I am.
QUESTION: Because they seem to be doing a great job of self-proliferation. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t be testing a new long-range missile.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So they are proliferating internally.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: That doesn’t suggest a great record on nonproliferation.
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I think I’m – I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you take – can you ask to see if there is – well, it’s significant. If you guys don’t think that it’s worthy of a comment – that the fact they launched this thing --
MR. TONER: I don’t. I think I --
QUESTION: -- it suggests that --
MR. TONER: -- answered the question with my comment, which is that we always urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: But does – the question is whether or not this launch is – fits in with your definition of exercising restraint. So – I mean, if, in fact, you choose to say nothing about the fact that they actually went ahead with the launch, that would suggest that you don’t think it’s that big of a deal, like what Andy said. But I just want to make sure that you’ve been given – this building or the Administration has been given the opportunity --
MR. TONER: We’ve been given the opportunity. We recognize that.
QUESTION: And you’re saying nothing.
MR. TONER: We recognize that we’ve been given the opportunity.
QUESTION: So it is not a big deal to you?
MR. TONER: I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma. Yesterday, Kurt Campbell mentioned that the Burmese foreign minister will be coming to the U.S. next month. And it’s a little ways ahead still, but I’m wondering if you have any details on that yet.
MR. TONER: I really don’t beyond, obviously, the confirming the visit. But, obviously, as we get closer, we’ll be able to provide more detail.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the U.S-Azerbaijani meeting yesterday, specifically on Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if I have any specific information on Afghanistan. I can say that we’re going to put out a Media Note later today on these meetings that have been taking place. I think they’re in the rubric of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission. So this is a strategic dialogue that explores opportunities for economic and commercial cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. I can say, looking at this, that we – they did discuss Afghanistan, but I don’t have any details.
QUESTION: Do you have any more to say on the question yesterday about the Yomiuri Shimbun report about North Korean refugees saying that China has suspended repatriation to North Korea? I’m sorry, that China has suspended --
MR. TONER: Right, right, right. Well, I think yesterday I expressed our concern about the repatriation of these refugees. We’ve been, obviously, clear on that in the past. The report itself – I’m sorry --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that China has suspended repatriation of refugees to North Korea. The article was saying that this was in response to concerns over the rocket launch, the lack of consultation. But obviously, there are longstanding concerns about what actually happens to these refugees if they’re turned back.
MR. TONER: Right. Well, I mean, we obviously hope that the media reports are true. I don’t have much new information to add, though. But we’ve obviously raised in the past, as I just said, our concerns about alleged reports of North Koreans detained in China. So we consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations as part of the UN Convention on Refugees.
Please.
QUESTION: Anything more or new to say on Guinea-Bissau? I mean, the World Bank and African Development Bank today suspended their aid. I looked at the website, and it looks like most of your aid, if not all of it, is humanitarian. So I’m wondering if that’s sort of in play or --
MR. TONER: There is. There was some – there was some IMET money, military training funds that have already been suspended, frankly, before the events of the last couple weeks. So we’re obviously looking at the broader aid package and, a la Mali, we’re going to look at what actually went to the Government of Guinea-Bissau. But that’s – that’ll take some more time. But --
QUESTION: Weeks, probably?
MR. TONER: Not necessarily weeks, but – anyway, but it’s about – there’s various programs and pots of money, but I just – there’s $10,000 that went to civil-military relations that was already suspended.
QUESTION: $10,000? Okay.
MR. TONER: Sorry. Just giving you the facts there.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: It’s a small country. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq. With all the explosions and violence today, do you still think that this meeting proposed for the 23rd of May to follow on the Istanbul meeting can still be held in Baghdad?
MR. TONER: Oh, absolutely. We are – first of all, I want to strongly condemn today’s attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it’s cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are – they just hosted a very successful Arab League summit, and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
Yes, Scott.
QUESTION: Venezuela – you took a question on that yesterday and deferred it to DOJ. Could you tell us if the United States Government provided the transport for Judge Aponte to leave Venezuela for Costa Rica?
MR. TONER: I can’t. At this point, I’m not – I don’t have that answer. I think Department of Justice would be better able to answer that question.
Anything else? Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have anything for us on Sudan? President Bashir is threatening to topple the SPLM Government in the South.
MR. TONER: Yeah, I think I’ll let – I mean, you may or may not be aware, but we’re going to do a call with Princeton Lyman at 2 p.m.
QUESTION: In 20 minutes.
MR. TONER: In 20 minutes. So I don’t want to steal his thunder.
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: Well, I think we sent it out to the broader press corps.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: That’s it? Thanks.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
WHOLE GOVERNMENT APPROACH PART OF PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
Pacific Partnership Personifies 'Whole of Government' Approach
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 17, 2012 - The USNS Mercy's upcoming deployment as part of the Pacific Partnership medical exercise personifies the "whole of government" approach to diplomacy and military-to-military relations, the exercise's commander said here today.
The Military Sealift Command hospital ship will leave its San Diego homeport May 1, to begin Pacific Partnership 2012 to strengthen regional relationships in Southeast Asia and Oceana, Navy Capt. James Morgan said.
Morgan and the Mercy's master, Capt. Jonathan Olmsted, briefed Pentagon reporters on the mission.
The Pacific Partnership exercise is in its seventh year, and this year will visit Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia to provide medical, dental and veterinary care. The ship will spend 14 days at each port. It is the largest annual humanitarian civic assistance mission the United States sponsors in the Asia-Pacific region.
The mission seeks to build relationships among partners and host nations so each becomes more interoperable. Because the region has earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and other natural disasters -- it lies in the so-called "Ring of Fire" -- countries need the ability to work together, Morgan said. He cited the partnership's motto, "Preparing in calm to respond in crisis," as words to live by.
The ship and its civilian-mariner crew will host medical teams that will both deploy ashore and work aboard the ship to treat patients in the countries. Army and Air Force medics and Navy medical and surgical teams will be joined by specialists from other government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Agriculture Department and the Department of Health and Human Services.
International partners Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand also have signed on to aid the mission. The medical teams will incorporate members of nongovernmental organizations such as the East-West Center, Global Grins, Hope Worldwide, Latter-Day Saints Charities, Project Handclasp, Project Hope, the University of California at San Diego Pre-Dental Society, the University of Hawaii and World Vets, Morgan said.
The role nongovernmental organizations and the international agencies play is critical to success of Pacific Partnership 2012, Morgan said.
"The Pacific Partnership is an annual mission conducted by different people from mission to mission," he explained. "However, our NGOs continue to maintain that continuity, because they are who participate in the mission every year and maintain that continuity from one mission to the next."
In addition to the medical aspect of the mission, Pacific Partnership includes engineering projects as well as conferences and classes with local officials.
The ship is expected to return to San Diego in mid-September, Olmstead said.
FORMER EXECUTIVE PLEADS GUILTY TO BID RIGGING MUNICIPAL TAX LIEN AUCTIONS IN NEW JERSEY
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Former Executive of New York-Based Tax Liens Company Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Municipal Tax Lien Auctions in New Jersey
WASHINGTON – A former executive of a New York-based tax liens company who supervised the purchasing of municipal tax liens at auctions in New Jersey pleaded guilty today for his role in a conspiracy to rig bids for the sale of tax liens auctioned by municipalities throughout the state, the Department of Justice announced.
A felony charge was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark, N.J., against former Vice President Stephen E. Hruby, of Hainesport, N.J. Under the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Hruby has agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.
According to the felony charge, from at least as early as December 2002 until approximately February 2009, Hruby participated in a conspiracy to rig bids at auctions for the sale of municipal tax liens in New Jersey by agreeing to, and directing others to, allocate among certain bidders which liens each would bid on. Hruby, and those under his supervision, proceeded to submit bids in accordance with their agreements and purchased tax liens at collusive and non-competitive interest rates.
“Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the Antitrust Division will not tolerate illegal conduct that harms distressed homeowners,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The division will continue to prosecute the perpetrators of anticompetitive bid rigging schemes at municipal tax lien auctions in New Jersey and elsewhere.”
The department said that the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition, in order to obtain selected municipal tax liens offered at public auctions at non-competitive interest rates. When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that property, the municipality in which the property is located may attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes. If the taxes remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at auction. State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate delinquent homeowners will pay upon redemption. By law, the bid opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding process, can be driven down to zero percent. If a lien remains unpaid after a certain period of time, the investor who purchased the lien may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to which the lien is attached.
According to the court documents, Hruby conspired with others not to bid against one another at municipal tax lien auctions in New Jersey. Because the conspiracy permitted the conspirators to purchase tax liens with limited competition, each conspirator was able to obtain liens which earned a higher interest rate. Property owners were therefore made to pay higher interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their liens been purchased in open and honest competition.
A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals. The maximum fine for a Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum.
Today’s plea is the seventh guilty plea resulting from an ongoing investigation into bid rigging or fraud related to municipal tax lien auctions. On Aug. 24, 2011, Isadore H. May, Richard J. Pisciotta Jr. and William A. Collins each pleaded guilty to one count of bid rigging in connection with their participation in a conspiracy to allocate liens at New Jersey auctions. On Feb. 23, 2012, Robert W. Stein and David M. Farber each pleaded guilty to one count of bid rigging. On March 27, 2012, Robert E. Rothman pleaded guilty to one count of bid rigging in connection with his participation in this conspiracy.
PHARMA COMPANY SENTENCED TO PAY $322 MILLION FOR UNLAWFUL PROMOTION OF VIOX
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Thursday, April 19, 2012
U.S. Pharmaceutical Company Merck Sharp & Dohme Sentenced in Connection with Unlawful Promotion of Vioxx. Judge Imposes Nearly $322 Million Fine For Illegal Marketing
American pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp & Dohme was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Patti B. Saris in Boston to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $321,636,000 in connection with its guilty plea related to its promotion and marketing of the painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib), the Justice Department announced today. In December 2011, Merck pleaded guilty to violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for introducing a misbranded drug, Vioxx, into interstate commerce.
Merck’s guilty plea was part of a global resolution involving its illegal promotional activity. In November 2011, Merck entered into a civil settlement agreement under which it will pay $628,364,000 to resolve additional allegations regarding off-label marketing of Vioxx and false statements about the drug’s cardiovascular safety. Of the total civil settlement, $426,389,000 will be recovered by the United States, and the remaining share of $201,975,000 will be distributed to the participating Medicaid states. The settlement and today’s sentencing conclude a long-running investigation of Merck’s promotion of Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the marketplace in September 2004.
Merck’s criminal plea related to the misbranding of Vioxx by promoting the drug for treating rheumatoid arthritis, before that use was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Under the provisions of the FDCA, a company is required to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA – unless the company applies to the FDA for approval of the additional use. The FDA approved Vioxx for three indications in May 1999, but did not approve its use for rheumatoid arthritis until April 2002. In the interim, for nearly three years, Merck promoted Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis, conduct for which it was admonished in an FDA warning letter issued in September 2001.
At today’s sentencing, Judge Saris said in substance that off label promotion has been a big problem, she has seen a barrage of off-label marketing cases, and that she hoped that the size of today’s settlement and the fact that the government continues to press these cases will send a signal to the industry that this is not acceptable conduct.
The parallel civil settlement covered a broader range of allegedly illegal conduct by Merck. The settlement resolved allegations that Merck representatives made inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading statements about Vioxx’s cardiovascular safety in order to increase sales of the drug, resulting in payments by the federal government. It also resolved allegations that Merck made false statements to state Medicaid agencies about the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx, and that those agencies relied on Merck’s false claims in making payment decisions about the drug. Finally, like the criminal plea, the civil settlement also recovered damages for allegedly false claims caused by Merck’s unlawful promotion of Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis.
"The United States will not tolerate unlawful conduct by pharmaceutical companies," said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "As the court's sentence makes clear, those who put profits before patient safety by promoting their products for unapproved uses will be prosecuted and held accountable."
“We are pleased to see this case brought to a conclusion with the recovery of over three hundred million dollars in criminal fines, and a total of almost a billion dollars in combined civil and criminal penalties. The severity of these criminal and civil sanctions should serve as a reminder of this Office, and this department’s unwavering commitment to holding drug companies fully accountable for failures to comply with their public safety and marketing obligations, and to recovering taxpayer funds that have gone towards the purchase of illegally marketed products,” announced Carmen M. Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. “Any marketing activity that ignores the importance of FDA approval, or that makes unsupported safety claims about a drug is unacceptable, and will be pursued vigorously in both the criminal and civil arena.”
As part of the settlement, Merck also agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS-OIG), which will strengthen the system of reviews and oversight procedures imposed on the company. Although Vioxx is no longer on the market, this ongoing monitoring of Merck’s conduct is aimed to deter and detect similar conduct in the future.
“If all pharmaceutical manufacturers complied with the law, there would be no need for law enforcement actions,” said Susan Waddell, Special Agent in Charge for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “But until they stop abusing the health care system and putting profits ahead of patient safety, OIG will continue to vigorously pursue corporations that flout the law.”
“Today’s announcement demonstrates the commitment of FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations to pursue investigations of companies that disregard their regulatory obligations and place profits over the public’s health,” said Mark Dragonetti, Special Agent in Charge for the New York Field Office. “We commend the hard work of the U.S. Attorney's Office and our law enforcement counterparts in bringing about this result.”
“In 2004, the FBI began participating in a seven year investigation that led to Merck's decision to plead guilty to a criminal violation of federal law related to its promotion and marketing of Vioxx and to pay nearly a billion dollars in a criminal fine and civil damages,” said Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Boston. “Merck now knows that no corporation is immune from being held accountable for criminal and civil violations of law and also knows why the FBI, its federal law enforcement partners, and the U.S. Attorney's Office have earned a national reputation for leading the government’s effort to detect, deter and prevent health care fraud.”
This case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. The investigation was conducted by Office of Inspector General of the Deapartment of Health and Human Services, the FBI, the Office of Criminal Investigations for the FDA, the Veterans Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management, the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and the offices of various state attorneys general.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA SPEAKS BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
Statement on Syria before the House Armed Services Committee
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, Washington D.C., Thursday, April 19, 2012
Chairman McKeon and Representative Smith, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the tense and fluid situation in Syria.
Widespread demands for political change in Syria started more than a year ago. Rather than meeting these legitimate demands, the regime of Bashar al-Assad turned instead to violence against its own people. That violence has been brutal and devastating. It has put the Syrian people in a desperate and difficult situation. It has outraged the conscience of all good people. And it has threatened stability in a very important part of the world.
The United States has made clear that the Assad regime has lost its legitimacy and that this crisis has no effective solution without Assad's departure. As the President has stated, Assad must go.
Recent days are testing whether the Assad regime will live up to all of its responsibilities to the Syrian people and to the international community. Restoring calm to cities and towns across Syria is just one test for Assad in the days ahead. Assad is responsible for fully abiding by the transition plan outlined by Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan. He also faces deep skepticism about his motives, a skepticism based on a long train of Assad's deceitful actions to date, including broken promises to his own people and to the international community.
The United States is committed to holding the Syrian regime to these obligations. We are leading international efforts to help stop the violence and support a peaceful political transition in Syria.
We know achieving that end is a tough task. From every angle the situation in Syria is enormously complex. There is no silver bullet. At the same time, the situation is of grave consequence to the Syrian people. There are many others who are affected by what happens in Syria, including Syria's neighbors – Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Jordan – and all nations with a vital interest in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Iran is Syria's only ally in the region. No other country stands to lose more than Iran from the eventual fall of the Assad regime, which is why Iran is supporting the regime with material, financial and technical assistance.
We also know that the complex problems in Syria cannot all be solved through the unilateral actions of the United States or any other country. They demand a coordinated international response that is uniquely tailored to the situation.
There are, however, certain principles that have guided the Administration's response to unrest across the Middle East. These basic principles have shaped our responses in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria: first, we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes against their own people; second, we support the exercise of universal human rights; and third, we support political and economic reforms that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.
Our policy toward Syria is clear: we support a political and democratic transition that fulfills the Syrian people's aspirations. To support that objective, the United States is leading international efforts along five tracks:
First, we are supporting efforts to maintain international pressure and advance transition in Syria. We join with our partners in the United Nations Security Council, including Russia and China, in calling for the urgent, comprehensive, and immediate implementation of all aspects of the Annan plan.
Second, we are further isolating the Assad regime. We are encouraging other countries to join the United States, the European Union, and the Arab League in imposing strong sanctions against it. These sanctions are putting Assad under greater pressure than ever before;
Third, we are strengthening and unifying the non-violent political opposition in Syria. The United States is in the process of providing direct non-lethal support, including communications and medical equipment, to the civilian-led opposition. We are taking these actions in concert with similar steps taken by the Friends of Syria and other international partners to assist the opposition;
Fourth, we are providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and we are working to broaden our efforts at relief, with a total commitment so far of $25 million; and
Fifth, we are reviewing and planning for a range of additional measures that may be necessary to protect the Syrian people.
By acting along these lines, we are increasing pressure on the Assad regime every day. Make no mistake – one way or another, this regime ultimately will meet its end.
There are legitimate questions about what steps are necessary to achieve this end, with some arguing for an approach similar to the one we took in Libya.
The fact is that our recent experience in Libya is helping to inform the approach of the United States to Syria:
First, our efforts are strengthened by multi-lateral, international consensus;
Second, we should maintain clear regional support from the Arab world;
Third, we should offer substantial U.S. contributions where we can bring unique resources to bear;
Fourth, we should have a clear legal basis for our approach;
Fifth, and finally, our approach must keep all options on the table, while recognizing the limitations of military force.
But the situation in Syria is different from the one in Libya in important ways:
In Libya, there was widespread international support in the Arab world and elsewhere, and clear Security Council authorization, for military intervention. No such consensus currently exists regarding Syria;
The opposition is not as well organized and does not control territory;
We must also be mindful, as Secretary Clinton has noted, of the possibility that outside military intervention will make a volatile situation even worse, and place even more innocent civilians at risk.
The United States has made clear that we are on the side of the Syrian people. They must know that the international community has not underestimated either their suffering or their impatience. The Defense Department has reviewed and is continuing to plan for a variety of possible scenarios should the President determine that further steps are necessary. In the meantime, our only clear path is to keep moving diplomatically in a resolute and deliberate manner with the international community to find a way to return Syria to the Syrian people.
Thank you.
U.S.-AZERBAIJAN ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 19, 2012
The U.S. Department of State welcomed the Minister of Finance Samir Sharifov of Azerbaijan and his delegation for the third meeting of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission (EPC), which met yesterday in Washington. Participating U.S. Government agencies included the Departments of State, Energy, Justice, and Treasury; Office of the United States Trade Representative; United States Agency for International Development (USAID); Export-Import Bank of the United States; and United States Trade and Development Agency.
This strategic dialogue, co-chaired by Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Robert D. Hormats and Minister Sharifov, explored opportunities for further economic and commercial cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. This high-level meeting included sessions led by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Jose W. Fernandez, USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia Paige Alexander, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Patricia A. Hoffman, and Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy Ambassador Richard Morningstar. The delegations discussed economic diversification, financial services, energy, trade and investment, and new, cooperative initiatives. Participants also discussed expanding the agreement under which the Government of Azerbaijan co-finances development projects implemented by USAID in Azerbaijan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)