FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 10/15/13
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:44 P.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for being here. Before I take your questions, I just wanted to note that earlier today the President was briefed by senior staff on the effects of the lapse in appropriations -- the so-called shutdown. And among the items that he was briefed on was the fact that small businesses are feeling the impact of shutdown as key federal efforts that support small business have been halted.
Due to the shutdown -- as you know, now in its 15th day -- the SBA cannot approve new guarantees of loans provided by banks to small businesses. In a typical month, the Small Business Administration approves loans to more than 4,000 small businesses, and halting these loans represents over $1 billion in lost loan assistance to small businesses, thereby jeopardizing thousands of jobs -- and, again, another consequence of the wholly unnecessary, completely manufactured crisis that is doing harm to our economy, harm to our small businesses, and was brought about by one faction of one party in one house in one branch of government making ideological demands and thereby shutting down the government.
With that, I take your questions. Julie.
Q Thanks, Jay. I want to just get a sense of the state of play at this point. Is it the White House’s understanding that there is a deal in the Senate that's been finalized between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell that would lift the debt ceiling and reopen the government?
MR. CARNEY: The President is pleased with the progress that we've seen in the Senate. It is important to note that the process that's been undertaken in the Senate is bipartisan, that Senators Reid and McConnell have been engaging one another, Democrats and Republicans have been engaging on this issue. And it’s all built around the fundamental premise that we should not have shut down the government, that we should reopen the government, and that we must ensure that the United States pays its bills on time, as it always had, and we should do -- the Congress should take those actions in a way that does not have partisan strings attached and that ensures the kind of stability for our economy and for our middle class that they need.
So we're pleased with the progress. I would refer you to the Senate leaders for the status of those discussions. But we certainly believe that there’s a potential there for a resolution to this unnecessary, manufactured crisis that can allow us to get back to the important business of helping grow the economy and create jobs and taking action to improve the lives of middle-class Americans that elected officials were sent here to do.
Q Is the White House confident that that resolution could pass both the Senate and the House ahead of the Thursday deadline for the debt ceiling?
MR. CARNEY: For congressional timing and how --
Q But you guys know the state of play.
MR. CARNEY: There is no question that we are very close to a very important deadline and time is of the essence. So I think that is why you see some very serious-minded efforts being undertaken in the Senate. And we would hope that the House would also approach this important deadline with the same understanding of just how serious it is.
Q And in 2011, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded just because the government got so close to a default. Is the White House or Treasury hearing from any of the rating agencies now that we are, again, very close to that deadline without a resolution?
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Treasury Department for those kinds of conversations, if they’re taking place. That wouldn't be something I would brief on from here.
We know from past experience, the difficult lessons learned from 2011, that the serious flirtation with default that House Republicans engaged in two years ago led to some pretty negative consequences for our economy, including, as you know, the United States being downgraded for the first time.
Q But the President in his briefings that you say he’s getting every day, is he getting anything from any of these officials about how the rating agencies --
MR. CARNEY: That would not be something that I would brief on from here because obviously issues that have to do with market sensitivities are not ones that I would address here.
Roberta.
Q Last week, the President said in a worse-case scenario, there are things that he will do. And what if Thursday comes and there’s no deal. Have you -- has the White House started implementing any of those contingency plans already ahead of -- because we’re so close?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would not go further than what the President or the Treasury Secretary have said about that, and I would refer you to Treasury. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified, as you know, last week where broadly this issue was discussed.
But we are obviously focused on working with members of Congress, leaders in Congress, on an effort to do what we’ve said was essential all along, which was open the government and make sure that the United States pays its bills by extending the debt ceiling, and doing that in a way that we don't simply put us on a trajectory to re-create this crisis again in a few weeks.
So we’re encouraged by the progress that we’ve seen in the Senate, but we’re far from a deal at this point and so we hope that progress continues.
Q What is there about the Senate deal, though, that doesn't re-create the crisis in a few months down the road? What is there in it that doesn't mean we’re going to be doing this all over again in --
MR. CARNEY: Again, there’s not a bill for me to analyze for you right now. What I would --
Q Right, but the pending -- the shape of the pending --
MR. CARNEY: I think that every participant in this exercise would, hopefully, understand that it should not be repeated -- not in a few weeks and not in a few months. And when it comes to the fundamental responsibility of Congress to ensure that the United States does not default, not ever. That’s certainly the President’s view.
That is why he has been so insistent that we cannot engage in a process here that then becomes normalized where a minority in Congress, a faction of one party in one house can threaten the full faith and credit of the United States if it does not get what it could not get through the normal legislative process or through elections. So those are the stakes when it comes to the essential responsibility of Congress to ensure that the Department of Treasury can pay our bills.
Q There do seem to be, though, some strings attached in the deal as it appears to be sort of coalescing or developing. What does the White House make of those strings?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to analyze details of a bill that we haven’t seen yet and that has not emerged yet.
Brianna.
Q Jay, some of the -- it seems like the key parts, at least, of the Senate bill -- the reinsurance, the income verification -- President Obama said, “Nobody gets to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States just to extract political concessions.” But if you're open to that, as presumably the White House is because they're talking to Senate Democrats, isn’t that concessions?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think what we have seen --
Q Isn't that setting the precedent that he said he won’t?
MR. CARNEY: What we have seen in the process thus far that Senator Reid has engaged in is a proposal that would reopen the government and remove the threat of a first-ever U.S. default by raising the debt ceiling. We don’t need any more self-inflicted wounds from Congress. The economy is already paying a price, as outside analysts have noted. There is already a cost to the economy and, therefore, to growth and jobs from this behavior.
And it’s important, as I think so many Americans believe, that it stop, that Congress simply fulfill its basic responsibilities to open the government, to fund it at, again, levels that were set by Republicans, so that we can get about the business of negotiating in good faith over longer-term budget proposals. I'm not going to --
Q But there are provisions on -- you are talking about the short-term increase in the debt ceiling and the CR. If you’re not going to talk about the Obamacare provisions, which are also on the table -- I mean, you’re talking about the short-term debt ceiling and CR provisions. I mean, even if these are sort of small-fry gives on Obamacare, doesn’t it violate the principle that the President set out there that he will not negotiate on Obamacare?
MR. CARNEY: Again, until we have a proposal that has emerged from these negotiations in the Senate, I’m not going to analyze it with you piece by piece. What I can say is we’ve been encouraged by the progress, and we believe -- and the President believes it’s very important that when it comes to the debt ceiling that we not do what a previous effort in the House would have done, which is try to create a scenario where budget negotiations and the renewal of government funding are once again tied directly to the essential responsibility of Congress to pay our bills -- and right before the holidays, which would have been -- would be a terrible outcome to this process, as every business owner will tell you -- and I think many of them have told you, and many of them have told their representatives in Congress.
Q So does he hold firm to that assertion that he will not negotiate when it comes to Obamacare on the full faith and credit of the U.S. or on the government being shut down?
MR. CARNEY: Yes. He has made clear that -- he’s made clear two things, Brianna, as you know. He is willing, within the context of broader budget negotiations, within the context of serious-minded and earnest discussions about how to improve the Affordable Care Act, to look at any proposal that might do that -- going to Obamacare. And that’s true on broader budget issues.
But some of the ideas that we’ve seen this morning, when it comes to sort of demanding ransom, to try to rally tea party members, in exchange for opening the government or raising the debt ceiling, that’s not acceptable and it has not been through this whole process.
Q Speaker Boehner -- real quickly, is there nothing in the Boehner proposal that’s acceptable to you?
MR. CARNEY: Reopening the government and extending the debt ceiling, that’s acceptable.
Q The Obamacare provisions included in the Senate deal?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think two things. One, as I understand it, there’s not a proposal in the House to talk about now, based on the press conference given by House Republican leaders. And based on some of the reporting I’ve seen since then, that’s because they’re now going back to try to add some sweeteners for tea party members.
And the better course of action is the one being undertaken by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Instead of trying to once again craft a measure to ensure full Republican support in the House, why not work on a measure that could get bipartisan support in the House, the way that Republicans and Democrats are trying to do in the Senate? That’s certainly what I think is best for the American people. It’s the kind of process that the President supports. So, with regards to proposals that we haven’t seen, it’s hard to --
Q But aren’t you cherry-picking which parts you’ll talk about? Because you’re talking about the short-term funding and debt ceiling increase, but you won't talk about the other items.
MR. CARNEY: Talking about the shutdown and the need to raise the debt ceiling -- yes, that’s what we’ve been talking about for weeks.
Q But the time frame of it.
MR. CARNEY: No, look, we’ve said all along that we want a debt ceiling increase for as long as possible because of the need to remove uncertainty from this process. I mean, the very uncertainty that has been created by this manufactured crisis is what we need to avoid as an economy going forward, and what Washington needs to avoid, because it is already causing harm to the economy. It is already causing uncertainty among Americans, which, in turn, has them making decisions about how they spend their money, which has a negative impact potentially on the economy. And that creates a cascading effect that can only be bad, which is why we need to, here in Washington, why Congress needs to fulfill its basic responsibilities: reopen the government, and make sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is upheld, as it has been in the past.
Jon.
Q Jay, what exactly is the deadline?
MR. CARNEY: For?
Q Raising the debt ceiling, for default?
MR. CARNEY: Well, those are two different things, as we’ve been explicitly clear about. On October 17th, as the Treasury Secretary has noted many times, the United States runs out of borrowing authority, and beyond that point we only have cash on hand available to pay our bills.
The Treasury Secretary has testified to this on Capitol Hill and is obviously far more of an expert than I, so I would point you to his testimony and public statements about that fact. But as everyone knows, in order to meet all of our obligations as a country, the United States needs borrowing authority in order to make sure that all of our bills are paid. All of the obligations that Congress has made, all of the bills that Congress has incurred will come due. And if we can only pay those bills with cash on hand, that is a problem. And that is what --
Q I’m just trying -- everybody has their countdown clocks, everything going on, and they seem to be counting down to midnight tomorrow. But is it midnight tomorrow when the calendar strikes the 17th, or is there another day after that?
MR. CARNEY: As much as I’d like to improve the quality of the countdown clocks -- (laughter) -- I would have to refer you to Treasury on the minute and the hour.
Q Okay, well, more important than the countdown clocks, when does Congress need to act by? Do they need to pass something by tomorrow? Can something pass on Thursday? Will the sky fall if it doesn't pass on Friday? When is the deadline that they have got to produce something? Is it tomorrow?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, the deadline for --
Q Midnight tomorrow?
MR. CARNEY: -- avoiding uncertainty has passed. The deadline for not shutting the government down has long since passed. So Congress has already failed to act in a timely fashion. But we hope that Congress will act quickly to resolve these issues now.
Q I guess what I’m asking -- when is too late, Jay? I’m just trying to figure out when is too late.
MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure what that means. They need to act as soon as possible, because what is absolutely true is that every day we’re in shutdown there is harm done to hundreds of thousands of Americans and, indirectly, to many, many more, and there’s direct harm done to our economy. And every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we’ve never been, which is where the United States does not have borrowing authority, creates more trouble for our economy and uncertainty globally, which has a negative impact on our economy.
Q Obviously, there’s a lot of anxiety in the bond market because of this. Can bondholders be reassured that they will still receive their interest after tomorrow, after Thursday?
MR. CARNEY: Jon, those are the kinds of questions that I think are best directed to the Treasury Department. What is unquestionably the case is that when people talk about prioritization, they are talking about default by another name. When people talk about paying some bills but not others, they are talking about entering a realm that this country and this government has never been in, which is picking and choosing who gets paid and when they get paid. And that has tremendous negative consequences for our economy, not all of which are knowable beyond the fact that we know they're bad.
Q No question. But do you have a game plan? Obviously, this is no longer hypothetical. There’s a real possibility Congress doesn't act -- whatever the deadline exactly is. Do you have a game plan of what to do?
MR. CARNEY: Well, this is obviously something that the Treasury Department would have jurisdiction over, so I would refer you to Treasury.
Q And one specific question. This idea of suspending the medical device tax, I believe it’s been referred to as a ransom payment for part of this deal. The Speaker’s office is saying that this idea was actually proposed by White House staff in negotiations last week. Is that true or not?
MR. CARNEY: That is not true. What we have always said is that discussions of the medical device tax or other elements within the Affordable Care Act that lawmakers want to talk about in an effort to improve the Affordable Care Act we are willing to have, but not in the context of or as ransom for opening the government. That is why a provision like that appears in the latest proposal that seems to be going nowhere from House Republicans -- because it’s an effort to try to buy votes from tea party Republicans who shut this government down in the first place. And so there’s --
Q So just to be clear, they're not telling the truth about that?
MR. CARNEY: Again, that is not -- the conversations that have been had here and up on Capitol Hill about the medical device tax, as far as we’re concerned, have been about our willingness -- as the President said and others -- in a broader context; not ransom for opening the government, not ransom for Congress doing its job to pay our bills, but within the context of the President’s willingness to hear ideas about ways we can improve, as opposed to undermine or dismantle or defund Obamacare. We’re willing to have that. But we’re not going to pay ransom -- the President is not going to pay ransom from the American people to the tea party in order to open the government.
Q I'd like to follow that and --
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q -- pin you down a little more closely. Thursday, the Speaker’s spokesman said specifically that a White House official asked for repeal of the medical device tax.
MR. CARNEY: That's just not the case. That's just not the case.
Q I’m not saying it’s in connection with any other part of the plan, but simply that it was asked for by the White House.
MR. CARNEY: You’re saying that separate from anything, the White House proposed a change to the Affordable Care Act? Obviously, that's not the case. The issue of the medical device tax has been obviously in the air for the last several weeks. And when I’ve had this question and others have taken this question, we have made clear that we would be willing to talk about lawmakers who want to address that provision, as well as other ideas that lawmakers might have about making changes to the Affordable Care Act that strengthen it or improve it.
When it comes to the medical device tax, I think it’s very important to note that those who portray themselves as paragons of fiscal responsibility and discipline often propose making that change without acknowledging the fact that it would raise the deficit. So that's an important point to acknowledge, too.
But again, we have never said we would agree to paying ransom, making changes to the Affordable Care Act simply to placate tea party Republicans who shut this government down over their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
Q Just to be clear, in Thursday’s meeting, you’re saying --
MR. CARNEY: I think I’ve answered this, Bill, three times.
Q -- no one here asked for repeal of the medical device tax?
MR. CARNEY: Correct.
Q There are people on Wall Street and in Washington who speak openly about the real crunch point being November 1st, as opposed to Thursday the 17th.
MR. CARNEY: On October 17th, as was made clear to Congress in a letter from the Treasury Secretary, we cease to have borrowing authority. We only have cash on hand. And as everyone knows who understands how this process works, that means we do not -- that is a scenario by which we will not be able to pay all our bills because of the fact that we need to borrow money in order to pay our bills.
And these are bills that Congress has incurred. These are obligations that Congress has made. This is not new debt. This is not new spending. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of that by those who claim that they came to Congress with a mandate never to raise the debt ceiling. Because that has nothing to do with spending, okay? It is just a --
Q But this has to do with a feeling that any obligations like Social Security and other payments come due on November 1, and that between the 17th and the 1st --
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you is that we have a huge number of payments as a country that need to be made every day, and that there’s a series of obligations that the United States government has to fulfill. For details about how that process works, I refer you to the Treasury Department. But if anybody -- we've seen a lot of talk from deficit -- not deficit -- debt limit deniers and default deniers and they have been roundly shot down, that talk has been, by experts in the field, including CEOs and financial industry experts, including many of whom I think tend to have the ear of Republican lawmakers.
It is absolutely not the responsible thing to do to allow us as a nation to enter territory we've never been in before, which is to not have the authority to pay our bills.
Ed.
Q Thank you. Nice to talk to you. I wanted to ask you about the President’s role in the final hours here. Yesterday there was supposed to be a meeting with leaders in both parties. Today his schedule just has House Democratic leaders, not both parties. Senator McCain, a short time ago on the Senate floor -- and he’s obviously been critical in recent days of his own party and has said that they need to come to a deal -- but a short time ago he said it’s a mistake for Democrats to reject Speaker Boehner’s latest proposal. He said it’s, in his words, “a serious proposal.” So my question is, does the President plan to, A, let the congressional leaders work this out in the final hours, or does he see that his role in the final hours -- because this is so critical, as you say -- that he will play some direct role in trying to force a deal?
MR. CARNEY: I have no doubt the President will be in contact with congressional leaders of both parties as this process continues. As you know, Ed, but didn’t include in your question, we postponed the meeting yesterday because of the progress that was being made in the Senate --
Q True. I wasn’t trying to --
MR. CARNEY: So it is the President’s intention -- and it’s reflected by the meetings and conversations he’s been having with leaders, as well as the fact that he invited every member of Congress to the White House last week for discussions on this issue -- to engage directly with lawmakers as they try to resolve this issue, and try to do it in a way that, hopefully, reflects the bipartisan spirit that we've seen in the Senate process. And we continue to hope that that will bear fruit and will produce something that can, in the end, lead to a resolution that opens the government, provides the authority to the Treasury for the United States to pays its bills, so that we can then focus on some of the bigger issues that we face as a country, instead of getting distracted by these manufactured crises that only do harm to the economy, only do harm to the American people, and apparently, according to a lot of Republican commentators, do a lot of harm to the Republican Party. We need to get beyond this, for the sake of the country.
Q Two other quick topics on some of the big issues you're talking about. NSA -- The Washington Post has another revelation today saying that they’re collecting -- the NSA is collecting email contact lists not just of foreigners but of Americans. How do you justify that?
MR. CARNEY: As you know, I'm not in a position to discuss specific tools or processes, but as you know, the National Security Agency is focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets, such as terrorists, human traffickers and drug smugglers. They are not interested in personal information about ordinary Americans. Moreover, they operate in accordance with rules either approved by the Attorney General or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as appropriate, designed to minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination of any such information.
So, again, the purpose here is to discover and develop intelligence about foreign intelligence targets. That is the mission and that is purpose of the various methods that the NSA employs.
Q But part of what you said is they’re not interested in private information of Americans, except The Washington Post says they collect the telephone numbers of Americans, the street addresses of Americans, business information, family information. So doesn’t that contradict what you're saying?
MR. CARNEY: Well, no, Ed, in fact, they are not interested in the personal information of ordinary Americans. They target foreign intelligence -- their targets are terrorists, human traffickers, drug smugglers and the like, and they gather foreign intelligence. There are minimization procedures in place approved by the Attorney General and the FISA Court that are designed to minimize the acquisition, use and dissemination of any such information -- information that might be collected as part of the effort to target terrorists and the like.
Q Last question. Your predecessor, Robert Gibbs, had some interesting things to say about the health care rollout yesterday. He said that it’s been botched. And he said that when it gets fixed, “I hope they fire some people that were in charge of making sure that this thing was supposed to work.” How do you react to that? And since Republican Senator Pat Roberts has called for Secretary Sebelius to be fired, does she still have the full confidence of the President?
MR. CARNEY: The Secretary does have the full confidence of the President. She, like everyone else in this effort, is focused on our number-one priority, which is making the implementation of the Affordable Care Act work well. People are working 24/7 to address the problems and isolate them and fix them when it comes to the website and enrollment issues.
The fact is the President wants these matters addressed because he wants to make sure that Americans across the country have the best possible consumer experience as they look at their options and the plans available to them and see the fact that for so many of them there’s affordable health insurance out there that was never there before.
And I think it’s important to note that even amidst this early stage of the enrollment process, and even though there have been challenges with the website, there are Americans across the country who are, through call centers and through the websites and through the states, getting access to this information and making -- seeing what choices are available to them, and enrolling if they’re ready to enroll.
And that includes a woman in Illinois who bought health insurance for her family with a savings of about $390 a month from their current average, according to the Chicago Tribune. In Mississippi, a woman who was skipping medication for years was able to enroll herself and her husband for a plan that will cost $60 a month.
I noticed last week in Utah, a father in a family of five, a small business owner, who said, “It took us half a dozen tries over several days, but he was able to strike gold on Saturday” -- silver, actually -- I'm quoting the Salt Lake Tribune -- with family health coverage purchased on the Affordable Care Act’s online exchange. After plugging in particulars about his family of five, the Salt Lake City business owner was able to compare 38 plans and apply for tax credits to put towards his monthly premiums. He settled on a silver-level plan that retails for about $850 a month. After tax credits, his family will pay just $123 a month. “It’s a great deal. I'm thrilled to have coverage.”
So this is why we're doing this. These are the people we're focused on helping. And the President is committed and has instructed his team to work 24/7 to resolve the issues that have arisen when it comes to implementation. But the purpose here is to provide benefits to those Americans who have struggled for so long without access to affordable health insurance.
Q Without litigating the details and the countdown clocks one more time, very briefly, I want to ask you about October 17, if I can, quickly, and some of the urgency associated with that date. When the sequester went into effect, there were predictions from this podium, dramatic predictions about long lines at airports, about special education funding. Without denying the impact of a default when such a thing would take place, does that in any way undermine the White House’s or this administration’s credibility when it says October 17th is some form of a D-Day, when, in fact, the 18th, 19th, 20th may come and the sky may not fall -- what is the risk of that?
MR. CARNEY: I would simply say that there is nobody in this field who understands how financial markets work and understands what the impact of default would be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers. This is a serious matter. And we've been through this, and I've read quotes to you from numerous financial industry experts, numerous CEOs -- President Reagan, among others, who noted the importance of maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States. And what we know is that on October 17th, we seize to have borrowing authority. That means we can only pay our bills with cash on hand.
And we are the largest economy in the world and we have a lot of obligations and our obligations exceed our income. And that is why we have to ensure that Treasury is able to borrow in order to pay our bills.
Q If those obligations don't exceed our income for a matter of days, without specificity -- I'm not Jack Lew so I don't know the exact detail -- but the Treasury Department has indicated that there’s like a $6 billion payment on October 31st, $11 billion payment shy of that. So the potential exists that we could go five, six, seven, eight days and nothing really happens. Isn't that a potential risk?
MR. CARNEY: What’s at risk is even flirting with the idea that we should try to wait until the very last moment before a bill comes due that we can't pay. This is the United States. And the idea that we're going to send a signal to the world that it’s an acceptable proposition -- this is what some Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to be conveying -- that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we can resolve this before we have to delay a payment, already, once you get to that deadline, you’ve entered territory that we've never entered before. And that sends a signal I think globally that there is uncertainty about the fidelity here in the United States to the principle that we always pay our bills on time.
And that is why this line has never been crossed, why administration after administration, both Democratic and Republican, has taken the position that we should never cross this line. It’s why businessmen and women, CEOs who understand the impact that this would have on what they do and on the American economy have called on Congress to quit even flirting with the prospect of default.
So, again, for details on what would happen if we were to cross that line I would refer you to the Treasury Department. We are focused on working with Congress to prevent that, as every member of Congress who cares about the American economy should be focused on at this time.
Q Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta this week said, “When you're operating by crisis I think there’s enough blame to go around.” Does the President agree with one of his closest allies in the recent past that he should also bear some of the blame for the situation we're in right now?
MR. CARNEY: Well, here’s what I would tell you. There is no question, as we've discussed in the past, that there are no winners in a situation like this -- not the American people, not the American economy, and not members of either political party. And any politician who plays this as a political game, hoping to win, is making a mistake -- A.
B, the President’s position has been crystal-clear: Don't shut the government down. Once they shut it down -- reopen the government. He’s asking for nothing in return. He’s making no demands on Congress, insisting on nothing from them in order to sign a bill that would reopen the government with no strings attached. The same when it comes to the responsibility of Congress to raise the debt ceiling. There’s only one party to this process that has been saying, we would flirt with default, we would even allow default if we don't get what we want.
We are in a shutdown now, the 15th day of a government shutdown, the first shutdown in 17 years, because one faction of one party in one house of Congress decided that it was so opposed to a law that had been passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and litigated -- to use your word -- in a presidential campaign in which the candidate who took their position lost, that they shut the government down over not achieving their aim, which was to do away with it.
So the President’s position has been that he has demanded nothing in return for Congress simply keeping the government open and simply doing its job to ensure that the United States does not default.
Q Last question, very briefly -- an op/ed from the China State News Agency --
MR. CARNEY: I missed that this morning.
Q Okay, I'm sorry you missed it. I'll read it for you, the quote is here. They said, among other things, “It’s perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.” What’s the White House’s message to the Chinese?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't have a message to any particular country. I would simply say that it is an important fact that the full faith and credit of the United States, the principle that has existed for centuries that this country pays its bills and pays them on time -- and that includes paying investors from around the world -- the principle that this economy is a safe bet, and the safest bet, that investment in our country is as safe as any investment anywhere should not be compromised. And those who would compromise it are flirting with something -- are risking something that has immense value to the nation and to the American people.
Carol.
Q I wanted to follow on Brianna’s question just to clarify. Is the President negotiating on whether or not to reopen the government and raise the debt limit?
MR. CARNEY: Our position has been no ransom for reopening the government, no ransom for Congress fulfilling its responsibility to pay the U.S. bills.
Q I understand. Is he or is he not negotiating? It’s a yes or no question.
MR. CARNEY: Well, it depends on what you mean by “negotiate.” He’s been having conversations with lawmakers. What he will not do, what he has firmly made clear again and again is give the tea party its ideological agenda in exchange for Congress opening the government or Congress raising the debt ceiling so that the United States doesn’t default. That has been his position all along.
It’s, I think, helpfully clear in its simplicity: Open the government. Pay our bills. Stop threatening default. Stop doing harm to our economy. Stop doing harm to the American people.
And that's been our position all along. And my goal coming out here wasn’t to reiterate those points that we've been saying for so long. It was to make clear that we see progress in the Senate; we see in the Senate process the kind of bipartisan effort that is the path to resolving these kinds of issues when it comes to the simple responsibilities that Congress maintains -- opening the government, funding it, making sure Congress pays its bills. And we hope that all of Congress takes the appropriate action to ensure that they do not continue to inflict harm on the American economy.
Q One other thing I want to clarify. Since you’ve been talking, a spokesman for Speaker Boehner has said that for you to say that a senior administration official in Thursday’s meeting did not proactively raise the medical device issue is astoundingly dishonest and that it was a senior administration official who proposed it in those talks. So can you just clarify --
MR. CARNEY: I think I've answered the question three times --
Q -- nobody from the White House raised the issue?
MR. CARNEY: No, no, what I -- look, there have been conversations about the medical device tax because Republicans have been putting it on the table and others have been talking about it. What we have always said is that we have never, ever proposed or agreed to pay ransom in exchange for opening the government. And the proposal that had a brief existence this morning, apparently, before I guess the tea party pulled it down, contained within it a demand to placate the tea party related to the Affordable Care Act in exchange for opening the government. And our position has always been we're not paying ransom for that.
So, again, it is astoundingly disingenuous to suggest that our position has ever been that we're going to pay ransom to the tea party in order for the Congress, for House Republicans, to open the government.
Q May I ask on one other topic -- there's been a lot of focus on the shutdown, but it was not long ago we were all talking about Iran. And has the President had any reaction to the talks that have been going on and the offer that the Iranians put on the table?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure there's an offer.
Q Well, their proposal.
MR. CARNEY: I think that there was a P5-plus-1 meeting in Geneva, the first day of it, and the Iranian delegation made a presentation and the P5-plus-1 and Iran spent the day discussing the presentation. We're not going to negotiate this in public or go into the details of what was in their proposal. We certainly want to make clear that no one -- despite the positive signs that we've seen -- no one should expect a breakthrough overnight.
These are very complicated issues -- in some cases, very technical issues. And as the President has said, the mistrust here is very deep. But we hope for progress in Geneva. And although we appreciate the recent change in tone from the Iranian government on this issue, we will be looking for specific steps that address core issues, such as the pace and scope of its enrichment program, the transparency of its overall nuclear program and its stockpiles of enrichment.
The P5-plus-1 is seeking an agreement that ultimately resolves all of the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear program. And while we negotiate, we will continue to keep up the economic pressure on Iran, which has brought about the occasion for at least the prospect of making progress.
Q Can you characterize at all how you guys viewed the presentation? Did you find it encouraging? Was it a step in the right direction? How did the President respond to that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply say that after day one, we're hopeful that we will make progress in Geneva. But beyond that, I wouldn't characterize the presentation or the status of conversations.
Margaret.
Q Thanks, Jay. Polling on this shutdown and default stuff has been just clearly bad for congressional Republicans. It's not been great for everyone else either, but probably like worse for them, right across the board. How do you think that should affect the way they proceed? And how do you think that should affect how the White House proceeds and how much you should concede is the pressure is for you to make concessions?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, as the President said I think last week that there are no winners here and it's not the right thing to do to look at this as a partisan, zero-sum game. The right thing to do is to make no partisan demands as part of Congress doing its basic job -- funding the government, making sure the United States pays its bills on time.
The President is more than eager to sit down and work with lawmakers of both parties to discuss a broader budget agreement in which we can, hopefully, find compromise when it comes to making necessary investments in key areas like education and innovation and infrastructure, while making balanced but tough choices when it comes to continuing the project of reducing our deficit and managing our long-term debt.
That's been evident in the proposals he has put forward, and he wants to get back to that. But the context for that is budget negotiations where there are no guns on the table, where the threat of shutdown or the threat of continued shutdown is removed, the threat of default is removed, and lawmakers with good intentions from both parties, as well as the White House, can try to find a broader agreement on our budget priorities. That would be good for the economy. It would be good for the country. And I think it would probably be good for everyone in Washington of both parties.
Q The polling that's well done reflects at least a snapshot in time of how the public is feeling about a particular issue. Do you feel that the broad spectrum of polling that's out there has been well done and does reflect a public sentiment? Everybody looks at polling. You guys look at polling. The Republicans look at polling. What is the polling telling you about how the public feels and how both sides should proceed?
MR. CARNEY: Margaret, I would just say that Americans are justifiably frustrated by dysfunction in Washington, by a decision from any quarter -- in this case a decision clearly made by House Republicans -- to shut the government down over a partisan dispute, or to threaten default for partisan reasons. And, again, how the public views it I think is reflected in what's been played out here, which is that the President has taken a position where he has asked for nothing in return for Congress doing its job. He is eager to sit down and have tough negotiations and conversations with Republicans and Democrats about our budget priorities, but only after these basic responsibilities are fulfilled, that the government reopen and the threat of default be removed.
Q I'll try it one more way. Do you think that Senate and House Republicans are paying attention to the polling? Do you see any reflection of that --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I just don't think that's the way we want to look at this here.
Q You mean at the podium or in general?
MR. CARNEY: I mean in general. Look, here's the thing, whatever analysis you make of the data that you cite -- and I think there's a consensus that reflects what you said -- we wish it weren't so. We wish instead Congress had simply kept the government open. We wish instead that the House had allowed for a process by which Congress, without drama and delay, ensure that the United States would pay its bills into the future.
Just like we wish for the country, for deficit reduction, for our economy that the House would follow the Senate's lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform with a big bipartisan vote. That might be good for the Republican Party. Analysts say so. Republicans say so. We hope they do it.
The President believes it's very important in our country to have two strong parties, and to have parties with sincere differences but lawmakers who are willing to make compromises and politicians who are willing to make compromises without sacrificing their principles but are willing to compromise in order to do the essential business of the American people and move our country forward. That's the approach he has always taken.
And one of the things that has been particularly difficult in these last several years is that we've seen a highly partisan wing of one party drive the train, if you will, when it comes to how we move forward on these issues. And that makes it very difficult.
Q But you don't want to say from the podium that the polling bolsters the tact that the President has taken not to negotiate?
MR. CARNEY: Again, the President's simple proposition has not been -- I think it's important, because if you shorthand it and say he doesn't want to negotiate, that ignores an entire calendar year in which he has been explicitly asking Republicans to sit down with him and negotiate on budget priorities. He put forward a budget that reflected that. He had numerous meetings and meals and conversations with Republicans in the Senate and the House about these very issues.
But he does not believe that our partisan differences should be the excuse for shutting down the economy -- in the worst-case scenario, if there were to be default -- or shutting down the government. Because that's just using the American people and the American economy as pawns in this partisan dispute and that's not the right way to do things. We ought to make sure that these essential functions are funded, make sure that the United States pays its bills. And then, we should negotiate.
Tommy.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have three questions.
MR. CARNEY: Three?
Q Yes, sorry. It's been a while. First of all, I don't know if you're aware of this, but when I had a heart attack three years ago, I was uninsured and I haven't been able to get insurance ever since then. But listening to all the pressure on the President to negotiate -- a lot of it from inside this room -- made me think, is there a chance the President would be willing to delay Obamacare for a year if Republicans were to agree to delay heart attacks for a year?
MR. CARNEY: Tommy, you know the President's position is that we need to implement the Affordable Care Act. And when it comes to the millions of Americans across the country who have had a very hard time getting access to affordable health insurance, we need to focus on those folks and continue the business of implementing the Affordable Care Act, so that on January 1st, those Americans will be able to purchase this insurance, quality insurance at affordable rates for the first time. Does that answer your question?
Q Just for what it's worth, I was able to enroll in the exchange about a week and a half ago. I haven't picked a plan yet, though.
My second question, I was talking to my mom this morning -- right out here, actually -- and she asked me to ask you to please open the government back up again. And I know you can't just do that. But she is really worried about her Social Security check. And I told her, don't worry, Mom, we'll get it taken care of. I don't want you to worry. But Steve Rattner last night said that October 23rd is one of these drop-dead dates that start to pile up. And so I guess my question is should she be worried?
MR. CARNEY: What I would say about that, which goes to the issue of the debt ceiling, is that the United States government through Congress has made a lot of commitments and has a lot of obligations, and those include the commitments and obligations that the Congress has made and we have made to America's seniors. And we need to never even contemplate the possibility that the timely provision of benefits to those seniors would be jeopardized by a decision by one faction of one party of one house of one branch of government to wage an ideological battle here in Washington.
So that's why -- I mean, that crystallizes the fact that there are real people who depend on some basic things. And everybody in Washington -- Democrats and Republicans and independents -- should sort of agree to the principle that we ought to at the very least ensure that those people are taken care of and that the essential functioning of government is allowed to proceed and that the basic premise that the United States always pays its bills on time is not jeopardized. So that's the position the President has taken.
Q Last question -- do you remember the last debt ceiling deal there was a plan floated, it was called the McConnell plan, where Congress would authorize a debt ceiling increase for I think it was a year, a year and a half. And it would hold a vote every so often, so that Republicans could vote no but it would require two-thirds majority to overrule, so it gave the President the authority. Is something like the McConnell plan in the air now, being discussed now? And if not, why not?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would basically direct you to Congress for the various plans under discussion and the plans that have been adopted in the past for how they fulfill their responsibility invested in them through the Constitution to pay our bills. So Congress has the authority, whether it's to devise a scheme or a plan along the lines that you talk about, or simply just to take the vote and raise the debt ceiling. That's not an authority that the President has. That's an authority Congress has.
Q Haven’t heard any conversations about that?
MR. CARNEY: I'd just refer you to the Senate.
April and then, John and then, Julia -- and then, we'll go.
Q Jay, basically you're saying Thursday -- and from what you said at the podium -- that you're not going to be able to pay all of your bills. What should the American public be bracing for? I mean, you're calmly almost screaming “fire.”
MR. CARNEY: I'll just be clear that on Thursday the United States runs out of its borrowing authority. And that means that the Treasury only has cash on hand to meet the obligations that the United States government has.
Q Did you or did you not say that you're not going to be able to pay all of your bills?
MR. CARNEY: Because we -- what I'm saying is the Treasury is the place to go for specific timetables about when bills come due and how that works. What I'm saying is that as a nation, the reason why we need to raise the debt ceiling is to ensure that the Treasury can borrow money to make sure we meet all our obligations. Inevitably, if your obligations exceed what you take in, you're in a situation where default is a possibility. But the Treasury is the right place to address those questions.
And, look, again, April, I don't have the list of many outside experts who aren't crying “fire” -- they're crying “stop.” Stop threatening the American and global economy with the prospect of default and just do the responsible thing and pass a bill that extends the debt ceiling, so that this is not even something that can happen or be contemplated. So that's not us, certainly not us alone. I think many folks from the business world and from both sides of the aisle here in Washington have acknowledged that we don't want to cross that line, because the consequences would be very negative.
Q Jay, I'm not putting any blame anywhere, I'm just asking what should the American public be bracing for? Because many persons already have had their paycheck stopped. Many persons are concerned about government subsidies to programs. Thursday, Friday, whenever -- when you're not able to pay all of your bills, what should the American public be bracing for?
MR. CARNEY: No, I understand, April. And I would just say, A, we hope we do not get to the point where that's a reality. It's entirely within Congress's and, in many cases, the Speaker of the House's power to ensure that that does not happen. Broadly speaking, I've said that there is reason to be concerned, given the disposition we've seen in Congress -- in particular among House Republicans, although some Senate Republicans as well -- to flirt with default, flirt with crossing that threshold beyond which we don't have borrowing authority. And that's very dangerous.
We believe that there's a majority in both houses to ensure that, if given the chance, to ensure that this is not something that ever comes about.
I'm going to have to go, because I know there's Medal of Honor pre-positioning.
Q I just have this last question. As we deal with this, what is the construct as to why we're here? We know it's partisan agendas and politics. And Sunday, we saw situations at the White House, come to the White House where race was involved. Many persons are saying part of this now has to do with race, because the President is indeed an African American, a black man. Is race a part of this stalemate, this conversation?
MR. CARNEY: April, I don't believe that that's the issue here. I believe that this is a decision by -- Republicans shut the government down not because every Republican wanted it, but because Republican leaders in the House were listening to a faction within their own conference. And it's important that when it comes to reopening the government a majority of the House be allowed to vote on a clean CR, for example, as we've talked about for a long time, and when it comes to the essential responsibility to ensure that the United States pays its bills, that Congress be able to take that action so that this threat is removed and everybody -- Republicans and Democrats -- can get about the business of discussing and negotiating over our budget priorities.
I’ve really got to go -- John, last one.
Q Two quick ones -- I'll use shorthand here. Does the President support the reinsurance provision --
MR. CARNEY: John, I'm not going to negotiate over items of proposed bills that haven't been written or submitted.
Q And can I get your reaction to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell deciding to suspend negotiations until the House does or does not act today?
MR. CARNEY: Again, we have seen progress in the Senate and we hope to see continued progress in the Senate. We’ve seen a bipartisan approach in the Senate that we would hope that the House could emulate.
Julia, you get the last one.
Q On the Affordable Care Act, can you give us both a timeframe for when you anticipate federal exchanges will be fully functional, what entities are working on it, and just as important, who pays for this fix? Is this part of the contract, or is this an additional cost to the federal government?
MR. CARNEY: Those are all questions for HHS and CMS. I can tell you that, at the President’s direction, people are working 24/7 to resolve the problems that have arisen and taking steps to make sure that those many, many millions of Americans who are interested in the options available to them to purchase affordable health insurance, in many cases for the first time, have the best consumer experience possible.
And there are a lot of people hard at work on this. But for details of the work being done and the process in place, I’d refer you to HHS.
Thanks, everybody.
END
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MESSAGE ON CONTINUING EO REGARDING COLOMBIAN NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Message to the Congress -- Colombia Traffickers
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia declared in Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is to continue in effect beyond October 21, 2013.
The circumstances that led to the declaration on October 21, 1995, of a national emergency have not been resolved. The actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and to cause an extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12978 with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 16, 2013.
Message to the Congress -- Colombia Traffickers
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia declared in Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is to continue in effect beyond October 21, 2013.
The circumstances that led to the declaration on October 21, 1995, of a national emergency have not been resolved. The actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and to cause an extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12978 with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 16, 2013.
PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKES STATEMENT ON EID AL-ADHA
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the President on Eid al-Adha
Michelle and I extend our best wishes for a joyous Eid al-Adha to Muslims around the world and congratulate those performing the Hajj this year. As our Muslim neighbors and friends gather for Eid celebrations, Muslim Americans are among the more than three million pilgrims joining one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings, which serves as a reminder of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths.
To commemorate Eid al-Adha, Muslims around the world are joining other faith communities in offering their assistance to those suffering from hunger, disease, and conflict. Their service is a powerful example of the positive role that faith can play in motivating communities to work together to address shared challenges.
On behalf of the American people, we extend our warmest greetings during this Hajj season. Eid Mubarak and Hajj Mabrour.
Statement by the President on Eid al-Adha
Michelle and I extend our best wishes for a joyous Eid al-Adha to Muslims around the world and congratulate those performing the Hajj this year. As our Muslim neighbors and friends gather for Eid celebrations, Muslim Americans are among the more than three million pilgrims joining one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings, which serves as a reminder of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths.
To commemorate Eid al-Adha, Muslims around the world are joining other faith communities in offering their assistance to those suffering from hunger, disease, and conflict. Their service is a powerful example of the positive role that faith can play in motivating communities to work together to address shared challenges.
On behalf of the American people, we extend our warmest greetings during this Hajj season. Eid Mubarak and Hajj Mabrour.
U.S. GOVERNMENT CONCERNED ABOUT RESERVE PERSONNEL READINESS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Shutdown Endangers Reserve Component Readiness
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2013 - Reserve component personnel continue to be affected by the government shutdown, and officials are concerned about readiness.
Within DOD, the reserve components are the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, the Navy Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve. The Coast Guard Reserve comes under the Department of Homeland Security.
There are around 850,000 personnel in the selected reserve and they are among those most affected by the partial shutdown. Selected reserves are those units so essential to wartime missions they are required to continue training each month to maintain proficiency. The units also train an additional two weeks a year.
Officially, these weekend drills are called "Inactive Duty Training" and are used to maintain readiness and keep qualifications current, DOD reserve affairs officials said.
"These inactive duty periods are not authorized during the shutdown, unless they are supporting certain critical activities or future deployments," said one official.
Reserve component personnel training for deployment may continue as required.
Recruiting efforts continue to fill the ranks of the reserve components, but reserve affairs personnel worry about the long-term effect the government shutdown will have on recruiting and retention.
"It is too soon to tell, but reserve components are monitoring this closely," officials said.
Federal civilian employees of the reserve components have been recalled if they meet DOD guidance. They are covered under the Pay Our Military Act.
The act has provided relief from some of the shutdown, but if furloughs continue, training needed to maintain readiness will be restricted, official said, which could impact reservists.
"While the president could still call on them, their readiness levels would not be as robust under normal appropriations," officials said.
National Guard units also have state missions, and the lack of appropriations affects their ability to perform those jobs.
The Pay Our Military Act allows family programs for reserve component personnel -- especially for the families of those deployed -- to continue.
Shutdown Endangers Reserve Component Readiness
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2013 - Reserve component personnel continue to be affected by the government shutdown, and officials are concerned about readiness.
Within DOD, the reserve components are the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, the Navy Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve. The Coast Guard Reserve comes under the Department of Homeland Security.
There are around 850,000 personnel in the selected reserve and they are among those most affected by the partial shutdown. Selected reserves are those units so essential to wartime missions they are required to continue training each month to maintain proficiency. The units also train an additional two weeks a year.
Officially, these weekend drills are called "Inactive Duty Training" and are used to maintain readiness and keep qualifications current, DOD reserve affairs officials said.
"These inactive duty periods are not authorized during the shutdown, unless they are supporting certain critical activities or future deployments," said one official.
Reserve component personnel training for deployment may continue as required.
Recruiting efforts continue to fill the ranks of the reserve components, but reserve affairs personnel worry about the long-term effect the government shutdown will have on recruiting and retention.
"It is too soon to tell, but reserve components are monitoring this closely," officials said.
Federal civilian employees of the reserve components have been recalled if they meet DOD guidance. They are covered under the Pay Our Military Act.
The act has provided relief from some of the shutdown, but if furloughs continue, training needed to maintain readiness will be restricted, official said, which could impact reservists.
"While the president could still call on them, their readiness levels would not be as robust under normal appropriations," officials said.
National Guard units also have state missions, and the lack of appropriations affects their ability to perform those jobs.
The Pay Our Military Act allows family programs for reserve component personnel -- especially for the families of those deployed -- to continue.
OFFICERS ATTEND S. KOREAN MILITARY TRAINING COURSE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Officers Attend South Korean Military Training Course
By Walter T. Ham IV
U.S. 8th Army
SEOUL, South Korea, Oct. 15, 2013 - The Korean National Defense University here welcomed American military officers to its first combined training course in September.
he week-long Combined Operations Training Course brought together South Korean and U.S. military officers to address security issues and learn more about the U.S.-South Korea alliance.
"We all began to better understand and respect the variety of perspectives in our group," said U.S. Army Maj. Lisa Livingood, an 8th Army planner who attended the inaugural combined course. "It is the only course in my career where I have studied in equal numbers with allies."
Livingood said the combined course covered a wide variety of topics, including Korean history, the history of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and South Korean military command structures.
According to Livingood, the students visited the world's most heavily armed border.
"We traveled into the [Korean] Demilitarized Zone to learn about its structure, the role of the United Nations Military Armistice Commission and the functioning of a front fence line ROK guard post," said Livingood, who grew up in Frankfurt, Germany.
The course is one of many initiatives designed to enhance the alliance that has defended South Korea for more than 60 years. South Korean Army noncommissioned officers also train together with U.S. Army NCOs at the Wightman NCO Academy at Camp Jackson, South Korea.
Livingood said she would recommend the course to anyone interested in learning more about the alliance and the role it plays in deterring aggression on the Korean Peninsula and maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
The 8th Army planner added that the course enabled the U.S. military officers to bond with their host-nation allies.
"The course promoted camaraderie between the U.S. students, the ROK students and across national lines," Livingood said.
U.S. Officers Attend South Korean Military Training Course
By Walter T. Ham IV
U.S. 8th Army
SEOUL, South Korea, Oct. 15, 2013 - The Korean National Defense University here welcomed American military officers to its first combined training course in September.
he week-long Combined Operations Training Course brought together South Korean and U.S. military officers to address security issues and learn more about the U.S.-South Korea alliance.
"We all began to better understand and respect the variety of perspectives in our group," said U.S. Army Maj. Lisa Livingood, an 8th Army planner who attended the inaugural combined course. "It is the only course in my career where I have studied in equal numbers with allies."
Livingood said the combined course covered a wide variety of topics, including Korean history, the history of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and South Korean military command structures.
According to Livingood, the students visited the world's most heavily armed border.
"We traveled into the [Korean] Demilitarized Zone to learn about its structure, the role of the United Nations Military Armistice Commission and the functioning of a front fence line ROK guard post," said Livingood, who grew up in Frankfurt, Germany.
The course is one of many initiatives designed to enhance the alliance that has defended South Korea for more than 60 years. South Korean Army noncommissioned officers also train together with U.S. Army NCOs at the Wightman NCO Academy at Camp Jackson, South Korea.
Livingood said she would recommend the course to anyone interested in learning more about the alliance and the role it plays in deterring aggression on the Korean Peninsula and maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
The 8th Army planner added that the course enabled the U.S. military officers to bond with their host-nation allies.
"The course promoted camaraderie between the U.S. students, the ROK students and across national lines," Livingood said.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
DOD SAYS SERVICE MEMBERS SHOULD START SAVING FOR RETIREMENT EARLY
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT RETIREMENT
Service Members Should Start Saving Early for Retirement
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2013 - It's never too soon to start savinge for retirement, Barbara Thompson, the director of the Defense Department's office of family policy/children and youth advised service members today.
Enlistees as young as 18 might not be thinking about saving for retirement or the importance of their Thrift Savings Plan, but that's when they should, because retirement creeps up quickly, Thompson said.
"The vast majority of service members don't go the full 20 years for military retirement, so they need to, from the very beginning, think about their futures," she said. "When [service members] get out of the military, they will have something to show in a retirement plan they've had all along while serving."
Sometimes "you have to start small, because that's what you can afford, but the goal is to build up, so you're saving more and more every year," Thompson said.
The Thrift Savings Plan, Thompson said, offers two types of approaches: one that is tax-deferred until age 59-and-a-half when taxes on that money will be paid; and the Roth Thrift Savings Plan, in which taxes are paid up front.
"It's an individual decision based on [service members'] circumstances, and I would highly suggest they utilize the financial resources that DOD provides," Thompson said.
Saving for retirement is not only about financial readiness, it's also critical for service members' financial well-being, she said. And DOD offers numerous resources to help with retirement account guidance, Thompson added. Military OneSource has financial counselors who are available by phone, online or in person, she said. Its online calculations also show service members how their savings will develop over time.
Military installations offer personal financial managers at base family centers, Thompson added. The counselors are certified in financial counseling and can help families decide which of the two plans best meet their needs.
Banks and credit unions also offer financial education, and the Thrift Savings Plan website offers a wealth of information as well, Thompson said.
Regardless of the Thrift Savings Plan service members and families choose, they should periodically revisit their retirement accounts and stay informed by researching financial matters, Thompson said.
"It's not now, it's the future you need to be thinking of," she said. "We're seeing a trend in the United States [in which] people are reaching retirement age and they're realizing they may not have enough [money] as they get into their 80s and 90s. You want to make sure all those years are covered so you don't become a burden to your children or to society."
Service Members Should Start Saving Early for Retirement
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2013 - It's never too soon to start savinge for retirement, Barbara Thompson, the director of the Defense Department's office of family policy/children and youth advised service members today.
Enlistees as young as 18 might not be thinking about saving for retirement or the importance of their Thrift Savings Plan, but that's when they should, because retirement creeps up quickly, Thompson said.
"The vast majority of service members don't go the full 20 years for military retirement, so they need to, from the very beginning, think about their futures," she said. "When [service members] get out of the military, they will have something to show in a retirement plan they've had all along while serving."
Sometimes "you have to start small, because that's what you can afford, but the goal is to build up, so you're saving more and more every year," Thompson said.
The Thrift Savings Plan, Thompson said, offers two types of approaches: one that is tax-deferred until age 59-and-a-half when taxes on that money will be paid; and the Roth Thrift Savings Plan, in which taxes are paid up front.
"It's an individual decision based on [service members'] circumstances, and I would highly suggest they utilize the financial resources that DOD provides," Thompson said.
Saving for retirement is not only about financial readiness, it's also critical for service members' financial well-being, she said. And DOD offers numerous resources to help with retirement account guidance, Thompson added. Military OneSource has financial counselors who are available by phone, online or in person, she said. Its online calculations also show service members how their savings will develop over time.
Military installations offer personal financial managers at base family centers, Thompson added. The counselors are certified in financial counseling and can help families decide which of the two plans best meet their needs.
Banks and credit unions also offer financial education, and the Thrift Savings Plan website offers a wealth of information as well, Thompson said.
Regardless of the Thrift Savings Plan service members and families choose, they should periodically revisit their retirement accounts and stay informed by researching financial matters, Thompson said.
"It's not now, it's the future you need to be thinking of," she said. "We're seeing a trend in the United States [in which] people are reaching retirement age and they're realizing they may not have enough [money] as they get into their 80s and 90s. You want to make sure all those years are covered so you don't become a burden to your children or to society."
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL AND UAE CROWN PRINCE DISCUSS SECURITY
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel, UAE Crown Prince Discuss Regional Security Issues
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and United Arab Emirates' Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today spoke by phone and discussed regional security issues, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement issued today.
Little's statement reads as follows:
Secretary Hagel spoke with United Arab Emirates' (UAE) Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today to consult on regional issues. Secretary Hagel emphasized the U.S. commitment to regional security and noted that the strong U.S.-UAE bilateral relationship remains integral to regional stability. Secretary Hagel reaffirmed U.S. commitment to the strategic partnership with Egypt, and discussed the recent decision about U.S. security assistance to Egypt.
On Iran, Secretary Hagel noted that the United States intends to test the prospects for diplomacy and assured H.E. Mohamed bin Zayed that, as we pursue a peaceful resolution of the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the United States remains firm in its commitment to the security of the region and to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Finally, Secretary Hagel highlighted the success of the recent U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Strategic Cooperation Forum and urged the need for further collaboration between the United States and GCC on shared issues, particularly on regional defense initiatives.
Hagel, UAE Crown Prince Discuss Regional Security Issues
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and United Arab Emirates' Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today spoke by phone and discussed regional security issues, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement issued today.
Little's statement reads as follows:
Secretary Hagel spoke with United Arab Emirates' (UAE) Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today to consult on regional issues. Secretary Hagel emphasized the U.S. commitment to regional security and noted that the strong U.S.-UAE bilateral relationship remains integral to regional stability. Secretary Hagel reaffirmed U.S. commitment to the strategic partnership with Egypt, and discussed the recent decision about U.S. security assistance to Egypt.
On Iran, Secretary Hagel noted that the United States intends to test the prospects for diplomacy and assured H.E. Mohamed bin Zayed that, as we pursue a peaceful resolution of the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the United States remains firm in its commitment to the security of the region and to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Finally, Secretary Hagel highlighted the success of the recent U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Strategic Cooperation Forum and urged the need for further collaboration between the United States and GCC on shared issues, particularly on regional defense initiatives.
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT THE FOURTH GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP SUMMIT IN KUALA LUMPUR
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at The Fourth Global Entrepreneurship Summit
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
October 11, 2013
Selamat Pagi.. Good morning. (Applause.) Four thousand seven hundred delegates, 123 countries – this is really remarkable. And it’s a pleasure – (applause). Yes, it is remarkable. (Applause.)
And it’s a great, great pleasure for me to be in this beautiful, dynamic city. I want to thank Prime Minister Najib. Thank you so much for your welcome, your generous leadership. (Applause.) And the Minister of Finance Two Husni, and the Government of Malaysia, I thank you all for your very generous hospitality and all of your Excellencies, and particularly if I may single her out, our Secretary of Commerce who is here, Penny Pritzker, and the First Lady I see here. Thank you, we enjoyed a wonderful evening the other night. Nice to see you here. (Applause.)
I want to thank you for partnering with the United States to put together the largest-ever Global Entrepreneurship Summit ever conceived. (Applause.) And I especially thank you for promoting entrepreneurship through your policies, which benefit us all.
I also want to thank Startup Malaysia for the exceptional work that you’ve done on this Summit, and for working hard every day – (cheers and applause). They have their special cheering section over here. (Laughter.) But I want to thank them for helping young people across the country – and around the world – to chase their dreams of building their own businesses. As we were walking in here, the Prime Minister said to me, “This is something people want more than anything else today, to start their own business.” Thank you also for bringing together the Global Startup Youth, who I understand are here in full force. (Cheers and Applause.) I was about to say they were here in full force, but they announced that themselves. (Laughter.)
And as you know, this Summit is very, very close to President Obama’s heart. I trust you also understand why the situation in Washington has kept President Obama close to home. But I woke up today to television reports that things are beginning to break a bit, so you can see it was worth his staying and important. But he will be back in Malaysia soon, I promise you. (Applause.)
Let me reiterate very quickly, because I don’t want to spend time on it, that what is happening in our capital in Washington is really nothing more than a moment of politics, and it will pass. But I’ll say this: If only the small group of people who have held us back in these past days were as forward-thinking and collaborative as the people in this room, we would all do a lot better. (Cheers and Applause.)
So I know the President is disappointed that he can’t be here today, but I assure you that his commitment to what you’re doing is as strong as ever – and he joins me in saying with great admiration: “Malaysia negara hebat.” (Applause.)
It’s very fitting that this year’s Summit has brought us together in this incredible country. The many Malaysians who are turning novel ideas into new businesses are strongly supported by a government that is constantly rooting them on and encouraging them.
Malaysia’s Finance Ministry just launched the “One Met” program to train thousands in tech skills, and Prime Minister Najib’s government has set the ambitious and admirable goal of having small- and medium-sized enterprises comprise 40 percent of Malaysia’s GDP by 2015. That’s an extraordinary goal, and I’m confident Malaysia will meet it. If anyone can meet it, it’s Malaysia. (Applause.)
This is the country that reached for the sky not once, but twice, with the iconic twin towers that stand just outside this convention center.
And when most of the world was still discovering the World Wide Web in the 1990s, guess what? This country created Cyberjaya, the first city on earth to be fully wired with high-speed internet. (Cheers and Applause.)
This nation has given the world visionary businesspeople like Jimmy Choo, who made his first pair of shoes at the age of 11. (Applause.) And by the time he was in his twenties, his designs were being worn on sidewalks and catwalks from Los Angeles to London.
And Tony Fernandes, who long before he started hosting “The Apprentice: Asia” – in fact, even before he even turned 30 years old – started the budget airline Air Asia. And with that bold vision, my friends, he revolutionized the way that people connect with one another throughout the region.
As I have walked into this hall and felt the energy here, I have to tell you it’s extraordinary all of the young people who are here. I’m sure you share that feeling. There’s an excitement here, an excitement about possibilities. I actually can almost feel my hair turning brown again. (Laughter.)
It astounds me to think that three in five citizens of ASEAN nations are under the age of 35. Sixty percent of your population. Just imagine what that means for all of the new products and the new services that Southeast Asia can bring to the world. My friends, it really is all in your hands.
And it’s equally fitting that we meet in Kuala Lumpur because this is a multi-cultural city at the heart of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith country, and history has proven time and again that diversity is one of the most important catalysts for discovery.
Here in Malaysia, people of different heritages have been in conversation for a long, long time. You see it in the open houses that you host during holidays, welcoming people of different faiths into your living rooms.
You see it in the Petronas Towers that I mentioned a moment ago, which are a beautiful fusion of modern engineering, traditional Muslim design - of an American architect, of Japanese and Korean construction, and a uniquely Malaysian vision.
Together, they all blended a masterpiece that is recognized around the world and a soaring reminder that Malaysia is much more than a marketplace. It is a human and an economic mosaic – and it is a model for the world. Your open-mindedness and cooperative spirit – these are literally the keys to the future.
When President Obama announced the creation of this Summit in Cairo four years ago, he did so because he understands that freedom of opportunity is humanity’s most powerful motivator.
This is true for all people, regardless of geography or gender, regardless of race or religion. It always has been true, and I’ve got news for you; it always will be.
What unfolded in the historic city of Cairo just a short time after the speech the President gave – and in Tunis, and in Tripoli, and in Sana’a – they all proved the point. The world watched young people just like you – young men and women with great aspirations. They watched them demand the chance to be able to fashion their futures, to be able to have a say in the future, to define it, and just like you are doing today as you turn your dreams into businesses.
President Obama also understands that entrepreneurship is about so much more than profits. It’s about how you build a society that values competition and compassion at the same time.
So much of the work that we’re doing together isn’t just about making money. It’s about making people’s lives better through education, health care, and basic human rights.
A few years ago, a study that was conducted in the United Kingdom showed that the most entrepreneurial countries in the world are also the most prosperous. That’s not an accident. This study also found that entrepreneurship also makes people happier and more fulfilled.
The places where citizens have the freedom to dream up a new idea, where you have an opportunity to share that idea freely with other people, where you can be you own boss – and even, importantly, where you are free to fail. These societies are both the most successful and they are the most cohesive and the most satisfied. Never underestimate how important that is.
And just as there’s nowhere better to talk about innovation than here in Malaysia, there is no one better to talk about innovation than young people. As they say in Bahasa, “Melentur buluh, biar dari rebung nya.” (Applause and Cheers.) “To bend a bamboo, start when it’s still a shoot.”
I look out at this audience here and I see that truth in the proverb. Every step towards progress actually does start with young people:
Mozart composed his first piece of music at the age of 5 years old.
Mandela was 25 when he started fighting against apartheid.
Martin Luther King was 26 when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when Facebook went live.
Malala Yousafzai was only 11 when she started blogging about life under the Taliban.
It is young people who push us forward, always by building something that no one else thought to build – who push us forward by saying aloud something that no one else had the courage to say.
In fact, the first man to hold the office of Secretary of State of the United States, the office I obviously occupy today, was Thomas Jefferson – who, by the way, also happened to be an inventor who helped establish our patent system. He was 33 when he wrote our Declaration of Independence – the mission statement of a risky start-up called the United States of America.
So I am honored to, and I am inspired to be with so many of you – young people who energize us and give us hope by continuing that proud tradition. I’ve actually learned something about a few of you.
I’m thinking of entrepreneurs who are here like Nermin Sa'd, who has come to this Summit from Jordan. And when Nermin talked with female engineers like herself across the Middle East, she realized that so many of their talents were being squandered in countries where cultural norms make it difficult for women to work outside of their homes.
And so Nermin created an online platform where female engineers could freelance from home.
And Nermin’s dream is that in five years, her website will be the first engineering company in all of the Middle East and North Africa staffed completely by women. (Applause and Cheers.)
And I am inspired by entrepreneurs like Tonee Ndungu of Kenya, who’s also come to Kuala Lumpur this week.
The first company that Tonee built failed. But he didn’t give up. He did what any of you would do: he just tried again.
And Tonee’s latest innovation lets students rent textbooks electronically – a book at a time, a chapter at a time, or even a page at a time.
And by making textbooks more affordable, he gives lower-income students a chance to learn that they might not otherwise ever have had.
But that’s not his only motivation, my friends. Tonee is dyslexic, and when he was a student he had to listen to cassette tapes of audio books.
So Tonee’s dream is to lower all kinds of barriers to education in the developing world.
And I’m inspired by young entrepreneurs like 24-year-old Saimum Hossain.
Saimum is here today from Bangladesh, where of 7 million of his countrymen who are homeless and many more have unsuitable housing. So Saimum and some friends set out to put a roof over as many heads as possible – literally.
They started an environmentally friendly company that turns natural materials from plants into sophisticated corrugated sheets that are more durable than metal roofs and provide good shelter.
Saimum’s dream is that soon they will be cheaper than metal so that more of the world’s 100 million homeless can afford sustainable housing. That’s a great dream. (Applause.)
I’m proud to tell you that Nermin, Tonee and Saimum all belong to a program that was born from President Obama’s call to action in Cairo. It’s called Global Innovation through Science and Technology. (Cheers.) And these young people embody the President’s famous affirmation that anything is possible: “Yes, we can!” – or as you say in Malaysia, “Malaysia boleh!” (Applause.)
The Obama Administration is really inspired by the kind of work that the young people here are doing, and that’s why we are going to continue promoting entrepreneurship around the world.
Supporting your creativity and persistence is a key component of our foreign policy agenda – which today, more than ever before, is about economic policy, too.
When entrepreneurs here in Malaysia succeed, I’ll tell you something; they create economic opportunity for Malaysians, of course, but also for people all over the world, including in the United States.
Americans benefit from the success of small businesses around the world through trading and collaborating with them, and by using their goods and services. So President Obama is going to continue doing everything he can to support young people who want to turn their ideas into businesses or non-profit organizations.
And we’ll do that in a few major ways.
First, we’re going to create an environment where people can easily form personal relationships and broad networks with people from every background and every expertise. We’re also going to help them with the training and support that they need to turn their ideas into businesses, and then to bring them to scale.
And when we think of the most successful entrepreneurs, we often think of someone like Steve Jobs, who was sitting in a garage somewhere with a buddy or two. But the truth is, no one makes all of this happen all alone. It takes the private sector working hand-in-hand with NGOs, universities, and governments. And in the end, the networks that we build only make all of us stronger.
So I am proud to announce a new collaboration between the United States State Department and Up Global, which over the next few years will support and train half a million entrepreneurs in 1,000 cities around the world – including right here in Kuala Lumpur. (Applause.)
The second initiative we’re going to launch will connect these entrepreneurs with mentors who can show them the ropes – because as you know better than anyone, starting a business is a daunting task.
And by the end of the year, President Obama will announce the inaugural members of the President’s Committee on Global Entrepreneurship. Penny Pritzker, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce who I introduced earlier, who is herself a very experienced executive and entrepreneur, she will lead this committee of role models who are going to act as partners, as teachers, and as champions for a new generation of success stories.
And third and finally, we must make sure governments support entrepreneurs and the amazing work that you’re all doing. That’s why President Obama is joining forces with organizations like the Kauffman Foundation, the World Bank, and others in order to create a new research network that will help policymakers promote growth and start-ups.
So I can’t tell you how exciting it is, how many great programs are underway or on the way in order to connect innovators with capital, market demands, and lift some of the poorest communities in the world out of poverty.
And I’m especially proud of a new program called Beehive Malaysia. Babson College – which is a school in my home state of Massachusetts – will partner with the U.S. Department of State and Malaysian universities and businesses to give social entrepreneurs a collaborative, shared workspace where they can solve some of the world’s toughest challenges.
My friends, the United States is doing all that we can to support you because we know that the best ideas are never bound by borders. And it’s your ideas that have always created the lion’s share of jobs in our country and in yours.
Just think: As more and more young people join the labor market, the world will need about a half a billion new jobs by 2030, many of which just haven’t been invented yet.
I want to leave you with a thought from a man who inspired me when I was growing up – a younger brother of the youngest man ever elected President, and a visionary leader in his own right – Robert Kennedy.
Robert Kennedy said: “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events – and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.” “In the total of all those acts.”
Nearly a half a century later, you have more tools at your fingertips than any generation in history, and so you have all the more power to bend history for the better – to bend that bamboo in the ancient Malaysian proverb.
It happens that we also have many more complex challenges today, and it will take even more hard work to move the world forward. And without question, how many countries like mine and yours harness your talents? That is what will shape global economic prosperity and opportunity for generations to come.
As your generation continues to invent and reinvent and push us forward, you will invariably hear a lot of people call you the leaders of tomorrow. But I got news for you: That sells you short.
I know you’re not content to be relegated to the future – you are the present. You are the leaders of today. You are changing the world even as we speak. And I am confident that the rest of us are in your exceedingly capable hands.
So thank you all for all that you do, and all that you will do to bring opportunity to the many around the world. Terima kasih. (Applause.)
It is now my honor to present a message from the man whose vision created the Summit, the President of the United States, Barack Obama: (Applause.)
“Hello, everyone. I had really hoped to be with you in person. Unfortunately, events here in Washington made that impossible. But I am pleased that the United States is being represented at the Summit by two outstanding members of my cabinet, Secretaries John Kerry and Penny Pritzker. And I wanted to take this opportunity to speak directly to each of you about the cause that brings you together today.
To Prime Minister Najib and our Malaysian friends, thank you so much for your leadership in hosting the Fourth Summit – a tribute to Malaysia’s example as a dynamic economy, an engine for regional prosperity, and a country that’s increasingly connected to the global economy.
“Likewise, Malaysia’s diversity, tolerance, and progress can be a model for countries around the world. As I’ve told Prime Minister Najib, I look forward to visiting Malaysia in the future as we continue to deepen the partnership between our two great nations.
“To everyone gathered at this Summit, especially so many young entrepreneurs, thank you for your commitment to the call I issued four years ago in Cairo – the need for new partnerships between the United States and Muslim communities around the world. I was proud to host the First Entrepreneurship Summit and I’m proud of the progress we’ve made since, empowering a new generation of entrepreneurs, including women, with new skills, training, and access to capital, helping small businesses grow and forging new collaborations in science and technology.
“We do all this because we believe that whether you live in Kuala Lumpur or Kuwait or Kansas City, when you’re free to have your own ideas, pursue your dreams, start your own businesses, serve your communities, it isn’t just good for your nations; it means more prosperity and progress for us all. It’s the same daring spirit that brings us together to meet other challenges as well, from hunger to health to climate change. And it’s the spirit you can sustain.
“The United States is proud to do our part. In partnership with Up Global, we’ll help support 500,000 new entrepreneurs and their startups around the world. Some of America’s most successful leaders in business will serve as entrepreneurship ambassadors, mentoring and nurturing the next generation. A new research network will equip governments with proven tools to help entrepreneurs succeed. And we’ll continue to expand the partnerships and exchanges that help entrepreneurs like you learn from each other and turn your ideas into reality.
“Those of you there today, you’re risk takers and dreamers who imagine the world as it ought to be. But you also have the talents and drive to actually build the future you seek, and the United States of America wants to be your partner. We want you to succeed. And when I think of your passion and creativity, I could not be more optimistic about the future we can build together.
“So have a wonderful Summit. May God bless you all and may God’s peace be upon you.”
(Applause.)
Remarks at The Fourth Global Entrepreneurship Summit
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
October 11, 2013
Selamat Pagi.. Good morning. (Applause.) Four thousand seven hundred delegates, 123 countries – this is really remarkable. And it’s a pleasure – (applause). Yes, it is remarkable. (Applause.)
And it’s a great, great pleasure for me to be in this beautiful, dynamic city. I want to thank Prime Minister Najib. Thank you so much for your welcome, your generous leadership. (Applause.) And the Minister of Finance Two Husni, and the Government of Malaysia, I thank you all for your very generous hospitality and all of your Excellencies, and particularly if I may single her out, our Secretary of Commerce who is here, Penny Pritzker, and the First Lady I see here. Thank you, we enjoyed a wonderful evening the other night. Nice to see you here. (Applause.)
I want to thank you for partnering with the United States to put together the largest-ever Global Entrepreneurship Summit ever conceived. (Applause.) And I especially thank you for promoting entrepreneurship through your policies, which benefit us all.
I also want to thank Startup Malaysia for the exceptional work that you’ve done on this Summit, and for working hard every day – (cheers and applause). They have their special cheering section over here. (Laughter.) But I want to thank them for helping young people across the country – and around the world – to chase their dreams of building their own businesses. As we were walking in here, the Prime Minister said to me, “This is something people want more than anything else today, to start their own business.” Thank you also for bringing together the Global Startup Youth, who I understand are here in full force. (Cheers and Applause.) I was about to say they were here in full force, but they announced that themselves. (Laughter.)
And as you know, this Summit is very, very close to President Obama’s heart. I trust you also understand why the situation in Washington has kept President Obama close to home. But I woke up today to television reports that things are beginning to break a bit, so you can see it was worth his staying and important. But he will be back in Malaysia soon, I promise you. (Applause.)
Let me reiterate very quickly, because I don’t want to spend time on it, that what is happening in our capital in Washington is really nothing more than a moment of politics, and it will pass. But I’ll say this: If only the small group of people who have held us back in these past days were as forward-thinking and collaborative as the people in this room, we would all do a lot better. (Cheers and Applause.)
So I know the President is disappointed that he can’t be here today, but I assure you that his commitment to what you’re doing is as strong as ever – and he joins me in saying with great admiration: “Malaysia negara hebat.” (Applause.)
It’s very fitting that this year’s Summit has brought us together in this incredible country. The many Malaysians who are turning novel ideas into new businesses are strongly supported by a government that is constantly rooting them on and encouraging them.
Malaysia’s Finance Ministry just launched the “One Met” program to train thousands in tech skills, and Prime Minister Najib’s government has set the ambitious and admirable goal of having small- and medium-sized enterprises comprise 40 percent of Malaysia’s GDP by 2015. That’s an extraordinary goal, and I’m confident Malaysia will meet it. If anyone can meet it, it’s Malaysia. (Applause.)
This is the country that reached for the sky not once, but twice, with the iconic twin towers that stand just outside this convention center.
And when most of the world was still discovering the World Wide Web in the 1990s, guess what? This country created Cyberjaya, the first city on earth to be fully wired with high-speed internet. (Cheers and Applause.)
This nation has given the world visionary businesspeople like Jimmy Choo, who made his first pair of shoes at the age of 11. (Applause.) And by the time he was in his twenties, his designs were being worn on sidewalks and catwalks from Los Angeles to London.
And Tony Fernandes, who long before he started hosting “The Apprentice: Asia” – in fact, even before he even turned 30 years old – started the budget airline Air Asia. And with that bold vision, my friends, he revolutionized the way that people connect with one another throughout the region.
As I have walked into this hall and felt the energy here, I have to tell you it’s extraordinary all of the young people who are here. I’m sure you share that feeling. There’s an excitement here, an excitement about possibilities. I actually can almost feel my hair turning brown again. (Laughter.)
It astounds me to think that three in five citizens of ASEAN nations are under the age of 35. Sixty percent of your population. Just imagine what that means for all of the new products and the new services that Southeast Asia can bring to the world. My friends, it really is all in your hands.
And it’s equally fitting that we meet in Kuala Lumpur because this is a multi-cultural city at the heart of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith country, and history has proven time and again that diversity is one of the most important catalysts for discovery.
Here in Malaysia, people of different heritages have been in conversation for a long, long time. You see it in the open houses that you host during holidays, welcoming people of different faiths into your living rooms.
You see it in the Petronas Towers that I mentioned a moment ago, which are a beautiful fusion of modern engineering, traditional Muslim design - of an American architect, of Japanese and Korean construction, and a uniquely Malaysian vision.
Together, they all blended a masterpiece that is recognized around the world and a soaring reminder that Malaysia is much more than a marketplace. It is a human and an economic mosaic – and it is a model for the world. Your open-mindedness and cooperative spirit – these are literally the keys to the future.
When President Obama announced the creation of this Summit in Cairo four years ago, he did so because he understands that freedom of opportunity is humanity’s most powerful motivator.
This is true for all people, regardless of geography or gender, regardless of race or religion. It always has been true, and I’ve got news for you; it always will be.
What unfolded in the historic city of Cairo just a short time after the speech the President gave – and in Tunis, and in Tripoli, and in Sana’a – they all proved the point. The world watched young people just like you – young men and women with great aspirations. They watched them demand the chance to be able to fashion their futures, to be able to have a say in the future, to define it, and just like you are doing today as you turn your dreams into businesses.
President Obama also understands that entrepreneurship is about so much more than profits. It’s about how you build a society that values competition and compassion at the same time.
So much of the work that we’re doing together isn’t just about making money. It’s about making people’s lives better through education, health care, and basic human rights.
A few years ago, a study that was conducted in the United Kingdom showed that the most entrepreneurial countries in the world are also the most prosperous. That’s not an accident. This study also found that entrepreneurship also makes people happier and more fulfilled.
The places where citizens have the freedom to dream up a new idea, where you have an opportunity to share that idea freely with other people, where you can be you own boss – and even, importantly, where you are free to fail. These societies are both the most successful and they are the most cohesive and the most satisfied. Never underestimate how important that is.
And just as there’s nowhere better to talk about innovation than here in Malaysia, there is no one better to talk about innovation than young people. As they say in Bahasa, “Melentur buluh, biar dari rebung nya.” (Applause and Cheers.) “To bend a bamboo, start when it’s still a shoot.”
I look out at this audience here and I see that truth in the proverb. Every step towards progress actually does start with young people:
Mozart composed his first piece of music at the age of 5 years old.
Mandela was 25 when he started fighting against apartheid.
Martin Luther King was 26 when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when Facebook went live.
Malala Yousafzai was only 11 when she started blogging about life under the Taliban.
It is young people who push us forward, always by building something that no one else thought to build – who push us forward by saying aloud something that no one else had the courage to say.
In fact, the first man to hold the office of Secretary of State of the United States, the office I obviously occupy today, was Thomas Jefferson – who, by the way, also happened to be an inventor who helped establish our patent system. He was 33 when he wrote our Declaration of Independence – the mission statement of a risky start-up called the United States of America.
So I am honored to, and I am inspired to be with so many of you – young people who energize us and give us hope by continuing that proud tradition. I’ve actually learned something about a few of you.
I’m thinking of entrepreneurs who are here like Nermin Sa'd, who has come to this Summit from Jordan. And when Nermin talked with female engineers like herself across the Middle East, she realized that so many of their talents were being squandered in countries where cultural norms make it difficult for women to work outside of their homes.
And so Nermin created an online platform where female engineers could freelance from home.
And Nermin’s dream is that in five years, her website will be the first engineering company in all of the Middle East and North Africa staffed completely by women. (Applause and Cheers.)
And I am inspired by entrepreneurs like Tonee Ndungu of Kenya, who’s also come to Kuala Lumpur this week.
The first company that Tonee built failed. But he didn’t give up. He did what any of you would do: he just tried again.
And Tonee’s latest innovation lets students rent textbooks electronically – a book at a time, a chapter at a time, or even a page at a time.
And by making textbooks more affordable, he gives lower-income students a chance to learn that they might not otherwise ever have had.
But that’s not his only motivation, my friends. Tonee is dyslexic, and when he was a student he had to listen to cassette tapes of audio books.
So Tonee’s dream is to lower all kinds of barriers to education in the developing world.
And I’m inspired by young entrepreneurs like 24-year-old Saimum Hossain.
Saimum is here today from Bangladesh, where of 7 million of his countrymen who are homeless and many more have unsuitable housing. So Saimum and some friends set out to put a roof over as many heads as possible – literally.
They started an environmentally friendly company that turns natural materials from plants into sophisticated corrugated sheets that are more durable than metal roofs and provide good shelter.
Saimum’s dream is that soon they will be cheaper than metal so that more of the world’s 100 million homeless can afford sustainable housing. That’s a great dream. (Applause.)
I’m proud to tell you that Nermin, Tonee and Saimum all belong to a program that was born from President Obama’s call to action in Cairo. It’s called Global Innovation through Science and Technology. (Cheers.) And these young people embody the President’s famous affirmation that anything is possible: “Yes, we can!” – or as you say in Malaysia, “Malaysia boleh!” (Applause.)
The Obama Administration is really inspired by the kind of work that the young people here are doing, and that’s why we are going to continue promoting entrepreneurship around the world.
Supporting your creativity and persistence is a key component of our foreign policy agenda – which today, more than ever before, is about economic policy, too.
When entrepreneurs here in Malaysia succeed, I’ll tell you something; they create economic opportunity for Malaysians, of course, but also for people all over the world, including in the United States.
Americans benefit from the success of small businesses around the world through trading and collaborating with them, and by using their goods and services. So President Obama is going to continue doing everything he can to support young people who want to turn their ideas into businesses or non-profit organizations.
And we’ll do that in a few major ways.
First, we’re going to create an environment where people can easily form personal relationships and broad networks with people from every background and every expertise. We’re also going to help them with the training and support that they need to turn their ideas into businesses, and then to bring them to scale.
And when we think of the most successful entrepreneurs, we often think of someone like Steve Jobs, who was sitting in a garage somewhere with a buddy or two. But the truth is, no one makes all of this happen all alone. It takes the private sector working hand-in-hand with NGOs, universities, and governments. And in the end, the networks that we build only make all of us stronger.
So I am proud to announce a new collaboration between the United States State Department and Up Global, which over the next few years will support and train half a million entrepreneurs in 1,000 cities around the world – including right here in Kuala Lumpur. (Applause.)
The second initiative we’re going to launch will connect these entrepreneurs with mentors who can show them the ropes – because as you know better than anyone, starting a business is a daunting task.
And by the end of the year, President Obama will announce the inaugural members of the President’s Committee on Global Entrepreneurship. Penny Pritzker, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce who I introduced earlier, who is herself a very experienced executive and entrepreneur, she will lead this committee of role models who are going to act as partners, as teachers, and as champions for a new generation of success stories.
And third and finally, we must make sure governments support entrepreneurs and the amazing work that you’re all doing. That’s why President Obama is joining forces with organizations like the Kauffman Foundation, the World Bank, and others in order to create a new research network that will help policymakers promote growth and start-ups.
So I can’t tell you how exciting it is, how many great programs are underway or on the way in order to connect innovators with capital, market demands, and lift some of the poorest communities in the world out of poverty.
And I’m especially proud of a new program called Beehive Malaysia. Babson College – which is a school in my home state of Massachusetts – will partner with the U.S. Department of State and Malaysian universities and businesses to give social entrepreneurs a collaborative, shared workspace where they can solve some of the world’s toughest challenges.
My friends, the United States is doing all that we can to support you because we know that the best ideas are never bound by borders. And it’s your ideas that have always created the lion’s share of jobs in our country and in yours.
Just think: As more and more young people join the labor market, the world will need about a half a billion new jobs by 2030, many of which just haven’t been invented yet.
I want to leave you with a thought from a man who inspired me when I was growing up – a younger brother of the youngest man ever elected President, and a visionary leader in his own right – Robert Kennedy.
Robert Kennedy said: “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events – and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.” “In the total of all those acts.”
Nearly a half a century later, you have more tools at your fingertips than any generation in history, and so you have all the more power to bend history for the better – to bend that bamboo in the ancient Malaysian proverb.
It happens that we also have many more complex challenges today, and it will take even more hard work to move the world forward. And without question, how many countries like mine and yours harness your talents? That is what will shape global economic prosperity and opportunity for generations to come.
As your generation continues to invent and reinvent and push us forward, you will invariably hear a lot of people call you the leaders of tomorrow. But I got news for you: That sells you short.
I know you’re not content to be relegated to the future – you are the present. You are the leaders of today. You are changing the world even as we speak. And I am confident that the rest of us are in your exceedingly capable hands.
So thank you all for all that you do, and all that you will do to bring opportunity to the many around the world. Terima kasih. (Applause.)
It is now my honor to present a message from the man whose vision created the Summit, the President of the United States, Barack Obama: (Applause.)
“Hello, everyone. I had really hoped to be with you in person. Unfortunately, events here in Washington made that impossible. But I am pleased that the United States is being represented at the Summit by two outstanding members of my cabinet, Secretaries John Kerry and Penny Pritzker. And I wanted to take this opportunity to speak directly to each of you about the cause that brings you together today.
To Prime Minister Najib and our Malaysian friends, thank you so much for your leadership in hosting the Fourth Summit – a tribute to Malaysia’s example as a dynamic economy, an engine for regional prosperity, and a country that’s increasingly connected to the global economy.
“Likewise, Malaysia’s diversity, tolerance, and progress can be a model for countries around the world. As I’ve told Prime Minister Najib, I look forward to visiting Malaysia in the future as we continue to deepen the partnership between our two great nations.
“To everyone gathered at this Summit, especially so many young entrepreneurs, thank you for your commitment to the call I issued four years ago in Cairo – the need for new partnerships between the United States and Muslim communities around the world. I was proud to host the First Entrepreneurship Summit and I’m proud of the progress we’ve made since, empowering a new generation of entrepreneurs, including women, with new skills, training, and access to capital, helping small businesses grow and forging new collaborations in science and technology.
“We do all this because we believe that whether you live in Kuala Lumpur or Kuwait or Kansas City, when you’re free to have your own ideas, pursue your dreams, start your own businesses, serve your communities, it isn’t just good for your nations; it means more prosperity and progress for us all. It’s the same daring spirit that brings us together to meet other challenges as well, from hunger to health to climate change. And it’s the spirit you can sustain.
“The United States is proud to do our part. In partnership with Up Global, we’ll help support 500,000 new entrepreneurs and their startups around the world. Some of America’s most successful leaders in business will serve as entrepreneurship ambassadors, mentoring and nurturing the next generation. A new research network will equip governments with proven tools to help entrepreneurs succeed. And we’ll continue to expand the partnerships and exchanges that help entrepreneurs like you learn from each other and turn your ideas into reality.
“Those of you there today, you’re risk takers and dreamers who imagine the world as it ought to be. But you also have the talents and drive to actually build the future you seek, and the United States of America wants to be your partner. We want you to succeed. And when I think of your passion and creativity, I could not be more optimistic about the future we can build together.
“So have a wonderful Summit. May God bless you all and may God’s peace be upon you.”
(Applause.)
FDIC SAYS CREDIT RISK IN SHARED NATIONAL PORTFOLIO UNCHANGED IN 2013
FROM: FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Credit Risk in the Shared National Credit Portfolio Unchanged
The credit quality of large loan commitments owned by U.S. banking organizations, foreign banking organizations (FBOs), and nonbanks was relatively unchanged in 2013 from the prior year, federal banking agencies said Thursday.
The volume of criticized assets remained elevated at $302 billion, or 10 percent of total commitments, which was approximately twice the percentage of pre-crisis levels. The stagnation in credit quality follows three consecutive years of improvements. A criticized asset is rated special mention, substandard, doubtful, or loss as defined by the agencies' uniform loan classification standards. The Shared National Credits (SNC) annual review was completed by the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Leveraged loans--transactions characterized by a borrower with a degree of financial leverage that significantly exceeds industry norms--totaled $545 billion of the 2013 SNC portfolio and accounted for $227 billion, or 75 percent, of criticized SNC assets. Material weaknesses in the underwriting of leveraged loans were observed, and 42 percent of leveraged loans were criticized by the agencies.
The federal banking agencies issued updated leveraged lending supervisory guidance on March 21, 2013. After declining during the financial crisis, the volume of leveraged lending has since increased and underwriting standards have deteriorated. The agencies expect supervised firms to properly evaluate and monitor credit risks in their leveraged loan commitments and ensure borrowers have sustainable capital structures.
Refinancing risk continued to ease in 2013 with only 15 percent of SNCs maturing over the next two years, compared with 23 percent for the same time frame in the previous review. Borrowers continued to refinance and extend loan maturities during the past year.
Other highlights:
- Total SNC commitments increased by $219 billion to $3.01 trillion, an 8 percent gain from the 2012 review. Total SNC loans outstanding increased $199 billion to $1.36 trillion, an increase of 10 percent.
- Criticized assets represented 10 percent of the SNC portfolio, compared with 11 percent in 2012.
- Classified assets, which are rated as substandard, doubtful, and loss, represented 6 percent of the SNC portfolio, compared with 7 percent in 2012.
- Credits rated special mention, which exhibit potential weakness and could result in further deterioration if uncorrected, increased from $99 billion to $115 billion, representing approximately 4 percent of the portfolio, a slight increase from 2012.
- Adjusted for losses, nonaccrual loans declined from $82 billion to $61 billion, a 26 percent reduction.
- The distribution of credits across entities, (U.S. banking organizations, FBOs, and nonbanks) remained relatively unchanged. U.S. banking organizations owned 44 percent of total SNC loan commitments, FBOs owned 36 percent, and nonbanks owned 20 percent.
- Nonbanks continued to own a larger share of classified (67 percent) and nonaccrual (72 percent) assets than their total share of the SNC portfolio. Institutions insured by the FDIC owned 12 percent of classified assets and 7 percent of nonaccrual loans.
The SNC program was established in 1977 to provide an efficient and consistent review and analysis of SNCs. A SNC is any loan or formal loan commitment, and asset such as real estate, stocks, notes, bonds, and debentures taken as debts previously contracted, extended to borrowers by a federally supervised institution, its subsidiaries, and affiliates that aggregates $20 million or more and is shared by three or more unaffiliated supervised institutions. Many of these loan commitments are also shared with FBOs and nonbanks, including securitization pools, hedge funds, insurance companies, and pension funds.
In conducting the 2013 SNC Review, the agencies reviewed $800 billion of the $3.01 trillion credit commitments in the portfolio. The sample was weighted toward noninvestment grade and criticized credits. The results of the review are based on analyses prepared in the second quarter of 2013 using credit-related data provided by federally supervised institutions as of December 31, 2012, and March 31, 2013.
Monday, October 14, 2013
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS WITH UN SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE LAKHDAR BRAHIMI
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi Following Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
October 14, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, it’s my pleasure this morning to welcome Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi here to Winfield House in London – it’s the home of our American ambassador – and to have a conversation, an important conversation, about the urgency of the convening of the Geneva conference, to try to achieve peace for a new Syria. And we talked about all aspects of this current crisis.
Special Representative Brahimi and I agree, as do many others, that there is no military solution in Syria, and we believe it is urgent to set a date, convene the conference, and work towards a new Syria.
We also, expressing my own point of view – because he’s the negotiator and it’s not his point of view to say this – but we believe that President Assad has lost the legitimacy necessary to be able to be a cohesive force, that could bring people together, and that it is clear that in implementing Geneva 1, which is the only purpose for having the Geneva conference now, there has to be a transition government. There has to be a new governing entity in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace.
This will require all the parties to come together in good faith. The Special Representative will be traveling shortly to the region, meeting with all of the relevant countries, as well as the relevant parties. And he will be working on the question of the process for a Geneva 2 conference.
But for our part, the United States of America, together with the Russians, as we talked about it in the Far East a few days ago, are deeply committed to trying to set a date very soon, to moving towards an inclusive conference that will offer the best opportunity to end the violence, to provide for a new Syria, to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe that is only getting worse by the day, and ultimately to try to find a way to have peace and stability, not just in Syria but in the region.
And we are very, very appreciative to the Special Representative, for his commitment to this, for his hard work, for his team and their efforts. We believe that we’re in a position to try to get started. It will require good faith by everybody, but that’s exactly what we’re going to continue to work towards.
Mr. Representative, thank you.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: Thank you very much, indeed.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: And I am extremely grateful to you, Secretary of State, for the opportunity you have given me, of heading for a new after your time in the Far East and your discussions with the Russians, who are your partners. You started this on the 7th of May in Moscow together. And we have joined with you in these trilateral discussions that we are having in Geneva several times. And we agree 100 percent that there is no military solution in Syria. There can be, there will be a political solution if everybody gets together and works for it.
I think that when we met in New York – with the P5 and the Secretary General and myself – we have said that this conference, Geneva 2, to implement Geneva 1, has to meet in November. And I think that very soon we’ve got now to set it. The (inaudible) for the conference to start and we look forward to everybody who can help the Syrians solve their problems must be there. And of course the Syrians themselves have to have private place in that conference, because the negotiations will be depend on them.
As you said, Secretary, I’m going to the region immediately after (inaudible) to see as many people as I can to discuss with them, hear from them, what are their preoccupations, what are their ideas, how they can contribute to make this Geneva conference that is coming success, for the Syria people, for our region, and for everybody. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend. We are very appreciative of your work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Remarks With UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi Following Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
October 14, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, it’s my pleasure this morning to welcome Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi here to Winfield House in London – it’s the home of our American ambassador – and to have a conversation, an important conversation, about the urgency of the convening of the Geneva conference, to try to achieve peace for a new Syria. And we talked about all aspects of this current crisis.
Special Representative Brahimi and I agree, as do many others, that there is no military solution in Syria, and we believe it is urgent to set a date, convene the conference, and work towards a new Syria.
We also, expressing my own point of view – because he’s the negotiator and it’s not his point of view to say this – but we believe that President Assad has lost the legitimacy necessary to be able to be a cohesive force, that could bring people together, and that it is clear that in implementing Geneva 1, which is the only purpose for having the Geneva conference now, there has to be a transition government. There has to be a new governing entity in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace.
This will require all the parties to come together in good faith. The Special Representative will be traveling shortly to the region, meeting with all of the relevant countries, as well as the relevant parties. And he will be working on the question of the process for a Geneva 2 conference.
But for our part, the United States of America, together with the Russians, as we talked about it in the Far East a few days ago, are deeply committed to trying to set a date very soon, to moving towards an inclusive conference that will offer the best opportunity to end the violence, to provide for a new Syria, to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe that is only getting worse by the day, and ultimately to try to find a way to have peace and stability, not just in Syria but in the region.
And we are very, very appreciative to the Special Representative, for his commitment to this, for his hard work, for his team and their efforts. We believe that we’re in a position to try to get started. It will require good faith by everybody, but that’s exactly what we’re going to continue to work towards.
Mr. Representative, thank you.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: Thank you very much, indeed.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: And I am extremely grateful to you, Secretary of State, for the opportunity you have given me, of heading for a new after your time in the Far East and your discussions with the Russians, who are your partners. You started this on the 7th of May in Moscow together. And we have joined with you in these trilateral discussions that we are having in Geneva several times. And we agree 100 percent that there is no military solution in Syria. There can be, there will be a political solution if everybody gets together and works for it.
I think that when we met in New York – with the P5 and the Secretary General and myself – we have said that this conference, Geneva 2, to implement Geneva 1, has to meet in November. And I think that very soon we’ve got now to set it. The (inaudible) for the conference to start and we look forward to everybody who can help the Syrians solve their problems must be there. And of course the Syrians themselves have to have private place in that conference, because the negotiations will be depend on them.
As you said, Secretary, I’m going to the region immediately after (inaudible) to see as many people as I can to discuss with them, hear from them, what are their preoccupations, what are their ideas, how they can contribute to make this Geneva conference that is coming success, for the Syria people, for our region, and for everybody. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend. We are very appreciative of your work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
GUARD MEMBERS OFFER FLOOD RELIEF IN COLORADO
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Local, Utah Guard Members Aid Colorado Flood Response
By Army Capt. Adam Musil
36th Infantry Division
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 11, 2013 - The 36th Infantry Division's Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West continues to coordinate assistance requests and support for the Colorado flood relief effort.
"The floods have stopped, but the damage that remains provides huge problems for the people in the area," said Army Capt. Robert Anspaugh, the planner for Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West, or DART-W. "The type of destruction ranges from simple road damage to roads being completely washed away, leaving large craters. Some people can't get to their homes and are having to backpack-in fuel and food."
The DART-W was notified of the flood weeks ago during a training exercise focused on hurricane and flood response. Within a few days of the notification, DART-W had soldiers on the ground to assist with coordinating the relief effort. DART-W helped establish the reception, staging, and onward movement centers for incoming troops and assessed unit capability gaps.
"Once we established the needs of the mission, we reached out to Guard units in the surrounding areas for additional support. The Utah National Guard will be the first to assist the Colorado units already in place," Anspaugh said.
The Colorado National Guard's 947 Engineer Company was the first to respond to the floods. The unit was activated Sept. 20. Within 48 hours, they were filling damaged roads. The Utah National Guard will provide additional engineers and equipment to double the engineer assets. The additional manpower will enable the units to set up rotations and provide continuous operations.
"We have assembled a rotational plan of Army and Air guards that will carry through November 25," said Army 1st Sgt. Christopher Schrag, DART-W noncommissioned officer-in-charge. "This will allow the units time to complete the entire Highway 36 and take on the smaller side roads before the major impact of the weather."
With already one snow this season, officials believe snow and cold weather will greatly hinder the units' ability to restore the roads.
"Realistically, we have until about the end of November to get all the roads fixed before the weather gets too bad," Anspaugh said.
Schrag, who returned early this week from Colorado, believes procedures have been set in place to provide for an effective response.
"This operation is a Joint Guard initiative. We have Guard units from two states [Colorado, Utah] on the ground now and Air and Army Guard units from an additional seven states [Kansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, Florida, Virginia] set to rotate in. I'm confident we can get the job done," Schrag said.
Comprised of Texas Army National Guard soldiers, the DART-W, based in Austin, Texas, at Camp Mabry, is responsible for synchronizing the National Guard response to major hurricanes, earthquakes and wildfires west of the Mississippi River.
The DART-W is one of two primary DAR headquarters. The other, DART-East is commanded by the 29th Infantry Division, and headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Va. Command of each headquarters rotates annually between Army National Guard divisions. The 36th Infantry Division has been selected to lead DART-W for two years.
Local, Utah Guard Members Aid Colorado Flood Response
By Army Capt. Adam Musil
36th Infantry Division
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 11, 2013 - The 36th Infantry Division's Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West continues to coordinate assistance requests and support for the Colorado flood relief effort.
"The floods have stopped, but the damage that remains provides huge problems for the people in the area," said Army Capt. Robert Anspaugh, the planner for Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West, or DART-W. "The type of destruction ranges from simple road damage to roads being completely washed away, leaving large craters. Some people can't get to their homes and are having to backpack-in fuel and food."
The DART-W was notified of the flood weeks ago during a training exercise focused on hurricane and flood response. Within a few days of the notification, DART-W had soldiers on the ground to assist with coordinating the relief effort. DART-W helped establish the reception, staging, and onward movement centers for incoming troops and assessed unit capability gaps.
"Once we established the needs of the mission, we reached out to Guard units in the surrounding areas for additional support. The Utah National Guard will be the first to assist the Colorado units already in place," Anspaugh said.
The Colorado National Guard's 947 Engineer Company was the first to respond to the floods. The unit was activated Sept. 20. Within 48 hours, they were filling damaged roads. The Utah National Guard will provide additional engineers and equipment to double the engineer assets. The additional manpower will enable the units to set up rotations and provide continuous operations.
"We have assembled a rotational plan of Army and Air guards that will carry through November 25," said Army 1st Sgt. Christopher Schrag, DART-W noncommissioned officer-in-charge. "This will allow the units time to complete the entire Highway 36 and take on the smaller side roads before the major impact of the weather."
With already one snow this season, officials believe snow and cold weather will greatly hinder the units' ability to restore the roads.
"Realistically, we have until about the end of November to get all the roads fixed before the weather gets too bad," Anspaugh said.
Schrag, who returned early this week from Colorado, believes procedures have been set in place to provide for an effective response.
"This operation is a Joint Guard initiative. We have Guard units from two states [Colorado, Utah] on the ground now and Air and Army Guard units from an additional seven states [Kansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, Florida, Virginia] set to rotate in. I'm confident we can get the job done," Schrag said.
Comprised of Texas Army National Guard soldiers, the DART-W, based in Austin, Texas, at Camp Mabry, is responsible for synchronizing the National Guard response to major hurricanes, earthquakes and wildfires west of the Mississippi River.
The DART-W is one of two primary DAR headquarters. The other, DART-East is commanded by the 29th Infantry Division, and headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Va. Command of each headquarters rotates annually between Army National Guard divisions. The 36th Infantry Division has been selected to lead DART-W for two years.
SAVING MONEY AND LIVES THROUGH THE RETROGRADE PROCESS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Retrograde Process Saves Lives, Money
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2013 - As the December 2014 Afghanistan drawdown deadline relentlessly draws near, thousands of service members and civilians at bases around Afghanistan are preparing tens of thousands of vehicles and containers filled with equipment and supplies for an intricate journey.
That journey -- whether it ends at a depot in the United States, or with a return to the field, sale to a foreign partner, or demilitarization -- could include transportation by air, ground or sea, or even some combination of the three. And the work won't end until the last containers and vehicles arrive at their destinations.
Determining the final disposition of the more than 24,000 pieces of rolling stock and 20,000 container equivalent sets in Afghanistan is the job of the unsung heroes of the Centcom Materiel Recovery Element, said Army Brig. Gen. Duane A. Gamble, the deputy commander of 1st Theater Sustainment Command, based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The command is responsible for supplying and moving troops throughout Afghanistan.
The fact that the CMRE exists speaks to the major difference between the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gamble said. When the drawdown in Iraq happened, theater-supplied materiel -- equipment and vehicles that stay in theater and are transferred from outgoing units to incoming units -- could be sent to Kuwait and sorted through there.
"Kuwait was our 'catcher's mitt' in Iraq," Gamble said.
With no precedent for need for an Army recovery unit, the task fell to the newly established CMRE and the 401st Army Field Support Brigade. They established central retrograde sorting facilities at Kandahar and Bagram Air Fields and began picking through the masses of equipment and vehicles arriving daily from across Afghanistan.
In April, that work was shifted out to the forward operating bases when seven joint field teams started performing the cost-benefit analysis of moving retrograde materiel, Gamble said.
Each team consists of a military forward retrograde element and a Defense Logistics Agency hub-based disposal operations team. The teams move from base to base, Gamble said, opening and sorting through containers and rolling stock.
"They're enabled with our standard Army retail supply system, where they're actually zapping each item and then ... it tells what the disposition is," he said.
As recently as this spring, there were thousands of containers waiting to be processed at the sort yards in Kandahar and Bagram, Gamble said, but the advent of the joint sorting teams helped eliminate that backlog.
"We hit a tilting point in about July where we were retro sorting and demilitarizing and shipping back to the United States more from our forward locations than we were from [Bagram] and [Kandahar]," he said.
Altogether, the CMRE and joint sorting teams are recovering about 91 percent of the value of the retrograde equipment, the general said.
"So, the high-dollar value items are being retained and shipped back to [the U.S.], where the high-volume, low-dollar items that don't make sense to retain or are just plain excess to requirements are either being redistributed forward or being disposed of forward," Gamble said.
Reducing the number of convoys moving retrograde equipment to and from centralized facilities, this setup saves time and money, he said, but more importantly, it saves lives.
"It keeps soldiers off the road, it keeps us from spending money on host-nation trucking to move stuff only to sort it out later and find out that maybe it wasn't worth that much money to begin with," the general added.
The retrograde process is saving lives in another way, too, Gamble said. Every piece of equipment is screened to determine if it's needed by another unit -- either in theater or elsewhere -- and in the case of the MaxxPro Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected models with survivability upgrades, "that is absolutely getting turned around to another unit that doesn't have the best and the latest," the general said.
The upgraded vehicles save lives, he said. "I've seen it. I've been here two months and we had four soldiers in this command hit an IED in one of those things and they all walked away," Gamble said.
At the same time retrograde equipment is transiting through Afghanistan and onward, units are still rotating in and out of the country. And their equipment rotates with them.
"Forces come and go all the time -- even during the surge we were still redeploying forces as some came in," Gamble said.
Equipment and materiel belonging to units that are deploying or redeploying has a higher transportation priority than retrograding equipment, Gamble said, because those units need it to operate in theater and they'll need it again when they get back to their home stations.
"Those forces have to go home and reset themselves to some level ... in order to get on with their next mission and be available in the force pool," he said.
Most of this equipment will leave Afghanistan via 'multi-modal' by air, to various sea ports for movement back to the U.S., Gamble said. The actual volume will vary from month to month based on the sizes of the units rotating in and out of theater.
In contrast, equipment and materiel that is being retrograded is being moved out of theater over various land routes or flown to a multi-modal site. From there it will move by sea back to depots in the U.S. to be prepared for redistribution and reuse. The routes are directed by U.S. Transportation Command, but the destinations are determined by the type of equipment being retrograded.
That means, for the Army, vehicles are sent to a 'hard iron' depot like Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, while replacement parts or supplies are sent to supply depots like Sierra Army Depot in California, which processes conventional ammunition.
The same holds true for the other services, the general noted. The Air Force and Marine Corps send their equipment to their own depots.
With the total cost of the retrograde estimated to be between $5 and $7 billion, according to a senior defense official, there's particular emphasis on using the most economical routes to move retrograding equipment.
In its route planning, Transcom must balance cost with external factors like the political climate and the effect of holidays on the availability of labor with internal security conditions and with the need to "keep most routes warm," Gamble said.
For example, in August, 60 percent of retrograding equipment was transported via air -- both direct and multi-modal -- in a deliberate strategy to mitigate the effects of Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr, he said. And in February, 100 percent of the retrograde equipment was transported by air because the Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication were closed.
However, very little of this movement is ever via direct air, the general noted. What little retrograde equipment does arrive in the U.S. via direct air is usually "opportune air," he said. By pre-staging retrograde equipment at airfields, the military is able to take advantage of available cargo slots on transport aircraft.
In normal circumstances, "the amount of retrograde that goes back direct air to the United States ... is so small it's not even worth mentioning, so when we say air for retrograde, we're talking multi-modal almost exclusively," Gamble said.
With several different routes and means available for retrograding equipment, Transcom directs the movement of retrograde equipment based on traffic and price, the general said, noting that price is usually the deciding factor.
The Northern Distribution Network presents several challenges. The network transits several countries with restrictions on the types of equipment that may enter or be visible. So, Gamble said, cargo sent via the NDN must be containerized.
"We just finished a trial run with some armored vehicles, but they had to be containerized, so that limits it -- if you have to put it inside a container to transit the countries, that's quite limiting ... we don't have a lot of small armored vehicles," he said.
The route isn't as fast as the Pakistan GLOC, but it will serve containerized equipment very well, Gamble said.
"So, we're mostly for October scheduling materiel like repair parts, etc., in containers to go out the NDN," he noted.
The Pakistan GLOC is the cheapest route, said the senior defense official, but it reopened only recently after Pakistan closed it in 2011 and Afghanistan closed it briefly again earlier this year.
After the Pakistan GLOC reopened, it quickly became the dominant route for retrograde, Gamble said.
By September, 70 percent of all retrograde equipment was moved out of the country over land, and 98-99 percent of that movement was via the Pakistan GLOC, he said. For September and October, approximately 60 percent of all retrograde equipment will be moved out of the country by land.
"When the ground is working, or it's not interrupted by holidays, we take advantage of the ground and we minimize the air. When the ground isn't as attractive because of stuff like holidays, then we tilt the other direction," Gamble said.
"It's this flexibility that keeps us very confident that we can continue the retrograde mission no matter what Mother Nature throws at us, no matter what the holiday seasons throw at us," the general said.
Retrograde Process Saves Lives, Money
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2013 - As the December 2014 Afghanistan drawdown deadline relentlessly draws near, thousands of service members and civilians at bases around Afghanistan are preparing tens of thousands of vehicles and containers filled with equipment and supplies for an intricate journey.
That journey -- whether it ends at a depot in the United States, or with a return to the field, sale to a foreign partner, or demilitarization -- could include transportation by air, ground or sea, or even some combination of the three. And the work won't end until the last containers and vehicles arrive at their destinations.
Determining the final disposition of the more than 24,000 pieces of rolling stock and 20,000 container equivalent sets in Afghanistan is the job of the unsung heroes of the Centcom Materiel Recovery Element, said Army Brig. Gen. Duane A. Gamble, the deputy commander of 1st Theater Sustainment Command, based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The command is responsible for supplying and moving troops throughout Afghanistan.
The fact that the CMRE exists speaks to the major difference between the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gamble said. When the drawdown in Iraq happened, theater-supplied materiel -- equipment and vehicles that stay in theater and are transferred from outgoing units to incoming units -- could be sent to Kuwait and sorted through there.
"Kuwait was our 'catcher's mitt' in Iraq," Gamble said.
With no precedent for need for an Army recovery unit, the task fell to the newly established CMRE and the 401st Army Field Support Brigade. They established central retrograde sorting facilities at Kandahar and Bagram Air Fields and began picking through the masses of equipment and vehicles arriving daily from across Afghanistan.
In April, that work was shifted out to the forward operating bases when seven joint field teams started performing the cost-benefit analysis of moving retrograde materiel, Gamble said.
Each team consists of a military forward retrograde element and a Defense Logistics Agency hub-based disposal operations team. The teams move from base to base, Gamble said, opening and sorting through containers and rolling stock.
"They're enabled with our standard Army retail supply system, where they're actually zapping each item and then ... it tells what the disposition is," he said.
As recently as this spring, there were thousands of containers waiting to be processed at the sort yards in Kandahar and Bagram, Gamble said, but the advent of the joint sorting teams helped eliminate that backlog.
"We hit a tilting point in about July where we were retro sorting and demilitarizing and shipping back to the United States more from our forward locations than we were from [Bagram] and [Kandahar]," he said.
Altogether, the CMRE and joint sorting teams are recovering about 91 percent of the value of the retrograde equipment, the general said.
"So, the high-dollar value items are being retained and shipped back to [the U.S.], where the high-volume, low-dollar items that don't make sense to retain or are just plain excess to requirements are either being redistributed forward or being disposed of forward," Gamble said.
Reducing the number of convoys moving retrograde equipment to and from centralized facilities, this setup saves time and money, he said, but more importantly, it saves lives.
"It keeps soldiers off the road, it keeps us from spending money on host-nation trucking to move stuff only to sort it out later and find out that maybe it wasn't worth that much money to begin with," the general added.
The retrograde process is saving lives in another way, too, Gamble said. Every piece of equipment is screened to determine if it's needed by another unit -- either in theater or elsewhere -- and in the case of the MaxxPro Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected models with survivability upgrades, "that is absolutely getting turned around to another unit that doesn't have the best and the latest," the general said.
The upgraded vehicles save lives, he said. "I've seen it. I've been here two months and we had four soldiers in this command hit an IED in one of those things and they all walked away," Gamble said.
At the same time retrograde equipment is transiting through Afghanistan and onward, units are still rotating in and out of the country. And their equipment rotates with them.
"Forces come and go all the time -- even during the surge we were still redeploying forces as some came in," Gamble said.
Equipment and materiel belonging to units that are deploying or redeploying has a higher transportation priority than retrograding equipment, Gamble said, because those units need it to operate in theater and they'll need it again when they get back to their home stations.
"Those forces have to go home and reset themselves to some level ... in order to get on with their next mission and be available in the force pool," he said.
Most of this equipment will leave Afghanistan via 'multi-modal' by air, to various sea ports for movement back to the U.S., Gamble said. The actual volume will vary from month to month based on the sizes of the units rotating in and out of theater.
In contrast, equipment and materiel that is being retrograded is being moved out of theater over various land routes or flown to a multi-modal site. From there it will move by sea back to depots in the U.S. to be prepared for redistribution and reuse. The routes are directed by U.S. Transportation Command, but the destinations are determined by the type of equipment being retrograded.
That means, for the Army, vehicles are sent to a 'hard iron' depot like Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, while replacement parts or supplies are sent to supply depots like Sierra Army Depot in California, which processes conventional ammunition.
The same holds true for the other services, the general noted. The Air Force and Marine Corps send their equipment to their own depots.
With the total cost of the retrograde estimated to be between $5 and $7 billion, according to a senior defense official, there's particular emphasis on using the most economical routes to move retrograding equipment.
In its route planning, Transcom must balance cost with external factors like the political climate and the effect of holidays on the availability of labor with internal security conditions and with the need to "keep most routes warm," Gamble said.
For example, in August, 60 percent of retrograding equipment was transported via air -- both direct and multi-modal -- in a deliberate strategy to mitigate the effects of Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr, he said. And in February, 100 percent of the retrograde equipment was transported by air because the Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication were closed.
However, very little of this movement is ever via direct air, the general noted. What little retrograde equipment does arrive in the U.S. via direct air is usually "opportune air," he said. By pre-staging retrograde equipment at airfields, the military is able to take advantage of available cargo slots on transport aircraft.
In normal circumstances, "the amount of retrograde that goes back direct air to the United States ... is so small it's not even worth mentioning, so when we say air for retrograde, we're talking multi-modal almost exclusively," Gamble said.
With several different routes and means available for retrograding equipment, Transcom directs the movement of retrograde equipment based on traffic and price, the general said, noting that price is usually the deciding factor.
The Northern Distribution Network presents several challenges. The network transits several countries with restrictions on the types of equipment that may enter or be visible. So, Gamble said, cargo sent via the NDN must be containerized.
"We just finished a trial run with some armored vehicles, but they had to be containerized, so that limits it -- if you have to put it inside a container to transit the countries, that's quite limiting ... we don't have a lot of small armored vehicles," he said.
The route isn't as fast as the Pakistan GLOC, but it will serve containerized equipment very well, Gamble said.
"So, we're mostly for October scheduling materiel like repair parts, etc., in containers to go out the NDN," he noted.
The Pakistan GLOC is the cheapest route, said the senior defense official, but it reopened only recently after Pakistan closed it in 2011 and Afghanistan closed it briefly again earlier this year.
After the Pakistan GLOC reopened, it quickly became the dominant route for retrograde, Gamble said.
By September, 70 percent of all retrograde equipment was moved out of the country over land, and 98-99 percent of that movement was via the Pakistan GLOC, he said. For September and October, approximately 60 percent of all retrograde equipment will be moved out of the country by land.
"When the ground is working, or it's not interrupted by holidays, we take advantage of the ground and we minimize the air. When the ground isn't as attractive because of stuff like holidays, then we tilt the other direction," Gamble said.
"It's this flexibility that keeps us very confident that we can continue the retrograde mission no matter what Mother Nature throws at us, no matter what the holiday seasons throw at us," the general said.
SPECIAL BRIEFING ON BILATERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing: Senior State Department Officials and Senior Administration Official on Bilateral Security Agreement
Special Briefing
ERT London, England
October 12, 2013
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. So we're just going to do a quick backgrounder on the meetings that Secretary Kerry just had in Afghanistan, and a readout of those. And we have Senior State Department Official One, Senior Administration Official One here. And if I have anything, I'll be Number Two.
So, I think we'll do an overview first, and then do some questions, if that works.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So the visit, obviously, was focused on the Bilateral Security Agreement. It comes 11-ish months into the negotiations. It was generally productive. From our vantage, positive in that we reached a basic agreement on all of the key issues.
The President – when President Karzai visited Washington last January, the President announced our objectives for a post-2014 presence as being, first, a train, advise, and assist mission under NATO leadership, and then also a CT mission, by which --
QUESTION: Train, advise, and what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Train, advise, and assist mission.
QUESTION: Assist.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And also a counter-terrorism mission, by which we could pursue the remnants of al-Qaida.
And the language of the agreement as it stands right now provides what we need for both of those missions. And, more importantly, as with every status of forces agreement worldwide, the language also provides what we need in terms of assurances and guarantees for rights of self-defense, for force protection, and the jurisdiction issues that are obviously so important to us.
So, overall, the text, we believe, is in a good place. And I think we stayed a little bit longer than we had hoped, but I think it was worth it in that we were able to come to that basic agreement.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Why don't we do some questions?
QUESTION: Before we get into the – what the Secretary was talking about – strike that. (Laughter.) Before we get into the area that is not – that still is awaiting – the most contentious issue, the jurisdictional issue, can you explain to us what exactly the – has been agreed, in terms of the counterterrorism stuff and in terms of sovereignty? Like, Karzai made a big deal out of the definition of "invasion" and the definition of "sovereignty." Can you explain what that is, or is it just like a standard dictionary definition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The most important thing President Karzai had said to us he needed out of the Bilateral Security Agreement was the ability to take it to his Afghan people and explain how it was going to bring security to Afghanistan beyond 2014.
The other thing that he said he needed was – and this was coming out of the Strategic Partnership Agreement – was improved understanding between the two of us in terms of what threats faced Afghanistan, both externally and internally. And what we were able to do, I think, in very broad terms, is find that common understanding in these 24 hours of talks, both in terms of the threats that Afghanistan faces internally and externally, the final language to characterize those threats, and then, more importantly, to characterize our commitment to enable the Afghans to defend themselves against those threats. And I think that was one of the major very difficult issues that was left to this late stage that we needed to work through.
QUESTION: Can you say what it – what the language says?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No.
QUESTION: Is that because – and you can't say because you're waiting for – you don't want to preempt the Loya Jirga, or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I think we would want to wait until the right time, until the internal processes are more mature. We --
QUESTION: Yours or theirs?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Both. We have to put ours through a very technical, internal legal review. They have to put theirs through their interagency equivalent process with their national security council, and then prepare it to take to their people. And we certainly wouldn't want to disclose dimensions or parts of the language prematurely.
QUESTION: But it will be at some point.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The language will be public, eventually.
QUESTION: [Senior Administration Official One], you were talking about defining the threats to Afghanistan and their ability to defend themselves. Is this the reference to the part about Afghanistan wanting the U.S. to give it a sort of defense pact, and that we would defend them against outside threats, presumably from Pakistan? That is part one of the question.
Part two is the issue on counterterrorism and them wanting us to hand over our intel and they do their own ops, and how did you address that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, on the first part, that the Bilateral Security Agreement is clearly something that stopped short of a mutual defense pact. And the language that we found, I think, is sufficient to both parties in terms of not overreaching the bounds of what can be – what kind of commitments we can come to.
On the counterterrorism language, it's a broad concept of cooperation at this point, which I think allows for enough flexibility in terms of their evolving capabilities, but also our needs to take actions in a joint, cooperative manner, when we need to. So, it's not so clear as, "Hand over the intel and we'll take care of it." It's not at that kind of an evolved stage.
QUESTION: When you say, "when you need to," for joint actions, did you clarify when that would be? When would those joint actions take place? I mean is – would you have to define under what circumstances?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think the circumstances are any circumstances where the – there is a transnational threat, one that could impact upon U.S. homeland, U.S. allies, U.S. interests. But in all cases, that we would do so in a manner that was cooperative, in some cases – in many cases, partnered.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think it's important to add that that's the way we would describe how we're handling CT right now. This is not a dramatic departure from the way that we're handling those operations under current policy guidance, the difference being that this is – when it goes into force, it would be a legally
binding agreement.
QUESTION: Can you please describe what – on this issue of immunity? Because from where we were sitting, it sounded, or personally to me, that this really couldn't be a deal unless that was agreed upon. And if the Secretary – or if an official is saying that it is in the text, well, then there is an agreement. But he was pretty clear in his quotes during the news conference that they weren’t --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me put it this way. We've agreed on language that can be put to his Loya Jirga for their consideration.
QUESTION: In terms of the U.S. side, though, other than just this interagency review, I mean, the Pentagon is not going to come back and say, "Sorry, this doesn't work for us." It's a done deal, from the U.S. perspective.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, that's the corollary to what [Senior Administration Official One] – the elaboration on what [Senior Administration Official One] said is the language that is in the text that goes to the Loya Jirga is satisfactory for our purposes on the --
QUESTION: So it’s the same question. As far as you're concerned, what you got is good, and it – and then – and I have this question I asked [Senior State Department Official One] earlier. Who signs it, if it gets approved by --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Don't know yet.
QUESTION: But is it a presidential thing, or is it a Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We don't know what yet.
QUESTION: Who would sign it?
QUESTION: You don't know?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, we don't know the details of the signing phase.
QUESTION: Why not? I mean, and – obviously, I guess not. But, I mean, other agreements like this --
QUESTION: Procedurally. Like, who signs it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it could be signed by a number of --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There are a lot of options.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: -- Cabinet or Administration people.
QUESTION: So it doesn't need to be president and president? It can be --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Not necessarily.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No. It could technically be a range of people.
And the other piece on the – just process-wise, is that the Secretary spoke with Secretary Hagel a number of times over the last 24 hours. He spoke with Susan Rice a number of times, other people on the team. And you guys would know better all the people that were – you were in contact with. But – about the text and the progress.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We were in constant contact with the legal support team in Washington, and, as [Senior State Department Official Two] said, both --
QUESTION: And then my last one is --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can't say whether Ambassador Rice was in touch with the President. But the Secretary was in direct contact with Ambassador Rice several times.
QUESTION: My last one here, and you can – it's a chance for you to talk up your boss. What was it – I mean, this stuff hadn't been agreed to beforehand. So what was it that the Secretary brought into this that got it done, basically? What – I mean, how did he change the dynamic? For 11 months, you haven't had a deal. You still don't, technically, but you got what could be a deal. So what was it that he was able to do to change the dynamic to get something done?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I can start, but – I know. But still, I can talk just --
QUESTION: Just don’t make it too hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Too what?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Hagiographic?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Too – okay. One is their personal relationship and the fact that it goes back for a number of years, and you all know the details of that because we’ve talked about that previously and many of you covered it. Two is persistence. You’ve all covered the Secretary on a number of these occasions, on a number of these journeys to try to get agreement, right? And he is somebody who will sit there for hours and talk through the substantive issues, and this is something they can add more to. And three is probably patience. I didn’t even mean to do a three-piece. But patience, because obviously he wanted to --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I didn’t plan it. (Laughter.) But --
QUESTION: What about personality?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. But they can add a little more perhaps from in the room, but, I mean, I think those are some of the characters and characteristics of these --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Fully agree with all that, and I would say also that sometimes you get to a point in these sorts of negotiations where both sides need higher-level political involvement to sort of get things further along. And it’s not clear the degree to which President Karzai had been engaged on the text before these last couple of days. Secretary Kerry obviously had been monitoring the negotiations, but had not been personally involved until the last couple of days. And having that kind of higher-level political push, I think, was essential to the progress that was achieved.
QUESTION: So would you agree with the characterization that this is really kind of a deal, or at least the last points fell into place – the last points falling into place is a deal between Karzai and the Secretary?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s a deal between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: I know. In closing the circle, it was him and Karzai.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The high-level political involvement was key to getting it to where it is now. There is no doubt about that.
QUESTION: To follow on that, so can you say now, then, that the purpose of this trip really was for the Secretary to close the deal? I mean, there was a lot of discussion ahead of time about --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think we had a – I think we had to see where things stood. I mean, I don’t think I – I certainly didn’t deliberately mislead you when I said the other night he wasn’t coming here to close the deal, and I think he had a positive conversation with Karzai a week ago. Did we know, when he had a positive conversation, that the result if we showed up here was going to be getting what we got? No. But he knew that it was worth testing the proposition, and so here we are.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion about troop levels?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t think so.
QUESTION: So are there going to be (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So I defer to [Senior Administration Official One] on this.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t hear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: About troops (inaudible).
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, all of our troops are trained and capable of conducting combat operations. There will be no combat mission after 2014. And what is clear is that combat operations would be much more exceptional after 2014 --
QUESTION: Much more what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Exceptional.
QUESTION: So CT doesn’t fall under combat, it’s a separate category?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, I think it could. I think that the range of combat operations that you would have seen will be greatly reduced from what you have now. Frankly, they would be, again, the counterterrorism mission to go after residual transnational threats, and then there could be some combat operations in terms of the troops that are working inside the training, advise and assist mission. And then of course, if there were ever a contingency where you have a force protection mission, that could also be a combat operation, but that would be as a contingency, not as a general rule.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: All right. They’re trying to serve dinner.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: And what was the time of the meetings? Was there a time today?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let’s see, 9:30 to 12:15, then they broke for about two hours, though there were still talks between the teams, and the national security advisor hosted the lunch. So – and then they reconvened at 2:15. That went until about four-something, 4:30 maybe. They had about 30 minutes by themselves. Then --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, at the end. Then they came back at 6:30, and we did the press avail at 9:00. So – and they had maybe 10 minutes by themselves before the avail. So, okay, I don’t know if anybody was adding that up.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Eight hours today.
QUESTION: And then yesterday?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And yesterday, yeah, it was about three hours. Yeah.
QUESTION: And on the calls, were they back to Washington?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.
QUESTION: When were they?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, they were throughout the last 24 hours. I mean, Secretary Kerry spoke with Hagel around this morning, before the day began. He spoke with him again, I believe. I’ll double check this. I can probably get you guys a list of the calls he did. But he spoke with Hagel and Rice a number of times. Other people on the team spoke with a number of other officials as well. Like, the Admiral, I think, spoke with somebody from the Joint Chiefs, and so on and so forth. But --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Secretary’s answer to my question on the Taliban (inaudible) some confusion over communication (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There’s a chain of command.
QUESTION: Did Karzai ask him (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not that I am aware of. I mean with – I don’t know that there’s much more we’re going to add on that, but I’ll talk to folks who were in all the meetings.
QUESTION: Afghan security forces (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. I’ll ask and see if there was more talk of it aside from the one that we mentioned last night.
QUESTION: Was he trying to (inaudible) answer to the question of why there was, like, a miscommunication on the U.S. side when the Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not the U.S. side.
QUESTION: Oh. See, I kind of assumed (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t think he was implying the U.S. side.
QUESTION: So he was implying there was a miscommunication (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I will talk to folks and see if there is more we can explain.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I get it. Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
Background Briefing: Senior State Department Officials and Senior Administration Official on Bilateral Security Agreement
Special Briefing
ERT London, England
October 12, 2013
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. So we're just going to do a quick backgrounder on the meetings that Secretary Kerry just had in Afghanistan, and a readout of those. And we have Senior State Department Official One, Senior Administration Official One here. And if I have anything, I'll be Number Two.
So, I think we'll do an overview first, and then do some questions, if that works.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So the visit, obviously, was focused on the Bilateral Security Agreement. It comes 11-ish months into the negotiations. It was generally productive. From our vantage, positive in that we reached a basic agreement on all of the key issues.
The President – when President Karzai visited Washington last January, the President announced our objectives for a post-2014 presence as being, first, a train, advise, and assist mission under NATO leadership, and then also a CT mission, by which --
QUESTION: Train, advise, and what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Train, advise, and assist mission.
QUESTION: Assist.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And also a counter-terrorism mission, by which we could pursue the remnants of al-Qaida.
And the language of the agreement as it stands right now provides what we need for both of those missions. And, more importantly, as with every status of forces agreement worldwide, the language also provides what we need in terms of assurances and guarantees for rights of self-defense, for force protection, and the jurisdiction issues that are obviously so important to us.
So, overall, the text, we believe, is in a good place. And I think we stayed a little bit longer than we had hoped, but I think it was worth it in that we were able to come to that basic agreement.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Why don't we do some questions?
QUESTION: Before we get into the – what the Secretary was talking about – strike that. (Laughter.) Before we get into the area that is not – that still is awaiting – the most contentious issue, the jurisdictional issue, can you explain to us what exactly the – has been agreed, in terms of the counterterrorism stuff and in terms of sovereignty? Like, Karzai made a big deal out of the definition of "invasion" and the definition of "sovereignty." Can you explain what that is, or is it just like a standard dictionary definition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The most important thing President Karzai had said to us he needed out of the Bilateral Security Agreement was the ability to take it to his Afghan people and explain how it was going to bring security to Afghanistan beyond 2014.
The other thing that he said he needed was – and this was coming out of the Strategic Partnership Agreement – was improved understanding between the two of us in terms of what threats faced Afghanistan, both externally and internally. And what we were able to do, I think, in very broad terms, is find that common understanding in these 24 hours of talks, both in terms of the threats that Afghanistan faces internally and externally, the final language to characterize those threats, and then, more importantly, to characterize our commitment to enable the Afghans to defend themselves against those threats. And I think that was one of the major very difficult issues that was left to this late stage that we needed to work through.
QUESTION: Can you say what it – what the language says?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No.
QUESTION: Is that because – and you can't say because you're waiting for – you don't want to preempt the Loya Jirga, or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I think we would want to wait until the right time, until the internal processes are more mature. We --
QUESTION: Yours or theirs?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Both. We have to put ours through a very technical, internal legal review. They have to put theirs through their interagency equivalent process with their national security council, and then prepare it to take to their people. And we certainly wouldn't want to disclose dimensions or parts of the language prematurely.
QUESTION: But it will be at some point.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The language will be public, eventually.
QUESTION: [Senior Administration Official One], you were talking about defining the threats to Afghanistan and their ability to defend themselves. Is this the reference to the part about Afghanistan wanting the U.S. to give it a sort of defense pact, and that we would defend them against outside threats, presumably from Pakistan? That is part one of the question.
Part two is the issue on counterterrorism and them wanting us to hand over our intel and they do their own ops, and how did you address that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, on the first part, that the Bilateral Security Agreement is clearly something that stopped short of a mutual defense pact. And the language that we found, I think, is sufficient to both parties in terms of not overreaching the bounds of what can be – what kind of commitments we can come to.
On the counterterrorism language, it's a broad concept of cooperation at this point, which I think allows for enough flexibility in terms of their evolving capabilities, but also our needs to take actions in a joint, cooperative manner, when we need to. So, it's not so clear as, "Hand over the intel and we'll take care of it." It's not at that kind of an evolved stage.
QUESTION: When you say, "when you need to," for joint actions, did you clarify when that would be? When would those joint actions take place? I mean is – would you have to define under what circumstances?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think the circumstances are any circumstances where the – there is a transnational threat, one that could impact upon U.S. homeland, U.S. allies, U.S. interests. But in all cases, that we would do so in a manner that was cooperative, in some cases – in many cases, partnered.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think it's important to add that that's the way we would describe how we're handling CT right now. This is not a dramatic departure from the way that we're handling those operations under current policy guidance, the difference being that this is – when it goes into force, it would be a legally
binding agreement.
QUESTION: Can you please describe what – on this issue of immunity? Because from where we were sitting, it sounded, or personally to me, that this really couldn't be a deal unless that was agreed upon. And if the Secretary – or if an official is saying that it is in the text, well, then there is an agreement. But he was pretty clear in his quotes during the news conference that they weren’t --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me put it this way. We've agreed on language that can be put to his Loya Jirga for their consideration.
QUESTION: In terms of the U.S. side, though, other than just this interagency review, I mean, the Pentagon is not going to come back and say, "Sorry, this doesn't work for us." It's a done deal, from the U.S. perspective.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, that's the corollary to what [Senior Administration Official One] – the elaboration on what [Senior Administration Official One] said is the language that is in the text that goes to the Loya Jirga is satisfactory for our purposes on the --
QUESTION: So it’s the same question. As far as you're concerned, what you got is good, and it – and then – and I have this question I asked [Senior State Department Official One] earlier. Who signs it, if it gets approved by --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Don't know yet.
QUESTION: But is it a presidential thing, or is it a Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We don't know what yet.
QUESTION: Who would sign it?
QUESTION: You don't know?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, we don't know the details of the signing phase.
QUESTION: Why not? I mean, and – obviously, I guess not. But, I mean, other agreements like this --
QUESTION: Procedurally. Like, who signs it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it could be signed by a number of --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There are a lot of options.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: -- Cabinet or Administration people.
QUESTION: So it doesn't need to be president and president? It can be --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Not necessarily.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No. It could technically be a range of people.
And the other piece on the – just process-wise, is that the Secretary spoke with Secretary Hagel a number of times over the last 24 hours. He spoke with Susan Rice a number of times, other people on the team. And you guys would know better all the people that were – you were in contact with. But – about the text and the progress.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We were in constant contact with the legal support team in Washington, and, as [Senior State Department Official Two] said, both --
QUESTION: And then my last one is --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can't say whether Ambassador Rice was in touch with the President. But the Secretary was in direct contact with Ambassador Rice several times.
QUESTION: My last one here, and you can – it's a chance for you to talk up your boss. What was it – I mean, this stuff hadn't been agreed to beforehand. So what was it that the Secretary brought into this that got it done, basically? What – I mean, how did he change the dynamic? For 11 months, you haven't had a deal. You still don't, technically, but you got what could be a deal. So what was it that he was able to do to change the dynamic to get something done?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I can start, but – I know. But still, I can talk just --
QUESTION: Just don’t make it too hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Too what?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Hagiographic?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Too – okay. One is their personal relationship and the fact that it goes back for a number of years, and you all know the details of that because we’ve talked about that previously and many of you covered it. Two is persistence. You’ve all covered the Secretary on a number of these occasions, on a number of these journeys to try to get agreement, right? And he is somebody who will sit there for hours and talk through the substantive issues, and this is something they can add more to. And three is probably patience. I didn’t even mean to do a three-piece. But patience, because obviously he wanted to --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I didn’t plan it. (Laughter.) But --
QUESTION: What about personality?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. But they can add a little more perhaps from in the room, but, I mean, I think those are some of the characters and characteristics of these --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Fully agree with all that, and I would say also that sometimes you get to a point in these sorts of negotiations where both sides need higher-level political involvement to sort of get things further along. And it’s not clear the degree to which President Karzai had been engaged on the text before these last couple of days. Secretary Kerry obviously had been monitoring the negotiations, but had not been personally involved until the last couple of days. And having that kind of higher-level political push, I think, was essential to the progress that was achieved.
QUESTION: So would you agree with the characterization that this is really kind of a deal, or at least the last points fell into place – the last points falling into place is a deal between Karzai and the Secretary?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s a deal between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: I know. In closing the circle, it was him and Karzai.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The high-level political involvement was key to getting it to where it is now. There is no doubt about that.
QUESTION: To follow on that, so can you say now, then, that the purpose of this trip really was for the Secretary to close the deal? I mean, there was a lot of discussion ahead of time about --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think we had a – I think we had to see where things stood. I mean, I don’t think I – I certainly didn’t deliberately mislead you when I said the other night he wasn’t coming here to close the deal, and I think he had a positive conversation with Karzai a week ago. Did we know, when he had a positive conversation, that the result if we showed up here was going to be getting what we got? No. But he knew that it was worth testing the proposition, and so here we are.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion about troop levels?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t think so.
QUESTION: So are there going to be (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So I defer to [Senior Administration Official One] on this.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t hear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: About troops (inaudible).
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, all of our troops are trained and capable of conducting combat operations. There will be no combat mission after 2014. And what is clear is that combat operations would be much more exceptional after 2014 --
QUESTION: Much more what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Exceptional.
QUESTION: So CT doesn’t fall under combat, it’s a separate category?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, I think it could. I think that the range of combat operations that you would have seen will be greatly reduced from what you have now. Frankly, they would be, again, the counterterrorism mission to go after residual transnational threats, and then there could be some combat operations in terms of the troops that are working inside the training, advise and assist mission. And then of course, if there were ever a contingency where you have a force protection mission, that could also be a combat operation, but that would be as a contingency, not as a general rule.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: All right. They’re trying to serve dinner.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: And what was the time of the meetings? Was there a time today?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let’s see, 9:30 to 12:15, then they broke for about two hours, though there were still talks between the teams, and the national security advisor hosted the lunch. So – and then they reconvened at 2:15. That went until about four-something, 4:30 maybe. They had about 30 minutes by themselves. Then --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, at the end. Then they came back at 6:30, and we did the press avail at 9:00. So – and they had maybe 10 minutes by themselves before the avail. So, okay, I don’t know if anybody was adding that up.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Eight hours today.
QUESTION: And then yesterday?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And yesterday, yeah, it was about three hours. Yeah.
QUESTION: And on the calls, were they back to Washington?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.
QUESTION: When were they?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, they were throughout the last 24 hours. I mean, Secretary Kerry spoke with Hagel around this morning, before the day began. He spoke with him again, I believe. I’ll double check this. I can probably get you guys a list of the calls he did. But he spoke with Hagel and Rice a number of times. Other people on the team spoke with a number of other officials as well. Like, the Admiral, I think, spoke with somebody from the Joint Chiefs, and so on and so forth. But --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Secretary’s answer to my question on the Taliban (inaudible) some confusion over communication (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There’s a chain of command.
QUESTION: Did Karzai ask him (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not that I am aware of. I mean with – I don’t know that there’s much more we’re going to add on that, but I’ll talk to folks who were in all the meetings.
QUESTION: Afghan security forces (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. I’ll ask and see if there was more talk of it aside from the one that we mentioned last night.
QUESTION: Was he trying to (inaudible) answer to the question of why there was, like, a miscommunication on the U.S. side when the Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not the U.S. side.
QUESTION: Oh. See, I kind of assumed (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t think he was implying the U.S. side.
QUESTION: So he was implying there was a miscommunication (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I will talk to folks and see if there is more we can explain.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I get it. Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN AND CIVILIAN MORALE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
DOD Leaders Worry About Shutdown's Effect on Civilian Morale
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2013 - The partial government shutdown is hurting DOD civilian morale, the department's comptroller told Congress yesterday.
Under Secretary of Defense Robert F. Hale told the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee DOD civilians have been through a lot over the past year and it is hurting productivity.
The furloughs triggered by the shutdown that began Oct. 1 are only the most recent instance of this damage, Hale said. Civilian employees have not had annual raises for more than three years. Hiring freezes, cuts in training, cuts in bonuses and step increases all work to erode morale.
Earlier this year, almost all DOD civilians were furloughed under sequestration for six days.
The lapse in appropriations that began Oct. 1 continues to affect morale. Around 400,000 DOD civilian employees were furloughed after the fiscal 2013 appropriations lapsed. About 95 percent of them were recalled under the Pay Our Military Act. Still, there are around 7,000 DOD civilians remaining on furlough.
"In the first days of the lapse, commanders repeatedly told me that civilian workers were frustrated and angry," Hale said. "And I can't imagine they'd be any other way."
The comptroller said many DOD employees say they will retire or resign and seek other jobs.
"And low morale means low productivity at most DOD support activities," Hale said.
Later in the hearing, Hale corrected a representative who called furloughed employees "non-essential."
"Please don't use the word non-essential as regards our civilians," he said. "The folks that are still on furlough are essential. We can't operate without them in the longer term. It is very ... harmful to morale. Call them nonexempt or non-excepted, but please don't use that phrase."
DOD Leaders Worry About Shutdown's Effect on Civilian Morale
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2013 - The partial government shutdown is hurting DOD civilian morale, the department's comptroller told Congress yesterday.
Under Secretary of Defense Robert F. Hale told the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee DOD civilians have been through a lot over the past year and it is hurting productivity.
The furloughs triggered by the shutdown that began Oct. 1 are only the most recent instance of this damage, Hale said. Civilian employees have not had annual raises for more than three years. Hiring freezes, cuts in training, cuts in bonuses and step increases all work to erode morale.
Earlier this year, almost all DOD civilians were furloughed under sequestration for six days.
The lapse in appropriations that began Oct. 1 continues to affect morale. Around 400,000 DOD civilian employees were furloughed after the fiscal 2013 appropriations lapsed. About 95 percent of them were recalled under the Pay Our Military Act. Still, there are around 7,000 DOD civilians remaining on furlough.
"In the first days of the lapse, commanders repeatedly told me that civilian workers were frustrated and angry," Hale said. "And I can't imagine they'd be any other way."
The comptroller said many DOD employees say they will retire or resign and seek other jobs.
"And low morale means low productivity at most DOD support activities," Hale said.
Later in the hearing, Hale corrected a representative who called furloughed employees "non-essential."
"Please don't use the word non-essential as regards our civilians," he said. "The folks that are still on furlough are essential. We can't operate without them in the longer term. It is very ... harmful to morale. Call them nonexempt or non-excepted, but please don't use that phrase."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)