U.S. TO SEND $200 MILLION IN HUMANITARIAN AID TO SAHEL REGION OF AFRICA

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail: 
Humanitarian Assistance to Sahel Region
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
March 29, 2012
The United States is deeply concerned about the humanitarian emergency in the Sahel region of Africa. Around 10 million people are in need of emergency assistance due to erratic rainfall, failed harvests, high food prices and conflict across the region that includes Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. In response to current needs, including protection and assistance for refugees, and to prevent a potentially much more serious situation, I am pleased to announce that the United States is providing an additional $120 million in emergency assistance. With these funds, the U.S. Government is providing nearly $200 million this fiscal year in humanitarian assistance to the Sahel region.

We are currently providing targeted humanitarian assistance that addresses acute malnutrition and hunger and builds resilience, and we are also focused on long-term approaches to establish lasting food security. We are making highly nutritious therapeutic food available for malnourished children. In addition to providing life-saving food, we are working to help vulnerable families and communities buy locally-available food and services, while developing small-scale projects and infrastructure that can help build the resilience necessary to withstand future drought.

In partnership with other donors, we have taken early action in response to early warnings. We are targeting specific pockets of great need while working toward sustainable, longer term development. Together, we are saving lives, mitigating impact, and building resilience.

U.S. EMBASSY IN MADAGASCAR RECEIVES GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations Announces LEED® Silver Certification for U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations announced today that the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) has awarded the newly constructed U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar the Silver Level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Certification.

This U.S. Embassy is the first building in Madagascar to earn LEED® Certification, and only the fifth LEED® certified building in Africa, four of which are U.S. diplomatic facilities.

Antananarivo joins U.S. Embassies and Consulates in Sofia, Bulgaria; Panama City, Panama; Johannesburg, South Africa; Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo; and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso as LEED® certified U.S. diplomatic facilities.

The embassy was designed to reduce energy costs by incorporating sun shades for the façade, occupancy sensors, and solar hot water. The building conserves water through the installation of low-flow and low-flush plumbing fixtures. All consumed water is treated at an on-site wastewater treatment plant. The cleansed water is reused for irrigation and infiltrated on-site, replenishing the ground water.

LEED® certification is the recognized standard for measuring building sustainability. LEED® certified buildings are designed to lower operating costs while increasing asset value, reduce waste sent to landfills, conserve energy and water, be healthier and safer for occupants, and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

The Embassy in Antananarivo was constructed by B.L. Harbert International of Birmingham, Alabama; and designed by Page Southerland Page of Arlington, Virginia. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing design was completed by H&A Architects and Engineers of Glen Allen, Virginia.

Since 1999, as part of the Department’s Capital Security Construction Program, OBO has completed 88 new diplomatic facilities and has an additional 41 projects in design and construction. The program has successfully moved more than 27,000 people in safer facilties, furthering OBO’s mission to provide safe, secure and functional facilities that represent the U.S. Government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities should represent American values and the best in American architecture, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.

BUZZ AND LORI ADDRESS THE SMITHSONIAN

The following photo and excerpt are from the NASA website:
NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver addresses the audience with Buzz Lightyear, left, of the film "Toy Story" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's Moving Beyond Earth Gallery, Thursday, March 29, 2012, in Washington. Launched May 31, 2008 aboard the space shuttle Discovery (STS-124) and returned on Discovery 15 months later with STS-128, the 12-inch action figure is the longest serving toy in space and became part of the museum's popular culture collection. Image Credit: NASA/Paul E. Alers

SPACE: THE STABLE ENVIRONMENT FRONTIER

The following excerpt is from the U.S. State Department website:
Laying the Groundwork for a Stable and Sustainable Space Environment
Remarks Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Space Security Conference
Geneva, Switzerland
March 29, 2012
Thank you for the kind introduction. It is my pleasure to be back in Geneva, speaking at what has become one of my favorite conferences to discuss space security. This year’s theme, “Laying the Groundwork for Progress,” seems to me to be particularly fitting when we consider the efforts that have been, and will be, underway this year to ensure the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security of the space environment.

Before I discuss the approaches towards ensuring space security that we can and are taking today, I’d like to look at how we are using space today and consider the consequences of a future without access to space. Today, several nations use communications satellites to enable health services for remote segments of their populations. Dubbed “telehealth,” the satellite link provides patients with access to the medical knowledge and experience necessary to diagnose conditions and prescribe treatment. For example, Burkina Faso, one of several West African nations using telehealth, relies upon donated transponder time to transmit abnormal ultrasound images from village clinics to specialists in a few regional hospitals. Communication satellites have a direct impact on Burkina Faso’s women and children, and the loss of this service could greatly affect the country’s ability to meet its health care delivery needs.

The use of communications satellites to transmit health care data across countries and across the globe is only one of the many uses of space on which we rely. Telephone calls, news reports, television broadcasts, and financial transactions are also relayed through satellites. Financial markets, power grids, and wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcast industries all use GPS satellites for precise timing, and ships, planes, automobiles, and individual people use them for navigation. Meteorological satellites provide weather and environmental forecasts, while remote-sensing satellites provide imagery used in agriculture, resource exploration, land use planning, treaty verification, and disaster relief, amongst other things. Clearly the use of space assets and the information we derive from them permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives. The telehealth scenario I have just mentioned is only one example of how important the utilization of space is, and clearly shows that the loss of space systems, even for a short period of time, can have damaging consequences. Extrapolating from this, we must ask ourselves “What will the consequences be if the space environment were to become unusable?”

Recognizing the need to prevent such a future, and to ensure the long-term sustainability and stability of the space environment, the question becomes “What can we do today to ensure that the generations that come after us can access and benefit from space?” I’m sure that each speaker on this panel, and probably in this conference, would answer this question slightly, if not very, differently. Some of us would suggest we pursue legally-binding arms control agreements. While the United States is prepared to engage in substantive discussions on space security as part of a Conference on Disarmament’s consensus program of work, and is willing to “consider” space arms control proposals and concepts that are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the United States and our allies, we have not yet seen a proposal that meets these criteria. However, it is important to focus on those areas that unite us rather than divide us. While each speaker may have differing views on how to best ensure stability and security in space, there are many ways forward in which we do agree. It is in those areas, I believe, we should focus on making progress in the near term.

Orbital Debris Mitigation
Considering the serious and long-lasting threat posed by orbital debris, I think we can all agree that cooperation is necessary to address and mitigate this growing problem. The fact was illustrated by events this past weekend, when the astronauts on the International Space Station were forced to take shelter when a piece of debris came close to the station. Had that debris collided with the space station, it could have caused catastrophic damage to the station and placed the lives of the crew at serious risk.

In 2002, international guidelines to minimize debris were established by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. These guidelines served as the basis for similar guidelines then adopted by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. It is important that we continue to make progress in encouraging nations to adopt and implement these guidelines.

From a national perspective, we in the United States also recognize the importance of preventing collisions between satellites and/or orbiting objects, due to the resulting debris creation. The United States is currently reaching out to all space-faring nations and organizations to ensure that our Joint Space Operations Center, or JSpOC, has current contact information for both government and private sector satellite operations centers to provide notifications of potentially hazardous conjunctions. In 2011 alone, we provided over 1,100 notifications to nations around the world, including Russia and China.

UNCOPUOS
We can also all agree that there is great value in efforts to adopt best practice guidelines through “bottom-up” initiatives developed by government and private sector satellite operators, such as the work done in the multi-year study of “long-term sustainability of space activities” within the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) of UNCOPUOS. The STSC Working Group on the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities is a key forum focusing on the international development of “best practices guidelines” for space activities, in particular in the areas of space debris, space operations, and space situational awareness. The United States believes that many of the best practice guidelines addressed by this working group will be integral to international efforts to enhance spaceflight safety and to preserve the use of space for the long-term.

Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures
Finally, we can all agree that the development of near-term, voluntary, and pragmatic space transparency and confidence-building measures can enhance the stability and security of the space environment. TCBMs, whether they address important areas such as hazards to spaceflight safety and collision avoidance, or reduce tensions through the sharing of information, help to increase familiarity and trust and encourage openness among space actors. One opportunity for the international community to cooperate in this area is through the Group of Government Experts (or GGE) on Outer Space TCBMs, established by UN General Assembly Resolution 65/68. We look forward to working with our international colleagues this year in a GGE that serves as a constructive mechanism to examine voluntary and pragmatic TCBMs that have the potential to mitigate the dangers and risks in an increasingly contested and congested space environment, enhance stability and security, and promote responsible operations in space.

Another opportunity for the international community to cooperate on TCBMs is through the development and adoption of an “International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.” As many of you are aware, on January 17, 2012, the United States announced that it had decided to join with the European Union and other spacefaring nations to develop an International Code of Conduct.

In her written statement announcing the decision, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “the long-term sustainability of our space environment is at serious risk from space debris and irresponsible actors … Unless the international community addresses these challenges, the environment around our planet will become increasingly hazardous to human spaceflight and satellite systems, which would create damaging consequences for all of us.”

We were pleased that Japan, Australia, and other countries have also stated their support for the development of a Code of Conduct, and we encourage other spacefaring nations to consider playing an active role in the multilateral meetings of experts in 2012 that the European Union intends to schedule. We view the European Union’s draft Code of Conduct as a good foundation for developing a non-legally binding International Code focused on the use of voluntary and pragmatic TCBMs. An International Code of Conduct, if adopted, would establish a political commitment to reduce the hazards of accidental and purposeful debris-generating events and would increase the transparency of operations in space to minimize the danger of collisions, furthering cooperation in areas we all recognize as crucial for ensuring stability and sustainability in space. We look forward to engaging with the rest of the international community on this initiative in the months to come.

Looking Towards the Future
The world is increasingly interconnected through, and increasingly dependent on space systems. While there is no way of knowing when, or if, we will reach a “tipping point” when it comes to debris and our access to space, it is clear that the long-term sustainability of our space environment is at serious risk from space debris and irresponsible actors. Because of our disparate histories and situations, there will always be differing views on how to best ensure stability and sustainability in space. We should not focus on what divides us, but instead on those efforts we can agree to now that will lay the groundwork for progress and sustain space for future generations.

U.S. CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF GEN. DEMPSEY SEEKS TO EXPAND MILITARY TIES TO BRAZIL

The following excerpt is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Dempsey Looks to Expand Military Ties With Brazil

By Jim Garamone

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT, March 29, 2012 - Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, on his way back from Brazil today, said he hopes to expand military-to-military relations with the country he said is "clearly, an economic engine globally."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he was pleased with "wide-ranging" discussions he had with Brazilian Defense Minister Antonio Celoso Amorim and top-ranking military official Gen. Jose Carlos de Nardi.

Dempsey also flew yesterday to Bogota, Colombia, then directly to the headquarters of the Amazon Military Command in Manaus.

The U.S. relationship with Brazil is a partnership of equals, U.S. Southern Command officials said. After years of promise, Brazil's economy recently became the sixth largest in the world. With a population of 220 million, an educated workforce and abundant raw materials, the nation is poised to climb even higher.

National power is the aggregate of economic, diplomatic and military power, and Brazil already regards itself as an economic and diplomatic world power. Dempsey discussed how military power fits into the equation.

The leaders discussed common interests – transnational organized crime, border controls, intelligence sharing, technology transfers and cyber. "I went in hoping that we wouldn't get bogged down in a single weapons system or on technology transfer, and we didn't," Dempsey said.

The chairman said he was not surprised that Brazil has the same concern as the United States about cyber. "The better they do economically and the more influence they have internationally, the more they see what we see, which is cyber is both our greatest opportunity and our greatest vulnerability," he said, adding that cyber defense may be an area where the two military partners can work together.

Brazilian officials briefed the chairman on their military's deployments, which the country limits to only those in which there is a United Nations mandate Brazil commands the U.N. mission in Haiti and serves in various other peacekeeping missions, Brazilian leaders told Dempsey.

"They are concerned about the Mideast, the long-term implications of the Arab Spring, whether we think Iran will respond to sanctions," the chairman said. "They were interested in Libya and how the mission evolved from stopping the violence to trying to stabilize the land."

They also discussed the regional picture. Brazil is at ease with the relationships it has with all its neighbors. "They see Colombia in a special light because they feel Colombia has made significant progress in containing the FARC insurgency," Dempsey said. "That worried the Brazilians because they were afraid of spillover."

Brazilian leaders told Dempsey they must deal with transnational organized crime. Brazil is second only to the United States in cocaine consumption, officials said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AT NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT

The following except is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail:  

President Cites Progress at Nuclear Security Summit

By Elaine Sanchez
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2012 - While progress has been made toward security and peace, it's "undeniable" that a nuclear terror threat remains, President Barack Obama said in Seoul, South Korea, today.

"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials, and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," Obama said at the opening session of the Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea's capital city, where leaders from more than 50 nations have gathered.

"It would not take much -- just a handful or so of these materials -- to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people," he added. "And that's not an exaggeration; that's the reality that we face."

Obama recalled hosting the first Nuclear Security Summit two years ago in Washington. "There were those who questioned whether our nations could summon the will to confront one of the gravest dangers of our time," he said. "In part because it involves a lot of technical issues, in part because the world was still grappling with a whole host of other issues like the economy and the global recession, there was some skepticism that we would be able to sustain an effort around this topic. But that's exactly what we've done."

Leaders agreed that nuclear terrorism is one of the most urgent and serious threats to global security, Obama said, and they agreed to the goal of securing the world's nuclear materials in four years. They knew this goal would require sustained and effective international cooperation, the president said, and an architecture in which they could share best practices, sustain commitments and ensure ongoing progress.

Over the past two years, they've backed their words up with deeds, Obama said.

"We are improving security at our nuclear facilities. We are forging new partnerships. We are removing nuclear materials, and in some cases, getting rid of these materials entirely," he said. "And as a result, more of the world's nuclear materials will never fall into the hands of terrorists who would gladly use them against us."

However, one nation can't tackle this challenge alone, the president said. It will require working together as an international community.

"What we did in Washington, what we're now doing in Korea, becomes part of a larger global architecture designed to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, but also allows us then to more safely and effectively pursue peaceful uses of nuclear energy," he said.

Once again, nations have gathered to make commitments, and to take "more real, tangible steps," the president noted. And, as a consequence, more people will be safeguarded from the danger posed by nuclear terrorism.

"We've come a long way in a very short time, and that should encourage us," Obama said. "And that should not lead us to complacency, however; it should fortify our will as we continue to deal with these issues.

"I believe we can maintain that will and that focus," he continued. "I believe we must, because the security of the world depends on the actions that we take."

CDC SAYS U.S. CANCER DEATH RATES ARE DECLINING

The graphs and following excerpt are from the Centers for Disease Control website:
Report to the nation finds continuing declines in cancer death rates since the early 1990s
Special feature highlights cancers associated with excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity

Death rates from all cancers combined for men, women, and children continued to decline in the United States between 2004 and 2008, according to the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2008. The overall rate of new cancer diagnoses, also known as incidence, among men decreased by an average of 0.6 percent per year between 2004 and 2008.  Overall cancer incidence rates among women declined 0.5 percent per year from 1998 through 2006 with rates leveling off from 2006 through 2008.

The report is co–authored by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. It appears early online in the journal CANCER, and will appear in print in the May issue.

The special feature section highlights the effects of excess weight and lack of physical activity on cancer risk. Esophageal adenocarcinoma, cancers of the colon and rectum, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, endometrial cancer, and breast cancer among postmenopausal women are associated with being overweight or obese. Several of these cancers also are associated with not being sufficiently physically active.

“This report demonstrates the value of cancer registry data in identifying the links among physical inactivity, obesity, and cancer,” said CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden, M.D. “It also provides an update of how we are progressing in the fight against cancer by identifying populations with unhealthy behaviors and high cancer rates that can benefit from targeted, lifesaving strategies, and interventions to improve lifestyle behaviors and support healthy environments.”

For more than 30 years, excess weight, insufficient physical activity, and an unhealthy diet have been second only to tobacco as preventable causes of disease and death in the United States.  However, since the 1960s, tobacco use has declined by a third while obesity rates have doubled, significantly impacting the relative contributions of these factors to the disease burden.  Excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and arthritis, as well as many cancers.

“In the United States, 2 in 3 adults are overweight or obese and fewer than half get enough physical activity,” said John R. Seffrin, Ph.D., chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society. “Between children and youth, 1 in 3 is overweight or obese, and fewer than 1 in 4 high school students get recommended levels of physical activity. Obesity and physical inactivity are critical problems facing all states. For people who do not smoke, excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity may be among the most important risk factors for cancer.”

The Report to the Nation was first issued in 1998. In addition to drops in overall cancer mortality and incidence, this year's report also documents the second consecutive year of decreasing lung cancer mortality rates among women. Lung cancer death rates in men have been decreasing since the early 1990s.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates also decreased among men and women from 1999 through 2008.  Breast cancer incidence rates among women declined from 1999 through 2004 and plateaued from 2004 through 2008.  Incidence rates of some cancers, including pancreas, kidney, thyroid, liver, and melanoma, increased from 1999 through 2008.

“The continued declines in death rates for all cancers, as well as the overall drop in incidence, is powerful evidence that the  nation's investment in cancer research produces life–saving approaches to cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment,” said NCI Director Harold E. Varmus, M.D.  “But, it is also important to note that investments we make today are critical if we hope to see these declines in incidence and death from cancer reflected in future Reports to the Nation.”

Among children aged 19 years or younger, cancer incidence rates increased 0.6 percent per year from 2004 through 2008, continuing trends from 1992, while death rates decreased 1.3 percent per year during the same period. These patterns mirror longer–term trends.

Among racial and ethnic groups, the highest cancer incidence rates between 2004 and 2008 were among black men and white women. Cancer death rates from 2004 through 2008 were highest among black men and black women, but these groups showed the largest declines for the period between 1999 and 2008, compared with other racial groups. The differences in death rates by racial/ethnic group, sex, and cancer site may reflect differences in risk factors, as well as access to and use of screening and treatment.

“While the sustained decline in cancer mortality rates is good news, the persistence of disparities among racial and ethnic groups continues to concern us,” said Betsy A. Kohler, executive director of NAACCR. “The collection of comprehensive cancer surveillance data on all patients may provide clues to understanding these differences and addressing them.”

The report notes that continued progress against cancer in the United States will require individual and community efforts to promote healthy weight and sufficient physical activity among youth and adults.
.

STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT BEFORE CONGRESS ON JOBS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN EUROPE AND EURASIA

The following excerpt is from the U.S. State Department website:
Creating Jobs: Economic Opportunities in Europe and Eurasia
Testimony
Robert D. Hormats
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Testimony Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Europe
Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meeks and Members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, thank you for inviting me to testify today. In my remarks, I’d like to focus on the importance of our economic relationship with Europe and how the Obama Administration is working to maximize the potential of that relationship to boost America’s international competitiveness and create jobs in the United States.

With news headlines focused on the Eurozone crisis and the dynamic growth of the emerging economies, we sometimes lose track of the breadth and depth of our trade and investment relationship with Europe. Europe is a priority.

We look to Europe to attract more foreign investment into the United States that can produce high-quality jobs and bring us new technologies. We look to Europe for new opportunities for our exporters of industrial and consumer goods, services and agriculture products -- and as a place where large numbers of American companies have been operating successfully for many decades and seek new market opportunities. We work closely with our European partners to ensure an open trade and investment climate in third markets. And, of course, we recognize Europe as a staunch ally – and it has been for decades.

I will give you concrete examples of economic progress, and ways we are working to achieve even better results.

We look forward to continued cooperation with the Congress and the private sector -- as well as our governors and mayors -- as we work to realize our shared objectives.
The example of your district around Indianapolis, Mr. Chairman, is quite instructive. I was struck by the fact that Indianapolis is located within one day’s drive of 55% of all Americans – or 50 million households.

Your district’s successful reorienting of its economic growth by taking advantage of its location and traditional manufacturing base, while developing its strengths in other competitive industries, such as higher education, health care/pharmaceuticals, transport/distribution services, is exemplary. Lessons learned from your District and your leadership are important to examine and emulate in other U.S. regions, as well as in Europe, as we seek to unlock new sources of jobs and economic growth so important for our recovery.

And the Ranking Member’s district is in New York City, one of the world’s truly international cities. The district is also the home of John F. Kennedy Airport, our nation’s main aviation gateway to Europe. Ranking Member Meeks – a fellow New Yorker – has helped create many jobs in his district and throughout the country by his support of trade expansion in Europe and around the world.

The Importance of the United States – European Union Economic Relationship
I would like to begin with just a few words on the U.S.-EU bilateral economic relationship. It is one of the central drivers of the world economy and accounts for almost 50 percent of global GDP. To put this in perspective, the value of United States goods and services exports to the European Union is several times the value of our exports to China. Trade flows between the United States and the EU exceed $2.7 billion per day.

Foreign Direct Investment has created millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. At last measure in 2010, U.S. Foreign Direct Investment into the EU -- $1.95 trillion -- was more than twice U.S. Foreign Direct Investment into any other region in the world. The EU’s 2010 Foreign Direct Investment of almost $1.5 trillion in the United States is approximately four times the amount from any other region – and a huge job creator here.
Given the importance of transatlantic trade and investment in supporting high-quality jobs in the United States, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of making further efforts to remove barriers to commerce between the United States and the EU.
And this is not only in America’s interest – it is in the EU’s as well. Given the absolute size of our relationship, even small gains in any sector can mean significant economic benefits – more trade, more jobs, and more business opportunities for U.S. firms and U.S. workers and farmers.

The President has said, “Europe is the cornerstone of our engagement with the world.” And this is true, not only in our shared foreign policy objectives, but in the economic sphere as well. We have similar values and embrace shared market economic principles that have stood the test of time.

Together, we also can spur multilateral liberalization in our globalized world, in such fora as the G8, G20, WTO and OECD -- promoting an open, transparent, and non-discriminatory trade and investment climate in third countries.

We work with the EU and other European partners in the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, strengthening existing global financial regulatory and supervisory structures. As the world’s two largest donors, the United States and the EU promote effective and complementary development assistance. We also work together to improve supply chain security through the World Customs Organization and other fora.

Even as we focus on achieving positive multilateral results, the United States and the EU have every interest in promoting strong market-based, rules-based approaches to economic policies in third countries, including in particular Russia, China, Brazil and India.

The United States and the European Union can both benefit if we work together to promote the adoption of market principles worldwide. This creates a level playing field for our firms around the world. We have made joint efforts, for example, to help China improve the safety of the toys, pharmaceuticals, and other products it exports, which is essential to the health and well-being of our consumers.

In the U.S. – EU Intellectual Property Working Group we have worked to promote legitimate copyright content among Chinese Internet Service Providers, and trademark law reform in China, and to conduct joint IPR enforcement operations at U.S. and EU ports. In 2012, the group will focus on protecting trade secrets, particularly in China. Our newly created U.S. - EU Investment Dialogue is another example of our joint commitment to promote market-friendly, rules-based economic policies in third countries.

Effects of Eurozone Crisis
Our ties to Europe are deep and longstanding, and we have continued to collaborate closely through the global financial crisis and, more recently, the Eurozone crisis.
It has been U.S. policy for almost seven decades to support a Europe whole, free and at peace. We will continue to work with our European partners to promote financial stability and sustainable, balanced growth.

We have seen a commitment by the EU to address current economic challenges not only through fiscal consolidation aimed at improving debt sustainability, but also by facilitating job creation and structural improvements and putting in place measures to assist member states in finding a path back to economic growth.

European Union member states are developing strategies to safeguard the region’s economic future, improve competitiveness, and achieve stability. There's a lot more hard work ahead and many difficult choices to make. But our European partners have laid a solid foundation on which to build.

The United States is encouraged by European leaders’ efforts to address the region’s crisis. We have a huge stake in the health and vitality of the EU. European growth and financial stability are important not only for Europe, but also for the global economy, and for creating and sustaining jobs in the United States.

We know from our own experience that moving from crisis to recovery depends on swift and aggressive action to restore market confidence. We have every reason to believe that with continued decisive action by European leaders, fiscal financial sector, and competitiveness challenges can be resolved.

There is no doubt that the debt crisis has put serious strains on the European Union and its members, both politically and economically. But the commitment to a united Europe remains strong and European integration remains attractive because it makes economic sense over the long-term.

Realizing that fiscal consolidation can be facilitated by complementary growth-enhancing reforms, we are seeing similar debates in Europe as in the U.S. on how to support jobs and growth.

It is clear that slower growth and tighter budgets in Europe may have an impact on some of our foreign policy objectives, so we are actively searching for opportunities to leverage our individual and collective resources in our efforts to advance shared transatlantic goals.
Europe is an indispensable partner in promoting peace and prosperity through development assistance. Together we can stretch the impact of our assistance through targeted cooperation efforts in developing countries and countries in transition across the globe.  The EU and its Member States account for over 55 percent of net Official Development Assistance to developing countries, with aid from the fifteen wealthiest EU member states rising by 6.7percent in 2010 to just over $70 billion.

The EU and its member states have taken the lead on post-conflict aid operations in Liberia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Darfur and Chad. The EU has also taken on lead roles in the democratic transitions occurring in Libya, Tunisia and in the Middle East and North African region.

We have been key partners in transforming Europe’s frontier regions in the Balkans, South Caucasus, and Central Asia, in cementing ties to Euro-Atlantic institutions and in promoting reforms to support transition to market economies. Our collective assistance helps these countries become robust trade and investment partners; helping them make economic decisions based on market principles and embrace international norms; increasing the transparency of the governments’ banking, financing and procurement operations; and reducing impediments such as corruption and over-regulation in order to level the playing field for U.S. firms. And I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Meeks, that when U.S. businesses and U.S. labor are able to compete on a level playing field, their products and services can win in markets the world over.
Defense spending faces continued pressure in Europe. The Secretary of Defense told the Allies last fall that “we are at a critical moment for our defense partnership.” Overall, defense spending in Europe has decreased during the past decade and is less than half of U.S. military spending.

Whatever happens on the financial and economic front, our foreign policy message has been consistent: It is important that we continue to spend the money required to meet our key priorities, and maintain critical deployments, both military and civilian. Reduced outlays overall should not mean reduced engagement in critical parts of the world.

U.S. Efforts to Deepen Economic Ties with Europe
While we work through these issues, the effort to expand our economic ties has not taken a back seat.

The Obama Administration is committed to deepen and broaden our economic relationship with Europe. Secretary Clinton has said, “We need to forge an ambitious agenda for joint economic leadership with Europe that is every bit as compelling as our security cooperation around the world.” I would like to outline for you how we at the State Department are actively expanding trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies in Europe.

The State Department works closely in this effort with partners throughout the U.S. Government, including the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Treasury.

We also are working closely with other partners in regulatory and technical agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office -- as well as research institutions, many of which have developed very inventive ideas for advancing collaboration and increased trade.

U.S.- EU scientific, research and development cooperation is increasingly key to many of the issues facing us today, including fostering economic growth and creating jobs in our countries in emerging sectors. Pursuing regulatory and standards-setting cooperation will benefit our economies.

Economic Statecraft
In October 2011, Secretary Clinton announced her vision of Economic Statecraft as a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy, that is, how we use the tools of diplomacy abroad to support trade and the rights of U.S. investors, leverage the strengths and expertise of the U.S. private sector in our economic engagement overseas and use diplomacy and our overseas presence to grow our economy at home by attracting foreign investment to the United States.

We have established an Economic Statecraft Task Force to elevate economic and commercial diplomacy goals and to ensure that we have the right people, support tools, and engagement platforms. The Task Force covers four principal areas of work: human capital; internal tools; external engagement; and policy opportunities.
We are doing much of this work already, especially at our overseas posts, to support such programs as the National Export Initiative and Select USA (which promotes job-creating foreign investment in the United States). The State Department puts special emphasis on support for entrepreneurship. Under the Secretary’s Economic Statecraft Initiative, we will scale up our efforts.

Several examples of how our State Department colleagues in Embassies abroad are already supporting U.S. companies include:

Embassy Berlin advocated in favor of Volkswagen’s decision to build a new $1 billion manufacturing plant in Chattanooga.

Embassy Bern’s advocacy and assistance to Virginia-based Aurora Flight Sciences led to its successful bid under an open procurement competition for a contract worth $5 million with the Swiss government. This medium-sized, new-to-export firm had to navigate a complex path of export controls in order to receive permission for the lease of its product. Aurora is now wellpositioned to bid on a much larger Swiss government tender worth as much as $250 million and that would create 300 well-paid, high-quality jobs in the United States.

Embassy Skopje advocated for the liberalization of our aviation relationship with Macedonia, resulting in the initialing of an Open Skies agreement that will benefit consumers and businesses in both countries. In addition, in 2012 Johnson Controls launched its second investment in Macedonia of approximately €20 million , complementing its parent activities in the United States while supporting Macedonia’s efforts to establish a sustainable, market-based economy.

Embassy Kyiv worked with the Commerce Department’s Commercial Law Development Program to combat counterfeit medicines. As a result, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation providing for stiffer sentences for individuals convicted of trafficking in counterfeit medicines.

Embassy Sarajevo, working closely with several U.S. software firms, encouraged the government of Bosnia to purchase licensed American software. In December 2010, the Bosnian government made its first payment on a $7.5 million licensing agreement with Microsoft for government workstations. This represents a great step forward in the protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Bosnia.

Embassy Moscow had a number of dramatic successes befitting Russia’s large, growing market. Over the course of 2011 the Embassy supported many major business deals – such as Boeing’s sale of 50 aircraft to Aeroflot and 40 planes to Russian airline UTAir, a joint venture between Exxon-Mobil and Rosneft to explore for oil and gas in the Arctic, and GE’s joint ventures with two Russian partners. I am confident that our advocacy both in Moscow and by officials here in Washington made a real difference.

High level U.S. advocacy with the Turkish government has been crucial in winning multimillion dollar bids for U.S. companies. In April 2011, helicopter producer Sikorsky was selected to negotiate a contract, with a potential value of $1.3 billion, to co-produce utility helicopters in Turkey. In January 2012, the Turkish National Police began final negotiations with Bell Helicopters for the sale of 15 Bell 429s with an option to purchase five additional aircraft.

Embassy Astana provides critical support to U.S. businesses seeking to benefit from Kazakhstan’s growing commercial potential, its intensified efforts to complete accession to the WTO, and its central role as a transit hub for EU-China trade. As the New Silk Road develops, Kazakhstan is almost certain to emerge as one of the vital links -- and vital avenues for private U.S. engagement -- across the region. Over the course of fiscal year 2011, our mission had 57 concrete export successes valued at $7.8 million and two commercial diplomacy successes valued at $3.4 million. On February 5, 2012, Air Astana, the national flag carrier of Kazakhstan, announced that it has agreed to purchase seven Boeing aircraft worth US $1.3 billion.

Beyond advocacy for specific business deals, we are also working to level the playing field for U.S. workers and businesses in Europe and around the world. One example is the agriculture sector. The volume of U.S. agricultural exports to the EU is strong and growing. Our 2011 agricultural exports to the EU were valued at $9.5 billion, up 8.2 % from the prior year. The USDA estimates that every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports supports about 7,800 American jobs across a variety of sectors. We want to push those numbers even higher.

Business is telling us there is more we can do to help them grow in an increasingly challenging world – and we at State want not only to respond boldly, but also to exceed their expectations. On February 21-22, Secretary Clinton invited 200 representatives of U.S. business support organizations and the private sector to participate in the Department’s first ever Global Business Conference. I was pleased to participate in several sessions. This is part of the Department’s effort to increase engagement with the private sector and support U.S. business.

Transatlantic Economic Council and Regulatory Cooperation
The business community, consumer organizations and other stakeholders in the United States and in Europe have also been an active and vocal constituency in support of the Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC. The TEC, established in 2007 and led by the White House and the European Commission, engages our most senior economic policymakers to promote economic growth and job creation on both sides of the Atlantic -- in particular by addressing regulatory barriers and fostering innovation.

As tariffs have fallen in recent decades, non-tariff measures or “behind the border” barriers to trade and investment have come to pose the most significant obstacles to our trade. Regulators in both the EU and the United States aim essentially for the same strong protections for the health and safety of our citizens, for our environment, and for our financial systems.

But differing approaches to regulation and to the development of standards can create barriers and slow the growth of trade and investment. Reducing unnecessary differences can create opportunities.

One way we are seeking to minimize the impact of unnecessary regulatory divergences on trade and investment is to examine closely our respective regulatory processes and to try to identify ways to make them more compatible and accessible. The TEC and the U.S. - EU High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, led by OMB, have spurred new discussion on our respective approaches to risk analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and the assessment of the impact of regulation on trade.

One of the highlights of the November 2011 TEC meeting was a comprehensive work plan on electric vehicles and associated infrastructure, in cooperation with the U.S.-EU Energy Council, business, standard-setting bodies, and scientists on both sides of the Atlantic.

A key component of this work plan is a decision to establish “interoperability centers” which will allow scientists from both sides of the Atlantic to share data, equipment, and testing methodologies. This in turn should set a foundation for compatible approaches and regulations in both markets and lead to interoperable e-cars and related infrastructure, such as charging stations and smart grids.

And while we have a common purpose on electric vehicles, the work that is done in the private sector to prioritize and develop the standards adopted for and applied to these new technologies is also critical. The standards-setting process is very complex with vital roles for government, business and standard-setters.

If the EU and the United States can together promote the creation of compatible, high quality, transatlantic standards in a variety of sectors or product areas in the short-to- medium term, our countries can encourage other nations to adhere to them and reduce the clutter of disjointed, unilateral standards that would impede trade and serve as protectionist devices.

Businesses then will be able to deploy technologies more effectively and more quickly across the globe, where demand for these products will only grow over time, supporting our shared desire for new sources of jobs and growth.

Additionally, common transatlantic approaches to regulation can serve as a model for other nations, in particular Russia, China, Brazil and India. Together we can provide incentives for others to embrace science-based strategies and approaches, working toward regulatory convergence and enabling mutual access to markets with fewer impediments and avoiding protectionist regulation.

This is an important point. Many countries don’t share our regulatory principles. Many are inclined to devise approaches that make it more difficult for our companies to do business in their markets – which over time will Balkanize the trading system.

The United States and the EU can both benefit if we work together to promote the adoption in third countries of market principles and internationally-accepted rules governing trade, finance, intellectual property, and investment. Better economic policies in third countries will help ensure fair competition and market access, increasing opportunities to generate exports and jobs in the United States and Europe.
I would also like to highlight our work on investment. We are very close to finalizing a set of investment principles that we have developed with the EU as part of the TEC Investment Working Group. We are hopeful that these principles can be used in our joint efforts on investment in third countries, as well as with our multilateral efforts at the OECD, UNCTAD, and elsewhere. In the months ahead, we will keep you informed how we intend to operationalize this set of principles.

We reference in the principles support for the OECD work on a preliminary set of criteria on State-owned and State-supported enterprises. This new breed of SOE can crowd out more innovative, smaller competitors, hurting both the host economy and foreign competitors.

We are working with the EU and others to push further work by the OECD Trade and Investment Committees to examine the cross-border impact of these practices and build on the existing work of the Corporate Governance and Competition Committees. We believe the investment and trade dimensions are particularly important and they are substantially interrelated.

U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth
At the U.S.-EU Summit in November 2011, President Obama and EU leaders pledged to make the U.S.-EU trade and investment relationship even stronger. They called upon the TEC to create a High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, co-chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht.

The purpose of this group is to identify and assess options for strengthening the transatlantic economic relationship in areas including, but not limited to: conventional barriers to trade in goods; barriers to trade in services and in investment; opportunities to reduce or prevent unnecessary non-tariff barriers to trade; and enhanced cooperation on common concerns involving third countries.

All options are on the table. USTR has had initial consultations with EU counterparts and is seeking input from all stakeholders, including Congress, as it conducts its work. Several major private sector organizations have issued studies or reports that make compelling arguments for an ambitious agenda in this area.

Opportunities in Russia and Turkey
I would like to say a few words about emerging trade and investment opportunities in the regions bordering the EU, in particular Turkey and Russia.

Putting our relations with Russia on a more constructive course is one of the Adminstration’s top priorities. We work together where we have common interests, while speaking frankly about areas of disagreement, holding firm to our values and principles.

This year we have set as a goal the broadening and strengthening of our cooperation, particularly economic and commercial ties. The unprecedented sales of aircraft by Boeing, the ExxonMobil Arctic deal and General Electric’s new joint ventures are a few of our key economic and commercial successes reflecting that improved cooperation. This work is in America’s economic interest and part of the Adminstration’s efforts to create American jobs. In 2011, American exports to Russia rose 39 percent -- more than twice as fast as our goods exports to the world as a whole. But even this increase leaves our exports to Russia at $8.2 billion for 2011 – about one-half of one percent of our total exports.

We are working closely with Russia in a variety of fora, including the multilateral financial institutions, the G8 and the G20, and in APEC – the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum – which Russia hosts this year following the hosting of the 2011 forum in the U.S. – and increasingly in the OECD. Russia’s ratification of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention required the passage of new laws that criminalized foreign bribery, with penalties for those who bribe foreign public officials to gain business advantages. As a signatory, Russia will undergo detailed reviews of its anti-bribery laws to confirm these laws are effectively implemented.

The U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, launched by Presidents Obama and Medvedev in 2009, now includes 20 working groups on various fields of cooperation, including a group on business development and economic relations. That working group explores cooperative approaches to boost two-way trade and investment, increase energy efficiency, modernize industry, grow small and medium-sized businesses, and develop training programs for managers in innovative and high-technology sectors. We also have recently launched a Working Group on Innovation, of which I am the U.S. co-chair. Our aim is to have Russian and American innovators cooperate in our mutual interest to produce benefits for both societies, and the first meeting of the group will take place March 27, the date of this hearing, in Silicon Valley.

In December 2011, Russia received an invitation to join the WTO. The Duma must now ratify Russia’s WTO accession package, which it is expected to do no later than July 2012. Thirty days later Russia will become a full-fledged member of the WTO. President Obama in his most recent State of the Union Address urged Congress to ensure “that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing… new markets like Russia.” If Congress does not enact the necessary legislation to terminate Jackson-Vanik with regard to Russia, when Russia becomes a member of the WTO U.S. exporters will not get the full benefits of Russia’s WTO membership, but our competitors will. This puts many of our industries at a serious disadvantage. Unlike other WTO members, the United States will not be able to turn to the WTO mechanisms, including dispute settlement procedures to ensure compliance in areas such as application of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, intellectual property, services market access, or WTO rules on antidumping.

We should not underestimate the opportunity to expand U.S. exports further to the world’s seventh largest economy. The trend is promising for American manufacturers, service industries, farmers, and U.S. job creation. And the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration estimates that every billion dollars of U.S. exports supports over 5,000 jobs.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment – enacted vis-à-vis the former Soviet Union -- long ago fulfilled its purpose: to support free emigration, particularly Jewish emigration. No such barriers to emigration exist in Russia today.

As U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said, terminating Jackson-Vanik “is not a gift to Russia. It’s a gift to America’s exporting businesses.” It means more jobs and economic growth here in the United States. Let me give you some concrete examples about how lifting Jackson- Vanik for Russia will help American business.

When Russia becomes a WTO Member, it will be required to comply with all provisions of the WTO’s Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures, including obligations related to the use of international standards and applying measures based on science. However, Russia would only be required to apply these rules to U.S. exports of meat, poultry, dairy, and other agricultural products if Congress terminates the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia. It is similar for intellectual property rights. Russia would be required to meet stronger requirements for enforcement of IPR held by American authors and inventors only if Congress lifts Jackson-Vanik application to Russia.
Make no mistake, Russia will join the WTO, but action is required from Congress to ensure that American companies reap the benefits.

Turkey is another strategic priority in Europe. We have seen significant growth in our trade relationship. From 2010 to 2011, trade between our two countries increased by 35 percent – however, exports from the United States still account for only about seven percent of Turkey’s total imports. Tremendous opportunities remain for enhanced two-way trade.

During their April 2009 meeting in Ankara, President Obama and Turkish President Gul pledged to strengthen the economic pillar of our relationship, leading to the creation of the cabinet-level Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation (FSECC). The FSECC and its various working level components advance discussions among experts from both governments on everything from protecting IPR to boosting energy trade, to positioning Istanbul as an international financial center.

These efforts have led, and will continue to lead, to new business opportunities – both trade and investment -- for U.S. companies. Moreover, they provide an opportunity to address barriers to trade that are affecting our exports, such as in agriculture biotechnology and pharmaceuticals in a constructive and meaningful manner.
Through the Economic Partnership Commission and the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement meetings, we are developing a more robust economic partnership with Turkey, and making progress towards resolving outstanding trade issues. I have had regular conversations with Deputy Prime Minister Babacan to explore what we both believe is the enormous potential for our countries to work more closely on a wide range of economic issues – both bilateral and multilateral. Turkey is one of the most dynamic economies in the world – and we value it as a strong current and future partner.

Turkey was designated one of six “Next Tier” markets with very high export potential for U.S. companies under the President’s National Export Initiative. In just two years, we have already doubled exports to that important country. Export promotion activities have focused on opportunities in Turkey’s aviation, defense, high-tech, and energy sectors, among others. Commerce Assistant Secretary Camunez in December 2011 led a trade mission to Turkey focused on renewable energy and energy efficiency, which is expected to generate significant business for U.S. companies.

Eurasia and Central Asia
I also want to comment on our work with the other countries in Eurasia and Central Asia. This region is rich in energy resources, growing at a fast pace economically, and strategically important.

Through U.S. assistance to improve the business-enabling environment, states such as Georgia have become leading reformers in the World Bank’s “Doing Business” index. In Kazakhstan, technical assistance co-funded by the United States and the Government of Kazakhstan helped to regularize the use of international standards for financial reporting. This helped improve the climate for investment, including substantial investments by U.S. energy companies

This region is also a key part of Secretary Clinton’s vision for the New Silk Road, which seeks to connect countries in the South and Central Asian region to each other through greater economic growth and trade.

Let me highlight Azerbaijan as one example. Since 2004, its economy has tripled in size. According to the World Bank, the poverty rate has dropped from 49 percent in 2003 to about 9 percent in 2009. Its imports from the United States, at $328 million in 2011, are about 30 percent greater than the 2010 total of $253 million. The Azerbaijan government has identified agriculture, information and communications technology, transportation, and tourism as priority economic sectors for development. U.S. firms can play a key role in this development. We are now re-launching the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission, which I plan to cochair with Azerbaijan’s Minister of Finance soon in Washington. And we support its efforts to become a member of the WTO.

Georgia is another example. Georgia has made remarkable progress since the Rose Revolution in carrying out reforms that have laid the foundation for future economic growth and development. To assist in these efforts, and following his meeting with President Saakashvili on January 30, President Obama announced the launch of a high-level bilateral dialogue to strengthen trade relations. We also continue to pursue avenues for deeper bilateral economic ties through the Economic Working Group of the Strategic Partnership Commission, which will next meet in Georgia later this year.

And finally, let me touch on Kazakhstan. We have established a number of bilateral dialogues, including the U.S. – Kazakhstan Energy Partnership, which is chaired by Deputy Secretary of Energy Poneman and Minister of Oil and Gas Mynbayev, an agreement on science and technology cooperation, and a memorandum of understanding on agricultural cooperation. U.S. exports are rising by 13 percent – from about $730 million in 2010 to more than $825 million in 2011. We are working with Kazakhstan to further integrate it into the world economy by supporting its negotiations to join the WTO, which should help to level the playing field and increase opportunities for U.S. firms in that market.

Conclusion
There is much work yet to be done, but our partnership with Europe -- and our partnerships with Eurasia and Central Asia -- have never been stronger or more important. I look forward to working closely with this subcommittee to further strengthen our relationship with this region and create more jobs and more opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses there and around the world.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

SEC ALLEGES INVESTING IN GOLD WAS LIKE CASINO GAMBLING

The following excerpt is from the Securities and Exchange Commission website:
March 26, 2012
SEC Charges Operator of Gold Coin Firm with Conducting Fraudulent Securities Offering
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed a civil injunctive action against David L. Marion of Minneapolis, Minnesota and his company, International Rarities Holdings, Inc. (“IR Holdings”), accusing them of conducting a fraudulent, unregistered offer and sale of approximately $1 million in securities.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, alleges that from at least November 2008 through July 2009, Marion and IR Holdings raised approximately $1 million from at least 26 investors through the offer and sale of IR Holdings securities. According to the complaint, Marion represented to investors that they were purchasing shares of IR Holdings, which he said was the parent company and 100% owner of International Rarities Corporation (“IR Corp.”). The complaint alleges that IR Corp. is a privately held Minneapolis based gold coin and bullion sales and trading firm that Marion also owned and operated. The complaint further alleges that Marion told investors that their investments were to be used to expand IR Holdings’ business and eventually take it public. According to the complaint, Marion’s representations were false because IR Holdings never owned IR Corp. and thus Marion sold investors shares of a worthless shell company. In addition, the complaint alleges that Marion did not use the investors’ funds to expand IR Holdings’ business and instead diverted the majority of the funds for his own personal use, including for casino gambling.

The SEC’s complaint charges Marion and IR Holdings with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, jointly and severally, against Marion and IR Holdings and a civil penalty against Marion.

THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner,Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 29, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:57 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. Before we start, I do want to welcome our University of Pittsburgh folks who are in the back of the room. Welcome. I’m from the Philadelphia area, but I have a lot of relatives out in Western Pennsylvania, so a proud – (laughter) – what is your problem?
QUESTION: (Laughter.) You’re a Notre Dame fan.
MR. TONER: But I’m a proud Pennsylvanian. Anyway, welcome. We’re not going to get into a sports --
QUESTION: Flyers or Penguins?
MR. TONER: Flyers, of course.
QUESTION: Well, then don’t – (laughter).
MR. TONER: Thanks, Matt. (Laughter.) We’ve already taken another (inaudible). I also want to welcome the information officers, or outgoing information officers, who are watching us from an undisclosed location. (Laughter.) Anyway, that’s all I got.
QUESTION: I don’t really have any – the only – my only question is about if you’ve figured out how much aid you’ve suspended to Mali.
MR. TONER: We don’t have those figures for you yet, Matt. And, well, I do have a better understanding, though, of why it is so difficult for us to determine these figures.
QUESTION: Because every calculator and computer --
MR. TONER: No, it’s not that at all.
QUESTION: -- in the entire federal government hasn’t worked for four days?
MR. TONER: No, that’s not – (laughter).
QUESTION: Oh. Okay. Well, that --
MR. TONER: That’s a good guess. That’s a good guess, but it’s not the answer. No, I mean, I think Toria touched upon it yesterday, which is that these assistance programs, while we can give you a ballpark figure, obviously, of the total amount of assistance, and I can tell you unequivocally that our military cooperation has been suspended, but the rest of the assistance package that we give to the Malian Government, or to the Malian – to Mali, part of it is – goes to the Malian Government, there are funds within programs that go to the Malian Government, so we need to just de-conflict all of this before we can get you guys a very accurate figure. So it’s partly something we need to do in-house before we can give you a reliable figure on exactly how much of the assistance is affected.
QUESTION: How much – what does the suspension of military aid mean for the regional security initiatives which are so important, the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership and all of that, when you’ve got Mali sort of as part of a larger regional framework? How do you detach yourself from one element and keep the framework together?
MR. TONER: Well, that’s precisely – again, that’s another piece of this, if you will, and – that we’re looking at. What I’m talking about when I talk about specific military assistance that’s been cut off, I’m talking about FMF funding as well as security assistance. But we are trying to – as you correctly stated, Mali is part of the broader initiatives, counterterrorism initiatives, and we need to de-conflict that as well.
QUESTION: Okay. But that’s something you’re looking at --
MR. TONER: Yeah. Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- and that’s something that you’re studying on how to do.
MR. TONER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: And just again, on --
MR. TONER: And it is obviously of concern to us because we are concerned, clearly, about AQIM’s presence in the region, and these are valuable programs, so there’s a price to pay.
QUESTION: The ECOWAS mission, which you guys seem to think or hope it was going to get something done in Mali, was prevented from landing in Bamako by pro-junta protestors, what’s your assessment of that? And what’s your state of communication with the coup leadership?
MR. TONER: Well, we’re obviously very disappointed that this chiefs of mission delegation wasn’t able to land in Mali, in Bamako yesterday because, as you said, there were these demonstrations on the ground. We do know that the ECOWAS CHODs, or the chiefs of defense, met with Captain Sanogo in Bamako yesterday. They demanded a return to civilian rule. And we do know that – or we are in close contact, obviously, with ECOWAS as we move forward. But – and we support their efforts to achieve a swift return to civilian rule in Mali, but obviously this is a disappointment that they weren’t able to land and actually talk to the mutineers.
QUESTION: ECOWAS has suggested that part of their response could include a military dimension. Is that something that the United States would support?
MR. TONER: I think we’re still very much of the mindset that there can be a very – we hope very rapid diplomatic solution to this.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: On Cuba, the Pope’s visit, I was wondering the assessment of the comments he made in Cuba. Specifically, he was quite critical of the U.S. embargo. I presume it’s a longstanding position of the Vatican, but he said that it imposes undue hardship on the people of Cuba. Is that – is there a reaction that you have to that, or is there --
MR. TONER: Not really. I mean, we’ve been quite clear why we have the embargo in place. We’ve long said as well that our Cuba policy is focused on improving relations between American people and the Cuban people, and we’ve taken steps to that end to improve that kind of communication and that kind of cooperation. But we obviously welcomed his visit to Cuba. It was a good opportunity for him to deliver a message of religious and human rights – religious freedom, rather, and human rights to the Cuban Government. And we believe that those messages were obviously conveyed in his conversations with Cuban leaders.
QUESTION: Do you know if he raised the case of Alan Gross?
MR. TONER: You know what? I haven’t been able to confirm that. We did, obviously – I think Toria mentioned yesterday that we did raise it. I believe he had just returned to Rome, and I don’t know that we’ve received any kind of readout --
QUESTION: Then how do you --
MR. TONER: -- of Vatican City.
QUESTION: Then how do you have reason to believe that he raised these issues?
MR. TONER: These issues about human rights and religious freedom?
QUESTION: If you haven’t had --
QUESTION: Alan Gross, specifically.
MR. TONER: Oh, Alan Gross.
QUESTION: Well, no. I’m – more broadly than Alan Gross. You said we understand, or something like that; we believe that he conveyed those messages.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Well --
QUESTION: Why do you think that, outside of what his – what he said publicly? Do you have any knowledge --
MR. TONER: Well, I am (inaudible) some of his public statements, and --
QUESTION: But do you have knowledge that the Pope did in fact, with Cuban authorities, raise cases of --
MR. TONER: I don’t have a specific --
QUESTION: -- Alan Gross or anyone else?
MR. TONER: -- readout of his actual meetings with the Cuban leaders, no.
Yeah. Go ahead, Lalit.
QUESTION: On the BRICS summit in Delhi, do you have anything to say on the outcome of the BRICS summit?
MR. TONER: Well, we’ve reviewed the leaders’ Delhi declaration and believe that their efforts to engage in global multilateral institutions productively can only strengthen the international system. We also welcome their commitment to Afghanistan’s future in supporting the global economic recovery.
QUESTION: And on Iran, do you feel that you have differences with the BRICS on Iran issue?
MR. TONER: No. Look, we’re engaged, obviously, with close consultations, as we’ve said many times, with governments on the requirements of our specific law. And in all our consultations, we’re making very clear the importance of reducing reliance on Iranian oil, and also unwinding countries’ business dealings with the Central Bank of Iran, and we’re going to continue those discussions.
QUESTION: But they are opposed to any military options in Iran. They want the diplomatic options to be continued?
MR. TONER: Look, well, the President’s said that no option has been taken off the table. He’s also been very clear that there’s still – we believe there’s still time for a diplomatic solution here.
QUESTION: They are also moving towards developing a joint developmental bank. Do you think this will be a duplicacy of the other multinational institutions that you already have?
MR. TONER: No. I think I spoke to that. I think that we believe that their engagement in multilateral institutions, global multilateral institutions, can only strengthen our international system as well as we appreciated their comments in support of the global economic recovery.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MR. TONER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: To Syria?
MR. TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: In advance of the conference, I was wondering if there – if – A, if there’s anything you can say about any additional money that Secretary Clinton might be bringing to the SNC. And could you talk about – when we were in Tunis, she announced 10 million for the Syrian people and everything. How much money has the U.S. to date given specifically directly to the opposition?

MR. TONER: Well, first off, I did want to note that the Secretary did have a very good meeting yesterday with Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, who’s the president – as you know, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross. That was at the State Department here yesterday, and they did obviously discuss the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the ICRC’s work there. The ICRC, as you know, has been critical in providing much needed humanitarian assistance and protection to the Syrian people under incredibly difficult circumstances, and certainly the Secretary was very supportive of their work.

In answer to your question, in terms of new money, I’m certainly not going to get out in front of what the Secretary may or may not announce when she’s on the ground in Istanbul. In terms of the 10 million – I’m sorry – you were asking how much has actually been – has been disbursed?
QUESTION: Well, I know the U.S. has given, like, a – money to the Syrian people and to humanitarian issues. How much U.S. money has gone specifically to the SNC or directly to the coffers of other – just opposition at large?
MR. TONER: Oh, how much money has been disbursed to actual – to the actual Syrian opposition --
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR. TONER: -- versus through humanitarian assistance and –
QUESTION: Correct.
MR. TONER: Look, I don’t have an answer for you –
QUESTION: Can you check that, please?
MR. TONER: -- so I'll take the question. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Also, maybe – just, like, can you take a question about whether any materiel has been provided to them, like phones or GPS things or –
MR. TONER: Well, I think we did – we have talked before about some nonlethal assistance.
QUESTION: Have you gone through exactly what it is that you’ve provided?
MR. TONER: We've not, obviously, delineated what that is, but there’s lots of very good reasons not to get into too much detail there.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: So I’m limited in what I can say.
QUESTION: Would that be covered in this dollar figure that you’d be looking for?
MR. TONER: Sure. We can try to (inaudible).
QUESTION: There’s lots of very good reasons not to get into that?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Well, what would –
MR. TONER: For the protection –
QUESTION: -- three of those be?
MR. TONER: For the protection of these opposition leaders. Obviously, they are in-country --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: -- and whenever we're talking about our outreach – and you know this from your discussions with Ambassador Ford throughout this ongoing struggle in Syria – that we’ve been very tight-lipped for obvious reasons about our dealings with the SNC.
QUESTION: Yeah, that’s one reason.
MR. TONER: Okay. That’s the primary reason.
QUESTION: Assad said that –
MR. TONER: It’s an important reason.
QUESTION: -- that he welcomes the basic idea or premise of the Annan proposal, but something has to be done about, his word, “terrorists.” What’s this building’s reaction?
MR. TONER: Our reaction is that we’ve – now day three after the letter sent to Annan that they agreed with his proposal as a way forward, we’ve seen absolutely nothing on the ground that indicates that they’re adhering to its calls for Syrian artillery and heavy weaponry to go back to barracks and for a ceasefire to allow humanitarian assistance to be put in place. To date we’ve seen no steps in that direction. So it’s not surprising, but it’s discouraging and disappointing.
QUESTION: Does this increase the appetite among the U.S. and its allies for some sort of intervention?
MR. TONER: Look, we’ve been very clear where we stand on the prospect of a military intervention. We want to see, and support very much, the efforts of Kofi Annan and give him the time and diplomatic space that he needs to make this work. But again, we’re very clear that we want to see a ceasefire in place, we want to see an end to the violence as soon as possible, so that we can get humanitarian assistance into the beleaguered Syrian people.
QUESTION: But shouldn’t the threat of some sort of outside intervention be raised in order to force the Syrians to comply? I mean, agreements can be reached, nice things can be said, and people are still being attacked.
MR. TONER: Well, what we’ve been very clear about all along here is increasing international pressure on Assad, and you saw out of Baghdad a very strong show of support for Kofi Annan and his plan out of the Arab League summit. We’re going to increase that pressure on him both economically and politically. That’s why these countries are meeting in Istanbul on Sunday. They’re going to discuss new ways that we can apply pressure. But, fundamentally, we want to see an end to the violence, we want to see a political transition, and we want to see dialogue.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Russia?
MR. TONER: Did you have –
QUESTION: No. No. That was another –
QUESTION: What’s your reaction to the Arab summit in Baghdad? Are you satisfied with the declaration –
MR. TONER: Sorry. I’ll get to you. That’s okay, Scott.
QUESTION: Sorry, Scott.
MR. TONER: No. That’s okay. I guess it’s related, because I did mention the Arab League summit in my last –
QUESTION: You mentioned Baghdad.
MR. TONER: Look, it was obviously, from what we’ve seen, a success. As I said, they did talk about Syria and voiced their very strong support for Kofi Annan’s efforts. We certainly congratulate Iraq on its preparation and convening of the Arab summit. All indications are that it, as I said, had gone well, and Iraq should be proud of what it’s been able to accomplish in recent years, and we believe the hosting of this summit is indicative of its positive role in the region and among the community of nations.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Saudi, I know that Toria yesterday went through some of the things that were going to be on the Secretary’s agenda as far as security and cooperation in the GCC, but I’m wondering: Is the Secretary going with any questions for the Saudis about oil prices, about how they’re going to respond to any potential release of emergency reserves? Is that on the agenda?
MR. TONER: Look, I mean, we’re going to talk – and I think Toria spoke to this at length yesterday about all of the regional issues, including Iran and our bilateral discussions, but I’m not going to get into any great detail from here.
QUESTION: So not even whether or not oil is even going to be a part of that discussion?
MR. TONER: I would say that they’ll talk about regional issues, including our concerns about Iran and our – and as we’ve talked to a number of allies and partners about our legislation pertaining to dealings with Iran over its oil. So –
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: DR Congo. European Union monitors came out with a report about the November elections saying it wasn’t credible, that there are serious allegations of fraud. Does the U.S. have a reaction to that, about how you see the election? And in light of this –
MR. TONER: Sean, I’ll have to see if we have an updated reaction. I know at the time we said that there were – we were concerned about many of the reports of fraud and problems, basically, involving polling. But let me check and see if there’s an update on that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Russia, please. Ambassador McFaul has a series of tweets suggesting that someone’s listening to his telephone calls and intercepting his email. Do you believe that your ambassador in Moscow is being spied on?
MR. TONER: Well, I read Mike’s tweets, and I believe he was simply asking a rhetorical question commenting on the fact that wherever he goes in Moscow, he’s finding a presence of – large media presence, some of it hostile, and he’s wondering how they’re getting word about his schedule, so I think it was simply a rhetorical question he was asking.
QUESTION: Was he suggesting that journalists themselves – or is he directing this at the media themselves for perhaps hacking or – his information? Or does he think that the government is giving the journalists this information?
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t think he’s directing it at the journalists or at the media itself. I think he’s asking the question about how details of his personal schedule are getting out to the media.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Are you asking those questions?
QUESTION: So just to – so just – so, then, if he’s not directing it at the media, he must be directing it at the government.
MR. TONER: I’ll just say he was asking a rhetorical question.
Go ahead, Lalit.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan, Ambassador Grossman’s trip back home, did he get any commitment from the European countries on supporting the Afghan security forces post-2014? And that, I believe, was the main purpose of his trip.
MR. TONER: It was the main purpose – well, one of the main purposes of his trip was to talk about ongoing support for Afghanistan. I don’t, frankly, have a dollar figure for you. That – it’s really incumbent on these countries that he spoke with about to talk about their own support for Afghanistan transition and Afghan security forces moving forward past 2014. I can just say that they were constructive conversations that he had throughout his trip, and we’ve – we believe there’s broad support moving forward for Afghan security leadership.
QUESTION: I’m not asking about exact dollar figures --
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: -- but did he receive any commitment that Afghan security forces will be receiving money from – or any kind of financial assistance from these European countries after 2014, which they needed?
MR. TONER: Well, again, it’s – I mean, the – part of the intent of this trip was to talk about support for the Afghan Government as we move forward towards 2014. It was also – as we’ve said, it was also in preparation for the NATO Summit in Chicago where many of these issues will be discussed. And I’ll just say that he, throughout, had very constructive conversations.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did he --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- seek support for Afghanistan post-2014? Post-2014, did he seek support for Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: Well, I think what we’re talking about is the post-2014 scenario and how we could all support Afghanistan as it moves into a security lead throughout the country. So, I mean, that’s certainly among the topics.
QUESTION: One more?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Maldives, actually --
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: -- the former President Nasheed, he’s in the U.S. He actually went on Letterman last night.
MR. TONER: I missed that. I didn’t stay up that late.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) But he was voicing disappointment with the position of the State Department regarding the events in February, saying that the U.S. should be more robust in pushing for new elections. Does the U.S. plan to meet him during his visit? And more broadly, what’s the U.S. position going forward on elections in Maldives?
MR. TONER: Well, look, in answer to your first question, I’m not sure. I’ll have to take the question on whether we have any meetings planned with him. I don’t have any update on our basic position towards Maldives. I mean, obviously, our Assistant Secretary Robert Blake’s been very engaged with the – with Maldivian officials, and we’ve been pressing for them to address the concerns about the transfer of power there.
QUESTION: Can I --
MR. TONER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- just return to the Russia question again?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I’m wondering – and I apologize because I’m not a big student of Twitter and I don’t follow it that seriously, but --
MR. TONER: You’re talking to somebody who’s also not a big student of Twitter, but --
QUESTION: Well, why is a U.S. ambassador tweeting rhetorical questions about something so sensitive as suggesting that he’s being spied on by his hosts? I mean, does that fall within the bounds of this Department’s official line on what our senior officials should be saying over something like Twitter?
MR. TONER: Well, many of our chiefs of mission have Twitter accounts, and they are allowed to express themselves. We have full confidence in their ability to express themselves on matters of U.S. policy. And also, as you know, Twitter’s also an informal way to communicate with many of these host country populations, whether it be Russia or anywhere else in the world. So we believe it’s an effective communications tool, and we encourage our chiefs of mission to use it.
QUESTION: Sorry, you said he was tweeting in Russian?
MR. TONER: No, I believe it was English.
QUESTION: No, he was tweeting in English. And exactly how many Russians does he think are going to get that message?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t have a --
QUESTION: Are they all using Google Translator or something like that to translate it? No?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t know what – whether he also – I believe the --
QUESTION: I mean, who is the rhetorical question intended for?
MR. TONER: I believe the mission also tweets out in Russian as well.
QUESTION: Right, but I guess the question would be: Who was his question – who is the rhetorical question addressed at? Would it be --
MR. TONER: And the rhetorical answer is to his followers on Twitter.
QUESTION: Well, okay, but why?
MR. TONER: Again, I mean, if you followed any – I don’t know if you follow Twitter, the Twittersphere, but it is a form of communication used by many people, whether they’re within the Department of State or outside the Department of State, as a way of informal communication. I don’t know how else to put it.
QUESTION: Well, who was he informally communicating with? Is he trying to send a message to the government that I know what you’re up to?
MR. TONER: I said it best before when he was asking a rhetorical question about --
QUESTION: But you said that it wasn’t --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- directed at the journalists who actually have --
MR. TONER: Precisely.
QUESTION: -- his schedule or his information or whatever. So it must be directed at someone else that he believes is getting that information.
MR. TONER: Sure, but I don’t know – I mean, you’re asking me, was it directed at the Russian Government, and I don’t know that.
QUESTION: You don’t? You don’t know that this was directed at the Russian Government?
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: Have you asked him?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t think – he was asking a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question, in and of itself, is not directed at anyone.
QUESTION: But clearly, it’s becoming an issue, so is the State Department going to clarify with its emissary in Moscow --
MR. TONER: I have --
QUESTION: -- what he meant by this?
MR. TONER: I have spoken to him about it and that’s – and I’ve said it’s a rhetorical question.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, one of these apparently rhetorical tweets asks where are the laws regarding these things in Russia. So who is that directed at?
MR. TONER: Again, these are ways for chiefs of mission to raise issues for discussion. They’re directed at a broad number of followers to air these issues out, if you will. It’s an informal way to communicate. I mean, Matt’s trying to get me to say who his followers are. I can’t tell you off the top of my head who follows Ambassador McFaul in Russia. I would imagine it’s a broad cross-section of both Russian society as well as U.S. and other people – citizens.
QUESTION: Actually, I wasn’t asking you who his Twitter followers are. I can find that out by going on Twitter myself, as you can. Has the Embassy raised this with the Russian Government?
MR. TONER: We have not.
QUESTION: You have not. So this is 21st century diplomacy is now to go on Twitter and launch rhetorical questions into the Twitterverse --
MR. TONER: Let me clarify. Let me clarify. I am not aware that we have. I’m not aware that we have. I can ask if we’ve formally raised it.
QUESTION: I mean, is there a concern? Does the – is the Department concerned that Ambassador McFaul’s personal schedule is being leaked to Russian media outlets?
MR. TONER: Again, I’ve been very clear that he raised a rhetorical question asking about why his schedule was --
QUESTION: And the question is – I understand that. But I’m wondering if this is an issue of concern for the Department or if it’s just his own – if he doesn’t like being mobbed by paparazzi when he goes to The Bolshoi.
MR. TONER: These are not as – necessarily outings to The Bolshoi.
QUESTION: I don’t know. What --
MR. TONER: These are his meetings around town with --
QUESTION: Well, whatever. When he – okay, when he goes to meetings – when he goes to his meetings, I mean, is this a problem – is this a personal problem for him that he’s publicity shy, which I doubt, or is this a problem for the U.S. Government? I guess that’s the question. So if you could take that --
MR. TONER: Yeah, and I’ll take the question of whether we’ve raised it officially.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You just said that he was going to meetings. Those are not private. That’s his public schedule. I’m a little confused now because it keeps rotating. Is he concerned about his own personal --
MR. TONER: Well, again, it wouldn’t necessarily – we don’t put out as we do here with the Secretary, necessarily. Again, I’d have to find out exactly, but it’s not incumbent on any mission anywhere in the world to publicize the ambassador’s schedule for that day, whether they be public meetings or not.
QUESTION: And do you think it’s very smart for an ambassador to be doing this kind of public tweeting when it’s being disrespectful or making some accusations to its host country --
MR. TONER: I wouldn’t characterize it as disrespectful. As I said, it is a new way of communication. It’s a very effective way to reach a broad audience, so – and we support chiefs of mission using Twitter.
QUESTION: Just to follow-up, apparently Ambassador McFaul asked the – there’s video of him on Russian television asking the journalists where they got their information from. And he asked them directly if they’d been reading his emails, Blackberrys, and saying it’s a violation of the Geneva Convention. So when you say it’s – when he says something is a violation of the Geneva Convention --
QUESTION: Geneva or Vienna?
QUESTION: Geneva. That’s what he said.
MR. TONER: I haven’t seen the tweets, so I can’t comment on it. Sorry.
QUESTION: So but does he feel that the host – he must have meant Vienna, but do you think that the Russians are in violation of their treaty obligations to protect the ambassador’s communications?
MR. TONER: Look, as I said to Matt, I will take the question as to whether we have raised our concerns about whether this is in violation of his personal rights or his Vienna Convention rights with the Russian Government.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Would you remind other governments that even though there’s nothing specifically mentioning the Twittersphere or social media in the Vienna conventions that there are norms and practices that the U.S. expects when it comes to the treatment of their diplomatic personnel?
MR. TONER: Ros, I’m not sure I follow the question. Would I --
QUESTION: Well, it’s just as it’s not good form to go snooping through somebody’s garbage can, don’t try to break into their email to find out what their schedule is.
MR. TONER: Well, that goes without saying, that email is, we believe, especially official email, would be protected, yes.
QUESTION: Really. Well, that didn’t stop you from laughing it up about President Assad’s stolen email the other day – other week.
MR. TONER: I don’t know that we laughed it up. I think we said it’s --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, it was pretty --
MR. TONER: I don’t think we laughed it up. I think it was a sad commentary on the --
QUESTION: So it’s okay to steal other people’s email unless it’s a U.S. official?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t think we ever condoned that as well.
QUESTION: You didn’t, but you certainly had a lot to say about President Assad’s email. So did the White House. And yet that was stolen.
MR. TONER: I don’t know how they obtained that. You’re talking about The Guardian? You’ll have to ask The Guardian.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: It’s been reported that North Koreans and Americans will be meeting in Berlin this weekend. Are there any U.S. officials attending, and if so --
MR. TONER: I apologize. Just rewind a little bit. Who’s meeting with who?
QUESTION: North Koreans and Americans will be meeting in Berlin.
MR. TONER: Is this is a track two thing? Is this a --
QUESTION: That’s all I – a diplomat Lee --
MR. TONER: These aren’t American officials --
QUESTION: -- and American officials. Former State Department --
MR. TONER: Okay, former State Department. No, I’m not aware that we have any official Americans going to that meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: There’s a story in India’s Telegraph newspaper that the confirmation of – nomination of India’s – U.S. Ambassador to India Powell is being held up in the Senate for more than two months now for some reasons in the Senate. Is that an issue of concern to you, because absence of an ambassador in India --
MR. TONER: Well, look, anytime we don’t have an ambassador at post, it’s always an issue of concern for us. We like to have our ambassadors – our nominees confirmed as quickly as possible and out to their missions, clearly. But we’re also confident that – or hopeful that Congress will move forward in as fast as a manner as possible to confirm all outstanding nominations.
QUESTION: And what is --
MR. TONER: And we’re going to consult with them as we move forward.
QUESTION: What is holding the nomination from being confirmed?
MR. TONER: You’ll have to ask Congress. I’m not – I don’t know.
QUESTION: Are you aware of how many nominees there are who have – or either – that have not – ambassadorial nominees who have not yet had hearings scheduled?
MR. TONER: I don’t. I’ll have to check the -- yeah.
QUESTION: I think it’s a rather large number, no? Something that prompted the Secretary to suggest at the chiefs of missions conference that people might want to think about – current ambassadors might want to think about extending their tours? Is it --
MR. TONER: Yeah. I’m not sure. I don’t have a figure for you, Matt. I’d have to take it.
QUESTION: Well, isn’t it – I know she said that in her kind of address. But isn’t it now a kind of regulation or edict in the Department that nobody will move into their onward post till their successor is confirmed?
MR. TONER: Again, I’d have to take the question, Elise. But as I said, it’s always – we always want to – while we have every confidence in our deputy chiefs of mission to act as charges in any mission, we want to see a quick turnover.
QUESTION: Speaking of ambassadors and charges, what’s the status of naming an ambassador to Burma? There’s – obviously, the --
MR. TONER: That’s a White House question.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary meet with the foreign minister from Tunisia on Tuesday, last Tuesday?
MR. TONER: He was here?
QUESTION: I don’t know if it’s the foreign minister or a senior official from the ministry of --
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question. I don’t believe she did meet with any --
QUESTION: Because he met with Under Secretary Hormats. It was on schedule.
MR. TONER: Yeah, I’m not sure who it was. I don’t think it was the foreign minister, but I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: And did she call the Tunisian foreign – prime minister?
MR. TONER: Did she call the Tunisian prime minister?
QUESTION: There’s reports on the wires that she --
MR. TONER: Well, you know we issued – she – we issued a statement earlier about --
QUESTION: Yeah. She might’ve just congratulated him on winning the lottery.
MR. TONER: -- assistance to Tunisia, but I don’t know that she actually spoke with him this week. But obviously she was recently in Tunisia, where they discussed ways that we can help Tunisia as it bridges a very difficult democratic transition as well as economically.
QUESTION: I think there’s a Tunisian media report saying that she spoke with him yesterday.
MR. TONER: Yeah. I’ll have to confirm. I didn’t get a readout of her latest calls.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: That it? Thanks guys.