DOL ANNOUNCES $35 MILLION IN GRANTS FOR SELF-EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
US Labor Department announces availability of $35 million in grants to implement or improve Self-Employment Assistance programs
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced the availability of $35 million in funds to develop, enhance and promote Self-Employment Assistance programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, guidance released today clarifies that states may enroll participants who are currently receiving or eligible for federally funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits.

This announcement is the latest in a series of innovative reforms to the Unemployment Insurance program made possible through the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which was signed by President Obama in February.

"Self-Employment Assistance has proven to be a valuable tool in helping many unemployed Americans realize the dream of business ownership," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "These grants will help states improve and expand the program while strengthening the economy and creating new jobs as more startups launch and grow."

Participants in these voluntary programs are provided with financial assistance equal to their Unemployment Insurance benefits while they receive important entrepreneurial training and resources to help launch their own businesses. In order to allow participants to devote full-time attention to creating new businesses that have the potential to create additional jobs, state work search requirements are waived.

Grant money can be used by states to implement a new Self-Employment Assistance program or improve the administration of current programs, as well as to promote programs and enroll eligible participants. In order to receive federal funding, states' UI laws must meet the Labor Department's requirements. Five states (Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Oregon) have active Self-Employment Assistance programs and are eligible now to apply for these grant funds. The other states have until June 30, 2013, to submit complete applications to the department.

The Labor Department will work with interested states to assist them in developing legislation as needed, and to implement Self-Employment Assistance programs. The department also will work with states on outreach strategies to identify potential entrepreneurs who are good candidates to start their own businesses. Additionally, the department is partnering with the Small Business Administration to provide technical assistance to states and to ensure that SBA resources are leveraged as states design Self-Employment Assistance programs.

Pokročilá laserová technologie na cestě do vesmíru

Pokročilá laserová technologie na cestě do vesmíru

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA INTERVIEW WITH JAKE TAPPER

FROM :  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and ABC News Jake Tapper May 27, 2012
Secretary Panetta Interview with ABC News Jake Tapper
             JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, everyone. George Stephanopoulos has a well-deserved morning off. This Memorial Day weekend as the country pays tribute to its fallen heroes, we also remember that for the eleventh consecutive Memorial Day, we are a nation at war with 88,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting in Afghanistan. And countless others monitoring hot spots around the globe. On war ships in the Persian Gulf amidst the nuclear standoff with Iran. Down the Arabian peninsula in Yemen as al Qaeda continues to threaten to attack the U.S. homeland. In Pakistan, where tensions with our supposed ally continue to mount. And from the South China Sea and the world's largest nation, China, seeks to build its military might.
             And to talk about all of this, let's bring in our exclusive headliner, the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. Secretary Panetta, welcome back to "This Week."
              LEON PANETTA, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Nice to be with you, Jake.
             TAPPER: So, I want to get to some specifics in a moment. But before I do, just broadly speaking, in this era of terrorist threats, nonstop terrorist threats, as a former director of the CIA and the current secretary of defense, what is it like having this responsibility? How often does a terrifying message come on your desk about some threat, and you just think, oh my God?
             PANETTA: Well, you don't get a hell of a lot of sleep, let's put it that way. There are a lot of challenges. You know, as director of the CIA, got an awful lot of intelligence about all the horrible things that could go on across the world. In this job, I get the same intelligence but I'm responsible for a lot of the operations dealing with those threats. And you know it's a much bigger place than it was at the CIA. Got three million people.
             But I have probably the greatest strength of our country is the men and women in uniform that serve this country, put their lives on the line. And that's something that I get to see up close and I'm very proud of them and proud of what they do.
             TAPPER: So, turning to Afghanistan, which might be one of the biggest challenges – definitely one of the biggest challenges that the nation faces right now and you face. At the NATO summit, President Obama and the administration made it clear that the combat mission ends come midnight December 31, 2014. But the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees just returned from Afghanistan and they say that from their briefings there, they believe that the Taliban is actually stronger now than since the surge began.
             Do we have a plan in place in case after the U.S. combat mission ends, Afghanistan or parts of it start falling to the Taliban?
             PANETTA: Well the most important point is that we're not going anyplace. We're gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan. We'll continue to work with them on counterterrorism. We'll continue to provide training, assistance, guidance.
             We'll continue to provide support.
             So, we're going to be there. And so will ISAF - will be there for awhile. The important thing right now is the mission that Afghanistan is all about. And the fundamental mission is an Afghanistan that can secure and control itself so that the Taliban never again or al Qaeda never again is able to find a safe haven from which to conduct attacks in this country.
             We are making good progress. I mean, the Taliban, my view is that they have been weakened. We have not seen them able to conduct any kind of organized attack to regain any territory that they've lost. We've seen levels of violence going down. We've seen an Afghan army that is much more capable at providing security. We've seen transitions take place where we're beginning to transition. Now we're at about 50 percent of their population that's been transitioned to their control. We're going to be at 75 percent --
             TAPPER: Right, but Secretary--
             PANETTA: So, we're on the right track.
             TAPPER: But you're not naive. I mean, there are problems with the Afghan forces, and you – (crosstalk) the military is always planning for a worst-case scenario. I'm assuming there is some sort of plan just in case the residual forces left there are not enough.
             PANETTA: Listen, we still have a fight on our hands. The American people need to know that. The world needs to know that we still have a fight on our hands. We're still dealing with the Taliban. Although they've been weakened, they are resilient. They'll continue to conduct attacks. We'll continue to see IED attacks taking place. We have the concern about the safe haven in Pakistan, the fact that they can seek refuge in that safe haven, that's a concern. And we have continuing concerns about the level of corruption in Afghan society. All of those things are continuing challenges.
            But we're on the right track. General Allen has laid out a plan that moves us in the direction of an Afghanistan that can truly govern and secure itself. And that is going to be our greatest safeguard to the potential of the Taliban ever coming back.
            TAPPER: At the NATO summit in Chicago, General Allen who is the commander of the NATO alliance troops there, ISAF troops, provided a briefing. And he was asked about the so-called green on blue attacks--Afghan army, Afghan police forces attacking U.S. forces. And this was his response. I want to get your reaction.
             (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
             GENERAL ALLEN: There's a good news story here, and that is that the Afghans have arrested more than 160 individuals in the last several months that they believe could have been in the throes of planning for an attack on ISAF forces. So, the process is working.
             (END VIDEO CLIP)
             TAPPER: The process is working. Now, I understand 160 individuals not killing American soldiers -- is good that they haven't killed them or haven't attempted to kill them. But that does not seem like a good news story to me, that there are 160 Afghan security forces that were considered to be threats. That seems like a lot.
             PANETTA: Well, as General Allen pointed out, we are making progress on that front. It is a concern. Of course it's a concern. It's the kind of thing that the Taliban would use to come at our forces. And it's an indication again that because they can't organized efforts to come at us, they're going to use this kind of tactic to try to frighten us.
             And it's not going to work for several reasons. Number one, the Afghan army has put into place a very thorough effort to review those that are serving--to look at their background, to check them out. And that process is working. That's the reason that we've gotten 160 that concerned us.
             Secondly, our forces are going to be very vigilant as well in terms of how they operate to make sure that they watch their backs as we go through this process.
             And, thirdly, I think overall, what we're seeing is the basic training that's going into the Afghan army is one that truly is testing the qualifications and quality of individuals that are going to be fighting on behalf of Afghanistan. All of those elements give us some level of confidence that we can protect against that kind of threat.
             JAKE TAPPER, ABC HOST: (Tapper clears his throat) Mitt Romney's had this to say about the president's Afghan strategy and the date certain.
             (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
             FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You just scratch your head and say how can you be so misguided? And so naïve? His secretary of defense said that on a date certain, the middle of 2013, we're going to pull out our combat troops from Afghanistan. He announced that. He announced that so the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it. Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the day you're pulling out your troops?
             (END VIDEO CLIP)
             TAPPER: Now, first of all, there's a factual error that Mr. Romney made that I'm sure you want to correct, but the larger point about giving a date certain for the withdrawal or the end of the combat mission, could you address that as well after you correct him?

 (LAUGHTER)
            PANETTA: Well, Okay. You know, I think without getting into the campaign rhetoric of what he's asserting, I think you've got 50 nations in NATO that agree to a plan in Afghanistan. That's what happened in Chicago and it is a fulfillment of Lisbon. It's the Lisbon agreement, an agreement that, you know, others, President Bush, President Obama, everyone has agreed is the direction that we go in in Afghanistan.
            What is that direction? It's to take us to a point where we draw down by the end of 2014. In together, out together. And part of that transition involves in 2013 being able to take the combat mission and be able to put that in the hands of the Afghanistan army so that they can conduct those operations.
             We'll be there. We'll still provide support. We'll still protect ourselves in that process. That is the plan that has been agreed to. And it's a plan that is working.
             And very frankly, the only way to get this accomplished in terms of the transition that we have to go through is to be able to set the kind of timelines that have been set here in order to ensure that we fulfill the mission of an Afghanistan that governs and secures itself. That's what this is about.
             TAPPER: You can't get the Afghans to do this without saying we're leaving on this date?
             PANETTA: We can't get them to do it without saying we have to partner with you in an effort, working together, to arrive at points where we can make a successful transition. This is about transition.
             This is not being there forever. The United States is not going to be there forever. We shouldn't be there forever. Neither should ISAF be there forever. But what we should do is be able to do everything possible to ensure that the Afghan country has the sovereignty to secure and govern itself. That's going to be the key to success in the future, and that's what we're putting in place today.
             TAPPER: But you've talked about -- you mentioned Pakistan just a minute ago about the fact that there is a safe haven in Pakistan for insurgents -- for the insurgents for the Taliban. This week, the Pakistani doctor who helped the U.S. find bin Laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison by the Pakistan government.
            Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the arrest was unwarranted. Congress has proposed cutting aid to Pakistan by $33 million, $1 million for each year of his sentence.
            Realistically, is there anything that the U.S. can do to help this doctor?
            It certainly seems like this is a shot across the bow, saying anyone who ever helps the United States, you know, the U.S. is not going to be there, and you're going to be held accountable by your own government.
             PANETTA: It's -- it is so difficult to understand and it's so disturbing that they would sentence this doctor to 33 years for helping in the search for the most notorious terrorist in our times. This doctor was not working against Pakistan.
            He was working against Al Qaeda. And I hope that ultimately Pakistan understands that, because what they have done here, I think, you know, does not help in the effort to try to reestablish a relationship between the United States and Pakistan.
             TAPPER: Secretary Panetta, can we call Pakistan an ally when they do something like this, when they sentence a doctor who helps the United States find bin Laden, who has killed more Muslims than I can count? How can we call them an ally when they sentence this guy to prison?
             PANETTA: Well, Jake, this has been one of the most complicated relationships that we've had, working with Pakistan. You know, we have to continue to work at it. It is important. This is a country that has -- that has nuclear weapons.
             This is a country that still is critical in that region of the world. This is a country in which we have to go after an enemy that's located in their country as we have. So we have to continue to try to work with them. It's an up-and-down relationship. There have been periods where we've had good cooperation and they have worked with us.
             And there have been periods where we've had conflict. But both countries have a responsibility to work together because we're dealing with common threats. They're dealing with the terrorist threat just like we are.
             They've had huge numbers of Pakistanis who've been killed by terrorists. So our responsibility here is to keep pushing them to understand how important it is for them to work with us to try to deal with the common threats we both face. And what they did with this doctor doesn't help in the effort to try to do that.
            TAPPER: And you've been in the middle of a very difficult negotiation with the Pakistanis about the lines of transit through which we supply U.S. troops in Afghanistan by using Pakistan and they shut them down after that incident at the border in November.
             They initially charged about $250 per truck.
             They are now trying to charge $5,000 per truck. We already give them – the U.S. taxpayer already gives the Pakistanis billions of dollars a year. And now they're trying to charge $5,000 per truck. First of all, how high are you willing to go in this negotiation?
 Are you willing to pay more than $1,000 a truck?
             And second of all, what are the American people to make of this relationship, when they hear about this doctor going to prison, when they hear about they're trying to charge us, even though we already give them billions of dollars?
             PANETTA: Yeah. No, I -- you know, I think the American people are concerned. We're all concerned about the relationship. And at the same time, as I said, we have to do everything possible to try to work with them in order to protect our interests.
             And you know, the G-locks, these transit points, are important to us. We would like to be able to use them. But we're going to pay a fair price. We're not going to --
             TAPPER: What's that, a few hundred dollars per truck?
             PANETTA: We're going to pay a fair price. They're negotiating what that price ought to be. You know, clearly we don't -- (inaudible) we're not about to get gouged in the price. We want a fair price. We are working right now through what's called the northern distribution center, which means we're moving most of our stuff through the north. It's more expensive, but we're getting the job done, and they need to understand that we can continue to get the job done that we have to by using that northern distribution route. It would be convenient for us. We would like to be able to use the Pakistan gates, but it isn't absolutely essential to our completing the mission that we're involved with.
             TAPPER: Let's move to Yemen right now. We saw this past week a suicide bombing that killed 100 soldiers. The Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has attempted at least twice to bring down a U.S. plane. You've said Al Qaeda in Yemen poses the greatest threat to the United States. But you've also said you will not send American troops into the country.
             We only have, I think, about 20 U.S. advisers right there. First of all, why so few U.S. forces in the country? And second of all, if this is the biggest threat to the U.S., why would we not try to play a bigger role?
            PANETTA: Well, our whole effort there is aimed at going after those terrorists who threaten to attack our country. Al Qaeda, elements of Al Qaeda have located in Yemen and the result is that we are focused, just as we were in the Fatah in Pakistan, we are now focused in Yemen to make sure that they never get the opportunity to attack our country.
             We've been successful. We've gone after a number of key targets there. We'll continue to do that, counterterrorism is what we're all about in Yemen. And that's the number of forces we need in order to be able to do the job that we feel is necessary in order to protect our country.
             TAPPER: But I think, I think the question is whether or not the smaller counterterrorism is -- approach to this is enough. What we're seeing in Yemen seems to be a possible nightmare scenario of a terrorist state. Let me just show you a map.
             PANETTA: Yeah.
             TAPPER: Our Martha Raddatz was there earlier this week, helped us put together this map. The portion shaded in red are territory in which Al Qaeda has a strong and significant presence. As you can see, that's most of the country, and they're starting to hold those territories. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but can we really fight them without boots on the ground there?
             PANETTA: The answer is yes, because very frankly, what we're targeting, the operations we're conducting, require the kind of capabilities that don't necessarily involve boots on the ground, but require the kind of capabilities that target those that we're after who are threats to the United States.
             That's what this mission is about. It isn't about getting into, you know, their tribal differences and controversies. It isn't about getting into a civil war. It's about going after those who threaten our country. That's what this mission is about.
             TAPPER: President Obama recently said that -- recently told John Brennan, his counterterrorism adviser at the White House that he wanted a little bit more transparency when it comes to drones, which are the -- is one of the approaches that you're alluding to in Yemen, and of course in Pakistan.
             Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence wrote the following in "The New York Times," quote, "As the drone campaign wears on, hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan. American officials may praise the precision of the drone attacks, but in Pakistan, news media accounts of heavy civilian casualties are widely believed. Our reliance on high-tech strikes that pose no risk for our soldiers is bitterly resented in a country that cannot duplicate such feats of warfare without cost to its own troops."
             And "The Times of London" reported last week that the civilian casualties in Yemen as a result of drone strikes have, quote, "emboldened Al Qaeda."
             Is there not a serious risk that this approach to counterterrorism, because of its imprecision, because of its civilian casualties, is creating more enemy than it is killing?
             PANETTA: First and foremost, I think this is one of the most precise weapons that we have in our arsenal. Number two, what is our responsibility here? Our responsibility is to defend and protect the United States of America.
             There are those who have no other intent but to attack this country. We saw three potential bombers that were trying to get on planes to come here and attack this country. We've seen past attacks taking place. We've seen those that continue to – to indicate that they're planning every day to try to attack this country.
            We have got to defend the United States of America. That's our first responsibility. And using the operations that we have, using the systems that we have, using the weapons that we have, is absolutely essential to our ability to defend Americans. That's what counts, and that's what we're doing.
             TAPPER: Just to clarify, three potential bombers? I know there's Abdulmutallab, there's the incident recently --
             PANETTA: And there were the cartridge bombers --
             TAPPER: Oh, the cartridge bombers. Okay.
             PANETTA: -- at the same time.
             TAPPER: Let's turn now to Iran. Our diplomats were in Baghdad this week negotiating as part of the international coalition, trying to convince Iran to stop its suspected nuclear weapons program. But we recently saw an Iranian diplomat seemingly bragging to "The New York Times" about out-negotiating us. David Sanger has a new book out in a week called "Confront and Conceal" in which he writes, quote, "White House officials blanched a bit in December 2011 when Leon Panetta suggested that despite all the roadblocks that Washington had thrown in the way, Iran could move to a weapon fairly quickly if it made a political decision to do so." Quote, "'It would be sometime around a year they would be able to do it,' Panetta said. Perhaps a little less, the one proviso is that they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran in which case a nuclear weapon may be within their reach sooner."
             The U.N. Atomic Agency has found evidence at an underground bunker in Iran that could mean the country has moved closer. This is just news in the last few days.

Given the urgency of the timeline you describe in the Sanger book that you told to the White House last December, are they not just running out the clock? And are these negotiations once a month enough?
             PANETTA: We begin with the fundamental premise here. The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. We will do everything we can to prevent them from developing a weapon.
             International community's been unified. We've put very tough sanctions on them as a result of that, and we are – you know, we are prepared for any contingency in that part of the world. But our hope is that these matters can be resolved diplomatically.
             TAPPER: Right.
             PANETTA: And that's what's going on. That's what going on in Baghdad, hopefully that's what will continue to go on in Russia. And we have to put pressure on them to suspend their nuclear enrichment and to operate pursuant to international rules and regulations.
             That's our goal. We keep pushing on it. Hopefully this can be resolved diplomatically. But make no mistake about it, we will prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon.
             TAPPER: Well, the ambassador to Israel, the American Ambassador to Israel said a few days ago that the U.S. is quote "ready from a military perspective to carry out a strike on Iran." That's true?
             PANETTA: One of the things that we do at the Defense Department, Jake, is plan. And we have – we have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves.
             TAPPER: All these hot spots we just touched on, and yet the administration is talking about how it's focusing now on the Pacific. Even though everything we've just spent the last 20 minutes talking about --
             PANETTA: We do have a few problems!
             (LAUGHTER)
             TAPPER: Yes, exactly!
             So, you are headed to Asia, and you will be meeting with your Chinese counterpart in Singapore. You've said that we face the possibility of a cyber attack. This is one of the things you talked about last time with me, about how this was a very big, serious issue of concern for you. And you said it could be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor.
             The Pentagon has acknowledged recently China is the biggest source of cyber attacks against this country, including stealing our military secrets. Newt Gingrich spoke about this threat on the campaign trail often. He said cyber attacks, cyber spying, are quote, "acts of war." Do you agree? Are they acts of war, and how would the United States respond?
             PANETTA: Well, there's no question that if a cyber attack, you know, crippled our power grid in this country, took down our financial systems, took down our government systems, that that would constitute an act of war.
             But what we're involved with here is the effort to make sure that never happens. And in order to do that, we've got to engage. You know, I think it's important for us to engage China in this effort. That's one of the issues I raised when the minister of defense came here from China. How can we better engage on this issue, to share information and to ensure that those kinds of attacks never happen, because this is an area where the technology is developing quickly and where clearly it is becoming an adjunct in terms of any country that moves against another country militarily.
             This is something we've got to pay attention to. And it's not only with China. We've got to engage Russia. We've got to engage other countries in an effort to try to develop some kind of standards here that will assure us that just as we did in the nuclear area, we can take steps to prevent a mistake that could be very damaging to our security.
             TAPPER: China has been very aggressive in the South China Sea in the last few years. There have been some near-skirmishes. How concerned are you, considering especially that we have treaties with the Philippines and Japan, that China's aggression could end up having – creating a situation where there might actually be military involvement that we have to get involved in? How much does that concern you?
             PANETTA: Well, you know, we – we want to make sure that we take all of the steps necessary to avoid those kinds of potential conflicts. And in order to do that, it's very important for us to develop a mil-to-mil relationship with China so that we can discuss these issues. I mean, when it comes to the South China Sea, the fact is that we have to protect our naval sea lanes. We've got to protect our maritime rights. We've got to recognize that there are international rules here that apply--that this is not an area that is controlled by any one country, that in order to conduct trade--in order to provide for peaceful exchanges, we have to be able to protect those rights.
             To do that, we've got to engage these countries. And so one of the reasons I'm going to China is to follow up on the president's efforts to try to establish lines of communication with them that deals with these kinds of issues. Because the last thing you want to avoid is a mistake by one country or another that decides that their only option is to use military force. If that happens, then I think we have a great concern about our ability to then maintain peace in that part of the world.
             TAPPER: There's been a lot in the press in the last few days about the fact that the Obama administration cooperated with the filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Michael Boal, who are making this Bin Laden film. What is your response to the controversy and can you assert that nothing inappropriate was shared with these filmmakers?
             PANETTA: Yeah – nothing inappropriate was shared with them, Jake. You know, we get inquires everyday from the entertainment industry. We get inquiries from people writing articles, from people writing books, people doing television shows. And the process that we've established is that you know, we will work with those individuals. We'll try to make sure that we give them accurate information so that the historic record is protected. But you know, we do not share anything that is inappropriate with anybody.
             TAPPER: You were head of the CIA when bin Laden was captured. Now you're head of the Pentagon. There was an effort by the Obama campaign to talk more about the capture and killing of bin Laden. What is your take on this? Are you uncomfortable at all with what some have described as chest-thumping? Are the Navy SEALs and the Nightstalker pilots getting enough credit?
            PANETTA: You know, I guess my view, having participated in that operation, is that it was something very special in terms of both the intelligence and military communities working together to go after bin Laden and doing it successfully. And whether you're Republicans, whether you're Democrats, whether you're Independents, I think this country ought to be proud of what our intelligence and military community did. And you know what, I'll let history be the judge as to whether or not that was a successful mission.
             TAPPER: Well, obviously it was a successful mission but the politicization of it, that doesn't make you uncomfortable at all?
             PANETTA: I would hope that both Republicans and Democrats would be justly proud of what was accomplished.
             TAPPER: There are massive mandatory budget cuts heading your way -- I know you're more than aware of this -- coming to domestic programs and the defense budget if Congress doesn't come to an agreement on deficit reduction. You've said that defense cuts would lead to a hollow military but in a recent interview, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: "So now see the Republicans scrambling to do away with the cuts to defense that would be required by this agreement. I will not accept that. My people in the state of Nevada, and I think the country, have had enough of whacking all the programs. We've cut them to a bare bone and defense is going to have to bear their share of the burden." Is that language okay with you, that language from the Democratic leader of the Senate?
             PANETTA: Well-- my view is that when you're facing the size deficits and debt that we're facing, that obviously defense has to play a role in trying to be able to achieve fiscal responsibility. I've also said you don't have to choose between national security and our fiscal security and that's what we've done. We were handed a number by Congress to reduce the defense budget by $487 billion dollars. To do that, we laid out a strategy that we want for our defense system both now and in the future and we provided a budget that, we think, meets not only the goal of savings but also, more importantly, protects a strong national defense for this country. The thing that does concern me is the sequester which involves another $500 billion in defense cuts.
             TAPPER: That's these automatic cuts I'm talking about.
             PANETTA: These automatic cuts that would take place that I think would be disastrous in terms of our national defense. And I would say this. I think the sequester, both on the domestic side and the defense side, doesn't make a great deal of sense that both Republicans and Democrats now have a responsibility to work together to make sure that sequester never happens. That's what should take place.
             TAPPER: I've heard from a lot of people on Capitol Hill, Democrats too, who say they were alarmed with what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. It seemed to suggest that he is ready for a standoff and he doesn't care if the sequester cuts come down.
             Does this concern you, the language you're hearing from the Hill?
             PANETTA: You know what, I know Harry Reid and I know he, the last thing he wants is for sequester to take place and I think that should be true, frankly, for all Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. They put this trigger into legislation in order to pressure Republicans and Democrats to work together on the super-committee to come up with the money necessary to ensure that that would not happen.
             TAPPER: It didn't work.
             PANETTA: It didn't work. And so now you have this automatic meat ax that will suddenly take place sometime in January. I think what both Republicans and Democrats need to do and the leaders on both sides is to recognize that if sequester takes place, it would be disastrous for our national defense and very frankly for a lot of very important domestic programs. They have a responsibility to come together, find the money necessary to de-trigger sequester. That's what they ought to be working on now.
             TAPPER: We only have a couple more minutes so I'm just going to ask you two more quick questions. One of them: President Obama recently came out in favor of same-sex marriage. I know it's not your bailiwick, I know the military abides by the rules of each state, but I'm wondering as a former member of Congress, somebody who has opinions, what is your take on same-sex marriage?
             PANETTA: You know, my job as secretary of defense is to give the president the best advice I can on defense issues.
             TAPPER: I know, but you're a living, breathing, sentiment human being.
             PANETTA: I know, but my viewpoint is not relevant to what I have to do in this job. What is relevant is the fact that we are engaged in implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and we are doing that very successfully. What is relevant is that I want to be able to open up opportunities in the Defense Department, in our military, to everyone to be able to serve our country. That's what counts and that's what we're doing.
             TAPPER: Okay. Lastly, several key members of the president's cabinet, Secretaries Clinton and Geithner most prominently, have said if there is a second Obama term, they will not be in it. Will you?
             (LAUGHTER)
             PANETTA: You know, one thing I've learned over 40 years is that when you have jobs in Washington, you do it day by day and that's what I'm doing as secretary of defense. And, I serve at the will of the president and that's what I intend to continue to do.
             TAPPER: If there is a President Mitt Romney and he asks you to stay on as
             President Obama did with Secretary Gates, would you consider it?
             PANETTA: I don't engage in hypotheticals.
             (LAUGHTER)
             TAPPER: Alright. Secretary Panetta, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate your time.
             PANETTA: Thank you
 -----------------
           Later segment at the Vietnam Memorial
            TAPPER: This Memorial Day weekend, we mark 50 years since the official
start of the Vietnam War. I recently took a walk with Secretary Panetta to that powerful symbol of the fallen heroes, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, to reflect on the meaning of sacrifice for country.

             (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

             PANETTA: This was a bloody war, a bloody war, 58,000. When you consider Afghanistan and Iraq, I think we have lost now close to about 6,500 which is too many, but to think back to Vietnam and 58,000 lives that were lost.
             TAPPER: And you know people on this wall.

             PANETTA: Oh, yeah. I had three good friends who I went through ROTC with at Santa Clara. We all got commissioned. I went on to law school before I actually went in the service and they actually went right in were deployed to Vietnam and lost their lives there.
             TAPPER: What have we as a nation learn from that war?

             PANETTA: We can never lose sight of men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line, fight and die for America. When the people to agree or disagree with the cause, when there are men and women willing to do that for this country that is something, that's a strength that I hope we always appreciate and are grateful for in the future.  And there's one thing this wall is all about it's a reminder that we always remember those who served.

EUROPE AND EURASIA: KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Keynote Address at the Brookings Institution
Remarks Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Keynote Address at the 2012 Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) Annual Conference
Washington, DC
May 23, 2012
Strobe, thanks very much indeed for that warm welcome. It is indeed nice to be back home, so to speak. I’ll always be -- always glad to be back here at Brookings, and I see a lot of old friends and colleagues in the room, some distinguished ambassador colleagues, and many others that I’m really delighted to see again.

Strobe, I continue to feel somewhat guilty about the degree to which the Obama Administration raided the ranks of Brookings when we took office just over three years ago. I say, though, just somewhat guilty because I think U.S. foreign policy has benefited from the Brookings scholars that are serving in the Obama Administration. We’ve given a few of them back in the meantime. And in any case, Brookings is clearly continuing to thrive as the serious independent research institution that it has been for so long.
I’m also very pleased to see how much the Center on the United States and Europe continues to thrive under the leadership of Fiona Hill and Justin Vaïsse. Obviously I’m biased, but it seems to me that the original logic we had when we founded the Center -- of a place where we could follow dynamic developments across the Atlantic and within Europe -- the case for having such an institution is as strong now as it was when the Center was founded six or seven years ago.

Indeed, I think it’s fair to say that today’s conference -- today’s annual conference is occurring at a time of incredible activity in Europe. Strobe mentioned the G8 and NATO summits that President Obama participated in, hosted in Camp David, in Chicago just last week. And then of course, literally as I speak, European Union leaders are sitting down for what will be a very interesting dinner confronting the challenges of the euro zone and the question of how to generate jobs and growth. I will return to the implications of these recent events later in my remarks.

But where I’d like to begin is to take a step back and just recall how the world looked when President Obama took office three and a half years ago. And so before I talk about what we think we’ve accomplished in that period, the topic for this session is the record so far, I think it’s worth recalling the basic thinking that we had about Europe at the very start.

And I think it’s pretty simple to say -- I think it’s fair to say that what President Obama inherited was one of the most daunting global set of challenges that any administration had faced for some time. If you think about the ongoing war in Iraq, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the growing nuclear challenge from Iran, the scourge of global terrorism, and, of course, the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, strains in transatlantic unity compounded the difficulty of handling these complicated issues.

Think about the really unprecedented divisions across the Atlantic we had over Iraq, but also questions about European engagement in Afghanistan, disagreement about how to handle Iran’s nuclear program, and the relationship with Russia that was probably at the worst point since the end of the Cold War. A German Marshall Fund poll taken in 2008 found that just 19 percent of Europeans approved of our handling of international affairs and only 36 percent viewed American leadership in the world as desirable. So when President Obama came in, I think he understood that the challenges that we faced were so considerable that even America’s unparalleled power could not deal with them alone. And so he came to office with the conviction that the United States could address these challenges more effectively by working together with partners. And he was convinced that we had no more important set of partners in dealing with this set of challenges than those in the democratic countries in Europe.

The thinking is that alliances are a qualitatively different set of relationships than just coalitions of the willing. They produce habits of cooperation, they involve standing institutions and procedures, and they provide operational capabilities that can be called upon at a moment’s notice, as we demonstrated in using NATO in Libya just the last year. But when President Obama took office, these alliances had frayed and were in need of repair.

Already in that summer of 2007, then Senator Obama wrote in foreign affairs that the mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity. In order to achieve this goal, he stated his intention was to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security.

In a speech that he gave in Berlin a year later, then candidate Obama underscored the priority placed on revitalizing these alliances. He observed that no nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone and when looking for strong partners to deal with this challenging world -- alongside to deal with this challenging world, Europe was the place that we would find them. This administration has, therefore, invested deliberately and consciously in strengthening these essential transatlantic ties. Next week I will depart with [Secretary] Clinton for what will be her 30th trip to Europe in office as Secretary of State.

So in addition to multiple bilateral visits, these travels have included ministerial meetings, summits, and, importantly, international conferences on a range of global issues, including Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, cyber security, and women’s issues, just to name a few. This commitment of time and effort to the relationship with Europe, not to mention the jetlag that comes along inevitably with it, has been far from routine. Instead, it has been driven by the profound belief that successful alliances require investment and that such investment pays real dividends.

And we think it has. I believe that one of the most important and lasting legacies of this Secretary of State will be her revitalizing of America’s alliances, and first and foremost our alliance with Europe. A direct result of this investment is the following thesis: I would assert that the United States and Europe have never been more strategically aligned. This is not to say that there aren’t differences between us, just as there are debates within the United States or the European Union. But the reality is that we have developed a common transatlantic agenda that enables us to join forces to meet the demands of a very challenging world to a degree that I don’t think was paralleled, not just in recent times in the previous administration, but the one before that or the several that preceded that. And this unity of purpose, I think, is now recognized on both sides of the Atlantic.
The German Marshall Fund poll that I cited earlier saying that 36 percent of Europeans had faith in the President’s handling -- in U.S. leadership in the world, is now at 75 percent and has consistently been in the upper 70s and lower 80s since President Obama took office. And this, I would assert, is an asset that serves us well when we call on these European democracies to follow our global international leadership, which we do all the time.

Rather than just asserting that we are more strategically aligned than ever, let me give you a couple of examples to illustrate what I mean. I mentioned already, President Obama’s hosting the G8 and NATO summits this past weekend. I think these two meetings embody American leadership on the global stage. As the President himself put it in Chicago, one of his top foreign policy priorities was to strengthen our alliances, including NATO, and that’s exactly what we have done.

The centerpiece of the NATO Summit, I think it’s fair to say, was Afghanistan. With nearly 40,000 European troops fighting alongside American troops for pretty much the past decade, we have sustained NATO’s largest ever overseas deployment. And from the beginning and notwithstanding serious financial pressures and domestic political pressures, the alliance has held firmly to the principle of in together, out together. At the NATO Summit in Lisbon 18 months ago, allies, ISAF partners and the Afghan government agreed upon a transition strategy that would result in the Afghan government assuming full responsibility for security across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. This strategy is on track. It was reaffirmed in Chicago. And today, approximately 50 percent of the Afghan population lives in areas where Afghan national security forces have taken the lead. This summer that proportion will rise to 75 percent of the country as we implement the third phase of transition. In Chicago, NATO leaders and ISAF leaders also established a milestone in mid 2013, next summer, when ISAF’s mission will shift to primarily train, advise, and assist, and Afghan forces will be even more responsible for their own security.

We have no illusions about the difficulties in Afghanistan now or in the years ahead. But we also believe that it’s worth recalling the tremendous progress that has been made in the past decade. The country’s GDP has tripled since 2001. Sixty percent of Afghans now have basic health care -- have access to basic health care facilities, which is nearly six times the number in 2002. The number of Afghans in schools continues to rise now to more than 8 million. And perhaps most importantly, recent polls in Afghanistan underscore that the number of Afghans who say they sympathize with the insurgents is at record lows.
In order to maintain a secure environment that will enable Afghanistan’s continued political and economic development, the alliance also agreed on a plan for future sustainment of Afghan forces. And while the Chicago summit was in no way a pledging conference, we did want to demonstrate to Afghans, to the Taliban, and to our own societies that we were prepared to support Afghan national security forces after the end of 2014 in the way that will be necessary, and the international community came together and made political commitments of more than a billion dollars for that project after 2014. More than a billion dollars per year after 2014.

Furthermore, the alliance reaffirmed its enduring commitment to the Afghan people beyond the end of the combat mission, and in Chicago leaders defined a new phase of cooperation that will focus on training, advising, and assisting Afghan troops.
I think all of this together demonstrates our ongoing commitment to working toward our shared goal of building a safer and more secure and prosperous Afghanistan where al Qaeda has no role.

Beyond Afghanistan, the summit also highlighted the alliance’s continued commitment to defense capabilities. I’ll just mention a few. We announced an interim capability for missile defense that will, for the first time, protect European populations, territories, and forces from the growing threat of ballistic missiles, potentially nuclear weapons as well. The United States will provide critical assets for the system, but it’s hardly a U.S. effort alone. Turkey will be hosting a radar that will be placed under NATO command. Romania and Poland will host land-based interceptors. Spain will home port Aegis ballistic missile defense-capable ships. The Netherlands will upgrade sea-based radars and contribute deployable Patriot systems. Germany is also contributing deployable Patriot systems. France is planning to contribute a space-based early warning radar, as well as a deployable radar. NATO, as a whole, will provide commonly funded infrastructure, and allied heads of state and government agreed in Chicago to explore additional voluntary contributions. So, be clear about that, the United States is making a major contribution, but it is, once again, an alliance-wide effort with Europeans playing a major role.

Very conscious of the tight defense budgets that we face across the alliance, we also announced progress under the rubric of what NATO Secretary General Rasmussen calls smart defense. For example, the commonly funded allied ground surveillance system that will give the alliance, for the first time, a fleet of remotely piloted drones that will provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and also the agreement to extend NATO air policing for the Baltic states so that they can devote their resources to other common projects. We also announced completion of the alliance’s deterrence and defense posture view that spells out the appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defense capabilities that the alliance needs.

We are well aware that measures such as these do not obviate the need for continued defense investments that will be required if the alliance is going to remain the most successful ever. And in Chicago, President Obama made that very clear to his European counterparts. But we also know that in these difficult financial circumstances we should pool our efforts to the maximum extent possible, and this is what the smart defense initiatives and, really, the concept of the alliance itself allow us all to do.
Finally, the NATO Summit recognized the crucial role played by partners in NATO operations. Remember that the Libya operation brought 28 allies together with 5 partner nations while ISAF in Afghanistan involved 22 non-NATO troop-contributing partner countries. They’re playing an increasingly important role in all of NATO’s missions, and these successful partnerships demonstrate the extent to which the alliance has really become a global hub for our collective action.

At President Obama’s request, the North Atlantic Council will look at what is to further enhance our partnerships, not just across Europe but in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia as well.

Allies did not take decisions on further enlargement in Chicago, but they sent a positive message to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Georgia in support of their membership goals. At a meeting in Chicago of the 28 allies and those 4 NATO aspirants, Secretary Clinton made clear that NATO’s door must remain open to European democracies that are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership.

Within the NATO context, let me say a couple of words about Libya. It is easy to take for granted the role that NATO played in giving the people of Libya a chance for a better future, but it was not a given that NATO would play a significant role or indeed any role at all. It was a conscious decision. It was in response to Qaddafi’s all-too-real threats against the people of Benghazi that President Obama led the way to establish a U.N. Security Council-endorsed no-fly zone, as well as an authorization for member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. And, again, it was a conscious decision to seek to involve not just European allies or other partners around the world, but the NATO alliance itself.

During the first 10 days of this operation, the United States used its unique assets to eliminate Libya’s air defenses and lay the groundwork for a handover to NATO. Washington then passed command and control of the mission to NATO while continuing to provide the bulk of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, in-air refueling, jamming, and other critical capabilities. Every ally contributed through NATO’s integrated command structure, while 14 allies and 4 partners provided the necessary naval and air forces.

United States flew 25 percent of all sorties, while France and the United Kingdom together accounted for 40 percent. But, again, I want to underscore the genuinely important role that European allies played in this, not just France and the United Kingdom, but Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Italy, and Canada all carried out large numbers of strike missions and sustained them over many months.

Think about a comparison. In the Kosovo conflict that NATO undertook in 1999, the United States provided 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions and around 85 percent of the strike sorties. In Libya, those proportions were exactly the other way around. We are now of course continuing to work closely with our European and international partners to help Libyans build a more inclusive and democratic society.
Beyond these joint efforts in NATO, the United States is working extraordinarily closely with Europeans to address a range of other global challenges that I think also fit under this thesis I’m advancing about more closer partnership and more strategic alignment than ever. And to take maybe the best example, think about Iran.

Another timely topic is our negotiators as we speak are in Baghdad meeting with the Iranians. I think it’s fair to say on this one the United States has coordinated with our European partners more closely than ever before. We have enjoyed unprecedented unity with the European Union in our dual-track approach of putting pressure on the Iranian regime to meet its international obligations, but also being ready to undertake a diplomatic path to ensure that their nuclear program remains civil.

With the Europeans we have together agreed on U.N. Security Council 1929, several IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and we have seen the EU decision to ban imports of crude oil, Iranian crude oil, and to freeze the assets of the Iranian Central Bank. Those of you who have been working on these issues for some time, as I know a lot of scholars at Brookings have, I think would have to appreciate the unprecedented nature of this cooperation on sanctions and an oil embargo, which I think probably couldn’t have been predicted just a couple of years ago or even six months ago.
And so as I say, today as we speak the E3+3 is in Baghdad to engage in serious negotiations regarding the international community’s concerns. And the United States and its European allies have not only never been more united on Iran, but I think that the pressure on Iran to abide by its international obligations has also never been greater. Those two things are linked. It is the common pressure that we are putting on the Iranians that we think has brought them back to the table.

On Syria, we’ve also worked very closely with our European partners to steadily ratchet up pressure on the Assad regime through various avenues, including multiple rounds of sanctions. We have engaged in active diplomacy in the major U.N. bodies to unite the international community behind the Annan plan, responded to a growing humanitarian crisis, and expanded our communications and logistic support for the opposition. Secretary Clinton has joined her European counterparts and other regional leaders to coordinate our approach to these goals and to send a clear signal that despite minimal success in the U.N. Security Council, the broader international community will continue to pursue all available measures to secure a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Syria.
I’ve been talking mostly about our cooperation with Europeans around the world, and I obviously think that is worth stressing, but in no way should it suggest that our agenda within Europe is somehow diminished or has gone away. Beyond the global challenges that I’m talking about, there is what is sometimes called unfinished business in Europe, namely the integration of these countries into the Euro-Atlantic community of democracies. And we’ve been working side by side with our European partners to address remaining political and economic issues across the continent.

In the Western Balkans, it is clear that the region’s stability and prosperity will depend on its countries pursuing reforms necessary for their eventual integration in Europe. We have said very clearly from the start that Europe will not be complete until all of the Balkans are integrated into Euro-Atlantic institutions.

Some significant milestones have been reached in recent months. Croatia’s succession to the European Union, for example, sends a very strong signal to the entire region that, admittedly, difficult reforms bring genuine progress. We’re encouraged by the new Bosnian government’s efforts to meet EU and NATO integration requirements, including the passage of laws on census and state aid, as well as the political agreement to solve the defense and state property issue. We hope to see Bosnia fully implement these agreements in order to make progress towards joining Euro-Atlantic institutions.

We are also pleased that both Kosovo and Serbia moved closer to Europe as the EU granted Serbia candidacy status and agreed to give Kosovo roadmaps for visa liberalization and a feasibility study for a stabilization and association agreement. Once again, the United States worked very closely with its EU partners, and in this case the OSCE, to ensure during the recent elections in Serbia that Serbian citizens with dual nationality, including those living in Kosovo, would be able to exercise their right to vote in the Serbian parliamentary and presidential elections.

The EU-facilitated dialogue has provided a means for the two countries to address issues that complicate daily life for ordinary citizens, but only to the extent that the parties implement the resulting agreements.

Although we are still assessing what Tomislav Nikolic’s election as Serbia’s president means for Kosovo in the broader region, we welcome his stated commitment to Serbia’s European future and encourage him to work constructively with the new government to achieve that goal. In that spirit, the United States and our European partners need to work together with leaders across the region on new ideas to resolve the challenges in Northern Kosovo in line with Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In particular we need to help develop a framework that permits a normalization of practical neighborly relations, freeze up both countries to move on their paths to European integration, and avoid sowing the seeds of further zero-sum confrontation in the region.

Finally, we’re working with the EU and its member states to help the people of Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus. We fully support Ukraine’s efforts to deepen its integration with Europe, including steps taken thus far to reform the criminal procedure code. Unfortunately, Ukraine’s European integration process has been hindered by limited progress on the political and economic reforms needed to move forward and by what appears to us to be politically motivated prosecution, selective prosecution, of opposition leaders.

We, closely working with the European Union, continue to call on the government of Ukraine to release these individuals and to ensure that the October parliamentary elections are free and fair.

Moldova’s presidential election in March opens the door for reforms needed for closer integration with Europe. We’re also seeing encouraging signs on the international efforts to produce a Transnistria settlement.

Belarus remains an outlier, particularly following the December 2010 presidential election when hundreds of political and opposition activists including several presidential candidates were arrested without cause.

We and our European partners continue to call on the government of Belarus to release political prisoners and allow opposition parties, civil society, and independent media to operate freely.

Let me say a few words about another very important part of President Obama’s record, which is the progress we’ve made in developing more productive relations with Russia. The President’s approach to Russia has been guided by the conviction that we could cooperate on areas of mutual interest while speaking very plainly about areas of disagreement, maintaining support for our friends, and holding firmly to our principles.
The development of a more effective working relationship, we believe, has, in fact, led to an impressive list of mutually beneficial foreign policy achievements, including, just to mention a few, the New START Agreement, the 123 Agreement on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation, military transit arrangements in support of our common efforts in Afghanistan, a visa agreement to promote bilateral business ties, major bilateral trade deals, and unprecedented cooperation with Russia on Iran sanctions.

The list also includes the conclusion of negotiations to welcome Russia into the World Trade Organization, a goal that had been an objective of U.S. and Russian administrations for nearly 20 years.

We’re currently working with Congress to terminate the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Russia. Lifting Jackson-Vanik and extending permanent, normal trade relations with Russia are not gifts to Russia, rather, they are in the fundamental interest of the United States to create and sustain jobs as well as ensure that U.S. firms will benefit from Russia’s WTO market access commitments.

Were we to fail to graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik, we would be disadvantaging American countries relative to their competitors in other WTO member states.
We should not forget that in Vice-President Biden’s 2009 Munich speech, which first articulated the strategy that has come to be known as “The Reset”, there were three important corollaries. The Vice-President said that the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He said the United States does not recognize spheres of influence with Europe. And he said that the United States maintains that sovereign states have the right to choose their alliances.

And despite some initial questioning among some of Russia’s neighbors, we have not given an inch on any of these principles. Indeed, our improved relations with Russia have not come at the expense of our allies or our values and we have continued to speak frankly about our differences.

I know some have asked whether the progress with Russia that we have made in the past three years will continue under President Putin. All I can say is we are certainly ready to pursue that goal. I would point out that Mr. Putin was the head of Russia’s government for all of the past three years when all of these positive things were accomplished.
We obviously have to be realistic. We know that achievements going forward will be the result of hard work on both sides and will require a continued focus on mutual interests. We know there are ongoing issues of disagreement, such as over missile defense in Georgia.

There are contentious issues that have arisen recently, including our differences over how to respond to the crisis in Syria, but even as we discuss these difficult issues, we are going to continue to operate on the assumption that we have many common interests in Russia and we can pursue those while also being very clear about the things we differ on and without sacrificing our principles or our friends.

All of the common transatlantic achievements that I have outlined are, we think, fairly impressive in their own right but even more notable when you consider the context in which they have come about. Obviously, I’m referring to the great economic challenges that we face on both sides of the Atlantic.

As President Obama has said many times, the United States has an enormous stake in the resolution of the Euro Zone crisis. The European Union is our largest trade and investment partner. The EU and its member states account for 58 percent of overseas development aid and when you combine that with U.S. spending, we together provide 80 percent of the world’s development assistance. We clearly need strong and prosperous European allies.

The same is true on common defense. I underscored our message to European allies about the importance of sustaining defense spending. It’s obviously only possible when Europe’s economies are succeeding.

Despite our significant stake in the outcome of the economic steps taken in Europe, we also recognize that these are European issues that require European solutions. We have urged European governments to act decisively to resolve the debt crisis, we’ve offered our perspective about the risks that Europe’s crisis poses for the global recovery, and we’ve shared lessons of our own financial crisis about the importance of responding to market challenges decisively and focusing on job creation and growth.
We’re encouraged by the progress that our European colleagues have made in recent months, including significant actions that would have seemed out of reach a few years ago. In Ireland, Portugal and Spain, these countries have reduced their structural budget deficit by 5 percentage points since 2009 and Greece by nearly 12 points. In Italy, Prime Minister Monte has marshaled really sweeping economic reforms including pension reforms and dozens of measures to free Italy’s markets and streamline its bureaucracy in just a matter of months.

Euro area governments have taken steps to put in place an 800 billion euro firewall for what we think is a good reason. As Secretary Geithner has said, reforms will take time. We’ve acknowledged that there is no silver bullet and even if all of these measures work, it will take time, and will not work without financial support that enables governments to borrow at affordable rates and keeps the overall rate of interest across the economy at levels that won’t slow growth.

And also EU member states have come together in record time to endorse the fiscal compact treaty, which provides a path for deficit reduction, strengthens oversight and coordination at the European level in unprecedented ways, and reassures populations across Europe that new lending will be accompanied by needed reforms and fiscal discipline.

We have also said that fiscal reforms are only part of the solution. The harder challenge in Europe and globally is to boost competitiveness and growth. Much of this is for Europeans on their own to do, but there is a U.S. component as well and President Obama has undertaken discussions with his European counterparts about how we can free up the transatlantic economy, notably through the U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, which is reviewing all options for deeper transatlantic economic cooperation including the possibility of a comprehensive free trade agreement.

The United States welcomes the evolving debate in Europe about opportunities for creating jobs and growth. At the G8 summit this past weekend, President Obama led a discussion with leaders about a comprehensive approach to managing the crisis and getting on a path, a sustainable path, to recovery. He reaffirmed that America is not only confident in Europe’s ability to meet their challenges, but we are supportive of their efforts.

The President and his European counterparts agreed on our shared interest in keeping Europe’s monetary union intact and in remaining engaged on the world stage despite budget constraints on both sides of the Atlantic.

I have covered a lot of ground, so let me conclude. I will -- in closing, I would like to return to the thesis with which I began, which is that the United States and Europe have never been more strategically aligned, and this, as I have said, is not an accident or the fortuitous or temporary alignment of geopolitical tectonic plates. It is, instead, the result of a deliberate and conscious strategy to invest in a partnership with the world’s most advanced, military-capable, and democratic peoples who share our values and ideals.
History will determine whether this approach and this investment was a wise one. We believe, as I have argued, that it has already paid off and that it will continue to pay off for years to come.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

"FLAGS IN" MEMORIAL DAY TRADITION

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

'Flags In' Tradition Honors Fallen Warfighters for Memorial Day

By Terri Moon Cronk

ARLINGTON, Va., May 25, 2012 - More than 1,200 soldiers with the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, The Old Guard, gathered at Arlington National Cemetery here yesterday to place miniature American flags on each of its gravesites and niches for the annual "Flags In" ritual that's been performed just before each Memorial Day for 64 years.

The Old Guard, at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, is the Army's ceremonial unit and has honored Americans buried at the cemetery with the Flags In commemoration every year since 1948.

The regiment's troops placed the flags on nearly 260,000 gravesites and 22,000 niches, in addition to more than 14,000 graves at the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery in Washington, D.C., an Army cemetery for residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home-Washington.

Old Guard sentinels also placed four flags at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

The Old Guard's commander, Army Col. Dave Anders, was with his troops as they placed the flags, which are uniformly centered and situated one boot-length back from the headstone.

Anders placed flags in Arlington's Section 60, where some 12,000 service members who'd served in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried, in addition to many warfighters from World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars.

"I started in the rows of soldiers I served with and knew personally," Anders said, motioning toward a flag he'd just placed on the grave of a soldier he served with twice -- first, at Fort Benning, Ga., and later, in Afghanistan, in 2007. Anders said his father, and his great uncle who died in combat during World War II, also are buried at Arlington.

"This is like a family cemetery," he said. "It's a sad place but very [comforting]."

Yesterday marked Army Pvt. Krieg Bates' first time participating in the Flags In commemoration, at his first duty station.

"My family has a proud history of military service," Bates said solemnly. "It's an honor to come here today for those who sacrificed so much."

Old Guard soldiers feel honored by the rituals they perform, Anders said.

"We're the only unit that does it, and we are very proud of that," the colonel said.

Large groups of Old Guard soldiers carried rucksacks filled with 200 to 300 of the small flags, carefully placing them one-by-one along the long rows of white headstones.

Yesterday, Anders estimated the cemetery would have flags placed on every gravesite by 6:30 or 7 p.m.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA DELIVERS MEMORIAL DAY MESSAGE

Photo:  USS Missouri approaches USS Arizona Memorial.  Credit:  U.S. Navy.
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Memorial Day Message As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, Washington D.C., Monday, May 28, 2012
For many Americans, Memorial Day is a welcome break from work, a time for outdoor barbeques or a day at the beach.  But today is above all an opportunity for Americans to come together and pay tribute to all those who have fought and died in defense of our freedom.  It is a day to reflect on the service and sacrifice of these heroes, and to honor those American families for whom Memorial Day is another day of longing for their loved ones.

This Memorial Day, the American people pay particular tribute to the generation who stepped forward after the attacks of September 11th, and volunteered to put their lives on the line in far-off lands to protect our nation.  Today, we remember the more than 6,400 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have paid the ultimate price for us to live in safety over the last ten years of war.  They and their families have paid a heavy price so that we could be more secure, but because of their sacrifice the torch of freedom burns bright.

Since taking this position, I have written hundreds of letters of condolence to the families of the fallen.  It is the hardest part of my job.  There are no words that can heal, no sentences that can lessen that loss.  I keep the fallen and their families in my heart and in my prayers, and I tell those families that their loved one died to give their fellow Americans a better life.  That is the price they paid for us.  Let us never forget them and what they have done for this country.

As we emerge from a decade of war, we must renew our pledge on this Memorial Day to do all we can to ensure that the sacrifices of our service members and their families are honored, and that those who fell in battle are remembered.  They fought for us.  Our duty is to fight to make sure they are never forgotten.  As Americans, that must be our charge and our sacred mission not just on Memorial Day, but every day.      

MANAGING HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

FROM:  HHS HealthBeat (May 23, 2012) 
Managing your blood pressure 
Your diet, how much you exercise, how much salt you eat, and your age can affect your blood pressure. And if you have high blood pressure, you’re at risk for heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure. The older you get, the more your risks can go up.
Dr. Janet Wright is executive director of the Million Hearts initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks and strokes over the next five years.

"Our blood vessels get a little stiffer over time. And the stiffness means that when the blood is ejected from the heart and it hits a stiff wall, the pressure goes up."
It’s called the “silent killer” because it often has no warning signs or symptoms. Everyone should have his or her blood pressure checked periodically.

"Become your own blood pressure manager, recognize when you need some help, and then seek that help from a professional."

SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR GLOBAL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS WITNESSES SIGNING OF U.S.-BRAZIL LOCAL AGREEMENT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Reta Jo Lewis

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

May 24, 2012

Special Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs Reta Jo Lewis will witness the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to promote cooperation between Fulton County, GA and the State of Bahia, Brazil on Thursday, May 24, 11:00 am, at the Fulton County Government Center.

The MOU, conceived under the United States-Brazil Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Promote Equality, and in the spirit of the U.S.-Brazil MOU to Support State and Local Cooperation signed during President Rousseff’s visit to the United States in April 2012, outlines the on-going cooperation at the state level and supports exchange

between our governments to promote social inclusion and racial equality. The MOU recognizes and enhances these existing relationships formalizing efforts made by Fulton County and the State of Bahia to access economic opportunity, support international education exchange, and share their experiences from the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.

Fulton County Chairman John Eaves will host Bahia Governor Jacques Wagner at the MOU signing ceremony, which will be followed by a series of events focusing on the key opportunities for cooperation. These include: economic development and tourism; public health, youth development and education; arts and culture; and promotion of justice, citizenship and human rights. In attendance at the signing ceremony will be Georgia Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, and other elected officials.

Special Representative Lewis will highlight the Department of State’s support for these efforts, pursuant to the U.S.-Brazil MOU to Support State and Local Cooperation, the U.S.-Brazil MOU on Cooperation to Support Major Global Sporting Events, and the U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Promote Equality.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT ON SOMALIA ROADMAP SIGNATORIES

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Welcoming the Results of the Consultative Meeting of the Somalia Roadmap Signatories

Press Statement

Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

May 25, 2012

The United States welcomes the results of the “Consultative Meeting of Somali Signatories of the Roadmap for Ending the Transition” held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 21-23, where the Roadmap Signatories, which include leaders from the Transitional Federal Government, Galmudug and Puntland States, and Alhu Sunna Wal Jama’a, and the United Nations Special Representative for Somalia, signed an important communique that details a plan to complete the key Roadmap tasks and end Somalia’s political transition by August 20.

The United States commends the Signatories for reaffirming their commitment to end Somalia’s political transition by August 20. For the first time in a generation, there is real hope that Somalis can create a new era of more responsive, democratic, and legitimate governance for Somalia. The United States expresses its appreciation to the United Nations, the African Union, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development for their facilitation of this important meeting.

With many challenges remaining in the three months before the transition ends, the United States calls on the Signatories to maintain their collective resolve to complete this process, and to ensure broad communication and consultation with the Somali people on all aspects of the transition. The United States remains firmly committed to supporting Somalia’s leaders and its people as they work to bring improved security, stability, and governance to their country. We remain equally committed to working with the international community to impose sanctions on those individuals and entities in Somalia who seek to obstruct the completion of these tasks.

TAPS HELPS SURVIVORS COPE WITH LOSS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Survivors of Fallen Share Memories, Understanding
By Lisa Daniel
ARLINGTON, Va. , May 25, 2012 - When David Lloyd's wife Ann, died, he hit a level of loneliness he says he never could have imagined. Today, he stood among some two thousand people who had been there.

As the Washington area marked the first day of a weekend teeming with public events commemorating the nation's fallen service members, some 1,500 adults and 500 children filled the Crystal Gateway Marriott here in an effort to help themselves and each other deal with the grief of losing their very own military heroes.

The 18th Annual TAPS National Military Survivor Seminar & Good Grief Camp for Young Survivors offered four days of events to help the families of those who died while serving in the military cope with their grief. Sponsored by the nonprofit TAPS – Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors – the seminar includes numerous sessions for adults and children ranging from coping with suicide to helping siblings and children to understanding survivor benefits.

"As the surviving family and friends of members of the Armed Forces, we share a very special bond of service and sacrifice to our nation," TAPS Founder and President Bonnie Carroll said. "We have in each other our most powerful resource for comfort and understanding. This is a safe place to spend time with others who have experienced a similar loss and understand the pain we all carry."

David Lloyd and his wife, Ann, were soldiers with the 3rd Army Division at Fort McPherson, Georgia – David, a lieutenant colonel, and Ann a major. Ann was away at training, preparing to deploy, at Fort Gordon, Ga., in November 2006 when David got the call that soldiers there had found her dead in her room from a blood clot.

With their two daughters, Rhaynae and Nicole just five and 11 years old, respectively, and the family living off base with no relatives nearby, Lloyd quickly decided to retire. "I had a new job then" – as a full-time father, he said.

The family got by as best they could, returning to their routines, and some happy times, too, Lloyd said. But he was concerned that the girls weren't dealing with their loss at the same time he was trying to figure out his own grief.

It all caught up with him one night shortly before retirement, Lloyd said. "I was very much alone in the office that night," he said.

Lloyd picked up a magazine among the papers on his desk. "I couldn't even tell you what the magazine was," he said. "I just flipped it over and there was TAPS" advertised on the back cover. The ad included a hotline for grief counseling. He didn't hesitate in picking up the phone. The TAPS volunteer spoke with him in exactly the way he needed, he said.

"When I called, it just opened up a new world to me," he said. "Then I understood I was not alone. It was just one of those things, one of those defining moments," he said.

Lloyd returned to the annual TAPS seminar for the fourth time this year, mostly for the girls, he said. "It's therapeutic for them."

Rhaynae, now 11, looks at it as going to camp and playing with other children who have lost parents, and Nicole, now 19, has come a long way in dealing with her grief, Lloyd said. It was only a year ago that Nicole asked what her mother had died from. "She just didn't want to know," he said.

"This place makes you see the kids in a different light," Lloyd said. "You just know the hurt [they're going through], then you see them laughing and you know this is a great thing."

Other parents also voiced concern that their teens and young adult children also wouldn't talk about their loss.

When Shelann Clapp's husband, Army CW5 Douglas Clapp, was killed in a helicopter crash along with Army Brig. Gen. Charles B. Allen and five other soldiers near Fort Hood, Texas, in 2004, Clapp quickly sought support with TAPS and other groups, she said.

"It helped me that I was employed," said Clapp, who works in education and is a doctoral student. "I just had to keep going. I didn't know what else to do."

Vice President Joe Biden spoke at the seminar about losing his wife and infant daughter, and how it made him understand how people can contemplate suicide. Clapp said his message resonated with her.

"I didn't want to go on; I didn't know how," she said. "I was married to this man longer than I had lived without him."

While Clapp worked through her grief, her then 18-year-old daughter, Jennifer, did not. "She kept telling me she didn't want to talk about it. She was angry, but she couldn't say why."

The Claps marked a milestone today when Jennifer, now 27, attended the seminar for the first time with her mother. After just one day of TAPS, Jennifer said she was glad she attended.

"I never really dealt with it," she said of losing her father, but being at the seminar forced her to think about it and realize she wasn't alone. Jennifer said she felt better about her loss when she met a mother of three young children on a Metro train this morning. The woman's husband, a service member, recently died.

"It really opens your eyes about what people are going through," Jennifer said. "You think you're the only one it's happened to, then you meet others who have it just as bad."
"We're very much about survivors helping survivors," said TAPS spokeswoman Ami Neiberger-Miller, whose brother was killed in action in Iraq in 2007. "We find people come, first for themselves, then they come for others," she said of TAPS mentoring program.

Bob and Kitty Conant attended the seminar for the first time this year, and went through mentor training. They said they hope to help other grieving families by being TAPS mentors. "It's about coming alongside them and listening and being there for them," Kitty said.

The couple, from Valencia, Calif., said their religious faith has gotten them through the loss of their son, John, an Army sergeant, who died of an undiagnosed heart condition, miocardial arythmia, on April 10, 2008.

"He just had a duty station change and he's serving the supreme commander now," Kitty Conant said of her son's death. "He just went before us."

Conant, the second of four boys, three of whom serve in the military, had been in the Army 15 years and completed two deployments to Iraq and one to Haiti when he died suddenly. While his heart problems were unknown, he had been battling post-traumatic stress and seemed to have turned a corner in the months before his death. He had started calling again, having long conversations with his parents, and reconnecting with his brothers, one of whom he had started to bond with in their shared PTSD and combat experiences. John found out two days before his death that he had been cleared to return to Iraq, his parents said.

While John's death was a shock, the Conants say they are content in knowing that he died doing what he loved. "He had wanted to be a soldier since he was a Cub Scout," his mother said. "That was his dream."

Ellen Andrews, TAPS Defense Department liaison, said participants find a bond that lasts years. "This is like a family reunion for us," she said. "This is the group no one wants to belong to, but we're so glad it's here."

GOVERNMENT MOBILE DEVICE INITIATIVE

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Officials Announce Government Mobile Device Initiative

By Amaani Lyle

WASHINGTON, May 23, 2012 - The U.S. government's top information and technology officials today announced a mobile device initiative that's part of an agency-wide modernization effort.

Chief Information Officer Steven VanRoekel and Chief Technology Officer Todd Park said the push to make new and useful mobile device services available fits into a digital strategy in which major federal agencies -- including the Defense Department -- will make two key government services available on mobile phones within the next 12 months.

"This consumerization of technology, even compared to three years ago, now [shows that] nearly everyone carries smart devices in their pockets," VanRoekel said. He added that the sophistication in computing power has spurred citizens to demand greater access to sites and organizations.

Defense officials said the department will soon announce its plan to provide the new services.

"Americans deserve a government that works for them anytime, anywhere, and on any device," President Barack Obama said in a White House news release issued today. "By making important services accessible from your phone and sharing government data with entrepreneurs, we are giving hard-working families and businesses tools that will help them succeed."

Mobile is rapidly becoming the platform of choice for Americans, and it is anticipated that by 2015 more people will be accessing the Internet via mobile phones than via traditional desktop computers, officials said.

"For decades we've been locking government data up in paper files or non-searchable documents," VanRoekel said. "This strategy marks a new approach to data."

Park added that the strategy brings together the best government thinkers in digital innovation and engages the private sector.

He cited Blue Button for America, a VA effort rescaled in conjunction with the DOD, Medicare and various private sector organizations, in which military, families and Medicare seniors can download copies of their own data.

"The point of Blue Button for America is to help spread adoption of that capability across more and more organizations [so that] more Americans have access to their own personal health data in a secure way," Park said.