John McCain Los Angeles World Affairs Council VIDEO

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Foreign Policy Speech at L.A. World Affairs Council (March 26, 2008) FULL STREAMING VIDEO. tunning time 53:00. His speech is titled, "U.S. Foreign Policy: Where We Go From Here." FULL TEXT TRASCRIPT follows below

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well. I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.

I am an idealist, and I believe it is possible in our time to make the world we live in another, better, more peaceful place, where our interests and those of our allies are more secure, and American ideals that are transforming the world, the principles of free people and free markets, advance even farther than they have. But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. I know we must work very hard and very creatively to build new foundations for a stable and enduring peace. We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time, and we must understand the implications of our decisions on all manner of regional and global challenges could have for our success in defeating it.

President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." In his time, that purpose was to contain Communism and build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. Now it is our turn. We face a new set of opportunities, and also new dangers. The developments of science and technology have brought us untold prosperity, eradicated disease, and reduced the suffering of millions. We have a chance in our lifetime to raise the world to a new standard of human existence. Yet these same technologies have produced grave new risks, arming a few zealots with the ability to murder millions of innocents, and producing a global industrialization that can in time threaten our planet.

To meet this challenge requires understanding the world we live in, and the central role the United States must play in shaping it for the future. The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman's day. But leadership today means something different than it did in the years after World War II, when Europe and the other democracies were still recovering from the devastation of war and the United States was the only democratic superpower. Today we are not alone. There is the powerful collective voice of the European Union, and there are the great nations of India and Japan, Australia and Brazil, South Korea and South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. There are also the increasingly powerful nations of China and Russia that wield great influence in the international system.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.

Four and a half decades ago, John Kennedy described the people of Latin America as our "firm and ancient friends, united by history and experience and by our determination to advance the values of American civilization." With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny. The countries of Latin America are the natural partners of the United States, and our northern neighbor Canada.

Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.

Power in the world today is moving east; the Asia-Pacific region is on the rise. Together with our democratic partner of many decades, Japan, we can grasp the opportunities present in the unfolding world and this century can become safe -- both American and Asian, both prosperous and free. Asia has made enormous strides in recent decades. Its economic achievements are well known; less known is that more people live under democratic rule in Asia than in any other region of the world.

Dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American president. Recent prosperity in China has brought more people out of poverty faster than during any other time in human history. China's newfound power implies responsibilities. China could bolster its claim that it is "peacefully rising" by being more transparent about its significant military buildup, by working with the world to isolate pariah states such as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe, and by ceasing its efforts to establish regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia.

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests and hope to see our relationship evolve in a manner that benefits both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values.

The United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War; the transatlantic alliance did, in concert with partners around the world. The bonds we share with Europe in terms of history, values, and interests are unique. Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.

We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.

While Africa's problems -- poverty, corruption, disease, and instability -- are well known, we must refocus on the bright promise offered by many countries on that continent. We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law. Many African nations will not reach their true potential without external assistance to combat entrenched problems, such as HIV/AIDS, that afflict Africans disproportionately. I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent -- the number one killer of African children under the age of five. In addition to saving millions of lives in the world's poorest regions, such a campaign would do much to add luster to America's image in the world.

We also share an obligation with the world's other great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States and the international community must work together and do all in our power to contain and reverse North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to prevent Iran -- a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth -- from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.

If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom -- if we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity, I believe we will gain tangible benefits as a nation.

It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. This challenge is transcendent not because it is the only one we face. There are many dangers in today's world, and our foreign policy must be agile and effective at dealing with all of them. But the threat posed by the terrorists is unique. They alone devote all their energies and indeed their very lives to murdering innocent men, women, and children. They alone seek nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction not to defend themselves or to enhance their prestige or to give them a stronger hand in world affairs but to use against us wherever and whenever they can. Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has -- to protect the lives of the American people.

We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us. We must protect our borders. But we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. Today al Qaeda and other terrorist networks operate across the globe, seeking out opportunities in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and in the Middle East.

Prevailing in this struggle will require far more than military force. It will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges. Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.

We also need to build the international structures for a durable peace in which the radical extremists are gradually eclipsed by the more powerful forces of freedom and tolerance. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy. In the troubled and often dangerous region they occupy, these two nations can either be sources of extremism and instability or they can in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy.

For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s that strategy began to unravel. The Shah was overthrown by the radical Islamic revolution that now rules in Tehran. The ensuing ferment in the Muslim world produced increasing instability. The autocrats clamped down with ever greater repression, while also surreptitiously aiding Islamic radicalism abroad in the hopes that they would not become its victims. It was a toxic and explosive mixture. The oppression of the autocrats blended with the radical Islamists' dogmatic theology to produce a perfect storm of intolerance and hatred.

We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.

If you look at the great arc that extends from the Middle East through Central Asia and the Asian subcontinent all the way to Southeast Asia, you can see those pillars of democracy stretching across the entire expanse, from Turkey and Israel to India and Indonesia. Iraq and Afghanistan lie at the heart of that region. And whether they eventually become stable democracies themselves, or are allowed to sink back into chaos and extremism, will determine not only the fate of that critical part of the world, but our fate, as well.

That is the broad strategic perspective through which to view our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people ask, how should we define success? Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is the establishment of peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states that pose no threat to neighbors and contribute to the defeat of terrorists. It is the triumph of religious tolerance over violent radicalism.

Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war in Iraq already lost. Since June 2007 sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq has been reduced by 90 percent. Overall civilian deaths have been reduced by more than 70 percent. Deaths of coalition forces have fallen by 70 percent. The dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. People are going back to work. Markets are open. Oil revenues are climbing. Inflation is down. Iraq's economy is expected to grown by roughly 7 percent in 2008. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. Political progress at the national level has been far too slow, but there is progress.

Critics say that the "surge" of troops isn't a solution in itself, that we must make progress toward Iraqi self-sufficiency. I agree. Iraqis themselves must increasingly take responsibility for their own security, and they must become responsible political actors. It does not follow from this, however, that we should now recklessly retreat from Iraq regardless of the consequences. We must take the course of prudence and responsibility, and help Iraqis move closer to the day when they no longer need our help.

That is the route of responsible statesmanship. We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?

Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake. Whether they were there before is immaterial, al Qaeda is in Iraq now, as it is in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Indonesia. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, as various factions of Sunni and Shi'a have yet to move beyond their ancient hatreds, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. I believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for it, as both Democratic candidates do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. I do not argue against withdrawal, any more than I argued several years ago for the change in tactics and additional forces that are now succeeding in Iraq, because I am somehow indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later.

I run for President because I want to keep the country I love and have served all my life safe, and to rise to the challenges of our times, as generations before us rose to theirs. I run for President because I know it is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace, a peace built on the strength of our commitment to it, on the transformative ideals on which we were founded, on our ability to see around the corner of history, and on our courage and wisdom to make hard choices. I run because I believe, as strongly as I ever have, that it is within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited.

Thank you.

Tags: John McCain and Los Angeles World Affairs Council

Statement by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on the 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund Reports VIDEO

Statement by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on the 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund Reports. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Reports from the Board of Trustees - Status of the Social Security and Medicare Program. also available in Adobe PDF FORMAT

Washington--The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees met this afternoon to complete their annual financial review of the programs and to transmit the Trustees Reports to Congress. I welcome my Cabinet colleagues.

For decades, Social Security and Medicare have provided vital support for millions of Americans. As the baby boom generation moves into retirement, these programs face progressively larger financial challenges. If we do not take action soon to reform Social Security and Medicare, the coming demographic bulge will jeopardize the ability of these programs to support people who depend on them. Without change, rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues, and threaten America's future prosperity. Our Nation needs a bipartisan effort to strengthen both programs for future retirees.

This year's Social Security Report again demonstrates that the Social Security program is financially unsustainable and requires reform. In fewer than 10 years, cash flows are projected to turn negative--meaning that we will draw upon general revenues to support withdrawals from the Trust Funds in order to pay current benefits. The Trust Funds are projected to be exhausted in 2041, the same as projected in last year's Report. Reform is needed and time is of the essence. The longer we delay, the larger the required adjustments will be and the more heavily the burden of those adjustments will fall on future generations.

Social Security's unfunded obligation--the difference between the present values of Social Security inflows and outflows less the existing Trust Fund--equals $4.3 trillion over the next 75 years and $13.6 trillion on a permanent basis. To make the system whole on a permanent basis, the combined payroll tax rate would have to be raised immediately by 26 percent (from 12.4 percent to about 15.6 percent), or benefits reduced immediately by 20 percent.

This Report confirms the need for action; the sooner we take action to strengthen Social Security's financial footing, the less drastic the needed reforms will be, and the fairer reforms will be to future generations. President Bush has called for bipartisan solutions that generate a permanently sustainable Social Security system. The President has put forward a number of well-considered ideas. We now need serious and thoughtful engagement from all sides to make sure Social Security is strengthened and sustained for future generations.

The 2008 Medicare Trustees Report shows that the Medicare program poses a far greater financial challenge than Social Security. Medicare faces the same demographic trends as Social Security, and, in addition, the system must cope with expected large increases in health care costs. Medicare's annual costs were 3.2 percent of GDP in 2007, or nearly three-quarters of Social Security's, but are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and reach nearly 11 percent of GDP in 2082, compared to 5.8 percent for Social Security.

Cash flow for the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to be negative this year and for all subsequent years. The HI Trust Fund is projected to become insolvent in 2019, the same as projected in last year's Report.

The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which includes Part B for outpatient services and the new Part D prescription drug benefit, is financed in large part by general revenues as well as beneficiary premiums. SMI expenditures are projected to increase rapidly, resulting in growing pressures on future federal budgets and, in turn, the U.S. economy. General revenue financing for SMI is expected to increase from about 1.3 percent of GDP in 2007 to over 4 percent in 2082, with continued increases beyond 75 years.

Today, seniors all over America have guaranteed access to affordable prescription drug coverage. The market-based structure of the new prescription drug benefit appears to be working. Average premiums for Part D have come down again this year.

The facts are clear: the sooner Social Security and Medicare are reformed, the fairer reforms will be to future generations. The serious concerns raised by the Trustees Reports demand the attention of America's policymakers and the public. Americans who will depend on Social Security and Medicare expect us to address the long-term funding issues. Successful long-term reform of these programs is a shared responsibility and we all have to rise to the challenge. -30-

REPORTS:

• Medicare Report
• Social Security Report
• Summary of Reports

Tags: Medicare Trust Fund Reports and Social Security or Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and Department of The Treasury

Economic Stimulus Rebate Calculator and Schedule PODCAST

Podcast: Economic Stimulus Payment (mp3) Running time 6:14 A new online calculator will give you an estimate of the stimulus payment you may be due. Just answer a few questions and the calculator will do the rest. Remember: you must file a 2007 tax return in order to receive the payment. Calculator

Payments will start May 2. The last two-digits of your Social Security number and whether you opted for direct deposit into your financial account or a paper check will determine when you receive your payment.

• Payment Schedule

Super Saturday — March 29 - Approximately 320 IRS offices located in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will be open on Super Saturday to prepare the simple Form 1040A for people who are filing a return solely to receive their stimulus payment. Operating hours will be 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., although some may be open longer. IRS employees will help prepare the Form 1040A returns for low-income workers, retirees, disabled veterans and others. Super Saturday Locations for March 29

You May Be Eligible Even if You Normally Do Not File a Tax Return - If you have at least $3,000 in certain types of income, you may be eligible for the economic stimulus payment. You also may be able to use Free File - Economic Stimulus Payment. See the special types of benefits or income that qualify below:

• Especially for Social Security Recipients Information for people who receive retirement, disability or survivors' benefits

• Especially for Veterans Affairs Recipients Information for people who receive pension, disability and survivors' benefits

• Especially for Railroad Retirement Recipients Information for people who receive Tier 1 Railroad Retirement benefits

• Especially for Low-Wage Workers Information for people who receive a wages, salary, tips, etc. or who are self-employed

• Especially for Military Combat Personnel Information for members of the military serving in a combat zone

Rebate Scam Alert - Be aware that identity thieves are already pushing scams involving the stimulus payments. At least one telephone scam is making the rounds using the proposed rebates as bait. News release IR-2008-11, IRS Warns of New E-Mail and Telephone Scams Using the IRS Name; Advance Payment Scams Starting, has more details.

En Español - Pagos de Estímulo Económico: Conozca sobre los pagos del estímulo económico, a cuanto ascienden los pagos y cuando estos se enviaran a los contribuyentes.

Tags: Economic Stimulus Payments and Rebate checks or IRS

Algorithm finds the network - for genes or the Internet

Weixiong Zhang has created a mathematical recipe - also known as an algorithm - that automatically discovers communities and their subtle structures in various networks, from the Internet to genetic lattices.

Human diseases and social networks seem to have little in common. However, at the crux of these two lies a network, communities within the network, and farther even, substructures of the communities. In a recent paper in Physical Review E 77:016104 (2008), Weixiong Zhang, Ph.D., Washington University associate professor of computer science and engineering and of genetics, along with his Ph.D. student, Jianhua Ruan, published an algorithm (a recipe of computer instructions) to automatically identify communities and their subtle structures in various networks. Many complex systems can be represented as networks, Zhang said, including the genetic networks he studies, social networks and the Internet itself.

The community structure of networks features a natural division in which the vertices in each subnetwork are highly involved with each other, though connected less strongly with the rest of the network. Communities are relatively independent of one another structurally, but researchers think that each community may correspond to a fundamental functional unit. A community in a genetic network usually contains genes with similar functions, just as a community on the World Wide Web often corresponds to Web pages on similar topics.

All Zhang and Ruan need are data. Their algorithm is more scalable than existing similar algorithms and can detect communities at a finer scale and with a higher accuracy. One impact of having such a computational biology tool is found in the genomics field. Using this tool, researchers may be better able to identify and understand communities of genes and their networks as well as how they cooperate in causing diseases, such as sepsis, virus infections, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

Versatile math tool

Zhang and Ruan's algorithm is so versatile that it has been applied to identify the community structure of a network of co-expressed genes involved in bacterial sepsis.

"This is a tool not only for biological research, but also for sociological research," Zhang said. It can determine, for instance, how people interact in social networks and how scientists collaborate in scientific research.

In biological systems there are lots of communities with many proteins involved to form complexes. "We can use this tool to identify structures embedded in the data," Zhang said. "We've identified the substructures of three different RNA polymerase complexes from noisy data, for instance, which are crucial for gene transcription."

Zhang began his computer science career as a specialist in artificial intelligence, but in recent years he has focused more on computational biology. His goal is to use computational means to solve some basic biology problems and those related to human diseases. For example, his group studied a basic problem of the transcription mechanism of microRNAs, which are small, noncoding RNAs that regulate the development and stress responses of nearly all eukaryotic species that have been studied. Using machine learning techniques, Zhang and his collaborators showed that almost all intergenic microRNA genes in four model species, human, mouse, rice and mustard plant (Arabidopsis), are transcribed by RNA polymerase II, which transcribes protein-coding genes. The results were published in PLoS Computational Biology, 3(3):e37 (2007).

Multidisciplinary research that combines computational approaches with biological data is a hallmark of research themes in Zhang's group. As another example, in a paper published in Genome Biology, 7(6):R49 (2006), Zhang and his Ph.D. student, Guandong Wang, developed an algorithm called WordSpy that identifies cis-regulatory elements — short DNA sequences that are critical to the regulation of gene expression — from a large amount of genome sequences.

Stealth from the ancient Greeks

WordSpy was inspired by an old information-hiding technique called stegography, which can be traced back to ancient Greece. As such, their method can be used to analyze not only genomic sequences, but also natural languages. In fact, their method has been extended to segment words and phrases in Chinese.

Aside from studying networks, Zhang also has formed a broad network of collaborations with scientists across the WUSTL campus and outside of the university. The problems he studies are diverse, ranging from stress responses and virus infection in plants, such as rice, to human diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, herpes virus infection, sepsis, cardiac hypertrophy, lung cancer and lung transplantation. The computational tools his group has developed are helping him and his collaborators come to grips with how perturbation to gene expression can lead to complex traits and human diseases as well as how microRNAs regulate gene expression.

Zhang recently was awarded a grant from the Alzheimer's Association to develop computational systems biology methods for analyzing gene expression perturbation in diseased brains. He has been collaborating with scientists in the Washington University School of Medicine and Scripps Institute in La Jolla, Calif., to study roughly 30 postmortem brain samples of people who died from Alzheimer's disease.

"I'm interested in modeling gene expression perturbation in diseased brains and am looking for the genetic signature," Zhang said. "Due to the complexity of Alzheimer's disease, we are developing other tools. It's a polygenic disease, with a lot of genes at work. I'm sure we'll find that a network is involved."

By Tony Fitzpatrick, Washington University in St. Louis News & Information Contact: Wexiong Zhang zhang@cse.wustl.edu 314-935-8788 Washington University in St. Louis

Tags: social networks and Washington University in St. Louis or genomic sequences and stegography

Freedom Calendar 03/22/08 - 03/29/08

March 22, 1871, Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.

March 23, 1823, Birth of Schuyler Colfax (R-IN), who as Speaker of the House broke precedent to vote for Republicans’ constitutional amendment banning slavery; later served as Vice President.

March 24, 1902, Birth of Thomas Dewey (R-NY), who as Governor introduced nation’s first statewide civil rights law; Republican presidential candidate in 1944 and 1948.

March 25, 1864, Death of U.S. Rep. Owen Lovejoy (R-IL), abolitionist and co-founder of Republican Party in Illinois.

March 26, 1910, President Taft appoints Republican William Lewis as first African-American U.S. Asst. Attorney General.

Easter Sunday, March 27, 1856, First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.

March 28, 1870, Republican Jonathan Wright of South Carolina becomes first African-American state Supreme Court Justice.

March 29, 1885, Birth of U.S. Rep. Frances Payne Bolton (R-OH), first woman to serve as U.S. Delegate to United Nations General Assembly.

"Discrimination against the negro race in this country is unjust, is unworthy of a high-minded people whose example should have a salutary influence in the world.”

Rep. Joseph Rainey (R-SC), the first African-American in the U.S. House of Representatives (1870-79)

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Booker T. Washington and Republicans or African-Americans and Brown v. Board of Education or Ronald Reagan and Condoleezza Rice or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Voting Rights Act of 1965 or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 03/22/08

Presidential Podcast 03/22/08 . Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned. Easter 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Easter

Bush radio address 03/22/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 03/22/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address Easter 2008

Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend, families across America are coming together to celebrate Easter. This is the most important holiday in the Christian faith. And during this special and holy time each year, millions of Americans pause to remember a sacrifice that transcended the grave and redeemed the world.

Easter is a holiday that beckons us homeward. This weekend is an occasion to reflect on the things that matter most in life: the love of family, the laughter of friends, and the peace that comes from being in the place you call home. Through good times and bad, these quiet mercies are sources of hope.

On Easter, we hold in our hearts those who will be spending this holiday far from home -- our troops on the front lines. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. America is blessed with the world's greatest military, made up of men and women who fulfill their responsibilities with dignity, humility, and honor. Their dedication is an inspiration to our country and a cause for gratitude this Easter season.

On Easter, we remember especially those who have given their lives for the cause of freedom. These brave individuals have lived out the words of the Gospel: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And our Nation's fallen heroes live on in the memory of the Nation they helped defend.

On Easter, we also honor Americans who give of themselves here at home. Each year, millions of Americans take time to feed the hungry and clothe the needy and care for the widow and the orphan. Many of them are moved to action by their faith in a loving God who gave His son so that sin would be forgiven. And in this season of renewal, millions across the world remember the gift that took away death's sting and opened the door to eternal life. Laura and I wish you all a happy Easter.

Thank you for listening.

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 22, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Easter

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 03/22/08

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 03/22/08 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días.

Este fin de semana familias en todo Estados Unidos se están juntando para celebrar la Pascua. Esta es la fiesta más importante de la fe cristiana. Y durante este período especial y sagrado, cada año millones de estadounidenses se detienen para recordar un sacrificio que trascendió la sepultura y redimió al mundo.

La Pascua es una fiesta que nos llama de regreso a casa. Este fin de semana es una ocasión para reflejar sobre las cosas que más importan en la vida: el amor de la familia… la risa de amigos… y la paz que proviene de estar en el lugar que usted llama su hogar. En buenos tiempos como en malos tiempos, estas tiernas misericordias son fuentes de esperanza.

En la Pascua, llevamos en nuestros corazones aquellos que pasarán esta fiesta lejos de sus hogares – nuestras tropas en el frente. Yo aprecio profundamente los sacrificios que ellos y sus familias están haciendo. Estados Unidos tiene la bendición de tener las mejores fuerzas armadas del mundo, compuestas de hombres y mujeres que cumplen su responsabilidad con dignidad, humildad y honor. Su dedicación es una inspiración para nuestro país y motivo de gratitud en esta temporada de Pascua.

En la Pascua, recordamos especialmente aquellos que han dado sus vidas por la causa de la libertad. Estos valientes individuos han vivido las palabras del Evangelio: “Nadie tiene mayor amor que el que da su vida por sus amigos.” Y los héroes caídos de nuestra Nación viven en la memoria de la Nación que ayudaron a defender.

En la Pascua también honramos a estadounidenses que dan de sí mismo aquí en casa. Cada año, millones de estadounidenses dedican tiempo para alimentar a los que tienen hambre, y vestir a los necesitados, y velar por la viuda y el huérfano. Muchos de ellos se ven motivados a actuar por su fe en un Dios bondadoso que dio a Su Hijo para que se perdonara el pecado. Y en esta temporada de renovación, millones de personas en todo el mundo recuerdan el regalo que eliminó la punzada de la muerte y abrió la puerta hacia la vida eterna. Laura y yo les deseamos a todos una feliz Pascua.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 22 de marzo de 2008

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush

State Department Briefing Passports and Presidential Candidates VIDEO PODCAST

Daily Press Briefing. Sean McCormack, Spokesman. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Washington, DC. March 21, 2008, 12:12 p.m. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I get to your questions, I wanted to provide a little bit of a recap and a little bit of an update on where we are with respect to the questions surrounding unauthorized access of Senator Obama's passport file.

Just to do a little bit of a recap, in case you missed the Secretary's words upstairs, she reached out to Senator Obama to say that she was sorry that this had happened, that there were these unauthorized accesses to his passport file. She assured the Senator that we took this seriously and that we were going to do a thorough investigation as well as to take steps to do the - try to ensure that this kind of unauthorized access doesn't happen in the future.

Now, a little bit of an update on where we are. We had talked earlier this morning about our doing a search to see whether or not there were any other unauthorized accesses of any of the other remaining presidential candidates, and our searches turned up two: one incident this past summer where there was a trainee in the Passport Office who had an unauthorized access of Senator Clinton's passport file. The context in which this happened was that last summer, when we were training new people to come online to help work through that backlog of passports that we had, we brought somebody online. Usually, in these training circumstances, people are encouraged to enter a family member's name just for training purposes. This person chose to enter Senator Clinton's name. It was immediately recognized. They were immediately admonished, and it didn't happen again.

Now, in the case of Senator McCain, we detected earlier this year - I don't have the exact date for you - one of the same people who accessed Senator Obama's passport file also accessed Senator McCain's passport file. This is the same individual who was disciplined but, at this point in time, still remains working with the contractor. So we are reviewing our options with respect to that person and his employment status.

Currently, Pat Kennedy as well as some other State Department officials are up on the Hill now briefing Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain's staffs on these incidents. Secretary Rice has, as I said, spoken with Senator Obama. She has also spoken with Senator Clinton. And shortly here, she will be speaking with Senator McCain, who is currently in Paris. So that's the update of where we stand and I'd be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Two things, if I may. One, did she apologize to Senator Clinton? Do you expect her to apologize also to Senator McCain? And secondly, have you expanded your investigation to include not merely the remaining presidential candidates, but indeed, all of the other presidential candidates who may have dropped out and whose privacy may also have been violated?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Secretary Rice expressed the same sentiments to Senator Clinton. I would expect that she would say the same thing to Senator McCain. We're sorry that this happened and sorry - and that we take it very seriously. We're going to do a full investigation and that investigation is going to be led by our Inspector General here in the Department of State.

Our Acting Inspector General is going to be supervising the investigation. The direct lead on the investigation is going to be led by our Director of the Investigations Branch. This is somebody who has just recently retired from the Secret - U.S. Secret Service as a special agent who has years and years of experience in investigative work. The Secretary has made it clear, through Pat Kennedy to them, that this is top priority. There's nothing else that's more important than to make sure and go through and do this investigation.

Now, you bring up a good point. They are going to take a look at these particular unauthorized accesses that we have talked about now in the case of these three presidential candidates. But they are also going to take a look at whether or not there are any systemic issues that need to be addressed. And in the course of doing that, if they come across any other incidents, of course, they are going to report those. And if there is any action that needs to be taken as a result of any information that they may uncover in the course of that investigation, absolutely, they are going to act on it.

And one other thing that's important to note. The Secretary has made a commitment that once we're completed with this investigation, the results of the investigation are going to be handed over and made available to all of our oversight committees up on the Hill, and that includes Congressman Waxman's committee. So we are in the mode here of being as transparent and open as we possibly can. I think the Secretary, you know, expressed everybody's sentiments here. Of course, you're mad and irritated if somebody is looking at your personal information. I think any American can relate to that.

And I have to tell you that we take very seriously the trust that is put in us in safeguarding American citizens' personal data. It is -- there's a trust relationship there when somebody hands over a passport application or any other sort of application to the U.S. Government. We take that trust very seriously. And we try to put in place sophisticated and elaborate safeguards to make sure that if people break the rules -- and we don't want to see them break the rules, but if people break the rules, that that's detected and that we can act to punish those people. And that holds not only for notable personalities such as presidential candidates or any other notable people in American society, but for every citizen. The controls may be a little bit different and I'm not going to get into how we monitor the activities and access to these people's files, because to do so would really only be to -- would only serve to tip people off to how we monitor the accesses.

But it's an important point because I know a lot of people are watching this story, they're interested in the story, and I understand why. But people should know that our vigilance applies not just to VIPs, notable personalities. The same kind of vigilance applies to every other passport application that we handle.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? Just - I didn't understand one thing. You said you're going to take a look -- a systemic -- you were going to take a look to see if there is a systemic issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I mean, are you going to specifically look at both - all the other presidential candidates and, indeed, all the people that you designate as high-profile people to make sure that this hasn't happened to them?

And then the other thing is this morning you said, and last night in the call you said the system worked. Do you believe that the system worked when the system was not able to prevent the multiple accesses, unauthorized accesses to one presidential candidate and now the access -- unauthorized access to two others? Do you still feel like the system worked?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I do feel like the system worked and we do feel like the system worked, but the system isn't perfect. And what you do in these kinds of circumstances is you learn. And what we have learned here is that for some reason, there was -- people at the working level did the right things. They confronted these employees who had accessed these files in an unauthorized way and they took action. That was the right thing to do and that's by the book.

What didn't happen is that that didn't - the information didn't rise up to senior management levels so that we could be made aware of it. That should have happened. And Pat Kennedy, who is our Under Secretary of Management, has made it clear to everybody involved in this process that he expects that to happen; if there are any future such incidences - and we all hope that there aren't - that he expects, and frankly, the Secretary expects that senior-level management is going to be made aware of these things.

And why is that important? That's important so that people in positions of management responsibility in this Department can take steps that they deem prudent and that they deem right to make sure that you don't have those kinds of multiple incidences. And it's a fair question to ask: Well, if senior management had been notified and you had somebody in a position more senior in the management structure notified of this, could they have taken a decision to perhaps put additional safeguards in place? The answer is yes. And Pat Kennedy is looking at ways in which, in particular, for the three individuals in this case -- Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain -- who have had their files accessed in an unauthorized manner, looking at how we can put in place safeguards so that there is a positive control at a senior management level for anybody who wants to do work on those files.

Now, in doing that, we don't -- we want to make sure that we can do our job and we can do the work that we've been assigned to do. So that's one thing we are going to take a look at system-wide. We have already made it very clear we expect information to flow up, which didn't happen in these cases and we expect it to happen in the future. The Secretary expects it to happen in the future. And the Inspector General will take a look at, you know, any issues -- any other issues that might be identified in the course of their work.

As for your other question about other individuals, let me get back to you. I'm not aware that we have done any other searches, but let me take that question and we'll get back to you.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why did it take extra time to discover the breaches of Senators Clinton and McCain? Why wasn't that -- why didn't that come up yesterday in the same search?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's worth going back and doing the timeline here. Okay? And it gets -- it plays off the point I just made to Arshad in his question. And that is the information didn't flow up. In fact, we should have known about these unauthorized accesses when they happened -- senior management of the Department. Why? So we could have taken some steps to address it. But it's worth going through the timeline of this particular story.

We first became aware of questions related to these unauthorized accesses yesterday afternoon when a reporter e-mailed me to ask about it. I inquired to Pat Kennedy. He delved into the issue, found the information. As soon as we realized that there were these unauthorized accesses for Senator Obama's passport files, collected the information, we briefed the Secretary, we briefed Senator Obama's staff all before we ever replied to the reporter. Then we replied to the reporter and then we all talked to the rest of you as the questions came in.

While we were doing that yesterday afternoon, we did ask ourselves the question: Were there potentially, since there were these accesses and interest in Senator Obama, presidential candidate, were there any unauthorized accesses of the other remaining presidential candidates? So we immediately took steps to search the records, takes some time. We started that process yesterday. We got the answer this morning. Before I talked about those unauthorized accesses in public with you, we wanted to make sure we briefed the staff. We briefed the staffs and the Secretary also wanted the opportunity to first reach out, as appropriate, to each of the senators.

So that's why it took the time.

QUESTION: Right, but given -

QUESTION: (Inaudible) already knew about McCain and --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I did not.

QUESTION: But given the fact that it involved one staff member in two of the cases, how could that information not -- and who -- we understand there was disciplinary action taken.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: How could that not have come to light last night?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you. You know, I can't tell you. It could be as simple as one of those things, somebody asks you a direct question about one thing, and they gave you the direct answer about the one thing that you wanted to know about. I don't know the answer to it.

The fact of the matter is we did discover it. And with respect to that person, we are -- I can assure you that person's going to be at the top of the list of the Inspector General when they talk to people. And we are currently reviewing our options with respect to that person.

QUESTION: Is that person one of the two people who was dismissed?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. Currently employed by the contractor.

Let's go down -- I'll work this way. Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, there is something I needed to understand. These people, what did they have access to, exactly? Was it only the renewal application for renewal of passport or was it something else, traces of past trips, for example?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. They're passport files. Now, what is in a passport file will vary from individual to individual. And I don't know what is in each of these passport files, and certainly I wouldn't talk about it without the express authorization of any of these individuals. That holds true whether you're a senator or an average American citizen.

People can get a sense, you know, for what is in a passport application. At a minimum, what's in a passport file is your passport application, whether it's your original or your renewal. And you can take a look at -- anybody, any citizen can take a look at it. It's on our website if they go to pptform.state.gov. And you can take a look what's on there just so people can see this is what -- this is what one looks like and it has several parts. The instruction's here. It has a lot of basic data: your name, your date of birth, your mailing address, contact information, information about your parents, emergency contact information, basic biographical data, but - you know, and I'm not going to run through every single thing that's on there. But people can take a look at it. And it's basically the same --

QUESTION: But it could be more.

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: It could be more.

MR. MCCORMACK: In the passport file?

QUESTION: No, in the file, yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: In the file, yeah. It could be. I don't know and I'm certainly not going to speculate. And, you know, for our purposes, it actually -- and I know it's important to the individuals, but for our purposes, it doesn't matter what's in the file. It's the fact that the file was accessed in an unauthorized manner that is the problem. And I also would like to take just one step back just to give you a little bit of context here as well. I don't have exact numbers for you, but every single year, there's probably a handful of cases where you have unauthorized access to passport data. And I'll try to - and I'll try and do a little more research and get you some specific numbers, but to provide you a little bit of context as well.

And this is important that the American people understand this, is that last year we issued 18 million passports and the way the system works and part of the actual safeguard system that we have built in, and I'm not going to get into this, but essentially, for those 18 million passports, basically people will have had to, in some way, shape or form, accessed people's information, when you add it all up, tens of millions of times for legitimate purposes. So you have literally tens of millions of these individual, small, legitimate transactions when you're dealing with these passport issues and we have a handful of cases every single year where it's unauthorized access. Now I'll tell you - that's not making excuses. I'll tell you, one's too many.

But, you know, the important thing here is we do have a system in place to catch people who try to access these files in an unauthorized way. And we think we do a pretty good job of catching them and disciplining them.

QUESTION: Sean, can you tell us --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's -- I asked the question of Consular Affairs people - someone to come out here and try to give you a little bit of context. And like I said, I'll try to get you the exact numbers. And they told me and they said -- I said, quantify it for me. They said it's a handful each year that we know about. Now, of course, there's always a possibility that there are some that you don't know about. That always is a possibility. But in terms of the people that are caught, the description was given to me was a handful.

QUESTION: Okay. The reason I asked is that we just learned of five in the last, you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: So it makes me wonder when five --

MR. MCCORMACK: Maybe two handfuls.

QUESTION: Maybe there - well, but maybe there are lots that are simply not captured and you just don't know.

MR. MCCORMACK: There is always a case you don't know what you don't know. But again, I'm going on the information that's provided me when I asked the question.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Let's -- I'll go down from right to left. Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, can you tell us about the system of flagging high-profile cases? Can you talk about that a little more generically, if not specifically, whether you're talking about presidential candidates only? Are you talking about rock star personalities? Are you talking about film stars? I'm not trying to be silly or funny here --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, yeah.

QUESTION: There's an impression out there that people might have gone and accessed -- you gave us one yourself, the person who accessed Hillary Clinton's file.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: So if somebody wanted to see their favorite film star, their favorite recording artist, could they do that?

MR. MCCORMACK: If they have a passport file, theoretically, it's possible, yeah. And there are - you know, people - you know, people every day from, you know, people who are in the news and a variety of different fora whether that's in, you know, on CBS news or People magazine or any other form of media, all the way to people who just applied for a trip to visit their relatives, should have the trust. Now, is it possible that there could be access to those kind of files? Yeah, there could.

And it's the Bureau of Consular Affairs that manages the program of applying, for lack of a better term, these flags to these kinds of files, files where you might reasonably expect that there is some form of temptation, for whatever reason, to look into their files. I don't -- I can look into this for you. I don't have a number, like a percentage of all the files that are flagged.

QUESTION: Well, I'm curious about --

MR. MCCORMACK: But again, it could be -- it's anybody from, you know, politicians to movie stars to novelists to whomever.

QUESTION: Okay. And another question: Can you name the two companies or contractors that these people - that the three people worked for?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, we're not prepared to release the name of the contractors. There could be a point here at which we will. There's been a request in from the Hill for that information, along with a lot of other information. So we'll take a look at that. At the moment, I'm not prepared to provide that, but we'll take a look at it.

QUESTION: Why are you not naming the companies? It's a public contract.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, it's a legitimate question. We're taking a look at it. I think, at this point, we've just started an investigation. We want to err on the side of caution and allow investigators to get a start without some of the attention that comes with talking about the names of the contractors. We will see. We'll -- it's something that we're taking under advisement and - but at this point in time, we're not going to talk about.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you tell us what's the fate of this third person who accessed both Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's - why he has not been fired at this point and why the other two have? And especially in light of the fact that he has accessed two of them, why you can't say (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, I'm not going to try to play close to the lines in terms of personnel matters, but let me -- I'll just say that we are reviewing our options with respect to that individual's continued employment with the contractor working at the State Department. I can tell you that that individual no longer has access to this kind of information.

QUESTION: Sean, the Clinton incident -- it was a person that was in training.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you think it's appropriate that somebody that's in training can go ahead and access the records of somebody as high profile as Senator Clinton? And also, why isn't that person just admonished? Are they still working? I mean, are they still able to continue on with their job or --

MR. MCCORMACK: It was a person -- this was during the past summer when we were bringing in people who don't normally do passport work, a so-called surge to deal with the passport backlog. I don't have the specifics of the individual. But, you know, again, when you're doing training, you need to be able to actually work with the system in order to do a good job and to do the job well.

Again, I can't speak to the specifics of the incident because I don't have them beyond what I've told you, that this was a training environment. It's inexplicable. You know, why, when you're sitting in a classroom and somebody tells you, use the - use your name, use your mother's name, use your father's name as part of this training exercise in order to access and work with a file and they choose to enter Senator Clinton's name? It's inexplicable. Why would somebody do that? I don't know why. But the fact is it was caught immediately, the person was admonished. I believe that they went on to continue their training without any further incident, but I can check into that for you.

QUESTION: And can I ask you about the DOJ part of this? This morning, you said --

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: -- that they were - that the State Department had contacted the DOJ and that you were --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, the IG.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm sorry, the IG --

MR. MCCORMACK: The IG, correct.

QUESTION: You will be proceeding together?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Now I know some of us were confused about what that actually meant.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: This is not a joint investigation of any kind?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. And I know that people get, rightly so, very particular about terminology. I wouldn't characterize this as a joint investigation. I'll let the DOJ characterize their level and nature of involvement. We have invited them in to participate in the way that they see fit. Again, for the reasons that I talked about, as a hedge against any potential further action that might be required that would require the DOJ to take a look at whether or not they would take any action, again, that's completely their call. It's just a way of ensuring that there is openness and transparency and that if there is any need for further action beyond just the IG investigation, that the Department of Justice would have the option of looking at what it is they would or would not do, having had access to all the information and how we did the investigation from the very beginning.

QUESTION: Sean, was this person --

QUESTION: Can I ask --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nina.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up real quick --

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- on Libby's question about the person from last summer? Was this person a PMF, so in a sense, not a contractor?

MR. MCCORMACK: That person was - is a State Department employee, not a contract employee. I don't know if they were a PMF. I'll try to - I'll see if we can: (a) find that information; and (b) see what we can say in public.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Sean, about these contractors, is this common practice to farm out this kind of work to these private companies or is this just because of this recent backlog? Can you tell me how that works?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. We have -- at the Department of State, as many, many other cabinet agencies do, we have contract relationships in order to help do some of our daily tasks. And that's done for a variety of different reasons. Normally, it is done because it is cost-effective, being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar while getting the job done in an effective way. Somebody - you guys asked earlier about how many -- what's the ratio of full-time U.S. Government employees to contractor employees in the Office of Passport Services. As of this month, there are about 1,800 U.S. Government employees working within the Office of Passport Services. As of this month, there are about 2,600 contract employees working within the Office of Passport Services.

Now, these people -- the contract employees will do a range of activities, all the way from system design, working on the actual software systems that people use in order to manipulate this data and to produce passports, to data entry, to customer service. So there's a wide variety of functions that they fulfill. But they are all under the management of State Department full-time employees as well as State Department managers. And you know, they do a really good job for the most part. There are always people who will break the rules, you know, whether they're contractors or full-time employees. But I wouldn't -- you know, having worked with a lot of contract employee folks, whether it's here or elsewhere, they do a good job, they're dedicated to their jobs and, you know, they are no less committed to trying to do a good job just because they're working for a contractor.

QUESTION: Are these contractors -- are they subject to the same kind of security checks or screenings that a State Department formal employee might be?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know Pat Kennedy talked a little bit about this last night. There are rigorous background checks that people go through, personal integrity checks --

QUESTION: For the contractors?

MR. MCCORMACK: For the contractors, right. And there is a -- I can't say with certainty, Nina, that a USG employee and a contractor go through the same security clearance process. There are many, many people in the State Department who are employed by the State Department who don't go through a security clearance process, I believe. So let me try to get you an answer and we'll post that for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask one more thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: And just to get a sense of the duties that these people were supposed to be doing, were they given a list of names that they were supposed to look up and they veered from that list, or were they -- did they just go beyond their arena completely by putting in names at all?

MR. MCCORMACK: For --

QUESTION: I imagine that they were given a list of just regular citizens that they were meant to be processing and they just veered off and put these well-known names in.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I don't know for certain the specific responsibilities of each of the individuals. All I do know is they didn't have any business accessing those files. They didn't have a need to work on them. They weren't working on them as part of their jobs and they didn't have a need to know.

QUESTION: I'm just asking how far did they go beyond what they were meant to be doing?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't quantify it for - you know, whether they were one inch beyond the line or one foot beyond the line. In a way, it doesn't matter. They were over the line.

Yeah. I'm going to give everybody a chance here. Nicholas.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on this, I'm wondering in terms of defining unauthorized access, so when an employee accesses a file every time, do they need to put in a note of why they're accessing it, or how do you know that -- how does the flag go up? I mean, how do you know that the access was not authorized?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, for these files that are flagged, any time there is an access to those flagged files, a report is generated. And that report goes to a supervisor who can determine either for -- either through their own means that, yes, this person was supposed to be working on that file or they go talk to the person or go talk to their supervisor. In some way, they determine whether or not that person had a legitimate work-related reason to be accessing that file. And if it's found that they don't have a legitimate reason, then we proceed down the line all the way to the point of possible termination of employment.

QUESTION: All right. And also, the Secretary said upstairs that, to her knowledge, senior management had not been notified. Do you know how high did people in the chain know about the incident? Because someone knew, but she said it was at senior management.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. It's at the office director level for all -- for the three incidents with respect to Senator Obama. With respect to the other two, I have to do some research. But again, these are things that just came to light and came to -- and about which senior management only became aware today.

QUESTION: Well, if it was right, that means the Passport Office?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, in the Passport -- the Office of Passport Services. So there are obviously --

QUESTION: Different locations, right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- numerous offices there and there are numerous locations as well, but at the office director level.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And their officers -- so that was a State Department employee? That was not a contractor person; that was an employee of the State -- the manager -- the supervisor?

MR. MCCORMACK: Ultimately, it did come -- yes, yes.

Glenn.

QUESTION: Yes, I came a little late. So if you already addressed this, I apologize. First of all, have you determined whether or not any laws have been broken by this -- by what they did here in terms of accessing the passports?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, we haven't, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: But our Office of Legal Counsel is - was - looked into this early on yesterday when we became aware that we -- that there was an issue here. So they're going to work closely with the IG's office on just those questions. I don't know what the potential pool of possible laws that might apply to these kinds of incidents are. I'm happy to do a little bit of research and see if we can find that for you.

QUESTION: Well, I was asking because Pat said last night he hoped to find out this morning whether or not any laws have been broken.

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't - as of this morning, I talked to him very generally about that and he didn't have any information for me.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if you do find out --

MR. MCCORMACK: If we find out, we'll -- you know, for all of these questions, if we can be efficient in finding the answers and posting them for you, we'll do it, just so everybody is kept up to date here and I know that we're coming into a weekend as well.

QUESTION: And, Sean - and then, just to follow up something else that came up last night, the -- there's a question as to whether or not the Inspector General has any kind of authority or ability to talk to or question people who have been fired.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Is there an update on that? What kind of -- these people have already been terminated.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: What can the State Department do now to talk to them or -

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, certainly, we try to search them out and, on our own accord, try to contact them and to question them. I don't know that we've gotten beyond that point.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know if anyone has spoken at this point to those people or are you still just relying on what the supervisor said?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know that anybody has spoken with them at this point.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Charley.

QUESTION: How straightforward is it when the employees of contractors of the State Department are hired and trained that they may lose their jobs if they snoop into people's files?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's very clear. And that's a big part of the process here, is you want to make the rules known to people as clearly as they possibly can both in their training period as well as their initial employment period. And frankly, every single time they access a computer, there's a reminder that comes up that says the information you are about to access has Privacy Act restrictions on it and you are acknowledging that you have a need-to-know in order to do your job to access this file and that if you are accessing it in an unauthorized manner, then there are potential penalties.

So not only is this part of the atmosphere in these offices in terms of the rules that are known and made explicit to everybody; there's a reminder every single time you log onto your computer about it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: It's not a matter of signing. The way it works is, basically by logging on, you acknowledge that you have read and understand this and you understand the consequences for breaking the rules.

QUESTION: Can you get a copy of that actual (inaudible) so we know what is --

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me look into it and see.

QUESTION: And once you log on, is it just as easy as a Google search? I mean, it sounds like this person --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't know, Libby. You know, I honestly don't. I don't know how easy it is. I've never worked on one of these terminals. I've never seen the screens and so forth.

QUESTION: Can I just ask about -- one more thing about the information that's in people's files?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is it possible that people's travel records are in there, your history of travel overseas?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, Libby, I just don't know what is in individual files. If we can provide an answer to that, we will. I don't know if there's a -- I don't know if there's a one-size-fits-all answer for that. I suspect that everybody's files are probably different just because everybody has individual circumstances. But if there's a general answer we can provide to you, well, I'm happy to do so.

Charley.

QUESTION: In this developing story, has there been any new information about whether information from the snooping was disseminated and spread to other people?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. No, we have nothing new. And that - and, you know, as I said last night, you know, it is still our initial take that this was -- I referred to it as imprudent curiosity. And you can use a lot of other terms for it and - but we are not dismissive of any other possibility and that's the reason why we have an investigation underway. And as the Secretary made very clear, we're going to get to the bottom of it.

QUESTION: At the very minimum, would you at least acknowledge this is very embarrassing for the State Department?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, anytime in public, you have -- you're having a discussion about your employees not doing -- whether they're contract employees or U.S. Government employees -- not doing their job the way they're supposed to and having broken the rules, yeah, that's embarrassing. Of course, you don't want it to happen.

But you know, despite that fact, we are trying to deal with this in as straightforward and transparent a way as we possibly can without in any way compromising our ability to get to the facts and, if need be, to take any further action and also use the opportunity to try to reassure all those people that, you know, have transactions with the Department of State that we take very seriously the trust that they have put in us, and we take very seriously our responsibilities in terms of handling their personal information.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Of the managers and the people who knew before yesterday about these breaches, are any of them, as far as you know, political appointees?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't believe that they are political appointees. I believe that they are full-time government employees, career employees.

Yes, you haven't had a question.

QUESTION: Yes. You mentioned that when someone's report or someone's files are authorized - accessed in an unauthorized manner that a flag signals. So why did it take three months for senior management to catch wind of the incident?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that gets back to, I think, the first question we had here. That should have happened. That information should have been passed up the chain so that people in more senior management roles could make a judgment about whether or not there were any other additional safeguards that were needed or any other additional steps that needed to be taken. So that was a breakdown. You know, like I said last night, Pat said last night, I said it again today: The system worked. Is the system perfect? No, it isn't perfect. And we see this is an example of how the system needs to be improved.

QUESTION: So who's in charge of catching these flags when they signal and shouldn't they have gone to senior management as soon as it happened?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, I think I just answered that question. In terms of who is responsible, it's the working-level managers and supervisors.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Sean, do you have a broader issue here, a broader problem with privacy in that these issues were - these instances were caught because they were flagged, they were high-profile --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- individuals, but for someone like myself or anybody else in this room, if somebody were trying to access it, is there a broader inherent flaw in your system that people are able to access security - Social Security numbers, photos, contact information for pretty much anybody?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's what I was trying to get at at the very beginning here and I've been trying to emphasize all along the way. There is a system whereby you can flag files and very clearly, that is - you know, if there's an unauthorized access, it's very easy to detect. There's an automatic flag and questions are asked immediately.

For me or for you or for anybody else in this room who doesn't necessarily have a flag, and I mean that in a positive way, on their file, there are other safeguards built into the system. Because of course, we are aware of the potential for people to just look into other files. That's not something that I can describe in public for you and we're not going to talk about it in public, but - because to do so is only to describe to people who might want to abuse the system of ways that they can get around the safeguards that are built in.

But they do exist. They do exist, but it is different than just having a flag raised every time the file is accessed, because as you can imagine, just based on 18 million passports issued last year, if everybody had that kind of flag on their file for every time it was accessed, you would have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these every single year and you basically wouldn't be able to do your job.

QUESTION: Of unauthorized accesses, you mean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct, correct.

All the way in the back.

QUESTION: Sean, please forgive me if you've already answered this. I was late. How many managers are there involved who didn't send this up the chain and are they being reprimanded?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you at this point. I mean, clearly, in the cases of Senator Obama's files, there were at least three supervisors who didn't forward this information up the chain and now that we have these two other incidents that we're aware of, there may be more than three. I can't tell you the universe of people who in -- who held some form of supervisory or management responsibility who didn't raise the issue up the chain. Clearly, that's something that we are going to be interested in understanding.

And as for the issue of if there's any further action, disciplinary action that's required, I think we're going to want to understand whether or not this was a, shall I say, lapse in judgment or whether or not there was actually some rule or regulation broken. Now, that also raises the question, if a rule or regulation wasn't broken, do you need a rule or regulation to ensure that in the future you have that kind of information surface?

Yeah, we'll work our way forward again. Glenn.

QUESTION: Yes. Can you say how many flags there are out there? How many political figures or celebrities are flagged in the system?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, as I was standing up there, I was asking myself the same question. We'll try to get that for you, kind of what's the universe.

QUESTION: Right. What's the -- okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And then secondly, within that universe, can you say whether or not there -- how many people have been terminated or disciplined for actually going into flagged files? I mean, how common an occurrence is this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's - and we'll try to get a more refined answer for you beyond the handful of incidents. Now -- you know, clearly, even in the cases that we have, there's a subset there of people that were terminated and people that were disciplined yet --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- still employed. I'll try to get a breakdown of this data for you. I asked for it early this afternoon and, understandably, people are churning on a lot of different things. So we'll try to generate that as quickly as we can. And of course, if - I say that with the caveat that if there are any restrictions on personnel data, then we'll have to abide by those. But it's a good question and we'll try to get you an answer.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, I get it. You know, it's a good question.

QUESTION: And just a -- just --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, we will -- for all of these things, too, the open questions, and I know there are numerous questions, and I see some of my staff over here who holding their heads because they are going to be responsible for tracking down the answers to these things. (Laughter.)

That -- to as many of these open questions, we will try to get as much information for you and post it today. We will continue, however, even if we're not able to get it today, to keep working on getting the answers. So we can --

QUESTION: Just to follow up, one thing on the application and on the file, I mean, I'm thinking about my own situation where I have filled out this --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- passport application form. There's not a lot of information on it. And is there anything else in someone's file that you have at the State Department that would be -- is there other information collected that goes into a passport file --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- or is it just this particular --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's what Libby asked. And if I can provide a general answer to that question, if there's a way to describe sort of the range of what might be in a passport file, I'm happy to do it. I can't narrow down the universe for you any more than to say that, at a minimum, you have either your passport application or your renewal application or maybe all your applications along the way if you've had multiple passports.

QUESTION: If you could check the three presidential candidates, (inaudible) too long?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, you can be assured that I'm not going to talk about what is in anybody's file without their express permission. But if I can provide you all a general answer of the kinds of things that might be in passport files, then I'm happy to do that within the confines of maintaining everybody's privacy.

QUESTION: You might want to -- you might not want to for those three for a little while. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Sean, did Pat Kennedy offer any immediate directive to the office managers in the case someone got the bright idea to do this today, tomorrow, in the coming days? Is there any directive to the office managers to report this up the chain?

MR. MCCORMACK: I was pretty -- I think everybody understands --

QUESTION: Well --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, you know, it's a good question. No, Pat very specifically told people that if you have these kinds of unauthorized accesses, these need to be surfaced at least up to the Deputy Assistant Secretary level in the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Yeah. Lambros, do you have a question on this or something else?

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, it is very important for me, too. From the information you have already, you told us so many stories today, who was the real target of this illegal action -- Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator John McCain?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, each of them - each of them --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) I'm asking.

MR. MCCORMACK: Every single one of them - look, every single one of them suffered in the sense that some - they had somebody looking through their personal information and they weren't authorized to do so. As for the motivations for each of these individuals, I cannot say definitively, and that's part of the investigation. I have said and I'll say again that the initial information, as -- you know, as sketchy as it may be at this point, indicates to us that, I'll repeat it, imprudent curiosity. But that doesn't mean that we're dismissing any other possibility.

QUESTION: Since --

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros -- no, Lambros, that's enough. We've got so many questions here. We're going to -- do you have a question about this or --

QUESTION: This.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. All right, Kirit.

QUESTION: You say that -- you said that you have broadened your search to the other presidential candidates. Is this going to go any broader? Are you looking to see whether President Bush's records were accessed, Secretary Rice? I mean, how wide is this going to go?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you have -- we have an IG investigation. I'm sure that they are going to look at any other incidences of unauthorized access as part of seeing -- determining whether or not there are any systemic issues here. I can't -- you know, it's not a -- at this point, there's not a specific broader search other than the Inspector General investigation. Now, if there is a different answer that comes up either this afternoon or in the coming days to that question, we'll let you know.

Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Specifically, Waxman wanted the names of these companies to be brought to the committee on Monday and made public.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right.

QUESTION: Are you going to try and do that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have a number of congressional inquiries, as you can imagine, on this matter, and we will answer each of them in turn to the best of our ability.

QUESTION: Well, yes, but he's asking for Monday. Will you do it by Monday?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I understand. We will answer all of these inquiries in turn to the best of our ability.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: I want to see if I understand this correctly. Since we have, in the case of Senator Obama, three incidents -- the first one was in January -- and if the question is why did it take so long for this to come out, your answer is still: It came to the supervisor's level, they took action, and the fault lay after that, that it didn't come to -- that it didn't come out -- you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, the - yeah, the fact that it didn't rise any higher than that in terms of people being made aware, that's a problem. And we only became, at a senior management level, aware of this yesterday.

QUESTION: And then it happened again in February?

MR. MCCORMACK: January, February, March, with respect to Senator Obama.

QUESTION: And my question is: Has any supervisor been disciplined or let go?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware that they have. But again, that gets back to the question of whether or not this is a lapse in professional judgment in not surfacing this information or whether or not there was a rule or regulation broken. In any case, we have taken steps, immediate steps in the form of Pat Kennedy issuing directives to make sure that that doesn't happen again and that any sort of unauthorized -- similar unauthorized accesses get surfaced to the level of at least Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs.

Yeah.

QUESTION: When a contractor is fired, doesn't Pat Kennedy or anyone else in senior management have to review that case?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not necessarily. I mean, this is - I mean, just for example, you know, in the Office of Passport Services, there are 2,600 contract employees. That's one office in the State Department where you have tens of thousands of full-time employees. Then you also have contract employees. I mean, if you had every single time there were a disciplinary action, even including firing of a contractor, Pat Kennedy probably wouldn't be doing anything else but looking at those things.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Another subject? Well, let's exhaust this one.

Libby.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from the Inspector General's office, just because this case is so high profile with three candidates for president, is there any thought being given to taking this investigation away from the State Department, making up some sort of independent person that can look into this?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, not at this point. These are career professionals. The acting head, the acting IG is a career civil service employee and, as I said, the head of the Investigations Division, who's going to have day-to-day supervisory responsibility for the investigation, is a career Secret Service special agent now over at the State Department.

Okay. Other topics? Lambros, yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the same issue, may I --

MR. MCCORMACK: Be my guest.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, since the whole story looks like a new Watergate scandal -- (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: You know what? You know what? No, Lambros. You know what? That is so outrageous, you just lost your privilege. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry, that's outrageous.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is on Taiwan. Congressman Rohrabacher held a press conference in Taipei on the eve of Taiwan's presidential election to express the U.S. support of Taiwan's referendum to join the UN. Are you concerned that this may confuse Taiwanese voters or even undercut the Administration's message on the very issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think you should look nowhere else but to the statements of the Secretary of State as well as other officials from this podium talking -- what the U.S. policy is on this issue. There should be no confusion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Duma, the Russian parliament, today called President Putin to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: We, along with others, support and believe firmly in the territorial integrity of Georgia as well as the right of the government in Tbilisi to exercise sovereignty over all parts of Georgian territory.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Hold on. French President Sarkozy announced a modest cut in France's nuclear arsenal and called on the U.S. and China to commit to no more weapons tests. Is there any comment on --

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen his comments, but the United States has not conducted a weapons test in a couple of decades as far as I know.

QUESTION: Another issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros, you - no, you have had enough.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, what do you think about Usama bin Laden's recent comments about the war to liberate Palestine in Iraq? Do you have the --

MR. MCCORMACK: War of what?

QUESTION: Oh, the holy war to liberate Palestine is in Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's just more hate being spewed by somebody who is trying to perpetuate a twisted, perverted, depraved ideology.

QUESTION: On Cyprus. Do you have any comment about the resumption of the reunification talks in Cyprus in three months? And they're also opening a new passage in (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've all been very hopeful for a solution to this longstanding problem and there have been many attempts at it. If there is new hope in the process, then that is a good thing. I'll try to -- I haven't looked specifically at what has been in the news and we'll try to -- if there's anything more to add to that answer, we'll get it to you.

QUESTION: There is --

QUESTION: One last --

QUESTION: Cyprus issue --

QUESTION: One last thing. The Russian Prime Minister is telling the U.S. to ease off on Belarus.

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen the comments. We'll take them.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.) DPB # 52

Tags: State Department and video or podcast and Unauthorized Access of Passport Records or Contract Employees

U.S. Encourages Dialogue on Tibet VIDEO

U.S. Encourages Dialogue on Tibet. FULL STREAMING VIDEO - Remarks With Secretary Rice and Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama Before Their Meeting Secretary Condoleezza Rice. Washington, DC. March 20, 2008, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

QUESTION: Secretary Rice, is China using excessive force against the protestors in Tibet?
SECRETARY RICE: We’re certainly concerned about the situation in Tibet. I spoke last evening with my counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang, urged restraint. And most importantly, we have urged for many years that China engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, who represents an authoritative figure who stands against violence and who also stands for the cultural autonomy of the Tibetan people, but has made very clear that he does not stand for independence. And I believe that this would be a basis on which China could reach out to an authoritative figure for peace. And so we are encouraging that, and I hope that China will exercise restraint. But it is also important that all parties refrain from violence.

Thank you very much.

2008/207 Released on March 20, 2008

Tags: Condoleezza Rice and Tibet or Secretary of State and Dalai Lama