Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. I don't have anything to start off with, so who wants - Mr. Lee.

QUESTION: Just on the -- briefly on the sanctions thing, which I know has been probably overdone this morning. More information than we can use, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: Wait, I'm going to write that down, "More information than we can use," all right.

QUESTION: More words, more words.

MR. MCCORMACK: More words, okay.

QUESTION: More words than we can use.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, more words.

QUESTION: Nick said when he was up here that he had spoken to several Europeans and I forgot to ask him which -- and that they had said that they are not opposed to this or that they are generally in favor of the idea.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Did he speak -- first of all, who -- do you know who he spoke to? And second of all --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: It seems that he didn't speak to the Russians at all because I noticed that the President's soul mate in Portugal today has said that this is -- compared this to a madman running around with a razorblade in his hand, which is an actual quote.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's a quote, right? Quote.

QUESTION: So can you enlighten us?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me give you - I will get you the full list of all those -- all those, Matt. I know that we were reaching out through a variety of different channels, at the very least, to our P-5+1 colleagues and we also sent out, more broadly, a cable asking our ambassadors or other officials to go into other governments to explain the actions that were taken. So I'll try to get you a list specifically of who Nick called and who the Secretary called.

The Secretary did speak with Foreign Minister Lavrov after the announcement. We did reach out to the Russian Government prior to the announcement, but we are -- we had a little trouble --

QUESTION: I'm sorry, after -- she spoke to Lavrov after?

MR. MCCORMACK: After, but --

QUESTION: But before --

MR. MCCORMACK: But before we did, we made some attempts and it was just one of these things where we couldn't get the schedules to mesh up, so we did make affirmative efforts to reach out to all of our P-5+1 colleagues through a variety of different channels. It wasn't just necessarily Nick doing the calls, but I will get you Nick's list of phone calls.

QUESTION: Okay. And the cable, that went out to everyone?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I'll check to see if it was worldwide, but certainly to those countries that we think might have had an interest.

QUESTION: And does that mean -- did that cable instruct the ambassadors or whoever is in charge to go to these governments and tell them --

MR. MCCORMACK: Inform them of the actions and to explain it to them.

QUESTION: And the ramifications that it might have for them and companies that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct.

QUESTION: Their companies.

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct, yeah.

Sylvie.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that there is a P-5+1 meeting scheduled next week in London?

MR. MCCORMACK: There is one coming up. Let me find out the coordinates for you. There is one coming up at the political directors' level.

QUESTION: The Secretary spoke about that the offer to talk to Iran was still open if they gave up --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- enrichment, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: What about the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Or suspended --

QUESTION: Suspended--

MR. MCCORMACK: Suspended their enrichment-related activities, right.

QUESTION: What about talks in Baghdad? What's happening to that? Is that dead now? Are you --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing new. There still is -- I would expect that at some point in the future, that perhaps there would be contact through that channel again. The working groups have been formed, but there have not been any meetings that I'm aware of since we last spoke about this in public. But it is still a viable, open channel of communication.

QUESTION: It is?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, it is.

QUESTION: From your side, it is?

MR. MCCORMACK: From our side, it is. I can't speak to the Iranian side.

QUESTION: You think they're going to be disposed to meet with you now, considering that -- you know, the Ambassador has potentially -- could potentially be covered, even though he's not named?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, this is --

QUESTION: Would be covered by these sanctions -- I can't see the Iranians being happy to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, all I can -- if they're unhappy about something, they should look only to themselves for the source of their unhappiness and that is because they have brought this upon themselves through their own actions. There is still a viable option of negotiations open to them. There is a diplomatic solution. We are ready to sit down with the Iranians, should they suspend their enrichment-related activities. We are ready to sit down around the table with them and our other P-5+1 colleagues to talk about the nuclear issue, but they are very free to raise any other issue that they want to raise during those discussions. That offer is still open.

So if there are any complaint that comes out of the Iranian Government about any of these actions or the actions that the Security Council is taking or that any other country, for that matter, is taking to isolate the Iranian Government in an effort to get them to the negotiating table, then they look only -- they should look only to themselves because they're the source -- they are the source of whatever unhappiness they may be feeling.

QUESTION: Okay. If that's the case, you know, there was this lag time between the first reports -- I believe it was almost a month -- yeah, between when their first reports about this came out and today.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: In that intervening time, were the Iranians made aware that this was going to happen or could happen, if they didn't do -- in other words, were they given a chance in that --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure that we have any --

QUESTION: -- to correct their behavior to avoid this or was it just -- it was basically a done deal since whatever - last month?

MR. MCCORMACK: It was -- there were a lot of reports that came out and that was still during the period when senior officials, including Secretary Rice, were talking about this -- discussing what possible actions we might take, what might be appropriate in the context of where we were in our diplomacy. She, along with the other principals, including the President, decided that this was the appropriate moment to take these actions. I honestly can't tell you whether or not there was any intimation to the Iranians, other than via the press reports that this was potentially in the offing. I'm not aware that we had done anything of the sort, be surprised if we had done anything like -- of the sort. I don't know if any of our allies had discussed it with them.

QUESTION: Most of the Democratic presidential candidates are saying that this is bringing the United States a step closer to war or World War III, as President Bush called it the other day.
I just wondered what's your view on that? Do you see this as a way to avert war or do you see this as a sort of a step towards military action?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, I don't want to insert myself or the State Department in the middle of American presidential politics, so let's put that aside. But --

QUESTION: Named analysts say that, too.

MR. MCCORMACK: Named analysts -- a little more dramatic if it's presidential candidates. A while back, the Secretary offered you an insight to her thinking and the President's thinking about why we are pursuing the course that we are. In the absence of any action, you have two possible outcomes. You have acquiescence to Iran getting a nuclear weapon or taking some action with use of force. Those -- in the absence of any action at all, any diplomacy at all -- those are your two options.

So the President was looking to Secretary Rice and his principal advisors for "give me another way to address this issue." And as far back as 2005, 2006 this was the solution that the President and his advisors came upon, this pathway of diplomacy, looking to steadily increasing the diplomatic pressure on Iran and the pressure on Iran so that they would come to the table for a reasonable discussion about the issue. So that we could achieve our objectives, clear guarantees that Iran was not going to be pursuing a nuclear weapon under cover of a peaceful nuclear energy program, and that Iran could in some way realize civilian nuclear energy, but in such way that you couldn't divert know-how or technology to producing a nuclear weapon. So this is the pathway that we have settled on for some time. The President is committed to it and the Secretary is committed to making it work.

What you heard from Secretary Rice, Secretary Paulson and Nick Burns, Stuart Levey today is that these actions are designed to increase the chances that that diplomacy will work, to try to make that diplomacy more effective because diplomacy without leverage, or diplomacy without any form of bringing pressure to bear on the object of that diplomacy, is just talking. And very clearly, the Iranians have demonstrated that they are not going to -- in the absence of any pressure or any leverage to get them to the negotiating table, they're not going to talk and they're going to continue on the way to developing a nuclear weapon. And nobody wants to see that. I think there's universal agreement on that score.

There may be differences over tactics -- we've talked about the fact the Russians may have some tactical differences, the Chinese may have some tactical differences, everybody agrees on the bottom line here and that is that Iran should not be allowed to obtain the technologies that will allow them to build a nuclear weapon. And that is what President Bush was talking about when - in the quote you referred to.

QUESTION: So in other words, this is a way to avert war, the way you look at it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to -- it is a way to prevent Iran from obtaining the technologies that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: And a way to prevent the U.S. from launching military action, which would be unpopular.

MR. MCCORMACK: It is exactly as I said.

QUESTION: Last month during UNGA, the P-5+1 agreed to wait until November --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- until a meeting between Larijani and Solana and a report from ElBaradei to take any action. So is this decision a breech of this agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. There is a very clear understanding among the P-5+1 that we are going to continue down the track of the UN Security Council and we are actively pursuing that track. We are actively discussing with our P-5+1 partners the elements of a resolution and what the specific language would be. And this upcoming P-5+1 meeting would be another step along the way in that process.

Everybody understands that individual states will pursue the options that they see fit in terms of the diplomacy to help bring about a diplomatic solution. And we demonstrated today that we are going to do that. We have done -- we have taken such steps in the past, for example, preventing U-turn transactions. We're also going to be working with private banks, private industry, making them aware of various reputational risks in dealing with some Iranian entities. We're also going to be working with individual governments and international groups like the EU, talking to them about what we might do on a bilateral basis or a multilateral basis outside the context of the UN.

But these actions are all meant to be complementary in the service of one goal, and that is to find a diplomatic solution and to get -- to try to get through and elicit a reasonable response from the Iranian Government.

James.

QUESTION: Sean, a few things, please. First, one of the principle actions taken today is to freeze whatever assets the targeted entities have in U.S.-controlled financial institutions.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But you have no estimate of, in dollar figure terms, as to what those assets might total?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think this question was asked of Stuart Levey earlier in the day -- from the Department of Treasury -- and if he couldn't give you a number, I certainly can't. We'll work to try to find an answer.

QUESTION: I mean, if you're targeting assets in the United States, presumably you have some rough ballpark idea of what those assets are, no?

MR. MCCORMACK: If I could provide you an answer, I certainly will, James. I will continue to pursue the question. I've asked the very same question myself.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: And sometimes you -- sometimes the answer might fall in the realm of classified or sometimes it might not just be -- there just might not be a good answer. But in any case, I'll pursue the question for you.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence that European institutions that we have asked to desist from doing business with the regime in Tehran has appeared to do so and then set up the equivalent of shell companies in Dubai or elsewhere to continue doing business with --

MR. MCCORMACK: -- with the Iranians? Well, that's one of their tactics and everybody is well aware of that. We make others well aware of that. And it's -- that fact requires vigilance --and vigilance on our part as well as those businesses who have taken a threshold decision not to do business with these Iranian entities. So to the extent we can, we share information, both in private as well as public, on that.

QUESTION: How much of a problem is it?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a significant problem. They are -- the Iranians are very determined. They've set up a very elaborate network to try to further these various programs that they have, whether that is funding and supporting terrorism or developing weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missiles. So there's an elaborate structure there.

QUESTION: I was referring to our allies setting up shell companies in order to continue doing business.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, the allies?

QUESTION: Yes, the Europeans or others --

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I was talking about the Iranians. I'm sorry. Well --

QUESTION: Have you seen any evidence of that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any evidence of it. But I know that there have been cases of our working with other countries to go after and sanction entities that have been doing or have done business with Iran or other sanctioned entities in violation of Security Council resolutions or U.S. law or their domestic law. I can't point to any specific cases in this regard, James.

QUESTION: Then one related matter, if I might. As you know and as we just alluded to earlier in this briefing, the period during which this set of sanctions was vetted witnessed a number of news leaks about them. Fox News first reported that these measures were under consideration back in June. Reuters --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Excuse me. Reuters has reported that Secretary Rice was "furious" about these news leaks. Are you aware of Secretary Rice expressing any displeasure about news leaks concerning this story?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, any public figure who has a weight of responsibility wants to have the opportunity to have open and clear deliberations about sensitive matters in a way that doesn't impede their ability to act. And I'm not going to talk specifically about this case.

But I think you would -- let's be honest. Of course, decision-makers would rather be able to have an open, honest discussion about all variety of options, then arrive at conclusion and then be able to announce those conclusions in a specific policy course. Well, that's not the way the world works. And we're all aware that that is, in fact, the case here in Washington or around the world. You guys have a job to dig up information, to get the stories to it and inform your readers and viewers and that's the way our system works.

QUESTION: To your knowledge, have personnel from Diplomatic Security questioned any State Department personnel in connection with unauthorized disclosures to the news media about these sanctions?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would never get into any sorts of investigations, queries, by law enforcement --

QUESTION: Or have you been interviewed by DS in connection with this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would never talk about any sort of law enforcement matters.

QUESTION: Was Secretary Rice furious about these leaks?

MR. MCCORMACK: James, the lengthy answer that I just gave you was in response to that original question.

QUESTION: Why did you decide not to designate the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization?

MR. MCCORMACK: I wasn't part of the deliberative process on this. I can't offer you really an answer on that, other than to say this is the decision that policymakers believed was the appropriate one at this time, given the facts and given our laws and given the point at which we find ourselves in the diplomacy.

QUESTION: Was it possibly because some of your allies said this isn't such a great idea and also there were legal problems with it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sue, I couldn't tell you.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I go back to James' first question -- the asset question?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have reason to believe that the amount of assets that these targeted entities have in the U.S. jurisdiction is anything more than zero?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me try to find an answer for you, Matt. I just -- off the top of my head, I can't give you an answer. One would assume that --

QUESTION: Do you believe that there are at least some or no?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, I just don't know the answer to that.

QUESTION: I mean, can you take a question on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: One would assume -- yeah, we'll take it as a question -- one would assume that wouldn't have any IRGC assets here in the United States, but I can't --

QUESTION: Well, certainly not after the first stories came out a month ago - if they did have any.

QUESTION: Four months ago.

QUESTION: I mean, these entities are not exactly sort of dealing with and the banks are not dealing with kind of JP Morgan or you know, Merrill Lynch or anybody else. So who are they dealing with as far as you're concerned?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sue, I don't know. Obviously they are accessing the international financial system in a variety of different ways, either in upfront ways in which they advertise who exactly they are, if not what, in fact, they are doing. And I'm sure that they are accessing the international financial system through other ways that may be less scrupulous. I don't have names of foreign banks for you that may be dealing with them. To the extent that we have that knowledge, I assume that would be something we wouldn't want to announce in public, but rather, to work quietly with the entities in question to inform them of the kinds of risks that they might incur by dealing with those entities.

QUESTION: Well, a lot was made this morning by both Mr. Levey and Mr. Burns about the FATF decision which came down, as I recall, when we were in Moscow. And I don't know if you remember this, but there was a question asked at a roundtable in Moscow about this, about whether the Russians and they -- Burns and Levey noted on the record that the Russians and the Chinese are part of the FATF. The question to the Secretary and obviously you were more concerned with different things at the time, but do you know if the Russians and the Chinese in fact signed off on that and -- on the FATF -- and was that something that you were waiting for -- waiting for it to happen before you did this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll ask the question, I don't -- off the top of my head, I don't know.

Let's spread it around here. Anybody else on the same topic?

QUESTION: Yeah, Sean. On Iran, as far as diplomacy is concerned, Sean, don't you think that international community has given enough time to Iran to some people believe they already have developed the nuclear weapons or they are about to. You think diplomacy has been working or will work or what do these main powers visit the U.S. and especially China and Russia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in terms of the estimates of the state of the Iranian nuclear program, we have public estimates available from our intelligence community. You can look those up for yourself. We have been successful to the extent that we have rallied international opinion to the point where everybody agrees on the same strategic objective, if not the precise tactics.

And we have been extraordinarily effective in getting together a core group of important nations to address this issue, as well as engaging the Security Council to the extent that they have passed two Chapter 7 resolutions and could well be on the way to passing another Chapter 7 resolution. So we have been very effective in that regard.

Have we seen a change in Iranian behavior? Unfortunately, we have not to this point, which is why we are going to proceed along the way of increasing the diplomatic pressure on Iran and to the extent we possibly can, isolating Iran so that it is not able to engage in the kinds of activities that will further their support for terrorism, further their development of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION: But does the recent agreement between Russia and Iran in Tehran cause this concern to the U.S. because of the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Which agreement?

QUESTION: -- stronger security agreement or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Which agreement?

QUESTION: When the Russian President was in Iran --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- that they are with Iran as far as all the issues are concerned, including security and nuclear and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not sure that I would characterize it quite that way. I will let the Russians characterize their visit. But my takeaway from it was that President Putin delivered a message to the Iranians that they should seek the -- and take advantage of the diplomatic pathways that have been opened up to them by the P-5+1.

Yeah, Lambros.

QUESTION: On Israel. Mr. McCormack, why did Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meet with the Greek Patriarch Theofilos in Jerusalem? The Secretary posed for a photo, which the Israeli press has (inaudible) as support for him as the legitimate -- legitimately elected patriarch of Jerusalem. Does the U.S. Government so regard the Patriarch since the Israeli Government has expressed displeasure?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, she attended this meeting of which he was a part of an already organized group. It was part of an interfaith dialogue that took place in Jerusalem. This is a group that defines for itself its own membership. She met with that group.

In terms of the dispute that you're talking about, that is not something that the United States is party to.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, keeping in mind that the Israeli press has condemned the government for its refusal to recognize Patriarch Theofilos and accuses the government (inaudible) personal financial interest in trying to blackmail the Patriarch. What is the U.S. Government views on that issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Our view is that this is not a matter that involves the United States Government, but is instead something -- an internal issue with the church and also a matter between the church and the Israeli Government.

QUESTION: Were you present at the meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, I was.

QUESTION: China launched its first lunar orbiter yesterday as part of a plan to send a rover to the moon by 2012.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Any comment on that? More specifically, do you see China's space aspirations as -- I mean, pose security concerns for the U.S?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get you an answer for that.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the protester that got very close to the Secretary yesterday during the testimony.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Is there going to be an investigation into this? Is anyone going to be held accountable?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of any investigations into it. Her Diplomatic Security detail as well as the Capitol police dealt with it.

QUESTION: In what sense?

MR. MCCORMACK: In the sense that the person was removed.

QUESTION: Wasn't it very shocking that they managed to get that close?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I don't think you saw the Secretary flinch. As a matter of fact, after the --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: No, she did not. No, she did not. I don't think you saw the Secretary flinch. And, you know, in fact, after the person was removed some distance she said, look, take it easy, you know, she's just trying to get attention for herself at the cameras.

QUESTION: Sean, Russia in -- I guess in collaboration with some Central European countries, has apparently mounted an effort in the OSCE to weaken the election monitoring function of that organization. And moreover, I guess the Russians have not yet extended an invitation for the OSCE to monitor their own election on December 2nd. I'm just wondering whether that's a matter of concern for the U.S.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, any attempt to weaken this mechanism is a concern to us. I would just say that we're not -- we're not advising Russia to do anything other than we would do ourselves. We, in fact, invited monitors for our own elections and we think it's important. This is an important mechanism that can take a look at and monitor not only election day, but post-election as well as the pre-election period. And we find it's a useful thing to do and we would encourage the Russian Government to invite in these monitors. Like I said, it's not something that we ourselves have turned away from. We would encourage others to invite the monitors in.

Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, for the first time in roughly 18 months, Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed or went out from her residence and met with the military junta. Do you have any comments and is your threat of sanctions and/or the news that President Bush delivered about -- I guess now -- two weeks ago? Was that in any way helpful?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, I asked some folks about this and we haven't been able to confirm that that, in fact, happened. We've seen the news reports. We're trying to nail it down. Look, I think President Bush, the First Lady, Secretary Rice have been very clear about our desire to see meaningful democratic political dialogue and to see the Burmese people actually represented by a government that reflects their will and desires. They don't have that right now.

QUESTION: On Assistant Secretary Griffin's resignation yesterday, is there a hunt on for someone to replace him or is Mr. Starr, I think, is he going to -- how long is he expected to be --

MR. MCCORMACK: He's acting.

QUESTION: I mean, is there an active search now for someone who can take over full time? Or is it expected that Starr will become the permanent --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, Grif is going to -- his resignation is effective November 1st. Then PDAS Starr is going to be acting in his stead. I expect that there will be a personnel process. I can't tell you what the outcome of that personnel process will be. And I don't know for a fact that it has, in fact, begun at this point, but I expect that there will be a personnel process implemented to find a replacement.

QUESTION: And is there some thought as to where this person might come from, private or public sector?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't talked to the Secretary about it. I don't know. I'm not sure.

QUESTION: On Colombia, it has been in the press, this case of two (inaudible) from the Plan Colombia, two U.S. (inaudible) accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. What is the investigation on? Is there any statement related to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: There is an ongoing investigation into this incident and these individuals fall under the Chief of Mission authority, meaning the Ambassador's authority. So we are fully engaged on the issue and we're working very closely with the Government of Colombia to investigate the incident.

QUESTION: Are those people in Colombia? Because we understood that they went out of the country with immunity, with diplomatic immunity.

MR. MCCORMACK: That I can't tell you. We're happy to try to determine the answer to that.

QUESTION: And just last question, I understood that there is a meeting confirmed between Senator Cordova, the facilitator for the humanitarian agreement, and Secretary Condoleezza Rice?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know that we're working on that. I don't have a date for you, but we're working on the arrangements for that meeting.

Let's see, anything else?

QUESTION: Sean, a couple question on South Asia. One, as far as this U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement was concerned, many officials worked very hard in bringing that to -- Dr. Rice and Under Secretary Burns and two great ambassadors (inaudible) here and Ambassador Mulford in Delhi. China's influence, I understand, has played a big role in India as far as the communists are concerned, which this deal is now stalled in the Indian parliament.

How much Secretary, do you think, is concerned now and where -- and these countries are now going on this agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I understand there are a lot of intensive domestic political discussions in India. The Indian Government and the Indian political system will play out those discussions. It's not something that we're going to directly participate in. We are still very supportive of the deal. We still would like to see it move forward, but the Indian Government and the political system is engaged in a debate and we'll see what the outcome of that debate is.

QUESTION: So you don't think it is dead?

MR. MCCORMACK: We continue to support the agreement and would like to move forward with it.

QUESTION: Are you hopeful, as one of your colleagues said, that it might go through by 2008, sort of early next year?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to make any predictions. We continue to support it, though.

Are we all done? I just want to make one note here, sort of "Inside Baseball" for all of you guys.

It is promotion season here at the State Department and it's a happy time for a lot of folks, including two of our very own here in the State Department. Tom Casey and Gonzo Gallegos were promoted to the Senior Foreign Service. Just yesterday, they found out about it, and this is a tremendous achievement. Only a very small percentage of Foreign Service Officers are promoted to the Senior Foreign Service. It's a real accomplishment, so when you get a chance, give them a handshake and congratulations.

QUESTION: There's someone else who was promoted as well. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: That's it for the briefing today. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:45 p.m.)

DPB #188