MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. Just to start off with, I'm going to follow up on one question that I got asked at the gaggle. This was regarding a broadcast news report last night about the building of the new embassy compound in Beirut, and I wanted to follow up on the question and also note that there was a factual inaccuracy in the reporting last night.

The question was when did Ambassador Feltman and Embassy Beirut learn of the decision of the Department not to proceed with the construction of the embassy at the new embassy site. And the decision to do that was made on July 6th of this year. Ambassador Feltman found out about it the same day.

And there was also a question of when did Ambassador Feltman's cable come in. It came in May 31st. So there was a discussion that went on for about a month internally here at the State Department, taking into account Ambassador Feltman's concerns about the new embassy compound. We wanted to gather all the facts. And the Department was responsive to what Ambassador Feltman asked the Department to look into.

So again, you guys asked about it and I'd like to also note it for the record because there were some inaccuracies in that broadcast report last night.

QUESTION: Can I just -- briefly on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Why would a cable like that have been classified secret?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you. I don't know, Matt. I didn't read it myself. It could have to do with security, an extensive discussion of security issues related to the construction of the embassy. It's not uncommon when you have those kinds of issues related to the security of an embassy compound that it's classified.

QUESTION: And have you -- has there been any decision now? I guess that you didn't know this morning, but maybe there -- maybe -- is there a decision on what to do with the property? It's still --

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, I think they're going to keep the property. This came about because of, you know, frankly, a changed situation on the ground. Hezbollah attacked Israel. There was war. And very clearly, that heightened political tensions within Lebanon and really worrisome, clear security concerns which were noted by Ambassador Feltman in his cable back to the Department, which the Department here -- and Under Secretary Henrietta Fore, who is in charge of management -- agreed with.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any other situations similar to this, or is this pretty much it?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't speak to it, Matt. I don’t know.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, you know, basically, nobody -- nobody here in the Department, starting with the Secretary, is going to deliberately put our people at some sort of risk that isn't managed or not considered. I mean, there's always a balance of risk whenever you deploy people to the field, but in this case it was very clearly -- this was not a situation that we wanted to put our people in at this time.

QUESTION: On an another embassy where there's security considerations, to say the least, your favorite lawmaker, Congressman Waxman, this morning has been leading a charge on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- trying to figure out what's going on with the Embassy in Baghdad. And I don't know if General Williams has yet testified --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I know that there -- I know that we had a bunch of folks that were going up to talk to the committee.

QUESTION: But the hearing opened with some rather loud complaints from -- that not all -- that not -- the documents that they requested were not provided to them, and some of them, in fact, were given to them -- the few that were, were given to them just before the hearing opened this morning. And I'm just wondering if -- does OBO agree with the State Department as a whole --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't -- you know, I don't know --

QUESTION: -- that this committee does have oversight responsibility and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Matt, look, I know that we have people going up to the hearing. I confess to you I don't know the details of who is appearing and document requests. I know Congressman Waxman has a number of document requests, not only to this Department but across the Administration. And the Secretary’s direction is to be as helpful as we possibly can in producing these documents.

In terms of looking at the universe of documents that have been produced by this Department in response to Congressman Waxman, I think it easily numbers in the tens of thousands, if not -- you know, if not more. So we’re going to be as cooperative as we possibly can. There is a clear oversight responsibility that the Congress has. The Secretary absolutely believes in that and acknowledges that.

And, you know, where we can help produce documents and information for Congressman -- Chairman Waxman’s committee or any other committee, we’re going to do so. But on this particular thing, I can’t speak to it, Matt. I don't know.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Changing the subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Iran said if the Middle East have nuclear activities and President Ahmadi-Nejad talking to the people today said, let’s say, “and the Security Council issued Resolution Number 300, Resolution Number 299 and so on, what will be happening then? We should remember that Iran is becoming a nuclear state.”

My question is: are you -- there is any meeting between the -- talk to particularly the authority, the P-5+1, in the early future? And do you prepare anything for the Security Council session in September regarding the Iran activities or not?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Nick Burns recently -- and I can’t remember exactly when, within the past week or so -- has talked to his P-5+1 counterparts about the elements of a Security Council resolution. We’re going to keep moving forward with those discussions.

Look, it's -- you know, Iran continues to be defiant. You’ve just given Exhibit A in terms of President Ahmadi-Nejad's remarks saying that Iran is going to become a nuclear weapon state in contravention of its treaty obligations. So if Iran continues down that pathway, if it persists in its defiance, then the international system is going to react. And one of the way the -- one of the ways in which the international system can react to this kind of defiance is to pass Chapter 7 resolutions, and I anticipate that is what the Security Council is going to do coming up either next month or in September. We would certain push for action sooner rather than later on this matter. But we’re going to be in continuing discussions with Security Council colleagues as well as the P-5+1 on how to proceed. But I think it’s very clear that Iran's continued defiance merits yet another UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Nina.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about -- there’s an outfit called the Middle East Media Research Institute here in D.C. and they’ve got a new project at the moment trying to deal with jihadist websites whereby they’re publishing websites on their own site, trying to discourage any American employers -- well, just trying to make people more aware of them, obviously --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- and trying to do something. Have you -- do you know anything about this program or does the State Department have any similar program trying to crack down on these sites?

MR. MCCORMACK: I personally don’t. I’m not familiar with the program. There may be somebody within the Department who’s familiar with it. We have an active program within the United States Government to counter the kind of propaganda that you see pop up on these jihadist websites. We have in the Public Diplomacy Bureau the International Information Programs Bureau, a number of different efforts designed to help counter this propaganda as well as to inform foreign publics.

Under Secretary Hughes recently put together the counterterrorism cell in the International Information Programs Bureau. And that's designed to, if you will, produce the software, the messages, that anybody in the U.S. Government can use to help counter the kinds of message -- messages that are coming out of these jihadist websites.

We also have individuals in that bureau who are logging on to chat rooms in Arabic, engaging in discussions with people who may or may not be logged on to these kind of websites, to talk about America's policies, the reasons for those policies, and engage in a dialogue. And we think that that's really important. That's part of what the State Department is doing. Then you have also the rest of the U.S. Government is working on those kind of efforts as well.

QUESTION: Would you say there's been increased use of these websites in the U.S. recently?

MR. MCCORMACK: By users in the United States?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I don't have any basis for that. I just don't have any data on that. I mean, certainly -- look, they have been the -- those who are engaged in the use of violence and violent extremism have turned to the internet as a way of disseminating propaganda. And they -- in certain instances, you have websites and videos that have pretty high production values.

So they are, in their world, certainly dedicating quite a bit of effort to it. And we as well as others are looking for ways to counter that which they put up there. And we think that, frankly, just speaking the truth -- not only about our values, our policies, but the policies and values of our friends and allies -- is the most effective weapon, because in essence, these people have no message. It's a message of nihilism. It's a message of violence. It's a message of murder and destruction.

Now, that may appeal to some segment of some population, and there may be some that are just totally irreconcilable and that message speaks to them. You have to deal with those people in a certain way. But there may be others who may be tempted by this kind of message; but if you can reach out to them and speak to them about a different, more positive message, maybe that -- those jihadist websites are a little less effective.

QUESTION: I'm guessing that you're probably not going to make your announcement on the India nuclear deal until tomorrow, but yesterday, 23 members of Congress sent a letter to the President expressing serious concerns about --

MR. MCCORMACK: Is thier letter to the President?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Was the State Department infoed?

(Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: And we are at the State Department.

QUESTION: Dear President McCormack --

(Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Please go ahead.

MR. CASEY: CC to State?

MR. MCCORMACK: Didn't mean to interrupt the flow.

QUESTION: Not that the Secretary reads a lot of the President's correspondence -- but anyway, I don't -- obviously, you have the right to withhold anything you like until the official announcement.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you.

QUESTION: But I'm wondering is -- are you planning to actually release the text of the agreement that was reached last week, or is it going to be some sort of a -- you know, whatever you want to say to us about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Selectively release portions of it? You know, Nicholas, I don't know. We probably will have something more to say about this tomorrow in the morning and we'll try to make people as well as other kinds of information as available as we possibly can. I haven't

talked to anybody about releasing the text of the agreement. I don't -- I just don't know the ins and outs of it. Certainly, we endeavor to be more open rather than less open in the Bureau of Public Affairs, so I'll certainly make the case to be more rather than less open about all the various aspects of the agreement.

QUESTION: Do you know if the members of Congress have been or will be briefed on the meetings last week?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that there are probably going to be some briefings today to members of Congress and I think there have been some discussions with some members of Congress all throughout the process. So we -- this has been a process of negotiations where we've been working with the Indian Government, but we've also been back briefing the Hill on --

QUESTION: So why do you --

MR. MCCORMACK: They play an important part.

QUESTION: Some -- so, several members have said that you've been very secretive about these latest changes. There are certain members that you work with who apparently have more concern about this area.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't have the list of briefings. But you know, typically with these sorts of things, you brief a selected membership on both sides of the aisle who have the most direct oversight responsibility or leadership responsibilities. I think that's a pretty typical practice here in Washington.

But as I said, there are going to be some briefings today up on the Hill as well and then tomorrow, we're going to be talking in public about all of this. And you can ask questions. I'm sure others are going to ask questions. But bottom line, we believe that this is the right deal for the U.S. national interest, for our relationship with India, as well as for our -- addressing our concerns about nonproliferation globally.

QUESTION: Do you know if Richard Boucher is briefing them or his staff or --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think Richard is. I think -- you know, Nick as well as others are probably taking that on.

QUESTION: Sean, just on that, does the agreement have some kind of a secret codicil or -- you know, something that is going to be --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know, Matt. I'm -- you know, Nicholas just brought this question up. I haven't seen it. I haven't looked at it. Talked to folks in very general terms about it, but -- so I don't know. I'm not sure if there is anything that -- classified to it. I'm not aware that there is. I don't know what our agreements are with the Indians in terms of publishing a text of it. So I'm happy to look into it for you and be advocates on your behalf.

QUESTION: Sean, on the related issue of briefing Congress, I don't know if there have been, but can you bring us up to date whether or not Secretary Rice has had any further meetings on the Hill? Not so much on this issue, but on Iraq or on the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK: She hasn't gone up to the Hill.

QUESTION: She hasn't gone up --

MR. MCCORMACK: She's hasn't gone --

QUESTION: -- since last week when she got a big flurry?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right. There -- she's been doing a lot of different phone calls, both last week as well as this week, but she hasn't gone up to the Hill.

QUESTION: Can you give us an update on the phone calls this week?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have the list. I will see if I can get you something. I don't know. It's been -- it would be a pretty long list.

QUESTION: Staying with that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: There's legislation on the Visa Waiver Program that's just cleared committee -- the conference committee. And it looks like it is going to keep out, or it could keep out, Poland, Hungary, some other NATO allies from the program. What -- first of all, what's the Department's role been in the process -- in the legislative process on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And are you happy with the results?

MR. MCCORMACK: That -- I have to confess, that bit of news is something I wasn't aware of, so I'll check for you. I'm happy to post an --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: That they had passed -- they had actually passed something out of conference. I'll have to look into it, Matt. Look, it's no secret we have been deeply engaged in -- with Congress on this issue of the Visa Waiver Program. And I can tell you it's something that in almost every meeting where you have a country that is right on the edge or right around the cutoff line, it's something the Secretary engages with her counterparts on. They bring it up to her. I know that they bring it up with the President as well.

So it's of deep concern to not only us, but a number of our friends and allies. And we've been trying to work closely with the conference to craft some legislation that could, you know, maintain the security of America's borders and the integrity of the process while seeking to address some of the concerns of our friends and allies. But I'll look to see if we can post an answer on what, if any, reaction we have to this development.

QUESTION: Because as you know, and I think you just were alluding to, the Poles in particular -- the Polish President raised this with the President.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I know. And the Polish Foreign Minister, I know, has raised it with the Secretary as well as other foreign ministers.

QUESTION: And this was -- and that they have been promised at all occasions that this is something that's going to be worked on and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that I can -- that I can --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) keep them out.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I can attest to the fact that it has been worked on. I know that people have devoted a lot of time and energy and focus to this. Let me see if they're -- what reaction we have to this development. I just don't have anything here.

QUESTION: Okay. And also the unvarnished discussions that you've had with Homeland Security about this would be very interesting, too.

MR. MCCORMACK: We didn't invite you to those?

QUESTION: No, sorry.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sorry, you fell off the invite list or it got lost in the mail, I'm sure. Okay. Anything else on this? No?

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: South Korean Government has asked United States help to solve for the missionary hostages in Afghanistan. How deeply United States is involved helping to solve the hostage situation?

MR. MCCORMACK: A couple things. First of all, I understand that there was, sadly, a South Korean citizen who lost his life. We -- our hearts go out to the family and the South Korean people. I know that this is a hard loss.

In the interest of not saying anything that could in any way negatively affect the situation, I'm going to have really no comment on it other than to say that certainly we support the South Korean Government in its desire to have its people back safely. And what should happen is that these people should be released unconditionally, immediately and unharmed back to South Korean authorities so they can return back to their families.

Yes.

QUESTION: Following up from this morning, have there been any recent public diplomacy or exchange programs between the U.S. and Libya?

MR. MCCORMACK: I did look into that, and apparently we do have an ongoing now Fulbright Program and International Visitors Program. I further asked the question of how many people we have involved in those programs and have yet to receive an answer. So as soon as I get that answer, I'm happy to provide the numbers for you.

And I also asked about when was the last time, prior to the resumption of this program, that we had a program, and I think it was back in 1981. So it was a time lag of a couple of decades in between the end of -- the last time we had these programs and the beginning of -- beginning once again of these programs.

QUESTION: I presume that means that -- that question means that this was raised at the gaggle, which I missed. I apologize.

MR. MCCORMACK: Indeed, Matt. Well, I -- you really --

QUESTION: So you don't anything to add to what the Secretary said yesterday about --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, I don't. And, by the way, your attendance was missed at the gaggle. You are a regular, you are excused. There are some people who don't quite have the attendance record that you do, Matt.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about a program that the State Department's working with with the Mexican Government on wiretapping? There was a 3 million grant given to a New York based company in February by the State Department for this program. Can you tell me what the status is?

MR. MCCORMACK: You have me stumped.

QUESTION: You don't know?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask again on Monday about this?

MR. MCCORMACK: You can ask again on Monday, absolutely. We'll have an answer for you.

QUESTION: You won't be here. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, that's all right. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Definitely. Definitely you can ask on Monday. (Laughter.) It'll fall to Mr. Casey.

MR. CASEY: That's why it's easy for him to say.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, great.

DPB # 133