The Secretary of State Colin Powell has decided that pursuant to the Kemp-Kasten legislation that United States funds for family planning and reproductive health will be spent through US Agency for International Development programs, and not through the UN Population Fund. The $34 million that we have for the UN Population Fund, with the approval of Congress, will be spent on population programs under USAID's Child Survival and Health Program Fund.

While Americans have different views on the issues of abortion, I think all agree that no woman should be forced to have an abortion. After careful consideration of the law and all the information that's available, including the report from the team that we sent to China in May, we came to the conclusion that the UN Population Fund monies go to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive programs.

I'd like to point out the United States continues to fund population programs worldwide. Our total this year is 446.5 million. With the additional 34 million that used to be spent in the UN program, that total will be $480.5 million this year.

That's the announcement. We will get you a number of materials now after the briefing. They're being reproduced now. One is a more formal statement; two is the legal analysis, a three-page sort of summary of how the law and the programs and the facts matched up to lead to this decision; and three is the executive summary of the report of the team that went to China. That's about eight or nine pages, including their conclusions and recommendations.

So we'll have that available for you after the briefing.

George.

QUESTION: Richard, does that report track with what you just announced?

MR. BOUCHER: The recommendations in the report are slightly different. I think the team actually looked at the situation and brought back a lot of important information for us. And that is the foundation of what we had to decide. But the legal analysis was done after the report. The legal analysis was done to include other information that became available to us. One of the things the team that went to China had recommended to us was that we get a hold of copies of a number of Chinese regulations.

When we did that and had that material available, it became much clearer where the decision had to go. For example, we found that in Chongqing municipality, current regulations state that, "The birth of a child which violates government family planning policy will result in levying a fee of two to three times the annual income of both respective parties involved and that repeat infractions double the penalties." In addition, those regulations state that any difficulties for the collection of the fee or exceeding the time limit for payment will result in an additional penalty. So it's regulations like that that we were able to get hold of at the suggestion of the team, but after the team made its trip to China.

Eli.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have a view of how the Chinese ought to try to stem their population increases?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have a view that applies worldwide and applies worldwide to the programs that we do support. Remember, when this administration came in, it made a commitment that we would continue to spend similar amounts on population and reproductive health as the United States has spent in the past because the US has been a very important supporter of those programs. But in doing so, we wanted to make sure that our money went to programs that were voluntary, that were educational, that were making available information, services, and other things to couples so that they could decide on their own when to have children and how many children they wanted to have.

We are very successful in supporting those programs around the world, and those are the kind of programs that we do want to support.

Teri.

QUESTION: So what do you think withdrawing the $34 million will do? Do you have hopes that the program would be -- I don't know, would fall apart without that money or do you just think it's a show of non-support?

MR. BOUCHER: I suppose one would have to decide what the -- one would have to see what the Chinese decide on their own programs, what the UN decides on their programs. Our hope is that this step will bring us into compliance with US law. Remember, we're constrained by US legislation to make these judgments and decisions and this is the judgment and decision that we have made.

Our hope is to have US money that goes to support population programs, to be used in programs that are distinctly and clearly providing, as I said, the information, the resources, the services to couples so they can make their own decisions. And while -- because money is fungible, that we won't be giving our money to a UN program that then gives money to Chinese agencies that then carry out these coercive abortion programs.

Todd.

QUESTION: Richard, could you describe who did the legal analysis, what participation, if any the White House had in that process? And it's my understanding that no money from this program goes directly to such coercive programs in China, so what is the Department's thinking in effectively punishing 139 other countries that do benefit from this UN program?

MR. BOUCHER: The, first of all, legal analysis -- the analysis as a whole of the facts and the legalities and how they stacked up was done in interagency working groups led by our Bureau of Population and Refugees. A lot of the legal analysis, I think, with State Department lawyers -- a State Department legal team that worked on this. And that was their contribution. I'm sure that other agencies might have had lawyers involved. So it was an interagency effort. The White House was clearly involved in that.

QUESTION: Led the effort by being -- by virtue of its interagency nature?

MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't think I'd say that. I'd have to look back at which of the different committees and who chaired them and things like that. But it was an interagency effort. The legislation, the decision-making power and the legislation have been delegated to the Secretary of State, so he made the final decision. The President was aware of the decision and supports it. But it was an interagency group that worked on this and came up with the recommendation for the Secretary.

As far as your second question, you'll see in the three-page or so legal analysis a sentence that I think states as clearly as I can that the issue involved in why this decision, we felt, had to be made. Regardless of the size of the UNFPA's budget in China or any benefit that its programs provide, UNFPA's support of and involvement in China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.

So they cite things like, you know, where the UNFPA is providing computers or vehicles, and yet, you know, then finding out those computers and vehicles, because they become part of the Chinese programs, are used to send notices to people about not having further children and to be involved, therefore, in the -- you know, in the context of the PRC they are supplying equipment to the very agencies that employ coercive practices. And that amounts to support or participation in the management of the program.

QUESTION: And as to the other countries, why the China problem has to drive the decision for all the other countries?

MR. BOUCHER: The question is, first of all, following US law. The second is following the US beliefs in what we should and should not be supporting. And third, remember that we are supporting family planning, reproductive health programs around the world to the same extent that we did before, before the Mexico City decision last February, and before this decision right now.

So this $480 million that we're going to spend on population and reproductive health amounts to a substantial contribution by the United States to the efforts that are being made around the world. We're already looking at how that money can be spent, and we're involved in family planning programs in over 60 countries this year. So the funds can be directed to a number of countries that have especially high unmet needs for family planning, including Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Congo, Uganda, Tanzania, Madagascar, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, Malawi, Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, Nepal, Burma, Angola and Benin. Among these are three new countries where we have not been funding family planning; that's Afghanistan, Angola, and Burma. These funds will enable programs in these countries to expand and improve access to family planning services, enabling couples around the world to make free and responsible decisions about the number and the spacing of their children. These funds will support programs in the public, non-profit and commercial sections and through humanitarian organizations like CARE.

QUESTION: Is that the 34 million?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Those are places that we can spend it through our USAID program.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the US Agency for International Development will maintain its current levels of support for family planning and reproductive health activities. We have a particular focus on the special needs of youth, protection against unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, and also post-abortion care for women suffering complications from unsafe abortion.

New activities include areas of data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and health communications, and those will be launched. So there are many needs and many things that we will spend this money on to make sure it's effectively used in the same general area.

QUESTION: Richard, I realize this might be in the executive summary which we are going to receive, but we haven't seen it yet, so I'll ask you anyway. Does the -- did the report specifically come to the conclusion that UNFPA funds do not go towards Chinese programs which support coercive abortions?

And if you have decided -- since you have decided otherwise, then what was the point of sending this team there in the first place, if you were going to ignore it?

MR. BOUCHER: The point of sending the team in the first place was to gather information, and they had very extensive interviews. We're giving you the executive summary of the report; the report itself is about that big. They include brochures, information that they got, transcripts of interviews, and a lot of things that they were able to collect. And as I said, we have in addition to that the things that we have gotten subsequently and beforehand through our own efforts of our diplomatic posts and research on the subject.

What they found was no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Second, they found that notwithstanding some relaxation in 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC retained coercive elements in law and in practice. And the third was about the importance of population policy in China.

Those are explained in further detail in the executive summary that we give you. But you see the basic construct there, that while the UN is not knowingly involved in these programs of coercion, they support and work with agencies that are involved in that. And it was up to us, based on the information that was collected, based on the law, to do the legal analysis and decide what's the appropriate role for US funding. And at this point we decided it was not to fund the UN Population Fund.

QUESTION: How was the funding initially raised from the 25 million that Bush proposed to begin with to the 34 million?

MR. BOUCHER: My understanding of that is that we proposed -- let me get back to this somewhere, if I can -- I probably can't find it. We proposed something like 21.5 million last year, and 25 million this year. Provided 21.5 last year, proposed 25 this year, Congress upped that to 34. And we said, fine, as long as it -- we'll spend it in accordance with the law.

And now, having examined the law and the facts, we find that we need to spend it through nongovernmental organizations and in other ways than through the UN Population Fund.

Betsy.

QUESTION: But there's a whole group of women who are left out of this reasoning, because many of these children are those that are not conceived by loving couples that take the time and have the education to decide when they'll have children. I mean, many of these children would be born from rape or from other things like that. I mean, there's no -- there's nothing to help these women in China from the US?

MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, there's plenty of Chinese Government programs, and we said, so many of those are coercive. The second point, I think, is we don't want to be involved in any way in programs that coerce women into having abortions, whatever the reasons for their pregnancy. That's the point that we're making with this. That's the decision that we have to make based on the law.

Todd.

QUESTION: Some Members of Congress, Richard, are saying that this is a very broad interpretation of Kemp-Kasten, broader than any interpretation heretofore applied, and they worry that it could ultimately jeopardize United States participation in other programs, like UNICEF, WHO, even USAID itself, if the logic were carried out to its logical, apparent conclusion.

Is that something that's been of concern to the Department?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I just have to say it was a very careful legal analysis. The act, like every foreign operations appropriations act since 1985, provides the following: None of the funds available in this act may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.

It was under that rubric that we looked at this. And you'll see that's why we're providing you with the full legal analysis so you can see how it -- how we matched up the law and the facts and came to this conclusion.

Eli.

QUESTION: If the UN fund was not knowingly supporting the work of these agencies, did you consider -- or why wouldn't you just go to the UN, make them aware of your findings, and then see if they could then no longer work with the agencies practicing the coercive abortions?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not really sure of the complete answer to that. They have, I understand, a four-year commitment to China. They spend about $3.5 million a year there over a period of four years. So they're committed under an ongoing program.

And as I said, we have a legal determination to make about how we deliver US money. Clearly we want to consult with all those involved in family planning and reproductive health around the world, including the UN Population Fund. But at this point we had to make the decision based on US law and what we know about our money.

QUESTION: If I could just follow up -- I mean, I hope that you don't say that this is a hypothetical -- but would it be possible for any US support for population control in China, given -- I mean, could you -- is there any scenario where you could support programs in China, given the government's policy, and as you pointed out before, the law?

MR. BOUCHER: Would it be possible? I suppose it's conceivable, either that the Chinese Government might change some of their regulations and programs. It's conceivable that others might be carrying out programs that are not involved with these Chinese Government agencies that provide for the needs of women and expectant mothers in a way that we could fund through NGOs or otherwise.

But we would have to look at obviously the law and the circumstances before we made those decisions.

Elaine.

QUESTION: I was listening from before, and I don't think you've said specifically what -- where these -- how these monies got to the agency, the agencies that are responsible for coercive abortion. Can you give us a specific example? Because as I understand it, the Secretary was supportive of the UNFPA and I'm wondering exactly what you found out that made him change his mind.

MR. BOUCHER: I think the simple answer is that we have so much more information now. We have the assessment teams' reports. We have more information on how the UN Population Fund money is spent in China. We have more complete information now regarding particular laws that underpin state population matters in China. In addition, since the time of our original proposals, China has enacted a new national law that provides severe fines and other penalties imposed on those who have out-of-plan births. That law was adopted by the People's Congress on December 29, 2001 with an effective date of September 1, 2002. So in light of that new information that we now have available, the Secretary determined that Kemp-Kasten precludes funding to the UNFPA.

How does the money get there? The United States supports UN Population Fund programs in a general way around the world, not specifically for China. The Population Fund then spends money in China. About half of their money is spent for Chinese agencies. I think it's over half of their money is spent for Chinese agencies which carry out these coercive programs. And it was our view that because we're providing money to an organization that provides money to the Chinese programs, that that infringed the intent of the law and the requirements of the law.

QUESTION: Half the money, not of UNFPA, but of UNFPA's money in China goes to coercive agencies; is that it?

MR. BOUCHER: Thank you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask another question?

MR. BOUCHER: Half of -- yeah, half of UNFPA's money in China goes to agencies that carry out these coercive programs, not directly to any activities.

QUESTION: One of the criticisms that have come from people anticipating this decision is that the administration has just decided to spend vast quantities of money in China because of the AIDS program. Can you explain why that money doesn't worry you, whereas this money does?

MR. BOUCHER: I read you the requirements of the law. The requirements of the law are quite clearly directed at population programs and I think there's the -- you know, that's where we're dealing directly with money that we spend on population programs. The AIDS funding -- let me go back. You know, it's very much coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, any organization or program which does that. So the organizations and programs that we would be spending money on wouldn't be involved in those things.

QUESTION: There's an overlap between AIDS programs and reproductive health programs and I'm wondering how you're going to keep the AIDS money away from those same agencies that carry out coercive abortion.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that'll be something that'll have to be looked at as the money is spent. I guess that's as far as I can go on that.

QUESTION: A couple of things. One, in your answer to Betsy's question, when she asked, "Well, what do these women in China do now if they've got a problem?" I think -- what you said sounded to me like you were suggesting that these women go to the very programs that you say that you find fault with. Was that what you were trying to do?

MR. BOUCHER: The -- she was asking about people who make their own decisions. And for people who make their own decisions, not in the source of the pregnancy but in what they want to do --

QUESTION: Well, she asked you "What do these women in China do now?" And you said, "Well, there are these programs that the Chinese government runs --" and then you said well, that they are coercive. But you -- that seems to -- I mean you seem to be admitting that you're putting some Chinese women in a position where they're forced to rely on the very program that you say is bad.

MR. BOUCHER: I thought I was answering a question about women who became pregnant against their will. And those women have health services available to them, adoption services, whatever else is normally available in China. Our point has been that we believe that those programs should not be coercive. Those people should be -- those programs should be made available to people who want them and who make their own decisions. So if there are people who want them and make their own decisions, they are available. The point about US funding and this law is so that it's not -- so that we don't fund anything that's coercive.

QUESTION: Still, that boils down to, in the end, you're saying they should go, then, to the very places that you're saying are bad. Anyway. I think --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it quite boils down to that because the question was predicated on choice.

QUESTION: Okay. I've got two very brief ones, then. When did you inform UNFPA of this decision? I ask this because as of two hours ago they hadn't been informed and were quite peeved, one might say. And don't you think that it might depend on --

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is I don't know. I will check. I should have checked.

QUESTION: Well, they say that as of two hours ago when it became apparent that you were going to announce this --

MR. BOUCHER: Maybe we've informed them in the last 18 minutes. We'll double-check.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, so in other words, they were never given a chance to respond to any of these -- to this decision?

MR. BOUCHER: We have been in very close touch with them. The team talked to the UN Population Fund people who work in the field. We certainly talk to the organization constantly. They know what we were looking at. They know what our law is. They know what kind of information we needed and my understanding is they were helpful.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, you say the team that went out there, that was in May, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And that team came back with what you said were slightly different recommendations than what the Secretary has decided now. So as far as the UNFPA knew, from their conversations with this team, things weren't quite at this stage yet. I want to know, if you have an answer, when UNFPA was told, and if you can find this out, when they were told that the decision was going to be that you were going to withdraw the funding. And then I've got one last --

MR. BOUCHER: I will find out for you. But I have to say that the team came back with a large volume of information for us. And it was on the basis of that information, additional information, and the legal analysis we had to do that we came to this conclusion.

QUESTION: Thank you. But it appears from what you're saying that UNFPA was never consulted about any of this after --

MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't think that's true, but I'll get you the facts when we talk to them.

QUESTION: All right. And my last one, which I'm sure you'll answer very briefly, is that there are some in anticipation of this decision who are saying that Secretary Powell was essentially forced into making this decision by the White House and there will be some, as you know, up on the Hill, who will say this this afternoon -- who will stay this this afternoon and tomorrow. What do you say to these people?

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary made this decision based on the recommendations of an interagency group that involved all the different agencies, on the basis of a State Department legal analysis, a legal analysis done by this group that included State Department lawyers. This was the recommendation of the interagency team. This was a decision that the Secretary made, as the person to whom the authority had been delegated.

QUESTION: When was that -- did you say when the interagency team came back to this recommendation? Maybe -- I may have missed it.

MR. BOUCHER: It came back with its report. The report -- their letter to the Secretary on their findings and recommendations was May 29th.

QUESTION: That's not the interagency?

MR. BOUCHER: No, that --

QUESTION: No, no.

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I'm sorry, you're asking the interagency team?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: The interagency work? The memo went up to him late last week, and I think he signed off on it over the weekend. I'll have to double-check. He told us this morning that he had signed the recommendation.

QUESTION: Can you lay out what percentage of the $480 million of family planning goes to promoting abstinence, and whether that money -- that percentage is actually increasing? And also --

MR. BOUCHER: I can't right now. I don't know. I'd have to check and see if we have that kind of information.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: And I'll just see if we can get it for you.

QUESTION: Okay. And also, US funds that go to China through the World Bank, IMF, the World Health Organization -- these funds are not going to be cut off, are they? Because -- I mean, does the law consider the Chinese Government as the -- you know, as the parent of their family planning programs to be also untouchable?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, you've got to keep reading the law. It says any organization or program which supports or participates in the management of programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. So --

QUESTION: Does that include the Government of China?

MR. BOUCHER: So those are the entities, the in many cases local entities, because there are local regulations. I cited the one from Chongqing. Regulations may be different somewhat or not in other places.

So it's the local -- it's those entities that are involved, not some general observation. This involves funding for -- a particular stream of funding for a particular organization.

QUESTION: Did the team that went out there draw any conclusions about whether the UNFPA was actually having a beneficial effect on China's one-child policy?

MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to leave you to read the team's report. I don't remember off the top of my head, frankly, if that's in there somewhere.

QUESTION: Can we get access to the full report?

MR. BOUCHER: You'll get access to the full report. I think it's all going to be scanned and put on CD-ROMs, but that may take a while.

QUESTION: Are you going to review this program year by year, and sometime maybe resume the funding next year or something?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that there's a specific timetable for it, but certainly we'll follow the situation, we'll continue to see what happens with China's programs, with the UN Population Fund, and with other funding proposals that may come forward. We're not adverse to carrying out some programs in China if they can be done within the scope of this law.

Gene.

QUESTION: Yeah. Two quick questions. Do you have any stats on what the 34 million represents in terms of Chinese expenditures and UN expenditures in China on population?

And secondly, --

MR. BOUCHER: Let me do this, if I can, while I still remember. The Chinese spend something like a billion dollars a year on population programs. The UN population program spends something like $270 million a year, of which --

QUESTION: In China?

MR. BOUCHER: No. Of which 34 was from the US. And they spend $3.5 million a year in China. So it is a small part, but the law doesn't say a small part's okay. It's a question of US money and whether we can give money in that stream.

QUESTION: How much of last year's US funding was done in China through the UN Population? Can you give any estimate on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think any. Right? How much --

QUESTION: How much --

QUESTION: You said the UN Population --

QUESTION: Okay, went to China, went to programs in China.

MR. BOUCHER: How much are the money that we spent -- well, once -- assuming a percentage. I mean, there's probably different ways to do the numbers. At this point the numbers -- it's not like we're tracking a dollar bill and a serial number on this.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: What?

QUESTION: None of the money went to --

MR. BOUCHER: None of our money went into China directly.

QUESTION: By law?

MR. BOUCHER: By law. Okay.

QUESTION: -- appropriations (inaudible) said that it should be segregated out and none should go into China.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. So we -- our money goes to other UNFPA programs, not in China, but then it frees up money to go to their programs in China.

QUESTION: So you're penalizing these other programs, rather than China at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: We're not spending money -- we don't want to spend money, to send US taxpayer money into a stream of funding that ends up partly going into the hands of people who carry out coerced abortion. And the bottom line is that's what the law requires us to do, not to say, well, it's only a small fraction or it's only a few drops in the stream. The law requires us to find whether or not our money ended up going into the hands of people who carry out coercion. And given that this direct line from US funding, although our funding doesn't go into China, it frees up -- presumably it frees up money that the UN Population Fund uses in its programs in China, which goes to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive abortion. It's not possible to segregate money to that extent, I guess.

QUESTION: Richard, you just said that you're not -- it's not as if you're tracking this dollar serial number -- serial number by serial number, dollar by dollar, but isn't that exactly what fungibility entails? That's what you're saying. I mean, if you're not tracking this money --

MR. BOUCHER: Fungibility is the opposite. But no, we -- I mean, we support --

QUESTION: Yeah -- but no, it's not the opposite. You're saying that if you can -- that there is evidence that US money, one dollar bill with some -- serial number X on it goes to UNFPA, and even if that doesn't get spent in China, it helps China. That's exactly what --

MR. BOUCHER: That's the point I just made.

QUESTION: Well, then why did you say earlier that you're not tracking every dollar serial number by serial number?

MR. BOUCHER: It's not that a US dollar bill with a particular serial number goes to the UN, which then goes to China, which then goes to a Chinese agency.

QUESTION: Yes, I know.

MR. BOUCHER: But it is that the money that we provide into this stream, the fact that we provide money to the UN Population Fund, even if our money is supposed to be segregated and spent on other activities, not China activities, that then frees up money that the UN Population Fund has that goes into Chinese agencies to some extent that carry out these --

QUESTION: But you have made a decision that that dollar bill with serial number X on it has had some kind of effect in China, right? That's the whole point of what fungibility is, as far as I know.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, that's right.

QUESTION: So you are tracking it dollar by dollar?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we're not tracking it now --

QUESTION: Well, yeah, you are.

MR. BOUCHER: I mean --

QUESTION: That's what you -- you've come to that conclusion.

MR. BOUCHER: That's -- no. But it -- that's not what the words I said meant; that's not what the words you say mean. But anyway, say it your way if you want, but don't write it that way, because it's not right.

QUESTION: Richard, could you just -- I find it surprising that UNFPA ever agreed to say that your funds would only -- would not go to China. Do you explain -- what exactly -- what kind of assurances did you have from them, and how does this work in practice?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how that mechanism has worked, and I'll find out for you.

Todd.

QUESTION: -- question, Richard, but in terms of consultations, do you know if the Secretary has spoken with the Secretary General personally about this matter, or informed him of which way the wind was blowing sort of thing?

MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to double-check with him. I don't know. I don't know of any particular phone calls today, for examle. But I'd have to check if they discussed it in some other phone calls in the last week or two.

QUESTION: If I remember rightly, you said that you weren't adverse to the idea of doing programs in China. Can you say of your own that would be within the parameters of this law? Is there any -- actually any consideration of doing that?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of. I was asked under what conditions might we be willing to fund the UN Population Fund, or what we might be willing to fund, even to programs in China. And as I said, that would depend on US law, first and foremost, and depending on how those various programs evolve. So we'll just have to see.

New subject?

QUESTION: Yes, on Venezuela. I just want to know about the USAID program in Venezuela, what is the -- what is trying to develop in Venezuela? Because some people are saying this USAID program or this office will -- is trying to support the opposition against President Chavez, and did President Chavez already know about this project?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have all the numbers with me today, but generally, what we've done in Venezuela I think is to support democracy-building, to support programs that for example the National Endowment for Democracy has carried out. These involve training journalists, supporting independent media, supporting information, democracy, elections, things like that. I'll have to double-check for you on the specifics of any money that might go down there.

I don't -- I'm not sure we have a direct USAID program in Venezuela.

QUESTION: Are you sure that this is only for the opposition? Or not for the government --

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not. We don't support the opposition or the government. We try to expand the availability of information and the availability of democratic processes for people in various countries around the world.

QUESTION: There is some information in the newspapers in Venezuela --

MR. BOUCHER: No, there's some argument in the newspapers.

QUESTION: That's why I want to --

MR. BOUCHER: But the information is as I said.

QUESTION: -- check with you.

MR. BOUCHER: Sir.

QUESTION: Yes, on Colombia?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Based on a newspaper report, there is a company based in Washington, DC that is called Red Tactica, that mentioned that the United States is training a multinational force in Brazil that has members of the military forces from Colombia and Peru and Ecuador and other countries, that their only purpose is by January 2004 to go into Colombia and attack the guerilla forces, the guerilla forces under the UN direction.

MR. BOUCHER: This is not a journal that I read on a regular basis, I have to say. So I don't have the benefit of having seen it. But I think I can safely say that US programs in Colombia have been explained many, many times, and we've explained them from here, we've explained them to our Congress in a very open manner. We support the efforts of the Government of Colombia to deal with the problems of narcotics and terrorism.

We have made open our support for the government's efforts to do that. We have asked from our Congress in the supplemental legislation that's on the Hill for additional money to do that. We have asked from them for additional authority to do that. And that's what we're working on and that's what we're supporting.

QUESTION: What do you make of the report that Iran was actually behind the bombing in Buenos Aires a year ago?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't make a whole lot of it at this point because the Argentine investigation is still underway. They're still investigating the bombing. There's a trial of several persons suspected of involvement in the attack that continues in Buenos Aires. Of course, Hezbollah is suspected of the bombing, and that is an organization that, as we know, is supported by Iran.

But as far as these reports of secret depositions, I'm afraid there's not much I can do on that for you.

Ben.

QUESTION: The point of that article is that the investigation is a sham. So you're basing your non-answer on the fact that this investigation, which may be a sham, is going forward. So you're going to remain blocked by that, or are you going to make a statement saying that you're going to investigate these reports, that you're going to talk to the Germans, that you're going to make any sort of -- you're going to kind of -- you're just going to leave it there?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm going to tell you what I've told you before, that we believe that Iran is involved in terrorism, that we collect information from all over the world all the time from any source we can get it on Iran's involvement in terrorism and we've made no secret of our conclusions about that.

I'm not going to try to comment on somebody else's investigation, what they're doing and they're finding out. But I have made no secret at any time that the United States collects a lot of information on Iranian involvement in terrorism and we still believe they're up to their eyeballs in terrorism.

QUESTION: I have two very brief ones on Russia. One, I understand that you have been able now, through the Embassy, to confirm the death of Mr. Howard. And also, do you know anything about the kidnapping of a seven-year-old American girl -- I think it was reported on Friday -- in Moscow?

MR. BOUCHER: The Embassy has received reports that Edward Lee Howard died on July 12th. I would say I don't have independent verification at this point, but those reports appear to confirm that Mr. Howard has died.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: That's the press accounts. That's the way it's described, yeah. As far as the situation of the abduction of an American citizen, a girl, the US Embassy in Moscow was notified Friday night of the abduction of American citizen Amelia Garmyn from her mother's Moscow apartment on Friday, July 19th. Our Embassy met with the mother, Lolita Garmyn, today, July 22nd. Embassy officials are in touch with Russian authorities and will assist with the investigation into this incident in any way possible.

The Russian authorities, in turn, are in contact with Interpol and other international law enforcement agencies to try to learn of the child's whereabouts. I'd refer you to the Russian authorities as to whom they suspect is the abductor of Amelia Garmyn. We have no records regarding the reported prior abduction of Amelia Garmyn. And that's what we know at this point. Of course, we're working very closely with the family, the mother.

QUESTION: Can I get one more on China? Do you have any comment on the relationship that China built with Naru, the Pacific island country?

MR. BOUCHER: Between China and Naru?

QUESTION: China and Naru. Yes, it happened yesterday.

MR. BOUCHER: It's something I haven't had a chance to look into recently, so I'd have to check and see if we have anything to say on that.

QUESTION: This morning, I think, Deputy Secretary Armitage met with the South Korean delegations. I'm sure that they talked about the North Korea affairs. Was this consultation a preparation for the ARF? Could you give us some details?

MR. BOUCHER: This is one of the many consultations we have with Japanese and South Korean allies about various things. Meetings today with the South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister -- separate meetings today by Deputy Secretary Armitage and Assistant Secretary James Kelly with Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Tae-Sik. They talked about a whole range of issues, important issues, like our bilateral relations with South Korea, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and regional issues as well. They reviewed together recent developments regarding North Korea.

These discussions are part of the regular close consultations with our Korean and Japanese allies on issues relating to the Korean Peninsula.

George.

QUESTION: Have you heard from the North Koreans since you told them that the meeting you had proposed for the second week in July would not take place?

MR. BOUCHER: No. Nothing new. Have we heard? We may have had some routine contacts, but no news on that for you.

QUESTION: Yeah, Middle East. There have been a few possibly encouraging developments. The release of funds, the decision not to deport the families of militants, and the permission for Sari Nusseibeh to reopen his office. Do you have any comment on these developments? Do you see -- is there a trend here of any kind? Are you behind any of these measures?

MR. BOUCHER: One, two, three or three, two, one? The release of funds I can't confirm yet. I'm not certain that that's taken place. I'll leave it to the Israelis to talk about that. Of course, that's been something that we've been interested in and working on over time.

As far as the question of arrests of family members, I'd say that we made our position clear on that and note that Israeli executive and judicial authorities have been reviewing that proposal.

As far as the issue of al-Quds University, I'd say the White House made its views clear on this regarding that issue. And of course we welcome the arrangement to reopen Mr. Nusseibeh's office.

And finally, you asked about some of the meetings. Indeed, Foreign Minister Peres -- oh, he didn't? I thought he -- I just heard the list, so I had gone through my whole list, too.

All right. Assume that he asked. Since you ask, Foreign Minister Peres has met with the endorsement of Prime Minister Sharon with the some of the new Palestinian officials. This demonstrates, we think, that all parties recognize the need for Palestinians and Israelis to find ways to work with each other. We're encouraged by these meetings. And I'd refer you to them, of course, for any details.

We've been involved in extensive discussions with the Quartet and the Arab leaders regarding plans of action on security and civil reform. We'll be discussing those issues further with the parties in coming days. Indeed, as part of those consultations, Dov Weisglas, the Chief of Staff for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and the Israeli Defense Force, Major General Moshe Kaplinski are meeting with the Secretary and other officials, including Condi Rice, today.

They'll review progress made in the meetings with the Quartet and the Arab foreign ministers. And we would expect to meet with working level Palestinian officials as we move forward. No, I don't have anything to announce for you at this time.

QUESTION: These meetings with the Israelis today, do you think that your security working plan will be ready for presentation to them on this occasion?

MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said last week, it was ready to discuss with the parties in the very near future. So here we are in the very near future. We're ready to discuss that along with all the other subjects that are out there right now.

QUESTION: And how are you going to discuss it with the Palestinians?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we expect to meet with the Palestinians, but we don't have anything set up for announcement at this point.

QUESTION: Will they come here, do you think?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what'll happen, but at this point we don't have anything to announce.

QUESTION: Can you give us the details of the new plan?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Some hints of details?

MR. BOUCHER: No more than I gave you last week. Same hints as last week: streamlining, retraining, and I can't even remember the third word. Restructuring maybe -- reform.

QUESTION: Yeah. New topic. Sudan --

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Well, he had dibs on new topics.

QUESTION: Iraq. The stated position of the administration is obviously for regime change in Iraq and Congress has authorized, I believe, over 70 million in funding for the Iraqi National Congress, yet I believe the INC's received only a small portion of that, some 12 million, I think, over the last five to six years. What is the current status of funding to the INC?

MR. BOUCHER: Current status, as we've described it here over the last few months, is that we've made a proposal for $8 million worth of funding to the INC and they have yet to respond.

QUESTION: Is there anything that's been done since on our part? On the State Department's part to --

MR. BOUCHER: We certainly follow up with them. We certainly work with them on the proper accountability for that money and the steps that they can take to make sure that any money we give them is properly used. But at this point on the new offer, we're waiting to hear back.

QUESTION: What are we waiting to hear specifically?

MR. BOUCHER: That they want the money and will use it for the purposes intended.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: That was current as of about last Thursday, I think. So I don't think we've heard since then. But if we have, I'll tell you.

Okay, Matt.

QUESTION: Weekend developments in Sudan?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes. There were. I can confirm that. The signing of the Machakos Protocol by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement is a significant step in moving towards a just and lasting peace.

This interim measure is a strong indication that the parties are both willing and capable of reaching a negotiated settlement to Sudan's civil war. The peace talks are being held under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the IGAD process, as it's known.

Observer teams from the United States, Norway, the UK, and Switzerland have been on hand to provide support. The specifics of the ceasefire are still being solidified. The agreement includes a transition schedule that begins with a six-month interim period. During the pre-interim period, the parties will cease hostilities, establish the institutions and mechanisms established in the protocol, including those to monitor a cessation of hostilities, implement mechanisms to monitor the peace agreement, make preparations for a comprehensive ceasefire, and establish a constitutional framework in accordance with the peace agreement.

Then the interim period that begins after the six-month pre-interim period would last six years. During that period, an independent assessment and evaluation commission shall be established to monitor implementation. The commission would include representatives of the government, liberation movement, other members of the process, observer-states like the US.

This round of discussions began June 30th, ended July 20th, and we understand negotiations begin again in mid-August.

QUESTION: Can I move further south? This just happened, so I don't know if you have anything on it, between DOC, Congo and Rwanda reaching a deal? It just happened about an hour before the briefing. You may not have that yet.

MR. BOUCHER: On reopening the river? No

QUESTION: If you don't, then can we move to non-developments in Angola over the weekend?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Non-developments in Angola, any specific non-developments that you're interested in?

QUESTION: You need a -- I guess they -- didn't they miss their deadline for disarmament?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think first -- the first thing to note is that our Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs is going to be in Angola this week meeting with Angolan Government officials. So he will discuss with them where we stand on the demobilization process.

I think we would point out that they've made a lot of progress. There's been excellent cooperation so far. There's something like 80,000 former UNITA combatants and adherents who have reported to the cantonments around the country, in many cases joined by their family members. So that's progress that we applaud and we hope to see that advanced and we'll continue to work on seeing that continue.

QUESTION: My question is about the Chinese Party Congress. The Washington Post just reported yesterday that Chinese President Jiang Zemin might be trying to avoid retiring from Chairman post, and do you have any of that kind of intelligence so far? And if you have --

MR. BOUCHER: First, we don't talk about intelligence, and second, we don't talk about other people's internal affairs, so I'm afraid not.

QUESTION: What about the timing of the next Party Congress?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll read it in the papers.

QUESTION: Is there any comment yet on Mary Robinson's successor?

MR. BOUCHER: No. Just heard about that. We'll see if there's something to say at the appropriate time. I guess the only thing I could say off the top of my head is we look forward to working with him.

Charlie.

QUESTION: How about India? Can you tell us what brought about the change in status of allowing US Government employees to go back and telling everybody else it's safe to have a vacation there?

MR. BOUCHER: We, I think, updated our travel advice to Americans and also changed our public announcements over the weekend. It was approved by the Under Secretary for Management. He approved the termination of authorized departure. That allows the return of non-emergency personnel and embassy family members to the embassy in New Delhi and our Consulates in Mumbai, Chennai, and Calcutta. These people left in late May because of the heightened possibility of hostilities between India and Pakistan and we've decided that tensions between the two countries have lessened.

We determined now is the appropriate time for those staff members and dependents to return to post, and so that's why we put out the new advisory.

QUESTION: How much time do they have to return to post? Is there a legal thing? Is there a timeframe?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't know the regulations on that, frankly. I expect there must be some rules about, "you can't go out, back after the tour is over," but I'm not sure what else there might be.

Joel.

QUESTION: A question about the North Dakota Governor visiting Cuba, apparently on a agricultural trade mission? I know that when, just weeks ago, when President Carter visited Cuba, there was much in the news about that. Anything going to and with Cuba -- aren't you looking for NGOs, unless for independent or personal contacts, especially from a governor?

MR. BOUCHER: I have to check on that and see what we know and whether it was necessary to get a Treasury license on that one and whether it was given.

QUESTION: We've heard that you've closed the Saudi Visa Express system. Are you closing or do you still allow people in other embassies around the world to apply through travel agencies?

MR. BOUCHER: As we pointed out, in some places -- many places around the world, there are third parties who collect papers for us, who check receipts and photographs and make sure papers are signed, and then who send them on to embassies. This is a clerical function that's performed in different places in different ways and I'm sure various embassies have adjusted their procedures in different ways since September 11th, because we do require more information. We do more extensive checks. We have more extensive waiting periods, and we have much higher rates of interviews.

The Embassy in Saudi Arabia recommended to us, and we supported the recommendation, for them to move now to interview 100 percent of the applicants and to take all the applications directly. So they've made announcements in Saudi Arabia to applicants and travel agents to say that they will no longer accept visas through that procedure.

There may be some minor clerical functions, passing out forms and things like that, that will still go on at various agencies, but people will have to apply in person if they're between the ages of 12 and 70. If they're outside of those brackets, somebody else can bring it in for them. And our intention is to interview virtually all applicants above the age of 12.

QUESTION: Are those procedures -- can you tell us if they're going to be in any other embassies, whether it be in the Middle East or in Pakistan or any other countries?

MR. BOUCHER: It'll depend on the individual place. I'm not aware of any -- this was a specific change we made in Saudi Arabia based on the recommendations of the country team. They came back with several proposals and this is the one that we and they agreed was appropriate. We sent them out some consular experts to help them design this and as of Saturday they started in on this new system.

QUESTION: Have you got a replacement to name for Mary Ryan?

MR. BOUCHER: It wouldn't be me, anyway. It's a presidential appointment.

QUESTION: Is it still the contention of the State Department that this Visa Express in Saudi Arabia fell victim to persistent and erroneous press reports about --

MR. BOUCHER: That's what the Ambassador said to us when he started making his recommendation that we change the system. Obviously we want to do everything possible to maintain the security of the United States. We want to do everything possible to maintain the highest levels of security in the processing. Part of that is looking to the integrity of the system and the way the system's perceived. We don't want visa applicants or anyone else thinking that they can somehow get around the system or play games with it. And if it's necessary to have a higher level of interviews to make sure you catch everybody you want to catch, we'll do that and that's what we're doing.

QUESTION: But I just want to make sure. It's still the Department's contention that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with this program, that it didn't result -- that it wasn't a security problem, and that the only reason that you've terminated it is because of the misperception, what you say was a misperception that was caused by erroneous media reports?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll stick with what I just said on it. I think that's the way we do the decision.

QUESTION: Same general topic. Would the State Department support having Homeland Security agents review NIV applications, once there is a Department of Homeland Security, of everyone in target groups before visas are issued and have separate interviews, if necessary, conducted by Homeland Security agents?

MR. BOUCHER: We have supported the Hyde-Lantos amendment that was inserted in the legislation in the House side. The Secretary of State said two weeks ago he supported that amendment. That provides for their ability to put people in embassies as necessary. And that's what we support.

QUESTION: You don't support having them review the applications before adjudication and conducting separate interviews.

MR. BOUCHER: What we have supported is the Hyde-Lantos. I'm not going to deal with every other possibility that one might think of. I'm sorry.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Is the Department going to provide more consular officials now that the amount of work has risen considerably for that?

MR. BOUCHER: There are resource implications for all these decisions. The Embassy has outlined for us in Saudi Arabia what the resources are that they might need. We have sent them some consular experts. They are instituting the system by borrowing people from other sections, reassigning some people, and trying to take care of the workload that way. But yes, in the end, we're going to have to get them more people.

QUESTION: Do you know (inaudible) decision yet about, as I understood it, the plan was to have Homeland Security plus State Department consular officials working side by side in the embassies. Is that the current plan?

MR. BOUCHER: The current plan is to do what the administration proposed in the law along with the amendment that's been inserted in the law by Hyde and Lantos and which we supported. But obviously the legislation still has to go through the Senate. So the current plan is to uphold the laws of the Untied States, however they turn out after the Congress deals with them.

QUESTION: And it's going through the House this week?

MR. BOUCHER: That's right. It's still headed to the floor of the House. It's gone through three committees, I think, and come out the same way.

QUESTION: I have a very quick one. Ashcroft today said that he'd recommended to the Secretary that another nine groups should be listed under the Patriot Act of last year. Do you know when that's going to come up in the Federal Register?

MR. BOUCHER: Let's see if I can figure it out. Those things -- I mean, he sends us certain information and then we have to review it. So we've received his letter that nine groups be designated as terrorist organizations within the meaning of the USA Patriot Act of 2001. We have the request under active consideration and expect to have a response to him shortly. We look forward to continuing the close cooperation that we've had with the Department of Justice on keeping terrorists from entering the United States.

QUESTION: Do you have the list of those nine groups?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if he's released his letter, but it would be for him if he wanted to.

QUESTION: One other quick follow-up. I understand that the -- kind of the new buzzwords within Consular Affairs are security and change. What does that entail as far as plans for change in, I guess, extra security within Consular Affairs?

MR. BOUCHER: As I think I've mentioned before, there have been any number of steps taken since September 11th to improve the security of the visa processing, to keep out the people who aren't supposed to get into the United States. They've taken a variety of steps all over the world -- sometimes at local initiatives, sometimes through Consular Affairs. They'll continue to go in that direction, continue to come up with steps, further information. We're expanding the databases, we're improving the processing in terms of how carefully we can check electronically, and they'll be other things done to allow posts to interview more people and to interview more of the target people.

QUESTION: So nothing new and particular, just a continuation down the same path?

MR. BOUCHER: Everything new every day. Better. Faster.

QUESTION: How many Saudis were given visas last year? Do you have the figure?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. Not off the top of my head. I could probably find it for you.

QUESTION: And will Saudis have to appear at third-country embassies, such as Paris and other places when they apply if they have a Saudi--

MR. BOUCHER: I think, frankly, most embassies already interview almost all third-country nationals, as if that would be understood. Fiscal year 2001, is that last year? 46,636* visas issued in Saudi Arabia.