U.S. Department of State
Other State Department Archive SitesU.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released online from January 1, 1997 to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for current material from the Department of State. Or visit http://2001-2009.state.gov for information from that period. Archive sites are not updated, so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
U.S. Department of State

Great Seal logo

Anne Richard, Director, Department of State Office of Resources, Plans and Policy; James Millette, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Budget and Planning; and William Brownfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
On-the-Record Briefing on the FY2001 International Affairs Budget Request
Washington, DC, February 7, 2000

Blue Bar rule

MS. RICHARD: I thought what might be useful to do is to just go over the numbers quickly, because the materials that you've gotten talk about our priorities but don't give the specifics of the numbers, and then we can get into questions and answers.

Is that helpful?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. RICHARD: Okay. You should have all gotten a copy of this highlights document that provides you with a lot of information about the International Affairs Budget, or Function 150. It is intended as a brief factual presentation of budget information. The International Affairs Budget totals $22.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2001. This is still just 1 percent of the $1.8 trillion federal budget and it's a 41 percent increase from the high-water mark of the mid-1980s in real dollar terms.

QUESTION: A 41 percent increase?

MS. RICHARD: 41 percent decrease in real dollar terms.

QUESTION: From when?

MS. RICHARD: From the mid-1980s.

I would like to then talk about the priorities in this budget. You heard the Secretary talk about the need for embassy security. This budget seeks over $1 billion in security improvements in our operating budget. That's $500 million to construct secure embassies, $200 million for upgrades to our perimeter security or protecting existing embassy buildings, $328 million for the recurring costs related to security upgrades that were made at the time of the Fiscal Year 1999 emergency supplemental - for example, if local guard forces were hired at that time, this continues then paying for them, continues those contracts - and $16 million to hire 161 diplomatic security professionals. Also, I should note that our Southeast Europe supplemental for Fiscal Year 2000 that I'll talk about in just a moment seeks $239 million to improve our facilities in the region as well in Southeast Europe.

These are the types of improvements called for by the Accountability Review Boards, also known as the Crowe Report, and by the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, also known as the Kaden Report.

The budget seeks significant resources for the democracies that the Secretary was discussing, chief among them support for Plan Colombia. Our request for Plan Colombia has already been announced a few weeks ago, but just to remind you then, it's $1.6 billion over two years, of which $1.273 billion could be considered new resources.

QUESTION: How much?

MS. RICHARD: $1.6 billion, two-year package, of which 1 billion, 273 million, could be considered new resources. Not all of that is in this budget. Some of it is in the Defense Department budget, some of it is in other agencies, but the bulk of it is in this budget.

$818 million is requested in this budget as a Fiscal Year 2000 supplemental, and $256 million in Fiscal Year 2001. It is perhaps important to note that 94 percent of the package is for Colombia, and the entire package is intended to support President Pastrana's efforts to stop narco-trafficking, promote human rights, help internally displaced persons, and foster economic development as well as supporting the peace process.

The other key democracies include Nigeria, where we are seeking about $106 - $107 million in Fiscal Year 2001. This is a big increase from Fiscal Year 1999, when it was about $34 million. We had an assessment team visit Nigeria. They came back, and they have called for funding to help rebuild democratic institutions such as the parliament, for conflict resolution, for reform of the energy and power sectors, for reform of the transportation sector, and also anti-corruption support.

For Indonesia, we are proposing approximately $150 million in Fiscal Year 2001 resources. Again, this is a big increase. Again, we have sent an assessment team to Indonesia. They've come back and we'd like to help the Indonesians build and effective and just judicial system, promote civil society, and spur continued economic reform.

QUESTION: Does that include Timor?

MS. RICHARD: No, Timor is in addition to funding for Indonesia. We have a big increase of funding for East Timor in Fiscal Year 2000 and so we also have an amount in the 2001 budget.

For Ukraine, this is less of a funding issue because we have had strong support for Ukraine over the past few years. We are seeking $179 million in Fiscal Year 2001 to continue this.

Each of these countries has a unique set of circumstances and challenges it faces. As the Secretary said, each plays an important role in its region to help solidify regional progress towards democracy.

Southeast Europe and Kosovo, we are seeking $610 million in SEED funds. SEED stands for Support for East European Democracies. We want to aid in the recovery in Kosovo and integrate Southeast Europe politically and economically into the rest of Europe.

I think it's interesting to note that by the end of Fiscal Year 2000, 8 of the original 15 SEED countries will have graduated, so most of the funding is now for Southeast Europe. No bilateral funding for northern tier countries will continue after the end of this fiscal year.

We also seek a supplemental of $624 million, and I can give you more details on that in a moment.

In the former Soviet Union, the Newly Independent States, we are requesting continued funding for the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative and funding for solidifying democracy and promoting free markets in the states of the former Soviet Union. The request for NIS funds is $830 million, of which $87 million is for the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.

We also have an additional pot of money for support ETRI so the State Department's contribution to this US Government-wide initiative is $141 million. The entire US Government total is almost a billion dollars; it's $974 million. The other piece is coming from the Defense Department and the Energy Department.

The Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative is intended to address proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and materials used in their production. It also is intended to redirect the work of scientists in the former Soviet Union toward peaceful civilian research and development activities and to keep them from going to work for rogue states or terrorists.

We have requested increases for assistance to Africa, and these include development assistance, economic support funds used for a variety of purposes, $10 million to fight crime, primarily in Nigeria and South Africa. And Africa will also benefit from broader initiatives to address HIV/AIDS and debt relief.

You'll notice then that the next item in the bottom part of page two of the preface in our list of priorities for the budget talks about transnational threats and it picks up on the President's State of the Union commitment to requesting $150 million to fight HIV/AIDS and other killer diseases. Of this $150 million, $100 million is for AIDS, $50 million is for a vaccine initiative to immunize children. That is in this budget. Of the $100 million for HIV/AIDS, $54 million is in the US Agency for International Development's budget.

The Secretary had already announced from this podium that we would seek $541 million of family planning assistance in the 2001 budget. This is a return, as she said, to Fiscal Year 1995 levels, or a $169 million increase over the current year.

Perhaps also worth mentioning then, on the environment there is a Greening the Globe Initiative to preserve tropical forests and bio-diversity; $45 million of this broader US Government initiative is in this budget. There is a Clean Energy Initiative to encourage clean energy practices and remove market barriers to use of clean energy technologies in developing countries; $50 million for that is in this budget.

And on debt relief, the Treasury Department seeks $262 million for a number of purposes; $150 million for multilateral trust fund that the World Bank will administer for that debt relief for the heavily indebted poorest countries, or HIPCs; $75 million for bilateral debt relief for the HIPCs; and $37 million for tropical forest conservation assistance.

Some additional things that I might highlights is that the Peace Corps continues to seek funding to reach its goal of 10,000 volunteers. And the funding that they seek - it's a $31 million increase - will get them to 7,800 volunteers by the end of fiscal year 2001.

We are maintaining current funding levels for state operating accounts with the exception of the increases we seek for security. We are seeking an increase of $21 million for the exchanges program demonstrating the President's and the Secretary's commitment to public diplomacy.

To recap on our supplemental requests, which are for the fiscal year 2000 budget -- we're in the midst of fiscal year 2000 right now - we are seeking a total of $1.65 billion in increases. This would bring our budget up to $23.9 billion in fiscal year 2000: $818 million is the piece for Colombia, $624 million is for Kosovo and Southeast Europe. Part of that is for economic and democratic reform activities in Kosovo, Croatia, Montenegro, support for democracy in Serbia, and part of it is also to improve our facilities in that region and cover increased costs of state operations in the region and to pay our UN peacekeeping bills in Kosovo.

I also mentioned, then, a $210 million supplemental for debt reduction activities, and that would be used to contribute to the HIPC trust fund administered by the World Bank.

In sum, we feel that this 1 percent of the wider budget contributes to the President's balanced, fiscally-responsible approach for putting together the Fiscal Year 2001 budget. I think we at the State Department are lucky to work with Secretary Albright, who understands the importance of resources in trying to conduct US foreign policy. So that is the overview of the numbers.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the money in here for the United Nations and how that fits into the overall payback and dues and that subject?

MS. RICHARD: Last year, we were fortunate to get the arrears, money that we had sought from the Congress, and we are in the second tranche of paying back our arrears. We have to reach certain benchmarks that have to do with the assessment rate that the US pays to the United Nations both for our regular payments, our regular dues and for our peacekeeping contributions. And we were able to make our first tranche of payments which was $100 million. That was certified and paid in December of 1999. This work towards paying our second tranche of payments is ongoing, and a lot of hard work is being done in New York and international capitals to achieve that this year.

The budget does continue to request funding for our contributions to the United Nations, to other international organizations, and it does request funding for paying our share of the cost of peacekeeping operations.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about money for the peace process in the Middle East, can you give me any breakout of -

MS. RICHARD: The budget includes -

QUESTION: 2000 and 2001.

MS. RICHARD: 2000 and 2001 include our annual assistance to Israel, Egypt and other countries in the Middle East. For Israel, it's in two accounts, economic support funds and the foreign military financing. For Israel, the total is $2,820,000,000; for Egypt it's $1,995,000,000. In terms of support for any comprehensive peace agreement that might be forthcoming, that's not addressed by this budget because it is premature to consider that at this moment. So what we have in this budget is our annual contributions in line with long-standing policy.

QUESTION: Are these numbers in the category of budgetary authority, all of them, as opposed to outlays?

MS. RICHARD: All the numbers I have given you are budget authority, yes.

QUESTION: I have a parochial question. We're interested in outlays because of the quirk in my news agency. Is there any way I can get the outlay figures?

MS. RICHARD: Right. We should follow up and we'll try to get you those from the Office of Management and Budget.

QUESTION: Which one should I talk to over here, anybody in particular?

MS. RICHARD: Raise your hand, Joe Bowab, thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. RICHARD: Outlays are important, obviously, because that's what we actually spend during the course of a year. And so if you're tracking the surplus or the deficit, you have to focus on the outlays. But what we request from the Congress is we request budget authority.

QUESTION: Two things. One is, what's the percentage decrease from last year's budget?

MS. RICHARD: This is actually a $600 million increase over what was appropriated last year.

QUESTION: How does that work, because there's --

MS. RICHARD: If you look on page five, I think there's a table that shows the overall total of $22.8 billion is an increase over the $22.2 billion that Congress appropriated.

QUESTION: Well, why -

MS. RICHARD: In the meantime, the reason you see $23.9 billion is because in the meantime we've asked for $1.65 billion of additional supplemental funds. And so our new request for fiscal year 2000 is the higher number, $23.9 billion. So Congress will see this as an increase over what they provided us at the end of last year.

QUESTION: Okay. An increase of what percent, do you know?

MS. RICHARD: I'll have to get you the -

QUESTION: And the other thing is that -- I'm just trying to go through here -- you said that total aid to say Indonesia was $150 million. Where do we find that? I mean, all I can find is $50 million in -

MS. RICHARD: Okay. I'll provide you that after the briefing because it's from several sources, it's not in one spot. It's from -

QUESTION: But is there any way that we can look in here so we can add up how much is for each country?

MS. RICHARD: You could go through and add up the economic support funds and foreign military financing funds.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I just did that for Indonesia and it doesn't come anywhere -

MS. RICHARD: What you don't have is the development assistance funding, and so we'll get you that.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the -

MR. REEKER: We can do the math for afterwards, Matt.

QUESTION: No, but I just want to know. I mean, there's no place in here where that last thing that you just mentioned is broken down by country?

MS. RICHARD: The Indonesian?

QUESTION: No, the - I'm assuming this other 100 million is coming from somewhere in this book but I can't find it.

MS. RICHARD: That's right, and I can help you walk through that afterwards. This is just a summary and highlights document. We will prepare for the Congress a very thick document that is a budget justification materials that goes into great deal more details.

QUESTION: I guess my problem is just that you highlighted the -

MS. RICHARD: For those key democracies, I'd be happy to give you all the details behind them.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) any development funds are part of the sanctions? Do they come with the sanctions or does India get any development assistance?

MS. RICHARD: We are proposing a small amount of funding for India in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget.

QUESTION: How much is that?

MS. RICHARD: Let me take a look. I'll have to get back to you on that, it's not jumping out of the page.

QUESTION: How much money or is there any redirection of funds in this new budget proposal to safeguard classified material in the Department of State in terms of securities or any new budget effort to make the Department of State more secure against the release of classified material or someone intercepting conversations inside the building or any US embassies?

MS. RICHARD: Let me call on Jim Millette who works on the State's operating budget, to answer that question. Obviously, the bulk of the over $1 billion that I was talking about is focused on State posts overseas.

QUESTION: Right, but --

MR. MILLETTE: I think what you're talking about specifically is - how - you're really talking about in that release the super-classified information, how that moves around the building. And that takes people, and there is a request in 2001 for additional - 161 additional security professionals that would probably help with that program. And in well we're looking at fiscal year 2000 to see what we need as far as people to make available for that activity, and we'd find a way to do it within existing resources.

QUESTION: So the 161 additional people, what would be the cost?

MR. MILLETTE: In fiscal year 2001?

QUESTION: Right, the new budget?

MR. MILLETTE: That's 16 million. Now it's just not for that purpose; it's for all security things, but it's one big package.

QUESTION: Right. Can you think of anything else that would also be part of it, any physical improvements in general, any other spending in the 2001 -

MR. MILLETTE: You'd have to talk to Dave Carpenter specifically. You're really getting into a sensitive area internally.

QUESTION: Okay, gotcha. I understand.

QUESTION: I'm sorry that I didn't get that, but could you explain again how you make an increase out of a request which is $22 billion or something and the Fiscal Year 2000 is 23, how I can calculate that into an increase?

MS. RICHARD: For Fiscal Year 2000, Congress has appropriated a total of 22.2 billion for International Affairs Budget, which includes all of State's budget but also the programs of the US Agency for International Development; the trade agencies, which includes Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp., Trade Development Agency; for the Peace Corps; for the contributions to the United Nations which are through the State Department, and the contributions to Multilateral Development Banks, which are through the Treasury; and debt relief.

We are requesting a $1.65 billion increase in Fiscal Year 2000. We are in the midst of this year and we have found then three areas where we believe we did not get sufficient funds from Congress, and we're going back up to Congress and asking for more. And those three are Colombia, Southeast Europe, particularly Kosovo, and then debt relief, debt reduction activities, specifically contribution to the World Bank-administered trust fund.

QUESTION: This would be on top of the $600 million, of course?

QUESTION: This would be on top of what you have already in 2000?

MS. RICHARD: This is on top of what we have already in fiscal year 2000, and this is in addition to our entire $22.8 billion request for 2001. And so if we are unable to get this funding from Congress, we are requesting an increase in fiscal year 2001. If Congress provides us with additional funding, we would then end up with more money in Fiscal Year 2000 than we are requesting in Fiscal Year 2001.

One of the phenomena that we've seen happen over the last few years is that there is pressure to keep this International Affairs Budget at roughly 19, 20, 21 billion dollars. But over the course of the year, both opportunities arise and crises unfold and we have to seek budget amendments or mid-year supplementals from the Congress. So that we end up with budgets that are much closer to 23, 24 billion dollars.

QUESTION: I don't understand then how we can say that it's an increase if you're actually getting more money - if you're going from an amount of money in Fiscal Year 2000 to a lesser amount of money in 2001, regardless of whether you're going to ask for additional supplementals for the 2001 budget when we get there, you're still asking for less than what you get - what you're asking for for 2000.

MS. RICHARD: We are asking for more than what Congress provided us at the end of this past calendar year, for Fiscal Year 2000. So it's an increase.

QUESTION: Fine. But you're asking for less than what you're asking for Fiscal 2000.

MS. RICHARD: Than what we believe we really need in fiscal year 2000, that's right.

QUESTION: So I don't understand why that has -

MR. REEKER: The supplementals haven't been approved yet.

QUESTION: I understand that, Phil. That's not a really complex thing. The bullet point is is that you're asking for less money in 2001 than you are in 2000.

MS. RICHARD: Than we expect we need in fiscal year 2000.

QUESTION: Have you not asked Congress for this additional money to make it from 22.2 to 23.9? You have, yes?

MS. RICHARD: We are asking them today.

QUESTION: Okay. So you've asked for it.

MS. RICHARD: We are submitting these additional supplementals today.

QUESTION: So that means that you're asking for less money for 2001 than you're asking for in 2000, right?

MS. RICHARD: That's right.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- you will likely ask for a supplemental for 2000, so that the wheel keeps turning.

MS. RICHARD: If the trend holds that we are unable at the end of the fiscal year to get - if we are unable at the end of the congressional process to get all the money that we need to do all the things that we have to do on behalf of the United States, then we would end up seeking additional supplementals. It is not our preferred way of doing business. Our preferred way of doing business would be to get robust, strong budgets right up front.

But this is the pattern that has emerged over the last few years. And I appreciate your frustration. I mean, one reason that I am here answering these questions is because these numbers can be very complicated. We have proposals such as Colombia where there is a Defense Department piece, there's an international affairs piece, there's a piece in Fiscal Year 2000, there's a piece in Fiscal Year 2001.

And so the answer to your question depends very much on where your starting point is. For Congress, they will start with what they provided us, which we legally have the right to then spend. For the Administration, and that's why our numbers show the 23.9 billion, our starting point is what we feel we need and what we are asking for.

QUESTION: But your starting point today is that for Fiscal 2000 you asked for $23.9 billion, and your starting point today is that for 2001 you're asking for $22.7 billion, so for less money.

MS. RICHARD: For less, that's right. That's right.

QUESTION: I mean, it just seems opposite.

MS. RICHARD: And one of the things you'll notice, then, is on the Plan Colombia package, the bulk of our funding that we're requesting, the $818 million, is in Fiscal Year 2000, and then we seek less the following year. And so we're focusing on the two-year, then, impact of seeking the entire package.

QUESTION: Is there any detailed information about the $818 billion you are going to fund for the programs in the Plan Colombia?

MS. RICHARD: Yes, ma'am. There are five main components in the supplemental, $482 million is for the push into Southern Colombia. 482 million -- I did say million, didn't I?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. RICHARD: $132 million is for drug trafficking interdiction; $68 million is for the Colombian National Police - $68 million -- I think this in the document, I'll see if I can find it. Right, on page 34. So $92 million is for alternative development, and $45 million is for the national governing capacity.

QUESTION: Are you any closer to an agreement with the German authorities on the exact location of the US Embassy in Berlin which, as you know, has distinct security implications?

MS. RICHARD: I'll see if the team has an answer to that question. The exact location of the US embassy in Berlin, are we any closer?

MR. MILLETTE: I think, as you all know, we have land for the Berlin Embassy. It's still in negotiations as to whether, given current security standards, we can make that site suitable to build an embassy on, and those discussions are still going on with both the Berlin and the German Government.

QUESTION: There is some small amount for Mexico anti-narcotics program, $10 million. Can you tell me how the money's going to be distributed or how it's going to help the Mexicans?

MS. RICHARD: I can't, but Deputy Assistant Secretary Brownfield from our Western Hemisphere Affairs Office is here, so I will turn the microphone over to him.

MR. BROWNFIELD: Thanks, Anne. I actually came here principally to talk about Colombia. I can give you a very much off-the-top-of-the-head assessment of what we would see there. This would be a continuation of multi-year programs managed by the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Bureau, INL. They are focused, if memory serves, on support for Mexican national police on interdiction and eradication efforts and some support for the Attorney General's Office, the PGR of the Mexican Government on prosecutions, investigations and, also, eradication and crop suppression sort of efforts.

That's the gist of it. In terms of breaking it out in detail, we'd have to ask INL or one of their representatives to join us.

QUESTION: Just a clarification on the embassy security programs. You have two different listings for security. You have DNCP worldwide security upgrades at $410 million and embassy security construction and maintenance at about a billion seventy. Are those two compounded? Do they -

MS. RICHARD: Our security funds and the money that I talked about as the over $1 billion sort of security upgrades money are split between two budget accounts in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and you've just put your finger on those two accounts. So if you would like after this briefing to sort of walk through those numbers and get a better understanding of the pieces I'm talking about within the overall totals for those accounts - because for example, the diplomatic and consular programs account also pays all of our salaries and does a lot of other things that are indirectly related to security. Jim Millette can do that after the briefing.

QUESTION: I guess the main question - I mean, maybe you can answer this and can talk to him. But the Crowe Report talked about $1.4 billion a year, so I'm just wondering is this in line with that total or not?

MS. RICHARD: Well, the $500 million that we're seeking for construction of secure embassies goes toward, but I think falls short, of what the Crowe Report called for. However, the additional funding that we're spending to enhance our other embassies in addition to construction I think is in the spirit of the Crowe Report. So I think that we have done a lot to address the recommendations the Crowe and the Kaden Reports have called for.

QUESTION: One other. You mentioned the advance appropriations, that's not included in any of these totals, right, the $3 billion you were talking about?

MS. RICHARD: That's right, in addition. The advance appropriations, over $3 billion over the next three years for embassy construction. So that's Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005. I'm sorry, it's over the next four years, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005. There's also advanced appropriations requested for our debt reduction initiatives, and that's $375 million in Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003.

Generally, Congress does not provide advance appropriations. However, we find this is an important thing to request because it serves to alert the Congress that there are longer-term resource requirements for these important initiatives.

QUESTION: What's the rationale for the increase in family planning funds the for the next year, and do you have some sense it's going to be accepted on Capitol Hill, more welcome that it has been in the past?

MS. RICHARD: Well, I'm not certain what the reception on Capitol Hill will be, but it does reflect the Secretary's commitment to seeking more funding for these programs and her belief that these are the types of programs that actually save lives, and so we are going to make a big push to focus attention on this increase.

QUESTION: Is this support money in the same programs? Are you qualitatively branching out into different - or asking for money for different programs?

MS. RICHARD: This is not a big change from the types of programs that were conducted when the funding was this high before in Fiscal Year 1995.

Do you want to comment, Jim?

MR. MILLETTE: No.

QUESTION: Can you explain the big increase in IONP funds for 2001?

MS. RICHARD: Yes, sir. Part of the increase is that that you may see is that we are requesting $110 million for UNICEF, which is the same as was provided in Fiscal Year 2000, but it's in a different part of the budget. So it looks like an increase when actually it's not.

There is, however, a $60 million in the IONP account. That's $10 million increase for the UN Development Program, UNDP, from $80 million to $90 million US contributions is what we're proposing for 2001. And $50 million, then, is for our contribution to the International Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and that - I believe that UNICEF will administer that fund. And the modalities of how exactly we're going to contribute have still to be worked out, but it's very clear that the President has committed to a US contribution of $50 million. That's what we're seeking from the Congress.

Everything is roughly the same.

QUESTION: I would like to follow up on Colombia. What is exactly what you mean with "push into southern Colombia" in the Plan Colombia, and what are you finding with this? And exactly the same question to national governing capacity.

MS. RICHARD: I'm going to request that Deputy Assistant Secretary Brownfield again join us at the podium to answer your questions about Plan Colombia.

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BROWNFIELD: Thank you, I thought you'd never ask. What we mean in terms of "push into southern Colombia" conceptually is as follows: In the course of the last two years we have noticed, and we believe we have documented and it is our understanding that the government of Colombia agrees with our conclusions, that the cultivation and production largely of coca and cocaine base, but to a lesser extent heroin base, has mushroomed, exploded, increased dramatically in southern Colombia.

So objective, the first of the five categories that Anne walked you through in terms of our proposal to support the Plan Colombia in the course of the next two years, is how to assist the government of Colombia to address and confront that reality on the ground.

Most of it involves being able to move and operate in southern Colombia, a region where, at this point, due to a complete and utter lack of any sort of transportation infrastructure, it is virtually impossible to move around even if you had police or military support forces down there to do it. So of the nearly $600 million of both - and let me clarify here because Anne has been very precise to talk only of the State Department piece - but of both the State Department 150 and the Defense Department 050 request, of that $600 million total, more than three-quarters, more than $450 million, is proposed for providing aircraft, lift, largely helicopters - in fact, almost exclusively helicopters, to allow newly trained police and military forces to be able to operate in the region.

You asked as well about the last of the categories here, and that is support for governing institutions, increasing governing capacity, if you will. This is where you will find most of what we would call the social, human rights and general governing developmental parts of our proposal and our program. Human rights would be located there in terms of additional training and monitoring; administration of justice in terms of support for training of prosecutors, judges, investigators, additional court security; generally greater assistance on law enforcement activities but not, if you will, police work but more investigatory work, whether it's money-laundering, whether it's drug investigations, building cases, anti-kidnapping, programs of this nature.

And then, finally, some technical support on issues such as banking supervision, tax revenue reform and assistance, and customs training. That's what you would find in those two basic categories.

QUESTION: Clearly, this request is, in an ideal world, far less than what you would like to submit, but you're dealing with the real world. Could you give us a sense of what is compromised by the fact that you are unable to submit the kind of budget you would like to submit? And are we talking purely about salami cuts across the board, or are we talking about some potentially important projects which have to be put to one side?

MS. RICHARD: Before I answer your question - this just in - the Fiscal Year 2001 request for India is $5 million in economic support funds.

QUESTION: What I was asking was will there be any development assistance in addition to this or - each year we get some development assistance.

MS. RICHARD: Development assistance addition?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. RICHARD: No. Right now this is the proposal is economic support funds.

The question then on what kind of money could we use in addition to this budget, I would answer by saying what we have sacrificed by having such tight budgets is our ability to respond quickly and flexibly to the unanticipated, the unforeseen, to emerging requirements. I've noted that sometimes these are positive developments, countries overseas that have positive political transitions where we want to solidify democracy; sometimes they are steps backward.

But it becomes very difficult for us, then, to have rapid reaction to crises overseas. The exception is in the humanitarian area. We do have contingency funds there, and we do have support both from the American people and from the Congress to do things when there is humanitarian catastrophe, a disaster or a refugee situation. But we don't have the kind of flexibility to respond quickly to political developments or economic developments overseas.

For example, we support the Middle East Peace Process. We hosted the talks in West Virginia most recently in the past couple of months. We have to fund that out of existing resources, and so our ability to lead, to take command of a situation and really move forward, I think is hampered by not having a lot of flexibility in our budget, not having contingency funding.

MR. REEKER: Thank you all very much. These are obviously complex issues, so our panel of experts is around for follow-up questions, and through the whole budget process will be available. Just let us know what you could use.

(The briefing concluded at 3:23 P.M.)

[end of document]

Blue Bar rule

|| Budget | Plans, Resources, and Reorganization |
U.S. Department of State | Disclaimers ||