US Department of State Daily Briefing #51: Friday, 4/3/92

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Washington, DC Date: Apr, 3 19924/3/92 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, Caribbean Country: Israel, USSR (former), Syria, Haiti, Lebanon, Iraq, Japan Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid, State Department, United Nations, Immigration, Travel 12:27 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

[Department: Secretary Baker's Record of Reimbursement for Travel]

MS. TUTWILER: I have one statement that is quite lengthy, but I tried to incorporate everything that you might possibly want to know or should know concerning Secretary of State Baker's private travels. The General Accounting Office has not yet released the review of travel by senior Government officials. The GAO told us that it received six separate requests from members of Congress and Committees to review travel by Government officials in June or July of 1991. Because of the news stories, to be honest with you, last night and this morning, I am going to comment on the Secretary's travel in advance of the GAO report. The facts are: Number one: The GAO numbers reported in the Milwaukee Journal are not the numbers we've been shown by the GAO, but they are not far off. Some of the numbers are ones that we have been shown. We have gone over our records since the beginning of the Administration through today which incorporates a longer portion of time than the portion of time GAO was requested to look at. The Secretary's total reimbursements for himself, family members and others comes to $38,453.00. It is our understanding that the GAO will report that Secretary Baker did absolutely nothing wrong. There is no question about that. The Secretary of State has made 11 private trips over the 23-month period being covered in the GAO report which ended on March 31, 1991. Since then until today -- which does not include today's trip -- there have been four additional private trips. We put out, as you all know, last summer a full listing of all of the Secretary's travel. We have updated it, and at the conclusion of this briefing we'll be in a position to hand out the additions that have been made since the last time you requested it. Seven additional trips were what are referred to as "mixed trips." That is, private stops during official travel. In the course of going over the material, there were three of these mixed trips where questions about reimbursement arose. The Secretary paid these immediately when they were brought to his attention. In 1989, at the Secretary's request, the State Department Legal Adviser, Abe Sofaer, examined the policy and practice on travel by the Secretary of State on military aircraft for personal trips. Judge Sofaer's memorandum to the Secretary states: "This practice has been based on the Department's continued conclusion that such transportation serves official purposes, because it is necessary to provide the Secretary with adequate security and communications support during his travels." These practices go back at least to the days of Secretary Kissinger, practices which have been followed for over 15 years. On May 9, 1991, President Bush issued a policy on travel which created special rules for travel by some officials, but which did not apply "to those members of the Cabinet, including specifically the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General who, pursuant to longstanding policies, regularly use Government aircraft for official and unofficial travel. The responsibilities of these Cabinet members are such that they require instantaneous secure communications capability with the White House, their Departments, other agencies and the Congress." The rate at which the Defense Department bills the State Department for the use of these aircraft is considerably higher than the rate billed to Defense Department users and even others in the Government. For instance, in 1989 the rate was 67 percent higher than the DoD rate that they billed to themselves. In 1990, the rate was 65 percent higher. I will point out, that is the period that is looked at predominantly in this GAO review. In 1991, the rate was 35 percent higher. All private travel by the Secretary has been done in strict accordance with the rules and regulations of the United States Government. He adhered to the same policy while serving at the Treasury Department and at the White House, where there was never a case of his using military aircraft for private use. When the Secretary of State -- this Secretary of State -- has traveled on private trips, he has traveled on a small aircraft. It is a C-20. It has approximately nine seats. No staff has ever accompanied the Secretary of State on a single private trip. Only his security detail and technical personnel who handle his communications equipment. Usually the technical personnel consists of two individuals who travel in advance of the Secretary of State to set up the equipment that makes it necessary in order for him to receive his secure cable traffic. Since the very beginning, this Secretary of State has taken a reduced security detail on every private trip. As I have pointed out, he has made 11 private trips over the course of the 26 months that the GAO reviewed. Late last week, Secretary Baker was briefed on the GAO draft for the first time. His reaction was basically shock at the dollar amounts he was shown. He saw the President at the beginning of this week and said that he had made a decision concerning his private travel. On the same day, he called in his security personnel and told them of his decision. He called the Legal Adviser for the State Department and told him of his decision. He called his Scheduling Staff and said, "In the future, on private travel, book me on commercial flights," saying, however, that there are two caveats to this policy: (1) When his security personnel say there is a threat to him, because that in turn could possibly endanger innocent Americans who might be on the same flight. (2) When events in any part of the world, a crisis or an imminent crisis, or there is a heightened sense of alert and the Secretary must have the full package of communications -- which is continuous 24-hour secure communications with the President and our National Defense community, and the ability to respond or change plans immediately -- in these cases he will take military aircraft, which is totally in accord with Government regulations and authorized by the President. This new policy went into effect today when the Secretary of State departed Washington on a long scheduled private trip. He departed on a commercial aircraft. Let me read to you from a memo that is dated April 2, 1992, from the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the State Department, which states: "At your request, we have examined the requirement that you fly on military aircraft on private trips. Two factors have led us to conclude that it is now possible for you to take domestic flights, utilizing commercial aircraft. "There has been a concern to people in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Information Management when the Secretary of State has traveled on commercial aircraft, because we cannot maintain constant, secure communications. "In view of the advances in technology concerning cellular telephones, we believe it is now possible for you to take flights, utilizing commercial aircraft. Our preferred means of maintaining communication is military aircraft, but if a trip is sufficiently short, you can remain in contact on an unclassified basis during your journey. "We must, however, reserve the right to review the situation and require or suggest that you travel on military aircraft where personal security dictates." You don't need me to remind you that the Secretary of State is a statutory member of the National Security Council. He is one of a handful of Cabinet level officials that the President must be able to reach in a crisis involving the security of the United States, and he is one of a handful of officials who must be able, when out of town, to return without any delay and be with the President during a crisis. Secretary Baker is a Government official extremely mindful of his responsibilities to safeguard the taxpayers money. He has and he will continue to balance the obligations inherent in meeting both these responsibilities. Q Margaret, when you say that he can use cellular telephone technology on commercial aircraft, do you mean the telephones which are provided on some commercial aircraft? Because the use of ordinary cellular telephone equipment is not allowed on commercial aircraft. MS. TUTWILER: Right. That's correct. Also available to us -- you can assume that we have discussed this with the airlines. Should there be any type of emergency, as you know, a pilot or co-pilot -- all airplanes have radio ability to talk to the ground, and we are totally assured that should some crisis happen, that we can utilize that. Q This is a serious question. MS. TUTWILER: This is a serious matter. Q No. This next question. Is he required to return his frequent flyer miles to the Government? MS. TUTWILER: Well, I can answer that, because, as you know, you were with us. We spent four years in the White House and three and a half years at Treasury. No Government official can collect frequent flyer miles. In fact there are rules and regulations preventing that, not only for the Secretary of State, but for all of us who travel. Q Margaret, have you -- knowing how assiduous the Press Department is about these things, have you worked out the savings of today's trip, using commercial transportation versus taking airline -- versus taking an Air Force plane? MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, no. My office certainly doesn't have -- and it's a very, believe me -- and you can even ask the GAO -- excruciatingly tedious accounting and bookkeeping system between Government agencies on how to even get these numbers of what these things cost. That's not an excuse; it's a fact of life. I don't know what he paid for his plane ticket today. I just didn't ask. I also don't have -- one other fact I can give you, which many of you in this room have done with him, is in his tenure as Secretary of State, we keep -- because it's official travel -- a record of the number of international miles or official miles this Secretary of State has traveled. As of today, that number is 644,325. We have never kept domestic records of these 11 trips, because it was purely private. But we are in the process right now and hope by the end of the afternoon we can give you the total domestic miles that this Secretary of State traveled on the 11 trips that are part of the review, and the four additional trips since the review until today. Q And just for the record, since the Secretary has been being billed at economy class rates for the trips that he made -- MS. TUTWILER: He can now take advantage of Super Savers. [Laughter] Q Did he go -- MS. TUTWILER: Seriously, he can. Q Did he go economy class or first class today? MS. TUTWILER: Today? Q Yes. MS. TUTWILER: I didn't ask, but, knowing him, I would bank on economy class. Q Cheap, is he? [Laughter] MS. TUTWILER: He's careful with his dollars. Q Margaret, I was a little bit confused. Did he take a security detail with him on most of the commercial flights? MS. TUTWILER: Of course. The Secretary of State has 24-hour security protection, as all Secretaries of State do. And I would remind you -- you would know this -- a Secretary of Treasury has Secret Service protection. Whenever Secretary Baker, as Secretary of the Treasury, flew commercially, which is the vast majority of time for official, etc., we always had Secret Service on the plane. Q We can assume that the same -- he would -- on the military plane he would take an -- approximately a 9-seater. We can assume that the same amount of people roughly -- MS. TUTWILER: You should not assume that, and I will not discuss security that is on any aircraft with him, but that -- I said the plane -- he takes a C-9 -- has approximately 20 seats. For instance, his daughter could be in one of those seats. His sister has traveled with him, all of which has been reimbursed. Q (Inaudible) MS. TUTWILER: What? Q C-20. Q You said a C-20 with nine seats, but it's -- MS. TUTWILER: Approximately nine seats. Q But it's -- MS. TUTWILER: It's a C-20. Q Is it a C-20 or a C-9? MS. TUTWILER: It's a C-20, with approximately nine seats. Q A C-9 is a much larger aircraft. It's a military version of the DC-9. MS. TUTWILER: He has never taken a C-9 on a private trip. It's a C-20 that has approximately nine seats. Q I assume taxpayers are paying for these Secret Service details? MS. TUTWILER: Of course. Q Margaret, I'm not sure on numbers. Your Point No. 2 is 38,453. What does that represent, and for what period of time? MS. TUTWILER: That -- if you have not seen the Milwaukee Journal -- has a figure of Secretary of State Baker's reimbursement for the trips during the period they reviewed. It does not only include the Secretary of State. If his wife was on the plane, if his daughter was on the plane, if his son was on the plane, if he had a family friend -- all of those people reimburse. So the Milwaukee Journal has a figure for reimbursement by the Secretary of State for that period of time. What I'm telling you is from the day he was sworn in until today -- not counting today's trip -- his total reimbursement is the figure that I just gave you. Q Margaret, you're saying he was shocked by the amount of the military flights? MS. TUTWILER: Well, sure. Wouldn't you be? Q He had no idea that these flights were costing that much -- MS. TUTWILER: No. Q -- and that's what prompted this decision. MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q When did he decide to -- MS. TUTWILER: And I also gave you -- which I think is a valid point -- is we are billed at a Defense rate that is different than others are billed at, and I gave you the percentages which are -- we double-checked all our facts this morning. There is documentation here from the Pentagon. They bill us at that rate, and -- Q What is it? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I really don't know. Q When did he decide that today's trip would be done on a commercial flight? MS. TUTWILER: Either Sunday morning or Monday morning. Probably over the weekend. Q And was it his plan to make this announcement today, regardless of the publication of the Milwaukee Journal? MS. TUTWILER: No. Our plan was -- there was another irresponsible leak, as I am fond of saying, some of which is in that report. And I spoke myself with the reporter yesterday -- who was a terrific guy -- and since I can't clean it up for you, but some of the figures you have are incorrect. And we don't know why he has incorrect figures. They're different than the ones that we've seen on a GAO draft. Had there not been that leak, then, no, I would not be here probably going through all this with you today. But would I -- and I don't have a date of when the GAO report is coming out -- would I at that moment in time be saying exactly what I'm saying today? Absolutely. But the question is, "Did the Secretary change because of a leak, or because of what he learned in a briefing?" Because of what he learned in a briefing. Q And the question is then, would he have been taking private commercial flights for some period of time between the time -- between this week and whenever the GAO report is published? If no one happened to notice him on the plane -- MS. TUTWILER: Wrong. Q -- it's possible that he would have been -- MS. TUTWILER: The reason the Secretary of State made this unilateral decision on his own, himself -- I told you all the people he notified -- "I have made a decision," was based on a briefing he had late last week by legal counsel on the draft GAO report. He had never seen -- I can tell you myself; I was not party to that briefing -- I was briefed, I believe, on Monday of this week, and when Mr. Williamson, the Legal Adviser, showed these to me, I said, "Oh, that just couldn't be true. You're kidding. How did they come up with this figure?" So, I mean, we -- the decision was made by him. As I said -- I'll be honest with you -- he called me at home on Sunday. I knew about this Sunday morning. Q I was just trying to get -- it's more a matter of curiosity than anything else: Is it possible, the way that the Secretary had made this decision, that he would have been flying on commercial flights -- MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Q -- and no one would have known about it -- MS. TUTWILER: You got it. Q -- until someone spotted him on a commercial flight, and then presumably somebody would have asked, and you would have said, "Oh, yeah, he's been doing that since -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- January," whatever. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Sure. Other than -- because I don't know when the GAO report comes out. I feel quite confident that on the day the GAO report is released, or would be released -- if I hadn't briefed that day -- that would have been what I would have been asked about -- so I would have done it the next day. So at that point -- this is the only private trip that I'm aware of right now -- I would have said, "As a matter of fact, back on -- what is today -- April 4, the Secretary of State flew commercially." Q Margaret, we're still somewhat at a disadvantage, because the GAO report hasn't come out yet. MS. TUTWILER: That's correct. Q But is it your understanding -- how many trips, is it your understanding, that questions were raised on? It is only -- MS. TUTWILER: Three. Q It is only three. And when was he informed that he had not reimbursed adequately on those -- MS. TUTWILER: Some time. Q -- and when did he, in fact -- MS. TUTWILER: He immediately reimbursed -- it's my understanding, it's approximately $2,500. I don't know, Chris, from June -- Q Was it like late last week? MS. TUTWILER: Oh, no. Q No, no, this was -- MS. TUTWILER: Oh, no. The three that were in question are, in the category, he took seven mixed/private trips. Just so we're all straight on this. The Secretary of State does not sit upstairs -- and I would certainly think most people would assume he did not -- and say, "Now, gee, does this follow this regulation or that. The staff here do that for him. There was obviously a difference of opinion. But the minute it was brought to his attention, he said, "Pay it." It was paid. But between June or July, when this review started and when that was brought to him, I honestly just don't know; but it was not last weekend. My instincts, it was ages ago. Q So his reimbursement through his service as Secretary of State -- MS. TUTWILER: It happens all the time he travels. Q -- has been current? It hasn't been that somebody told him months later -- MS. TUTWILER: Oh, absolutely. Q -- "Okay, you haven't reimbursed and now he -- MS. TUTWILER: Positively, absolutely. I believe the policy here -- I didn't check this this morning -- he either pays in check prior to leaving or, without question, as soon as he returns. There has never been a question about a delay, about you didn't pay, you forgot -- nothing. Zero. Q But the three trips in question came up at once -- all at once -- and after the fact; correct? MS. TUTWILER: In this review. In this review. There's a difference of opinion -- Q When did he -- MS. TUTWILER: -- on interpretation of the rules and regulations. Instead of fighting about it or arguing about it, he said pay it. Q Right. And when exactly was that? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll ask the lawyers. Q It was since June when this all began? MS. TUTWILER: Since June. Not last week; not in the last ten days. My instincts, from talking to Ed this morning, that it was a long time ago. I just didn't ask. Q Can we find out when those trips were -- those three trips -- MS. TUTWILER: We have every bit of it documented. Q -- when he was notified -- but we might not be able to tell which trips are the three that we're talking about -- then when he was notified and when he paid? Okay? MS. TUTWILER: Fine. (Joe Snyder handed document to Ms. Tutwiler) MS. TUTWILER: But this doesn't tell me when he was notified. I don't know when he was notified. We have and we will be releasing to you the Secretary's official travel with layovers and mixed travel. I've got all the dates. I've got who was on the airplane, where it was to, what it cost, when he paid. That goes -- excuse me -- to our very thorough records here, which I will take a little liberty and say you will not find documents like this, I promise you, since the day we walked in here. He is so meticulous, and the people who have worked with him for a long time are, on everything. You've already been given one set of documents in August. Anytime you ask, you can have them. People, obviously, don't ask every week. This is not foremost on their minds. We are right now giving you the entire nine yards, but it will include and update you from August until now. Q Margaret, can you tell us how the rate is determined? For example, when he flies from Washington to Wyoming, there is not a commercial flight that goes from Washington to that little town in Wyoming. How do they arrive at the cost -- the supposedly commercial cost -- of going there? MS. TUTWILER: It's coach fare plus a dollar; correct. So I'm assuming -- I'm not the -- Q I know, but there is no published coach fare for that. Is that per mile? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not a bookkeeper and I'm not an accountant. I would guess that they would look -- because there is commercial airfare from Washington, D.C. to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which is the closest city to his ranch. Probably, and again I'm guessing, someone figures out -- I think it's less than 70 miles from Jackson Hole to Pinedale, Wyoming -- figures that out and, I guess, that's how they've come up with the cost. I've never asked that level of detail. Q Margaret, what part of the budget does the difference come out of between what he is reimbursed and what DoD calculates the cost as? MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean what part of the budget? Q Who pays the difference? Is it the State Department or -- MS. TUTWILER: The State Department. Q But which -- do you know what line in the State Department budget? MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea. There is a -- just like official travel, I don't have a cost for you of what 640,000, or whatever number I gave, miles is. There is an allocation somewhere in our budget -- I don't know where -- obviously, for Secretary of State travel. That's where the reimbursement is from the State Department back to the Defense Department. But I don't know what part of the budget. Q Are there any other officials to whom the Secretary's decision applies? I don't know that there are any other officials who would normally travel on military planes. But if there are, are there any -- MS. TUTWILER: This is a unilateral, personal decision that Secretary of State Baker made. Q But, I mean, are there any others within the State Department who -- MS. TUTWILER: There are none. Q There are none? MS. TUTWILER: There are none. Q Margaret, previous practice was based on a White House policy, wasn't it? MS. TUTWILER: One, on rules and regulations; on long-standing precedent; and on -- if you'll recall, the genesis for this review was concerning the travel of the former Chief of Staff of the White House. At that point, if you'll recall, the Legal Counsel at the White House issued the document from which I quoted from, which specifically -- I don't have the date of it, I don't think. Was it May? It specifically says which, by title, individuals do the following. When the President put out new rules, if you recall, at the White House, that's what I quoted from, because the Secretary of State is excluded from those new rules that you're familiar with. Q You don't usually talk about the White House, but he has unilaterally pulled himself out of that requirement. Is that -- MS. TUTWILER: It's not a requirement. It's an authorization. Q So it won't apply? There won't be a change? MS. TUTWILER: This is a unilateral, personal decision, based on all the facts I gave you, with the caveats I gave you, which are very valid, for this Secretary of State. This is how he is choosing to conduct his future private travel with the two caveats that I mentioned. Q Does the Secretary feel comfortable with the decision from a security standpoint? MS. TUTWILER: Yes, until the security agents come and tell him that there's a reason not to. That's why one of the caveats is, he is not going to be reckless with other innocent people -- Americans' lives. Q You just said that there was a White House authorization to travel on military planes. You're making that distinction because you don't want us to ask the question about whether Baker is now violating White House rules by -- MS. TUTWILER: No. A legal requirement, in my mind, is quite different than an authorization. There is not a legal requirement in our laws for the Secretary of State to fly on military aircraft. There is, however, authorization for Secretaries of State to travel on military aircraft. Q Can you have secure communications by cellular phone? MS. TUTWILER: I'd really rather not address that. Q Well, you said a couple of minutes ago in your initial address that it would be an unsecure cellular telephone? MS. TUTWILER: That's correct. Q Can we go onto another subject. Q Could I have just one more on this? Because I sort of don't see the point of some of this. What was the figure late last week that shocked the Secretary when he was presented it? I guess it was the actual cost of providing this service to him, and what was that shocking figure? MS. TUTWILER: Until the GAO releases their report, I am not going to release their figures. That is for them to do in their report. As you know, this review, as I started out by saying, is not a review solely of the Secretary of State. They were asked by the Congress to do, it's my understanding, a number of senior government officials, all of which is documented, in addition, in the Milwaukee Journal this morning. Q Can we go onto another subject? Has anyone else got another subject? Anything? Q It has to be of equal importance. Q There's nothing then.

[Syria: Reported Conviction of 14 Human Rights Activists]

Q Syria has reportedly imprisoned 14 human rights monitors. Have you got any comments on that? MS. TUTWILER: A very brief one. We are concerned by reports that Syria has convicted and sentenced 14 human rights activists. We have frequently commented on the state of human rights conditions in Syria, most recently in our latest human rights report, which noted that the denial of fair trials in security or political cases remains a major human rights problem in Syria. We will continue to press the issue of human rights in our dialogue with the Syrian Government. Q Have you made any protests to the Syrians over this specific issue? MS. TUTWILER: A protest? I'm not sure, John, that I could say we've made a protest over this. I feel quite confident that over this issue we have probably -- our Ambassador has probably raised the issue. But since this is something the Syrians -- not this particular case, but this whole basket and issue -- are well aware of our views on. I've said that we're going to continue to press them on the whole issue of human rights. I just can't characterize it as a "protest" today.

[Israel: Human Rights Report Citing Mistreatment of Palestinians]

Q Margaret, along these lines, there's also a new study on human rights abuses -- Palestinians in Israeli jails. Do you have anything to say on that? MS. TUTWILER: Yes, if I can find it. I spent most of my time this morning on airplanes. The others got a little short-shrift. On this, I can tell you that we have seen the press reports but have not yet seen the document. Our 1991 human rights report noted that a number of Israeli and Palestinian and international human rights organizations have issued reports on Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians during interrogation, and, thus, I would refer you to that report. Q Margaret, on Angola -- Q Are you willing to say you'll continue to press the Israelis on such things? MS. TUTWILER: It's in our human rights report. Q Margaret, on Angola: Do you have an official response to Savimbi's letter to Secretary Baker? MS. TUTWILER: I believe that we have, but I don't have any characterizations or comments on it for you. Q Margaret, may I go back to this business about torture and the rest of it? There's a report today -- I mentioned it, by the Associated Press, so you know where it's coming from -- that 80,000 Moslems were on the Temple Mount today and prayed for the end of Ramadan. And yet they put out, as I read here, "Inside the compound, leaflets and postcards, bearing banned images of the Palestine Liberation Organization flags were thrown around like confetti to the worshipers. A large white banner of Hamas -- the Islamic Resistance Movement -- hung from the front of al-Aqsa -- that's the mosque -- and carried congratulations to Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin." Israeli police that surrounded the compound made no gesture of stopping this, and it seems it confirms the Israeli policy that Jerusalem is an open city and anybody can go up there and pray. And yet we hear these reports from human rights people like Salem that get their money from anti-Israelis in America to do this -- Q Is there a question? Q And I was wondering if you have any comment on this? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not familiar, sir, with the incident that you you've just read to me from that AP report. I'll be happy to take a took at it. Ralph. Q I just would like to know for the record, what was the public explanation for the State Department deciding this morning not to allow reporters to question Baker on the subject of his air travel or other subjects during a photo opportunity which, to outward appearances, appeared to be the same sort of photo opportunity as the one in which he signed the treaty yesterday with the Armenian? MS. TUTWILER: That's correct. At yesterday's photo opportunity, I believe your network was represented by your assistant, Pam. He was asked a question by your colleague, John Dancy. To be quite honest with you, this morning, he had to catch a plane. He had absolutely, literally pushed his schedule to the brink. I am not kidding, and out he went. We do any number of photo ops here, as you know. I know that there's a difference of agreement between us -- Q Why do I think we're going to hear this again? (Laughter) MS. TUTWILER: He had to catch a plane -- they don't wait. Q Margaret, speaking of another auditor's report, can you say -- about which I'm sure you'll provide equal -- MS. TUTWILER: Certainly not the one we spent over an hour on yesterday. Q -- about which I'm sure you'll provide equal documentation publicly, right after the briefing -- MS. TUTWILER: Immediately. Q -- can you tell us whether the State Department is holding up any licenses of military technology to Israel? And, if so, how long has that been going on and why did it start? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know the answer to any of your questions and you're right. We don't have to hold up the report, because we published it yesterday or the day before; and I think it's 69 pages. And I believe in that report -- again, I am not totally familiar with it -- some of the questions that we tried to answer yesterday are going to be the same ones that I would, unfortunately, have to give you today. Q But you don't have an answer to that question -- MS. TUTWILER: No. Q -- about holding up licenses? MS. TUTWILER: I don't have an answer to that. No. Q Margaret, do you have anything new on Libya today?

[Libya: Demonstrations Against Some Western Embassies/ American Citizen Departures]

MS. TUTWILER: Libya? I do have something new concerning Americans, which you know we've tried to get a figure for you other than our guess. We understand from press reports that it is calm today in Tripoli. We have heard from our protecting power in Tripoli that yesterday's demonstration outside the Belgian Embassy/U.S. Interests Section was orderly and under control. As you know, the Security Council met yesterday and had very strong statements that they issued. They're all public. We do not have any concrete information about the departure of any Americans who may still be working in Libya in violation of the l986 embargo. We are in contact with our protecting power, the Belgians, regarding -- among other things -- the status of Americans who still may be in Libya and want to leave. We have no reports of Americans experiencing difficulties in leaving because of the current situation. There has been a slight increase in the number of Americans registering with our protecting power in the last 90 days. A hundred and thirty-one American citizens are currently registered at the Belgian Embassy in Tripoli. Bear in mind that many of the American citizens believed to be in Libya may be spouses of Libyan citizens, or dual nationality children of Libyans, who may not intend to leave. Q Margaret, do you have anything on how the United States will monitor possible violations of the sanctions that are due to go into effect April l5th? MS. TUTWILER: No, Mark. I tried to answer that yesterday it was a little bit different. Ralph asked me how we're planning on enforcing it; and I said basically that this is a Security Council resolution, that most people's experience with Security Council resolutions is that they abide by them. And I don't have a further elaboration for you today. Q Margaret, something on that subject? MS. TUTWILER: Yes? Q Just -- I know we don't do comparisons, but yesterday the State Department made known the fact that a ship flying a Belize flag was -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q -- seized in Puerto Rico for having dumped some oil -- MS. TUTWILER: That's correct. Q -- in Haiti, in violation of that embargo. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q I understand that embargoes are different in countries, and differ and so on. MS. TUTWILER: That's right. Q But in this case of Libya, if a ship from some country -- it doesn't even really matter which one; some European country, let's say -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q -- filed a manifest, saying it was going to take some product, some weapons -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- to someplace, and then that ship ended up in Libya, whose responsibility would it be -- the country in whose capital the manifest was filed, or I mean who has the responsibility for enforcing a case like the one in the Dominican Republic? MS. TUTWILER: Since this, it is my understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe this will not go into effect until April l5. I'd rather not hypothesize with you. I'd rather assume that, as is in the case of most United Nations resolutions, the vast majority of nations honor them.

[Haiti: US Seizure of Ship for Embargo Violation]

Q Margaret, on the seizure of that tanker that went to Haiti yesterday, was that the first time the U.S. has seized a ship; and what are the parameters for what ships you feel the authority to seize? MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a lot for you, and because we're not the lead on this -- to be honest with you -- the Treasury Department is, as you know, their Foreign Assets Control Office. It is true that yesterday U.S. Customs, which you know is an agency in the Treasury Department, seized a Belize flag oil tanker in San Juan, Puerto Rico, last Tuesday. The ship had picked up 250,000 gallons of diesel fuel in New York. Instead of delivering it to the Dominican Republic, as listed on its manifest, it unloaded its cargo in Port-au-Prince. That is literally the extent of my knowledge about this, but I know that Treasury -- we checked with them this morning at the Foreign Assets Control Office -- obviously it is prepared to answer more fully your questions.

[Jordan: Amb. Pickering's Testimony on Goods Entering Iraq]

Q Margaret, some question regarding Iraq and Ambassador Pickering's testimony early this week on the Hill? MS. TUTWILER: Whose testimony? Q Pickering. Q Ambassador Pickering was up before subcommittees of House Foreign Affairs. Number one, the Ambassador said that the Jordanian Government has been providing the Sanctions Committee at the U.N. with gross total lists of all goods that are entering Iraq through Jordan. And he also indicated that the State Department had asked for better reporting on the part of the Jordanians. Can you comment on that? MS. TUTWILER: No. I'll refer you to the Ambassador's -- was this public testimony? Q Public testimony. MS. TUTWILER: To his public testimony and to his responses on behalf of our Government. He's, obviously, more familiar with the subject matter than I am. Q Okay, next part. May I? MS. TUTWILER: I'll be honest with you. I really will just continue to refer you to Ambassador Pickering's public testimony, which I, unfortunately, am personally not familiar with at all. I apologize. I know I should be, but it's been an extremely busy week here; and I just, unfortunately, am not, myself, personally, familiar with it. But he was speaking for this Department and for the Government, and I'm sure that he answered on behalf of us all of the questions adequately and very eloquently. Q Another question on the part of testimony of John Wolf, and -- MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to answer you the same way. I can't possibly keep up with all these testimonies. Q Well, can I at least ask this question dealing -- MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Q with -- it deals with inspections and so forth, U.N. inspections in Iraq. The subject came up, and the question being: How were these inspections financed? Was there enough money to keep financing them? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q And both the Ambassador and the Secretary said there was some concern over the amount of money -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- that was going in. MS. TUTWILER: We've said that from this podium before. Q Secretary Wolf said there was approximately $l.7 billion of Iraqi money -- oil money or oil, in fact, in the pipelines -- and he gave figures of l.3 billion in cash that exist in places unknown to the general public, plus perhaps as much as $400 million in oil; and that the United States has been having discussions with other countries, trying to find this money and get those countries to put this money into the inspection process. Can you tell me anything about that? MS. TUTWILER: I'll refer you to Deputy Assistant Secretary Wolf's testimony. I know absolutely nothing about the level of detail. After all, he is the expert and a senior official in our International Organizations Bureau here at the State Department. He was there in public testimony; I have to refer you to his record. Q Margaret, do you have a readout on the meetings of the Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister in this building yesterday and today? MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry, Patrick. I didn't know he was here. I'll be happy -- who did he see? Q He saw, I think, Eagleburger yesterday. MS. TUTWILER: Larry? I don't know; I'll have to ask. Sorry. Q Or was it Kanter? Q Will you undertake to publish or put out the list of Arab states -- I think there were 8 or 9 -- that received loan guarantees from the United States, amounting to more than $l2 billion without any conditions -- political conditions? Will you do that? MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary was asked this, as I recall, a number of times in the last month in public testimony; and I would refer you to his responses to the various Senators and Congressmen on that subject. Q Yes, well -- why -- but he didn't -- MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to elaborate further than what the Secretary had to say. Patrick? I'm sorry. Yes. Q The Japanese have said publicly that they were surprised by the figure of $24 billion that was announced by President Bush and Chancellor Kohl -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q -- for aid to Russia. There's now a report saying, in a major newspaper today, that there was, in fact, no agreement. There was a broad outline. The figure was put out that way, but nobody really knows who is going to pay, and that would explain why nobody in the Administration was able to tell us publicly how much the U.S. taxpayer would have to pay. What happened at that meeting of the Deputy Finance Ministers of the G-7? Was there an agreement? MS. TUTWILER: Well, again, I will refer you to my good friend David Mulford at the Treasury Department, who represented us in that Deputies meeting. Your characterization is not our characterization, but I wasn't at the meeting and I would be happy to refer you to Dr. Mulford, who can probably give you a fuller brief since he represented us at the meeting. But that's not our characterization of the understanding or of the discussions that took place there. Q Margaret, was there anyone now -- may I just go back to the long thing we had yesterday? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q But I'll be very brief. There was a report on television that Israel "lied" -- l-i-e-d -- to the investigators in this business on the equipment that we talked about yesterday. Have you ever seen the word "lie" in the report? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen the report that you're referring to. I have never heard -- Q Okay, well -- MS. TUTWILER: -- of it or seen it. Q -- this is the Sherman Funk review -- Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thanks. (The briefing concluded at l:08 p.m.)