Following is an excerpt from the August 14 State Department briefing containing Deputy Spokesman Reeker's comments on Iraq:

QUESTION: Something that Mr. Chalabi said yesterday after meeting with Assistant Secretary Burns: "We asked for protection not only for Kurds but also for all of the Iraq population from Saddam's heavy weapons and weapons of mass destruction through UN Security Council resolutions." Do you have a response to that request?

MR. REEKER: I think I responded to a similar quotation, perhaps from a different member -- representative of the Iraqi opposition yesterday. But I would repeat again that we fully recognize that free Iraqis run risks. The record of Saddam Hussein's regime in terms of oppressing and murdering its own people is all too clear. I'll remind you of the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of Halabja, suppression of Shi'a in the south.

So we're very conscious of the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime and the risks to those who oppose the regime. That's why we have in place Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern watch, the no-fly zones that we continue to observe with the British, and why we have made consistently clear that we have a credible force in the region and would respond. And so that continues to be our position.

QUESTION: Yesterday I think you responded in the context of the Kurdish section of Iraq.

MR. REEKER: Yes.

QUESTION: Now it's all-inclusive?

MR. REEKER: Happy to say that as well. As we have been saying for some time, should Saddam Hussein reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, threaten his neighbors or US forces, or move against the Kurds, we would respond.

Yes, Eli.

QUESTION: That position has been, in effect, I think in an agreement that was reached last year at this time with the Kurds, but it does not get specific in terms of would you respond in terms of people attacking or would you respond as the US has responded in 1996, in attacking in the south, and there was an attack in the north.

MR. REEKER: I don't think I can predict any particular operational responses for you, Eli.

QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking for operational, but it's well known that the Kurds have asked for a very specific security guarantee --

MR. REEKER: I don't have anything further for you on that. We wouldn't be sharing specifics in terms of that.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the funding a little bit more?

MR. REEKER: Which funding?

QUESTION: With the INC? Chalabi said yesterday, I believe separately from, George, but that this -- you know, that everything should move forward now, that all the disagreements had been ironed out, and that money should --

MR. REEKER: You're talking about the $8 million?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. REEKER: Right. Just to refresh everybody's memory on that, on May 23rd, the State Department notified Congress of our intent to award the Iraqi National Congress a new cooperative agreement offering the organization another $8 million for the June through December 2002 period. We did further discuss this offer with the Iraqi National Congress leadership during the course of the last week while they've been in town, along with other Iraqi opposition representatives, and we are still awaiting a formal response from the INC to that offer. So we do need to get a formal response to them on that.

We're anxious to continue our support for the Iraqi National Congress -- their newspaper, their TV station, regional offices, the Office of Humanitarian Relief. So we believe they can continue to play a very productive and useful role through the activities proposed in that new agreement.

QUESTION: Can I just clarify? I mean, he's the leader of the INC. Are you saying that in this meeting yesterday he didn't say formally we're ready for this money --

MR. REEKER: I certainly saw it said on television. We need to get a formal response from them.

QUESTION: But he was here personally and he did --

MR. REEKER: Yes, he had meetings. No, we have not received yet the formal response from the INC to that.

QUESTION: Would that require some kind of paperwork other than a verbal --

MR. REEKER: Yes. These cooperative agreements require a certain amount of cooperation, of exchange of documents. So we'll be looking for that formal response.

QUESTION: Can you say what the obstacles are?

MR. REEKER: I'm not suggesting there necessarily is an obstacle. We need to get the formal response from the INC, and we don't have that yet.

QUESTION: Phil, do you have to expect that such a formal response is imminent?

MR. REEKER: I certainly saw the remarks that Mr. Chalabi made publicly --

QUESTION: Right, but here he gave you guys -- he didn't give you guys any indication that a, you know, a formal, you know, paper or --

MR. REEKER: I couldn't tell you exactly what indication he may or may not have given, but we'll be looking for the formal response to that.

QUESTION: So right now, pending the arrival, if and when it ever comes, of their formal response, that money is still not being disbursed?

MR. REEKER: Exactly. It's on the table, an $8 million cooperative agreement.

Yes, Eli.

QUESTION: Aren't you guys, though, like giving them just a little bit of money to keep going? You know what I mean? Like, I mean you've had these budget disputes for some time.

MR. REEKER: Eli, I would have to go back and check. I don't know what -- this is -- we notified Congress --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: What?

QUESTION: You mean, like a tip?

QUESTION: Not like a tip. I mean, that there was a formal agreement dispute, and my understanding is that you nonetheless don't want to see them shut down all their offices in Damascus and Prague and Tehran and whatnot, so you sort of just give them enough to get by.

MR. REEKER: I don't know, Eli. I'll check. We're awaiting a formal response to the cooperative agreement for the period May through December of this year.