DoD News Briefing - Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA

Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 1:30 p.m. EDT

Quigley: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Several announcements this afternoon:

U.S. soldiers and airmen from Germany and Italy will begin deploying to Kosovo today as part of a training exercise named Rapid Guardian II. This routine training opportunity will exercise the rapid deployment of response forces to NATO. An airborne task force of approximately 200 soldiers from the U.S. Army's Southern European Task Force in Vicenza, Italy, will conduct a parachute drop into the British sector of Kosovo to exercise the U.S. European Command's capabilities to quickly deploy forces into the region. Once on the ground, the soldiers will participate in training and orientation patrols with KFOR units.

The operation is expected to last about 10 days and represents an additional resource for NATO's use in maintaining a secure environment in the Balkans.

Second, remains believed to be those of 12 unaccounted-for Americans from the Vietnam and Korean Wars will be honored today at an arrival ceremony at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii at 9:00 a.m. Hawaii time, 3:00 p.m. Washington time. Following the ceremony, the remains will be moved to the U.S. Army's Central Identification Laboratory there in Hawaii, where they will undergo forensic identification procedures.

Next, the West Virginia National Guard has activated 552 Army and Air guardsmen to support civil disaster recovery efforts in the counties West Virginia affected by the recent flooding -- resulted in severe damage to property. I'm sure you've all seen it as well as I have. And we have a total of 552 West Virginia guardsmen helping to recover from that.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will pay tribute to DOD agencies tomorrow night at its convention in New Orleans. Thirteen personnel will receive awards and be honored for their service. The featured speaker will be Claiborne Douglas Houghton Jr., acting deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity. The Department of Defense is the largest single employer of minorities in then nation, with African Americans making up a significant portion of our workforce. And copies of the NAACP release are available in DDI following the brief.

And finally, following our initial session here today, Mr. Stephen Friedman, retired chairman and senior partner of Goldman Sachs and Company, will provide an overview of the financial management review of the Department of Defense, conducted at Secretary Rumsfeld's request. This review is providing the department with excellent ideas on reforming DoD financial operations. And we'll have copies of his review available in DDI following the brief as well, and he will literally -- he is watching and listening to the brief as we are here, and he will literally be down here within 30 or 60 seconds following the brief. So for those of you who would like to hear what he has to say, we'll start immediately, with as little a break as we can between the two events. And if that is not an area of your interest, when this portion of the brief is done, that would be it for today.

Let me also say one thing. We don't have it scheduled yet for Friday, but some time on Friday General Kadish will come down here to this room and provide an overview of not only Saturday night's test but also of a larger picture to put this test in context of a revised test program for the missile defense research and development effort that we're undergoing under his tutelage here in DoD.

With that, I'll take your questions.

Q: Craig, is the Pentagon planning to build a missile defense test site in Alaska, and can you tell us what that's all about?

Quigley: Well, we have proposed as part of the '02 budget amendment that was recently submitted by the president a couple, three weeks ago, to provide a test bed, actually, a series of sites. Some of them would be in Alaska, but it would extend as far south as Vandenberg, and other elements that contribute to the test regime as we continue to do the research and development for a missile defense system.

So it would involve -- it's still a work in progress, Jamie, as far as the details of what it would entail, but it is a good site. The geometry is very good, in order to continue to incorporate the existing facilities at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific, as well as using the geometry facilities around the Alaska area for some of the other control and potential launch sites.

Q: So would this plan envision the possible deployment of interceptor missiles or test missiles to be fired from Alaska as part of the test, as these tests continue?

Quigley: We do not know yet. The plan is not fully mature. There is certainly a possibility that we could fire test missiles and do a lot of the command-and-control of the overall testing from any or several of the sites under consideration, but that is certainly a possibility, yes.

Q: And Secretary Rumsfeld has talked about the possibility of using developmental technology, as it shows promise during the early testing phase, to provide some sort of rudimentary missile defense. Is it possible that down the road such a site might be used as a rudimentary missile defense, if future testing proved that the technology was working?

Quigley: I think if the country needed it, you would certainly consider such an option as viable. Let me give you an example from the recent past.

During the Gulf War, the JSTARS aircraft was still under development and testing. It had not reached its initial operational capability to be a part of the operating forces. And yet when the nation needed it, its capabilities during the Gulf War, it was pressed into service and did quite well.

I think that the motivation in setting up the test bed as part of the '02 budget proposal is just that, Jamie. It is intended to be a test site. We intend to do a -- conduct a much more robust test program and to develop the research and data and analysis that you need to test out different means of providing missile defense. But if the need arose and that's what the nation needed, we would do anything and everything we could to provide a capability.

Pam?

Q: The ABM Treaty is fairly specific about the types of tests that can occur and where they can occur. And this plan seems to be running headlong into that. Have your lawyers reviewed the plan for Fort Greeley and come up with any kind of determination as to whether or not it's compliant with the treaty?

Quigley: Well, the short answer to your question is no because the development, the plan itself for the test bed is still a work in progress. But the president has said, Secretary Rumsfeld has said that we need to move beyond the ABM Treaty. Now, the next question you might logically ask is at what point during the research and development in the months and years ahead might we come into conflict with the ABM Treaty? I can't give you an answer to that question. Interpretations of when that point will come vary amongst very intelligent, well-intended people on that topic as well as our inability to predict the outcome of some of our future testing. So that's a hard one. But I think the president and the secretary have made their ultimate views quite clear.

Q: Doesn't the plan involve installing missile silos and a command center in Greeley as well as missile silos on Kodiak Island?

Quigley: Possibilities on those. But again, that plan is still under development. We don't know with certainty exactly what makes the most sense yet. So that is something we're still looking at.

Q: Will you be asking for money in the budget for this?

Quigley: In the '02, that's right. You have seen -- as part of the overall missile defense budget request that was discussed by Dr. Zakheim a couple weeks ago, that would incorporate the development of a test bed. Now, we don't have that down to the dollar yet because we're still doing the planning of what that test bed might look like and how it would be optimally arranged. But conceptually those are the options being considered. And yes, it would be done with '02 money.

Q: But do you have, I mean, a general sense of how much money it would be --

Quigley: We don't yet. I mean, not until we can have a pretty good sense in our own mind as to what is the optimum architecture, and then put out some sort of a request for bids for some of the work that would be done, we don't know how industry will respond to that with a cost figure. We think we've got it covered within the available monies as presented as part of the '02 budget. We can't give you a very good estimate at this point until we've matured a little bit more in our planning and then gotten some proposals back from industry.

Q: Will any of the money be requested for -- to begin construction on -- or at least preparing the site in Alaska?

Quigley: If the '02 budget is approved as submitted or with -- I should just say, if that portion of the '02 budget proposal remains relatively intact and clearly it passes the sense of the Congress and the president signs it into law here in a few months, that money would be available. That does not stop us in the meantime from developing the plan and fleshing out the plan a little bit trying to determine what the architecture might be as well as some initial feelers to industry about who might be qualified and have people and equipment prepared within a time frame that could be available to us to be used for that purpose. But the actual expenditure of the money in the amounts that would be meaningful would be a part of the '02 budget out after the first of October.

Tom.

Q: Do you have any sense of when these series of sites would be completed -- up and running?

Quigley: No, we don't have that level of detail, either.

Q: Ballpark --

Quigley: It's -- you mean as part of the test bed now? Well, you'd -- again, you'd like to hear from industry as to how quickly they could advance on the construction and preparation of the sites. We don't know what those answers are yet.

Q: And also --

Quigley: I don't really even have a ballpark at this point.

Q: And also the proposed X-band radar site on Shemya, has that been shelved for the time being? Is there any money in '02 for -- to start that process?

Quigley: Well, you could still use facilities on Shemya as part of the test bed series of sites: Fort Greeley, Vandenberg, like I said, not a part of the test bed per se, but you'd -- this would all be used in conjunction with Kwajalein. Shemya is certainly a possibility. Kodiak Island is another possibility. All of these are being looked at and could have some portion of the test systems put in place there. But exactly what you're going to place on what piece of real estate, we're not to that point yet in our thinking.

Chris?

Q: Craig, in terms of some of that construction in Alaska and other places, could you help us understand how this is different from the previous administration's approach? I believe that construction would only have begun in the previous administration if there was a presidential decision to deploy such a system. Then you would start work. Is that correct? And how do they differ?

Quigley: Well, I think what President Clinton did last fall was made a purposeful decision to defer the decision on whether or not to deploy a system to the next administration.

I think President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and others have made it very clear their intentions are to deploy a missile defense system. Now the exact mechanics of that and the timetable we don't -- we're not to that point. But I think that they've made their intentions to deploy quite clear.

Q: But it seems like this approach is more of an incremental thing, where you -- where before you have an answer on "Okay, let's deploy what we used to call NMD," you're saying --

Quigley: Oh, I see your point. Right.

Q: -- you dig a few holes, and you start with a test bed. You're not saying we are -- we are not at that point making a decision; we are deploying a system. We are doing a test bed, which in fact is the beginning of a potential future system.

Quigley: Let me draw another compare-and-contrast between the two. President Clinton's administration had made the decision to -- that the type of system that they would deploy, if indeed the decision was made to deploy one, was a ground-based interceptor. And there was, I think, low levels of money available for research and development of other alternatives, but pretty much it was a ground- based system, and it was a yes/no on the deploy.

And again, there's a difference between the two administrations in their approach. You have heard the president and Secretary Rumsfeld, in recent testimony on the Hill, discuss a layered approach as being the most likely outcome, with a lot of research and development and testing that needs to be done in the months and years ahead to determine which of the systems that we'll be testing show promise.

And some will show promise, and they will receive additional funding and will continue. And some won't, and we'll terminate the funding, and that was an idea that didn't work.

But there is no decision on a specific type, and indeed I think the decision would be to go with a multi-layered approach -- perhaps some ground-based, perhaps some sea-based. It all depends on where you want to intercept the missile in its flight -- boost phase, mid-course, terminal; different architecture, different physics involved in the speeds and the angles and types of equipment. So it's a much more layered approach, as opposed to the single ground-based interceptor approach of the previous administration.

Q: Along the same lines, can I just clarify the status of the X-band radar at Shemya? Under the previous administration, that was the next step, and it was to the point where it was just one decision away from contracts being let and the process being put in place. Is that now one of -- has that dropped back to one of many things that are under way, or does it still remain one of the next steps before deployment?

Quigley: It would be one of the next, Jamie, but I would be hard pressed to break it out, to differentiate it as a stand-alone issue from the development of the test bed system. That would be one piece of -- and it may not even be on Shemya, either. But it would be a piece of the test bed that is being proposed for the Vandenberg, Alaska, area, to do a lot of the testing in the time ahead.

Barbara?

Q: What do you say to critics who say that this plan is simply a way to field something short of a larger system, get something fielded, and blunt the Russian criticism regarding ABM?

Quigley: I would say that they've got it wrong, and it is not the intention. The intention is to do a robust test program, to determine what will work well and what may not pan out to be very successful at all, and take it from there, based on solid test data.

Q: But yet you do say, I think, that you are considering using these test bed interceptors, as it was, as an initial deployed operational system, should you need it. So again, people contend that that's simply a way to blunt potential Russian criticism.

Quigley: I look at it in -- differently. I can't stand here today and tell you that we would never under any circumstances consider the use of any system under developmental testing, if that's what the nation needed at the time, because the example I gave of JSTARS is -- makes that completely wrong. And there are other examples.

On the other hand, the real question is, what is our motivation? And the motivation is as I described it. There's -- it's not a motivation to be somehow sneaky or less than forthcoming here. The goal is to have a robust test and development program, use that data to determine the most effective systems, to provide the best quality of missile defense.

Q: So the only other thing I guess I don't understand, then, if you could just go back over it -- what was not happening in the previous missile defense program that now requires you to have this test bed? What wasn't being done?

Quigley: Well, I think it's kind of a modification of what Chris had asked before. President Clinton had made the determination that if he were to decide to field a missile defense system, it would be a ground-based interceptor system. That is indeed one system, and it's the system that we're testing Saturday night. But it is not the only option at our disposal.

So it is the decision of President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and others that we will explore alternatives in addition to the ground-based interceptor capability.

Q: So what other alternatives will be explored there?

Quigley: In the months and years ahead you will explore various means of intercepting missiles in the boost, mid-course and terminal phase. And you could have some combination of sea-based, air-based, ground-based, airborne laser, a variety of systems will receive research and development testing and emphasis in the time ahead. Which one of those will pan out, time will tell. Some will, some won't.

Q: Will space-based -- (off mike)?

Quigley: I don't think anybody's put a limitation on the sorts of systems that we could test.

Q: Don't these systems already have test facilities? Because they're all been under development for years.

Quigley: Not at a very robust level of effort. I am not aware of any test facility outside of the one that we have now, Pam, that's the Vandenberg-Kwajalein system that you're familiar with. That's about all. And that's not enough to test the variety of systems that we have in mind to at least try in the years ahead.

Q: Craig?

Quigley: Yeah.

Q: Using the current ground-based system and the current kill vehicle and the current booster, there have been three tests so far; two have failed. If Saturday night's test fails, does that pretty much mark the end of the ground-based system as we now see it?

Quigley: I think you're describing the results in an overly simplistic manner, with all due respect. In each one of those tests we increased our body of knowledge an incredible amount. You would like to have a hit every time that you test the system. Realistically, that's not going to happen. But you learn from each test that you do and refine your program, your hardware, your software, the processes that you use to test the systems, and you are ever approaching a system that works more effectively all the time.

So as Secretary Rumsfeld said the other day in testimony on the Hill, I suspect that Saturday night's test will achieve a wide range of good data points. Some will have been as good as we could hope for; others we would for something better. But we will learn in all cases and advance our knowledge. That's what testing is for.

Q: What's going to be new about the test on Saturday night?

Quigley: Well, if I could I'd like to leave the details to General Kadish on Friday. But I know of two things that are different. The mechanics -- the geometry, I should say -- of the test are very similar to last year's, where you're going to have the target will be a Minuteman II booster launched from Vandenberg, and the interceptor will be launched from Kwajalein. So the mechanics of that are identical, really, to last year. But you have a lot of new software that has been developed for use in a variety of systems. And the decoy, the balloon, that will be on board the mock-up of the warhead has been -- it has a higher reliability, and its thermal signature will be much more like that of the intended warhead. So it will be more of a challenge for the discrimination to test. Those are two that I know of. There may be more, and I'll defer to General Kadish on Friday.

Q: Also, on -- you said earlier that this test site in Alaska could be integrated with Kwajalein and Vandenberg. How would that work? Would Kwajalein be used to fire target missiles towards Alaska, or -- or --

Quigley: You could -- what it gives you is a different geometry.

If you say that the test bed itself would include the Alaska sites, the potential Alaska sites as well as Vandenberg, and then I have Kwajalein, which is not a part of the test bed proposal per se because it's already there, but, I mean, it would allow you different geometry from which to present more challenging interception geometries for future testing. You start off walking, and you eventually want to run, and then sprint. As you have more and more confidence in the systems and your software and the architecture in the years ahead, you want to present more challenging targets for the system to try to engage. Ultimately, a higher rate of intercept speed and a more challenging geometry such as would be presented by a missile actually being fired at the United States or some other place would be your ultimate goal. So the difference in the geometry that you would be presented by incorporating a more robust test site in Alaska would be a plus as you mature your testing program --

Q: Sorry, but would fired -- missiles be fired from Kwajalein towards Alaska, or --

Quigley: I think I can't give you a good answer now, but it offers you the opportunity to do that if that's what you thought was the next logical step in your test program.

Q: Would target missiles be fired from within Alaska? Something like from Kodiak?

Quigley: Jim, it's a good question, but I just don't think we -- other than knowing with certainty that it offers you a variety of geometries to choose, I can't predict for you which would be the sites that would be used.

Otto, you started to --

Q: The whole thing seems rather peculiar. The current test site will be firing the target missile out into the mid-Pacific.

Quigley: Right.

Q: You know, it's intercepted or not in pretty much open space. If you're going to be firing missiles from anywhere out in the mid-Pacific towards the United States, you end up with the interesting problem of where the intercept occurs or where it doesn't --

Quigley: And I don't -- yeah, but I don't know as if that would be the intention. If you --

Q: Well, what is the idea of building a test bed in Alaska or the west coast, as you described it, anywhere down the west coast, if that doesn't include interceptor missiles that will be there for intercepting things inbound to the United States.

Quigley: If I have three points, basically, one at Kwajalein, one at Vandenberg, and one of several up in Alaska, I have three legs of a triangle, roughly, that I have described there. I can adjust my geometry of future shots in some way that I can't stand here today and describe, but it would offer you more flexibility in your test planning and your test conduct than you have right now, where you are reduced to only Vandenberg and only Kwajalein. I can adjust my geometry only a little, particularly at the early stage of testing. Add a third point to give me that triangle, and I have flexibility in my testing.

Q: But two of those three points give you the problem of trying to do intercepts and related to fallout in what is fairly congested sea space, you know, where fishing fleets, merchant marines and the whole thing, and the problem of inbound missiles or in your interceptors going out close to the Soviet Union, which might raise some people's concern.

Quigley: Yeah. I mean, the points you raise are perfectly valid. Since we don't have that future testing program developed yet, all I can say is that it is our belief that expanding the test facility as I've described it would offer you flexibility in your planning and conduct of tests in the years ahead.

Yeah --

Q: And just to be clear, the Alaska test bed is envisioned as not just being for use in testing a ground-based system, but for all the other optional systems -- mid-course, boost phase, space-based, air-based -- is that what you're saying, is that Alaska is going to be the location for all that other testing?

Quigley: If I have an X-band radar, for instance, or some sort of a battle management radar, I would use a system of that type in probably several of the geometries that would be used for future systems. It gives you great positional accuracy in space, where your warhead is inbound to the United States or elsewhere. You would have the data from that at your disposal in any future test that you chose to use.

So the short answer to your question is no, I don't think it would be restricted only to ground-based interceptor testing uses. I think you could apply it in a variety of types of systems.

Yes, sir.

Q: Sir, India is opposed to a U.S. system and China opposes it, so since President Bush is traveling to China later this year, is he getting any advice from this building before he talks to the Chinese on this system or on any other issues?

Quigley: Well, I know that the president has had many discussions with Secretary Rumsfeld, General Shelton, Secretary Powell, other members of the national security team, on the subject of missile defense. There will be many more in the months and years to come, I suspect. I'd be hard-pressed to point to any particular event and say that that is a cause for an acceleration or a deceleration of the exchange between the members of the administration and the president.

I think it's been quite frequent and I'm sure it will continue to be so.

Q: Since the EP-3 is now back in the U.S. and now do you think the Chinese mood has changed, anti-U.S., on other matters?

Quigley: I'm sorry, would you say that again?

Q: Since the EP-3 system now is, the problem is solved and it's back in the U.S. --

Quigley: Yes.

Q: -- do you think the mood of the Chinese have changed against the U.S.?

Quigley: I don't know.

Q: Can I do a follow-up?

Quigley: Yeah.

Q: Any word on that million-dollar bill yet?

Quigley: Well, we are working with our comrades at the State Department to go through it, and we'll try to determine the elements that we would consider legitimate expenses to help us remove the EP-3 from Hainan Island. It's still a work in progress.

Q: What about a bill of our own for that nearly $6 million that we paid to remove it and the cost of either restoring the EP-3 or taking a P-3 and making it an EP-3? Would we perhaps send China bill for 45 or 50 million dollars?

Quigley: I'm not aware of any such bill in the preparation, Ivan. (Laughter.)

Yes.

Q: That bill, the million dollars, does that include any charges, just to be specific, about caring for the servicemen during their period of detention -- hotel bills, food charges, something like that -- for the servicemen who were detained on Hainan Island?

Quigley: I'm not going to go through the contents of the changes. That's not how we're going to resolve this. We'll do it quietly and we'll go through it and try to ascertain those elements that we think are appropriate and we'll respond to the Chinese government appropriately.

Q: Yes, on Vieques. Yesterday the chairman of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, came out very forcefully in support for the immediate and permanent cessation of the bombing or all training in Vieques. Will that influence the secretary in any way to recommend to the president to end training or bombing in Vieques now?

Quigley: Oh, I think there's a variety of voices that have said that we absolutely need to use the facilities that are present on Vieques until May of 2003, while the search goes on for an alternative way to train Marines and sailors before they forward-deploy. So I think the short answer to your question is no.

Let me just accent something that Secretary of the Navy Gordon England has said today in testimony and from here, I believe, a couple of weeks ago. This is not about finding an alternative site to Vieques, per se. This is about finding a system of training that will provide good training and preparation for sailors and Marines before they forward-deploy. So it isn't a "finding this place instead of that place," necessarily.

It's about the quality of training. And that could be done at more than one place. But the bottom line is the quality of the training that's provided to the sailors and Marines and the where of that is being done is certainly an issue, but it isn't necessarily a one-for- one trade-off.

Q: Has the Navy or the department abandoned combined integrated training?

Quigley: I don't know what that means.

Q: Well, the concept of doing the amphibious landing, naval gunfire support, aerial bombing, materially -- artillery shelling all from one location, or --

Quigley: No, I don't think so. I mean, that's premature to put it that way. But it isn't about Vieques per se, it's about training for sailors and Marines. And Secretary England has not yet named the members of the panel that -- he has said that he will. But I'm sure he will do so in the near future. And their charter is going to be to determine a good way to provide that training to the sailors or Marines before they forward deploy. It could be in more than one location. We'll just have to see what they come up with.

Q: Along those lines, Secretary England has stated his intent to at least keep on using Vieques throughout May 1st 2003 two weeks ago when he said as early as today. Does Secretary Rumsfeld support that position?

Quigley: Indeed. Indeed.

Q: And I have two other follow-ups. Since -- I mean, now Puerto Rico has enacted legislation to hold a local referendum on July 29th --

Quigley: Twenty-ninth, right.

Q: -- with three options: one, the immediate cessation of training; second, leave in 2003; and third, ask for the Navy to stay. If the Viequenses vote for the immediate departure of the Navy, would the Department of Defense change their recommendation to the president?

Quigley: Well, I think you need to understand a couple of things here. One is that the referendum on the 29th of July is a non-binding one. And simultaneously we have said that we are trying to change and delete -- change the law, the current law that's in place to require us to hold the referendum on the 6th of November, which had been part of the agreement between President Clinton and Governor Rossello. We'll see if we're successful in that regard. If so, there will be no referendum, the law would be modified, and we'll proceed with the May 2003 intention. But if not, then we'll proceed towards the referendum that will be binding in November of this year. So two different, very different courses of action.

Q: Has the legislation been introduced?

Quigley: It has not. We are slow on that. We are working closely with the Office of Management and Budget to craft the legislation, but it has not yet gone over.

Q: And what happens with the 40 million [dollars] or the other clean-up efforts or the range?

Quigley: Well, I believe that a portion of the 40 million has been released. I think it's up to 8 million now that has actually been released for several smaller projects on Vieques, and the rest of the money we will see in the months ahead to make sure how it is best used. But I believe the intention is to continue on with the 40 million. I mean, that is in the law as well.

Q: Could we stay on Vieques for a second?

Quigley: I'm sorry, who's -- oh, Dale. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't see you.

Q: Could we stay on Vieques?

Quigley: Yes.

Q: Secretary England testified this morning that before this announcement that the training would end by the middle of '03 that he did not seek any sort of assurance from the governor that, for example, she might withdraw the lawsuit or that there might be some explicit guarantee of security provided around the base at the time of training. Can you tell us why no such guarantees were sought? Several senators made the point that the department has now given something with no assurance of anything in return from the governor of Puerto Rico. I wonder if you could just respond to why such assurances weren't sought.

Quigley: No, I don't think I can give you a good answer. I don't know.

Yes.

Q: Question on India. Since General Shelton is trying on making another attempt to visit India, but his visit will be after the India-Pakistan summit on next week, do you think anybody or he is watching from this building the outcome of the summit between India and Pakistan, or anybody concerned here?

Quigley: I'm sure there are a variety of nations around the world that very much care on the summit results between India and Pakistan, yes.

Barbara?

Q: Different subject. You said last week or several days ago that there were assurances given by Japan about the treatment of Sergeant Woodland now that he's been in custody for several days. Can you give us any update on -- based on those assurances how he's being treated? How is all of that going?

Quigley: I think it's going very well. The assurances that were received by the United States have been adhered to to the letter. And we're going to keep watching that, because we care. But so far extremely well is the answer to your question.

Q: What does "extremely well" mean in terms of how he himself is being treated in terms of his interrogation and questioning?

Quigley: The Japanese assured us that he would be treated in a fair and humane way. And by our yardstick, I think by anyone's yardstick, those criteria are being met every day.

Q: Does that include counsel present during any interrogation? Do you know?

Quigley: Let me take that. I'm not sure.

Q: Okay.

Quigley: I'm not sure.

Q: Or -- or was the selection of an interpreter ever solved? I know that was a bone of contention.

Quigley: Mik, I can't get into the details of the specifics agreed to between the two governments, but we are satisfied that he is receiving fair and humane treatment every day, with no exceptions.

Alex?

Q: This week, just yesterday, the UN opened a conference on the problem of small arms. I know the Pentagon has spoken out quite forcefully on proliferation of big things like missiles and nuclear weapons, chemical, biological weapons. What is the Pentagon's feeling about the proliferation of small arms and light weapons?

Quigley: I don't know as if we've ever come down with a policy on that. It's kind of a different perspective. You would think of small arms as more of a localized issue, oftentimes, of crime, than you would with professional armies and air forces and navies engaging over large areas with long-range precision-guided weapons.

Sure, the Department of Defense is in the business of small arms as well as large, sophisticated weapons platforms, but the security of nations I don't think is -- particularly of the United States, which is our principal concern -- is more in this country of the purview of law enforcement, the Justice Department, FBI, organizations of that sort. We comply with the domestic laws that apply here in the United States as to the custody and use and storage and things of that sort of our small arms.

So it's just an issue that we have not been involved in on the world stage, and I am not aware of the Department of Defense having a policy position in that regard.

Q: (Off mike) -- thinking of it more in -- less a domestic issue than the actual threats faced by soldiers deployed in places like Kosovo, and --

Quigley: We think it's very important, before -- you know, we oftentimes help train other nations' militaries, and that involves the provision of small arms, ammunition, but it also involves the training in the proper use, the safe use, the effective use, as well as the control of those small arms. So it's an element of the training; I would put it as a larger part of the training that we might provide to other nations as to how they're handled, what sorts of systems would be provided, storage, and things of that sort.

Yes.

Q: Congressman Weldon last week talked about -- or a couple weeks ago -- talked about introducing legislation that would require DoD to conduct like a national security impact statement when DoD decided to close down a training area or something like that.

Have you talked to him about that, or is anything like that being incorporated into the legislation he talked about earlier?

Quigley: I have not heard that, no.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: Has there been any change in the proposal to draw down the B-1? There seems to be some confusion about this --

Quigley: Yeah, Suzanne, there was some confusion on that today. Again, that was gotten into a little bit last hour, hour and a half with the testimony on the Hill. The thrust of the confusion, I think, this morning was that somehow we had backed off of the intention to reduce the size of the overall B-1 force; and that's absolutely not the case. The proposal as described a couple of weeks ago when the budget amendment was described here remains the same today, with a reduction from 93 airframes down to 60 airframes, reduction of five different sites for the airframes down to two, for all the reasons of improving the maintainability, the lethality and the effectiveness of the remaining 60.

The period of time during which the reduction at the three sites will take place will be throughout fiscal year '02. This is not something that I think we could put together if we wanted to in the next couple, three months before the 1st of October comes along. Furthermore, it would have an adverse impact on the service members and their families that would be stationed at some of these facilities. So this is a process that will start, assuming that the Congress approves the proposal and the president signs it into law, with the beginning of fiscal year '02 and would continue throughout fiscal year '02 in order to mitigate the effect on our people. But it still is the right thing to do.

Q: That's not the impression that Secretary Roche left with Senator Roberts on the Hill today. He assured them that they would be consulting with them on how this was going to unfold. You're saying it's a done deal already. So what's the consultation with Congress?

Quigley: I think the consultation, Otto, is one of pacing and one of scheduling. But he remained firm to the commitment that this was the right thing to do for the effectiveness of the force. But the pacing is certainly negotiable and discussable, not only with the congressional delegations of the affected areas, but with the men and women that are directly affected by this over time.

This is something that needs to be done in the right way and at a pace that is digestible by all three installations and the people that are affected by this.

Q: Isn't the reaction to this relatively minor cut in force structure kind of, you know, put a pale (sic) over the idea that the department may go into some serious structural reforms as part of the -- coming out of the QDR? If Congress is going to kick back on something this small, what's the prospect of them approving anything major?

Quigley: Well, change is never easy. I think in any large organization, change is never easy; but change we must, in order to adapt to the changing world of the 21st century, and it's one of those things you have to deal with as it comes along.

Pat.

Q: Along the lines of Susanne's question about the B-1, has there been any change in the announced intention to contract out commissaries? I've heard that there may be a rephasing or a roll-back on that one.

Quigley: I have not seen anything in that regard, either, no. I have not.

Toby.

Q: My first question is on the helicopter crash out in North Carolina. Is there any indication at all preliminarily about what caused the crash, and it is any reflection of the age of that fleet?

Quigley: The honest answer to both is no, yet. The accident just occurred last night. We have just started, the Marines have just started the accident investigation. They have not come up with any preliminary findings yet, so they can't attribute it to any particular cause for the accident. We're pretty good at ultimately figuring out what caused an aircraft accident and I'm reasonably confident that we'll get to that point, but we're not there today.

Q: And just going back to the missile defense, what is the cost of the test that's happening on Saturday?

Quigley: About $100 million.

Q: Okay. So if the test on Saturday is $100 million, if now what you're proposing to do is test all sorts of different types of defense, you know, in combination, does that mean that the expense of the testing goes up exponentially by that?

Quigley: You have seen an increase in the amount of money that we have proposed in the '02 budget for missile defense. A lot of that is going to be for a more robust test program. Now, the integrated flight test that we're going to do Saturday night is a very, very detailed test. They will not all be that detailed nor that expensive in their conduct. But this is quite an involved one Saturday, involving a variety of goals and objectives for this single test. So this one is quite expensive, but they won't all be that way.

Q: Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry.

Quigley: One more, and then we need to go with Mr. Friedman, please.

Q: Since reasonable lawyers can disagree as to whether or not this new test facility violates ABM, has the Pentagon or the Bush administration been consulting with the allies specifically on this subject?

Quigley: I believe there's been no shortage of consultation with our allies on missile defense. That has been going on for some months now. I would envision it continuing for some months to come in a variety of ways.

Q: Yes. And a B-1 question. Is there a process associated with shutting down the B-1 operation at three bases and has that been budgeted for?

Quigley: I don't have the puts and takes, but you're looking at the -- ultimately at the end of fiscal '02 when the reallocation is done of about $165 million, and then continued savings in the out years for a much more efficient streamlined approach to the basing facilities.

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., WASHINGTON, DC. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400.