Acting Pentagon Spokesman's Tuesday Briefing

DoD News Briefing - Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, USN, DASD (PA)

Q: Curt Weldon was in Moscow today and met with the Russians on
missile defense. He said that he delivered a message to them from
Secretary Rumsfeld and also from Ronald Kadish, that the U.S. wants to
cooperate with the Russians on missile defense, and they're waiting
for a positive Russian response. And also, at the same time, Robertson
received a plan from the Russians on cooperating - Russian- NATO
cooperation on missile defense, European missile defense.

First of all, did the Secretary send a message through - Secretary
Rumsfeld - to the Russians that they want to cooperate on missile
defense, and if so, what did that message involve? And also, what's
the reaction here to the Russian plan that was given to Robertson?

Quigley: Sure. The question, actually - actually, Congressman Weldon
has been in Russia over the weekend to a variety of cities, Moscow
among them.

And the question as to whether or not he was carrying a letter or a
message of some sort from Secretary Rumsfeld came up over the weekend,
and as best we were able to track down, there has been no such letter
or message or something carried by him that was authored by Secretary
Rumsfeld. So I can't find any basis for that one, Jim.

The second one, as you all know, Minister Sergeyev handed to Lord
Robertson today, I believe, the Russian proposal for a European
missile defense system. It is something that Lord Robertson received
and we would share his desire for more detail, and we'll take a look
at that in the days and weeks ahead. If it indeed - we are very
heartened by the fact that the Russians, by this action, acknowledge
that there is a very real missile and WMD threat to Europe.

I would point out, however, that this does not include any protection
for the continental United States, under the proposal as we know it.
Now, we haven't seen it yet, so maybe it does, but let's wait and see.
It's not how it was portrayed by Minister Sergeyev as it was given to
Lord Robertson, and it was portrayed as a European missile defense
alternative proposal. That good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't do
anything to provide national missile defense for the United States.

So we haven't seen it yet. We're eager to do so. Let's see where we
can cooperate. If the Russians have a proposal there that would make
sense and do some good in protecting Europe from missile attack and
weapons of mass destruction, let's have a look and let's see where we
might be able to cooperate.

Q: Is there any concern that this proposal is an effort by the
Russians to divide the U.S. from the Europeans on the missile defense
issue?

Quigley: I don't think so. I think we'll take it at face value. If
they say that this is their idea how to provide a European missile
defense, let's take an honest look at this. Like I say, it doesn't
extend to the United States, and therefore we would find it lacking in
that regard, but if it does extend missile protection to Europe and
it's a good plan, let's take a look.

Q: Can you say whether the Russians regard their plan as being
compatible with the ABM Treaty?

Quigley: I don't know, Jon. I don't know.

Tony?

Q: Craig, a follow-up on missile defense. A couple of weeks ago you
said that Mr. Rumsfeld now had met with General Kadish about three
times on the basic --

Quigley: Three times so far, I believe --

Q: Is it fair to say that the Pentagon at this point still endorses
the ground-based system that President Clinton put in development and
has furthered into development? That's kind of the basic structure for
the U.S. program at this point?

Quigley: Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but we're not far
off. Secretary Rumsfeld's direction to General Kadish has been to
proceed with the approved test plan, as it exists today, and then
says, "I'll get back to you once we have more fully developed our
thinking as to the type and scope and time line and whatnot of a
national missile defense system, once the President's national
security team has fleshed out that proposal, and the President has
authorized and improved it."

So today he's making no long-term commitments that this is going to be
the plan that will ultimately be followed, but for today, the guidance
is, "Proceed until I tell you otherwise."

Q: Yeah, but isn't it realistic to expect that the ground- based
program will continue? You just put Boeing on contract for $6 billion,
and how realistic is it that you're going to scrap a program like
that?

Quigley: Well, there's a lot of good research that is going on that
would be applicable to a variety of types of systems that might be put
in place. So I don't think anybody is considering that this is a waste
of money or effort or time or focus.

But the ultimate architecture and structure of the plan that would be
approved by the President, ultimately, may not be the plan that is
currently in place. But Secretary Rumsfeld's guidance to General
Kadish has been, "Press on for now, and when we have a better picture
of where we're going, we'll be back in touch."

Q: And along those lines, has the Secretary decided to postpone or put
off the Shemya decision?

Quigley: He has not made a decision on that issue yet. He is very much
aware of the time frame. He needs to come to that decision, but he is
just not there quite yet.

Q: In March or --

Quigley: Well, late March, early April, Tom. You degrade at that
point; it doesn't go to zero. But the weather then is always - is a
big, big factor here. If you can make your decision in the late March,
early April time frame, you just increase your chances of having the
weather not close in on you at the end of the construction season and
shorten the time that you have to do something. So for every week you
delay after that, you degrade the amount of work that you can do in
that season before the weather gets too crummy.

Q: So it's still under active consideration? He could decide this year
to send some barges up there, let's say?

Quigley: Oh, he has not closed any options out yet at all; not at all.

Pam?

Q: On the Greeneville investigation, is the Pentagon --

Q: Can I just follow his question first? I'm sorry.

Q: Sure.

Q: I thought based on what we knew last year, that this timeline
foreclosed the possibility of construction this year when President
Clinton decided not to proceed. In other words, we were talking about
a year hence; in other words, 2002.

Quigley: Well, it would depend on how quickly you could put your
contracts in place, and things of that sort. You have a many-month
lead time to get your contracts in place, arrange for the barges to
move, the construction equipment, the people, the technicians, the
whole bit, up to Shemya Island before the weather gets crummy on you.

Q: Well, that's what I'm getting at. Doesn't this - I mean, you're
saying you could still do it this summer, still do some construction
--

Quigley: Next summer, I believe, yeah. Summer of 2002. If I inferred
this summer, no. Right, not this summer. I'm sorry, let me be clear on
that. You need to make the decision around the March/April time frame
for 2002 actual construction work. I'm sorry.

Q: Weren't they saying last year it needed to be there by December in
order to start in 2001?

Q: Contracts by the fall --

(Cross talk.)

Quigley: Yeah, but you're talking about then actually signing
contracts that you need to negotiate over a period of months. There's
no particular magic around the March/April time frame, it's just that
the more you slide it to the right, the more hasty your contract
negotiation process needs to be, and the more you just - you contract
the entire process where you needed to have a little time and a little
breathing space, if you will, to put a good contract in place.

Q: Is it accurate, then, to say if they can sign contracts by the end
of December, the way you guys said last year, you could start the
following spring?

Quigley: That would probably be true. That would probably be true.

Q: So he has to make a decision this March or April in order to get
the contracts worked out during this summer, by this winter, to start
construction next summer, 2002?

Quigley: Certainly by spring, Andrea, yeah.

Q: But he needs to make a decision by March or April to have enough
time to get all the paperwork done and the contracting, and everything
to get --

Quigley: About that time frame.

Q: - to get the stuff barged up there next spring of 2002?

Quigley: Right. Right.

Q: Okay.

Quigley: John?

Q: Still on NMD (national missile defense). Has General Kadish at BMDO
(Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) been asked to provide any
technical inputs into the review of NMD options? I mean, they are,
after all, the central repository of expertise.

Quigley: Oh, sure.

Q: So if not they, who is going to provide technological input for
what are viable NMD options?

Quigley: I think at this point Secretary Rumsfeld has been spending
more of his time with General Kadish making sure that he has a
complete understanding of the work that has been done so far and the
near-term plan that Tony referred to, like what's in the next few
months, how much does it cost, what do we hope to accomplish, et
cetera, so that he has a good understanding of the status quo. He is
very schooled on the topic of missile defense from his work on the
commission in 1998. It's been --

Q: (Off mike) - national missile defense - (inaudible) --
proliferation, but - (inaudible).

Quigley: Right. But they're not mutually exclusive. And he is very --
has been very interested in this topic for a very long time. So his
knowledge is good, far better than your average person, certainly, but
he wants to make sure, on this very complex issue, that he understands
where General Kadish's team is and will be in the months ahead. He's
asked some questions of General Kadish, but I don't get the impression
that it's "Give me a plan to do x, y or z." It's not in that regard
yet, although someday it very well could be, but I don't think we're
there yet.

Q: Is it your understanding that the White House intends to come out
with a plan for some new architecture? And if so, where is the White
House going to get the technical expertise to do anything other than
a, "Gee, this would be nice" on the back of an envelope?

Quigley: Well, I think that the President is expecting his national
security team - Secretary Rumsfeld, Dr. Rice, Secretary Powell - to
come to him with proposals that make sense. There are many ways to do
this. There are advocates and detractors of each of them. He is
looking for his team to come to him with a proposal with options that
make sense. There will be a good debate on that. And ultimately, after
consulting with the Congress, he'll make his call and move on. I just
don't think we're quite there yet.

Q: But State Department has no expertise at all in the technologies of
missile defense.

Quigley: Well, I think there's lots of issues, some of which don't
have to do with the operation of hardware in outer space.

There are other issues that go into the construction and fielding of a
missile defense system and, in that regard, that's the strength of the
entire national security team bringing their respective areas of
expertise to play, because it's a complex issue that crosses a lot of
party lines.

Q: But - is it anticipated that BMDO will be asked to provide, from
the basis of their technical expertise, which at this point is
considerable, input into what other options are models?

Quigley: Yes. I don't see how you could have it any other way.

Q: I don't either, actually --

Quigley: Now, there's contractors that are a apart of that, too, Jon,
that have considerable expertise - the contractors that BMDO has
contracts with. So there's a lot of expertise in industry, as well. It
is such a complex topic that there is going to be a desire to reach
out as broadly as you can to make sure your understanding is good.

Tom?

Q: One last thing on Shemya. Some Republicans on the Hill and missile
defense advocates had hoped that at least something could be done on
Shemya this year, if not actual construction, then some initial site
preparations and so forth. But what you seem to be saying is that it's
too early to do anything this year, even initial site preparations and
everything - if something were to be done, it would have to wait
until at least next year, at the earliest.

Quigley: I don't think that you're going to put contracts in place to
actually have an impact on Shemya Island in 2001, no.

Andrea?

Q: Well, can I just ask, has Secretary Rumsfeld talked to the chief of
Naval Operations or anybody in the Navy about the possibility of
adapting TMD for national missile defense? Has he had that
conversation with anybody in the Navy?

Quigley: Not that I know of.

Q: Has he had that conversation with BMDO or General Kadish?

Quigley: I think, from General Kadish, he has gotten a variety of data
points on studies done, data in hand to date on the various options
that exist to defend the United States from ballistic missile attack.
Space-based, ground-based, sea-based - there are many options. You're
aware of most of them, I'm sure. He wants to make sure that his
understanding is as good as the professionals that Jon's indicated
that spend all of their time studying this complex issue.