27 April 2000

Excerpts: Pentagon Spokesman's Regular Briefing

Pentagon Deputy Spokesman Admiral Craig Quigley briefed.

Following are excerpts from the Pentagon transcript:

Defense Department Regular Briefing
Briefer: Admiral Craig Quigley, USN
Pentagon Briefing Room, Arlington, Virginia
1:33 P.M. EDT, Thursday, April 27, 2000

Rear Adm. Quigley: Bob?

Q: The briefing or meeting, whatever you want to call it, that went on here yesterday afternoon/evening with Ivanov, Mrs. Albright --

Rear Adm. Quigley: Yeah, 5:00 yesterday.

Q: -- participation by various people from the Joint Staff and others, can you give us a rundown on what was discussed, who presented what in terms of the subject matter?

Rear Adm. Quigley: I don't know who the presenters were. I wasn't present for the tank session, but the subject was national missile defense. And again, as you've heard many people say, I think both on the U.S. side and the Russian side, this is part of an ongoing dialogue. You have Secretary Cohen talking to his counterpart on the Russian side, Secretary Albright talking to hers, et cetera, for some period of time now trying to fully explain our position on why we think that the limited national missile defense system that we are contemplating should not be viewed as a threat to the Russians.

As you know, the system that we are contemplating is a relatively small number of interceptor missiles which would be effective against a relatively small number of incoming missiles from rogue nations, not effective against the massive sort of a strike such as Russia could produce, if it wished. And so in that sense, we are trying to convey to the Russians at all levels a consistent message that this system does not pose a threat to their nation because it's strictly defensive in nature, and it certainly does not effect a negation of some sort of their strategic deterrent force against the United States. You have heard the Russian position as clearly as I, and clearly, we have work to do and some tough diplomatic work ahead of us.

But that was the thrust of the session in the tank yesterday afternoon.

Q: Was he shown any kind of -- anything different than the Russians have been shown before in terms of technical details or tape of tests or anything like that?

Rear Adm. Quigley: No, I don't think -- I don't think there was any new ground broken in the tank, but it was another session to hear from, in this case, the professional military members, their take on the system and --

Q: On the U.S. side?

Rear Adm. Quigley: On the U.S. side, yes. And to an exchange of views, clear exchange of views such as we're doing at a variety of levels right now.

Q: Was it a power point briefing? (Laughter.)

Rear Adm. Quigley: (Chuckles.) I don't know. I don't know if it was a power -- I did not see the brief, I'm sorry.

Barbara?

Q: Well actually, there's a question. I just thought of something I also wanted to ask. This briefing clearly was not classified, if it was provided to the Russians.

So can we see it? Can we have a copy of it?

Rear Adm. Quigley: I'll see. I don't know. I'll see.

Q: The other question I really had was, you know, why do Republicans in Congress --

Rear Adm. Quigley: I would say that we typically do not share the contents of briefings held in the tank. So I would not hold out a lot of hope. That is intended to be for private discussions. But I will try.

Q: Then there was no classified information in that briefing.

Rear Adm. Quigley: Not that I'm aware of.

Q: Well, members of Congress are now saying that they're against the missile defense because it doesn't go far enough, that, in fact, what they want to see is the much broader, 200 interceptor, two type-kind of system, sort of a more robust defense. Has the Pentagon now absolutely ruled that out, it's a limited system, that's it, not the broader system that people like Trent Lott are talking about? Rear Adm. Quigley: Well, I would -- let me start by saying this is not a Pentagon decision. This is a national decision. This nation will have some sort of national missile defense system. That is the question on the table. But there are arguments on both sides as to the proper scope; whether we should have a system; if we should, what should be the scope of the system, what should be its capabilities. These are the very discussions that are ongoing now and will all become a part of the president's decision later on this year.

Q: And the Pentagon's opinion on this? On --

Rear Adm. Quigley: The secretary will ultimately, after the late-June, the next late-June shot, will provide his best assessment and recommendation to the president. But I'm not going to get ahead of myself here. We need to have the data from that next shot in order to make a comprehensive assessment. And the secretary will make his best recommendation to the president, and we'll go from there.

David?

Q: Two follow-up questions on that. One is I think the thrust of Barbara's question is, is the United States going to lock itself into a more limited defense than some people advocate in the interest of getting an arms agreement with the Russians? And my second question would be, and what was the price tag on that again? It keeps changing.

Rear Adm. Quigley: On which, now?

Q: On National Missile Defense.

Rear Adm. Quigley: Describe which you would like a cost estimate on.

Q: Well, what do you --

Rear Adm. Quigley: What we have costed out so far is a 100-interceptor force based in Alaska with X-band radars, expanded early warning radars, a battle management command and control system. And that is over the life cycle cost from 1991 to 2026 in fiscal year 1999 dollars about $30.2 billion.

Q: You're using 1999 dollars on that?

Rear Adm. Quigley: 1999 dollars.

Q: Not 1991 dollars, from a couple of weeks ago.

Rear Adm. Quigley: Correct. Correct. Now, let me check that bottom line, but I'm pretty sure. I got all the rest of the parameters correct. I will -- sorry -- 36 billion; $36 billion --

Q: (Off mike.) (Laughter.)

Q: That was a very expensive two minutes --

(Cross talk.)

Rear Adm. Quigley: Now, let me -- let break that down further. In the acquisition cost for the same period of time, in the same, you know, in '99 dollars, $20 billion; and the life cycle cost, $36 billion.

Q: And do you have --

Rear Adm. Quigley: Now, those are different from the Congressional Budget Office numbers, which we don't take particular issue with, except what they costed out was a 250 interceptor force at two different locations, and it was -- it was a different cost comparison and we simply have not done the cost comparison as they have. We have only costed out the first phase of the program.

Q: As a follow-up, again, I still would like to know, have you ruled out the broader system, or is that still on the table, in terms of the Department of Defense's thinking?

Rear Adm. Quigley: I don't think this nation has ruled anything in or out. You're asking me to predict the completion of a national debate, and I can't do that.

Q: One other question. Does this $35 billion include this tracking and killing satellites, or are there no satellites in that?

Rear Adm. Quigley: I think it does. I will take that. I'd take that question. I think so, but I will check my notes.

Q: And do you also have an estimate for the broader system with two sites and 250 interceptors?

Rear Adm. Quigley: No, we do not. Now, that is the Congressional Budget Office estimate that they put out yesterday, I think, or Tuesday. And we can't take issue with that, because that's simply not something that we have costed out. We have gone only so far as phase one costs, and that's the system I just described to Jamie. But -- I can't take issue with their figures because it's not work that we have done.

Tony?

Q: In the interest of clarity to public debate on this thing, you should, if you can, take that $36 billion and cost it up to 2015 -- that's what CBO did -- so there'd be apples and apples there, in terms of -- you guys are saying through 2015 it's going to cost X, CBO says Y. That would really be apples and apples, because they did cost out the lower-tiered system, this $36.2 billion, but they stopped at 2015. Yours goes to 2026.

Rear Adm. Quigley: Tony, I'll tell you what. We're going to probably do cost estimates that we find most useful for our own internal use and for describing the program to the appropriate oversight committees on the Hill.

You can slice this six ways from Sunday; I don't know if we'll ever be able to put a side-by-side and come up with some sort of a reasonable comparison. I don't know if that's meaningful.

You might ask the Program Office if they have those sorts of figures that would allow a side-by-side right down the line sort of a comparison. I'm just not sure that they're going to be there.

Chris?

Q: Yes, in the discussion with the Russians, was there any talk of you sharing early warning data or hardware or something like that?

Rear Adm. Quigley: Not that I'm aware of. But again, I'm not going to get into a description of the exchange -- in any detail, of the exchange within the tank yesterday afternoon.

Q: New subject?

Rear Adm. Quigley: Jamie?

Q: How helpful would you say the comments of Senator Jesse Helms were in -- (scattered laughter) -- in advancing the cause of arms control?

Rear Adm. Quigley: I would say that Senator Helms is certainly entitled to his opinion. His views on that are well known here in the Department of Defense. There has much -- there has been much said, pro and con, with differing views on a national missile defense system, on the ABM Treaty. This is all part of the give-and-take of American politics and American democracy. We're well aware of those.

Q: I'm not talking about voicing his well known opposition. He's now vowed to block any arms control agreement negotiated by this administration, regardless, apparently, of what the agreement is.

Rear Adm. Quigley: Well, I don't know how -- what to give you that would be responsive to your question.

Q: Well, if that's of any help when you're trying to negotiate a new agreement with the --

Rear Adm. Quigley: Well, I think he's made his position clear. (Laughter.)

Bill?

Q: But I guess just to follow Jamie, to ask if, say, you know, 10 months to a year, which Helms says it should be something that is handled by the new Congress after the election, would that kind of a time lag be dangerous, unhelpful to U.S. policy?

Rear Adm. Quigley: Well, whatever proposals anyone would put on the table are all going to be a part of the very healthy national debate that goes into this question in the months to come.

Q: Thank you.

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)