From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: DoD News 11/17 News Briefing
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:11 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                    November 1992            <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                                              <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               1   2   3   4   5   6   7       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS       8   9  10  11  12  13  14       <<>>
  <<>>                                  15  16  17  18  19  20  21       <<>>
  <<>>   TUESDAY, NOV. 17, 1992         22  23  24  25  26  27  28       <<>>
  <<>>                                  29  30                           <<>>
  <<>>    Distribution courtesy of Air Force Reserve Public Affairs      <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>



DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, November 17, 1992 - Noon
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Williams:  Good afternoon.  

     We have with us today, in the continuing sequence of people playing hooky
from The American University, five journalism students enrolled in the graduate
program there.  We welcome them to the Pentagon.

     At 2:00 o'clock this afternoon in the Pentagon Auditorium, which is
5A1070, Secretary Cheney will announce the winners of the 1992 Department of
Defense Design Awards.  This program recognizes those Defense organizations and
their private sector architect and engineer supporters who have succeeded in
attaining quality of design in DoD construction projects.  You're all invited
to attend the award ceremony.  There will be a Blue Top news release later that
lists the winners.

     Secretary Cheney will be leaving Washington this afternoon, making stops
around the country.  He's going to San Diego, he's making a speech there.
He'll go on to Nevada and then Wyoming.

     On Thursday, the Secretary will visit Nellis Air Force Base, beginning at
noon Pacific time.  Segments of his visit will be open to photo coverage.
After the tour, the Secretary will stop and answer questions from reporters at
about 1:45 p.m. at the Thunderbirds hangar on Nellis Air Force Base.  If you're
interested, the contact is Lieutenant Colonel Jan Dolby, (702) 652-2750.

     Secretary Cheney will address the 10th Annual Heritage Foundation Public
Forum on Friday, November 20th, 12:45 p.m. Mountain time in at the Casper
Holiday Inn and Convention Center, 123 West E Street in Casper.  The contact is
Bill Shilling, (307) 577-8000.

     The Secretary of the Army, Michael Stone, and the Chief of Staff of the
Army, Gordon Sullivan, will sign a document called the U.S. Army Environmental
Strategy Into the 21st Century.  That will be at a ceremony at 2:00 o'clock in
the afternoon on November 19th, that's this Thursday, in the courtyard of the
Pentagon, so dress warmly.  The Army Environmental Strategy represents over a
year's worth of effort from the entire Army community.  The strategy lays out a
road map that will guide the Army through the remainder of the '90s and clearly
define the goals, objectives, and plans that will carry the Army into the 21st
Century.  The Secretary of the Army and the Chief will be available for your
questions immediately after the signing ceremony in the courtyard.

     Senior officials of the Army and the Army Corps of Engineers will present
a briefing for you all and answer questions this Thursday at 11:30 in the
morning over at the Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters at 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, NW, right over by Union Station, on plans to reorganize and streamline
the Army Corps of Engineers.  The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, Nancy Dorn, and the Commanding General of the Corps of Engineers and
Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Arthur Williams, will talk about the
need for reorganization, the major core elements to be closed or realigned,
strength reductions, estimated cost savings, and the benefits derived from
reorganization.  They will both be available to answer your questions after the
briefing.

     For additional information on the briefing, the public affairs office at
the Army Corps of Engineers is (202) 272-0011.  You may find a familiar voice
on the phone, because that's where Miguel Monteverde went after he ran our DDI
office.

     Q:  Why can't they do it over here Pete, why over there?
     A:  I don't know why.  I guess part of their press corps is not only
military writers such as yourselves, but also people who are interested from
the Interior and Agriculture Departments.  So they decided to do it over there.

     This is nothing new, because if you'll recall during the original base
closing proposal, the Army Corps at that time was going to send to Congress its
own reorganization plan, and Congress said because of the multi-committee
jurisdiction that this is of interest not only to the Armed Services Committee,
but also to the Energy and Interior and Agriculture Committees.  They wanted
the Corps to go back and do this again.  So that's basically what the Corps'
done, and they're ready to announce that on this Thursday.

     A couple of other announcements here.  General Powell, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, will speak at the Dedication Day Observance of the 129th
Anniversary of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  That will be at 10:00
a.m. this Thursday, November 19th, at the Rostrum in the Gettysburg National
Cemetery in Pennsylvania.  The event is sponsored by the Lincoln Fellowship of
Pennsylvania, in association with Gettysburg National Military Park, and
General Powell will be available to answer questions after the speech at
Weidensall Hall at Gettysburg College after the ceremony.  There are several
contacts here, but I'll just give you the one.  Joan Asboth of the Chairman's
public affairs office here in the Pentagon at (703) 697-4272.

     Moving on, the remains of one American serviceman who had previously been
listed as missing in Southeast Asia have now been identified.  These human
remains were repatriated by the Vietnamese on June 1, 1992, as a result of the
17th round of joint field activities in Vietnam.  The serviceman they've
resulted in accounting for is Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Joseph F. Trujillo.
Gunnery Sergeant Trujillo was lost in Vietnam on September 13, 1966.  He was
born July 29, 1946.  His home of record is Deming Luna, New Mexico.  The
serviceman's remains will depart Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii and travel to
Travis Air Force Base, California, for the final journey home this Thursday.

     The government welcomes and appreciates the unilateral action of the
Vietnamese government that resulted in accounting for this American serviceman.
We hope that unilateral repatriations will increase in the near future.  The
most important measure by which to judge the success of U.S./Vietnamese
cooperation on the POW/MIA issue is in obtaining final answers for the families
of unaccounted for Americans in Southeast Asia.

     Since you mentioned it, a couple of other things I want to talk about.
First of all is this matter of the blankets.  Let me just run through
everything that I have about this, and say at the outset that I can tell you
what we've learned about the problem.  I can't tell you what we're going to do
about it yet, because we haven't decided.

     The problem goes back to the mid '40s, when the military treated its wool
cloth with DDT, known in better journals everywhere as
dichloro-diphenyl-tricloro-ethane.  DDT was in common use at the time, and the
military treated wool with it to protect the material from moths and other
insects.  The wool itself was then used to make cold weather uniforms.  Then
the manufacturer purchase or application of DDT was banned by the Environmental
Protection Agency in 1972, so the military stopped treating wool with DDT.
However, the ban applied to moth-proofing the cloth, not to the use of the
cloth, so there was no specific prohibition on the use of the wool that had
already been treated.  In fact, the military continued to use this cloth to
make uniforms.

     The Department stopped making all wool uniforms from this wool material in
1982.  The reason that was done, the reason they stopped using the wool to make
uniforms, I am told, is not directly related to the DDT problem, but simply to
the fact that the military in 1982 shifted to a wool/synthetic blend to make
its cold weather uniforms.  We don't make all wool uniforms any more.  We
stopped doing that in 1982.

     Also in 1982, the Army's Environmental Hygiene Agency did a study of the
DDT treated wool material, and concluded that wearing uniforms made of the wool
presented only a minimal health risk.  The study was done, by the way, after
some concerns were voiced by workers at the Defense Personnel Support Center in
Philadelphia who were handling the cloth.  They asked about the safety of it.
Army did a study and said the health risks to wearing the uniforms were only
minimal.

     After the Department stopped making uniforms out of wool, they had a lot
of wool left, so in 1987 the Department began to make disaster relief blankets
from the excess wool.  Since the wool was declared excess, the Department has
been making the wool into blankets and has been donating the blankets for use
in shelters for the homeless, and for use in other humanitarian missions.  The
best estimate is that the Department of Defense has donated about 1.5 million
treated blankets both in the United States and overseas.

     Then in 1992, earlier this year, workers employed under the Federal Prison
Industries Program at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, again raised an objection.  I
shouldn't say again, but they raised an objection for the second time -- the
first was in '82, this was '92, the first for that group, though, after they
read the labels on the wool that said it had been treated with DDT.  They asked
whether it was safe to use.

     The same Army Hygiene Office did another study and the results of this
second study detected a slightly higher health risk than the 1982 study.  In
June of this year, DoD stopped making blankets from the treated wool, and has
since stopped further distribution of either blankets or the excess, all wool
uniforms that have been hanging around in the inventory.  We don't give them to
the active duty force, but some reserve units, for example, asked for these all
wool uniforms.

     The Defense Logistics Agency has asked the EPA to confirm the Army
results, and assess whether there is, in fact, a health risk from wearing the
uniforms made of all wool, or from using the all wool blanket.  There has been
no decision made on what to do with the remaining wool in stock.  There is
still some bulk wool in stock that nothing's been made of yet.  No decision on
what to do with that.  No decision on whether to release any of the blankets or
old wool uniforms.

     If servicemembers have all wool uniforms that were made before 1982, I am
told that the best advice is that they should have them dry cleaned, in case
they haven't been dry cleaned since 1982, because it is said that the process
of dry cleaning can remove about three-fourths of the DDT that's in the cloth.
Apparently you can't get it all out, and part of the EPA's problem here is
trying to decide how much of a health risk it is because the DDT, as was
explained to me, binds to the cloth, so it doesn't come out when you dry clean
it, it certainly doesn't come out when you wash it.  Why would anyone wash a
wool uniform anyway, but apparently it binds to the cloth.  So the issue is if
you can't get it out in dry cleaning, is it a health risk?  Does it come out in
some other way if you wear the uniform?  If you've seen one of these all wool
uniforms, it would be difficult to anyone to imagine wearing it directly next
to the skin.  That's another thing they have to look at.

     But what about the blankets?  They have to look at what the risks are to
using the blankets.  Presumably you use the blanket when you've got some
clothes on.

     There is, however, one way to tell whether you have a blanket that's been
made of material other than the all wool material.  Blankets that we've been
making of a blend are stamped U.S.  So if you have a blanket that's stamped
U.S., it's undoubtedly okay and doesn't have any DDT in it.

     The final thing I would say on this before taking your questions, is that
DLA's Defense Personnel Support Center out in Philadelphia has a toll free
telephone number to answer questions from anybody -- servicemembers,
reservists, people who have received these blankets -- that have questions
about the material.  Let me give you the toll-free number.  1-800-888-3338.

     Q:  Is that number available 9:00 to 5:00?
     A:  I assume so, yes, 9:00 to 5:00 East Coast time.

     Q:  Is there any attempt to notify other countries that blankets are
distributed around the world, to let them know about this?
     A:  I think most countries know whether they've received blankets from the
United States to start with, A.  B, no, not yet because we have to decide, the
DLA and the EPA are going to have to decide how much of a health risk this is.
I don't think any decision has been made on that yet, but I think most nations
know whether they've received blankets from the United States.  I'm told that
none of these blankets, by the way, were distributed to the victims who needed
relief after Hurricane Andrew in Florida.

     Q:  You say there were about 1.5 million blankets?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  Did you give a number for how many uniforms might have been made out
of this?
     A:  I've not had that number.  Let me take the question, if we know how
many wool uniforms we made from treated cloth, treated wool.

     Q:  You say they mostly went out to the reserves?
     A:  They went to the active duty force until 1982 when we stopped making
all wool uniforms and we switched to a wool synthetic blend.  But the fact of
the matter is we had a lot of uniforms made up that hadn't been given out, and
sometimes the Reserves or Guard units ask for these uniforms and they've been
drawing down the stock.

     Q:  Do you know how much are in the stockpile?
     A:  How many uniforms?

     Q:  You said there are remaining stockpiles, and you don't know what's
going to be done with them.  Do you know how large those stockpiles are?
     A:  I'll find out.  I guess there are sort of three questions.  Let me add
one, because I asked this earlier and we need to still look at it.  I'm told
there's about 60,000 yards of the treated wool still left.  How many blankets
would that make?  That will give us some idea of what the size is of the
remaining stock that hasn't been made into anything.  Then how many blankets
have been made out of the treated wool that's still in stock, and how many
uniforms.

     Q:  A couple more questions you can add.  Are these blankets olive drab?
Are they dark greenish brown?
     A:  Good question.  I think they are, but what color is the wool material?

     Q:  If they are different colors, can you find out what colors?  And also,
this U.S. stamped on it, does that mean a big U.S. or is it a tag with...
     A:  It's not a tag, it's actually stamped, some sort of permanent ink on
the blanket.  I don't know how big it is.  But the point is, if the blanket has
U.S. stamped on it, that means it's a wool synthetic blend and that it was not
made from the treated wool.

     Q:  But none of the other military blankets had U.S. on them?
     A:  None of the treated wool blankets, none of the blankets made from the
DDT treated wool had anything stamped on them.

     Q:  Also, I'm just curious to know, if DDT was said to be dangerous in
'72, why did the military to ahead and produce these uniforms for another ten
years, and...
     A:  I haven't the slightest idea.

     Q:  And what is the definition of minimal?  Does that mean there's only a
slight chance of people dropping dead from wearing these things, or what?
     A:  It's a formula that the EPA has developed, and I think we're waiting
for a definitive answer from the EPA.  EPA has minimal health risk standards,
and then you get into these numbers of if there are 50,000 incidents of cancer
in the general population, what would the use of these blankets add to that
statistical incidence of cancer.  That's sort of the calculus that's used.  But
I can't define it for you because we're still waiting for the EPA to assess the
Army's conclusions.

     Q:  Is the risk higher with children?
     A:  Potentially, because unlike most adults, children have a tendency to
suck on things.  If you suck on the blanket, that clearly raises the risk than
if it's just next to your skin.  So that's one concern.

     Q:  What is the nature of the danger?  Is it cancer or...
     A:  Yes.  DDT was banned in 1972 by the EPA because it's a carcinogen.

     Q:  Is there an average life cycle for these blankets with normal use?  In
other words, blankets issued in '72 or '82, would they have fallen apart by
now?
     A:  I don't know.  It depends on how you use it.  I've never heard of an
average life cycle.  They're probably, unfortunately, like the uniform itself,
relatively indestructable.  Although, let me just emphasize here, this is not a
blanket like a big Hudson Bay blanket.  It's not a big heavy, wool blanket. 

     Q:  It's a bunk-sized blanket.
     A:  I'm talking about the weight of the material, not of the dimensions of
the blanket.  Because it's the same material that was used to make a uniform.
It's not doubled up or stitched together or pressed in plies or anything like
that.  It's just a piece of the material.  Instead of cutting it into a pair of
pants, you make it into a blanket, so it's not a heavy material.

     Q:  Have the uniforms or the blankets been under the Foreign Military
Sales Program, been distributed or sold to other nations' military?
     A:  Not that I, I'm unaware of any blankets in the FMS program, but we can
ask.  Have we sold any of these things in FMS, either blankets or uniforms.

     Q:  Would these, when they were uniforms, fall under the category of items
someone might retain after they leave military service?  Could these things be
sitting in people's closets or...
     A:  Potentially.

     Q:  What should they do?  Rather than go dry clean them, should they turn
them in or are you...
     A:  The safest thing to do, I guess, is not to use them.  Don't wear your
old wool uniform, and if you've got an old wool Army blanket that is not
stamped U.S. on it, don't use it.  I think that's undoubtedly, the safest thing
to do.  Question:  if you do decide to wear it, I'm not an authority on the
subject, but it seems to me from what I've heard if you wear your uniform once
to the always hilarious high school reunion, or whatever reason you'd want to
wear your old wool uniform, I don't think you're going to be vastly increasing
your health risk.  But on the other hand, I wouldn't give that wool blanket to
your seven year old to drag around the house.

     Q:  Why are you just telling people this now?  Was anything said in 1982
about it?
     A:  Not that I know of.   I'm unaware of anything that was said in '82.
The issue arose again, as I say, in '92 because of the concerns of the people
who were handling the material at Fort Leavenworth where some of this wool was
made into blankets.  And just within the last couple of weeks, the Defense
Logistics Agency and the Personnel Support Center in Philadelphia, have been
assessing the latest Army results, and they've asked the EPA to go look at it.
As DLA and here, the office in the Pentagon that oversees the Defense Logistics
Agency, the Assistant Secretary for Production and Logistics have been aware of
this.  They've been trying to decide what to do.  They have to make a
recommendation to Mr. Atwood on what we should do with the remaining bulk
material, blankets, and uniforms, and some of these other questions that you
have raised.  No decision has been made on them yet.  But there was a news
report last night about the problem, and there have been some questions since
then.

     Q:  Is there any dollar figure associated with this blanket/uniform
recall?
     A:  Well, what recall, number one?  I don't think they've decided to do
that yet.  You've got a lot of options here.  What do you want to do?  Do you
want to recall the blankets?  There isn't a lot of cost to that.  Do you want
to have a swap?  Do you say to anybody, if you've got a blanket that doesn't
say U.S. we'll trade you for one that does?  There's clearly some cost
associated with that.  There's no cost associated with what to do until they
decide what to do, and then they'll have to figure out.  Based on the cost,
that may prohibit some options.

     Q:  Whose decision will it be?
     A:  It will probably be, ultimately, Colin McMillan who is the Assistant
Secretary for Production and Logistics.  But I'm sure he'll want to confer with
Don Yockey, the acquisition people, and also Mr. Atwood.

     Q:  This is just Army uniforms and blankets, not Navy, Marine Corps, Air
Force?
     A:  No, it's any all wool uniform, I think, not necessarily just Army.

     Q:  What is the United States going to do about the vote in the UN last
night to try to put some teeth in the naval embargo, or the embargo against
Serbia?  Is the United States going to unilaterally use its ships there, or
only in conjunction with a small UN flotilla?  And what is the ship situation
in the area?
     A:  In terms of what we're going to do, I don't imagine at this point that
the United States contemplates any unilateral actions.  Anything we do would
probably be in an alliance context.  But let me go through a little bit what
the UN did.  The UN passed a resolution yesterday that prohibits the
trans-shipment through Serbia and Montenegro of crude oil, petroleum products,
coal, energy-related equipment, iron, steel, other metals, chemicals, rubber,
tires, vehicles, aircraft, and motors, unless these shipments are specifically
authorized by the UN sanctions committee.  The resolution also calls on member
states, acting on their own or through alliances, to take the necessary actions
to stop ships and inspect their cargo to ensure that none of the prohibited
items are shipped into Serbia and Montenegro.  

     What the U.S. will do is consult with NATO and other Security Council
allies to decide how best to enforce this latest UN resolution.  NATO's North
Atlantic Council meets tomorrow, and the issue will be discussed there.  If
NATO were to elect to participate, then it would be up to NATO's military
committee to plan how exactly to perform the stop and search operation.  It
would most likely be similar to the procedure that is still being used in the
Gulf, to intercept shipments into and out of Iraq under the separate UN
resolutions that govern trade with Iraq.

     The U.S. has been part of NATO's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean since
it began operations in the Adriatic in support of the earlier UN resolutions
that called only for monitoring shipping traffic.  The WEU has also played a
role in the monitoring mission, and both NATO and the WEU have ships in the
area right now. 

     In terms of a rundown of ship locations, I should note, first of all, that
the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean was activated April 30th of '92 for this
mission.  In fact, it succeeded the NATO On-Call Force Mediterranean which had
been operating in the area for over 20 years.  The U.S. ship that's committed
to the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean right now is the Halyburton.  It's a
Perry Class guided missile frigate, has a crew of 200, armed with the standard
missile with MK-46 torpedoes and 76mm gun.  The other NATO ships, there are six
other NATO ships.  They're also frigates.  So the Standing Naval Force
Mediterranean has seven ships.  One of them is U.S.  The other six countries
are Italy, Germany, the UK, Turkey, Greece, and the Netherlands.   Three of the
NATO ships are currently in the Adriatic, that includes the Halyburton.  The
other four are in other areas of the Mediterranean.

     The WEU operation, they are also participating in the monitoring mission.
The WEU ships consist of one Italian, one Spanish, and one French vessel, all
frigates, two of the three of which are now in the Adriatic.

     In terms of other ships in the Adriatic, the amphibious assault ship Guam
and the cruiser Wainwright are now in the Adriatic.  They are supplying the
surveillance and standby search and rescue capability that we've also had there
since the operation started to fly humanitarian relief missions into Sarajevo.

     Q:  But I believe you said I don't see anything we would do which wouldn't
be in the alliance context.  Do you leave open the possibility that the United
States might unilaterally use its...
     A:  I can't foreclose any options right now, because I don't think we've
really made a decision how to do this.  The next step is for us to consult with
our NATO allies, and we'll start that tomorrow with the NAC meeting.  That will
be the regular North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels.

     Sometimes this NATO terminology gets a little confusing.  The term NAC is
sometimes used to describe meetings by all the foreign ministers, like when the
Secretary of State goes over.  But it's also used to describe the regular
meeting of NATO that involves the permanent representatives -- in this case the
U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Reggie Bartholomew.

     Q:  The United States certainly has been thinking about this for quite
some time.  Is there a feeling in the Pentagon about how effective this can be,
given the fact that this, apparently, would it not involve river traffic as
well as... 
     A:  It does involve river traffic.  The other thing that the UN did last
night was to commend the effort of those riparian states, I'm quoting out of
the resolution, "which are acting to ensure compliance with resolutions with
respect to shipments on the Danube.  The resolution reaffirms the
responsibility of riparian states to take necessary measures to ensure that
shipping on the Danube is also in accordance with these resolutions."
Riparian, obviously meaning along the river.

     Q:  From a military point of view, how is such an embargo possibly carried
out?
     A:  The same way probably...I'm speculating here, but I'm assuming it
would be the same kind of procedure that we used in the Gulf to intercept
shipping there.  You stop the ship, you, if necessary, board the ship if you
think it might be laden, you inspect the cargo and check it against the
manifest.  These procedures are all things for, it's not for me to define here
standing in the splendid isolation of the briefing room, it's for the NATO
folks to work out and the other allies, WEU may have an involvement as well.
But that's certainly, I would think, the most likely way.

     Q:  Just a clarification from your exposition of the second part of it,
the Danube, that did not include authorization for member states to establish
the embargo in the Danube, just the riparian states?
     A:  Well, the actual excerpt from the resolution says commends the efforts
of those riparian states, reaffirms the responsibility of riparian states to
take necessary measures including such measures commensurate with the specific
circumstances as may be necessary to halt shipping in order to inspect and
verify the cargoes.

     I guess your question is, is the Danube part limited only to the riparian
states?  It would appear to be from this language, but let me just check that.
It's a good question.  I don't know the answer.

     Q:  Speaking of splendid isolation, the term you used, you said that this
will probably be an effort with the allies.  The effort involving Iraq now is
essentially a coalition effort, but isn't it true that U.S. ships are the only
ships being used in that now?
     A:  No, they're not the only ships being used in there.  There are other
ships that are in the area right now.  It changes from day to day or from week
to week.  There's a Russian ship in there right now, for example, in the
Persian Gulf.  I think there are still other European countries that have ships
in there.  Right now, at this point, it's predominantly U.S. ships, but at its
height during the war, there were many nations taking part.

     Q:  What position does the United States intend to take at the NATO
meeting tomorrow?  Do we, in fact, want to become involved in actual, physical
interdiction of ships that may be carrying excluded cargo?
     A:  I don't want to preclude the options of Ambassador Bartholomew.  But I
would say at this point... well, I think my guidance at this point is to say
that this is something we'll discuss with our allies.

     Q:  Could you say if, however, such a process is put in place, that
additional ships would be required?
     A:  That's a decision that, if, for example, NATO decides to take a role
in this.  Now I don't want to preclude the WEU.  They may also do something.
Other nations may come in.  It could be a coalition effort.  I'm not predicting
that it's going to be a NATO operation.  But if, for example, it were a NATO
operation, then it would be up to the Standing Military Committee to make that
decision.  It may take more ships, it may not.  It  depends on how they do it.

     Q:  Is it possible for the United States to make more ships available,
should NATO decide to...
     A:  It's certainly possible.  If NATO makes the decision, and if the U.S.
decides to participate in the NATO operation, and if the NATO Standing Military
Committee decides that it needs more ships, then I'm sure the U.S. would do its
part.

     Q:  On something like this that will obviously slide over into the next
Administration, is there any formal or informal consultation with any of
President-elect Clinton's folks?
     A:  Well, almost everything the military is doing will slide over into
Governor Clinton's Administration.  The relief operations into Somalia, the
relief operations into Sarajevo, just about everything that we're doing.  I
guess the short answer to your question is, I'm not aware of one.  George Bush
is still the President.  Dick Cheney is still the Secretary of Defense.  Reggie
Bartholomew is still the U.S. Ambassador to NATO.  This is their jobs right
now.

     Q:  Pete, how frequently and how recently have other ships such as the JFK
been off Bosnia during the past six months?
     A:  One of your colleagues was just on the JFK when it was off the coast
of Bosnia here a couple of weeks ago.  The Kennedy and 18 other U.S. 6th Fleet
ships are now operating in the Med, but not in the Adriatic.  But it's been in
and out.  It certainly has the capability to go into the Adriatic.

     Q:  How frequently?
     A:  How frequently does it go in?  It just got there.  I don't know if
it's been in more than once.  But I'm not sure that a carrier, if it's going to
be an intercept operation, that a carrier is the best thing to have to do that.
You need something that's a little more agile and that can come up next to a
ship so you can easily board it.

     Q:  What's been the experience so far, since the ships were introduced
there in April, in terms of monitoring?  What exactly has monitoring meant, and
have there been any incidents?
     A:  Monitoring has basically meant hailing a ship as it goes through,
asking what it's cargo is, and then allowing it to proceed.  There's been no
authority to stop any shipping under the old UN resolution that was passed
before this one here the last day or so.  I don't know how many ships have been
stopped, I can certainly try to take that question if you want me to look into
that.  How many ships have they hailed?  

     Q:  Yes.
     A:  How many ships have been queried under the NATO maritime monitoring
mission?

     Q:  The concern is that these kind of things that were banned by the
resolution yesterday, where are they coming in from?  Is it from the Adriatic,
or is it more from the Danube, or is it more from overland convoys?
     A:  If you look at the UN resolution, there's a long preamble that answers
some of those questions.

     Q:  Can you also check and see what generally the country origins of the
ships have been?
     A:  I don't know if we're going to have that sort of level of detail, but
I'll find out if we do.  The UN would probably have that, Fred.  They have a
press office up in New York.

     Q:  Just a check on the Iranian submarine.  Is it docked in Bandar Abas?
Has it remained there?
     A:  It is in port at Bandar Abas, and as far as I know, it has stayed
there since it got in there late last week.

     Q:  There's a report in the Russian press that the Interior Minister and
Defense Minister in Azerbaijan claim that there are some nuclear warheads still
in the possession of the republic, and have hinted that they might be used in a
civil conflict that's going on there.  Can you tell us anything about that
specifically?
     A:  In Azerbaijan?

     Q:  Yes.
     A:  I think, although I'll check into it, but our feeling has been that
Azerbaijan has said that it sent all of its tactical nuclear weapons to Russia,
and we have no reason to believe that that isn't the case.

     Q:  Well, the Interior Minister and Foreign Minister are quoted in the
Russian press as saying that is not the case.  Do you have any information to
indicate otherwise?
     A:  No, but I'll check it.

     Q:  Can you comment in general about whether the Pentagon is pleased with
the overall progress of the transfer of nuclear warheads from the republics
back to Russia?
     A:  Yes, the Secretary has said so publicly many times, that they said
they would make their best effort to get these back under Russian control --
all the tactical nuclear weapons -- and that we felt they did it faster than we
thought they could with very few problems, and generally the Administration was
very pleased at the very serious work that was done to get those weapons under
Russian control.

     I will check into this report, so let me suspend any comment on it until I
check on it, but as a general matter, there have been these rumors that keep
coming up ever since basically the Soviet Union fell apart last Christmas.  You
keep seeing these reports popping up around the world, that there are loose
nukes somewhere.  Obviously, it would be something that we take very seriously.
It's something we watch very carefully.  But I haven't seen any reports on that
one.

     Q:  On the Ukraine, is there any concern here that because they have not
signed the non-proliferation treaty, because they have not endorsed START I,
and have now been making noises about trying to sell their nuclear warheads,
how does that play into the general cooperation that you just talked about?
     A:  Well, the Ukraine has still said it would sign the START Treaty and
would abide by its provisions.  We note the statements they've made in recent
days, but I think as a general matter we're pleased with the progress in the
Ukraine and with their commitment to follow through on the START Treaty.

     Q:  There were reports that there were up to 700 small Haitian boats being
constructed on the beaches of northern Haiti, and that there may be an exodus
of Haitian people to the United States some time the beginning part of next
year.  What is the Pentagon's analysis of what we've seen?  And can you also
check, if we have aerial photography of those beaches, can you check and see if
you can get some of that aerial photography released?
     A:  If it is, I believe it was not done by the Defense Department.  I
think it was done by the Coast Guard.  You'd have to ask them.  Our analysis of
it, I don't know what our analysis of it would be if we see ships being built.
I imagine our analysis would be that they're building ships.  Maybe I'm missing
the point of your question there.  (Laughter)

     Q:  Maybe they want to come to the inauguation.  (laughter)
     A:  I don't mean to make light of your question, but is there something
I'm...

     Q:  Are these passenger ships or for export, that's the question?
     A:  Well I think the assumption would be that they would be used to get
more of these rickety boats back on the open seas and seek asylum somewhere.
That's got to be the assumption.

     Q:  Pete, there are a couple of reports that the UAE is trying to buy a
spy satellite, a U.S.-made spy satellite.  Are you aware of that?  And how
would the Pentagon look on the U.S. selling a spy satellite to another country?
     A:  I'm forced to retreat into the standard answer on such questions,
which is, and I'm sorry that you've been spared this for awhile, but here it
goes again.  Welcome back to the Defense Department.  The decision on whether
to grant an export license would be made by the Department of Commerce.
Obviously, the Defense Department has a voice in the inter-agency process in
making a decision, but we never make our recommendations public.

     Q:  Would you be concerned?
     A:  I have to stand by that guidance.

     Q:  Would you be concerned if anyone had a spy satellite outside other
than the U.S.?
     A:  Well, I think others do.

     Q:  Has the Pentagon ever approved or voiced its approval for a spy
satellite export in the past?
     A:  Our recommendations to the inter-agency remain confidential, even
after we give them.

     Q:  You said the decision would be made by the Commerce Department.
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  Has the United States received such a request?
     A:  It isn't clear here.  It says an export license would be granted by
the Department of Commerce.  It's cleverly worded so as to avoid answering the
question.  I have to stand by what it says here.  It says an export license for
the sale of that technology would be granted by the Department of Commerce.
DoD participates in an inter-agency process that decides what U.S. policy
should be with respect to the granting of licenses.  We do not talk about the
positions taken by the Department during that process.

     Q:  So you're not saying whether or not you've received a request.
     A:  We're not saying.

     Q:  With Clinton and his team coming to Washington this week, any meetings
in the building planned?
     A:  No, I'm unaware.  I think they've got meetings with the leaders of the
Congress and at the White House, but I'm not aware of any meetings.  They
expressed some interest in using a military plane, but then decided later they
didn't want to use it, so that's the extent of the contact, I think.

     Press:  Thank you.

                                     (END)


-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military