From: bergman@AFPAN.PA.AF.MIL (CMSgt Mike Bergman)
Newsgroups: soc.veterans
Subject: DoD News 10/15/92
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:06:07 GMT
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC


  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                    October 1992             <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                              1   2   3       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               4   5   6   7   8   9  10       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS      11  12  13  14  15  16  17       <<>>
  <<>>                                  18  19  20  21  22  23  24       <<>>
  <<>>   THURSDAY, OCT. 15, 1992        25  26  27  28  29  30  31       <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>               Courtesy of Air Force Reserve                       <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>

  1.  Memo:  U.S. - Philippine Exercise
  2.  Advisory - SecDef NATO Trip
  3.  Memo - U.S. - Japanese Exercise
  4.  Release - Navy to Commission Amphibious Assault Ship Essex
  5.  DoD Press Briefing - Oct 15 1992
  6.  DoD Contracts  

                                                                   No. 457-92
MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS                                October 15, 1992

     A combined cross-training and command post exercise entitled "Balikatan
92" involving soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen of the Philippine Armed
Forces and the U.S. will be conducted in the Republic of the Philippines from
October 19 through October 30.

     Exercise Balikatan 92 is the twelfth such exercise since its inception in
1981.  The first exercise was named "Palah" .  The first reference to Balikatan
was in 1982, when the exercise was named "Balikatan/Tangent Flash".  The name
"Balikatan" has been used exclusively for the last 10 years.  

     The main objective of the exercise is to test the general capabilities of
the Philippine and U.S. forces to conduct joint/combined operations and to
provide cross training opportunities.  The exercise is designed to enhance the
joint capabilities of the two participating countries to respond to mutual
defense efforts and civil-military operations pursuant to the Mutual Defense
Treaty of August 30, 1951.

     Balikatan 92 includes several civic action projects that will benefit
residents of Nueva  Ecija Province in the areas surrounding Fort Magsaysay.
These community relations projects include drilling water wells, construction
of general-purpose concrete slabs, and conducting numerous medical and dental
civic action programs.  A combined RP-U.S. armed forces team will provide free
medical and dental clinics, including distribution of free medicines, in
support of the exercise.

     Media desiring more information and/or to cover the exercise should
contact the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, Public Affairs Office at (808)
477-6376.

                                     -END-



                                                                      No. 293-M
PRESS ADVISORY                                                 October 15, 1992

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney leaves Washington Saturday, October 17,
for Gleneagles, Scotland, where he will attend the NATO Nuclear Planning Group
meeting.  He will then travel to Bonn, Germany, for bilateral meetings with
Germany's Minister of Defense Volker Ruehe and other senior German officials.
While in Germany, he will visit U. S. troops at Bitburg Air Base.  

     Secretary Cheney will then go to Gaeta, Italy, for briefings at the U. S.
Navy's Sixth Fleet headquarters.  Finally, he will visit Rome for bilateral
meetings with Italy's Minister of Defense Salvo Ando and other senior Italian
officials. 

     The Secretary will return to Washington October 26.

                                     -END-


                                                                     No. 458-92

MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS                                October 15, 1992

     A joint/bilateral field exercise involving Japanese Self Defense Forces
and United States forces, called "Keen Edge '93 FTX", will be conducted
November 7-16, 1992.

     Exercise sites include training areas on Hokkaido (ho-KAI-doh) at Eniwa
(EN-ee-wa), Shimamatsu (shee-mah-MAH-tsoo), and Yausubetsu (yah-oo-soo-BAY-
tsoo) and various air bases on Hokkaido and Honshu (HON-shoo).  Approximately
5,000 U.S. and 12,000 Japanese servicemen and women will participate in the
field training exercise (FTX).

     The exercise is directed by Admiral Hajime (HA-jee-may) Sakuma (sah-KOO-
mah), Chairman of the Joint Staff Council, and Lieutenant General Richard E.
Hawley (HAW-lee), Commander of United States Forces, Japan.

     The purpose of the FTX is to increase combat readiness of Japanese and
U.S. forces through training in joint/bilateral air, ground, and sea opera-
tions.  Operations will educate all services on combat capabilities and
limitations of other forces, increase mutual understanding, and implement real
world procedures.

     This FTX differs from the previous six annual Keen Edge command post
exercises in that its focus is the conduct of joint/bilateral field training at
individual and small unit levels.

     Keen Edge '93 FTX is part of a series of U.S./Japanese Self Defense Force
exercises.

                                     -END-




IMMEDIATE RELEASE         OCTOBER 15, 1992          (703) 697-5131-Info.

           NAVY TO COMMISSION AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP ESSEX (LHB-2)

         The Department of the Navy will commission the amphibious assault ship
Essex (LHD-2) at 10:00 am. Saturday, October 17, 1992, at Naval Air Station
       North Island, San Diego, California.  

          Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney will be the ceremony's principal
speaker.  Mrs. Lynne Cheney, wife of the principal speaker, is the ship's
       sponsor.  

          Essex commemorates the service of previous Navy ships with the same
name.  Four U.S. Navy ships have carried the name Essex.  The first Essex,
commissioned in 1799, is most famous for her gallant battle with the British
frigates Phoebe and Cherub in 1814.  The second Essex was an ironclad steamer,
built in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1856.  The ship took part in many engagements
during the Civil War, including the assault on Vicksburg.  The third Essex,
commissioned in Boston in 1876, sailed on the Asiatic Station where she rescued
crew members of the shipwrecked Ranier.  The fourth Essex (CV-9) was commis-
sioned in July 1942.  The ship was a vital part of many victories in the
     Pacific during World War II, including strikes against Okinawa and the
     Japanese mainland.  Essex also took part in three tours to the Far East
       during the Korean War.  Essex was decommissioned in June 1969.  

           Essex is the second Wasp Class amphibious assault ship to be commis-
sioned.  Two others are currently under construction.  Its mission will be to
serve as a primary landing ship for assaults from the sea to defended positions
ashore.  The Essex will use the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), conventional
landing craft and helicopters to move Marine forces ashore.  The Essex is also
     capable of using its AV-8B Harrier VSTOL aircraft and anti-submarine
     helicopters to perform sea control and limited power projection missions.


          The commanding officer of the Essex is Captain Ronald V. Berg of
Petaluma, California.  The ship's company is 1,081 and can carry a Marine force
numbering 1,875.  The ship is 844 feet in length, has a beam of 106 feet and
       will displace 40,500 tons fully loaded.  

                                            -END- 





DoD News Briefing
Thursday, October 15, 1992 - Noon
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Williams:  Good afternoon.  

     First of all, we would like to welcome as our guests some journalists and
government press office representatives from 17 African nations, and one
journalist from Haiti.  Their visit to this country is sponsored by the United
States Information Agency, and is designed to provide an introduction to the
interaction between the American media and government officials.  They arrived
in the United States this past weekend.  They'll visit the State Department and
USIA Headquarters.  They'll also take a three week visit all around the United
States, going to Philadelphia; Springfield, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; and
Orange County, California.  Then they leave the United States on November 7th.
So welcome to the Pentagon, and welcome to our briefing.  I'm delighted to have
you here.

     We also have with us today Mr. Guido Van de Kreeke from the Netherlands.
He is the parliamentary, political, and NATO affairs correspondent for De
Telegraaf newspaper in Amsterdam.  Glad to have you here, sir, as well.

     Also visiting as guests of Reuters are two senior executives of Standard
Broadcast Network of Canada -- Steve Couch and Cal Johnson.  We're delighted to
have you all here.

     A couple of announcements.  First of all, there's a news release available
for you on the fact that the Navy will commission the amphibious assault ship
Essex, the LHD-2.  That commissioning will start at 10:00 in the morning this
Saturday, October 17th, at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego.
Secretary Cheney will be the ceremony's principal speaker.  He will do the
keynote address.  That will actually occur at 10:20 on the schedule, Pacific
time.  Those interested in covering the event should contact the USS Essex
press center at (619) 545-0376.

     Essex is the second Wasp Class amphibious assault ship to be commissioned.
Two others are under construction.  Its mission will be to serve as the primary
landing ship for assaults from the sea to defend positions ashore.  It will use
the landing craft air cushion, the so-called LCAC, conventional landing craft,
and helicopters to move Marine forces ashore.  It's also capable of using AV-8B
Harriers, and anti-submarine helicopters to perform sea control and limited
power projection missions.  The commanding officer of the Essex will be Captain
Ronald V. Berg of Petaluma, California; the ship's company, 1,081; and can
carry a Marine force numbering 1,875.  There are other technical details about
the ship available in the Blue Top.

     One other announcement, before he gets to San Diego, on the way, the
Secretary, tomorrow, will speak at a luncheon in Philadelphia, sponsored by the
Philadelphia World Affairs Council.  That will be held in the ballroom, at the
Hotel Atop the Bellevue at Broad and Walnut Streets in Philadelphia.  The point
of contact is Caren Shiffman at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council, (215)
731-1100.  Just before the speech, a media availability will be held in Room
1208 of The Hotel Atop the Belleview at 11:30 a.m.

     We will have a Memorandum for Correspondents for you today on the fact
that Secretary Cheney will be leaving, he actually gets back from San Diego and
walks across the tarmac and gets on another plane at Andrews and takes off for
the forthcoming Nuclear Planning Group meeting and some bilateral discussions
in Germany and Italy.  He leaves this Saturday, October 17th.  He will attend
the NATO Nuclear Planning Group session in Scotland and will conduct bilateral
meetings then afterwards in Bonn and Rome, with German and Italian Ministers of
Defense and other senior government officials.  He'll also have the opportunity
to visit with U.S. troops at Bitburg Air Force Base in Germany, and to have
briefings at the Navy's Sixth Fleet Headquarters at Gaeta, Italy.

     The NATO folks have been discussing changing the nature of the way these
NATO meetings are held.  As you know, traditionally in the past there have been
four meetings a year -- two Defense Planning Committee meetings and two Nuclear
Planning Group meetings.  They have, in the past, been separate sessions.  One
of the two Nuclear Planning Group meetings has always been held at some place
outside of Brussels.  Last year it was in Taoramina, Italy.  The year before
that it was in Kannanaskis, the year before that it was in Portugal, and so on.
NATO is discussing combining these meetings and having combined Defense
Planning Committee/Nuclear Planning Group meetings.  So it's possible this may
be the last stand-alone Nuclear Planning Group meeting.

     A joint bilateral field exercise involving Japanese Self Defense Forces
and United States forces called Keen Edge '93 FTX will be conducted November
7th through the 16th.  There is a Memorandum for Correspondents available for
you on that.  The exercise sites include training areas on Hokkaido, at Eniwa,
Shimamatsu, and Yausubetsu, and various air bases on Hokkaido and Honshu.
About 5,000 U.S. and 12,000 Japanese servicemen and women will participate in
this field training exercise.

     A combined cross training and command post exercise called Balikatan '92
involving soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen of the Philippine armed forces
and the U.S. ,will be conducted in the Republic of the Philippines from October
19th through October 30th, and there's a Memorandum for Correspondents
available for you on this.  The main objective is to test the general
capabilities of the Philippine and U.S. forces to conduct joint and combined
operations and to provide cross training opportunities.

     The Honorable Rene Garrec, who is President of the Regional Council of
Lower Normandy, will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington on
October 20th at 10:00 a.m. to honor all American servicemembers who fought to
liberate France and Europe during World War II.  There is a press advisory
available for you on this.

     Retired Lieutenant General Claude M. Kicklighter, who is Executive
Director of the 50th Anniversary of World War II Commemorative Committee will
also attend.  For details about the ceremony, you can call Major Dan Schmidt at
the 50th Anniversary Committee at (703) 692-2096, or (703) 692-2111.

That's all the announcements I have.

     Q:  Pete, have you received official word that the Serbs are going to pull
their planes out of Bosnia?  Are you confident they'll do so?
     A:  We have not received official word.  My understanding is that they've
been in contact with the UN people.  They've made a statement that they are
willing to do so.  There is a UNPROFOR observer at Banja Luka to discuss this
with the Serbs.  Obviously, we support the agreement.  We want to see it
implemented immediately -- the London agreement on no flying.  The Serbian
leaders have indicated that there is agreement to remove all Bosnian/Serb
combat aircraft from their base at Banja Luka airfield to airfields in Serbia
and Montenegro, according to a statement made by the Serb leaders.

     Q:  Were they given a final warning that the enforcement of the no-fly
zone would go beyond observers on the ground and entail U.S. and allied
fighters before this...
     A:  I hesitate to speak for the UN, but not that I know of.  I'm not
necessarily the most comprehensive source on what the UN may have told the
Serbs, but I am unaware of any such message.  However I am told, and again,
this is second or third hand through the UN, that they are interested in moving
these planes because of the no-fly resolution.  There have been no flights by
Serbian aircraft today.  There were none on Wednesday.  There were two
reconnaissance flights on Tuesday.  There were no flights on Monday or Sunday
-- working backwards.  Working forwards saying the same thing, remember, the
no-fly zone was enacted on Friday the 9th.  There were about half a dozen
flights on Friday.  There were, as has been previously reported, a couple of
dozen flights on Saturday, no flights on Sunday, no flights on Monday, two
reconnaissance flights on Tuesday, no flights yesterday.  There have been no
flights today.

     Q:  We've asked you a number of times before, can you tell us what kind of
planes you're talking about here?
     A:  We've said before what sort of planes are involved.  The answer is the
same.  There's nothing new to say on that.

     Q:  Reports are just moving over the wires now that the Serbs are backing
out of that deal.
     A:  Again, the UN is the best place to go for this information.

     Q:  Cyrus Vance yesterday warned that there is the possibility of a
horrendous catastrophe looming, given that there isn't enough relief aid moving
into the region.  Is there anything the U.S. is going to do to alleviate that
problem?
     A:  First of all, we're all very concerned about the possibility that the
onset of winter will make it much harder to provide humanitarian relief
supplies at the same time that it makes living conditions more difficult.
You've got not only the shortage of food, but you also have to worry about cold
weather, and that makes everything more complicated.  It also makes it more
complicated to be able to move material either across the roads because of
snow, or to the airport because of difficult landing conditions.  We've said
before that we're aware of the pending crisis and also the seriousness of it.
Yes, we are looking at various ways to expedite humanitarian relief supplies.
We're working with the UN on that, and will continue to do so.  I don't have
any announcements for you today on what might be done, but we've been exploring
land convoys, as you know, and been doing land convoys.  But it would all be
within the overall approach we've used, which is to support the UN.

     Q:  Can you give us an update on relief flights?
     A:  There were three flights scheduled for today into Sarajevo.  Initial
reports from EUCOM, from the European Command, indicate that two of the flights
have been diverted to Split because of weather problems.  I assume they're
still trying on the third one.  They have gotten the tactical air navigation
system up and operating in Sarajevo.  What that means is they've got it
installed and they have it turned on, but they still have to go through one
more step before it's dependable.  It has to be certified, or sort of
calibrated before they can dependably use it to make instrument landings.  But
once that is certified, that will significantly aid air crews trying to land in
poor weather conditions.  As you recall, the navigation aids that were at
Sarajevo were destroyed by shelling, and that required pilots to use visual
flight rules for landing.  We said before that we'd delivered over 12 tons of
navigation equipment to Sarajevo since the flights started up again on October
3rd.  That system is turned on, and it just needs to be certified.

     Since the flights began in July, U.S. aircraft have landed 198 times in
Sarajevo; totally delivered to Sarajevo, Zagreb and Split, 2,957 tons of food,
medical supplies, and equipment.  We resumed the flights, you'll recall, after
the Italian plane was shot down, we resumed the flights on October 3rd, and
then on October 11th the UN asked us to fly three sorties a day and that's
where we are right now, trying to do three a day.  We tried to do two of them
today and they've been turned around because of weather.

     Q:  Has anyone looked at the question of what scale of aid it would take
to present the kind of disaster that Vance is talking about?
     A:  The general need for tonnage into Sarajevo is something that we know.
We have a pretty good idea how much, we can get that figure for you. I don't
have it right here.  How many tons a day Sarajevo needs, I think we have a
fairly good idea of that.

     Q:  Through the winter?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  Could we also get what is being delivered and what is needed?
     A:  Sure, we can do that.

     Q:  Not just by U.S. planes but...
     A:  Yeah.  Those figures are available.  The UN has compiled them.  We'll
just have to get them from them -- what's the daily requirement for food into
Sarajevo, and what is being delivered right now.

     Q:  Could you update us on the Russian sub headed for Iran, and whether
it's still off Tunisia or...
     A:  I don't think it's moved any.  One is still at Riga, Latvia, and the
other is still in the Gulf of Hammamet off Tunisia in the Mediterranean, so it
hasn't really changed.

     Q:  You don't have any idea why it's sitting there on the surface?
     A:  I don't.  Wait a minute, it's been on the surface, I think, since it
came through the English Channel.  It's been on the surface and had a ship
escort from time to the time.  The fact that it's surfaced isn't anything new.
The fact that it's just sitting there is new.  I can't tell you why it isn't
moving.

     Q:  Has there been any communication between Washington and Moscow on
this?
     A:  Nothing recent, no.  Nothing since Secretary Eagleberger discussed it
with Kozarev.

     Q:  Do you have any comment on the committee hearing today on POW/MIA
Affairs, the pictures that they're releasing showing these letters that
supposedly indicate distress signals from missing American servicemen?
     A:  Duane Andrews, who is our Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence, is up there testifying right now
about it, so I'll defer to him.  He's got the best statement about it.  We've
said before that we can't necessarily know everything there is to know about
this picture, but he'll give you the best information that we have about it.

     Q:  Anything on the no-fly zone in Iraq?  
     A:  There's been no violation of the no-fly zones in Iraq.  No change in
the situation.  We continue to fly sorties.  Since our last briefing we flew
117 sorties:  66 on Tuesday, 51 on Wednesday.  The total to date, as of
yesterday evening, was about 4700 U.S. only sorties.  I don't have the numbers
for the coalition aircraft.  But otherwise the situation in Southern Watch
hasn't really changed.

     Q:  The situation on the ground in southern Iraq?
     A:  There's been no change in that, either.

     Q:  Periodic fighting has...
     A:  Periodic fighting, periodic counter-insurgency operations.  The Iraqi
military continues to attempt to build the causeways in southern Iraq, and
there's some skirmishing as they attempt to finish that project.

     Q:  Any indication of any major pullout of Iraqi military forces?
     A:  No, no change in the disposition of Iraqi military in southern Iraq.

     Q:  Can you give me an expectation of what could happen during the
upcoming UN inspection, the big one that's taking place starting on Saturday?
     A:  The UN feels very strongly that the UN should be the agency that
discusses its forthcoming inspections.  There is an inspection coming up.  I
think State has said that it's a ballistic missile inspection.  There have been
periodic ballistic missile inspections since the inspection regime began.  But
the UN very much wants to be in the position of describing what the inspections
are for, and they prefer that we not discuss them, so I'll defer to them.

     Q:  On Somalia, are you going into any more places now?
     A:  No, we're really not.  The number of places that we're going to hasn't
expanded, but we've done quite a few flights.  Since the last briefing on
Tuesday, we've made two flights to Wajir in Kenya with about 22 metric tons of
food.  There's one for Wajir programmed for today -- that's in Kenya.  Into
Somalia since the last briefing on Tuesday we've made 27 flights to Baidoa and
delivered about 350 metric tons of food; four flights to Belet Huen with about
39 metric tons of food; and one flight to Oddur with about ten metric tons of
food.  We're programming 14 flights to Baidoa today, four to Oddur, and two to
Belet Huen.  That brings the grand total of food delivered by the U.S. through
last night to about 8,000 metric tons on 671 flights.  That's the total to both
countries.  To Somalia, about 6,000 metric tons, and about 2,000 to Kenya.

     We are trying to identify and coordinate for other landing sites in
Somalia.  One of the problems is that you're getting into the rainy season in
Somalia.  Some of these landing strips are not in the best of shape to start
with.  Some of them are hardened dirt landing strips.  That's one of the
reasons why we elected to use the C-130s rather than the larger C-140s, because
they're more versatile, or more forgiving in the kind of runway that they can
land on.  You get into the rainy season, and that sometimes degrades the
condition of the runways, and repeated landings on them when they're wet and
muddy degrades them even further.  We've been able to still fly into Baidoa and
Belet Huen and Oddur, but we look for alternative sites for two reasons.  One
is to be able to distribute the food to additional locations; and secondly, to
be able to have other locations in the event that these runways continue to
deteriorate to the point that we can't use them.

     Q:  I had another Iraq question.  I wonder if it's possible for you to go
back and review what, if anything, was done by the forces in the Gulf at the
time of the capture of Chad Hall last week?  Did they scramble planes, did they
have any surveillance missions trying to find him on the ground?
     A:  I can't speak for other nations.  As far as I know, the U.S. military
had no reaction.  We didn't really make any reaction in response to it.

     Q:  You didn't do any reconnaissance flights?
     A:  Not that I'm aware of.  I mean, we obviously have reconnaissance
flights in Southern Watch already.  But you're saying did we make any
reconnaissance flights over Baghdad?

     Q:  No, over the southern part of Iraq.
     A:  Oh, I see.  We were doing reconnaissance flights anyway, but let me
take the question of whether we did anything specific, whether we tasked our
recon flights specifically to look for him.  I'll see if I can get the answer
to that question.

     Q:  Is Mr. Cheney going to respond to the letter sent to him by a group of
congressmen who are protesting the sale of Allison transmissions to the German
company?
     A:  I've seen the press report, was it in your publication?  We haven't
gotten the letter yet.  We checked this morning.  When we get it, we'll take a
look at it and I'll let you know what we say, but we haven't seen the letter
yet.

     Q:  On this U.S./Japanese joint training exercise, these are not annual
exercises.  When is the last time they had one this big?
     A:  We've done exercises...I don't know how often they're done.  But
remember there are several different regimes of exercises that we do with the
Japanese.  We do Navy exercises which are fairly common, we do Air Force/Air
Force exercises, and we've done some land training exercises with the Japanese.
This is the first exercise that we know of that involves all four U.S. military
departments -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines -- and all three of the Japanese
Self Defense Forces -- air, sea, and land.  So in that sense, it's unique.  But
we've done a whole different series of exercises in the past.  In fact this
Keen Edge series we've done before.  In the past, it's been a command post
exercise.  This time it's a field training exercise.  But we can check if you
need to know when the last U.S. military exercise was with Japan.  But bear in
mind, there are lots of them under different headings.

     Q:  Why is this being held, a large exercise like this?  Is this a warning
to North Korea?
     A:  Not at all.  It's just to increase the combat readiness of Japanese
and U.S. forces through training and joint bilateral air, ground, and sea
operations; educate all the services on combat capabilities and limitations of
other forces; increase mutual understanding; implement real world procedures.
It isn't a substantial increase in the kind of exercises that we do.  We have
done exercises with some of our military departments and some of their Japanese
Self Defense Forces.  We do them in all different kinds of ways.

     Q:  Unless you covered the territory before I got here, can you discuss a
little bit what Mr. Cheney will be doing on his trip next week and what topics
he'd be discussing?  It seems a rather lengthy trip.
     A:  I did go through in general what he's going to be doing.  I'd be happy
to get together with you...

     Q:  He's got bilateral talks and...
     A:  The NATO is a two-day Nuclear Planning Group meeting.  They'll discuss
such things as the...they'll give a status report, I'm sure, on the
implementation of the President's directive that we would withdraw all of our
battlefield tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.  They'll have final reports
on that.  They'll discuss changing NATO procedures that are required as we
change the NATO strategic concept.  The usual agenda that you expect from a
Nuclear Planning Group meeting.  I'm hesitating here only because I just read
the draft communique but it's classified, and I'm trying to remember which
parts of it are unclassified.  

     After, that he goes to Bonn for bilateral meetings with Volker Ruehe, who
is the German Minister of Defense.  He may be meeting with the German Foreign
Minister in some other meetings that are still tentative at this point.  I
don't have any specifics here for you on what specific issues, I'm sure they'll
want to talk about the Franco/German corps, and they'll want to talk about the
security situation in Europe, and I'm sure they'll want to talk about the
situation in Yugoslavia.

     Then he'll go on to the Sixth Fleet where he'll talk with Vice Admiral Joe
Lopez who is the Commander of the Sixth Fleet.  I'm sure Admiral Lopez will
bring the Secretary up to date on how the investigation is going of the
accidental firing from the Saratoga at the Turkish ship, and other issues in
the Sixth Fleet.  As you know, with the downsizing of the military, we have to
look at a lot of ways to be able to maintain our responsibility to patrol the
sea lanes and do so with fewer ships.  That's something that Admiral Lopez has
been looking at, and I'm sure they'll talk about that.

     Then he will go on to Italy for bilateral discussions with the new Italian
Minister of Defense.  It will be their first bilateral discussions, and
possibly other Italian officials as well.

     Q:  Pete, last week Army Secretary Stone discussed an issue before
Congress regarding troop limits in Europe.  What is Secretary Cheney's view of
the congressional action to limit the number of U.S. forces at 100,000?
     A:  On my desk is a file folder on the budget that's sort of the smaller
of the two enormous piles of crap on my desk, closest to the blotter.  Would
you bring that in?  What I want to say is that Secretary Cheney's view is the
same as the President's, Rick.  That is that congressional attempts to limit
the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas by specific locales raise a
serious constitutional question.  Secretary Stone was exactly right in pointing
that out in his briefing with you all here last week.  The fact that the
Administration is concerned about that, is not new.  Every time the President
has signed the Defense Authorization Bill in the past he's made that point, and
I'll just cite to you some of the language that the President has used in the
past.

     Congress has the authority in the Constitution to raise armies.  The
Congress can tell us how many people there will be in the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marines.  That's their prerogative.  No question about it.  You get
into an area of sort of fuzzy constitutional questions when the Congress begins
to say exactly how many people can be in which location.  It's been the
Administration's view in the past that we would attempt to conform with those
limitations to the extent that, well basically the extent that we wanted to.

     Well, it isn't in here.  I'm sure that even now my alert staff is
searching elsewhere on my desk for the text of these things.  I think I pulled
it out here Tuesday because I wanted to have it here in case I got asked about
it.

     Q:  While you're looking, it seems to me that whether or not the
Department views the congressional mandate as binding, in the past when
Congress has set a ceiling, you folks have used that very number and worked to
that figure.
     A:  I think what we've always said in the past is that we note the
congressional concern about this, and we will interpret it appropriately as an
expression of congressional concern without yielding.  I mean it's important to
keep making that point.

     For the record, we note that the very alert Bob Hall has found the right
thing.  Thank you.

     Let me note the most recent statement that was in the 1990 statement that
the President issued when he signed the FY91 Defense Authorization Act.  He
says, "Several provisions might be construed to impinge on the President's
authority as Commander-in-Chief, and as the head of the Executive Branch.
Thus, Section 1455 purports to impose a limit on the number of military
personnel stationed in Japan."  Section 406 purports to do the same with
respect to military personnel stationed in Europe.  "I shall construe these
provisions consistent with my authority to deploy military personnel as
necessary to fulfill my responsibilities."  Which is sort of fancy language
meaning thank you for your interest in national defense, I'm the
Commander-in-Chief, I take your point, and we'll act accordingly.

     I'm not standing here and saying that the congressional language is
unconstitutional.  The President has never said that either.  He's just noted
that he is the Commander-in-Chief, he is the guy under the Constitution who
deploys the military force, not the Congress.  They have the power to set the
overall levels.

     Q:  They also control the purse strings.
     A:  Now you've raised an additional question.  This is the Defense
Authorization Bill.  This is not the Defense Appropriation Bill.

     Q:  Nevertheless, they have clout behind the authorization of providing
the funds.  
     A:  Congress has unequivocal power under the Constitution to appropriate
funds.  But we're talking here about the limits that are in the Defense
Authorization Bill, and that's a different subject.

     Q:  But the Secretary pointed out yesterday, for instance, that Congress
had cut money for the NATO infrastructure fund from $220 million to, I believe,
$70 million.  Congress can force you all to cut.
     A:  Understood.  But the NATO infrastructure fund is silent on the issue
of how many U.S. troops should be deployed in Europe.

     Q:  Anyway, are you saying here you plan on fighting this, that you don't
plan on going below...
     A:  No, I don't think so.  I think we'll do as we have in the past.  We'll
note the congressional concern.  The other point is, Congress was going on
record this year as saying what the overall troop strength level ought to be in
FY95.  There are a couple of points to be made here.  First of all, as a former
employee of the Congress, and somebody who used to work for somebody who worked
in the Congress, Congress has clear prerogatives here and clear interests.
They have set an overall number for '95, but have not specified a glide path or
a sort of series of steps of how you get there, and that gives us some
flexibility.  So we can certainly work with, we've got no real substantial
problem, with the legislation that Congress passed this year.  We can work with
it.  They've been pretty good to us.  But Rick did raise the issue of Secretary
Stone's statement that there were constitutional questions here, and there are
constitutional questions.

     I note the President in his 1989 statement in signing the National Defense
Authorization Act for '90 and '91 put it somewhat differently.  He said,
"Several provisions of the bill could be read as limiting the deployment of
military personnel.  I do not believe my discretion to deploy military
personnel may be subject to such a statutory standard."  So he says I will sign
this bill with the understanding that these sections do not constrain my
authority to deploy military personnel as necessary to fulfill my
constitutional responsibilities as President and Commander-in-Chief.  So this
is an old question.  The views that Secretary Stone here said the other day
don't really advance the Administration's position one way or the other.  He's
merely stating what's long been our concern.

     Q:  This issue isn't really forced, Pete, until well into the second Bush
term, is that right?
     A:  It's 1995.  In fact, I'm glad you raised that question, because I
think Congress set the number for 1996.  FY96, not '95.

     Q:  Can you explain what you meant by, "we'll work with it and we're
flexible?"  Are you actually raising the prospect that you are continuing
100,000 in Europe?  The real issue here I think is what number are you
committed to -- 150 or 100?
     A:  As Secretary Stone also accurately said here during his briefing the
other day, 150,000 is the number that's in the base force.  That's the number
that we think ought to be there.

     Q:  What did you mean then by, "we'll work with it, we're flexible?"
     A:  We also have said in announcing the base force that as we got close to
'95, we wouldn't just say okay, we made a decision in 1990 what the base force
ought to be, and by God, when we get to '95, we're going to close our eyes and
hold our breath and get to that level, totally irrespective of changes in the
world.  That's not what we said.  What we said is that when we got to the base
force level we'd take another survey and see if it fits the needs of the world
in 1995.

     Q:  Are you looking right now at the prospect of what you could do with
100,000 in Europe in '95?
     A:  No, we are not.

     Q:  But to move that many people within the space of a year would take
some planning, wouldn't it?  Don't you have to do some kind of preparatory
study in order to shift possibly 50,000 people within a fiscal year?
     A:  The answer to your question is, it would be a hellacious problem to
take 50,000 people out of Europe.  As Secretary Stone walked you through last
week, we're having enough problems just getting the number of people home every
day and all their parakeets and cars and furniture and everything else back to
the United States.  If you ratchet that up and you try to speed up the process,
that really puts people through a lot of turmoil and it's very hard on morale.
Not to mention the fact that it's a huge logistical challenge.  So we hope that
we won't have to do it that way.

     What I'm saying is, and I can summarize here since I sort of rambled on at
great length about this, point one, the language is for FY96.  It was passed in
the year of our Lord 1992, so we've got awhile to try to work with the Congress
on this issue.  Secondly, because of the fact that it sets a number for '96, it
does not set numbers in intervening years.  So we have an enormous amount of
flexibility, and we can proceed with the base force drawdown that we currently
have.  It doesn't require us to speed it up now.  Thirdly, we've said that when
we get to the end of the base force period, we would look at the world and see
if the base force still makes sense or whether it needs further adjustment.  We
certainly will do that.  Finally, Congress has expressed its interest and
desire to have that be the final force structure number for Europe by '96,
but...

     Q:  You mean by the end of '96.
     A:  By the end of '96.  But as the President has said before, there is a
constitutional question about whether Congress can limit the President's
authority as Commander-in-Chief to deploy the force.

     Q:  So what you're saying is, you might yourselves then limit the force to
that number?
     A:  Forget that number.  Let's not get hung up on the number 100,000.
What I am saying is that our policy right now is absolutely, unequivocally,
that we need 150,000 U.S. troops in Europe.  That is unchanged.  However, we
have also said that that's the base force number now.  The base force has a
number of ships, a number of planes, a number of troops, a number of troops in
Europe and so forth, number of active divisions, number of reserve component
divisions, and all that other sort of detail.  We have said that as we get to
the sort of landing point for the base force, when we get to '95, we'll take
another look at the base force and see whether it still makes sense or whether
it needs to be increased or decreased.

     Q:  But not before '95?
     Q:  I apologize here, but are you saying...
     A:  No, I'm happy.  It's my job.

     Q:  And this is mine.  (Laughter)  You don't look at it again until '95?
You said when we get to '95 we'll look at it again.  Are you saying between now
and then, should you win the election and still be here, you're just not ever
going to look at the base force until '95 again?
     A:  Let's try to make it apolitical.  The Joint Staff, all those career
military folks, will continue to look at this question.  What General Powell
has said in his testimony on the base force is that it is the best take on what
the world needs.  You get down to certain minimum capabilities that you want to
maintain.  As we have shifted from a design of the military away from a threat
base sizing of the military to a capabilities based size.  Alright, if you want
to have rapid reaction capability, you've got to have a certain number of
troops.  All those questions apply, including the question of how many forces
you should have in Korea and how many forces you should have in Europe and how
many forces you should have elsewhere in the Pacific.  All those questions will
be looked at again as we get down to the implementing year for the base force.
Will it only be one review?  No.  Because we've got to submit a budget every
year as we get down towards '95 and the base force.

     Q:  So if you decide it should be something less than 150, we could in
fact see that before '95?
     A:  Or something more.  Just to make clear that it's open for discussion,
but we don't have some secret number in the backs of our heads that we just
ain't telling you about.  It's not that at all.  I don't know how you translate
that into several exotic languages.

     Q:  Any comment on the Navy's review of selling Playboy and Penthouse on
naval bases?
     A:  I'm aware that the Navy is making this review.  The Department, as a
matter of fact, is going to have to review the whole issue as well.  So I think
the best way to say it is that the matter is under review in the whole Defense
Department.  There are several issues here.  There are first amendment issues,
there are issues of a commander's ability to and necessity to have broad
responsibility over discipline in his or her units, and there are social issues
as well.  So the Department review is going to have to take all these things
into...

     Q:  Is that a whole list of magazines, or just Playboy?
     A:  That's true of all the materials available for sale at the Army/Air
Force Exchanges.

     Q:  You mean everything for sale.
     A:  I'm saying that the Department's policy, we're not going to look at
each magazine.  The question isn't specific magazines.  Forget that, set that
aside.  The question is should commanders have the ability to restrict the sale
of publications, certain publications, any publications, at Army/Air Force
Exchanges, or on board ship, or anywhere on their unit.  That raises some
pretty significant questions, and we've got to review that whole thing because
it isn't simply a first amendment issue.  There is also a command
responsibility, good order and discipline issue, there are social issues
involved, there are lots of questions that come to bear on this.

     Q:  Who is going to do the review, and how long is it going to take?
     A:  It will probably be our General Counsel in conjunction with our
Assistant Secretary for Force Management and Personnel.  Those are the two that
come to mind immediately, Joe, and I don't know how long it will take.

     Q:  Has it started already?
     A:  It will soon.  If it hasn't started, it's just coming together.

     Q:  Does the military make available to servicemen and women, X-rated
films?
     A: No.  I'm not sure about this, but I think there in fact are definite
proscriptions against even having X-rated material.  (Multiple discussion)  I'm
not an expert, but I was told...  First of all, no, we don't sell it.  The
military doesn't sell it.

     Q:  Right, but I'm talking about providing it on board ships and things
like that.
     A:  Make it available somehow?

     Q:  Yes.
     A:  No.  Not that I'm aware of.  I can't say that in the past some sailor
or airman or something hasn't figured out a way to get this stuff onto his base
or onto his ship, but the military doesn't do it.  We do not provide that
material.

     Q:  Do you condone it?
     A:  No.  And on the question of R-rated material, I would assume, I'll
have to check, but I can't see how we could avoid it when so many movies, for
example, are rated R.  But let me take the question.

     Q:  What provoked this?
     A:  What provoked what?

     Q:  This review of Playboy and Penthouse on the Navy...
     A:  You can backtrack.  There is a Navy review going on which in turn, I
believe, was provoked by two issues.  One is, obviously, all the fallout from
the Tailhook episode; and the other is a decision by a commander to restrict
the sale of these magazines at a specific location.

     Q: Which location is that?
     A:  I can't remember.  It's a training location.  But the Department gets
correspondence on this issue from time to time, on both sides.  There are many
groups in the United States that believe that these publications should not be
available for sale on military bases, at convenience stores.  I can remember
when I was a reporter back in Wyoming, groups would try from time to time to
get these publications banned at all the Mini Marts and 7-11's and stores like
that.  Then, of course, there are legal issues on the other side.  So there are
a lot of parties that have an interest in this issue.

     Q:  What you've said here is the Navy study was prompted by the Tailhook
fallout.  Certainly, the Department study has also been prompted by that.  This
isn't something...
     A:  It's one of the factors, but I think the immediate issue is, I saw an
AP story today that there are lawyers for some of these publications that have
weighed in.  So clearly, it's something we'd have to take a look at.

     Q:  Since this is such a legal thicket, is it possible to ask if there are
any court cases now pending on this very...
     A:  Not that I'm aware of.  I don't believe there's any pending
litigation.

     Q:  ...military to either get stuff off the shelves or on the shelves?
     A:  Not that I'm aware of.  I'm not aware of any litigation.

     Q:  What's the formal process?  You said the Department's counsel takes a
look at it?
     A:  General Counsel.

     Q:  Then what does he do?  Does he respond to Mr. Cheney?  And was this
due to a request from Mr. Cheney?
     A:  No.  He'll probably advise the Assistant Secretary for Force
Management and Personnel.  Because the way the Defense Department is set up,
the policy oversight responsibility for military exchanges is under FM&P, so it
will probably be a General Counsel advice to FM&P.

     Q:  Is there a concern that these magazines, Playboy and Penthouse in
particular, could provoke sexual harassment?
     A:  I don't want to get into that issue.  That's not for me to say. I'm
just saying that there are legal issues of whether, A, the Department can
legally, under the first amendment, restrict the sale of certain publications.
Clearly, if we wanted to, we could clearly ban all publications from exchange
services.  The Army/Air Force exchange services aren't required under the law
to sell anything.  If we wanted to, we could say we're no longer going to stock
shaving items; we're no longer going to sell produce.  We could, if we wanted
to do that.

     Question.  When you get into publications, we could say we're not going to
sell newspapers any more.  It's too hard, costs too much to move newspapers
around.  Or we're not going to sell magazines.  We could do that.  Issue.  Can
we say we're going to say everything except, In Wyoming, magazines?  Can you
restrict one sort of magazine, one specific magazine?  Does that raise a first
amendment question?  I don't know the answer, but that's an issue that we have
to look at.  That's one issue.

     Then there's another issue of a military commander's very broad ability
under military regulations to enforce good order and discipline.  That's a
second issue. 

     A third issue is all the social questions that are raised by Tailhook and
a lot of people thinking these magazines are not politically correct or are
sort of dinosaurs of past attitudes.  There are lots of questions that come to
play here, and we have to look at all of them.

     Q:  Has Mr. Cheney received a formal complaints that you can refer to?
When you say group, a lot of people complained.  Congressmen or...
     A:  Not that I'm aware of.  Well, I'll have to check that.  The Department
gets letters all the time from folks...

     Q:  I was just wondering if there had been a formal request for the review
of...
     A:  Not that I know of.

     Q:  Who ordered the review?
     A:  I don't think anybody ordered it.  I think we just have to.  We've
got, on the one hand, a commander in Orlando trying to restrict it.  Now we're
getting letters from the lawyers for these publications saying you can't do
that under the first amendment.  That's what the General Counsel does for a
living.

     A couple of points before we end.  There was no U.S. military response,
Joe, in the Persian Gulf to the Iraqi abduction of Chad Hall, according to
Central Command.

     Also, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that for November
through March, Bosnia/Herzagovena refugees, this is from clearly more than just
Sarajevo -- will need a total of 125,525 tons of food, which is about 800 tons
a day delivered by air and land.  That's for all of Herzagovena, not just
Bosnia/Sarajevo.

     Q:  What are they getting?
     A:  That's the second part of the question which we don't have right now.

     Press:  Thank you.
     Mr. Williams:  Thank you.

                                     (END)



IMMEDIATE RELEASE		OCTOBER 15, 1992		697-5131 - Info.

                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACT AWARDS

                                     NAVY

	Paramax Systems Corporation, Electronic Systems, St. Paul, Minnesota, is
being awarded a $5,881,821 modification to exercise an option to a firm-fixed-
price contract for 11 CP-2044 retrofit kits for the AN/ASQ-114 computer to
upgrade it to the AN-ASQ-212 configuration for use in the P-3 aircraft.  Work
will be performed in St. Paul, Minnesota (30%) and Pueblo, Colorado (70%), and
is expected to be completed by January 1995.  Contract funds will not expire at
the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively
procured.  The Naval Air Systems Command is the contracting activity
(N0019-90-C-0290).

	The Kearfott Guidance and Navigation Corporation, Little Falls, New
Jersey, is being awarded a $9,112,000 firm-fixed-price contract for 34 AN/USN-2
Standard Attitude Heading Reference Systems (SAHRS's) for the T-45 aircraft.
Work will be performed in Wayne, New Jersey (60%), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (20%),
and Asheville, North Carolina (20%), and is expected to be completed by April
1995.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
This contract was not competitively procured.  The Naval Air Systems Command is
the contracting activity (N00019-92-C-0028).

                                   AIR FORCE

	Danis Industries Corporation, Building Construction Group, Dayton, Ohio,
is being awarded a $7,096,500 fixed-price contract for replacement of existing
underground steam and  condensate lines, manholes, values, traps, and expansive
joints, removal of asbestos contaminated soil, and installation of a gas-fired
steam boiler at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.  Contract is expected to
be completed in May 1994.  Contract funds of $7,096,500 will expire at the end
of the current fiscal year.  Seventy-six bids were solicited and six proposals
were received.  The solicitation was issued in January 1992 and neogitations
were completed in February 1992.  The Wright-Patterson Contracting Center,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (F33601 92
CW 022).

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