From: bergman@AFPAN.PA.AF.MIL (CMSgt Mike Bergman)
Newsgroups: soc.veterans
Subject: DoD News 09/09/92 (long)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:22:39 GMT
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC


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


NOT FOR USE BEFORE 5:00 P.M. (EDT)
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1992				(703) 697-5131 - Info

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                                CONTRACT AWARDS

                                     ARMY

                          CIVIL WORKS -- NON-MILITARY

	Gilbert Southern Corporation, College Park, Georgia, was awarded on
September 3, 1992, a $7,500,000 increment as part of an estimated $15,000,000
cost plus fixed fee letter contract for miscellaneous survey, evaluation and
expedient debris removal and repairs to public and private buildings and
utilities in Sector I, Dade County, Florida.  Work will be performed in Dade
County, Florida, and is expected to be completed by October 3, 1993.  Contract
funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole
contract initiated on September 3, 1992.  The contracting activity is the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonvile, Florida (DACW17-92-C-9516).

	Hubbard Construction Company, Orlando, Florida, was awarded on September
3, 1992, a $7,500,000 increment as part of an estimated $15,000,000 cost plus
fixed fee letter contract for miscellaneous survey, evaluation and expedient
debris removal and repairs to public and private buildings and utilities in
Sector II, Dade County, Florida.  Work will be performed in Dade County,
Florida, and is expected to be completed by October 3, 1993.  Contract funds
will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole source
contract initiated on September 3, 1992.  The contracting activity is the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida (DACW17-92-C-9517).

	Phillips and Jordan, Mulberry, Florida, was awarded on September 3, 1992,
a $7,500,000 increment as part of an estimated $15,000,000 cost plus fixed fee
letter contract for miscellaneous survey, evaluation and expedient debris
removal and repairs to public and private buildings and utilities in Sector
III, Dade County, Florida, and is expected to be completed by October 3, 1993.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is
a sole source contract initiated on September 3, 1992.  The contracting
activity is the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida
(DACW17-92-C-9518).

	The Hardaway Company, Miami, Florida, was awarded on September 3, 1992, a
$7,500,000 increment as part of an estimated $15,000,000 cost plus fixed fee
letter contract for miscellaneous survey, evaluation and expedient debris
removal and repairs to public and private buildings and utilities in Sector IV,
Dade County, Florida.  Work will be performed in Dade County, Florida, and is
expected to be completed by October 3, 1993.  Contract funds will not expire at
the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole source contract initiated
on September 3, 1992.  The contracting activity is the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida (DACW17-92-C-9519).

	Brown and Root, Houston, Texas, was awarded on September 3, 1992, a
$7,500,000 increment as part of an estimated $15,000,000 cost plus fixed fee
letter contract for miscellaneous survey, evaluation and expedient debris
removal and repairs to public and private buildings and utilities in Sector V,
Dade County, Florida.  Work will be performed in Dade County, Florida, and is
expected to be completed by October 3, 1993.  Contract funds will not expire at
the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole source contract initiated
on September 3, 1992.  The contracting activity is the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida (DACW17-92-C-9520).

	Metric Constructors, Incorporated, Tampa, Florida, was awarded on Septem-
ber 3, 1992, a $7,500,000 increment as part of an estimated $15,000,000 cost
plus fixed fee letter contract for miscellaneous survey, evaluation and
expedient debris removal and repairs to public and private buildings and
utilities in Sector VI, Dade County, Florida.  Work will be performed in Dade
County, Florida, and is expected to be completed by October 3, 1993.  Contract
funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole
source contract initiated on September 3, 1992.  The contracting activity is
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida (DACW17-92-C-9521).

	Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Staten Island, New York, was awarded
on August 21, 1992, a $7,924,000 firm fixed price construction contract for
maintenance dredging of Fire Island Inlet and shore westerly to Jones Inlet,
beach erosion control and navigation project.  Work will be performed in Fire
Island Inlet, New York, and is expected to be completed by January 1, 1993.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  There
were 100 bids solicited on June 5, 1992, and 3 bids received.  The contracting
activity is the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, New York
(DACW51-92-C-0067).

                                   AIR FORCE

	Lear Siegler Management Service Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is
being awarded a $19,322,481 face value increase to a fixed-price-incentive-firm
contract for maintenance of T-37 and T-38 aircraft and related services in
support of the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) program at Sheppard
Air Force Base, Texas.  The work will be performed at Sheppard Air Force Base,
Texas.  Contract is expected to be completed in September 1993.  Contract funds
will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The 3750th Contracting
Squadron, Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, is the contracting activity
(F41612-91-C-0259, P00008).

							END







DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, September 8, 1992 - Noon
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Williams:  Good afternoon.

     I don't have any of the usual, routine kind of announcements to make, so
let me get into a couple of things and just tell you where I'm headed here.
Let's talk about the supplemental budget request that's being transmitted to
the Hill today and what the Defense Department's part of that is.  We have a
fact sheet, we'll hand out right now.  Let's go through that, and then we'll
talk about Somalia, we'll talk about Southern Watch, and then take your
questions from there.  But let's begin with the supplemental appropriations
request that the President announced this morning as being sent to the
Congress.

     Recognize that the total supplemental request includes other agencies of
government other than the Defense Department.  I don't have with me the total
amount of the supplemental budget request.  What I'm going to cover with you
this morning is the $983.9 million part of the supplemental budget request
which specifically relates to Defense Department operations in responding to
Hurricane Andrew in south Florida, and Typhoon Omar in Guam.  I've just given
you the numbers, and let me just explain to you what the categories are, and as
I do so it will, I suppose, for purposes of the record here, also put the
numbers in the record.

     I guess the easiest way to do this is to start at the large level and work
our way down.  The total amount in this supplemental that we're asking for to
reimburse the Defense Department for costs associated with the cleanup is
$983.9 million.  That's the total, made up of two numbers and a subtotal --
$205.6 million directly related to Typhoon Omar in Guam, and $778.3 million
directly related to Hurricane Andrew.  Let me break the $778.3 million figure
down further.

     The biggest cost is $480.6 million to rebuild Homestead Air Force Base.
That's military construction funds.  Note that $3.7 million of that amount we
recommend come from fiscal '92 and the remaining amount, $476.9 million, will
come from fiscal '93.

     As a practical matter, we're recommending that that's how Congress do it.
What we're actually going to do in sending this supplemental to the Hill is say
look, we're going to need a total of $480.6 million through '93.  We'd like to
go ahead and start with the $3.7 million quickly.  We're recommending that's
how they break it down.  That's going to be up to Congress, how that works.
That's our recommendation.  But just to clarify here, these are not two
separate supplementals.  There's not a supplemental bill that we're sending up
for '92 and another supplemental bill that we're sending up for '93.  It's one
package.  This is how we recommend that the figures be apportioned, but
Congress is going to have to make that final decision.

     Let me tell you what the other categories represent.  Cleanup costs of
$98.2 million is the Department of Defense expense for cleaning up the wreckage
at Homestead Air Force Base.  That's the vast majority of it.  And any other
direct DoD-related costs.  This is not what the Department of Defense has
spent, or will spend, we estimate, to clean up non-DoD facilities.  That will
be covered in a separate part of the supplemental appropriation, and I don't
have those numbers here this morning, because any other aid that the Department
of Defense gives, say to Dade or Broward Counties, to provide cleanup support
for a civilian facility that is not a federal government facility, we have to
be asked by FEMA to perform that mission.  FEMA will then reimburse the
Department of Defense.  So I just want to be clear that this figure of $98.2
million is not the total amount that we estimate the Defense Department will
spend to clean up south Florida.  That figure will, undoubtedly, be much
larger.  I can't tell you what the total is because that's going to be
something that FEMA will task us to do.  FEMA will then have to ask Congress
for that money and FEMA will reimburse the Department of Defense.  Is that
clear?

     Q:  A question on that.  This $98.2 million is the cleanup cost, not the
rebuilding cost.
     A:  Correct.  The rebuilding costs, as we said a moment ago, are the last
line that says MilCon.

     Q:  Pete, you've got guys all over south Dade cleaning up everything they
can find.  Where is that going to fit into your list of numbers?
     A:  Let me walk through all this stuff.  It will parallel the numbers that
I'm about to go through here for you, but they are separated out for cost
accounting purposes between strictly the cost to the Department of Defense to
clean up and rebuild Homestead Air Force Base, as opposed to all the other
support that we give to local and county and state government in south Florida.

     Q:  To help us understand, FEMA doesn't have any money, right?  So
whatever FEMA authorizes comes out of 27 agencies that are tasked to do certain
things down there?
     A:  FEMA will ask for a supplemental.  There will be a FEMA component to
all this.  And it will either be...  What I don't fully understand here is
whether FEMA will ask for it and it will be line itemed to FEMA, or whether
FEMA will recommend the categories that will be line itemed back to the
individual agencies.  That's a technicality that I don't understand here.  But
the point is that I don't have that number here this morning.

     Q:  I assume you intend to make this clear, but this $480 million is
certainly only part of the cost for rebuilding Homestead.  This is only the
work you could do in fiscal '92 and '93.
     A:  That is correct, however, that is the vast majority of the cost.  The
estimate is $3.7 million in '92; $476.9 million in '93; and at the most beyond
that, Charlie, I would think there might be another $50 million in fiscal year
'94 to complete the construction.  As I understand the plan right now, that
would be to complete the hospital.

     Q:  And it would leave it pretty much as it was before the storm?
     A:  It would rebuild it to the extent that the Air Force has decided to do
so.  I don't believe they intend to have it any more, to expand the facility
any more than what it was before the storm, so I guess the answer to your
question is yes.

     Q:  Does this include housing for personnel there to the level it was
before?
     A:  Yes.  I think I have the breakdown on that here.  I need that Shycoff
package, Bob, because that had a breakdown between the strict MilCon and what
the housing part was.  Let me get that for you.

     Let me go through these other categories while I'm trying to get that
answer.  The claims line of $5.5 million in fiscal '92 and $62.2 in fiscal '93
for a total of $67.7, is claims by DoD personnel, by military personnel and
[DoD]  civilian personnel, for damaged goods, household claims basically.  So
if you had furniture, you had a piano or whatever -- not that most military
people travel with a piano, but if you had your stereo and your dining room set
and all that other stuff, your furniture, your clothes, your household
possessions in your base housing and that was damaged by the storm, then you
make a claim against the government.  This is clearly an estimate, since
personnel have not all gone back through and gone through all their
possessions.  However, it is an estimate based on our past experience with this
kind of a situation.  So that's where that figure comes from.

     The personnel support figure of $18.1 million in '92, $97.6 million in
'93, for a total of $115.7 million, is largely temporary housing costs and also
the permanent change of station costs for Homestead personnel.  So it's the
increased cost of moving people around that were at Homestead.

     Airlift of $9.6 million in '92, and $6.5 million in '93, for a total of
$16.1 million, is moving equipment, supplies, material, people and so forth
from Homestead Air Force Base.

     The MilCon of $3.7 million in '92, $476.9 in '93, for a total of $480.6 is
the Homestead cost.

     Let me break it down even further.  As I think Charlie or Susanne pointed
out, there are two components in the military construction area.  One is the
actual cost associated with rebuilding Homestead Air Force Base, the facilities
that were damaged or destroyed by the hurricane, the planning and design for
these facilities, for the base itself and for family housing are two separate
areas.  For the base itself, it's the full $3.7 million in '92; and in '93,
it's $335 million.

     For military family housing, it's zero in '92 and $141.9 in '93.  So you
add up $335 in '93 plus $141.9 in '93, and that gets you your $476.9.

     Q:  If we add up how much it will cost to clean up Homestead, which is
about $100 million...
     A:  But bear in mind, that's a cost you would have to incur no matter
what.

     Q:  Would it be exactly the same, even if they had made a decision not to
go forward with reconstruction?
     A:  It may not be exactly the same, but it's pretty close.

     Q:  Plus $480 in FY92 and FY93, plus perhaps, $50 million in '94.  That
comes to $630 million to clean up and rebuild Homestead.
     A:  That is correct, but the problem with that figure is that it implies
that the total cost of the decision to rebuild Homestead is that larger figure.
That is not accurate.  We would have to do the cleanup costs no matter what.
We're not going to just leave a big pile of rubble where Homestead Air Force
Base was.

     Q:  Remind me as to the number of personnel at Homestead we're talking
about.  I think it's something like 4700.
     A:  I have no idea.

     Q: Taking that figure as roughly right, you're talking about claims of
$12,000 per person, per man, woman, and child?
     A:  I'll have to check the total...

     Q:  And $25,000 to move them around, man, woman, and child?
     A:  Does that sound low to you?

     Q:  That sounds high to me.
     A:  I'll see if I can get some more information on how that estimate was
derived.

     Q:  Maybe my figure of 4700 is off.
     A:  We'll check on that.  The question is: how many people potentially had
household goods at Homestead Air Force Base by which they might reasonably be
expected to file a claim?

     Q:  The Red Cross has, according to some of your personnel there, declined
to assist military people in south Dade, saying they would be assisted
elsewhere.  Is that the $67 million you're talking about for the claims?
     A:  I guess I'm not familiar with the allegation that the Red Cross isn't
helping.  I just don't know.  Let me plead ignorance on that allegation.  I can
tell you what the number is, but I can't tell you how the Red Cross relates to
it.

     A similar breakdown for Typhoon Omar.  Our cleanup costs at Department of
Defense facilities in Guam; claims by personnel there; personnel support, which
again is permanent change of station, moving costs, basically, for personnel;
temporary housing; and airlift related to that; and so forth.  That's where you
get the $983.9 million.

     Moving on to operations on Somalia...

     Q:  Did you want to stay with Andrew, or...
     A:  Yes, let's do that.  We have the usual fact sheet available, this
great hulking rundown on every tennishoes, syringes, orange juice cans,
everything else that's been sent to south Florida.  Plastic sheeting, tents
that have been built, total number of deployed personnel.  This whole package
is available for you.  It's exhaustive.  It's available for you at the
Directorate for Defense Information.

     The Department continues to provide assistance and life support to victims
of Hurricane Andrew.  Joint Task Force Andrew in Florida is coordinating DoD
relief operations through FEMA with state and local authorities.  By the end of
today we will have 22,271 federal troops deployed to the south Florida area.
Another 2,038 federal troops will be deployed.  I can't tell you when.  No
one's made that decision yet.  That will be the local task force commander's
decision.  Bringing the eventual federal commitment to 24,309.

     As some of you may know, the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, has
offered to send a small liaison team to help out and eventually deploy 90
Canadian military construction and civilian power restoration experts.  There's
a four-person liaison team that's coming advance to see how many folks the
Canadians are going to send and where they'll go.

     Including the flights scheduled for today, a total of 519 missions will
have been flown by the end of the day by the Air Force moving relief supplies
and equipment as well as people into south Florida.  

     Preventive medicine remains a high priority right now.  The Air Force will
continue to spray insect breeding grounds to help out in the local effort in
disease control.

     Debris removal and power restoration remain the other priorities for the
Joint Task Force, and we're working with local officials to clean and expedite
schools so that schools can be reopened.  I'm told that pretty much the schools
will be reopened by September 14th.  That provides us with a challenge as well.
A lot of people are living temporarily in schools.  They've got to get out of
there if the schools are going to reopen.  That means that probably more people
will be moving into the tent cities.  They have been slowly moving in.  The
task force expects the population to increase as the folks are going to have to
find some place other than the schools to live.

     The number of people that can be accommodated in the tents that have been
put up so far is about 5,400 people.  They get a variety of services there.
They get hot meals, they get showers, they get electricity, they get medical
care, they get a place to sleep, and those facilities are now occupied, we
estimate, by about 2,000 people.  So you've got a capacity of around, so far,
of around 5,400 people.  If we need to put up more tents, the military is
prepared to do so.  Obviously, people have been reluctant to leave their
belongings and their homes and go to the tents, according to people on the
ground.  That seems to be the number one challenge to increasing the population
in those tent cities.

     We've distributed 20,500 radios with batteries and Radio Recovery is
broadcasting still in English, Spanish, Creole, and a Guatemalan dialect of
Spanish, which is spoken by many of the migrant workers in southern Florida,
and information on DoD relief efforts is available at 1610 AM.  I guess it's
just the AM station.  I thought there was an FM station as well, but this
information says AM.  Replacement batteries are also being distributed.

     Q:  President Bush sent his request to the Hill today, and apparently it's
being well received with many members of Congress saying that they'll probably
go beyond what he's asked for and make sure that the needs of the people in
southern Florida are met.  As a caveat with this, several lawmakers are saying
they feel the entire system ought to be changed, the military having
demonstrated its proficiency in going in and being able to organize things,
saying that the military ought to have a greater lead role in future disasters.
I'm wondering if the Secretary has taken any position on this as to what he
might be telling Congress about the military having a lead role with FEMA or
other agencies such as FEMA having a secondary role.
     A:  A couple of thoughts on it.  Number one, obviously Congress is going
to be looking at this.  Many members have already said they're going to conduct
hearings on this question.  I suppose that our concern would be as this is
looked at, and I'm sure there are going to be a lot of lessons learned because
of simply the dimensions of this disaster.  It's, in scope, beyond what we've
seen certainly in over a century in the United States.  I guess there are a
number of thoughts.

     Number one, one of the lessons learned is how extremely well the warning
system worked.  The United States' ability to track and predict the movement of
the hurricane, to get information out, to evacuate people.  One point that some
people lose sight of is how low the death toll was, considering the extent of
destruction.  That's certainly a good thing about how the system works.

     The second thing is, as you begin to parse out, as people start to sit
around town and think about other things for the military to do, it seems to us
that there are clearly areas that it's inappropriate that we get into.  I don't
think anybody would want the Department of Defense to undertake some of the
things that FEMA does, for example, in processing disaster loan applications or
disaster grant applications; working with state and local governments on
funding questions.  That's not something that the military has any expertise or
experience in doing, and it's not a task that we would be eager to take on.  So
those kind of process-related activities that FEMA does, some agency of the
federal government has to do that, FEMA does it well, it's not something the
Department of Defense would logically do, nor is it something that we're eager
to take on.

     Having said those two things, are there other things in disasters that the
Defense Department can do?  Clearly, there are capabilities that we have that
other agencies of the government don't have.  We are capable of deploying on
very short notice temporary hospitals.  It's what we do for a living.  We're
capable of deploying temporary field kitchens.  We have, for want of a better
word, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities that other agencies of
government don't have.  We have the ability to quickly go up and look in the
air, photography platforms and so forth, airplanes that can take pictures.  We
can quickly get an idea of the extent of damage.  So there are capabilities
that we have.  We have done this before.  We have responded in these kinds of
ways before.  So it's a good question.  I'm sure it's one that will be looked
at in both executive and legislative branches here in the weeks to come.

     Q:  I guess the bottom line is, so often we heard in the early stages that
the Pentagon was ready to move, but somebody had to ask, and the asking wasn't
being done quickly enough, as far as many people were concerned.
     A:  I suppose if you're a homeowner and your house just got blown down,
there's no way you can get assistance quickly enough.  That's certainly going
to always be a criticism in response to a disaster.

     Q:  Isn't your strength command, control, and communications?
     A:  That's another strength.  That's another capability that we can
provide.  One of the problems in south Florida...it's an old adage in the news
business that if you've got a story to report on how bad the weather is, you
frequently can't get the story out because you're in an area of bad weather.
It's exactly the same kind of problem for local community officials.  One of
the problems in the aftermath of this hurricane was that the way the system is
supposed to work is that local communities report the extent of damage to their
counties, the counties report it to the state, and the state makes a decision
on whether or not to request federal assistance in some specific way.  If all
the phone lines are down and all the power is out and all the ham radio
antennas are blown down and the walkie talkies have too small a range, how do
you get that information transmitted?  So that's another capability we have
that we could bring to bear.

     Q:  How long will it take to complete the rebuilding of Homestead Air
Force Base?  When will it become a functioning air base again?
     A:  Let me take that question.  It's a good question.  We should have
anticipated it.  I don't know the answer.

     Q:  Does the Congress now have to look at the rebuilding of Homestead as a
separate matter or as part of the whole package the President put forward?
     A:  They can do it however they want.  Clearly, they're going to have to
decide whether to appropriate sufficient funds.  So Congress will certainly
have a shot at it.

     Q:  Will they be moving the same number of wings back?
     A:  Presumably so.

     Anything else on the hurricane?  (No response)

     All right, let's go back to Somalia.  The difference, since our last
briefing, is that we have begun flights into Baidoa which is also in south
central Somalia.  And also since our last briefing we did some flights into
Garissa here in Kenya.  

     The big picture continues to be that we stage the flights out of Mombassa.
That's where the supplies are.  Mombassa in Kenya.  We're using now
exclusively, C-130's.  The C-141's simply are too big to land at some of these
smaller air strips.  So we make the flights from Mombassa directly to these
various destinations.  We do not use Wajir any more as a forward airhead.
You'll recall that originally when we talked to you about the concept of
operations here it would start from the main supply center in Mombassa, move
things up to Wajir to get them forward, and then move them on into Somalia.
That is not necessary now.  We can fly directly to the bases, to the air strips
in both Kenya and Somalia.

     We have been flying into Belet Huen in south central Somalia.  We are now
flying, as well, into Baidoa.  We're flying, as necessary, into Wajir in Kenya,
and we've also done a few flights into Garissa in Kenya as well.

     Since the last briefing on Thursday, we've begun these flights into
Garissa, which is the second location into Kenya.  I don't have the totals
here.  I have them by day.  Let me just tell you that DDI has...we need to get
these totaled up because it's a little tedious to go through this whole list.
But beginning on Saturday, we began flying food into Baidoa in Somalia as well
as flights into Bilet Huen.  We still have about 550 military personnel
involved in this operation.  The majority of them are air crews.  Then we also
have the controllers, the maintenance, the security people, and the other
personnel.

     We have a total of ten C-130's involved in this operation right now, and
we expect to have four more in in the next day or so.

     The other aspect of this is that, as soon as the Pakistani security folks
are ready to go in, we're prepared to fly them in.  You have probably seen some
wire stories here in the last 24 hours or so that the Pakistanis would like to
send an advance group of 60 into Mogadishu.  We are prepared to fly them into
Mogadishu, provided that the situation is permissive for a landing at
Mogadishu.  I don't know when that would come.  That would probably come later
in the week, but I don't have a specific day.  We're still working that out
with the Pakistanis.  Then obviously, we'd fly the rest of the 500 in at the
appropriate time.

     Q:  What do you mean by permissive?
     A:  I mean that if we land the plane at Mogadishu we can be certain of the
safety of the landing and the takeoff.  We can safely land and take the plane
off.

     Q:  What would you need for that?  Do you want a security force on the
ground to make sure that the...
     A:  No, we just need sufficient assurance from the UN personnel on the
ground that they're ready to receive the Pakistanis.

     Q:  What's been the holdup on the Pakistanis?  You first told us two or
more weeks ago that you were prepared to give the Pakistani troops air
transportation in there.  What's the holdup?
     A:  You'll have to ask them.  We're prepared to take them as soon as
they're ready to go.

     Q:  I have asked them, but I'm asking you as well.
     A:  I got a problem.  I can't speak for the Pakistanis.

     Q:  I'm not asking you to, but...
     A:  That's the answer to the question, is when they're ready to go.  We're
ready to take them when they're ready to go.

     Q:  It's my understanding that our personnel flying into Somalia are
restricted, can't even carry their personal sidearms for their own security.
They're totally dependent on whatever the local war lords and goons decide to
do as far as security.
     A:  We don't get into a lot of detail ever, and I just don't want to break
the precedent on describing how U.S. military personnel provide for their own
security, but I will say this.  The areas that we fly into, the matrixes of
decision, the factors that we use in deciding where to go, are ultimately based
on where the aid team that's based in Nairobi tells us where to go.  They make
the decision based on a number of factors.  We get the mission from the
disaster assistance team, the humanitarian team that's based in Nairobi.  They
give us the tasking.  They say DoD, here's where we need you to go, and that's
where we go. 

     They make that decision on where to have us go on a number of factors.
The number of refugees, the supply of food in that area, and their confidence
in the distribution system.  That if we take the food and remove it from the
airplane and put it on the ground, that there's going to be a sufficient group
of people there to get it to where it's needed.  And obviously, the security of
those planes going in and out.

     Q:  SOP for almost everywhere we send our troops is that they are allowed
to defend themselves.  In this case, it's my understanding that the rules we've
agreed to by the local so-called government, is that we will not arm those men
at all.
     A:  What you've stated is not technically correct.  But I don't want to
get into here from the podium the business of describing exactly how our troops
protect themselves.  It's a matter we've discussed with the International Red
Cross.  We've come to an agreement that we believe is consistent with their
needs and ours.

     Q:  How about air drops of supplies?
     A:  We have not done any.

     Q:  Isn't that under consideration?  Are supplies being ferried out from
those two points throughout the country?
     A:  They're going throughout the area.  Throughout the country I think
would be overstating it.

     Q:  Who's doing that?  Is it the UN or...
     A:  It's a variety of international teams that are on the ground.  It's
the International Red Cross, it's the UN, it's Doctors Without Borders.  It's a
number of humanitarian groups.

     Q:  Is there any sealift being contemplated?  Or has the UN asked the
United States for any assistance from the sea?  A lot of private aid people
have said for the long-term they're going to have to have stuff come in by the
sea in much greater quantity than has been the case so far.  
     A:  In fact, most of the supplies that we're moving from Mombassa are
supplies that have come in by sea.  The problem with sending seaborne supplies
into Mogadishu is the uncertain security at Mogadishu.  Once the 500 Pakistanis
get on the ground, that situation may improve as well.  But the specific answer
to your question is, I'm not aware of any tasking to the Defense Department of
the United States for sealift.

     Q:  Where will we be flying the Pakistanis from, and where to?
     A:  Presumably from Islamabad, and the answer would be to Mogadishu.

     Q:  How long would that operation take, do you anticipate?
     A:  To move the Pakistanis in?

     Q:  Yes.
     A:  To get the first 60 in, obviously, we can do that in one flight.  I
wouldn't think it would take very long.  I've not seen an estimate.  We're
still working out the specifics with Pakistan.

     Again, I would call your attention to the statistical data that they have
down at DDI on the exact number of flights.

     Operation Southern Watch in Iraq.  Since we last briefed on Thursday, the
United States has flown about 600 sorties, and the total to date, as of last
night, was about 1450.  That's U.S. only sorties.  We're operating as usual.
The no-fly zone continues to be observed.  We can't confirm any contact with
Iraqi aircraft south of the 32nd parallel or any use of threat radar.  So the
situation is pretty much as Bob briefed you on Thursday.  It continues.

     Q:  By can't confirm any, you mean to your knowledge you've had no contact
with...  You're not declining to comment one way or the other.  What you're
saying is to your knowledge there's been no contact with the Iraqis.
     A:  The standard locution we're using is no confirmed contact.

     Q:  By no confirmed contact, you mean you're telling us you're refusing to
confirm whether or not you've had contact, or you're saying that to your
knowledge there's been no contact?
     A:  Oh, no.  It's not the way we're saying it, it's what we know
ourselves.  We, ourselves, have no confirmed contacts with Iraqi aircraft south
of the 32nd.

     Q:  No indication that there have been flights or radar locked on.  That's
what you're saying.
     A:  Let me tell you in general why we would use such a phrase.  You may
have an individual pilot flying along in an aircraft.  He's been up there for
eight hours, and he reports a radar blip.  It's a transient kind of thing.  He
reports that, but there's no confirmation of it from other aircraft or from
AWACS or E-2C's or anything like that.

     Q:  Has there been a decision yet to scale back the air patrols over
southern Iraq because the Iraqis are not challenging the no-fly zone?
     A:  I think it was quite intense in the first couple of days in order to
establish the parameters of the no-fly zone, cover the whole territory.  It's
possible that over the next couple of days the commander out there may make
some adjustments, but I think scaling back would overstate it.

     Q:  Where do you see Iraqi ground activity?
     A:  The Iraqi ground activity hasn't changed very much since Admiral
Cramer briefed it to you last week.  They are still positioned largely
defensively throughout southern Iraq in two ways.  First of all, since the
speculation that we were going to announce a no-fly zone, and certainly since
the commencement of the no-fly zone, the Iraqi military has spread some of its
forces out, moving them defensively, disbursing them, fearing a coalition
attack.  The second thing is, under the subcategory of defensive disposition
is, I think Admiral Cramer talked about this when he briefed here, but they
have some of their armor units spread out against the Iranian border, near the
Iranian border, apparently because of concern that the Iranians might try to
take advantage of the no-fly zone.  I should add at the same time, that we have
absolutely no indication that the Iranians either intend or are acting to do
so.

     Finally, the Iraqi military continues the counter-insurgency campaign in
southern Iraq.  They continue to make efforts to build a causeway through the
marshes.  They're burning some villages.  There continues to be sporadic
shelling.

     Q:  Can you be more specific in saying some armor units are spread out
near the border?
     A:  No, I can't.  The total division strength is pretty much as Admiral
Cramer briefed it to you Thursday.  The total south of the 32 degrees and
through all of southern Iraq, is about eight to ten Iraqi divisions.  These are
not full-up divisions.  That's about 60,000 troops.

     Q:  Have the Iranians been told diplomatically not to try to take
advantage of the situation?  Have they been cautioned by the United States and
the allies not to try to take advantage of the situation militarily?
     A:  A, I don't know; and B, that's a State Department question.

     Q:  Since we've been talking a lot about cost figures, cost of Homestead
and so forth, let me pose this one about the cost of Southern Watch.  If you
assume that we're going to continue to fly about 100 missions a day, and if you
assume...
     A:  Did you just get a calculator for your birthday or something?

     Q:  No, but it's a good idea, if you've got an extra one around.  You
assume that it costs maybe $40,000 to fly a plane like an F-15, and that we're
going to keep going on this say until the end of the year.  Does that suggest a
cost of Southern Watch in the range of about $1 billion?
     A:  I will certainly take the question.

     Q:  What is your best estimate of what it's going to cost from now until
the end of the year?  And who pays?
     A:  Right.

     Q:  Is this going to be another one of these fundraisers?  (Laughter)
     A:  I will take the question.

     Q:  I'm confused about something.  You're sort of suggesting that you may
cut back on sorties.
     A:  I'm saying we can't rule it out.  I'm saying we may adjust the number
of sorties.

     Q:  But at the same time, ground activity seems to continue sort of hot
and heavy.  I thought one of the reasons or justifications for Southern Watch
was to have complete surveillance of ground activity so that you could go to
the UN and say they weren't obeying the resolutions.
     A:  You are right, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.  The
purpose of Southern Watch is to continue to monitor and more closely monitor
Iraqi activities in southern Iraq and Iraqi violations of the UN Resolution
688.  To do that, we need to use aircraft to step up the monitoring.  If we're
going to have aircraft in southern Iraq, we need to keep the Iraqi aircraft
away to avoid any potential problems, as a side benefit of stopping the Iraqis
from using aircraft to bomb Shia populations.

     Having said that, there are sort of several components to what kind of
planes you put in southern Iraq.  Some of them are specifically reconnaissance
planes.  Some of them are specifically fighter and escort planes for the
reconnaissance planes.  Reconnaissance is happening in some specific areas.
Can you cut down on reconnaissance flights or patrol flights elsewhere?  That's
something that the commander is going to have to work out over there.

     Finally, I would say that we have other monitoring assets as well.

     Q:  So you're looking at some understanding, you're cutting back...
     A:  Don't overplay this idea that we're going to cut back.  The point is,
we started out very aggressively with the no-fly zone, kind of pushing it to
all the corners, making the point, establishing, a big show of flags to make it
clear that we were serious about the no-fly zone.  Now having done that, having
had some experience in doing it, can we adjust it to some extent?  I can't rule
that out.  I am not here to announce a bit cutback in the number of flights
over southern Iraq.

     Q:  Can you say though, because since Thursday's quite some time, you say
there's been 600 sorties, has it been a stable number each day of around 100?
Or has it been decreasing?
     A:  I'll have to take the question.

     Q:  Is there any need to beef up the air assets in the Gulf region in
order to maintain this level?
     A:  We have not deployed any aircraft to the theater since Mr. Hall
briefed you last Thursday.

     Q:  Are you planning on deploying some more...
     A:  We're not going to talk about planned deployments.  I'm not aware of
any big deployments, but we'll let you know as they happen.

     Anything else?

     Q:  On UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali suggestion today that an air
cover, air CAP, or some sort of air protection for resumed airlift into
Sarajevo might be necessary.
     A:  I don't mean to quibble with you, you have maybe seen more extensive
reports.  What I thought he said was that "if" the UN decided that it was
necessary to have air escorts for either air flights or land convoys, then he
would prefer to have another UN Security Council resolution.  That was my
interpretation of what he said.  I should note that that's consistent with what
the UN has said before, and in fact, is consistent with what Secretary Cheney
said several weeks ago when he raised the possibility that the United States
was willing to provide air and naval air support to the provision of
humanitarian assistance.  I think he said at the time that he thought it would
probably take a UN Security Council resolution to do that.  So I've noted that,
but I don't think that's any new position for the UN.

     Q:  Any indication when this airlift into Sarajevo is going to resume?
And will U.S. aircraft, C-130's, participate?
     A:  It's a two-step decision, as you always know, on resuming flights.
One is that the UN protection force at Sarajevo has to declare the airport
open.  Secondly, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, has to
ask the coalition nations that are taking part to resume their flights.  One
agency of the UN, the UN Protection Force, declares the airport open; secondly,
we begin to get requests from the UNHCR to make flights.  As far as I know, as
of noon Eastern time, neither of those two things have happened.  We are
prepared to resume flights if we get a request from the UN.

     Q:  Pete, the Secretary said last Friday that, said again in fact, that
the United States is not inclined to put troops on the ground in Yugoslavia.
     A: Correct.

     Q:  Has he commented, or what's the feeling of the Department in
conjunction with NATO's decision to possibly send as many as, I believe, it was
8,000 troops in?  Would the United States be part of that?  Or is the United
States willing to be part of that?  Or does the United States consider that a
Washington-provided or Pentagon-provided air CAP, that that would be America's
contribution?
     A:  I think when the Secretary made his comments about the United States
not planning to put ground troops into Yugoslavia, he was aware of the
potential NATO decision.  So the NATO announcement doesn't change our basic
posture.

     Q:  The point being that the United States is not inclined, even as part
of a NATO force, to put ground...
     A:  That's correct, to put ground troops into Yugoslavia.  Now, as a NATO
nation, if we're asked to cooperate in some way with the deployment of those
forces -- communications support, transportation support, and so forth -- we
would certainly take those requests.

     Q:  Concerning the potential sale of F-15's to Saudi Arabia...
     A:  Anything else on Yugoslavia?

     Q:  Any further word on the downing or the crash of that Italian plane?
     A:  No, we have no information to take it beyond what the Secretary told
CNN on Saturday, which is the evidence increasingly would seem to indicate the
plane was shot down.

     Q:  Concerning the F-15 sale to Saudi Arabia, I am confused in trying to
read the tea leaves as between what the Secretary told CNN and what Aviation
Week said, quoting McDonnell Douglas officials saying that they've been told by
senior Pentagon officials that the Administration will not approve the sale of
F-15's to Saudi Arabia.  Perhaps you can tell us...
     A:  It will not shock you if I would lead you to the Secretary's statement
rather than the Av Week story.  I think the best way to say it, I don't know
who the source was.  I've no doubt of the accuracy of the Av Week story in
accurately quoting someone, but I have no idea what that person was talking
about when they said it.  We are a strong advocate of the sale of F-15's to
Saudi Arabia.  He's said that publicly several times, Secretary Cheney has.  He
said it again Saturday.  He said it when he was on the road last week.

     The Department of Defense has made no such "threat" to McDonnell Douglas.
There was, in fact, a meeting here at the Defense Department last week to talk
about the situation with the F-15 in general -- the status of the production
line, how the front of the line was doing in producing airplanes; how the back
of the line was doing in terms of subcontractors being able to provide spare
parts.  That's the situation that was discussed.  But I can categorically deny
the idea that the Defense Department told McDonnell Douglas that the sale was
or was not going to happen.  I can deny that the Defense Department in any way
threatened McDonnell Douglas people to knock off a lobbying campaign.  That's
just complete hogwash.

     Q:  Can you tell us what's holding up the sale then?
     A:  It's a decision by the President.  The decision on whether to sell
F-15's to Saudi Arabia will be a decision for the President.

     Q:  Do you have anything on F-16's for Malaysia?
     A:  We have sold aircraft to Malaysia in the past, A-4's and F-5's, I
think.  The Malaysians are interested in buying new aircraft, and we've had
some preliminary discussions, but that's about where it stands.  We've sold the
Malaysian government 88 A-4's, and 23 F-5's of various configuration.

     Q:  Are you in active discussions with them right now?
     A:  The United States has had exchanges of information regarding the F-16
and F/A-18 aircraft with the Malaysian government, but no offer of purchase has
been received.

     Q:  I just want to tie up one loose end on Yugoslavia.  If the UN Security
Council passes a resolution authorizing protective air cover for humanitarian
airlift into Sarajevo, will U.S. aircraft participate in that air cover?
     A:  I have to give you a sort of careful answer.  I don't know exactly how
we would respond to a specific UN request.  However, at the same time, I think
it's quite likely since the President has said we're willing to do so, the
Secretary of Defense has said we're willing to do so, and obviously, it would
be up to the UN to make that request of member nations.  We would certainly
look favorably upon a UN request.  But the UN is going to have to decide what
they want us to do.

     Q:  Can you clarify something on this subject?  In formulating that
position that you would respond positively, etcetera, have you gotten military
advice that an air CAP can, in fact, prevent individual gunners with
shoulder-held weapons from shooting down cargo planes?
     A:  Certainly we have not, and one of the things that Secretary Cheney
said, as you may know, from undoubtedly reading the transcript this weekend,
specifically talking about the problem with the Italian plane, he said if it
was shot down it probably was done with a shoulder-fired, surface-to-air
missile from the ground.  Fighter escort doesn't help much in that kind of
situation.  But we are prepared to support the UN in this operation.

     I think the original discussion of this was in the context of land
convoys.  If you go back and look at the Secretary's original comments and the
President's as well, and this kind of shows how the situation in Yugoslavia has
changed.  When the Secretary and the President originally made that statement,
it was assumed that the capacity of Sarajevo Airport was very limited, that you
could only get a few flights in a day, that the tarmac was small, that the base
support was very small, and that there was no way that air shipments could get
Sarajevo the kind of food supplies that it needed, and that you'd have to do a
lot through land convoys.  And if the United Nations decided to do that, we
were prepared to provide air and naval air support for land convoys.  

     As you all know, it turns out that the air operation has gone far beyond
what anybody thought it would.  But you've got winter coming up.  That may
limit the operations into the airport.  So our offer still stands.  But it's
certainly not a cure all.  It's not going to end the possibility of what
happened may well have happened with the Italian plane.

     Q:  Then the question is when you cut through the offers and the
assessments, whether in fact you're willing to resume transport flights, if
asked, into a situation where the security is manifestly not adequate, or at
least manifestly where you can't provide enough security to make this anything
approaching a risk-free flight.
     A:  There are sort of two dimensions to that.  One is the safety of the
airport itself, which the UN protection force will decide.  The other is the
safety of flights into and out of the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which
the UNHCR is going to have to decide.  They've made no decision on that yet.  I
can't speculate on what we're going to decide once we get that request, but my
assumption is that if the UNHCR asks us to resume flights and declares it to be
safe to do so, we will.

     There's no such thing, I can't think of any such thing, where U.S.
military troops are operating, with the possible exception of south Florida,
where you can absolutely, 100 percent guarantee their security against enemies.

     Q:  Pete, in fact when this plane was shot down, no one had suggested that
the security at the Sarajevo Airport had suddenly collapsed again.
     A:  Right, it's the other dimension of it.

     Q:  So this incident, in fact, widens the question of security and how
secure can those humanitarian flights be.  Doesn't the shooting down of that
plane mean that if flights are going to resume under something like the status
quo, that other flights could very well be shot down?
     A:  Number one, I don't think that it widens the equation for us.  The
equation has always been not only the safety of Sarajevo Airport, but the
safety on the air corridors in and out of Sarajevo.  So I think that's always
been the case.  Secondly, does it suggest that we might resume flights in an
atmosphere that isn't totally 100 percent secure?  Clearly it does.  I think
that's always been, there's some risk associated with these flights.  No
question about it.

     Let me just say one other thing.  I think the Secretary mentioned that we
have a number of possibilities.  If, for example, the UNHCR makes the
determination that it's safe to resume flights, but our own assessment is that
there is some additional risk, or we relook at it, there are other things we
could do.  We could provide, if in fact it was a heat-seeking type missile,
then we could make decisions on how to utilize or deploy, that sort of
calculation, additional defensive measures for our aircraft.

     Q:  Is it not the case that flight profiles can mean a great difference in
your vulnerability?  This plane that was downed had just taken off from Split,
and probably 15 minutes flying time, and in position to be coming back down
again.
     A:  Sure.  Obviously the way you operate is another consideration.

     Q:  I was just wondering if you could provide any kind of update on the
July crash, the investigation of the crash of the V-22?  A concern about recent
reports that investigators have found evidence of a fire on board before the
crash.
     A:  I've seen those media reports, but the fact of the matter is that the
investigation continues.  There has been no determination yet.  As you know,
these investigations don't issue sort of daily bulletins on where they're
headed.  So I just can't help you with that one other than to say there's no
determination yet.

     Q:  You can't confirm or deny any evidence that investigators have found
of a fire?
     A:  I can neither confirm nor deny.  I can shed no additional light on
potential possibilities for the crash.  We have to wait until the final report
comes out.

     Q:  Any word on when that might be coming out?
     A:  I don't know.  I have nothing here.  Have you heard of anything?  No,
I can't help you.  

     Q:  To revisit the McDonnell Douglas issue again, you've denied that the
Pentagon has threatened, a senior defense official of the Pentagon has
threatened McDonnell Douglas...
     A:  I should say Charlie, having given me that opportunity, it's nuts on
its face.  The Secretary is out there saying we support F-15 sales to Saudi
Arabia, so why would some other person who works for Dick Cheney run around
telling McDonnell Douglas to knock it off?  It doesn't make any sense.

     Q:  So you deny that you've done this.  You deny that you've told
McDonnell Douglas that there's been a decision made not to sell these planes to
Saudi Arabia.  
     A:  Correct.

     Q:  You've denied that you've told McDonnell Douglas that.  To your
knowledge, or the Defense Department's knowledge, has any decision been made
whether or not to sell these planes to Saudi Arabia?
     A:  I can affirmatively say that no decision has yet been made.

     A couple of cleanup chores.  Total Homestead Air Force Base work force
population is 4,600 military, Joe, so you were close.  But you have to add in
1,000 civilians.  So 5,600 people.  Total housing units on base, 1,613.

     The sortie counts for Operation Southern Watch over the last several days.
Day eight, which was September 3rd, 169; day nine, which was September 4th, 91;
day ten, September 5th, 118; day 11, September 6th, 114; day 12, September 7th,
105, for a total of the 597 since we last briefed.  So it seems to have
stabilized out, but you can kind of average it up.  It's up and down.

     Q:  Has the Secretary asked for any kind of report on the report that
suicides have increased in the military?  Or is there going to be any kind of
DoD study done of this issue?
     A:  Not that I know of.  I've not heard of any specific report.
Obviously, we're very concerned about that, but I haven't heard any specific
request for a report.

     Press:  Thank you.

                                     (END)


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