Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 1:30 p.m. EST
Quigley: Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have no announcements this afternoon, but I'm ready to take your questions.
Q: Can you give us a rundown on the talks between the SecDef and Minister Qian?
Quigley: Yes. Very cordial and straightforward this morning. He arrived -- they were about 45 minutes in length, from about 11:00 to about 11:45 this morning. Topics addressed were mil- to-mil exchanges, the defense budgets of both China and the United States, nonproliferation issues, and our mutual interest in further developing good bilateral relations.
Of all of those topics, the most time spent on any one of them was the importance to both countries of the mil-to-mil exchange program. Secretary Rumsfeld stressed that from the U.S. perspective that it was very important that these be mutually beneficial to both nations; reciprocity should be kind of a watchword and a guidepost as we design these things in the months ahead. And transparency of the process is also important, from our perspective. So, of those several topics discussed, that, by far, was the one that took most of the time.
Q: You didn't mention Taiwan. How about Taiwan?
Quigley: Was not discussed at all. Did not come up. I think Secretary Powell discussed that quite a bit last night, but it did not come up this morning at all.
Q: What do you mean by reciprocity on the mil-to-mil program?
Quigley: Well, if you have a group of visiting officers, let's say, and you propose to have them visit a fighter base, then you would hope that there be a reciprocal visit to a fighter base and not to, perhaps, a helicopter search-and-rescue facility, or something that isn't equal. So, if there's going to be transparency and mutual benefits to both sides, you should have roughly comparable facilities and types of visits that are incorporated as part of the program. You know, there are many things that do not translate perfectly well, but as close as you can call.
Q: Has there been dissatisfaction on the U.S. side that the Chinese have not allowed access to bases that perhaps the United States has --
Quigley: No, I don't think so. I think it reflects more of Secretary Rumsfeld's thinking on the way ahead with this program, and what does he think is important to be elements of the planning as this program moves forward.
Q: Was there any discuss of waivers of Tiananmen Square sanctions so China could buy their own Aegis cruisers from the United States?
Quigley: No, did not come up. Did not come up.
Q: I know there have been cases in which Chinese officials have attended U.S. exercises in the Pacific, or multinational exercises. Have there been any reciprocal ones to that, in which U.S. officials have attended their exercises?
Quigley: Yeah, I believe there have, but I don't have the details of that at my disposal. We'd have to check with the folks at CinCPaC, who are the principal day-to-day, at least, managers of this program, since that's in his area responsibility. But I believe so.
Q: I have a slightly hard time swallowing the idea that Secretary Rumsfeld just came up with this idea out of the blue and it doesn't reflect anything in reality. Why would he bring something up about, you know, making sure that there's equal access on both sides of mil-to-mil unless it had been a problem in the past?
Quigley: As he continues to review an ever-larger number of programs during his few weeks in office, he has taken the time to try to learn as much about each of them as he can when their turn in the barrel comes up, if you will. It was time to review the mil-to-mil program as an element of his thinking, seeing with the vice premier coming right now, with the report due to the Congress on what we propose for training in the rest of 2001 later this month, and so it forced him to ask himself the question: What is important to me in this program and what do I think we, the United States, should get out of it; and certainly, what should the Chinese expect to get out of it? So it's simply a topic that he has now gotten around to reviewing in due course in his time in office.
Q: So as we're writing about this, would it be accurate for us to write that he wants to make sure there has been parity in these exchanges, and indeed up until this point there has been?
Quigley: I don't know if he has looked at it from a historical perspective. I can't say that. I think he's looking more ahead. And what's past, I can't influence that, okay? But what's important --
Q: So you -- (inaudible) -- don't know what the past, what the experiences has been?
Quigley: No, I'm trying to -- this is where Secretary Rumsfeld's thinking --
Q: But I'm asking what has been the DoD's experience with mil- to-mil exchanges with China? Have they been --
Quigley: Oh, I'd have to take a look at that in some depth before I could give you a good answer. I'm sorry.
But I -- again, from Secretary Rumsfeld's perspective, he's trying to look forward with this. And he's saying, OK, here's a mil-to-mil program; why do we do this? What do I think is important that the United States look for as we design the details of this in the months and years ahead?
Q: Do you have any ballpark figures of the numbers of exchanges that have taken place? And were there any specifics mentioned, certain programs --
Q: -- they'd like to see more academic exchanges, or --
Quigley: I asked that same question. No. There were no specifics of the visit between this date and that date, or going to this installation -- nothing of that level of specificity. It was more on the philosophical approach to the program to -- that would be, you know, more appropriate, frankly, at the secretary of Defense level and the vice premier. I don't have with me a historical snapshot of exchanges in the past. We can get that for you, but I don't have it with me here today. Let me take that.
Q: Would he like to see an increase in numbers? Would that --
Quigley: I don't think he has a number in mind.
Q: -- another questioning, or --
Quigley: No. I don't think he has a number in mind. I don't think it's about numbers in his thinking. It is about value to the nation.
Q: Has the secretary invited Minister Chi, and when does he plan to visit China?
Quigley: I know of no scheduled visit to China so far, at least, by the secretary.
Q: Did he send a message to Minister Chi today that he wanted to visit, by the Chinese minister, or --
Quigley: I don't think so. Let me ask that -- I didn't ask that question. I don't think so, but let me check, Charlie. [Update: no invitations were sent or received during today's meeting.]
Q: Did the vice premier agree that there should be reciprocity, that there should be transparency? Were they on the same page on that, or -- ?
Quigley: He said that he understood the secretary's position on that, and that it is, indeed, a goal that both countries should strive for. Both men understand, like I said before, that you can't design exactly identical programs because the militaries are different, the facilities that host the equipment are different. Just the circumstances are different. But he thought that it was a goal worth pursuing.
Q: Did the vice premier raise China's concerns about missile defense systems, U.S. plans for missile defense?
Quigley: No. That, again, was not a topic of discussion.
Q: On -- are you familiar enough with the Aegis system that you could describe what capability it would provide Taiwan that Taiwan doesn't have now? Can you describe in general terms how the Aegis system works?
Quigley: Well, it's a very highly automated air defense management system. And it's a phased array, electronically phased array radar, computer-driven, computer-managed, very fast, integrated with a variety of sensors. It has the ability to operate weapons systems, depending on the mode that you choose. But its great value is it has the ability to handle fast or large numbers of targets quickly with the aid of that computer-assisted heart of the system. And that is what gives it its great strength.
Q: Was the Aegis system used to monitor Chinese missile tests back during the tension in the Taiwan Straits several years ago? Do you know if that was this system employed --
Quigley: I don't know.
Q: Or was it used to monitor the launch of the North Korean Taepo Dong missile, do you know?
Quigley: Don't know.
Q: Craig, the other side of the question about past history of mil-to-mil exchanges: do you know of any that are coming up in the immediate future?
Quigley: Well, one's going on starting this weekend, and that is the port visit. So, if I have 10 port visits -- I'm just making this number up -- but if I have 10 port visits that are proposed for U.S. warships to visit Chinese ports, I would hope for something like 10 visits of Chinese warships over here in the United States to a comparable sort of facility, comparable activities by the crews when they go ashore. If I am going to invite half a dozen senior Chinese officers to the National Defense University to observe classes or observe some sort of a seminar for some number of days, I would hope that there would be a comparable facility in China to which a comparable number of officers would gain a comparable benefit by being exposed to that sort of interaction; those sorts of things.
Q: What is the port visit this weekend?
Quigley: The Blue Ridge, the 7th Fleet flagship pulls into Shanghai tomorrow, the 23rd, for three days. [A news release about the visit is on the Web at http://www.c7f.navy.mil/news/2001/03/24.htm ]
Q: Do you know if they have any imminent ship visits to --
Quigley: I don't believe there is a Chinese port visit scheduled to the United States, at least in the near term, Alex.
Q: And did human rights come up in any way, shape or form in connection with today's talks?
Quigley: No, it did not.
Q: Isn't it surprising that neither Taiwan nor missile defense -- the two issues that China is most concerned about -- weren't raised in these talks? I mean --
Quigley: Well, Taiwan was discussed extensively last night with Secretary Powell. I can only think that the issue was discussed to the vice premier's satisfaction.
Q: He goes to the White House later today to meet with the president to --
Quigley: Right, right. I mean, there are several meetings scheduled during the course of his stay here in Washington, D.C. I wouldn't look for necessarily every issue to be replicated at each step along the way. Some would be chosen -- I mean, the mil-to-mil exchange program, of course, this is the place to discuss that. But if it's a more diplomatic issue, or if it's an issue more of diplomacy, I would think that the State Department might be more appropriate, or the White House.
Q: So there was no mention of Taiwan at all?
Quigley: Not at all.
Q: What about, did the secretary ask the Chinese vice premier about the missile build up -- the build up of short-range ballistic missiles?
Quigley: No. Again, missiles were not discussed either. Now, defense budgets were -- okay? -- but only in the sense of numbers and not types or locations or anything of that sort.
Q: What number did Rumsfeld use for the defense budget? (Laughter.)
Quigley: Those that were announced by -- oh, not of the U.S. He did not give a number, other than what has been out there for several weeks when the president gave his blueprint to the Congress.
Q: But did he ask -- the purpose of the Chinese, the way they talk -- they talk about, what, an 18 percent increase in their defense budget --
Quigley: Seventeen-point-something, if memory serves, a couple three weeks ago, yeah.
Q: Did he ask what the purpose of that increase was?
Quigley: I don't think so, no. I mean, I think their intentions to modernize their force have been pretty well out there for some period of time, and they've made no bones about the fact that their intentions are to modernize their force, and their defense budget has been on an upswing in recent years to reflect that modernization effort.
Q: Change the subject?
Q: On Kosovo, Macedonia. Yesterday the defense secretary seemed a little unclear about precisely what the request NATO was making of its member nations for additional troops for Kosovo. Do you have any more clarity on that today, and can you say definitely whether the United States will be sending any additional troops to Kosovo to beef up the peacekeeping force there?
Quigley: I think he was pretty clear on the United States' intentions to send additional troops to Kosovo; I don't think that's what we're looking at. He would support a repositioning of existing forces within Kosovo, but I don't think that the United States is looking at an increased force level of U.S. troops to that.
Q: Has NATO asked the United States for additional troop contributions?
Quigley: I'm having an unusually difficult time in finding where that -- it certainly should be here somewhere, but I can't find where the request has come into this building or another element of the federal government. But that's more a bureaucratic problem than it is of substance. I mean, Lord Robertson has made it pretty clear that he has indeed asked the 19 to consider contributing additional troops to the overall force levels in Kosovo.
Q: So is this just done on -- for instance, is that on a volunteer basis, where they put out a general request and whoever wants to contribute troops volunteers --
Quigley: That's exactly -- yeah --
Q: -- as opposed to specifically asking the United States for X number of additional troops.
Quigley: Correct. The process is one of capabilities. And once it's vetted through the North Atlantic Council and the secretary- general, then that goes out to all 19 of the nations simultaneously. It says, "We have a need for something, a capability to do something, and can any of you fill this need?" And then nations internally work that and come back with the answer.
Q: Just to be clear, because you said this in sort of a convoluted way, is the United States considering sending any additional troops to Kosovo?
Quigley: I know of no intention by the United States to send additional troops to Kosovo.
Q: Well, a formal request wouldn't reach the United States yet if the NAC -- if the NAC just approved --
Quigley: Yeah, but it's been a couple of days ago.
Q: -- a request, wouldn't it go through a military committee first?
Quigley: No, it would go --
Q: Wouldn't it go through Ralston's shop and then to the individual countries?
Quigley: No, the other way around, actually. It's ultimately -- NATO is a political alliance, and it would be approved by the NAC. And when it's approved by the North Atlantic Council, then that would go back to the governments, to the seat of governments of the 19. And then the governments would ascertain whether or not they can or desire to meet that requirement, whatever that might be.
Q: So the military committee's already decided what types of troops are needed, additional troops are needed.
Quigley: I don't know if that's taken place. I don't know if it's been through the military committee. Like I say, I'm having an unusually difficult time in laying my hands on a piece of paper. But Lord Robertson's intent is clear, Charlie, and I'm not going to let our bureaucratic problem get in the way of the issue here. The issue is that he has indeed made his intentions clear to all 19 that he would like them to consider the provision of higher force levels in Kosovo.
Q: Questions on two other topics. Can you bring us up to date on the impact of foot and mouth disease in Europe and training on --
Q: I'm sorry. Before you go ahead on a different topic.
Quigley: Another question on that? Go ahead.
Q: Has there been any move by Rumsfeld to approve UAVs, additional UAVs for the area?
Quigley: A deployment order has been issued to bring Predator, a unit of Predators into the Balkans. It's a seasonal thing, Suzanne, as well.
Q: (Off mike) -- how many in?
Quigley: A unit. I'm unclear; I think it's a small number. I think two or three are in a unit, and it's about 80 people to run them and repair them and control them and things of that sort.
It tends to be a seasonal thing, with the weather in that part of the world. When you get around to the September-October-November time frame and the snows come and they are considerably strong winters, the UAVs lose a lot of their utility. Now comes March-April time frame, and the trees and the vegetation come back out again and the snows are melted and you have much more utility from a UAV.
So at the moment, the U.S. does not have any UAVs in the Balkans. Other nations operate them, but we don't have any there. The secretary has approved a deployment order to send some Predator UAVs over to the Balkans.
Q: To where?
Quigley: I think we're leaving the basing decisions to the theater commander, but clearly they're going to operate for the benefit of those in the Balkans, and you would expect them to be in that part of the continent.
Over the years, we've operated from Skopje, from Tuzla, from Hungary, and from one other location -- I think three or four different locations over the years. But I don't think we've got a final call as to where they're going to operate from this time.
Q: But they could go to Skopje?
Quigley: Any of those sites are fair game. We'll leave that to the theater commander to decide.
Q: Are they -- manning the border areas?
Quigley: Well, they're clearly, for the tremendous capability they bring, for aerial reconnaissance and the scope of their capability to see what's going on.
Q: Well, will intelligence --
Q: The unit will be coming from where?
Quigley: I don't know. I'll take that and find out. [Update: Predators are based in Nevada.]
Q: Will intelligence from those UAVs be shared with the Macedonians?
Quigley: Well, so far, we've shared limited airborne intelligence information with the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from a single manned reconnaissance aircraft that is operating in the area, and that's been in the part of aerial videotape and things of that sort. That's been the extent of the provision of that sort of information to the Macedonian government.
Q: But is part of the idea here to collect this -- use the UAVs to collect information that can be used by the Macedonians to deal with these rebels?
Quigley: I don't think we've worked out those details yet.
Q: How -- with 80 people, are they being considered sent to Kosovo or to Bosnia or -- which peacekeeping group are they attached to?
Quigley: They are being sent to the Balkans, and they would be at the disposal of the commanders there to be used --
Q: For both SFOR and KFOR?
Quigley: The principal focus is Kosovo, but I can't exclude their utility in Bosnia, either, if that's where a need arises. But right now, the need is clearly much more on the Kosovo side.
Q: And have U.S. troops shifted at all, or more troops shifted and moved into that Macedonian area since last --
Quigley: No difference from Tuesday, no.
Q: Are these the boys from Texas, or --
Quigley: I don't know their home station, Charlie. I'm sorry. I'll see if I can get that.
Q: When are they expected to arrive?
Quigley: In the next week or so, I would believe. I don't believe it's to start until a couple of days from now. And they would pack out pretty quickly and get over there.
Q: Yeah, if I may go back to the secretary's meeting this morning with the Chinese, what were the issues that they both care about? I think it is they who requested to have such a meeting, isn't it?
Quigley: Would you repeat your question?
Q: What were the issues, the topics that they most wanted to talk about?
Quigley: Of the several topics that were discussed, the one most -- that took most of the time was the military-to-military exchange program between China and the United States.
Q: But what's the major concern on the Chinese side? Are they only concerned about the military exchange, or -- the major points --
Quigley: Well, I -- again, all of those topics were discussed. But I'm trying to give you a sense of how much time was used to discuss those various issues. Of those various issues, the one that had the most time devoted to it was the discussion of the military-to-military exchange program.
Q: And it's only because Secretary Rumsfeld happened to be interested in it. But also the Chinese were also interested. Is that what you're saying?
Quigley: I don't have a characterization of who had more interest than the other. I'm sorry. I'd --
Q: You said "of those various issues". The only two issues you've mentioned are mil-to-mil relations and budgets.
Quigley: Defense budgets, nonproliferation issues, and a continuing interest in further developing a good bilateral relationship.
Q: Can you bring us up to date on the impact of foot and mouth disease on U.S. Army training in Germany and other places in Europe?
Quigley: Sure. Just to recap for a minute, if I could, the Ministry of Defense in Germany put out -- issued orders on the 16th of March to restrict training for allied and German forces operating out of Germany in order to further help, assist in containing any outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. The initial order put an immediate halt in place to all training that may have been going on, even on that day, on the 16th, and we did so.
Now, two days ago, the Ministry of Defense issued some modifications to that order which allowed training that had already -- that was going on on the 16th to continue and to complete. And they also allowed training to take place in training areas that were physically adjacent to the kasernes or the installations where U.S. forces are stationed. But the overarching goal remains one of caution here to do whatever we can to not spread foot and mouth to other parts of Europe. It's a very real concern.
Q: So are places like Grafenwoehr and Hohenfels closed down?
Quigley: Well, the installations certainly aren't closed down. I mean, and if they have an adjacent training area that is directly, physically adjacent, so I can literally go from the kaserne to the training area, that was the modification that the ministry issued on the 20th, two days ago. But if I'm in a kaserne in one location and my training area is not directly adjacent, then I can't go to my training area, which might be several kilometers away. That is the heart of the concern, is the movement of equipment and people to somehow spread foot-and-mouth.
We're working with both -- again, the Ministry of Defense and the government of Germany, their Agricultural Ministry as well, to try to work out the way ahead. The restrictions that the Ministry of Defense put in place are in effect through the 28th. So that's another week, six days. And we'll see what happens beyond that. I don't think anybody expects the problem to go away in six days. But we'll continue to work with the Ministry of Defense to try to either perhaps get some waivers for the restrictions, do what we can to mitigate any sort of concern on the spread of foot-and-mouth by disinfecting people, their clothing, their shoes, wheels of vehicles, things of that sort that might be used to spread the disease in that way. But they've put the restrictions in place through the 28th as a start point, and we'll kind of take it from there.
Q: So is training at this point essentially paralyzed, the training in Germany?
Quigley: No, it is -- that's too strong, Jim. There are installations who can do training in the field at training areas that are physically adjacent to their kaserne. If that doesn't apply to you, there's other things you can do. You can certainly do computer simulations, you can do a lot of the activities that don't involve field training. And there's much good training that can happen in that regard that doesn't entail going out in the field. But over the long term, that would have an impact on the training readiness and the combat readiness of forces there.
Q: Is there any general percentage on what kind of activities have been cut off by this?
Quigley: Not that I have seen, Charlie, no.
Q: After the Greeneville accident, the secretary ordered the services to cease and desist on VIP visits and review the policy. Apparently the services have resumed some of their VIP trips, including a ride aboard a submarine for some members of Congress. Has the secretary signed-off on this? Is he now satisfied with the way the program is running?
Quigley: The secretary never directed a cease-and-desist of the distinguished visitor program. He did put in place a moratorium on placing visitors in positions of control -- flying planes, hands on the wheel, if you will -- okay? -- as well as firing crew-served weapons.
That same moratorium offered his strong support in the continuation of the visitor program itself.
Now, each of the services then took that and put individual implementation instructions that are tailored to the particulars of their service. So the Navy would have something in place that would talk about ships, for instance; Army, Marine Corps for armored vehicles and the like. So they would tailor it to be specific to their service.
The moratorium on being in positions of control remains in place. At DoD we have issued over-arching policy guidance that basically puts the secretary's moratorium in a broader-reaching policy directive. And the services have taken that one step further and tailored their policies to the particulars of the equipment and operations that they conduct.
Q: Craig, two days ago, I believe it was, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement accusing the secretary and the deputy secretaries of Defense of making confrontational statements that were reviving the spirit of the Cold War. What is Secretary Rumsfeld's reaction to that?
Quigley: He stands by his statements. I think the record of arms sales on Russia is pretty clear. And he stands by his statements. I think Iran is just the latest example of that. But he meant what he said.
Q: Well, to follow up on that, from the U.S. military point of view, what national security threat do you feel is posed by the presence of Russian diplomats in the United States? Do they pose a national security threat?
Quigley: I would defer to the State Department on that, Barbara.
Q: Yesterday House Armed Services had a hearing on the Hart-Rudman commission report. Former Senator Hart and Speaker Gingrich both testified that a substantial increase in the DoD top line, something on the order of $60 billion, was needed, and that there ought to be a $20 billion increase in the top line in '02. Obviously, we know what the president and Secretary Rumsfeld have said about top line increases in '02. But the suggestion yesterday was that the Bush administration won't be taken seriously in its claims to be interested in updating and modernizing the defense establishment unless we get a substantial increase. I wonder if you could respond to that.
Quigley: Well, I think Secretary Rumsfeld has made his views on that pretty clear, and they really reflect those of the president. The president has tasked Secretary Rumsfeld to conduct these reviews of defense strategy and what he envisions America's military being able to do in the world in the early part of the 21st century. Those reviews are ongoing. He's working as fast and as hard as he can to get those done, so that those that have an impact or need to be impacted by the fiscal year '02 budget can get done in time and briefed to the president. Assuming the president would then approve the changes that Secretary Rumsfeld is recommending, there would be time to do something with legislation that could have an impact or be impacted by the fiscal year '02 budget, which is before the Congress now.
So I think that's premature. The process is not complete. And like I said, he's going as fast as he can to get done as quickly as he can and have an impact on that process, because the train's moving down the track.
Q: Well, there are, as you know, a whole range of dates floating around this building and on the Hill as to when we might expect to get details of the budget. Can you enlighten us at all on what the best date is right now?
Quigley: I can't. I'm sorry. I don't know.
Q: And did Secretary Rumsfeld respond to Senator Warner's letter concerning the possibility of an $8-1/2 billion, I think, increase in the top line for '02?
Quigley: I don't know if he has responded yet. I don't know.
Q: On another topic, Secretary Rumsfeld's stock portfolio investments -- can you update us on whether he's divested defense- related companies? Are we going to see a list of those --
Quigley: Eventually, yes. There's two documents that are relevant, that address this. One is his Special (sic) [Standard] Form 278, SF-278. It's a financial disclosure form. That one's been out in the public domain for many weeks now. That offers a description of the sorts of holdings, financial holdings, that an individual has, in public life, and a range of their value.
The second document is an ethics agreement that had been entered into by Secretary Rumsfeld, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, by the Office of Government Ethics, and by the Pentagon Office of Ethics. And this was an agreement that addressed two things. One was his membership in organizations, and the second was his divestiture of financial holdings that had Defense Department ties in some way. So this agreement, put very simplistically, was to his agreement on membership in organizations and holdings of financial interests in companies that would have some business dealings with the Department of Defense.
A lot of his financial holdings are very complicated. And the period of time that was agreed to was a 90-day period of divestiture. And so that's roughly three months from the 20th of January that he would have to completely divest himself of those issues -- of those financial issues that would be at issue here in the ethics agreement.
Within days, the membership in the various organizations was done. And also, very quickly, many of the financial divestitures were done. But some are still very much a work in progress because they're very complicated. They involve limited partnerships and things of that sort where you would have a very real impact on markets by an individual selling, or even exchanging the ownership of some of these complicated, very illiquid assets that he is the owner of.
So, as the legal team and the financial management team works very hard to divest all of this stuff; when that process is complete -- certainly by the 90 days -- the ethics agreement itself will then be a public document as well.
Q: So you are saying --
Quigley: Long answer to your question.
Q: So when is that, next month?
Quigley: Well, I'd have to figure out exactly when 90 days is, but it's 90 days from, you know -- February, March, April 20 -- April, roughly.
Q: Conceivably, he's making major decisions that could affect his investments that we don't know about. So there's no transparency on defense-related investments. That's what you're saying.
Quigley: Well, you can only do what you can do, Pat. I mean, a lot of these relationships that he's in are not liquid. I mean, if I own or you own a share of a mutual fund or a stock, and it's just owned outright, I can sell it. I can sell it tomorrow. But that is way more simplistic than a lot of his financial holdings, and you simply cannot divest yourself of the complicated ones without a long-term effort. That was the agreement in -- that was why 90 days, because those on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Office of Government Ethics understood that these were very complex financial holdings that you simply could not sell the next day. And they're working very hard at that as we speak, and have been for weeks now.
Q: So the deadline is the 20th of April then?
Quigley: Well, that's close. I mean, whatever 90 days is from the 20th of January.
Q: So you're going to -- either on that date or before that, you're going to give us this information?
Quigley: Yeah, there are several Freedom of Information Act requests, both here and in the Office of Government Ethics for that document. And when the divestiture is complete, the FOIA requests will be honored.
Q: Why do we have to have a FOIA request for a public document like this involving the secretary's personal investments?
Quigley: Well, because that's --
Q: Why do we have to do that?
Quigley: Because that's the process that the law describes.
Q: Well, but that's a roadblock at this building, as you well know. You could make it in two days or 10 years with Freedom of Information Act. Why can't you just hand this out when it's ready?
Quigley: I don't agree with your characterization.
Q: Well, that's my experience with it. It's outrageous; your Freedom of Information policies. There's no freedom of information.
Quigley: It's never --
Q: I mean, to hide behind that --
Quigley: It's never done --
Q: (Off mike) -- documents is unacceptable.
Quigley: I disagree with your characterization.
Q: I was just wondering, is the issue that all of these holdings that are related to defense will be divested; there will be no blind trusts or that kind of thing? He is divesting, so --
Quigley: You got me there. I don't know the mechanisms by which his financial team is accomplishing that. I don't know.
"This transcript was prepared by the Federal News Service, Inc., Washington DC. Federal News Service is a private company. For other defense related transcripts not available through this site, contact Federal News Service at (202) 347-1400."