Naval secretary explains Vieques decision

England said he would create a panel to look for "a suitable alternative" to Vieques

U.S. Navy Secretary Gordon England held a briefing session Friday at the Defense Department on the Vieques decision

ENGLAND: Good afternoon, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. Given the swirl of reporting on our thinking about the way ahead in Vieques, I thought it was important for me to come down here and try to clear the air on this important issue.

In a nutshell, there are three parts to our current approach. First, the department will seek legislative relief from the current requirement to conduct a referendum on training at Vieques. Two, the Navy is actively planning to discontinue our training operations on the range on Vieques in May of 2003. And three, I am directing the creation of a panel of experts to reinvigorate our efforts to find effective alternatives to Vieques for training our forces.

I want to emphasize that I brought this proposal forward within the DOD and to the White House. I believe that this approach best reduces what I consider to be the greatest risk to the Navy, to our sailors and Marines, which would be to lose the ability to continue critical training on Vieques for the next two years while we seek alternatives.

It was also important that the Navy seize the initiative on this issue and make it clear that the right place to make decisions about how we train naval forces is right here in the Navy Department. We have both the authority and responsibility to decide such issues that affect our ability to train.

Finally, I believe that by publicly announcing that we are planning to discontinue use of the range in 2003 it would help to decompress this issue. That is, remove some of the current passion and emotion surrounding the discussions.

ENGLAND: It is my impression that this level of emotion often distracts our attention from the real issue. It is not about how long we train on Vieques. The real issue is about providing effective training for naval forces.

I appreciate the support of the president and Secretary Rumsfeld as the Navy works to find alternatives to Vieques. A two-year timetable is certainly challenging, but in my judgment it is reasonable and achievable.

We need to take this opportunity to refocus our effort on the appropriate over-arching objective here. And that objective is how best to provide effective training for our deploying Navy and Marines Corps forces.

Although we plan to discontinue training on Vieques in May of 2003, we will continue to use the range facilities on Vieques in accordance with a currently accepted restrictions on live-fire and usage rates. There is currently no viable, near-term alternative to the facilities in Vieques.

Thank you. And I'd be pleased to take any questions you may have.

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Secretary, the Navy, for the longest time, has described Vieques as the crown jewel of the Navy, and I wanted to know if you no longer share that view. And I have several follow ups.

How many times did the president meet with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark) and the commandant and members of the NSC (National Security Council) to discuss this issue, or have they met with you to discuss this issue?

ENGLAND: OK, the first question, now, about the crown jewel, Vieques is a crown jewel, unquestionably. That does not, however, mean that we cannot find a suitable alternative for Vieques. That does not mean that we will find, quote, "another Vieques."

ENGLAND: I feel most of our efforts in the past have been to find a direct substitute for Vieques. My approach is to find a suitable alternative. A suitable alternative can be other means or techniques, using more than one base, for example, incorporating technology. So we will look at all different types of alternatives to satisfy this requirement.

We will adequately train our sailors and Marines. That is the issue. The issue is not where. The issue is that we train them adequately. I felt it was important that we focus our attention on that primary issue and not on the issue of a specific place.

Regarding consultation with the CNO and with the commandant, I have met with the CNO and have met with the commandant many times in the last couple weeks on this issue and this subject. We both agree -- or they both agree with me on this subject that the issue is not Vieques; it is effective training. I will keep coming back to that. We are in absolute agreement effective training is what is essential and necessary. The issue is not Vieques. The issue is, how do we have effective training for our deploying forces?

QUESTION: Why cut yourself off from the referendum bill? Why not hold out hope that the referendum will go your way while simultaneously looking for alternatives?

ENGLAND: In my judgment this is very bad public policy to have a referendum on issues critical to the department of the Navy, issues critical to our men and women in uniform, and it sets a very bad precedent. I do not believe we should go ahead with a referendum, which is why I indicated that we would seek a relief to the law.

QUESTION: Sir, isn't it an equally bad precedent to set national security policy based on the objections of a small, but vocal, number of protesters? Aren't you setting a bad precedent for other communities in the United States and other places around the world where training facilities are not popular among the local residents?

ENGLAND: I don't think so. I mean, my judgment is it's better for us to be in control, for us to take the initiative, for the department of the Navy to decide how we will proceed in the future in training our forces, rather than leave it to local referendum.

ENGLAND: My judgment is leaving that to a local referendum is a very bad precedent. I would much rather be in control of this situation, have us make the decision, have us control our destiny. So it's a judgment, but that is my judgment in examining all the facts and that is the approach we're proceeding.

QUESTION: When do you plan to restart the bombing?

ENGLAND: We have exercises scheduled for next week.

QUESTION: To some extent, hasn't this all just backfired in the day or so? There isn't anybody that supports what the White House or the military has done. The people who are against training are even more vocal in their protests. And people like Trent Lott are coming out and publicly saying they will not support legislative relief; they believe the Navy should stay there. Who supports the Navy and you on this initiative?

ENGLAND: There's people on many sides of this issue and everyone has their view of how to resolve this issue. As a person in charge of the naval department, responsible for our sailors and Marines, I felt it was essential that someone take a position on this, have a way ahead on this issue.

Unfortunately, perhaps I'm naive. In Washington, I found out, by the way, the communications in Washington we should probably patent the communication channels, because they're much speedier than any information system we have in the military. My approach was really quite straightforward, that is: propose a decision to the White House, consult with the Congress, after obtaining concurrence and discussion, proceed with a decision. Unfortunately, communications worked much quicker than that approach could operate.

QUESTION: Part of our communication plan...

ENGLAND: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Part of our communication plan, though, was apparently you met with Senator Warner on Wednesday, but did not meet with Senator Levin until Thursday and Senator Levin is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Could you address that sequence of events?

And also could you talk -- I'm having a hard time with the logic of how the Navy's going to seize control of this issue and make the decision by itself, when you're essentially assenting to the decision that the Puerto Rican protesters want you to do.

QUESTION: I mean, it seems like you're narrowing your choices, rather than expanding them.

ENGLAND: First of all, regarding the coordination, I did talk to Senator Levin by phone. I have made a number of calls on the Hill for lots of subjects, some of those just courtesy calls. Some of this overlapped, so some of this overlapped just my own efforts making courtesy calls with our senators and congressmen.

I believe this area is quite clear to me. In my view, the downside risk to the Navy is much greater than the upside potential. The downside risk in this highly emotionally charged environment is that we would not have time to find alternate training for our naval forces. The upside for us, of course, is to stay on Vieques, but I am firmly convinced that in this time period we can find an alternative for effective training for our naval forces.

So in my view, and in my judgment, and what my decision was based on was to mitigate the risk of losing Vieques as opposed to making sure that we had training facilities available to all of our deploying sailors and Marines.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, part of the law that reflects in your agreement from the last administration is that the Navy's going to put $40 million into the economy of Vieques. Does this still hold?

ENGLAND: Well, the current law that's codified in the defense authorization, I believe, is that appropriate up to $40 million. And if the law was changed, then we will wait to see what the outcome of those changes are. So if we change the law, then we'll see what the impact of that is on our spending in Vieques.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, just to clarify, I've got two questions. You're open, when you say to an alternative, to some sort of...

QUESTION: I mean, it seems like you're narrowing your choices, rather than expanding them.

ENGLAND: First of all, regarding the coordination, I did talk to Senator Levin by phone. I have made a number of calls on the Hill for lots of subjects, some of those just courtesy calls. Some of this overlapped, so some of this overlapped just my own efforts making courtesy calls with our senators and congressmen.

I believe this area is quite clear to me. In my view, the downside risk to the Navy is much greater than the upside potential. The downside risk in this highly emotionally charged environment is that we would not have time to find alternate training for our naval forces. The upside for us, of course, is to stay on Vieques, but I am firmly convinced that in this time period we can find an alternative for effective training for our naval forces.

So in my view, and in my judgment, and what my decision was based on was to mitigate the risk of losing Vieques as opposed to making sure that we had training facilities available to all of our deploying sailors and Marines.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, part of the law that reflects in your agreement from the last administration is that the Navy's going to put $40 million into the economy of Vieques. Does this still hold?

ENGLAND: Well, the current law that's codified in the defense authorization, I believe, is that appropriate up to $40 million. And if the law was changed, then we will wait to see what the outcome of those changes are. So if we change the law, then we'll see what the impact of that is on our spending in Vieques.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, just to clarify, I've got two questions. You're open, when you say to an alternative, to some sort of...

ENGLAND: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

QUESTION: When you say, you're looking for an alternative, you're open to some kind of combination and not just one site, including a new site and simulation and other techniques and so on?

ENGLAND: Yes.

QUESTION: A combination of things.

And secondly, who have you put in charge of a plan for the Navy to leave Vieques?

ENGLAND: We will have a panel of experts, as I mentioned. We are putting that panel together right now as we speak. We are looking for both active and retired military personnel. We will also, most likely, bring in some technology people from our labs. So we will have a comprehensive look at this whole matter of alternate training.

I mentioned a combination of sites because at other places we do use a combination of sites in our training, not one specific location.

QUESTION: If I could just clarify this one point...

ENGLAND: Please.

QUESTION: ... you said this was your decision...

ENGLAND: Yes.

QUESTION: ... and your proposal that you brought forward.

ENGLAND: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Is the proposal that -- or the plan that you've outlined now precisely the same as the one you presented to the White House on Wednesday, or has it been refined or modified after discussions with the White House?

ENGLAND: No, sir. This is my recommendation and I was authorized to go forward and consult with the Congress and implement this plan.

QUESTION: Just to stay with that for a minute, Mr. Secretary, it was your recommendation and they authorized you to go forward, but I think a lot of us have heard from multiple sources that while you were on the Hill explaining this recommendation or this idea, that journalists were getting calls from the White House indicating that it was a done deal. Do you feel like you had your legs cut out from under you on this while you were trying to formulate something?

ENGLAND: No, sir, I don't. I feel like I had the support of the White House.

I went to the White House. I made the proposal. I made the recommendation. This is my decision based on the facts. This is all based on my recommendation to the White House. I did have the support of the White House. I went forward on the Hill. Unfortunately, however, news leaks in Washington. It did leak. But nonetheless, I feel like we took a proper approach. I have examined the facts. I am absolutely convinced this is the best way forward for the Department of the Navy.

It is important -- it is vitally important that the Department of the Navy take responsibility, have the authority and responsibility for decisions that affect our sailors and Marines.

ENGLAND: So it is vitally important that we retain that responsibility here within the Department of the Navy.

QUESTION: On the issue of training, if there is, in fact, a gap between the time that we leave Vieques and move to another place, are we going to keep our (inaudible) current? Will there be some alternative means for training?

ENGLAND: We plan to have alternative means before we leave and before I plan to leave in May of 2003.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, also clarify one other point. For years now, both previous secretaries of the Navy and CNOs and the uniformed Navy has said that Vieques is essential, that they had looked at alternatives and there was nothing adequate.

So I guess the question is, were all the previous CNOs, and was the uniformed Navy, wrong in their assessment?

ENGLAND: No. My judgment is that, looking at the facts, we have looked to find a, quote, "replacement for Vieques"; another place like Vieques. So while we have emphasized Vieques as a unique capability, to replace that specific unique capability, in my judgment, is not necessary to have a one-for-one replacement.

As long as we provide effective training for our sailors and our Marines, we have met our objective. That will be the focus -- not on a specific place, but on effective training for our sailors and Marines.

QUESTION: Sir, the history of this issue is that each time the United States government seems to lower its requirements, go to inert ordnance or whatever, rather than being calmed down by this, the demonstrators seem to actually be emboldened and the demonstrations get worse and worse.

What makes you think that next week we won't see even bigger demonstrations now that they smell victory?

ENGLAND: I hope that is not the outcome. In my judgment, it will not be the outcome. My view is, if we can remove the emotion from this so that we can reason, discuss this in a more rational environment, we will work out an appropriate way forward.

ENGLAND: So the importance of this, in my view, is to remove the emotion of the moment.

QUESTION: Are the government of Puerto Rico of the people of Puerto Rico to understand that you are making a proposal, this is a commitment or this is a goal of the Navy?

And the second part of the question would be, because it is your proposal, can you explain in detail what will happen with the law, not only with the $40 million, in which way the referendum will be eliminated, you are going to eliminate completely the directives of President Clinton and the text of the law that was approved last year?

ENGLAND: This is the approach forward that I have proposed. We will seek relief from the current legislation that requires a referendum, so we will seek relief from that law. So we plan not to go forward with the referendum; we will ask the Congress to change that law.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, one thing that many congressmen and senators have stated over the years is that if the Navy no longer has the training range in Vieques, then the other military bases in Puerto Rico or military installations are no longer needed. Is the Navy also leaning toward that direction? And has the Navy, as a follow-up, been in conversations with the government of Puerto Rico as to where they're heading?

ENGLAND: I did not assess the other military installations in Puerto Rico. I, frankly, only concerned myself with effective training; that is, finding a suitable alternative for Vieques. I have not looked at any other bases in Puerto Rico. So, no, I have not.

QUESTION: What happens if you don't get the legislative relief?

ENGLAND: If we do not get the legislative relief we will certainly follow the law and we will work to win the referendum.

QUESTION: Are the CNO and the commandant together prepared to issue a statement or certify that Vieques is not necessary if you don't get the legislative relief?

ENGLAND: They're certainly not at this time. No, ma'am. I mean, we definitely need a suitable alternative to Vieques. Again, our approach is to be sure that we have a two-year period so we can find a suitable alternative. So it is necessary that we remain on Vieques and we utilize Vieques until we have a suitable alternative.

ENGLAND: So I'm sure they would not certify that now.

QUESTION: The law requires them to make that statement for Congress to waive the referendum.

ENGLAND: We've made an alternate proposal to the Congress other than that's, obviously, they cannot make that statement. I certainly wouldn't ask them to do that. It's certainly necessary until we have a suitable alternative that we remain on Vieques.

QUESTION: You said something very interesting. You said that if you don't get legislative relief, you would hold a referendum and you'd try to win it. That raises the question that if that were to happen and you were to somehow win the referendum, would you then reconsider?

ENGLAND: Certainly, we would reconsider. It would be a lot of expense and everything to move our facilities from Vieques and develop alternative capability. If the people in Vieques wanted us to stay on Vieques and the referendum itself, certainly, we would reconsider this position.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I apologize if you've already addressed this in your opening remarks, I came in late. But I just wanted to ask if the cost of the clean-up associated with an eventual pullout from Vieques, you know -- are we dealing with, you know, possible Superfund site here, another issue for the Navy to have to balance with its operation and management budget?

ENGLAND: Sir, I frankly have not looked at that issue. The overriding issue to me is training our men and women in the military. That's the overriding consideration. As for costs associated with that, obviously, we'll pay whatever cost are required.