Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Pentagon Briefing; Airliner Diverted
Aired May 12, 2005 - 13:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: This is the Pentagon briefing obviously that we've been waiting for, Richard Myers, Joint Chiefs, and also, Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, making announcements right now. We're expecting possibly to hear a big decision -- or a big announcement is what we are waiting for.
We're going to listen in.
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: ...infrastructure as the threats to our country have evolved. And today, the Department of Defense again is in need of change and adjustment. Current arrangements pretty much designed for the Cold War must give way to the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges.
At the direction of the president and with the support of the Congress, this department has undertaken several initiatives to address our new circumstance, including -- as you know, we've been changing the U.S. global posture, forging new partnerships to fight extremism, transforming U.S. military to a more agile, joint expeditionary force, and reforming the way the department does its business.
Tomorrow, at the direction of the Congress, the department will present another component of that strategy: it's recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission for changes to U.S. military installations.
This is an important process.
Consider the array of issues of concern to this department: making sure the troops have proper equipment, relieving stress on the force, improving the ability of the forces to cooperate jointly, and protecting forces stationed at vulnerable bases and locations across this country and around the world.
If one thinks about those priorities, it clearly makes sense to do all that one can to identify and remove whatever excess exists to be able to better address those pressing needs. And by so doing, the American taxpayer benefits.
This, in essence, is the logic and imperative of BRAC.
Let me make a few comments about the process undertaken over the past two years. First, as required by law, the primary factor in each BRAC recommendation has been an assessment of an installation's underlying military value. Indeed, military judgments have played the key role from the outset and properly so.
In a time of war, whenever we can find ways to increase support for military needs to help the war-fighter, we should do no less.
Second, the previous four BRAC rounds, in 1998, '91, and '93 and '95, over time have eliminated some 21 percent of then-excess U.S. military infrastructure and reallocated many billions of dollars to pressing military needs.
This year's recommendation, if approved by the BRAC Commission, approved by the president and ultimately approved by the Congress of the United States, should result in some $5.5 billion in recurring annual savings: a net savings of $48.8 billion over 20 years. When combined with the proposed changes to U.S. global posture, that projected 20-year net saving increases from $48.8 billion to $64.2 billion; or some $6.7 billion per year.
Third, for the first time, these deliberations took place with an emphasis on jointness. The military recognizes that operating jointly reduces overhead costs, improves efficiencies and facilitates cooperative training, research and operation. Importantly, these consolidations also free up personnel and resources to reduce stress on the force and improve force protection.
The department also considered potential contingency and surge requirements and possible increases in active duty troop levels.
The current BRAC effort began more than two years ago with the development of a 20-year force structure plan and an exhaustive top- to-bottom inventory of U.S. facilities worldwide.
In fact, one might say the processes started even earlier with the Global Posture Review we began in 2001, now some four years ago.
The considerations related to global posture fed into the BRAC analysis, allowing the department to anticipate and prepare for the return of tens of thousands of personnel and their families.
And the knowledge gained by the two-year Global Posture Review has informed the BRAC deliberations in important ways. Through extensive consultation with the service secretaries, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, a panel of high-ranking military and civilian officials developed stringent criteria and conditions and matrixes to assess the military, business and support operations of the department as well as every facility and military base in the country, taking into account lessons learned from previous BRAC rounds.
The word "base" of course includes much more than one traditionally thinks of as a military base. It includes ports, airfields, industrial and research facility, leased space and the like.
A word about the criteria used: In addition to assessments of military value, the department also examined other key factors, including the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations; the extent and timing of potential cost and savings; the ability of existing and potential receiving communities infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel; and the environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to environmental restoration, compliance and waste management.
I'm advised that during these deliberations, senior military and civilian leaders invested thousands of hour and their staffs expanded tens of thousands of hours to this important work. They examined an estimated 25 million pieces of data and they considered some 1,000 different scenarios.
The analysis used certified data under a process monitored by the Government Accounting Office and the Department of Defense's inspection and audit agencies.
The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated, due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops through our global posture review and also due to decision to reduce lease space by moving activities from leased space into owned facilities.
Nonetheless, the changes that will occur will affect a number of communities, communities that have warmly embraced nearby military installations for a good many years, indeed in some case, decades.
The department will take great care to work with these communities with the respect that they have earned, and the government stands ready with economic assistance.
With the strong support of the president, the Department of Defense and other departments of government are prepared to provide personnel, transfer and job training assistance in collaboration with the Department of Labor, provide local economic adjustment assistance through the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment, use our authorities to accelerate and support re-use needs and work with the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies to assist local economic recovery.
More information on economic assistance, as well as other information relating to BRAC, can be found on the department's Web site -- which I believe is shown up there.
It's helpful to note that many local economies impacted by previous BRAC decisions successfully found ways to get positive results out of a situation that at first must have seemed dire, which of course is a tribute to the ingenuity and resilience of the American people.
For example, I've never been through a BRAC before, so this is my first time. That occurred after I left the department many years ago.
But I'm told that within a decade of the bases closure, the community around Pease Air Force base in New Hampshire employed an aggressive economic development plan to generate more than 1000 percent increase in civilian jobs. In Arizona, Williams Air Force base became the Williams Gateway Airport and has attracted many civilian jobs, and its education center is bringing in thousands of students.
And many cities have turned shut-down Navy bases into new business centers with thousands of new jobs.
All affected communities will not be able to replicate such positive results, of course, but every effort will be made to assist.
With the submission tomorrow, the Defense Department will complete its statutory role in the BRAC process. All further decisions, deliberations and analysis will occur under the auspices of the statutory BRAC commission, and ultimately from the commission to the president of the United States and then to the Congress of the United States.
Because the BRAC commission can assess more information and will have the opportunity to hold hearings and learn from potentially impacted communities, it's possible that the commission may make some changes to these recommendations, as have prior BRAC commissions. I'm told that prior BRACs have made some 10 to 15 percent changes in what was recommended.
I do want to thank the BRAC commissioners for agreeing to serve our country and for undertaking this important assignment. It's a difficult one and we appreciate it.
One final note: I want to thank the many civilian and military personnel in this department, including Chairman Dick Myers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are here; Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who chaired the Infrastructure Executive Council; the service secretaries, Undersecretary Mike Wynne and his very able team, some of which are sitting over there, who have devoted countless hours to developing these recommendations.
The department has relied heavily on their judgment, analysis and recommendations and believes that the process put in place was fair and deliberative.
I have full confidence that all of those who have participated are dedicate to the very best military interests of our nation and to the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform.
General Myers?
GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Good afternoon.
The 2005 BRAC process ensures that the United States will continue to have the best-trained and best-equipped military to meet the threats and challenges of the 21st Century.
BRAC is not a standalone event. But it's a necessary step to improving the warfighting capability of the joint force.
It is properly sequenced with the recent release of the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy and has been informed by the Global Basing Strategy.
The functions and value of all military installations were reviewed and all recommendations are rooted in the congressionally approved selection criteria. The recommendations will support the 20- year force structure plan recently submitted to Congress.
The 2005 BRAC process enabled the services to match facilities to force structure and to make the best use of defense dollars. We also worked very hard with the combatant commander to ensure that BRAC recommendations support the homeland defense mission.
As part of the BRAC process, we looked at all of our facilities from a force-protection standpoint. And the BRAC recommendations help us better protection our servicemembers and our DOD employees.
BRAC has given us the opportunity to increase our combat effectiveness and return our forces to the deployable force structure, thereby reducing stress on the force.
Many of our BRAC recommendations will also help ease stress on our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, civilians and our contractors by allowing us to provide modern, world-class facilities and more efficient and joint organizations.
As secretary said, military value was the primary consideration in the BRAC decision-making process. And there were four major areas we focused on.
First one was current and future mission capabilities and the impact of the operational readiness of the total force, meaning the active duty, Guard and Reserve; the availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace to include training area; maintaining sufficient capacity to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge and future total force requirements; and cost of operations and manpower implications.
Senior military leadership, including the service chiefs, combatant commanders and members of the joint staff, looked at how we should close and realign our current infrastructure to maximize our war-fighting capability. And we had three objectives when we did that: continuing the progress we have made in transforming our force, including how we integrate our reserve component into the total force and preparing them for the 21st century, and how we posture our forces globally to be more flexible and agile; second, configuring our infrastructure to enhance joint war-fighting, facilitate joint training and improve efficiency; and finally, converting unneeded capacity into war-fighting capability.
Let me describe the BRAC process briefly in just a little bit more detail than the secretary did.
And that is, we had seven joint cross-service groups in the military departments who began looking at all our facilities and capabilities and our requirements and then they came up with proposals. The best of their proposals became what we call scenarios.
We evaluated a total of approximately 1,000 scenarios in great detail against the eight different criteria. The combatant commanders analyzed them and made inputs them as part of the process.
Secretary Wynne chaired a steering group that provided oversight for this process and ensured the efforts of the various groups were integrated.
Recommendations were then forwarded to the executive council chaired by the deputy secretary of defense, and I sat on that committee, as well as did the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretaries of the services. We made final recommendation to Secretary Rumsfeld. So that was the process.
Finally, I'd like to thank the hundred of servicemembers, civilians and contract support at the combatant commands, within the services and on the joint staff who have spent countless hours to help prepare these recommendations.
It's my belief that the process we went through was very thorough, very rigorous, and that we had full joint and senior-level involvement from across the armed forces.
This is really important and necessary work as we structure our military for the 21st century. In the last four year, we've been about trying to get this department and our military force ready for the 21st century.
BRAC is an integral part of that. It's a necessary part of that. It is not an appendage; it is integral to our ability to structure ourselves to be able to defend this country well into the future.
So with that, General Cody?
BRIG. GENERAL RICHARD A. CODY, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. ARMY: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon.
PHILLIPS: You were just listening to the Pentagon briefing there with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, along with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers. They're actually talking about the BRAC process for 2005. It's basically the closing of certain military bases across the country and the realignment, as the chairman said there, of the capabilities, fighting capabilities, to utilize bases in a stronger way while saving money, but still maintaining, as he said, strong fighting capability when it comes to wartime activity.
They are, of course, reassessing this, hoping to make it not only effective overseas, but also keeping in mind the strength of homeland security. We'll follow it as the following admirals and generals make their statements. We'll bring you more later on LIVE FROM.
A quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: It's a big day in the drawn-out battle over John Bolton's fitness to speak for the U.S. at the U.N., but a vote today in the Senate Foreign Relations committee may not settle anything. Bolton's bashers and backers alike have apparently decided to send the nomination to the Senate floor without the customary up-or-down recommendation. That happened after weeks of descent and delay over a management style that backers call blunt and refreshing and bashers call bullying and belittling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: So what are we saying? I want to emphasize that I've weighed Mr. Bolton's strengths carefully. I have the weighed the fact that this is the president's nominee.
All things being equal, it is my proclivity to support the president's nominee. However, in this case, all things are not equal.
It's a different world today than it was four years ago. Our enemies are Muslim extremists and religious fanatics who've hijacked the Koran and have convinced people that the way to get to heaven is through jihad against the world, particularly the U.S.
We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy. After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I've come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN), CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: If we reject Secretary Bolton without even granting him a vote on the Senate floor, President Bush's hand will be weakened at the U.N. We will recover, but we will have wasted time and we will have strengthened the position of reform opponents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, a committee vote is expected this afternoon. You'll see it first right here on CNN.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: So what's in a name? In the war on terror, a single name on a single list can make a transatlantic airliner change course, which happened to Air France Flight 332, from Paris to Boston, diverted now to Bangor, Maine. Take a look at live pictures right now of our Flight Explorer software. What you can see there is that plane that is just a little bit to the left of that arrow -- I don't have it through my telestrator, so I can't point it out to you, but if I could, I would tell you that that plane is about five minutes away now, a little less than five minutes away from arriving in Bangor, Maine.
CNN's Kathleen Koch is tracking development for us from her perch in Washington -- Kathleen.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Miles, what we know right now is that somehow a person whose name is on the no-fly list ended up onboard that aircraft, Air France Flight 332, from Paris to Boston. That flight, which is an Airbus 330, packed with 169 passengers, had been scheduled to arrive in Boston at 3:00 p.m.
As you pointed out, instead, it has been diverted to Bangor, Maine, where it was due to arrive at 2:46. So perhaps it's got some tailwind and is arriving a little early.
A Transportation Security Administration spokesperson says that Air France missed the fact that this passenger was a positive match on the no-fly list. But Air France responded in a written statement that it is "fully compliant with U.S. authorities" and that the safety and the security of its passengers are its highest priority.
Right now, the TSA e-mails the no-fly list regularly to airlines overseas, which are then supposed to check the passengers' names against that list before they board. Then, after the plane backs away from the gate, airlines outside the U.S. electronically transmit that passenger manifest to the U.S. government, where then it is double- checked against an even larger terrorist watch list.
Federal law enforcement would like to get that passenger manifest list even sooner, about, say, an hour before takeoff. But, so far, an agreement on that point has not been reached. The government does believe if that happened it would prevent incidents like this.
Now, one word of caution. A senior government official tells CNN that the passenger on the Air France flight has a name similar to one on the watch list, but that this person's physical description does not match. So this could be a case of mistaken identity.
TSA says that such incidents happen roughly once a month. But, Miles, we won't know for certain if that's the case this time until the plane lands and is met by FBI and Homeland Security agents.
O'BRIEN: All right. That will happen in just a couple of minutes. I assume we can rule out Cat Stevens?
KOCH: I think we can, Miles. I think they've pretty well gotten his name straight now.
O'BRIEN: Took care of that one. All right. Kathleen Koch, thank you very much.
More eyes on the sky now in our "Security Watch."
Yesterday, a small plane caused a big scare in the heart of the nation's capital. Today, plenty of praise. There's also a lot of questions about how that alert was handled, all the evacuations.
President Bush wasn't home in the White House when it was evacuated after the single-engine Cessna flew within about 90 seconds of the White House. In fact, the president wasn't even told about the incident until afterward. And that's one thing the Secret Service plans to look into. The mayor of Washington says there was a delay in notifying city officials as well.
Meanwhile, authorities say the pilots won't be charged. They say the two men veered off accidentally on their way to North Carolina.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEL MARTIN, FATHER OF PILOT: The last thing he said before he left last evening was, "Boy, I don't know how we're going to avoid all those new" -- I mean, "I hope we can avoid all those new fly zones." So he was aware of them and stuff. It was a total accident.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: The good news is that Cessna did not have to get shot down. Two F-16 jet fighters were scrambled. They dropped some flares and ended up escorting the wayward plane to Maryland. Last hour, I talked with one of the fighter pilots who diverted that Cessna away from the nation's capital.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. COL TIM LEHMANN, U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD: I went by first, dropped flares. The TOI did not respond. And then the other F-16 went past. He dropped flares as well.
Still, we do not get a response from the TOI. It wasn't until the third time we went past and dropped flares. That seemed to get his attention. And I believe at that point the TOI realized, hey, something -- something is definitely wrong here. And that's when he changed his course.
PHILLIPS: And when did you actually talk to him? Was it after you dropped the flares that you were able to engage in conversation on the Guard frequency, on the emergency frequency?
LEHMANN: That's exactly right, Kyra. The track of interest had turned to a west-bound heading, and it was then that we were able to contact him on a VHF Guard frequency. And we spoke to the pilot. And other agencies had also just -- are gaining radio contact with him at that time, and he was instructed to proceed to Frederick.
PHILLIPS: So what did you say to him, Colonel, and how did he respond? Did he seem nervous, did he seem confused? Was he cooperative with you? LEHMANN: Well, Kyra, it was actually the other F-16 pilot who spoke to him, Major Oxsneed (ph), and he said the pilot was very nervous, somewhat shaken, but still able to communicate. And he said, "OK, I understand we're directed to go to Frederick and land," and he complied with those instructions.
PHILLIPS: All right, Colonel. And I want to point something out and be very specific here, because a lot of questions were asked yesterday in the White House briefing, a lot of reporters asking, "Did you get the shoot-down order?" You know, "Were you told to shoot down this aircraft if he didn't respond?"
Now, it never got to that point. You did not get that call or that instruction from NORAD or from the president because you deemed that this was not a threat, it was not in the attack profile. Explain to viewers why you didn't have to shoot that aircraft down.
LEHMANN: Well, Kyra, the national capital region is defended with a layered defense. And as a target of interest turns up on the radar scope, decisions are already being made as to whether we consider this a high threat, medium threat, or a low threat. And those decisions are being made at a national command authority level, a very high level of the military chain of command and civilian chain of command.
And as they assessed this aircraft, relatively light aircraft, they did not assess it as a high threat type of environment. So that order was never given to shoot it down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Incidentally, this is the closest that any unauthorized plane has come to the White House since 9/11.
CNN is committed to providing the most reliable coverage of news that affects your security. Stay tuned to CNN for the latest information day and night.
Well, lots more LIVE FROM straight ahead, including a call for some protection in the financial world.
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Susan Lisovicz at the New York Stock Exchange. Coming up, are big companies bullying Wall Street analysts? I'll tell you who's raising that question next on LIVE FROM. So stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired May 12, 2005 - 13:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: This is the Pentagon briefing obviously that we've been waiting for, Richard Myers, Joint Chiefs, and also, Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, making announcements right now. We're expecting possibly to hear a big decision -- or a big announcement is what we are waiting for.
We're going to listen in.
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: ...infrastructure as the threats to our country have evolved. And today, the Department of Defense again is in need of change and adjustment. Current arrangements pretty much designed for the Cold War must give way to the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges.
At the direction of the president and with the support of the Congress, this department has undertaken several initiatives to address our new circumstance, including -- as you know, we've been changing the U.S. global posture, forging new partnerships to fight extremism, transforming U.S. military to a more agile, joint expeditionary force, and reforming the way the department does its business.
Tomorrow, at the direction of the Congress, the department will present another component of that strategy: it's recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission for changes to U.S. military installations.
This is an important process.
Consider the array of issues of concern to this department: making sure the troops have proper equipment, relieving stress on the force, improving the ability of the forces to cooperate jointly, and protecting forces stationed at vulnerable bases and locations across this country and around the world.
If one thinks about those priorities, it clearly makes sense to do all that one can to identify and remove whatever excess exists to be able to better address those pressing needs. And by so doing, the American taxpayer benefits.
This, in essence, is the logic and imperative of BRAC.
Let me make a few comments about the process undertaken over the past two years. First, as required by law, the primary factor in each BRAC recommendation has been an assessment of an installation's underlying military value. Indeed, military judgments have played the key role from the outset and properly so.
In a time of war, whenever we can find ways to increase support for military needs to help the war-fighter, we should do no less.
Second, the previous four BRAC rounds, in 1998, '91, and '93 and '95, over time have eliminated some 21 percent of then-excess U.S. military infrastructure and reallocated many billions of dollars to pressing military needs.
This year's recommendation, if approved by the BRAC Commission, approved by the president and ultimately approved by the Congress of the United States, should result in some $5.5 billion in recurring annual savings: a net savings of $48.8 billion over 20 years. When combined with the proposed changes to U.S. global posture, that projected 20-year net saving increases from $48.8 billion to $64.2 billion; or some $6.7 billion per year.
Third, for the first time, these deliberations took place with an emphasis on jointness. The military recognizes that operating jointly reduces overhead costs, improves efficiencies and facilitates cooperative training, research and operation. Importantly, these consolidations also free up personnel and resources to reduce stress on the force and improve force protection.
The department also considered potential contingency and surge requirements and possible increases in active duty troop levels.
The current BRAC effort began more than two years ago with the development of a 20-year force structure plan and an exhaustive top- to-bottom inventory of U.S. facilities worldwide.
In fact, one might say the processes started even earlier with the Global Posture Review we began in 2001, now some four years ago.
The considerations related to global posture fed into the BRAC analysis, allowing the department to anticipate and prepare for the return of tens of thousands of personnel and their families.
And the knowledge gained by the two-year Global Posture Review has informed the BRAC deliberations in important ways. Through extensive consultation with the service secretaries, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, a panel of high-ranking military and civilian officials developed stringent criteria and conditions and matrixes to assess the military, business and support operations of the department as well as every facility and military base in the country, taking into account lessons learned from previous BRAC rounds.
The word "base" of course includes much more than one traditionally thinks of as a military base. It includes ports, airfields, industrial and research facility, leased space and the like.
A word about the criteria used: In addition to assessments of military value, the department also examined other key factors, including the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations; the extent and timing of potential cost and savings; the ability of existing and potential receiving communities infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel; and the environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to environmental restoration, compliance and waste management.
I'm advised that during these deliberations, senior military and civilian leaders invested thousands of hour and their staffs expanded tens of thousands of hours to this important work. They examined an estimated 25 million pieces of data and they considered some 1,000 different scenarios.
The analysis used certified data under a process monitored by the Government Accounting Office and the Department of Defense's inspection and audit agencies.
The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated, due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops through our global posture review and also due to decision to reduce lease space by moving activities from leased space into owned facilities.
Nonetheless, the changes that will occur will affect a number of communities, communities that have warmly embraced nearby military installations for a good many years, indeed in some case, decades.
The department will take great care to work with these communities with the respect that they have earned, and the government stands ready with economic assistance.
With the strong support of the president, the Department of Defense and other departments of government are prepared to provide personnel, transfer and job training assistance in collaboration with the Department of Labor, provide local economic adjustment assistance through the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment, use our authorities to accelerate and support re-use needs and work with the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies to assist local economic recovery.
More information on economic assistance, as well as other information relating to BRAC, can be found on the department's Web site -- which I believe is shown up there.
It's helpful to note that many local economies impacted by previous BRAC decisions successfully found ways to get positive results out of a situation that at first must have seemed dire, which of course is a tribute to the ingenuity and resilience of the American people.
For example, I've never been through a BRAC before, so this is my first time. That occurred after I left the department many years ago.
But I'm told that within a decade of the bases closure, the community around Pease Air Force base in New Hampshire employed an aggressive economic development plan to generate more than 1000 percent increase in civilian jobs. In Arizona, Williams Air Force base became the Williams Gateway Airport and has attracted many civilian jobs, and its education center is bringing in thousands of students.
And many cities have turned shut-down Navy bases into new business centers with thousands of new jobs.
All affected communities will not be able to replicate such positive results, of course, but every effort will be made to assist.
With the submission tomorrow, the Defense Department will complete its statutory role in the BRAC process. All further decisions, deliberations and analysis will occur under the auspices of the statutory BRAC commission, and ultimately from the commission to the president of the United States and then to the Congress of the United States.
Because the BRAC commission can assess more information and will have the opportunity to hold hearings and learn from potentially impacted communities, it's possible that the commission may make some changes to these recommendations, as have prior BRAC commissions. I'm told that prior BRACs have made some 10 to 15 percent changes in what was recommended.
I do want to thank the BRAC commissioners for agreeing to serve our country and for undertaking this important assignment. It's a difficult one and we appreciate it.
One final note: I want to thank the many civilian and military personnel in this department, including Chairman Dick Myers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are here; Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who chaired the Infrastructure Executive Council; the service secretaries, Undersecretary Mike Wynne and his very able team, some of which are sitting over there, who have devoted countless hours to developing these recommendations.
The department has relied heavily on their judgment, analysis and recommendations and believes that the process put in place was fair and deliberative.
I have full confidence that all of those who have participated are dedicate to the very best military interests of our nation and to the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform.
General Myers?
GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Good afternoon.
The 2005 BRAC process ensures that the United States will continue to have the best-trained and best-equipped military to meet the threats and challenges of the 21st Century.
BRAC is not a standalone event. But it's a necessary step to improving the warfighting capability of the joint force.
It is properly sequenced with the recent release of the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy and has been informed by the Global Basing Strategy.
The functions and value of all military installations were reviewed and all recommendations are rooted in the congressionally approved selection criteria. The recommendations will support the 20- year force structure plan recently submitted to Congress.
The 2005 BRAC process enabled the services to match facilities to force structure and to make the best use of defense dollars. We also worked very hard with the combatant commander to ensure that BRAC recommendations support the homeland defense mission.
As part of the BRAC process, we looked at all of our facilities from a force-protection standpoint. And the BRAC recommendations help us better protection our servicemembers and our DOD employees.
BRAC has given us the opportunity to increase our combat effectiveness and return our forces to the deployable force structure, thereby reducing stress on the force.
Many of our BRAC recommendations will also help ease stress on our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, civilians and our contractors by allowing us to provide modern, world-class facilities and more efficient and joint organizations.
As secretary said, military value was the primary consideration in the BRAC decision-making process. And there were four major areas we focused on.
First one was current and future mission capabilities and the impact of the operational readiness of the total force, meaning the active duty, Guard and Reserve; the availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace to include training area; maintaining sufficient capacity to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge and future total force requirements; and cost of operations and manpower implications.
Senior military leadership, including the service chiefs, combatant commanders and members of the joint staff, looked at how we should close and realign our current infrastructure to maximize our war-fighting capability. And we had three objectives when we did that: continuing the progress we have made in transforming our force, including how we integrate our reserve component into the total force and preparing them for the 21st century, and how we posture our forces globally to be more flexible and agile; second, configuring our infrastructure to enhance joint war-fighting, facilitate joint training and improve efficiency; and finally, converting unneeded capacity into war-fighting capability.
Let me describe the BRAC process briefly in just a little bit more detail than the secretary did.
And that is, we had seven joint cross-service groups in the military departments who began looking at all our facilities and capabilities and our requirements and then they came up with proposals. The best of their proposals became what we call scenarios.
We evaluated a total of approximately 1,000 scenarios in great detail against the eight different criteria. The combatant commanders analyzed them and made inputs them as part of the process.
Secretary Wynne chaired a steering group that provided oversight for this process and ensured the efforts of the various groups were integrated.
Recommendations were then forwarded to the executive council chaired by the deputy secretary of defense, and I sat on that committee, as well as did the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretaries of the services. We made final recommendation to Secretary Rumsfeld. So that was the process.
Finally, I'd like to thank the hundred of servicemembers, civilians and contract support at the combatant commands, within the services and on the joint staff who have spent countless hours to help prepare these recommendations.
It's my belief that the process we went through was very thorough, very rigorous, and that we had full joint and senior-level involvement from across the armed forces.
This is really important and necessary work as we structure our military for the 21st century. In the last four year, we've been about trying to get this department and our military force ready for the 21st century.
BRAC is an integral part of that. It's a necessary part of that. It is not an appendage; it is integral to our ability to structure ourselves to be able to defend this country well into the future.
So with that, General Cody?
BRIG. GENERAL RICHARD A. CODY, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. ARMY: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon.
PHILLIPS: You were just listening to the Pentagon briefing there with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, along with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers. They're actually talking about the BRAC process for 2005. It's basically the closing of certain military bases across the country and the realignment, as the chairman said there, of the capabilities, fighting capabilities, to utilize bases in a stronger way while saving money, but still maintaining, as he said, strong fighting capability when it comes to wartime activity.
They are, of course, reassessing this, hoping to make it not only effective overseas, but also keeping in mind the strength of homeland security. We'll follow it as the following admirals and generals make their statements. We'll bring you more later on LIVE FROM.
A quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: It's a big day in the drawn-out battle over John Bolton's fitness to speak for the U.S. at the U.N., but a vote today in the Senate Foreign Relations committee may not settle anything. Bolton's bashers and backers alike have apparently decided to send the nomination to the Senate floor without the customary up-or-down recommendation. That happened after weeks of descent and delay over a management style that backers call blunt and refreshing and bashers call bullying and belittling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: So what are we saying? I want to emphasize that I've weighed Mr. Bolton's strengths carefully. I have the weighed the fact that this is the president's nominee.
All things being equal, it is my proclivity to support the president's nominee. However, in this case, all things are not equal.
It's a different world today than it was four years ago. Our enemies are Muslim extremists and religious fanatics who've hijacked the Koran and have convinced people that the way to get to heaven is through jihad against the world, particularly the U.S.
We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy. After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I've come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN), CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: If we reject Secretary Bolton without even granting him a vote on the Senate floor, President Bush's hand will be weakened at the U.N. We will recover, but we will have wasted time and we will have strengthened the position of reform opponents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, a committee vote is expected this afternoon. You'll see it first right here on CNN.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: So what's in a name? In the war on terror, a single name on a single list can make a transatlantic airliner change course, which happened to Air France Flight 332, from Paris to Boston, diverted now to Bangor, Maine. Take a look at live pictures right now of our Flight Explorer software. What you can see there is that plane that is just a little bit to the left of that arrow -- I don't have it through my telestrator, so I can't point it out to you, but if I could, I would tell you that that plane is about five minutes away now, a little less than five minutes away from arriving in Bangor, Maine.
CNN's Kathleen Koch is tracking development for us from her perch in Washington -- Kathleen.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Miles, what we know right now is that somehow a person whose name is on the no-fly list ended up onboard that aircraft, Air France Flight 332, from Paris to Boston. That flight, which is an Airbus 330, packed with 169 passengers, had been scheduled to arrive in Boston at 3:00 p.m.
As you pointed out, instead, it has been diverted to Bangor, Maine, where it was due to arrive at 2:46. So perhaps it's got some tailwind and is arriving a little early.
A Transportation Security Administration spokesperson says that Air France missed the fact that this passenger was a positive match on the no-fly list. But Air France responded in a written statement that it is "fully compliant with U.S. authorities" and that the safety and the security of its passengers are its highest priority.
Right now, the TSA e-mails the no-fly list regularly to airlines overseas, which are then supposed to check the passengers' names against that list before they board. Then, after the plane backs away from the gate, airlines outside the U.S. electronically transmit that passenger manifest to the U.S. government, where then it is double- checked against an even larger terrorist watch list.
Federal law enforcement would like to get that passenger manifest list even sooner, about, say, an hour before takeoff. But, so far, an agreement on that point has not been reached. The government does believe if that happened it would prevent incidents like this.
Now, one word of caution. A senior government official tells CNN that the passenger on the Air France flight has a name similar to one on the watch list, but that this person's physical description does not match. So this could be a case of mistaken identity.
TSA says that such incidents happen roughly once a month. But, Miles, we won't know for certain if that's the case this time until the plane lands and is met by FBI and Homeland Security agents.
O'BRIEN: All right. That will happen in just a couple of minutes. I assume we can rule out Cat Stevens?
KOCH: I think we can, Miles. I think they've pretty well gotten his name straight now.
O'BRIEN: Took care of that one. All right. Kathleen Koch, thank you very much.
More eyes on the sky now in our "Security Watch."
Yesterday, a small plane caused a big scare in the heart of the nation's capital. Today, plenty of praise. There's also a lot of questions about how that alert was handled, all the evacuations.
President Bush wasn't home in the White House when it was evacuated after the single-engine Cessna flew within about 90 seconds of the White House. In fact, the president wasn't even told about the incident until afterward. And that's one thing the Secret Service plans to look into. The mayor of Washington says there was a delay in notifying city officials as well.
Meanwhile, authorities say the pilots won't be charged. They say the two men veered off accidentally on their way to North Carolina.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEL MARTIN, FATHER OF PILOT: The last thing he said before he left last evening was, "Boy, I don't know how we're going to avoid all those new" -- I mean, "I hope we can avoid all those new fly zones." So he was aware of them and stuff. It was a total accident.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: The good news is that Cessna did not have to get shot down. Two F-16 jet fighters were scrambled. They dropped some flares and ended up escorting the wayward plane to Maryland. Last hour, I talked with one of the fighter pilots who diverted that Cessna away from the nation's capital.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. COL TIM LEHMANN, U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD: I went by first, dropped flares. The TOI did not respond. And then the other F-16 went past. He dropped flares as well.
Still, we do not get a response from the TOI. It wasn't until the third time we went past and dropped flares. That seemed to get his attention. And I believe at that point the TOI realized, hey, something -- something is definitely wrong here. And that's when he changed his course.
PHILLIPS: And when did you actually talk to him? Was it after you dropped the flares that you were able to engage in conversation on the Guard frequency, on the emergency frequency?
LEHMANN: That's exactly right, Kyra. The track of interest had turned to a west-bound heading, and it was then that we were able to contact him on a VHF Guard frequency. And we spoke to the pilot. And other agencies had also just -- are gaining radio contact with him at that time, and he was instructed to proceed to Frederick.
PHILLIPS: So what did you say to him, Colonel, and how did he respond? Did he seem nervous, did he seem confused? Was he cooperative with you? LEHMANN: Well, Kyra, it was actually the other F-16 pilot who spoke to him, Major Oxsneed (ph), and he said the pilot was very nervous, somewhat shaken, but still able to communicate. And he said, "OK, I understand we're directed to go to Frederick and land," and he complied with those instructions.
PHILLIPS: All right, Colonel. And I want to point something out and be very specific here, because a lot of questions were asked yesterday in the White House briefing, a lot of reporters asking, "Did you get the shoot-down order?" You know, "Were you told to shoot down this aircraft if he didn't respond?"
Now, it never got to that point. You did not get that call or that instruction from NORAD or from the president because you deemed that this was not a threat, it was not in the attack profile. Explain to viewers why you didn't have to shoot that aircraft down.
LEHMANN: Well, Kyra, the national capital region is defended with a layered defense. And as a target of interest turns up on the radar scope, decisions are already being made as to whether we consider this a high threat, medium threat, or a low threat. And those decisions are being made at a national command authority level, a very high level of the military chain of command and civilian chain of command.
And as they assessed this aircraft, relatively light aircraft, they did not assess it as a high threat type of environment. So that order was never given to shoot it down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Incidentally, this is the closest that any unauthorized plane has come to the White House since 9/11.
CNN is committed to providing the most reliable coverage of news that affects your security. Stay tuned to CNN for the latest information day and night.
Well, lots more LIVE FROM straight ahead, including a call for some protection in the financial world.
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Susan Lisovicz at the New York Stock Exchange. Coming up, are big companies bullying Wall Street analysts? I'll tell you who's raising that question next on LIVE FROM. So stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
