DoD News Briefing
NEWS TRANSCRIPT from the United States Department of Defense
DoD News Briefing
Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA
Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 1:30 p.m. EDT
Q: V-22. Any status on the IG investigation? And has any involvement of the general counsel occurred at this
Quigley: I just checked on the V-22 investigation not long before I came in, and it is still a work in progress.
And IGs are never very willing to predict a completion date, other than to describe that it has been much more
involved and time-consuming than he had thought it would be. So I'm sorry, I don't have a predicted date.
Q: And what about the general counsel?
Quigley: I'm sorry?
Q: And has the general counsel's office been brought in now at this point, because it would be the general
counsel who would bring charges, if there were any charges, I believe.
Quigley: There has been legal involvement from professional legal counsel from the get-go. I mean, the IG has
assigned - permanently assigned legal counsel, and they're a part of virtually every one of the IG's efforts on
a regular basis.
The Office of the General Counsel is very much aware, as we all are, of the work, although I don't think they've
assigned any extra attorneys in order to support this particular effort. I think he's using the legal counsel
that is a part of his normal team.
Q: On a different subject --
Q: I have a V-22 question.
Q: Why did - or what was the reasoning behind moving the V-22 from an ACAT-1(c) to an ACAT-1(d)? What was the
reason on that?
Quigley: To provide it the highest level of oversight, given the very visible nature of the program, given the
reviews, given the recent accidents, he felt that that was the appropriate level of oversight. It's the highest
one he could give it. And that was his motivation.
Q: Why was it ever a 1(c) program? It's a $43 billion program with joint application.
Quigley: Wow. I'd have to go back to '97 when that decision was made and see if we can ascertain the rationale
for that, Pam. I do not know.