Hearing of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: Defeating Al Queda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism
Statement
Hearing of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: Defeating Al Queda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism
REP. DAVID SCOTT (D-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions first of all would be on getting an accurate assessment of the current status of the F-16 sales program now. And I'm particularly concerned with whether or not the recent situation regarding Musharraf interferes with that, if you could give me just a brief assessment of where we are with that program now.
REP. SCOTT: And that stop order was in regards to the MLU upgrades?
ADM. WIERINGA: Yes, sir.
REP. SCOTT: So where are we now in terms of that relationship with Lockheed Martin?
ADM. WIERINGA: The stop work order was retracted by the United States Air Force and the contract was restarted.
REP. SCOTT: And so now there are no problems with that vis-a-vis Lockheed Martin? Everything is moving smoothly?
ADM. WIERINGA: Not exactly because we have this current funding issue that we're in discussions today, we have the risk of future liabilities with the contract. So it's my responsibility to ensure that there's no liability to the U.S. taxpayer, and so we have to carefully manage the program to the funds available.
REP. SCOTT: Can you talk about that for a moment, the future liabilities and the risk involved here?
ADM. WIERINGA: Sure. The -- what's on the table right now is the requirement by 15 October for an additional $110 million and then in June of '09 another $142 million that would cover four payments to the Lockheed Martin company, at which time after that Pakistan would resume funds for the program.
REP. SCOTT: So let me be clear here. The first problem we have is the problem with the $110 million payment to Lockheed. Is that -- could you go over that again?
ADM. WIERINGA: Sure. The original program was $891 million. The assumption with the baseline program was that $108 million was going to be paid by FMF and all the rest was going to be paid by national funds. After we --
REP. SCOTT: Oh, just for the record, FMF -
REP. SCOTT: And again, just for the record, the status of those payments are --
ADM. WIERINGA: Right now, I have -- we have through the approval of --
REP. SCOTT: You have which approval?
ADM. WIERINGA: -- of State Department -- State Department approved the 116 (million dollars). They have not released because of the committee's concern the ($)110 million.
REP. SCOTT: Okay. So what positions -- what position does this place Lockheed Martin in at this time?
ADM. WIERINGA: The Air Force is working with Lockheed Martin to manage the risk of the program, but we'll need the identification of additional funds by the 15th of October of the ($)110 million.
REP. SCOTT: And your prognosis on that? You feel optimistic? I mean, is there --
ADM. WIERINGA: It depends on what the committee and State Department agree.
REP. SCOTT: But I mean, do you sense any problems that that will not happen, that Lockheed might not get -- I mean, are you -- what is your intelligence telling you from your side of the table?
ADM. WIERINGA: Sir, I don't presuppose what the committee and the State Department are going to work out. I'm just a very --
REP. SCOTT: Do you feel very confident that it will be worked out and that Lockheed will get their money?
ADM. WIERINGA: I'm hopeful.
REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SCOTT: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. You've really raised some very pertinent questions. And I certainly move with great trepidation in saying I may try to ask some questions to bring some illumination to some of the points that you've made, which are very, very good.
But as I go back to the first point, I wanted to clear up -- because I think it's very important that as we move forward that we certainly clean up our obligations and to make sure we not leave Lockheed Martin hanging out here without this funding that is needed. And I wanted to make sure that this is not new money we're talking about. Is that not right? It's more a realignment of monies?
MR. CAMP: That's correct. This is the realignment of FMF for fiscal year '08.
REP. SCOTT: And the -- going to some of the issues that the chairman brought up, which are very, very important, my thoughts are that we are increasing our military commitment -- soldiers, resources, manpower -- into Afghanistan. That support is going to be increased double very, very quickly. We're adding more assets to it.
The chairman brings up probably the real issue we've got here in that Pakistan presents an extraordinary challenge. He is absolutely right about the concerns that we have, particularly with the acceptance that this dichotomy of thought within the Pakistan nation regarding America.
There is extraordinary growth in anti-Americanism in Pakistan. And there is considerable worry for our -- in our quest and our desire to provide Pakistan with the latest in technology to fight with us and for us in connection with the war on terror. That -- to what extent do we have that bugaboo down the road that the very weapons we give to assist them in terror could very well -- could be used not just not to help us but against us?
I just wanted to bring to your attention -- the chairman mentioned an article from the Associated Press. I want to share one with you from the BBC. It says that Pakistan's powerful electronic media are whipping up anti-U.S. sentiments amid suggestions that the war against militancy and terrorism is not our war and that Pakistan should formulate a matching response to U.S. attacks. So are our two top allies, the United States and Pakistan, in the war on terror in danger of coming to blows with each other?
So I think there's a real concern here. But on the other hand, I think that we do have a very concrete example of how the upgrade of the F-16 is working. If we recall, there was a strike on Zarqawi in 2006 that I believe was successfully accomplished because of an upgraded F-16 with the capacity to go in and get him.
So I guess moving forward, it seems to me that, a, I want to see us go ahead and complete the task of making sure we fulfill our obligations and get it. But are there things we can do? Are there conditions we can do? Are there things that going forward we can make sure of?
There is great concern about Musharraf leaving, who was our number one advocate there. Do we have a situation in that volatile country now that gives many people in Congress who have to vote on these appropriations some comfort level that this anti-American sentiment that is growing there can be abated? Are there strategies at work to deal with that?
I think that would be one question I would like to see -- what -- I see going forward a need to go forward. I think we got a problem here.
The other thing is I think that given whether or not these weapons will be used in terms of an invasion of India or not, I think we touched upon that. It is, in fact, that they've had some form of F-16s for about 30 years. Is that right? Have there been any examples or any areas in which we've had to raise concerns about them being used in a manner that would cause us some problems?
Those are just a few of the questions I'd like to kind of get some response on to see if we can't address some of these concerns the chairman has raised and I think I've raised as well -- but also to show the need for moving forward on it.
REP. SCOTT: Are there any security arrangements in place to make sure that any of these upgrades that -- will not get into the wrong hands -- into third countries. Is there anything that we have written in concrete, conditions of what they can do with these upgrades?
ADM. WIERINGA: Sir, there is an extensive list of provisos in the LOA that we're working through with the Pakistanis now.
REP. SCOTT: What consequences would there be for Pakistan if any of the end-use monitoring or other security conditions placed on these planes are violated? I mean, if you have the conditions on, what happens if -- what's to make -- what is there to put some muscle behind making sure that the conditions are not violated? What will happen if they are violated?
ADM. WIERINGA: It's a two-step process. The first one is that the conditions must be met before the airplanes will be delivered. The second would be a policy decision of if there is a violation.
In some cases it might be a very, very modest or minor admin mistake, at which time we would help them correct their deficiency. The more significant would be a policy decision of what to do.
REP. SCOTT: Now, let me ask you -- I mentioned that we're moving more forthrightly in terms of committing more resources into Afghanistan of our soldiers. Really, I think it's a joint bipartisan agenda to concentrate on Afghanistan, winding down out of Iraq and moving in there.
What does that mean to the upgrades? Is that taken into consideration? Does that bring another asset to be used? Is that another important reason why these upgrades need to take place, that it gives us better capabilities? Is there something that would be missing in terms of giving our boys over there and our forces over there what they need to get the job done, if Pakistan does not have this capability of these upgrades?
ADM. WIERINGA: I'll take a first shot at it. In general, when we talk about foreign military sales, the first order effect we have is building relationships. And that's the key part, as opposed to just selling equipment, so building relationships comes first. You may say before that trust, but next is -- a key facet of common equipment is interoperability. And that's critically important to work together, that you have common equipment -- makes that much easier to do.
REP. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Source