[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2907-2911]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    SALE OF FIGHTER JETS TO PAKISTAN

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the discharge vote 
that will take place momentarily. I just want to say that I know that 
many people in our country and certainly in this body have significant 
frustrations with the country of Pakistan. This Senator is one of 
those. I have been to Afghanistan multiple times. I have visited 
Pakistan multiple times. Our relationship is one that is very complex. 
Certainly, Pakistan has been duplicitous in many ways with us relative 
to their relationship with the Taliban and with Al Qaeda and, certainly 
and most importantly, as it relates to this particular topic, the 
Haqqani network.
  Our country has worked with them to clear out the FATA areas, the 
Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I think most of us have seen the 
work that has taken place there, and they have worked with us closely 
in that regard.
  There still are issues undoubtedly that exist relative to their 
relationship with the Haqqani network, in particular, but also the 
Taliban. At the same time, there are negotiations that

[[Page 2908]]

are underway that are very important to create a lasting peace in 
Afghanistan. Even though they play both sides of the fence--and I 
understand that--and even though we have concerns about their 
relationship with the Haqqani network, they do play a role relative to 
how those negotiations are taking place.
  I have issues with them. I think everyone in the country of Pakistan 
by this point knows that I have issues with them, at least those who 
are paying attention to this issue.
  What this discharge petition is about today is that it is voting to 
discharge something to the Senate floor so that there can be a vote on 
ending the allowance of a sale of some fighter jets. These will be 
U.S.-made fighter jets. In spite of some of the rhetoric around this, 
this has nothing to do with the potential subsidy that could take place 
by U.S. taxpayers.
  This is about one thing. It is about whether we as a country would 
prefer for Pakistan to buy American-made fighter jets or whether we 
would prefer for them to buy Russian jets or French jets. This is what 
this is about.
  There are some issues that people have raised about potential 
subsidies for this. I know Senator Cardin, who is on the floor right 
now, and myself both have a hold on that--a hold to ensure that there 
is some behavior changes that take place in Pakistan before any U.S. 
dollars go toward this sale.
  But this vote is not about that. This vote is a vote about whether we 
believe that countries around the world are better off buying U.S. made 
materials or whether we think they should buy them from Russia or 
France. That is what this is about in its entirety.
  We are seeking some behavior changes with Pakistan relative to how 
they are dealing with the Taliban, with how they are dealing with the 
Haqqani network. It is something that General Campbell, who has been in 
charge of Afghanistan from a military standpoint, has pushed for. We 
are working closely with our military and others to try to effect the 
behavior changes that are necessary for us to have an appropriate 
response in Afghanistan--but this is a foreign policy issue.
  Again, everyone in this body, thankfully, is very concerned about our 
foreign policy. Foreign policy, I might say, sometimes has to have a 
degree of nuance to it. We are working with people and with 
relationships that matter. It matters deeply to the people who we have 
on the ground, the men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and other 
places. Our efforts around foreign policy are to do everything we can 
to ensure we are not utilizing men and women in uniform to solve a 
problem, because that happens when diplomacy fails.
  So this is a very nuanced topic, and I can just say that the Senate 
deciding en bloc to block a sale to Pakistan of U.S.-made fighter jets 
is going to be a huge public embarrassment to the country of Pakistan, 
and there are better ways, in my opinion, for solving this problem. All 
of us want to see the behavior change, and I am privileged to be in a 
position to have some effect on the financing, as does Senator Cardin, 
and we can deal with this issue in a more nuanced way.
  I know some people will say that this is a great thing for back home. 
Our people back home will love this. Surely, surely, in this body when 
it comes to dealing with a country with nuclear arms and dealing with 
Afghanistan, where we have been for 14 years, how we deal with foreign 
policy will rise above just the immediate response and maybe 
misunderstandings even that people back home can have about this type 
of issue.
  This relationship with Pakistan needs to move beyond the 
transactional way that it is carried out. I understand that. I 
understand that people are frustrated. But at the end of the day, our 
goal here as representatives of the United States is to see through 
good things happening for our country. That is what foreign policy is 
about. It is about pursuing our national interests.
  It is my strong belief that the Senate's voting today, in essence, to 
begin the process of denying Pakistan the ability to purchase U.S. 
fighter jets is not a way to engender things that are good for our own 
U.S. national interests. A better way is for us to continue to put 
pressure on them as we are doing at present, placing holds on financing 
until they do some things to change their behavior and work with us 
more fully relative to the Haqqani network, in particular, but also Al 
Qaeda and the Taliban.
  So I would urge my fellow citizens and fellow Senators to please 
think about the long-term interests of our country, to think about when 
a country is radicalized and has so many problems as the country of 
Pakistan has, the public embarrassment that will take place by our body 
doing this. Let's work together in other ways that actually can 
generate behavior change by dealing with this in a more subtle way than 
this blunt object that we are dealing with today.
  I want to close with this--and I know Senator Cardin wants to speak, 
and I know he has a meeting to go to. What we are voting on, if we 
discharge this, is that we are voting on whether we would rather for 
Pakistan to purchase U.S.-made fighter jets, which carry with that at 
least 30 years of maintenance, meaning that every single year the 
United States would be involved with these fighter jets. We could 
withdraw that at any time if we thought their behavior continued to be 
such that we didn't want to support it. It can stop. It maintains our 
leverage with Pakistan over the longer haul. That is what our selling 
them these pieces of equipment does. It maintains our leverage over 
them.
  Today, publicly embarrassing them and sending them to Russia or to 
France to buy fighter jets ends that leverage and humiliates them at a 
time when, in spite of the fact that we don't like some of the things 
they do, it in essence damages our ability to continue the negotiations 
that are taking place relative to trying to bring a more lasting peace 
in Afghanistan.
  I thank you for the time, Madam President. I yield the floor for my 
good friend and ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President.
  I want to thank Senator Corker. The two of us have worked on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee without any partisanship. These are 
foreign policy issues that require the Senate to work together, and I 
want to thank Senator Corker for his leadership on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee on this issue and on many other issues.
  Let me first try to explain what we believe will happen in the next 
45 minutes. Under the Arms Export Control Act, the sale of military 
armament to Pakistan requires the administration to give formal 
notification to the Congress. Prior to that formal notification, there 
is an informal process where the administration will inform the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
that they intend to make a sale. They did that in regard to the F-16s 
for Pakistan, and that is the issue we are talking about.
  For several months we have been in negotiations with the 
administration--as well as with stakeholders with regard to the sale of 
the F-16 to Pakistan--because quite frankly we did have concerns. We 
had concerns as to how it would impact the region, including India. We 
had concerns about Pakistan being a nuclear weapons state. We had 
concerns about Pakistan's efforts for counterinsurgency. We had 
concerns about Pakistan's participation in the peace process with 
Afghanistan. All of those are issues we were able to get some 
discussions on and we think some progress to the F-16 sale.
  The administration formally notified Congress of the F-16 sale on 
February 25. At that time the bipartisan leadership of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee had 
agreed the administration should go forward with the sale.
  What we think will happen under the Arms Export Control Act--and any

[[Page 2909]]

Member can offer a resolution of disapproval--is that Senator Paul will 
be offering to bring up a resolution of this approval. We think that 
will take place in about 45 minutes. It is likely it will require a 
motion to proceed or to bring the motion forward, and it is possible 
the leader, the Republican leader, the majority leader, may offer a 
motion to table in regard to that motion.
  I urge my colleagues to understand the next vote will be whether we 
are going to take up--or not--the resolution of disapproval.
  Senator Corker and I both urge our colleagues that this resolution 
not be approved, not be taken up; that we allow the sale to go forward 
but that we maintain our leverage, as Senator Corker has explained, 
because there are many more issues involved before the sale becomes 
complete.
  Quite frankly, the reason the F-16s are being recommended is because 
Pakistan needs the F-16s for their fight against counterinsurgency. I 
think all of my colleagues are aware of the mountainous terrain, 
territory that is in Pakistan on the Afghan border. Pakistan needs an 
air force capacity to deal with that counterinsurgency.
  It is our military's judgment that these F-16s are important in 
regard to that fight against counterinsurgency; that it is in our 
interests, U.S. interests; that it is in the regional interests, 
including the stability of its neighbor, India; and it is in the 
interests of dealing with the fight against the extremists.
  As I said earlier, the relationship with Pakistan is complicated. We 
have several areas of major concern in that relationship, and we fully 
understand the reasons Members would be concerned. We are a strategic 
partner with Pakistan in rooting out terrorism. Let me remind my 
colleagues, the people of Pakistan have had 40,000 deaths as a result 
of extremist activities within their borders. That is an incredible 
sacrifice that has been made in their campaign against terrorists, 
against extremists. They have the Haqqani network, which we know has 
taken out American interests in that region, they had the fight against 
ISIS, and they had the fight against LeT, which is a terrorist 
organization within Pakistan that has committed terrorist attacks in 
India.
  We want them to focus on all of these extremists. At times we don't 
get the full cooperation of Pakistan for these to be the priorities 
they go after. Obviously, we want to continue our partnership with 
Pakistan, but we want them to deal with the threat of the Haqqani 
network. We want them to focus on the threats of ISIS. We want them to 
concentrate on the destabilizing impact that LeT has on the 
relationship between Pakistan, India, and the cause of problems in 
India. We want to see more progress.
  On the second front, on the nuclear phase, Pakistan is the fastest 
growing nuclear stockpile in the world. Our relationship with Pakistan 
is critically important for the certainty, safety, and security of the 
command and control network of their nuclear arsenal. Are they doing 
everything we want them to do in that regard? No. Have we made 
significant progress in the safety of their nuclear stockpile? Yes. Do 
we want to continue our relationship so we can continue to make 
progress? Absolutely.
  The third area we need Pakistan's cooperation is in bringing together 
all the stakeholders for a peaceful discussion of the peace talks in 
Afghanistan. The extreme elements that are located in Pakistan need to 
be part of those discussions. Pakistan can play a critical role in 
helping that come about. Has Pakistan been helpful? Quite frankly, they 
have. They have been working with us to get all the stakeholders 
together in the talks. Could they do more? Yes, we think they could do 
more.
  What Chairman Corker said is absolutely accurate. We would encourage 
our colleagues to vote against the resolution of disapproval or to 
support our efforts to keep that off the floor, first and foremost 
because the F-16s are needed by Afghanistan and U.S. interests to fight 
the extremists, but just as important, it maintains the ability of the 
United States to deal with Pakistan to bring about further progress in 
all the areas I have talked about. As the chairman said, the worst-case 
scenario is that we break our relationship with Pakistan and other 
countries step in, and our ability to get changes in Pakistan's 
practices as they relate to support or fighting terrorist organizations 
or nuclear nonproliferation and participation in the Afghan peace talks 
could be marginalized.
  In order to maintain the type of bipartisan, bilateral pressure on 
the problematic elements of the security sector, but while supporting 
reformers in the military and civilian governments, we urge our 
colleagues that it is important we take this sale to the next level.
  The last point--and Chairman Corker pointed this out--we are not 
signing off on the foreign military financing part. The administration 
has brought forward a proposal for some reprogramming of funds to help 
pay for the F-16 sale to Pakistan. In other words, we would use some of 
the moneys we have already programmed for Afghanistan to be used to pay 
for the sale of the F-16s. That requires a signoff from the leadership 
of the two authorizing committees. Senator Corker and I had not signed 
off on that--nor do we intend to sign off on that until we have further 
explanations on a lot of the issues Senator Corker and I have already 
raised. We have ample ways of dealing with our bilateral relationship 
with Pakistan, allowing the sale formally to go forward by how the sale 
will be financed.
  For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Paul's 
resolution and allow us to continue the diplomatic path in regard to 
that region.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator 
Corker for how diligently they have worked over the course of the last 
several months, as both of them have stated on the floor, to make this 
sale much more palatable and to address many of the concerns that both 
the chairman and the ranking member had about the nature of the sale 
and this long history of conflict with the Pakistanis when it comes to 
our mutual concern of confronting terrorism.
  The reason I come to the floor is because this body historically has 
had a history of deep engagement on questions of major arms sales, 
especially in regions as dangerous and as complicated as the Middle 
East. As it stands today, virtually the only two Members who are deeply 
and meaningfully engaged in the question of attaching conditions to 
these very important arms sales are the ranking member and the chairman 
of the Foreign Relations Committee. I trust their ability to hold the 
administration's feet to the fire--whether it be the Pakistanis', the 
Saudis', the Emirates' feet to the fire as they request weapons from 
the United States, but this body writ large has to get back into the 
game of providing meaningful oversight on a radical and significant 
increase in the amount of arms sales the United States is providing to 
the rest of the world.
  From 2011 to 2015, our arms exports have increased by 27 percent. 
When you compare these two periods, it is striking to note that during 
that period of time our arms sales to the Middle East have increased by 
61 percent.
  This Senate has, at its best moments, raised important questions 
about these sales. I bring you back to the 1980s, when the Senate 
raised important questions and concerns about the sale of AWACS to 
Saudi Arabia. On this side of the aisle, it was Senator Biden and 
Senator Kerry opposing those sales. Those motions of disapproval were 
ultimately unsuccessful, but through that process of deep congressional 
introspection, new conditions were placed on the sale of that 
technology to the Saudis that ended up a much better and safer deal for 
American national security interests and for the security of our 
partners in the region.
  With respect to the specific sale of F-16 to Pakistan, my colleagues 
have already pointed out--and I think Senator Paul will do a better job 
than I of pointing out--the ways in which our aims of fighting 
terrorism have been

[[Page 2910]]

contradictory with the actions of the Pakistanis, whether it be their 
unwillingness to confront the Haqqani network, whether it be their 
oftentimes open coordination with elements of the Taliban that the 
United States is fighting inside Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have been 
an unreliable partner over the course of the last 10 years in the fight 
against extremism, but what I worry more about is that these F-16s will 
provide cover, will provide a substitute for truly meaningful action 
inside Pakistan to take on the roots of extremism. Frankly, it is too 
late in many respects to beat these extremist groups if they are so 
big, so powerful, so deadly that you have to bomb them from the air.
  Today there are 20,000 madrassa, religious schools. Many, if not 
most, are funded by the Saudis, the Gulf States, and the Iranians and 
are often preaching an intolerant version of Islam that when perverted, 
forms the basis of the extremist groups the United States is fighting 
in the Middle East and throughout the world.
  The Pakistanis have done little to nothing to try to reduce the 
influence of those madrassas, of those religious schools, and of the 
foreign funding that often breeds this intolerant version of religious 
teaching. In a sense, we let them off the hook by selling them new 
weapons systems that will, in effect, constantly force the Pakistanis 
to chase their own tail.
  I think it is important to understand that the Pakistanis are not 
making the real meaningful contributions to rooting out extremism, and 
just handing out weapon systems on the back end doesn't do the job.
  I would point this body to the path forward. This is an incredibly 
important conversation that we are having with respect to the F-16s, 
but we have other pending military sales that will directly involve the 
United States in regional civil wars and conflicts, unbeknownst often 
to the American people.
  One of them is a major military sales agreement with the Saudis that 
would eventually resupply them for their bombing campaign in Yemen, a 
campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, that has 
stopped emergency relief from reaching those who have been the victims 
of this humanitarian disaster, and frankly that has created space for 
the expansion of ISIS and Al Qaeda, groups that want to do damage and 
attack the United States, inside the newly ungovernable territory of 
Yemen. Yet we are going to be confronted with another military sale to 
Saudi Arabia that would double down the U.S. commitment on one side of 
a civil war that if you look at the reality, doesn't seem to be 
advancing our national security interests. It doesn't seem to be 
helping us win the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda.
  I hope that after the break we will have the opportunity to discuss 
that military sale as well because it is time for Congress to get back 
into the game when it comes to our constitutional responsibility to 
oversee the foreign policy led by the executive branch. It is time for 
Congress to start having a meaningful impact when it comes to these 
massive arms sales that often undermine U.S. national security and come 
without the necessary conditions to change the reality of the decisions 
made in places such as Pakistan.
  I am going to support Senator Paul's resolution today, although I 
hope in the future we will approach these resolutions of disapproval 
with a slightly greater degree of subtlety in this respect. This is an 
outright disapproval. If we vote in favor of it, this sale will not go 
forward. There is another way. Congress could pass a motion of 
disapproval with conditions. We could disapprove of a sale to Pakistan 
pending, for instance, their commitment to join the fight against the 
Haqqani network; contingent upon, for instance, their movement to 
implement a law to shut down the worst and most intolerant of the 
madrasas. I would suggest that should be our path forward when it comes 
to the sale to the Saudis. Simple conditions could be applied to that 
resolution--making sure the munitions we are selling to the Saudis 
aren't used to target civilians inside Yemen; committing the Saudis to 
open up pathways of humanitarian relief and assistance; a promise that 
none of the funding from the United States to the partners in the 
coalition to fight the Houthis will be used to directly aid extremist 
groups. That is probably the better path forward for this body to take.
  This is a very blunt instrument, a resolution of disapproval. I think 
it is important for some of us to be on record supporting it to show 
that Congress is getting back in the game when it comes to overseeing 
this fairly substantial increase in arms sales to our named partners in 
the Middle East, but I think there is a better way forward. I hope that 
Senator Paul and others, as we start to go about doing due diligence on 
future sales, will take a look at maybe a more meaningful contribution 
this body can take rather than expressing our outright unconditional 
disapproval. How can we make sure, if these arms sales go forward, that 
they go forward with conditions attached that are in the best interest 
of the United States and our partner nations?
  Again, I thank Senators Corker and Cardin for their important work in 
the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, and I thank 
Senator Paul for having the courage to bring this resolution to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, let me first of all thank my colleague 
from the State of Connecticut for his comments. I, too, will be joining 
him and others in supporting the resolution to be brought forward in 
some moments by Senator Paul. I, too, agree that this is a rather blunt 
instrument. A more strategic use of bringing some leverage to this kind 
of action would be a more appropriate path, and I hope that in future 
times, when we have a chance to review foreign arms sales, we will take 
that more nuanced approach.
  Madam President, while I approve of much of what the Senator from 
Connecticut has said, I want to speak to this issue from a slightly 
different perspective, and that is the message that at least 
inadvertently we will be sending with approval of the sale of these 
jets. And let me again commend Senator Corker and Senator Cardin for 
appropriately looking at the issue of public financing of these sales. 
If we move forward with these sales without putting some markers down, 
I think we potentially not only do damage to holding Pakistan's feet to 
the fire in terms of the threat of terrorists in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere in the region but also potentially do damage to one of the 
most important relationships our country has, and that is the strategic 
relationship between the United States and India. This relationship has 
been one of enormous, growing importance. India has been a valuable and 
strategic partner of the United States and is a tremendous ally in 
promoting global peace and security. That has not always been the case. 
Relations between our two nations have been steadily improving over the 
past decade, ranging from approval on the Civilian Nuclear Agreement, 
to frequent coordination between our militaries, and at this point over 
$100 billion in bilateral trade. Prime Minister Modi in India has made 
a personal commitment to improving the ties between the United States 
and India. The Prime Minister will come back to the United States at 
the end of this month.
  Nowhere is the potential for our strategic relationship greater than 
in our bilateral defense relationship, which again has seen great 
progress over the past decade. Last year our two nations signed the 
framework that will advance military-to-military exchanges. We are also 
proceeding with joint development of defense technology, which seeks to 
increase defense sales and to create a cooperative technology and 
industrial relationship that can promote both capabilities in the 
United States and in India.
  I viewed with some concern last month when the administration 
announced the sale of these eight F-16s to Pakistan. And again I want 
to commend the leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee for making 
very clear that even if this sale should go forward, the financing of 
this sale is still subject to further American review.
  What brings me to wanting to support Senator Paul's resolution is the

[[Page 2911]]

fact that as recently as January of
this year, Pakistani-based terrorists claimed responsibility for an 
attack against an Indian military base at Pathankot. The attack on this 
air force base, which resulted in the killing of Indian military 
forces, was a great tragedy. So far, Pakistan has refused to share 
intelligence or to turn over those suspects to the Indian Government.
  With those kinds of actions, I cannot go ahead and continue this 
policy where we continue, in effect, to give Pakistan a pass, whether 
it is actions in the region vis-a-vis Afghanistan or within their own 
country but also in terms of their unwillingness to meet India even 
halfway in terms of trying to bring a greater stability to one of the 
regions that could potentially become a tinderbox in terms of the 
border regions between India and Pakistan.
  So I will be supporting Senator Paul's resolution. I hope the 
Government of Pakistan hears the concern of this Senator and other 
Senators. I hope they will act aggressively in terms of bringing 
justice to those terrorists who invaded Indian space and attacked the 
Indian Air Force base. Showing that kind of responsible behavior might 
lead to at least this Senator taking a different view in terms of 
future military sales.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I recognize my colleague, who I 
believe will bring this resolution to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________