Congress Foes of FSX Seek to Block Deal

Congressional opponents of the Bush Administration’s new agreement with Japan for joint development of the proposed FSX advanced fighter aircraft began moving Tuesday to block the deal, but they admitted that they face a decidedly uphill fight.

Although neither side has yet taken a formal head count, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), chairman of the House anti-FSX task force, conceded that opponents are not likely to muster the two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate needed to override President Bush’s decision.

Administration officials offered a similar assessment, with some questioning whether opponents would be able to garner even enough support to pass a resolution of disapproval in the first place, let alone enough to override a presidential veto.

Some analysts predicted that the Administration well may carry the day on the first vote, provided that it manages the situation adroitly and Japan does not do anything on the trade front in the next three weeks that might anger members of Congress.

In the Senate, Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) said that he thinks Senate opponents also face difficult odds. And Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.), chief sponsor of the push to block the FSX deal, said he suspects the Administration “may very well have the votes.”

Bush announced final agreement Friday on an FSX deal, revised from the arrangement agreed to last year by the Reagan Administration and designed to assuage critics on two crucial points--the potential economic loss to the United States if the FSX is built in Japan and the fear that Japan will obtain technology it can use later in civilian aircraft.

The revised agreement on the FSX calls for “about 40%” of both the design and production to be allocated to American firms. It also sets tighter restrictions on what technology the United States can give Japan. It also guarantees American access to new technology that the Japanese might develop.

The Administration has scheduled a spate of briefings for key lawmakers this week for members of the foreign relations and armed services committees in both houses. Many members have said that they will wait until these sessions are completed before making up their minds.

Hearings Next Week

Plans now call for committee hearings on the resolutions next week and, if a majority of the panels want to challenge the new FSX accord, to take floor votes before the next congressional recess, which begins May 19.

Under the law, Congress has 30 days to block the FSX agreement before the deal formally takes effect. If the lawmakers do not act by May 19, the 30-day period, which expires June 1, would end while Congress is still out for its spring recess.

The preliminary wrangling on Capitol Hill came as the General Accounting Office began briefing lawmakers privately on a new study contending, among other things, that Japan currently has no new FSX technology that the United States wants.

Proponents of the FSX accord argue that one reason for signing the agreement is to benefit from new Japanese radar technology. Washington also wants to head off a possible Tokyo partnership with a European firm to build the FSX.

However, those opposing the accord contend that, because of the huge Japanese trade surplus with the United States, Japan should have bought existing F-16 aircraft, the U.S.-built plane on which the FSX is to be modeled.

California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), a primary co-sponsor of an anti-FSX resolution, insisted Tuesday that the revised package that the White House has unveiled “is still a bad deal for the United States.” So far, however, his resolution has only a handful of declared backers.

“Japan has refused to see the wisdom of practicing the free trade principles it professes to accept,” Levine told reporters. “The U.S. has the best product at the best price and the Japanese refuse to buy it.”

The FSX will be designed jointly by General Dynamics Corp., which builds the F-16, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The cost of the project is estimated at $8 billion, although planners say that is only a rough guess.