tv Hearing on U.S.- Pakistan Relations CSPAN December 20, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EST
>> committee is in order. we will first hear for an opening statement, and then i will introduce the ambassador who will make his statement, and we will get to the question and answers. .> thank you i will keep my comments short. obviously as we look at the south asian region, we look at india, pakistan, the relationship is incredibly important, particularly as the changing mission in afghanistan, the role of pakistan and india in stabilizing the region is incredibly complex and important. it is an honor to welcome ambassador olson. i understand this is your first time on the job, so looking forward to hearing the testimony and furthering the relationship
between the united states and south asia. thank you. >> thank you so much. the chairman would like to express his sorrow for not being here, esther ambassador, but he but he isassador, leading the charge on our committee so that is why he is not here. we are pleased to be joined by ambassador richard olson. immediately prior to this appointment, he served as the u.s. ambassador to pakistan, but he has served in many capacities all over the world since joining the state department in 1982. he has been recognized several includinghis service, being awarded the presidential distinguished service award. without objection, the witness's full prepared statement will be
made a part of the record, and there will be five calendar days to submit information for the record. mr. olson: madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current state of the united states' bilateral relationship with pakistan. i am honored to testify in front of you for the first time in my capacity as u.s. special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, after having served as your ambassador in pakistan. i am humbled and privileged to be in this new role at such a critical time for the u.s. relationship with both pakistan and afghanistan. it is clear that despite many challenges, pakistan will continue to be an important partner with the united states for the foreseeable future, particularly in light of our enduring presence in afghanistan.
while we do not always see i to i, our relationship is important to the security of the united states. withll continue working pakistan on issues to shape the future in which pakistan is more stable, increasingly prosperous, and plays a constructive role in the region. it is a complex place and it is important not to overlook the significant progress made in the last few years. in 2013 a completed its first democratic transaction from one elected civilian government to another. however imperfect, made across the economic and security sectors. have restored macro economic security to pakistan and improved economic growth. while structural changes are still needed to set the economy on a path to accelerate growth,
the reforms today are a considerable accomplishment. there have also been substantial changes on the security front, beginning in june 2014. pakistan initiated large counterterrorism measures. attack of one year ago today was cited as terror -- cited by terrorists as retribution. it prompted pakistan to increase its counterterrorism efforts, not just in tribal areas. pakistan has rooted out many terrorist safe havens and recovered more than 160 times of improvised explosive devices. pakistan's cooperation with the united states on al qaeda has been critical in decimating the organization. while pakistan has made significant sacrifices, we
believe it can also take more steps to put pressure on all terrorist groups in pakistan that threaten regional stability. pakistan is becoming a more constructive actor in the region. , they facilitated a direct meeting between the afghani government and taliban members to pursue personal political settlement. pakistan hosted the regional heart of asia conference, which yielded destructive -- constructive discussions about the piece off --. in addition, india and pakistan's commitment last week to start a dialogue is important. it is nonetheless clear that real challenges remain. while we see progress in decreasing the presence of certain terrorists in pakistan, we continue to press pakistan to talk to all militant groups have
a safe haven in pakistan, including the taliban. we have made it clear to the pakistanis that these organizations threaten pakistan, the region, and the panoply of our mutual national security interest, and they must be addressed rigorously. we have also asked pakistan to to recover it can united states hostages held on pakistani territory. we continue to press for greater cooperation between pakistan and afghanistan, to stable the border region. it is also critical that pakistan improve relations with its southern neighbor, india. and theigh-level talks announcement of the resumption of formal dialogue is welcome. we hope the dialogue will be used to reduce tensions and increased ties between the two nations.
naturally, as pakistan seeks to combat violent extremism, we continue to encourage and support pakistan to strengthen the rule of law, civil liberties, respect for life, accountability, and freedom of speech, which we firmly believe are vital to lasting peace and security. , and itstant programs is essential they are sustained. i would like to conclude my , and i'm, madam chair available for your questions and comments. i led amonth congressional delegation trip to afghanistan and was joined by my friend and colleague from this committee. while obviously this hearing is on the future of u.s.-pakistan relations, we all know we cannot really address the future of our
bilateral relationship without also discussing afghanistan. when our administration met with the president, he said he reached out his hand to pakistan only to be rebuffed. in order for afghanistan to be stable and secure, pakistan will have to play a key role. some argue that pakistan's ultimate goal is to you as guinness den as a strategic -- is to use afghanistan as a strategic depth against india. afghanistan is using its ties to insurgent groups to assert control. i wanted to hear your perspective on that. andts report to congress the progress toward security and stability in afghanistan, the dod openly stated that pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of evelyn's in afghanistan -- loss of influence
in afghanistan, and to counter india's superior military. do you know if he is being rick ,p left -- rebuffed by pakistan and what is their strategic objective with regard to afghanistan? i wanted to ask about the terrorist safe havens within pakistan's borders. to theon: with regard president, as i mentioned, he did travel to the heart of asia conference last week and of course, we have applauded president donnie -- the president's outreach to pakistan , which has been one of the notable characteristics of his time in office. haselieve that pakistan been wanting to reciprocate this outreach.
that pakistan is taking several steps that are important in this regard. the first is that they hosted the talks with the taliban in july, between the government of afghanistan and the taliban. the first time the taliban and had sat down with the government , and at the heart of asia conference last week, they reaffirmed, the president reaffirmed his support for the sovereignty of afghanistan and the territorial integrity or of afghanistan, the legitimacy of its government, and its constitution, all of which were i think important points for we willt ghani. continue to work with pakistan to encourage them to bring the aliban to the table to resume
peace and reconciliation process that is led by the afghans and owned by the afghans. >> although the countries have had a rocky relationship, you believe that with the new government there will be brighter days ahead, and a level of cooperation will be higher and that there will be more trust and partnerships evolving from this? mr. olson: yes, ma'am. there are of course many challenges in afghanistan and pakistan relationship, but we of a that the interests stable and peaceful afghanistan are best served by having a positive relationship with pakistan, thai think is the strategic vision of president -- which i think is the strategic visiting -- vision of the president and prime minister. u.s. isieve that the
not effectively using our leverage in afghanistan to convince the pakistanis to do more with us and our afghan partners on the counterterrorism front, to work with them rather than against the afghan government and against its security forces. we have a pending military package before us on this committee, and i believe we need to use that as leverage. have we made progress in getting by and from pakistan on our counterterrorism efforts in afghanistan in a limiting terrorist safe havens inside pakistan? why should congress approved arms sales to pakistan when our own defense department is telling us that pakistan is openly working against our objectives when it comes to afghanistan, safe havens, and counterterrorism? mr. olson: thank you, madam chair. own regard to pakistan's
counterterrorism operations, in june 2014 pakistan launched an operation against militant waziristan in north tribal agency. this is something united states has wanted for a number of years because there were a number of groups located in north u.s.istan, that threatened , afghanistan, as well as others. during the course of this operation, over the course of more than a year and a half, pakistanis have lost nearly 500 troops. 488 was just announced. they have carried out counterterrorism operations throughout the settled areas of
pakistan, that is to say the non-tribal areas. atpite the terrible incident the school a year ago, or has been less blowback than might have been -- there has been less blowback than might have been expected from the terrorists. as i said at the outset, most of the action has been -- we think there is more that can be done in terms of targeting groups that do not just target pakistan internally but threats to our neighbors. we continue to have an active dialogue with them. i had an active dialogue during my three years in a pakistan -- in pakistan. i will leave the other questions to another member. we are going to move on. >> thank you, matter and chairman. -- madam chairman.
as the only member of congress who is indian, it is important to me and i have spent a lot of time thinking about it. it is very much interconnected when he think about india, afghanistan, and pakistan. side, iounterterrorism in 2008, indiaai demonstrated incredible restraint in its approach to pakistan. pakistan, as ambassador olson mentioned, it is the one year anniversary of the horrific passion of our -- peshawar school shooting. i would have expected pakistan to have a more robust crackdown on the terrorist threats, from our perspective, i think from the perspective of indians,
there is almost this side-by-side relationship in pakistan with some of these terrorist networks that almost symbiotic. they live side-by-side. from your perspective, what are the steps that pakistan's government, it's military needs to do to reduce the terrorist threats? in some way it is almost as if they allow these networks to exist in pakistan, to destabilize the region, or have this constant threat on india. mr. olson: thank you, congressman. theree with you that continues to be challenges in this area. it is important to note that pakistan has really had a shift over the course of the last year and a half. they have suffered enormously
from terrorism. over 2000 soldiers and servicemembers killed, and many thousands of individual pakistani citizens have died as a result of terrorist outrages. the government has a stated commitment, articulated by the prime minister and the army chief, to go after all terrorists without distinction. and we believe there is more tot can be done with regard the lashkar-e-taib a, and the taliban. that is a very active element of our dialogue. it is safe to say we have almost no meeting with the appropriate officials in which those topics vigorousaised in very terms.
i think it is safe to say that that north waziristan has resulted in disruption, if not elimination of the a connie networks. as i mentioned before, they have banned lashkar-e-taib. coexistence,his from my perspective, that they tolerate some of these terrorist networks. , kind of projecting as india undergoes this dramatic growth in its economy , i do worry that pakistan seems to be stagnating. as you see the ways of life change in these two countries that have a tense relationship, it does worry me a little bit that pakistan does not seem to
be developing its economy, does not seem to be building those institutions that would create ways, the and in many civilian institutions that you want to create a more stable pakistan, those investments certainly are not occurring. we have over the years try to create schools, tried to create civilian institutions that would create some stability. from your perspective, where should the united states focus? i'm critical that much of our focus has been on military sales, which i do not think stabilize the region. if we were to focus on civilian institutions, where would you suggest we place our focus? mr. olson: thank you, congressman. let me just say a quick word to begin talking about india, about the recent upturn in relations
between india and pakistan, which i think is quite significant. as you know, the national security advisers met in bangkok and foreign ministers attended the heart of asia conference and extended a hand of friendship to pakistan, and that was well received. they have agreed to launch a comprehensive dialogue which well, i think, hopefully improve the relationship. one of the emphases that we have placed in our assistance programs has been to build regional conductivity. the relaunch of a comprehensive dialogue will hopefully, exactly as you say, lead to the trade,lity of increased for instance between india and pakistan, which we think would be beneficial to both sides and particularly help pakistan. they could do more in some ways
than our assistance programs, to raise the level of prosperity. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. >> as i mentioned in my opening statement, i want to be very specific about what i'm concerned about, the sale of american fighter jets to pakistan, or the giving of american fighter jets to pakistan through military aid. that military aid is used in the united states to buy those jets. i used the example of osama bin laden. the pakistanis hit him, in my opinion. the united states did not tell pakistan we were going after him. pakistan scrambles to american-made f-16s to intercept the helicopters. americans were able to get away, and there could've been a confrontation. how ironic that would have been, american-made jets by cap -- by
pakistan against america. we are in this issue of more military aid to pakistan. i understand there is $660 million in aid going to pakistan proposed. some of that is going to be military aid. supposedly, the eight fighter f-16s, is in this package and it is supposed to be used for humanitarian aid. withnot know how an f-16 all of its hardware for combat can be used for humanitarian aid. if they were buying c-130s, which i used to be in a squadron of c-130s, i could see those being used for humanitarian aid. ft -- f-16, it is not humanitarian aid your built for
or used our. -- or used for. are we going to be in the same situation with the sale of fighter jets for humanitarian aid, where we were in the raid with osama bin laden, that these jets would be used for other purposes? i do not trust pakistan. we had the former ambassador of who testified before my subcommittee, and said that pakistan still ends up supporting terrorists. do they support them in any way? does pakistan support terrorist groups in any way? not just a little, but do they support them, or are they free from doing that now? mr. olson: thank you. to, pakistan does have a fleet of f-16s.
and they have been developing a precision strike capability with those f-16s, which they have used to considerable affect. and north waziristan and the tribal areas generally. this is within a framework of our security assistance to pakistan, which has six objectives basically centered around counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. it is our belief that the f-16s have been used very effectively. the precision strike capability to take out terrorist targets including safe havens that threaten our forces in afghanistan. specific.tion is very military,akistan
government, do they still give a safe haven or support, directly or indirectly to terrorist groups? terroristo after some groups but do they still give them a safe haven or a pass, or are they after all of the terrorist groups? do we have any assurance when white when the other? congressman, with regard to these groups, we have had a very active dialogue with them where we have pressed them repeatedly to take action against those groups that have a presence on pakistani soil. networkg the haqqani and the taliban in general, and also lashkar-e-taib a. they have their operations in north waziristan, have had a disruptive effect. they for instance uncovered arms
caches that belong to the haqqanis. i have been to marriage all and seen some of the result -- seen some of the result of these efforts but we do believe there is more that can be done, and we continue to press them very hard on that matter. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. when you consider the future of u.s.-pakistan relations, what do you see as the key aims and drivers of our pakistan policy? mr. olson: thank you very much, congresswoman. we believe that the best way forward with pakistan is , developinggagement pakistan's civilian economy.
its ability to be stable and prosperous region. it is a country that faces many challenges, some of which we have already identified. it faces challenges from terrorism, violent extremism. it faces a large demographic challenge as the youth bulge comes into what should be their most productive years. we believe it is in our interest to continue engagement with pakistan said that pakistan is able to effectively harness the youth, having them educated and prepared for the job market so that pakistan plays a more constructive role in the region as a whole. >> where do you think our policies have been most and in looking back
if there was something you could change, what would that be? i think that our assistance programs over the past five years, our civilian assistance programs have made a real impact on the life of ordinary pakistanis. so-calledhrough the it hasauthorization, been focused in five areas, energy, economic growth, stabilization, health, and education. some of the accomplishments include adding 1700 50 megawatts -- 1750 megawatts to pakistan's electricity grid. we have added 1000 kilometers of roads, many in the western part of the country connecting to
afghanistan so there is greater regional conductivity and farmers can get produce to market. million inver 250 troop returning refugees from the north waziristan operation to their homes. we have extensive exchange programs. we bring many pakistanis to the united states for study, which we think will shape their future attitudes to the united states. we have the most extensively funded fulbright program in the have in pakistan, and we built 1000 schools and funded 15,000 domestic scholarships, and 23 u.s.-pakistan university partnerships. in health, we have launched a hospital and rehabilitated a major ob/gyn center at the postgraduate medical center in karachi. we are focusing on maternal
health care, each is a very important issue in terms of the overall health of the population. >> is there something you think should be altered? what should that be? mr. olson: i think it is important for us to continue engagement with pakistan. despite the challenges of the relationship, which are many, we believe that it is in our international interest not to allow pakistan to become disengaged from us. i think we can draw on the lessons of history there, especially the period in the 19 80's and the 1990's, where we did disengage, and we paid i think a significant price as a country for that, at the beginning of the last decade. i think that with all the challenges of the relationship,
it is most important for the u.s. to be engaged and to still, to build a partnership with pakistan. >> thank you, i yield back. >> now we will move to mr. were bacher of california. ambassador, you have got a mighty tough job. that,e to respect you for and thank you for trying to do your best. what i am about to say does not reflect on your visibilitybut on the of you succeeding and what you are trying to do. hasfact is that pakistan from its very beginning, been plagued with corruption and oppression by its own government. the brutality and corruption in pakistan was so bad that early on in 1971, the people of
bangladesh could not take it anymore, and their uprising was of course answered, not by trying to reform their government but instead by brutal suppression, which led to the independence of bangladesh. -- feel free to correct me if i am wrong -- but we see similar type of sentiments in a situation with the people of baluchistan. there is now these f-16s the judge is talking about. and the military equipment we are providing pakistan are being used against their own people, just like they did against the people of, over there in bangladesh. so am i mistaken and that we are
using weapons that are provided -- that they are using weapons provided by us against their own people in baluchistan and elsewhere? mr. olson: first of all, thank you, congressman, for your support and kind words. i appreciate it greatly. let me say, with regard to been ason, there have part of the national action plan that pakistan adopted after the horrific attack on the army school, there is an element of improving governance and going after corruption. that is been particularly notable lately in some of the operations that have taken place in karachi. there has been an anticorruption element to the government's
action. ambassador, this is about the third time over the last 25 years that i have heard this. it is always, they are moving forward with anticorruption. it, but ifcount on it happens i will be very happy about that. the american people will rejoice with the people of pakistan that the crux finally got -- crooks finally got displaced in islamic. the -- in islamabad. is still engaged in terrorism as a strategy for what they believe is going to defend their country, or give their country leverage. we saw that in attacks on india and the efforts
of course supporting the taliban, etc.. until that changes, until the people of baluchistan do not have to suffer with her people are being grabbed and bodies are dumped in large numbers, this is a tragic state. for the united states to provide weapons to a government like islamabad, which then is used worse, them, but even pakistan and these people from that country, their approach to the united states, the judge was right. if we were thwarted in trying to bring to justice osama bin laden, it would have been because the pakistanis were using american jet to shoot our people down. we calculated on that. that was not out of the realm of possibility and the fact that that is the reality of it, and we end up giving them billions of dollars of military equipment, no wonder they do not respect us. one last thing.
dr., we know osama bin laden was given safe haven in that country, the man who slaughtered 3000 americans was given safe haven. the one guy that helped us bring that monster to justice is now lingering in a dungeon in pakistan. this is their answer to us. that is a message to the people of the united states. they are thumbing their nose at us and taking our money and they guy,aying, here is the tell those americans the guy who helped bring osama bin laden to justice, we are just going to throw him in that dungeon and that is the message to the american people. it is time for us to quit taking that and stand up for proof and justice. we will be siding with the pakistani people, and not their corrupt, brutal government. >> thank you. >> thank you, adam chair.
-- madam chair. hopeful signs of the relationship between pakistan and india. i want to focus on the more troubling signs with that of india and the united states. pakistan plays a double game. partner,our military but they are the protector of our enemies. this has been going on for 15 years. since 2002, the united states' aid to pakistan has averaged about $2 billion per year. annual budget is about $5 billion per year. we in the united states finance 80 great portion of their military and economic budget. by every measure, terrorism has become worse in afghanistan and pakistan. in 2010, the most generous u.s.
pakistan, $4.5 billion, the united states suffered the highest level of casualties in afghanistan, almost 500 soldiers. also, pakistan is involved in an arms race against what it believes is its accidental -- it's x essential threat with india test existential threat with india. pakistan could have 350 nuclear warheads in the next decade, becoming the world's third biggest nuclear power, outpacing china, and the united kingdom. sign of anypositive indiaed relations with
because pakistan justifies its nuclear proliferation as a deterrent against aggression from the outside. so the united states has to get tougher. out on thisall them double game that they have been playing, not this year, not last year, not five years, but for the past 15 years. i can appreciate you and your capacity must try -- you in your deal withust try to these issues as diplomatically as possible, but when you really look at the cold, hard facts, pakistan is not an ally to the united states. they have facilitated, they have encouraged, they have been a protector of the very enemy.
there is these two conversations going on. there is one when the americans are in the room and another when we are not. the one that is most detrimental is goingthe one that on when we are not in the room. i would ask you to comment. thank you, congressman. -- mr. olson: thank you, congressman. we do share your concern about the development of pakistan's , including its pursuit of short range nuclear systems. we are concerned that a conventional conflict in south asia to escalate to include nuclear use, as well as the increased security challenges that accompany growing stockpiles. i can tell you we have had a very active dialogue at the highest levels with the
pakistanis, in which we have made clear the nature of our very specific concerns. we have hearddor, this for the past 15 years. here is my concern, and i apologize for cutting you off but i have a minute. ifpakistan falls apart, or islamic extremists take over, it is a nightmare scenario for us. it is a big country with 100 and 80 million people. extremists and nuclear weapons -- islamic extremists and nuclear weapons. that is a primary goal of al be a majorit would victory for them and the outgrowth of al qaeda, the islamic state, and a major defeat for us in the united states. i yield back. >> thank you.
>> thank you, madam chairman. many of the questions or comments are things that i was going to a dress, and i just wanted to follow through on that. i think mr. higgins made some great comments, and i think we similarlyncerned because of the size and nuclear weapons and everything else. there is a part of me that wants ,o say, in all fairness pakistan has been a great ally of ours, particularly from the military standpoint, and we never would have gotten that equipment out of iraq because there was only one way to go, through pakistan. we kind of overlooked that. i still think the only country that is going to control afghanistan's destiny is -- is pakistan. head and shaking your
you agree with that. all those things considered, i am going to throw something which really, really scares me. there has been talk in light of the iranian deal and the nuclear in a persian country, in a shiite country. in your opinion, is there any possibility that pakistan would not just give the technology but actually sell nuclear weapons to , i sunni states with money will not name them but i think we know who they are, that this proliferation would start on a scale and change the whole calculus of the region? mr. olson: thank you, congressman. thank you for flagging the role pakistan had with other forms of
support of our operations in afghanistan. with regard to nuclear weapons, i want to assure you that we agree that nuclear security is a key issue. we have confidence in the capabilities of the security forces, the pakistani security forces, to control and secure their nuclear weapons. we want to make sure that continues to be the case. with regard to proliferation concerns, pakistan has made an effort over the past few years, and we have worked very closely with them, to tighten export controls and to make sure that ofy are not in a position proliferating nuclear materials. this involved of course a
cleanup from the premia previous situation of a decade ago. our assessment is that they have made considerable progress in this area. >> thank you. switching gears a little bit, just like everybody on this committee i am afraid there is one agency that impacts and i think the vast majority of us are afraid of them, and that is because of their past history, and that is isi. their corruption, their agenda, and everything else, and more than that, the influence that they have on the pakistani entryment in terms of the -- i could go on and on -- but just in certain decisions. any warm andme fuzzy feeling about an organization i think most of us are very nervous about?
-- from sandito bernardino, i am worried about that. that more than anything else in terms of what are the power factors in pakistan, i am very, very nervous and cynical about. mr. olson: yes, thank you very much, congressman. let me just mention a couple verys on isi. we do have a robust engagement with isi. i'm that with the chief regularly during my tenure in pakistan, and made the points i described earlier about terrorism directly to him. playoes have a role to with regard to afghan reconciliation, and we think it is a role that pakistan at large
played in bringing the taliban to the table last summer was quite important. they need to do that again, in our view, following up on the positive statements out of the heart of asia conference. thank you very much, i know they are going to cut me off. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. following up on my colleague mr. cook's questions, you are talking about robust engagement but there has been evidenced time and time again of their direct and indirect connections with the haqqani network. in 2011, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff call the haqqani network a veritable arm so as you are having these discussions, you have talked a lot about how more must be done but i am wondering what
action, what change in u.s. policy has occurred that would actually bring about a consequential shift? to olson: well, we continue press at every point for action on the haqqanis. we have done this at the highest levels of our government. >> has there been any change in the aid packages of the funding we are providing? mr. olson: as you know, there a decrement of $300 million from the coalition support funds , i believe under last year's national defense authorization act. i would have to refer you to the department of defense for how that is being implemented.
to a00 million was subject certification of cooperation from the huck connie -- from the i would have to refer you to the department of defense. >> to say there were serious doubts is an understatement, on pakistani's credibility. cooperation, iar think one of the greatest concerns as we look at how closely connected the haqqani network and others are to pakistan, is the safety of the nuclear weapons that they have in preventing misuse. haveave just said you confidence in the pakistani security forces, but when you have these insider threats, the have connie network being an arm of the -- the haqqani network being an arm of the isi, how can
you make sure they do not have access to these nuclear weapons or traffic them or get them in the wrong hands? hasolson: i think pakistan taken a lot of steps to tighten up its control of nuclear security. they are well aware of their responsibilities with regard to protecting. i think they have specifically taken into account the insider threat as well. >> can you speak with some specificity? honestly ima'am, would not be able to address bute issues in this forum in another form it might be possible to do so. >> can you speak specifically to what pakistan and the government has done to crack down on the haqqani network or these other terrorist networks which are
directly linked? mr. olson: the launching of operations in north waziristan in june 2014 was something the united states had actually wanted to see for quite some time. waziristan was where many of these militants, including the haqqani network were based. cleared,mpletely including the haqqani network facilities and armaments, bunkers were uncovered and takenyed, and arms caches away, including 160 times of precursors for improvised explosive devices. this has had and it -- and disruptive effect, not only on the pakistani taliban but also on the haqqani network, and by
the way al qaeda, which probably had some presence there as well. isi haves including corporate it with us in taking awn al qaeda cells, including man who was wanted for his plotting of attacks on the new york subway, and one other american citizen who was extradited from pakistan in april of this year. there has been quite a bit of counterterrorism cooperation and the pakistan government at large, and the united states. but itime has expired think as we look at u.s. policy toward pakistan, this is something we need to carefully consider. >> the chair thanks the
gentlelady and now recognizes himself. i had the privilege of traveling to islam as bod -- as long a bod and south waziristan -- islamabad and south waziristan. do we, as a department of state, as the united states government, have a time related series of metrics to determine success or failure of our relationship and the money the american taxpayer is spending with regard to that relationship? much,son: thank you very and it is a great pleasure to see you after seeing you in islamabad. for the assistance programs, that of course is the responsibility of our colleagues , and they do have an extensive program of metrics and tracking
their development. off,do not mean to cut you but i'm trying to get to the terror situation. we know we spend billions of dollars on military assistance, humanitarian assistance, but thiswe are getting to is relationship where pakistan seems to be walking the line somewhere between terrorism and support of the united states government. with all due respect, as long as we allow them to walk the line they will continue as it is in their interest to do that. i will give you some of my metrics, but are there any metrics with regard to terrorism that our time related with the american people can see they are getting value out of the billions of dollars that we spend? mr. olson: i think there has been a shift in pakistan. during the time i was there, i definitely saw a shift in the public discourse on the
terrorism issue. i think there is now a very broad consensus in pakistani politics that it is necessary to go after these extremist groups. of doubt a period about the efficacy of going taliban, andistani that ended with the operation in north waziristan in june of 2014. there was a broad consensus, and it certainly was reinforced by the horrific incident of a year school.he peshawar army of the f-16he cost to the american taxpayer, do you know? mr. olson: mr. chair, as a matter of policy, we do not discuss prospective arms sales until they have been -- >> we know it is not cheap.
let me just give you some of my metrics. in pakistan you have al qaeda, the taliban, the haqqani network , which are all tears organizations. at the same time -- terrorist organizations. meanwhile, a poll conducted by center saidarch only 14% of pakistanis expressed a positive view of the united states. they seem neither democratic nor tolerant regarding their governance or religious tolerance. and then we talk about this individual who allegedly helped the united states get the number one terrorist on our list and meanwhile, the backdrop is that this terrorist organization, the
has been active in pakistan and kashmir since the 1990's. pakistan funded the group and isi helpedni establish the military structure. in november 2000 8, 10 let members conducted a coordinated attack on mumbai, india. pakistaner 2008, the leader who organized the mumbai attacks. released2015, he was from jail on a $2300 bond and there has been no trial scheduled. meanwhile, the doctor remains in a jail and we are going to make some deal of pakistan for f-16s
where we have got neighbors that are much better allies. our are we going to equate relationship, our financial relationship with results about terrorism? where thele results american people can see the value of this relationship. respond toif i could a couple of points, first, on the doctor we fully agree with you that he has been unjustly imprisoned, and we have communicated this at the highest levels. >> why don't we tie it to our actions? his release, why don't we tied to future of this individual the sale of our weapon systems and our aid? who is negotiating these deals on our behalf? believe, and again
i cannot talk about the details of a perspective notification, but let me say we believe that the f-16s we have already sold to pakistan, or provided under security assistance, have been used to advance our national interest. they have been used against terrorists in north waziristan and in the tribal areas. the precision strike capability of the f-16s, and our programs are focused on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. >> i understand the value of the weapon system and what it can do. we are very frustrated that for the american people's involvement, we do not see a whole lot coming on the other side of the ledger. that is my personal perspective. >> thank you, mr. chair. i think you have probably
touched on some of these answers already, but i really want to deal with my own concerns like congressman higgins and cook and others. about the reports of pakistan's development of what i consider to be de-tactical nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country. i want to understand more assessment of pakistan's cooperation on nuclear proliferation concerns. the second part of that question has to do with recent media ourrts suggesting that administration is considering some kind of nuclear arrangement with pakistan. i am not clear what is a nuclear
arrangement, and if we are pakistanng it, is really a trustworthy partner? like other members, the nuclear proliferation treaty concerns are very troubling. thank you, congressman. we share your concerns about the scope and pace of pakistan's nuclear program. we have an active dialogue on nonproliferation issues. increased then rate of development and production of tactical nuclear weapons? mr. olson: we continue to have concerns about the scope and pace. say in thisi can venue. i want to address another issue. assure you, despite press reports to the contrary, we are
not negotiating a so-called 1, cooperationnt, a agreement, with pakistan. are we setting any preconditions or any conditions? or talking to pakistan about the reduction of its nuclear weapons? have had a very candid discussion with the thestanis about some of concerns that we have, including about shorter-range nuclear .ystems pakistan has been prepared to engage with us in those discussions. >> i gather, for the last 60 provided over $75 billion in assistance in
military and economic assistance. question askedhe by the chair, is any of our assistance tied to changes in pakistan's behavior? mr. olson: there are very specific metrics and conditions does we use in all of our assistance programs, specific to the nature of the program, particularly in civilian assistance. with regard to security assistance we have a framework with the pakistanis in which our security assistance is focused on the counter insurgency and counterterrorism missions. 2 is worth noting that additional provisions that, obviously all of our assistance is subject to the leahy amendment.
and we have a process that addresses human rights. in addition, we have very a stringent monitoring ,equirements on the pakistanis especially with regard to high technology security assistance. i can say that we are very strict on those. the results have been satisfactory. does that mean that the results have been satisfactory? thank you. i yield back. recognizing the gentleman from florida. itmr. ambassador, appreciate . i was fortunate to go to afghanistan. we had an informative trip. we have given them $30 billion since 2001, to pakistan.
looking through the list there are at least five terrorist networks operating in the fata area along with isis. we have heard over and over it is a no man's land. in order to get peace in that area, there cannot be the threat of terrorism. pakistan's goal to get rid of terrorism? how serious are they? i am not seeing it. mr. olson: we have agreed for many years that the threat from the tribal areas was significant. >> how serious is pakistan about bringing this to an end? i is like my mom, i told her wanted to play piano, but i wasn't serious and never learned
. if you are serious, you will do it. if you are not, you will not. with 30 billion dollars of american money going into pakistan, and giving them the themnal f-16's after helping us in 9/11, we have seen them as complacent as working against us in afghanistan. havewe hear they want to peace in that area and have talks with india -- but, if you are not willing to stand up and stop about terrorism, you are not serious. am i right or wrong? mr. olson: they launched operations in north waziristan, they have reasserted their authority -- >> what attacks have they done? we did authorities against isis in the summer a year and half ago, but they were not
meaningful. we were doing maybe five or 10 a month. if you are serious, you annihilate that. mr. olson: they have completely cleared this city that was the headquarters of the haqqani network and the pakistani network. completely cleared out. .here is no one there they're cleared the city, and cleared all of the networks. juste taken 480 casualties amongst their soldiers in operations. i think their commitment is serious to fighting terrorism. the concern that we have, sir, we think mores, needs to be done against the haqqani network and groups that threaten pakistan's neighbors. not just the ones that threaten them internally.
>> if you look at the attacks in san bernardino, malik studied in pakistan. the country's support for terror, administrations have argued that the u.s. assistance is necessary for pakistan's antiterrorism capabilities. contributions have 's made toan's f-16 centralctives in america? what can i go back to the people that i represent and say this is a good thing, because it will give us peace down the road. we are going backward. what benefits have the f-16s
done? mr. olson: they've used the f-16 in thecision strikes tribal areas. i don't have the specific metrics with me on the number of strikes they have conducted, but their regula -- but they are regular feature of their operations. essential iney are taking out terrorists of concern to us and then. they do not know the actions that they will be pursuing in the tribal area. ,ould you recommend giving them selling them more airplanes with the results we have gotten so far. million, you read off an impressive list of scholarships and schools. i am not seeing the return on investment.
american sentiment once this to end. mr. olson: with regard to the f-16s, we believe they have been an affected instrument. ourof respect for congressional prerogatives, we to not discuss perspective cells until they have been notified. >> they protected osama bin laden. there is no way they did know about that, and no one can convince me different. they are heading a beehive. they are hitting a malignant tumor over here, but the main tumor is over here. we have to go after the main cause before i can support any sells of those. >> thank you. on november 18, the brother of
list -- the brother of the activist here in washington was killed. there is an ongoing investigation. i want to thank you and the state department for the focus on this. and raises the bigger issue if there are other regions that are hostile other than punjab. of the general officers of the military are punjabi? i do not know if you have that available. mr. olson: i do not have that
available. we can take that back and see if information. for my own experience, it is a high proportion, but not an exclusive proportion. .> a zero-based budget most people that i represent feel the roughly $2 billion we give pakistan could be better valley. the that helped us get osama bin laden will be rotting in prison. zero?have a plan to go to what was we expect the pakistani response to be? is it considered an act of war to give another country money? mr. olson: we believe that
engagement with pakistan is -- >> other countries don't give them money and they still talk. i'm not saying we close our embassy. i using the pakistanis would refuse to talk to us. does every other country have to give them money as a party gift to have a conversation? mr. olson: our specific programs, civilian or military, have done a lot to improve the conditions in the case of civilians and the rise of ordinary pakistanis. they are facing an enormous demographic challenge. they have a youth bulge. the youth are about to come into the most productive years of their life. they will either have jobs or not have jobs.
>> i know we do good for pakistan. if we spend that money in india or congo, we would do an equal amount of good. what is the pakistani response if we simply say "zero?" mr. olson: i really can't say what the government of pakistan -- billion, spending $2 military, if we eliminated the military aid it is clear that the pakistani military does some good, it is also clear the pakistani military does some harm. have we discussed with the pakistanis that congress would specify zero, particularly if we don't see changes in policy, starting with the release of the doctor that helped us get osama bin laden. have you talked to the pakistanis that there is sentiment in congress to go to zero?
mr. olson: i would be happy to convey that sentiment. i think that is a point we can .ake the administration's position is that we believe that the assistance programs that we have our and our national interest. it is in our national interest to have pakistan be stable and prosperous, rather than the alternative. it is in our national interest to have pakistan conduct inc. counterterrorism operations in that part of the country. them the money that we use used for oppression rather than prosperity and counterterrorism? they may be confronting the haqqani network, or not. they may be funding the operations that kill people in mumbai. how do we know which of those two activities our money is
funding? carefuln: we are very about how we spend our money and what we spend it on. in regards the military assistance it is subjected to a very strict regime amendment -- a very strict leahy amendment vetting process. we continue to raise the issues, ,he question of the haqqanis and the doctor. at every occasion. >> unless they think that you under some, circumstances, to recommend zero, you will not achieve our objectives. the biggest weathervane is the physician that help us get osama bin laden.
then, to say that we should ignore the fact that they have that doctor in prison, begs the question if the aid that we get them is warranted. i will return to points that i made in my opening statement. including the legislation authored by myself and eliot hezbollah.rgeting there are several cosponsors here, like mr. sherman. if i could return to some of the points that i made, i hope that with this observation about the schools in pakistan. there are 600 of these iron over the about that years we have tried to convince
the government to shut down. are funded primarily by the gulf states, individuals and families in the gulf states, that make these "charitable contributions." theseoblem is that graduates have a foundation and radical ideology. we have the national action plan set up by the government. i asked the congressional survey about to that plan. they say one year later there is limited evidence that the government's national action plan has brought danger changes. -- brought major changes. i would like to ask you about shutting these down, shutting down the foundation from which this radicalization is occurring. any young people will go on to
become clerics in pakistan or , continuing to expand on this radical jihadist ideology that has advanced and comes out of the gulf states. let meon: mr. chairman, say that we share your concern about the schools. we think it is a serious issue. it was addressed for the first time in the national action plan put out last year. the government is in the process of putting together a greater regulatory framework for the schools. it is presently mapping geopolitical -- rocket science.
we are talking about the particular schools. they are incubators -- saying that they are all incubators of hate and violence is wrong. but, there exist religious centers that continue to spew hate. unless that is shutdown, pakistan will never win the struggle for internal peace. we have a list of the 600 schools. to trymade three trips to convince the government to shut those down. we have had little success in convincing families and the gulf states not to send their money there, or convincing the governments in the gulf states to fund this. it is a phenomenon. it is so frustrating. failure of is that
the government, time and time again, to address issues that are in that government's own best interest. the knowledgeiven of what goes on in those 600 schools is the most obvious and vexing problem that is right in front of us. what do people in the government say about that issue? mr. olson: i have had discussions about this. that there is a huge challenge with the madrassas. the reason they exist and have become popular, if that is the word, is the fact that they divide a free education. we are talking past each other.
i'm not talking about all of the that provide free education. i'm talking about the 600. given the money spent toward education in the budget, 2.4% that goes toward education, i understand that this is one of in terms of f-16s and military hardware. be betterakistan served by the issue of shutting down these 600 schools? if they do it, funding public alternative,an instead of the lads going to schools where you and i suspect the final outcome will be like a lot of others that have then radicalized in those schools. mr. olson: i would agree with
that analysis. there has to be a reform of the public education system. it is not delivering in pakistan, and there has to be a viable opportunity for parents, who otherwise have no choice to send children to schools that are pre-where food -- otherwisehools have no choice to send children to schools that are free and where food is provided. we have no choice but to try to atorm the curriculum so that least in the religiously oriented schools, there is marketable skills and standardized curriculum. that there are attempts to address a more modern perspective. >> my time has expired. will ask unanimous consent
that representative jackson lead in terms of asking questions. she is not on the committee, but she wanted to participate. representative sheila jackson lee from texas. thank you, very much. i chair the national pakistan caucusse -- pakistan with my colleague, and have done so for a decade. i will go pointed lease to a pointedly to a question dealing with an american doctor some years back in 2014. the doctor out of chicago, who came out on a mission to serve. he had a different religious background.
i am wondering, did we ever solve his killing? response to that very tragic incident? mr. olson: it is a pleasure to see you again. i am afraid i do not have any details on that particular case. if i can get back to you with a response, i would do so. of course, we continue having concerns about the treatment of religious minorities in pakistan . it is a key area of our engagement. >> let me follow up. it is an important issue. how are we pursuing the issue of religious tolerance? mr. olson: i think there have timesome developments over
in pakistan that give us a little bit of space for advancing this. decision from the supreme court in june of 2014 to extend greater protection to religious minorities. that is a positive step that needs to be followed up on with the government. we have an ongoing dialogue with the rights of religious minorities. particularly concerned about blasphemy, not only in thestan, because possibility of there being subject to abuse. has been the case in certain instances in pakistan. we think it is within the context of having concerns about the framework, the legal
framework, in which pakistan conducts anti-blasphemy laws. we think it is positive the case of aussie a bb has moved to the supreme court. we will continue to press the government of pakistan for proper treatment of religious minorities. thank you. let me say that it is good to see you. we will focus on pakistan, then maybe a slight question in the timeframe i have left. i know you have asked about dr. fridi and his position. you have any other of eight you may have given in any other testimony? let me follow with my next
question. when the prime minister was here there was an impression that pakistan is continuing to build on democratic and suppose focusing on economic development, education issues that we would be concerned .bout, and existence i was wondering what your assessment is. if you would start with the status of the doctor. and if you could give me a little bit about afghanistan, i am concerned in terms of whether is evenhe frontierland embraced by the central government. if we have a functioning government in afghanistan. mr. olson: thank you. idi, wegards to dr. afr believe there is no reason for his continued detention.
we have been assured that he is in good health, but we continue to press his case at the highest levels of our government and seek his release. accounts oro other charges? for him toreason continue to be incarcerated? mr. olson: we believe, inherently, that he should not be in a position of detention for helping out in the capture of -- helping out in the osama bin laden raid. that has been our position from the onset. avenueinue to work every that is open to us. we continue to press hard on it. >> the other question? mr. olson: with regards to
afghanistan, the government has does face some challenges. that is not surprising. the government of national unity has held together for over a year. the government of national unity, any national unity government coalition anywhere, there are challenges associated. last week in kabul got a sense of her new determination of the government ,o improve its governance particularly after the security challenges it has faced over the last year. it is drawing lessons learned from the experiences of the past year, and is making more government appointments. there is a tickler provincial --us to the government's
there is a particular preventer vocus to the government's reforms. prime minister sharif came to the united states, do using them moving to more democratic development? do we have a measuring stick that moves pakistan with all of the desire for education, to a level where you are in powering many young people in the country? thank you. there was an important transition in pakistan in june , when the first civilian .lected government took over the first successful civilian transition in pakistan's 65-year history. domesticfter facing political challenges, the government of prime minister
has largely settled those political issues. i think the political situation is stable. has, indeed,t focused on several key areas stabilizing the economy. pakistan, the coffers were empty at the time the government took over. there was the potential of a balance of payments crisis. program.is on an imf longer than any previous imf program in history. there are still important structural reforms to be undertaken, especially in the energy sector, but they are diversifying their energy supply. they are importing liquefied
natural gas from a companyin houston, the is helping out in that process. which, we are happy to promote successfully. and, they have also focused on infrastructure. the prime minister has committed the proportion of spending on education. it is worth noting that the prime minister's daughter signed on with the first lady, mrs. obama, for the let girls learn initiative during the prime .inister's visit expressing seriousness of addressing issues of education, particularly for adolescent girls. encourage them to increase their funding on education. >> thank you for your service.
thank you, chairman, ranking member, will your courtesy. >> eliot engel from new york. >> thank you very much. we had a good meeting yesterday in my office. i was debating the bill on the house floor and in the new york delegation. i apologize for missing the first part of the hearing. of the issues,ny and i am delighted with your appointment. we are going to make a statement and ask you to comment. since the five years passing of ambassador holbrooke, the first special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he left a legacy. his final act was laying groundwork for resolving the conflict in afghanistan and pakistan, and i hope we can take advantage of that.
i've confident with your previous experience in afghanistan and pakistan that this is in the right hands. i was encouraged by the bipartisan support on military, and to renew our partnership with the civilian leadership of pakistan. it was reflected in the bill passed by congress in 2009, but that authorization expired. it is a good time to take stock of the status of the u.s.-pakistan relationship. we are used to hearing bad news, but the pakistani people have achieved accomplishments. the transfer of power from one democratically elected government to another, a historic moment for the country. thanks to collaboration with our addedhey have
electricity, new jobs, schools, and more than 18,000 newly teachers. let me commend experts for their hard work and a challenging environment. on the security side, we have seen more modest progress. terrorist groups pose threats to americans. ,akistanis and our partners where pakistan has provided extremist groups safe haven and a permissive environment allowing the ideology to spread. have been thet pakistani people. terrorism has killed more than 50,000 people since 2003. a year ago today, terrorists affiliated with the pakistani than 140assacred more
teachers and students at the .rmy school in peshawar the government finally took military action against ttp in north waziristan. for those hopes efforts. i was hopeful when the pakistani parliament to a leading role in establishing an action plan to address terrorism in the aftermath of the peshawar attacks. they decided they would no longer differentiate between good and bad terrorists, reflecting a change, a positive change, to addressing terrorism. we have seen little evidence the government has followed through. so, violent groups continue to operate with impunity, including the haqqani network, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans in afghanistan. , the group responsible
for the 2008 mumbai attacks, they believe that they can manage these groups, yet they end up fighting our troops in afghanistan, and the haqqani allegiance pledged to al qaeda. pakistan is a long way from solving their problem. i hope that we can focus on a few key areas. what will it take for pakistan to stop differentiating between good and bad terrorists, and treating them all as bad and as the threat that they are. it is our policy to convey that the harm from these relationships outweigh any benefit. i am curious how pakistani acquiescence in support for terrorism groups is affecting its neighbors.
can afghanistan stabilize while pakistan hosts terrorist networks? have aistan and india relationship with pakistan continues to support l.e.t.? clear eyed about the pakistani antiterrorism efforts. i believe the united states and pakistan should work together, but i think the question about terrorism is a very important question. it has not been satisfactorily met by the pakistani government. i hope we can see a country strategy for pakistan and afghanistan from usaid to maximize foreign assistance for both countries. we need to encourage energy
sector and tax reforms. we want to see a peaceful, stable, and prosperous pakistan central and of a southern asia. it cannot happen with the instability in pakistan and afghanistan. i wonder if you could answer some of these questions. if you have already, we can do it in writing afterwards. . also wish you good the as i said before, i think you are the right man for the job. mr. olson: thank you. that means a great deal to me. i enjoy your confidence, and thank you for your support. you started by mentioning it is five years since the death of richard holbrooke. i was in his outer office waiting to see him today he collapsed.
all of us that are working on this account greatly miss him. i'm well aware that i am filling big shoes. thank you for your statement. let me say with regard to the , wee of terrorism appreciate the statements pakistan has made at the level of the prime minister and army chief of not differentiating between good and bad terrorists. we think there is to be done in this area. we think pakistan has moved decisively against terrorists that threaten pakistan internally, but still needs to devote attention to those that represent a threat to their neighbors. you asked about particularly the effect on afghanistan. i would note that we had a constructive week last week with the heart of asia conference
which president gone he attended -- president ghani attended. it was important for the afghan side. they committed to renewing and reinvigorating a peace process. pakistan did host talks between the taliban and the afghan government. the first talk was last summer in july. agree it is important to get a political settlement going. we look to pakistan to bring, to help bring, the taliban to the table. at the same time, we raise concerns about the threat the
haqqani network represents to us and to our forces, and the sea, and civilians in afghanistan, as well as the taliban more generally. finally, we have the same view , and the to l.e.t. taketo ban them, and to action with regard to prosecuting them as perpetrators of mumbai. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. back to thegoing double game that is being played by pakistan. that pakistan
expressed a seriousness in addressing the education needs of its country. pakistan spends 3% of its budget on education. 3%. of its budget on infrastructure. countries that spend less than 15% on education, health care, and infant structure are -- and infrastructure, our countries that are susceptible to collapse. you said pakistan is serious about addressing educational atds, one only needs to look the amount of budgetary resources it is addressing for that need. , pakistan and points the amount it spends on counterterrorism operations to receive more money, particularly from us.
it has been stated throughout billioning, some $30 over 15 years has been spent. military and economic for pakistan.d the legitimate costs are only 30%. where is the rest of the money going? it is very significant, and i suspect for nefarious purposes. are we winning the hearts and the aof pakistanis given that we have provided? bp research center said the majority of pakistanis view of americans as the enemy and say that the eight has a negative or no impact. pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries. by any measure, when you look at
the extraordinary aid that we leastrovided, at the very we have not used that aid tokage as a basis from which force very reasonable reforms with respect to helping the pakistanis hope their own people . if you don't make a commitment to education, to health care, if you are not delving roads and bridges, why are we? billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of afghanistan. $73 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of iraq, roads and bridges that they blow up to kill our people. anything, we look at this exercise, this hearing, as underscoring the urgency of better utilizing the leverage that we have with pakistan so to
not only is that money we, theely spent, but benefactors of huge amounts of foreign aid to pakistan, are not viewed by the vast majority of the pakistani people as the enemy. and the money that we give them tive. effective -- ineffec mr. olson: thank you congressman. i appreciate the thought will comments that you have offered. on the needh you for pakistan to be investing health, andation, in its own people. there is no doubt about that. we support the prime minister's stated commitment to devoting 4%
to education, 4% of gdp. we would like to see that happen. be said thatto pakistan faces a huge number of challenges now. it faces huge security challenges. we could have a long discussion about how that happened. i think there are domestic, large domestic factors at play. pakistan is attempting to turn the security situation around, but it does consume a significant amount of their budget in doing so. on the question of hearts and minds, and the views of a happys, it is not story. i agree with you.
on the other hand, it is something that is somewhat improving. the numbers have gradually 'sproved on pakistan perception of americans. from personal experience, i think there's less of an impression now amongst the political elite that the united states is playing a nefarious role in regard to pakistani domestic politics. we are perceived as not intervening in pakistani politics, and that is because we haven't. we have been careful not to do that. this is something that won't change overnight, but the trends , albeit modest, are in a positive direction, and i think we need to keep working away at that. ambassador, i will yield time
to mr. brad sherman of california for additional questions. >> pakistan is the only schizophrenic nuclear power winning over -- schizophrenic nuclear power. winning over the people of pakistan is one of the most important things we can do. i would hope that you would be an advocate for making sure that in the a robust program other languages. please do not be full by the haveg that a lot of people working knowledge of or do. you are in the marketing business. people spend billions of dollars advertising in spanish to people who prefer to listen in spanish. will test say, we
those people to see what they're working knowledge is. you reach people in the language they want. about $2 million spending $1not million a year to reach people other languages, i that.ou will address i was a devil's advocate for a zero-based budget for pakistan. that is not what we are going to do. i do hope you will convert to the pakistanis that if there is , it can be dispersed familyr. afridi and his are safe here, it would pose a damage to the congress because we would be stampeding to vote yes.
yes, they would get in the way of the stampede. those voting first would be stampeded by those wanting to vote first. the usaid dedicated more than $55 million to in proving the schools. found usaid report three-years in, the program was not achieving goals. it had unrealistic expectations. no schools were built. there was little improvement in in 2014.our that was has anything been done to make sure that education aid is better spent. if you do not have that information, you can respond for the record. i hope that you are aware that our consulate general in karachi has started putting
out all of the social media work in the language and has received . positive reaction >> that idea may have come from congress. we were happy to implement it. i'll take back the message on voice of america. participated in the inauguration of schools. they are being built and going up. i will have to get you a detailed status report. i. olson: i would like -- >> would like you to explore with usaid, a chunk of the aid should provide free textbooks. that would help us ensure that while the textbooks may not pass
a politically correct test in the san bernardino valley, that what every student sees on the first page -- one of the advantages of a have frees that they textbooks. we should have free textbooks. what would it take to get pakistan to be a status quo power? have them generally accepting a kashmir situation. any development aid that the world could provide for the kashmiri people? is there any change in the level of local metonymy that -- local menomy -- local i taught a tonomy that india
could provide. , not so anything pakistan would formally accept the situation, but so that they could calm down and agree to live for a decade or so without kashmir teeing at the top of their list? mr. olson: if i could interject, i am aware that he has to appear on the senate side. >> that is not important. [laughter] >> he might interpret it differently. we could discussion have been writing or have a sit down. we were supposed to meet in my office, i look forward to meeting with you. >> algebraic up the remarks that mr. engle made about your predecessor, ambassador richard holbrooke.
he was a personal friend myself and elliott ingle. from the days that he began engaging with the committee, i remember the courts and the work that he did on bosnia and kosovo with those of us here. him as someone who had wise counsel on a lot of issues. we miss him. i cannot help but feel when i reflect upon your predecessor that the stress of the job may have had something to do with his heart giving out. we wish you, ambassador, well in your responsibilities. we appreciate your time and your patience today. i know that you are on your way to the senate. you havest say, what
heard our deep concerns from both sides of the aisle. about the direction, the issue of getting more money into public education in pakistan. hass clear to us that this got to be a priority. you have a difficult job, but you have the full backing from with thegh in forcibly responsibilities you have in your position. that said, we thank you, and we stand adjourned.
announcer: next, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then "newsmakers" with senator alexander. then president obama talks about his accomplishments this year and his plans for 2016. narrative was that he was a lightweight action with prematurehair -- orange hair. even with this from the administration, historians have ranked ronald reagan low out of ideological bias. announcer: tonight, discussing
at ronald looking reagan's life after the white house, and the way he was remembered after his death. >> i write about the facts and do not make things up. i do not believe that anyone else makes things up. succeeded in repositioning people's thinking about ronald reagan. the picture that has emerged is very serious, deep thinking, man. day."ight on "q and a political roundtable on the q of a political roundtable on the 2016 campaign.
then the former u.s. ambassador to morocco talks about the strategy to combat isis. you can join the conversation and we will take your calls. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it marked the third time the democrats met in a presidential debate from new hampshire as martin o'malley and bernie sanders going after hillary clinton, while the former muchtary of state focused of her criticism on the republicans. it is sunday morning, december 20, as we begin this christmas week, congress is in recess for the holidays, and the president against his vacation in hawaii. we will focus on last night's debate. the state of the presidential race, and what is next with six weeks before the iowa caucu