U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–997PDF 2016

THE FUTURE OF U.S.–PAKISTAN RELATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 16, 2015

Serial No. 114–136

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Richard Olson, Special Representative for Afghanistan and 

Pakistan, U.S. Department of State ................................................................... 4

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Richard Olson: Prepared statement ............................................. 7

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 48

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 49

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 51

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 59

Written responses from the Honorable Richard Olson to questions submitted 

for the record by: 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ............................................................................................. 61

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 63

The Honorable David A. Trott, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan ............................................................................................. 64

(1)

THE FUTURE OF U.S.–PAKISTAN RELATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m.,in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. There is a 

vote in progress. So my intention here is to begin the hearing, and 

then we will suspend for the duration of the votes and allow the 

other members of the committee to come forward. But in this fashion, myself and Congressman Poe can make our opening statements, and maybe some of the other members will be able to as 

well. 

This hearing is on the future of U.S.-Pakistan relations. The 

committee has repeatedly urged Pakistan to take meaningful action against key Islamist terrorist groups operating within its territory. Unfortunately, Pakistan, which is now home to the world’s 

fastest growing nuclear weapons program, has remained a fount of 

radical Islamist thought. It was no surprise that one of the San 

Bernardino attackers, Tafsheen Malik, studied at a Pakistani 

school spreading a particularly fundamentalist message. 

Looking back, the 9/11 terrorist attacks transformed the U.S.-

Pakistan relations overnight. After more than a decade under sanctions for its nuclear proliferation, Pakistan was to be a key ally in 

combatting Islamist militancy, becoming a leading recipient of U.S. 

aid in the nearly 15 years since. 

But while the U.S. was quick to embrace Pakistan, Pakistan has 

hardly reciprocated. Pakistani Governments have come and gone, 

but its northwestern frontier has remained a terrorist haven. With 

its security services supporting what it considers to be good 

Islamist terrorist groups, these good groups—under Pakistan’s calculus—destabilize Afghanistan and threaten neighboring India 

while the government simultaneously opposes what it considers the 

bad Islamist groups. 

Today Deobandi schools create an infrastructure of hate. Sixhundred Deobandi madrassas, funded with Gulf state money, teach 

intolerant, hate-filled rhetoric that inspires the foot soldiers of 

jihadist terrorism. I have made three trips to Islamabad to press 

this issue. Pakistan must do the work to register schools and close 

those creating new generations of radicals, and those are the 

2

schools that are being funded with Gulf state money, the Deobandi 

schools, and they need to be closed. 

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is on a track to be the 

third largest. Its addition of small tactical nuclear weapons in recent years is even more troubling. This is a country which spends 

a fifth of its budget on the military, from long-range missiles to F–

16s, but under 2.5 percent on education. 

Through all of the double dealing, U.S. policy has essentially 

stood still. Security assistance—cash and arms—has continued to 

flow after the occasional temporary delays. Indeed, despite some 

Department of Defense assistance for Pakistan being held because 

of inadequate efforts against the Haqqani Network, the State Department is currently seeking more arms for Islamabad. 

Pakistan itself has been devastated by terrorism with thousands, 

over 2,000, of its soldiers killed, thousands and thousands of its 

citizens killed, in terrorist attacks. Today we recognize the year anniversary of a horrific attack on a school in Peshawar that killed 

over 100 children. We want a strong partnership with the country, 

but a new policy is long overdue. One option, as Ranking Member 

Engel and I proposed earlier this year, would be to target those officials who maintain relationships with designated terrorist groups 

with travel and financial sanctions. This would make it clear: The 

U.S. and Pakistan cannot have a true strategic partnership until 

Pakistan security services cuts ties with terrorist organizations. 

Recently, senior U.S. officials—including National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken—

have traveled to Islamabad reportedly to press on the Pakistani 

Government. We look forward to hearing from our witness today 

whether there is reason for hope or if our policy is stuck in the 

same rut. 

And I now will turn to Mr. Ted Poe of Texas and Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California for their opening statements. 

Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My concern specifically is with our relationship with Pakistan. 

The United States has given Pakistan $30 billion since 9/11. I 

think Pakistan is a Benedict Arnold ally to the United States. Even 

going back to May the 2nd, 2011, when there was the raid in Pakistan on Osama bin Laden, we didn’t tell the Pakistanis we were 

coming because, frankly, they would snitch us off, and Osama bin 

Laden would have left. And the near confrontation that took place 

between the U.S. and Pakistan after the raid—Pakistan scrambled 

two U.S.-made F–16s and were headed to the area where the raid 

took place and a possible confrontation with two U.S.-made jets 

against American helicopters at the raid didn’t happen, but it could 

have happened—pilots that presumably were trained the year before in 2010 in Tucson, Arizona. And I think we need to be very 

concerned about providing armaments for Pakistan, who seems to 

play all the sides. 

And I would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. 

And I now yield time to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. When I was elected 28 

years ago, I think most people considered me Pakistan’s best friend 

3

in the House of Representatives. And let me just say that over the 

years, I have been deeply disappointed that those people who I considered to be my friends were betraying the trust of the United 

States and were committing acts that were only the acts that an 

enemy would commit, even though we continued to have a facade 

of friendship. 

We have given $30 billion—$30 billion—since 9/11, to Pakistan. 

Yet we realize that since 9/11 that there is ample evidence that 

Pakistan is still deeply involved with various terrorist networks, 

including supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and radicals who 

kill Americans. Frankly, our relationship with Pakistan has been 

a disgrace. We have a government that gave safe haven to Osama 

bin Laden, the murderer of 3,000 Americans—3,000 Americans 

slaughtered in front of us. I don’t think anybody believes that the 

high level people in the Pakistan Government didn’t know about 

that. They continue to hold Dr. Afridi, just to rub it in our face. 

That is the type of relationship they have with us. And to their 

own people, they are slaughtering people in the Balochistan and 

the Sindhis and others who are being brutally oppressed by a 

clique in their government, so it is not all Pakistan, but the clique 

that runs that country is treating us like suckers. And they should 

because we are. We are acting foolish, very foolish. Giving people 

money who have continually involved themselves in activity that is 

harmful to the United States of America is not going to win their 

friendship. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we face facts, and if the Pakistani 

Government wants to be our friend, they can be our friend. But 

they have not been, and they need to change that if we are to continue on the relationship that we have. I would like to at this point 

to submit for the record a number of articles showing that, again, 

Pakistan continues to support various terrorist operations as well 

as their relationship with China, at the expense of their own people, the Baloch in particular, and I submit that for the record at 

this point. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We have four votes on the floor, so we will recess the hearing and return for witness testimony and questions 

after those four votes. 

And we appreciate the patience of our witness and those in attendance, and for now, we stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. I will give him the opportunity to 

make an opening statement, if Dr. Bera would like to make one, 

and then I will introduce the Ambassador. He will make his statement, and we will get to the questions and answers. 

Dr. Bera is recognized. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will keep my comments short so we can hear from the Ambassador. 

Obviously, as we look at the South Asian region, we look at 

India, we look at Pakistan, the relationship is incredibly important, 

particularly as the changing mission in Afghanistan is—the role of 

4

Pakistan and India in stabilizing the region is incredibly complex 

and important. 

It is an honor to welcome Ambassador Olson to the job. I understand this is your first month on the job, so looking forward to 

working with you and looking forward to furthering the relationship between the United States and South Asia and stabilizing the 

region. So thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Dr. Bera. 

The chairman would like to express his sorrow for not being 

here, Mr. Ambassador, but he is leading the charge on the House 

floor on four bills from our committee. And that is why he is not 

here, and that is why Mr. Engel is not here either. 

We are pleased to be joined by Ambassador Richard Olson. Ambassador Olson is a Special Representative for Afghanistan and 

Pakistan. Immediately prior to this appointment, Ambassador 

Olson 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. Ambassador Olson has been recognized several times for his service, including being awarded the Presidential 

Distinguished Service Award. 

Thank you for being with us, Mr. Ambassador. 

Without objection, the witness’ full prepared statement will be 

made a part of the record, and members will have 5 calendar days 

to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the 

record. 

Ambassador Olson, please summarize your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD OLSON, SPECIAL 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

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 and 

previously at our Embassy in Kabul. 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 to me that despite many challenges, Pakistan will continue to be an important partner for the United States for the foreseeable future, particularly in light of our enduring presence in Afghanistan. While we do not always see eye to eye on every issue, 

our relationship with Pakistan is vital to the national security of 

the United States. Most importantly, we have the opportunity to 

continue working with Pakistan today on counterterrorism issues 

along with strategic stability, economic growth, and democratic 

governance to help shape a future in which Pakistan is more stable, increasingly prosperous, and plays a constructive role in the region. 

Pakistan is a complex place, and it is important not to overlook 

the significant progress made in the last few years. In 2013, Pakistan completed its first democratic transition from one elected civilian government to another. During the past 2 years, we can point 

5

to progress, however imperfect, made across the economic and security sectors. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his team have restored macroeconomic stability to Pakistan and improved economic 

growth. While structural changes are still needed to set Pakistan’s 

economy on a path to accelerated growth, the reforms to date are 

a considerable accomplishment. 

There has also been substantial changes on the security front. 

Beginning in June 2014, Pakistan initiated large-scale counterterrorism operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The 

subsequent Peshawar Army School attack of exactly 1 year ago 

today was cited by terrorists as retribution for Pakistan’s operations. It galvanized public opinion in Pakistan and prompted 

Pakistan to increase its counterterrorism efforts, not just in tribal 

areas. Through these operations, Pakistan has rooted out many terrorist safe havens and recovered more than 160 tons of improvised 

explosive device precursors. 

In addition to taking action on internal threats, Pakistan’s CT 

cooperation with the United States on al-Qaeda has been critical in 

decimating the organization. However, while Pakistan has made 

significant sacrifices in its fight against terrorism, 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. 

Last July, Pakistan facilitated a direct meeting between Afghan 

Government and Taliban officials in Murree, Pakistan, a milestone 

in our ongoing efforts to pursue a political settlement in Afghanistan. Last week Pakistan hosted the Regional Heart of Asia conference, attended by President Ghani, which yielded productive discussions about regional cooperation to advance the peace process 

and Afghanistan’s long-term stability. In addition, India and Pakistan’s commitment last week to restart a bilateral dialogue is particularly important. 

In describing this progress, 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 target all militant groups that have safe haven in Pakistan, particularly the Taliban, including the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-eTayyiba. We have made it clear to the Pakistanis that these organizations threaten Pakistan, the region, and the panoply of our mutual national security interests, and they must be addressed rigorously. 

We have also asked Pakistan to do all that it can to help recover 

U.S. citizens hostages held on Pakistani territory. We continue to 

press for greater cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, 

both to stabilize the common border region and to build the constructive relationship necessary for regional stability. It is also critical that Pakistan improve relations with its other neighbor, India. 

Recent high-level talks between Indian and Pakistani officials and 

the announcement of the resumption of formal dialogue is welcome. 

We hope the dialogue will be used to reduce tensions and increase 

ties between the two nations. 

Naturally, as Pakistan seeks to combat violent extremism and 

pursue counterinsurgency and counterterrorism objectives, we continue to encourage and support Pakistan to strengthen the rule of 

6

law, civil liberties, respect for human rights, accountability, and 

freedom of speech, which we firmly believe are vital to lasting 

peace and security. 

Our civilian assistance programs help make progress toward 

these economic governance ends and a developing democracy, and 

it is essential they are sustained at current levels. 

With that, I would like to conclude my statement, Madam Chair, 

and I am available for your questions and comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]

7


97997a-1.eps
8


97997a-2.eps
9


97997a-3.eps
10


97997a-4.eps
11


97997a-5.eps
12


97997a-6.eps
13


97997a-7.eps
14


97997a-8.eps
15


97997a-9.eps
16


97997a-10.eps
17


97997a-11.eps
18

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador. 

Last month, I led a congressional delegation trip to Afghanistan 

and was joined by my friend and colleague from this committee, 

Dr. Yoho. And while obviously this hearing is on the future of U.S.-

Pakistan relations, we all know that we can’t really address the future of our bilateral relationship without also discussing Afghanistan. When our delegation met with President Ghani, he told us 

that he has reached out his hand to Pakistan only to be rebuffed. 

We all know that in order for Pakistan—for Afghanistan to be stable and secure, Pakistan will have to play a key role there. Some 

argue that Pakistan’s ultimate goal is to use Afghanistan as a sort 

of strategic depth against India and that Pakistan prefers an insecure Afghanistan and is using its proxies and ties to insurgent 

groups to exert control in Afghanistan. I wanted to hear your perspective on that. 

In fact, in its report to Congress on the progress toward security 

and stability in Afghanistan, the DOD openly stated that Pakistan 

uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of influence in Afghanistan and to counter India’s superior military. Do you know if 

it is true that Ghani is being rebuffed by Pakistan? And what is 

Pakistan’s strategic objective with regard to Afghanistan? 

And then I wanted to ask about the terrorist safe havens inside 

of Pakistan’s borders. 

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to President 

Ghani, as I mentioned in my opening statement, he did travel to 

the Heart of Asia conference last week. And, of course, we have applauded President Ghani’s outreach to Pakistan, which has been 

one of the notable characteristics of his time in office. And we believe that Pakistan has been wanting to reciprocate this outreach. 

Pakistan has taken several steps that are important in this regard. 

The first is that they hosted the Murree talks with the Taliban in 

July between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban, the 

first time that the Taliban had sat down with the Government of 

Afghanistan. And at the Heart of Asia Conference last week, they 

reaffirmed, President Nawaz Sharif reaffirmed, his support for the 

sovereignty of Afghanistan, the territorial integrity of Afghanistan, 

the legitimacy of its government and its constitution, all of which 

were, I think important points for President Ghani. 

So we will continue to work with Pakistan to encourage them to 

bring the Taliban to the table to resume a peace and reconciliation 

process that is led by the Afghans and owned by the Afghans. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. So although the countries have had a rocky 

relationship, you believe that with the new government, there will 

be brighter days ahead, and the level of cooperation will be higher 

and that there will be more trust and partnerships evolving from 

this? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. We think there are, of course, many 

challenges in the Afghanistan and Pakistan relationship, but we 

think that the interests of a stable and peaceful Afghanistan are 

best served by having a positive relationship with Pakistan, which 

I think is the strategic vision of both President Ghani and Prime 

Minister Nawaz Sharif. 

19

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. We hope so. What is Pakistan 

doing to help eliminate the terrorist safe havens inside of its borders? We hear so much about that. And I believe that the U.S. isn’t 

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 buy-in from Pakistan on our counterterrorism 

efforts in Afghanistan in eliminating terrorist safe havens inside 

Pakistan? And why should Congress approve 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. 

With regard to Pakistan’s own counterterrorism operations, in 

June 2014, Pakistan launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb against militant strongholds in North Waziristan tribal agency. This is something that the United States has wanted for a number of years because there were a number of groups located in North Waziristan, 

specifically in Miramshah, that threatened U.S.-Afghanistan, as 

well as others. 

During the course of this operation over the course of more than 

a year and a half, the Pakistanis have lost nearly 500 troops, 488, 

it was just announced. At the same time, they have carried out terrorism operations throughout the settled areas of Pakistan, that is 

to say the non-tribal areas, the rest of Pakistan. And despite the 

terrible incident at the Peshawar Army School a year ago, there 

has been less blow-back than might have been expected from the 

terrorists. 

As I said at the outset in my statement, most of the action has 

been—we think there is more that can be done in terms of targeting groups that don’t just target Pakistan internally but are 

threats to their neighbors, and we continue to have an active dialogue with them. I had a very active dialogue during my 3 years 

in Pakistan on the question of the Haqqanis and also the question 

of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba; although Pakistan has taken steps to ban 

Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, and I will leave the questions to 

another member. 

We are going to move on to Dr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

As an Indian American, and the only Indian American Member 

of Congress, the stability of the region is incredibly important to 

me and it is one that I have spent a lot of time thinking about and 

very much interconnected when you think about India, Pakistan, 

and Afghanistan. Again, it is not easy. 

On the counterterrorism side, you know, I think post-Mumbai in 

2008, India demonstrated incredible restraint in its approach to 

Pakistan. Pakistan, as, Ambassador Olson, you mentioned, it is the 

1-year anniversary of the horrific Peshawar school shooting. The 

fact that I would have expected Pakistan to have a much more robust crackdown on the terrorist threats, on the LET and the 

20

Haqqani Network and others. From our perspective, I think from 

the perspective of the Indians, there is almost this side-by-side relationship in Pakistan with some of these terrorist networks that, 

you know, almost symbiotic. They live side-by-side. From your perspective, what are the steps that Pakistan’s Government, its military, needs to do to reduce the terrorist threats? Because, again, 

in some ways, it is almost as though they allow these networks to 

exist in Pakistan to destabilize the region or to have this constant 

threat on India. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with you that 

there 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 2,000 soldiers or servicemembers killed, and many thousands 

of individual Pakistani citizens have died as a result of terrorist 

outrages. And the government has a stated commitment, articulated both by the Prime Minister and the army chief, to go after 

all terrorists without distinction. And we believe there is more that 

can be done with regard to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and the Taliban, including particularly the Haqqani Network. And that is a very active element of our dialogue. I think it is safe to say that we have 

almost no meeting with the appropriate officials in which those topics are not raised in very vigorous, very vigorous, terms. 

I think it is safe to say that the attacks that, that the clearing 

of North Waziristan has resulted in disruption, if not elimination, 

of the Haqqani Network’s operational ability. And as I mentioned 

before, they have banned Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, but there is still work 

to be done in this area. 

Mr. BERA. And it does still appear from my perspective that 

there is this coexistence, that they tolerate some of these terrorist 

networks. Looking at kind of projecting out, as India undergoes 

this dramatic growth in its economy and GDP, I do worry that 

Pakistan seems to be stagnating, and 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 doesn’t seem to be developing its economy, doesn’t seem to be building those institutions 

that would create stability. And in many ways, the civilian institutions that you would want to create a more stable Pakistan, those 

investments certainly aren’t occurring. 

I know we have over the years tried to create schools, tried to 

create civilian institutions that would, you know, create some stability. From your perspective, Ambassador Olson, where should the 

United States focus? I would say that I am critical that much of 

our focus has been on military sales, which I don’t think stabilize 

the region. In fact, I think they destabilize the region. If we were 

to focus on civilian institutions, where would you suggest that we 

place our focus? 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

First of all, let me just say a quick word since you began 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 then Foreign Minister Swaraj attended the Heart of Asia conference and extended 

the hand of friendship to Pakistan, and that was very well reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:25 Feb 17, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\121615\97997 SHIRL
21

ceived. And they have agreed to launch a comprehensive dialogue, 

which will, I think, hopefully improve the relationship. 

One of the emphases that we have placed in our assistance programs has been to build regional connectivity. So the relaunch of 

a comprehensive dialogue will hopefully, exactly as you say, lead 

to the possibility of increased trade, for instance, between India 

and Pakistan, which we think would be beneficial to both sides and 

particularly help Pakistan. It could do more, frankly, in some ways 

than our assistance programs to raise the level of prosperity. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Thank you, Dr. Bera. 

Judge Poe is recognized. 

Mr. POE. I thank the chair. 

Ambassador, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I want to 

be very specific about what I am concerned about, and that is the 

sale of American fighter jets to Pakistan or the giving of American 

fighter jets to Pakistan through military aid. That military aid is 

then used in the United States to buy those jets. And I used the 

example of Osama bin Laden. The Pakistanis, the military, hid him 

out, in my opinion. The United States didn’t tell Pakistan we were 

going after him because they would have moved him. We sent helicopters over there. The raid was successful. Pakistan scrambles 

two American-made F–16s to intercept the helicopters. Americans 

were able to get away, and there could have been a confrontation. 

How ironic that would have been, American-made jets used by 

Pakistan in a confrontation with American-made helicopters in a 

raid against Osama bin Laden? 

Now we are again in this issue of more military aid to Pakistan. 

I understand that there is $660 million in aid going to Pakistan 

proposed. Some of that is going to be military aid. Supposedly the 

eight fighter jets, F–16s—America makes the best fighter jets in 

the world—is in this package. And it is supposed to be used for humanitarian aid. Now, I don’t know how an F–16 with all of its 

hardware on there 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 back in Texas—I can see those being used for humanitarian aid. F–16s, it is not really humanitarian aid that they are 

built for or used for. And 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 will be used for 

other purposes? 

I don’t trust Pakistan. Maybe you do. I don’t. We had the former 

Ambassador of Pakistan, Mr. Haqqani, here and 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, not just a much, but do 

they support them? Or are they free from doing that now? Mr. Ambassador? 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

With regard 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 effect in North 

Waziristan and in the tribal areas generally. This is within a 

22

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. 

Mr. POE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Ambassador, my question is 

very specific. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. 

Mr. POE. Does Pakistan, the military, the government, do they 

still give a safe haven or support directly or indirectly to terrorist 

groups? I mean, they may go after some terrorist groups, but do 

they still give them a safe haven or a pass or whatever words you 

want to use, or are they after all the terrorist groups? Do we have 

any assurance one way or the other? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, 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, including the Haqqani Network and the 

Taliban in general and also Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. They have—their 

operations in North Waziristan have had a disruptive effect. They, 

for instance, uncovered arms caches that belonged to the Haqqanis 

and were associated with the Haqqani mosque in Miramshah. I 

have been to Miramshah and seen some of the results of these efforts. But we do believe that there is more that can be done, and 

we continue to press them very hard on that matter. 

I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

Ms. Kelly of Illinois is recognized. 

Ms. KELLY. 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 continued 

engagement, developing Pakistan’s civilian economy, its ability to 

be a stable and prosperous country. It is a country that faces many 

challenges, some of which we have already identified. It faces challenges from terrorism, from 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 interests to continue engagement with Pakistan so that Pakistan is able to effectively harness the youth, having them be educated and prepared 

for the job market, so that Pakistan plays a more constructive role 

in the region as a whole. 

Ms. KELLY. Where do you think our policies have been most successful? And in looking back, if there was something you could 

change, what would that be? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think that our assistance programs over the 

past 5 years, our civilian assistance programs, have made a real 

impact on the life of ordinary Pakistanis. We have, through the socalled Kerry-Lugar-Berman authorization, added—it has been focused in five areas: Energy, economic growth, stabilization, health, 

and education. Some of the accomplishments that we can point to 

include adding 1,750 megawatts to Pakistan’s electricity grid. Electricity is a huge problem for ordinary Pakistanis. We have added 

23

1,000 kilometers of roads, many of those in the western part of the 

country connecting to Afghanistan so that there is greater regional 

connectivity and farmers can get produce to market. Committed 

over $250 million to 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 largest, most extensively funded Fulbright Program in the 

world in Pakistan, and we have built 1,000 schools and funded 

15,000 domestic scholarships and 23 U.S.-Pakistan university partnerships. 

Finally, in health, I would just say that we have launched a hospital in Jacobabad and rehabilitated a major OB/GYN center at the 

Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre in Karachi, so we are addressing and focusing on maternal health care, which is a very important issue in terms of the overall health of the population. 

Ms. KELLY. Is there something that you think should be altered, 

or what would that be? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think that 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 national interests 

not to allow Pakistan to become disengaged from us. And I think 

we can draw on the lessons of history there, especially the period 

in the 1990s and late 1980s, when we did somewhat disengage 

from the region, 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 of the challenges of the relationship, I think it is most important for the U.S. to be engaged and to build a partnership with 

Pakistan. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. 

And now we will move to Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Well, Mr. Ambassador, you have a mighty tough job. We have to 

respect you for that, and thank you for trying to do your best. 

Unfortunately, what I am about to say does not reflect on your 

commitment, but on the feasibility of you succeeding in what you 

are trying to do. The fact is that Pakistan has 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 couldn’t 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. 

Mr. Ambassador, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I see 

a similar type of sentiments and a situation arising with the people 

of Balochistan. There are now these F–16s that the judge was talking about. Those F–16s and the military equipment that we are 

providing Pakistan are being used against their own people, just 

like they did against the people over there in Bangladesh. So am 

I mistaken in that we are using weapons that are provided—that 

they are using weapons provided by us against their own people in 

Balochistan and elsewhere? 

24

Mr. OLSON. First of all, thank you, Congressman, very much for 

your support and your kind words. I appreciate it greatly. 

Let me say, with regard to corruption, there have been, as 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, and that has 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 there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know, Mr. Ambassador, I am going to 

have to tell you that this is about the third time over the last 25 

years that I have heard this. It is always, ‘‘They are now moving 

forward with the anticorruption drive.’’ I will just—I won’t count on 

it, but if it happens, I will be very happy about that, and the American people will rejoice with the people of Pakistan that the crooks 

finally got displaced up in Islamabad. 

The ISI has been—and the judge made this point, and I think 

that your answer suggests what is really going on—the ISI is still 

engaged in terrorism as a strategy for what they believe is going 

to defend their country or give their country leverage. And we saw 

that in attacks on India, and attacks and the efforts, of course, supporting the Taliban, et cetera. Until that changes, until the people 

of Balochistan, for example, don’t have to suffer, where people are 

being grabbed and their bodies are dumped in large numbers, this 

is a travesty. And for the United States to provide weapons to a 

government like Islamabad which then is used against them. But 

even worse, Pakistan and these people who run 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 jets 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 don’t respect us. 

And one last thing, Dr. Afridi—we know now Osama bin Laden 

was given safe haven in that country. The man who slaughtered 

3,000 Americans was given safe haven. The one guy that helped us 

to make sure we could bring back 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 are saying: Here is the guy, yeah, we will tell those Americans; the guy 

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 truth, and 

if we do—and justice—we will be siding with the Pakistani people 

and not their corrupt, brutal government. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. Higgins of New York. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Ambassador, a few minutes ago, you spoke of the hopeful 

signs of the relationship between Pakistan and India. I want to 

focus on the more troubling signs of the relationship with India but 

25

also with that of the United States. Pakistan—let’s be truthful 

about this—plays a double game. They are our military partner, 

but they are the protector and the patron of our enemies, and this 

has been going on for 15 years. Since 2002, United States aid to 

Pakistan, economic and military, has averaged about $2 billion a 

year. Pakistan’s annual defense budget is only about $5 billion a 

year. So we, the United States, finance a major portion of their economic and defense military budget. Yet by every measure, terrorism has become worse in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 

2010, the most generous U.S. aid package to Pakistan of $4.5 billion—$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 existential threat with India. In fact, according to the 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Pakistan could have 

350 nuclear warheads in the next decade, becoming the world’s 

third biggest nuclear power, outpacing India, France, China, and 

the United Kingdom. There is no positive sign of any improved relations with India because Pakistan justifies its nuclear proliferation as a deterrent against aggression from the outside. So the 

United States has to get tougher with Pakistan, and we have to 

call them out on this double game that they have been playing, not 

this year, not last year, not 5 years, but for the past 15 years. 

I can appreciate, and you in your capacity must try to, I guess, 

deal with these issues as diplomatically as possible, but when you 

really look at the cold, hard facts, 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 enemies. So there are these two conversations going. There is 

one when the Americans are in the room and the other conversation when we are not in the room. And the one that is most detrimental to us, the American people, our American soldiers, is the 

one that is going on when we are not in the room. 

I would ask you to comment. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

And I want to say that we do share your concern, particularly 

about the development of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We are concerned both by the pace and the scope of Pakistan’s nuclear and 

missile program, including its pursuit of short-range nuclear systems. We are concerned that a conventional conflict in South Asia 

could escalate to include nuclear use as well as the increased security challenges that accompany growing stockpiles. I can tell you, 

sir, that 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. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, we have 

heard this for the past 15 years. You know, here is my concern—

and I apologize for cutting you off, but I only have a minute. If 

Pakistan falls apart or if Islamic extremists take over, it is a nightmare scenario for us. It is a big country, about 180 million people. 

It has a lot of Islamic extremists, and it has nuclear weapons. And 

to have Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons is a primary goal, 

a primary goal of al-Qaeda. And it would be a major victory for 

26

them and the outgrowth of al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and a 

major defeat for us, the United States. 

I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. 

And we will turn to Mr. Cook of California. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Many of the questions or comments are things that I was going 

to address, and I just want to follow through on that. I think Mr. 

Higgins made some great comments about that. I think we are all 

concerned because of the size of the nuclear weapons and everything else, and there is a part of me that wants to say, you know, 

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, and 

that was through Pakistan. We kind of overlooked that, and, of 

course, I still think the only country that is going to control Afghanistan’s destiny is Pakistan. Whether you hate them, like them 

or not, that to me—and I see you are shaking your head, and you 

agree with that—all those things considered, I am going to throw 

something which really, really scares me. And there has been talk 

that in light of the Iranian deal and the nuclear weapons 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 the Sunni states with money—particularly, and I won’t name them, but I think we all know who they 

are—that this proliferation would start on a scale that would just 

change the whole calculus of the region? 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for flagging 

the role Pakistan had with the JLOCs and other forms of support 

for our operations in Afghanistan. I would say with regard to nuclear weapons, first of all, I want to assure you that we do 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 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 they are not 

in a position of proliferating nuclear materials. This has involved, 

of course, a cleanup from a previous situation that existed a decade 

ago. Our assessment is that they have made considerable progress 

in this area. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Switching gears a little bit, just like everybody on this committee, I am afraid that there is one agency in Pakistan that I 

think the vast majority of us are afraid of, and that is because of 

their past history, and that is ISI, and their corruption, their agenda, and everything else, and more than that, the amount of influence that they have on the Pakistani Government in terms of intrigue—I can go on and on and on—but just in terms of certain decisions. Can you give me any warm and fuzzy feeling about an organization I think most of us are very, very nervous about? I am 

from San Bernardino. I am worried about the madrassas again. 

One of the terrorists came from there. And I just—that more than 

27

anything else in terms of one of the power factors in Pakistan, I 

am very, very, very nervous and cynical about. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman. Let me 

just mention a couple of things on ISI. First of all, we do have a 

very robust engagement with ISI. I met with the ISI chief regularly 

during my tenure in Pakistan and made the points that I described 

earlier about terrorism directly to him. ISI does have a role to play 

with regard to Afghan reconciliation, and we think that the role 

that Pakistan at large played in bringing the Taliban to the table 

last summer was quite important, and they need to do that again, 

in our view, following up on the positive statements out of the 

Heart of Asia conference. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. I know they are going to cut 

me off, but thank you for answering my questions. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Cook. 

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Ms. Gabbard of Hawaii. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just following up on my colleague Mr. Cook’s questions, you 

know, the concern is you are talking about robust engagement with 

ISI. But there has been evidence time and time again of their direct and indirect connections with the Haqqani Network. In 2011, 

then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullin, 

called the Haqqani Network a veritable arm of the ISI. So as you 

are having these discussions, you talked a lot about how more must 

be done; discussions are taking place. But I am wondering what action, what change in U.S. policy has occurred that would actually 

bring about a consequential shift? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, we continue to press at every point for action 

on the Haqqanis. We have done this at the highest levels of our 

Government. 

Ms. GABBARD. Has there been any change in the aid packages of 

the funding we are providing? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, as you know, Congresswoman, there was 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. The $300 million was subject to a certification of cooperation from the Haqqanis. So I would have to refer you to the 

Department of Defense on that. 

Ms. GABBARD. Well, I think the concern is that there, to say 

there are serious doubts is an understatement on Pakistan’s credibility when we talk about fighting these Islamic extremist elements, these terrorist elements and even with nuclear cooperation. 

I 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 and preventing misuse. You have just said that you have confidence in the Pakistani 

security forces. But when you have these insider threats, when you 

have the Haqqani Network being an arm of the ISI, how can you 

have confidence that they would not in any case gain access to 

these nuclear weapons or traffic them or get them into the wrong 

hands? 

28

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think that Pakistan has taken a lot of steps 

over the last years to tighten up its control of nuclear security. 

They are well aware of their responsibilities with regard to protecting. And I think they have specifically taken into account the 

insider threat as well. 

Ms. GABBARD. Can you speak with some specificity? 

Mr. OLSON. Ma’am, honestly, candidly, I would not be able to address these issues in this forum. But in another forum, it might be 

possible to do so. Thank you. 

Ms. GABBARD. Can you speak specifically to what Pakistan and 

the government has done to crack down on the Haqqani Network 

or these other terrorist elements that have been and are directly 

linked to them? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. The launching of operation of Operation 

Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan in June 2014 was something that 

the United States had actually wanted to see for quite some time. 

North Waziristan was where many of these militants, including the 

Haqqani Network, were based in Miramshah. Miramshah was completely cleared, including the Haqqani Network facilities, and armaments, tunnels, bunkers were uncovered, destroyed, and arms 

caches taken away, including 160 tons of precursors for improvised 

explosive devices. And this has had a 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. 

And the Pakistanis, including ISI, have cooperated with us in taking down al-Qaeda cells, including Adnan Shukrijumah, who was 

wanted for his plotting of attacks on the New York subway, and 

one other American citizen individual who was extradited from 

Pakistan in April of this year. So there has been quite a bit of 

counterterrorism cooperation between ISI and the Pakistan Government at large and the United States. And we believe that has 

been to our national interest. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. My time has expired. But I think as 

we look at U.S. policy toward Pakistan, this is something that we 

need to carefully consider. Thank you. 

Mr. PERRY [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes himself. 

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here. I had the privilege 

of traveling to Islamabad and then to South Waziristan. We 

couldn’t go to North Waziristan because it was too dangerous. So 

we understand and appreciate the difficulty of your position and 

the tenuous circumstances of the relationship with Pakistan. That 

having been said, 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 that the 

American taxpayer is spending regarding that relationship? Can 

you tell me of any? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. And let me say it 

is a great pleasure to see you again after seeing you in Islamabad. 

For the assistance programs, that, of course, is the responsibility 

of our colleagues in USAID by and large. And they do have an extensive program of metrics and tracking their development assistance. 

29

Mr. PERRY. So let me cut to—I don’t mean to cut you off. But I 

am trying to get to the terror situation, which is what we are really 

concerned about. We know we spend billions of dollars on military 

assistance, on humanitarian assistance. But what we are really 

getting to is this relationship where Pakistan seems to be kind of 

walking the line somewhere between terrorism and somewhere between the support of the United States Government. And with all 

due respect, as long as we allow them to continue to walk the line, 

they are going to continue to walk the line because it is in their 

interest to do that. 

And I will give you some of my metrics. But are there any 

metrics regarding terrorism that are time-related, where the American people can see they are getting some value out of the billions 

of dollars we spend? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think that there has been a shift in Pakistan. 

During the time I was there, the 3 years that 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. There was a period I think of doubt about the efficacy of going after the Pakistani 

Taliban. And that ended with the operation in North Waziristan in 

June 2014. There was a broad consensus. And it certainly was reinforced by the horrific incident of a year ago at the Peshawar Army 

School. 

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Ambassador, what is the cost of the F–16 deal 

to the American taxpayer? Do you know what that price is? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, Mr. Chair, as a matter of policy, we do not discuss prospective arms sales until they have been——

Mr. PERRY. We know it is not cheap, right? Let me just give you 

some of my metrics because my time is short here, and I want to 

make a couple points. In Pakistan, you have al-Qaeda; you have 

the Afghan Taliban; the Haqqani Network; the TTP; and the LET 

operating, which are all terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, at the 

same time, over the past 14, 15 years, the American people have 

spent $30 billion in our relationship with Pakistan. Meanwhile, a 

poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last year found only 14 

percent—only 14 percent—of Pakistanis expressed a positive view 

of the United States. Pakistan seems neither particularly democratic nor tolerant regarding their governance or their religious tolerance. And then you look at, you know, we talk about this individual, Mr. Afridi, who allegedly helped the United States get the 

number one terrorist on our list. And, meanwhile, the backdrop is 

that this terrorist organization, just for instance, the LET has been 

active in Pakistan, as I already stated, Afghanistan, and Kashmir 

since the 1990s, so it is not new. And Pakistan funded the group. 

And the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, the ISI, agency 

helped establish the organization’s military structure and almost 

all LET members are Pakistani madrassa students or Afghan veterans. In November 2008, 10 LET members conducted a coordinated terrorist attack on targets in Mumbai, India, killing 160 people, including 4 Americans. 

In December 2008, Pakistan arrested Zaki-ur-Rehman, whatever 

his last name is, the LET leader who organized the Mumbai attacks. They arrested him. However, in April 2015, this guy was reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:25 Feb 17, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\121615\97997 SHIRL
30

leased from jail on $2,300 bond. And there has been no trial scheduled for this guy. Meanwhile, the doctor, the good Dr. Afridi, remains in a jail. And we are going to sell or make some deal with 

Pakistan for F–16s. And we have neighbors that are much better 

allies. We understand the tenuous circumstance. But when are we 

going to equate our relationship, our financial relationship with results about terrorism? Do you see that happening any time, quantifiable results, where the American people can see the value of 

this relationship? Sir? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, if I could respond to a couple points, Mr. Chair. 

First, on Dr. Afridi, we fully agree with you that he has been unjustly imprisoned. And we have communicated this at the highest 

level to——

Mr. PERRY. Why don’t we tie it to our actions? Why don’t we tie 

his release, why don’t we tie the trial of this other individual who 

attacked our ally to the sale of these weapons systems and to our 

aid? Why don’t we—who is negotiating these deals on our behalf? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, Mr. Chair, we believe that, and, again, I can’t 

talk about the details of a prospective notification, but let me say 

that we believe that the F–16s that we have already sold to Pakistan or provided under security assistance have been used to advance our national interests. 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——

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate it. I understand the 

value of the weapon system and what it can do. We appreciate 

that. We understand that. We are very frustrated that for the 

American people’s involvement, we don’t see a whole lot coming on 

the other side of the ledger. But that is my personal perception. 

With that, my time has expired. 

I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to follow up—I think you have probably touched on some 

of these answers already, but I really want to kind of deal with my 

own concerns. Like Congressman Higgins and Cook and others, I 

am troubled about the reports of Pakistan’s development of what 

I consider destabilizing tactical nuclear weapons at a faster rate 

than most other countries, if not than any other country. I really 

want to understand, again, a little bit more clearly your assessment of Pakistan’s progress in cooperating with the international 

community on nuclear proliferation concerns. And also the second 

part of that question has to do with some recent media reports suggesting that our administration is considering some kind of nuclear 

arrangement with Pakistan. I don’t know. I am not really clear; 

what is a nuclear arrangement? And if we are considering it, is 

Pakistan really a trustworthy partner, again, in that? Again, like 

other members, the nuclear proliferation treaty concerns are very 

troubling. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

And we share your concern about the scope and pace of Pakistan’s nuclear program. We do have an active dialogue on nonproliferation issues. We have a security——

31

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Has Pakistan increased the rate of development, the production of tactical nuclear weapons? 

Mr. OLSON. We continue to have concerns about the scope and 

pace, sir. I think that is probably all I can say in this particular 

venue. But I did want to address one other issue that you raised. 

I can assure you, despite some press reports to the contrary, that 

we are not negotiating a 123 agreement, so-called 123 agreement, 

a civil nuclear cooperation agreement, with Pakistan. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. In any way. Are we setting any preconditions 

or any conditions—this goes back to—about or talking to Pakistan 

about the reduction of its nuclear weapons? 

Mr. OLSON. We have had a very candid discussion with the Pakistanis about some of the concerns that we have, including about 

shorter range nuclear systems. And Pakistan has been prepared to 

engage with us in those discussions. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And I gather over, since, for the last 60 years, 

we have provided over $75 billion in assistance, primarily in military and economic assistance. Going back to the question asked by 

the chair, is any of our assistance that you know tied to changes 

in Pakistan’s behavior? 

Mr. OLSON. There are some very specific metrics and conditions 

that we use in all of our assistance programs, I mean, specific to 

the nature of the program, particularly in civilian assistance. With 

regard to security assistance, what we have done is negotiated a 

framework with the Pakistanis in which our security assistance is 

focused on the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions. 

And I think it is also particularly worth noting that two additional 

provisions, obviously, all of our assistance is subject to the Leahy 

Amendment, and we have a very rigorous Leahy process. This addresses the question of human rights. And in addition to that, we 

have very stringent end-use monitoring requirements on the Pakistanis, especially with regard to high-technology security assistance. And I can say that we are very strict on those. And the results have been satisfactory. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. What does that mean, ‘‘the results have been 

satisfactory’’? 

Mr. OLSON. That we believe that the end-use monitoring systems 

have been effective. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. PERRY. The Chairman thanks the gentleman from California. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate it. I was fortunate to go over to Afghanistan with Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, and we had an informative trip. Just to rehash, you know, we have given $30 billion 

since 2001 to Pakistan. You know, when you look through the list 

here, there is at least five terrorist networks that he know that are 

operating in the FATA area, along with ISIS is in area. And we 

have heard over and over again it is a no-man’s-land. There is no 

rule. And in order to get peace in that area, there can’t be the 

threat of terrorism. And Pakistan, is their goal to get rid of terrorism? I mean, how serious are they? Because I am not seeing it. 

32

Mr. OLSON. Sir, thank you. We have agreed for many years that 

the threat from the tribal areas was significant. In that regard——

Mr. YOHO. How serious is Pakistan about bringing this to an 

end? It is like my mom; she was—I told her I wanted to play piano, 

but I wasn’t real serious about it. And I never learned how to play 

it. So if you are serious about it, you will do it. And if you are not, 

you are not going to do it. With $30 billion of the American taxpayers’ money going into that area, and we rewarded Pakistan by 

giving them, selling the initial F–16s as them helping us after 9/11, 

and then we suspended that because we have seen them complicit, 

working against us in Afghanistan. But, yet, we hear they want to 

have peace in that area; they want to have talks and have the concurrent resolutions and talks with India. But if you are not willing 

to stand up and stomp out terrorism, you are not real serious about 

it. Just yes or no, am I right or wrong on that? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, Congressman, Pakistan has launched operations in North Waziristan. They have reasserted their sovereign 

authority over——

Mr. YOHO. What kind of attacks have they done? I mean, we did 

sorties against ISIS in the summer a year and a half ago, but they 

weren’t really meaningful. I mean, we were doing 5 to 10 maybe 

a month. If you are serious, you go in and annihilate that. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, they have completely cleared the city of 

Miramshah, which was the headquarters of, amongst others, the 

Haqqani Network and the Pakistan Taliban, completely cleared it. 

I have been to downtown Miramshah. There is no one there. So 

they cleared the city and cleared all of the networks. They have 

taken 488 casualties, deaths amongst their soldiers just in Operation Zarb-e-Azb. So I think their commitment is serious to fighting 

terrorism. 

But the concern that we have, sir—and I have flagged this—is 

we think that more needs to be done against the Haqqani Network 

and some of the groups that threaten Pakistan’s neighbors, not just 

the ones that threaten them internally. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, if you look at the recent attack in California, 

Tashfeen Malik studied at an all-women’s Islamic religious school 

in Pakistan. So it is still working against us. It is still creating terrorism. And then the debate largely borders on these F–16s. Efforts 

by Congress to place conditional requirements upon aid to Pakistan 

due to the country’s support for terror have consistently been 

waived by administrations which argue that the U.S. assistance is 

essential to build Pakistan’s counterterrorism capabilities. Let me 

ask you, in general, what specific contributions have Pakistan’s F–

16s that they have had from us made to U.S. counterterrorism objectives in South and Central America? What can you say they 

have done definitively that I can go back to the people that I represent and say, ‘‘No, no, this is a good thing; we want to keep it 

because it is going to give us peace down the road’’? We have said 

this for 30 years. And we are not seeing it. In fact, we are going 

backwards in this. So what benefits have these F–16s done? And 

I have got a followup question if you can——

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. I mean, they have used the F–16 for precision strikes in the tribal areas. I don’t have the specific metrics 

with me here today on the numbers of strikes they have conducted. 

33

But they are a regular feature of their operations. And we believe 

they have been effective in taking out terrorists that are of concern 

to us as well as to them. 

Mr. YOHO. The administration has no real idea what policies 

Pakistan will be pursuing against militants in the tribal area when 

any new aircraft will be delivered, each of which will generally take 

3 years to produce and deliver. Would you recommend giving them 

more, selling them more airplanes with the results we have gotten 

so far? And the $30 billion—because you read off an impressive list 

of schools, education, Fulbright Scholarships. I am not seeing the 

return on investment here to bring this to an end. And you know 

where we are in America with the American sentiment; they want 

this to end. 

Mr. OLSON. Sir, with regard to the F–16s, let me say that we believe that they have been a very effective instrument of 

counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. As I said, out of respect 

for congressional prerogatives, we do not discuss prospective sales 

until they have been formally notified. 

Mr. YOHO. But, yet, they protected Osama bin Laden all those 

years. I mean, there is no way they didn’t know about that. I mean, 

nobody can convince me of anything different. And so, yet, they are 

effective over here hitting a beehive. They are treating a tumor, a 

malignant, metastatic tumor over here. But the main tumor is over 

here. And we need to go after the main root cause of our problems 

before I can support any sales of those. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. On November 18, Anwar Laghari, the 

brother of the Sindh activist who is the chief advocate here in 

Washington, Munawar Laghari, was killed. There is an ongoing investigation. I want to thank you and the State Department for the 

counsel general’s focus on this. And it raises the bigger issue as to 

whether there are forces in Pakistan that are simply hostile to any 

region of the country other than Punjab. What percentage of the 

general officers of the military are Punjabi? I don’t know if you 

have that available. 

Mr. OLSON. I do not have that available, Congressman. And we 

can take that back and see if we have that information. 

I can tell you anecdotally from my personal experience, it is a 

high proportion, but it is not an exclusive proportion. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Zero-based budgeting, most people I represent feel that the roughly $2 billion we give Pakistan could be 

better spent in the San Fernando Valley. If we are not willing to 

talk about simply a zero figure for aid to Pakistan, we have no leverage. The doctor that helped us get Osama bin Laden will be rotting in prison. Do we have a plan, as one of several options, to go 

to zero? And what would we expect the Pakistani response to be? 

Is it considered an act of war to fail to give another country money? 

Mr. OLSON. Sir, we believe that engagement with Pakistan is in 

our national——

Mr. SHERMAN. Other countries don’t give them money, and they 

still talk. I am not saying we close our Embassy. Are you saying 

the Pakistanis would refuse to talk to us? Does every other country 

have to give them money as like a party gift to go have a conversation? 

34

Mr. OLSON. Well, we think that our assistance programs, whether we are talking about civilian or military, have actually done a 

lot to improve the conditions in the case of civilians and the lives 

of ordinary Pakistanis. And Pakistan is facing an enormous demographic challenge. I mean, it is a country of 190 million people. It 

has a youth bulge. The youth are about to come into the most productive years of their lives. Either they are going to have jobs or 

not have jobs. We think the——

Mr. SHERMAN. Look, I know that we do some good for Pakistanis. 

If we spent that money in India or in Congo, we would do an equal 

amount of good. What is the Pakistani response if we simply say 

‘‘zero’’? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I really can’t say what the Government of Pakistan would——

Mr. SHERMAN. So we are spending $2 billion, much of it military. 

And if we eliminated the military aid, it is clear that the Pakistani 

military does some good. It is also clear that the Pakistani military 

and the ISI do some harm. Have we discussed with the Pakistanis 

that perhaps Congress would simply specify zero, particularly if we 

didn’t see some changes in policies, starting with the release of the 

doctor who helped us get Osama bin Laden? Have you talked to the 

Pakistanis that there is sentiment in the Congress to go to zero? 

Mr. OLSON. I will be happy to convey that sentiment, Congressman. And I think that is a point that we can make. The administration’s position is that we believe that the assistance programs 

that we have are in our national interest. They are in our national—it is in our national interest to have Pakistan be stable and 

prosperous, rather than the alternative. And it is in our national 

interest to have Pakistan conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations in the western part of the country. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Do we have assurance that the money we give 

them is not used for oppression and terrorism rather than prosperity and counterterrorism? Money is fungible. They may be confronting the Haqqani Network or not. Or they may be funding the 

organizations that kill people in Mumbai. How do we know which 

of those two activities our money is funding? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, sir, we are very careful about how we spend 

our money and what we spend it on. With regard to the military 

assistance, it is subjected to a very extensive Leahy Amendment 

vetting process. And there is no question that we continue to raise 

these issues that you flagged. The question of the Haqqanis, we 

need to do more on the Haqqanis and on Lashkar-e-Tayyiba with 

the Pakistani Government at every occasion. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Unless they think that you are willing under some 

circumstances to recommend zero to the United States Congress, 

you will not achieve our objectives. And the biggest weathervane is 

the physician that helped us get Osama bin Laden. For us to ignore 

that they were harboring him in one of their safest and most military towns and then say we should ignore the fact that they have 

that doctor in prison, it begs the question of whether the aid we 

give them is warranted. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. I am going to return to points that 

I made in my opening statement. I was absent for a while. We had 

35

three bills debated on the House floor that our committee put out, 

including the legislation authored by myself and Eliot Engel on targeting Hezbollah, and several other cosponsors here, like Mr. Sherman, that we will be voting on this afternoon. But if I could return 

to some of the points that I made. I opened with this observation 

about the Deobandi schools in Pakistan. Now, there are 600 of 

these specifically that I am concerned with that over the years we 

have tried to convince the government to shutter, shut them down. 

They are funded primarily by the Gulf states, by individuals, by 

families in the Gulf states who make these charitable contributions 

as they are called. But the problem is that the graduates out of 

these schools basically have a foundation in radical ideology. So we 

have the National Action Plan that has been set up by the government. I asked the Congressional Research Service about that particular plan. And they say nearly 1 year later, there remains limited evidence that the government’s National Action Plan has 

brought major policy changes. So I wanted to ask you about that, 

ask you, Ambassador, about your dialogue with the government 

about shutting these down so that we shut down the foundation 

from which this radicalization is occurring. Many of those young 

people that come out of that experience will go on to become clerics 

either in Pakistan or elsewhere. And they will continue to expand 

on this radical jihadist ideology that is advanced in, that comes out 

of the Gulf states that is now being taught. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we share your 

concern about the madrassas. We think it is a serious issue. We 

thought it was significant that it was for the first time addressed 

as an issue nationally in the National Action Plan that was put out 

last year. Our understanding is that the government is in the process of putting together a greater regulatory framework for the 

madrassas. It is presently mapping——

Chairman ROYCE. But this isn’t rocket science. We are not talking about all madrassas. We are talking about the Deobandi 

schools. As the Dawn editorial, the newspaper Dawn, said: Branding all madrassas as incubators of hate and violence is wrong. But 

there is little doubt that there still exists across Pakistan religious 

centers that continue to spew hate. And unless that infrastructure 

of hate is shut down, Pakistan will never win its struggle for internal peace. That is the issue. We have the list of the 600 schools. 

I have made three trips, as I have indicated, to try to convince the 

government to shut those down. We have had little success in convincing families in the Gulf states not to send their money there 

or convincing those governments in the Gulf states not to fund this. 

This is a phenomenon that, frankly, is so frustrating because what 

we see is the failure of the government time and time again to address issues that are in that government’s own best interest. And 

this, to me, given the knowledge about 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. Well, I have had some discussions about this, Mr. 

Chairman. And I agree that there is a huge challenge with the 

madrassas. The reason in a way that they exist and have become 

36

popular in Pakistan, if that is the word, is because they do provide 

a free education. And this has to do with the fact——

Chairman ROYCE. We are talking past each other. I am not talking about all the madrassas that provide a free education. I am 

talking about the 600 that you and I know are in this particular 

line of ideological radicalization. And on that issue, clearly, given 

the amount of money that is spent toward education in the budget, 

which is about 2.4 percent that actually goes toward education, I 

understand, I mean, this is one of the debates here in terms of the 

F–16s and other military hardware is, wouldn’t Pakistan be better 

served addressing this issue of shutting down these 600 schools? 

And if they do it, you know, funding public education there for individuals, for families as an alternative for their sons to go to those 

schools in this case instead of the lads going to schools where you 

and I suspect the final outcome is going to be like a lot of others 

that were radicalized in those Deobandi schools. 

Mr. OLSON. I would agree with that analysis, Mr. Chairman. We 

think that what has to be done is there has to be a further reform 

of the public education system, that the public education system is 

not delivering in Pakistan. And there has to be a viable alternative 

for parents who otherwise have no choice but to send their children 

to schools that are free and, indeed, where not only are they free, 

but the food is provided. So there is a real draw factor in all of this. 

We also think that it is important that the Government of Pakistan—and we are working with them in this area, in the counter 

and violence extremism area—to try to reform these, the curriculum, so that at least in the religiously oriented schools, there 

are marketable skills; there is standardized curricula; and there 

are attempts to address a more modern perspective. 

Chairman ROYCE. My time has expired. 

But without objection, I am going to ask unanimous consent that 

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee be next in terms of asking any 

questions. She is not on the committee, but she wanted to participate today. 

So, without objection, we will go to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kindness. 

It is much appreciated—along with the ranking member, thank you 

so very much. 

I chair the Congressional Pakistan Caucus with my colleague 

and have done so for more than a decade. So thank you very much 

for your presence here. I am going to go pointedly to a question 

dealing with an American doctor of some years back. In 2014, Dr. 

Mehdi Ali Qamar, out of Chicago I believe, who came on a mission 

to serve, and, of course, he had a different religious background, 

Ahmadiyya. And I am just wondering did we ever solve his killing? 

And was there any response to that very tragic incident? From Chicago, I believe. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, Congresswoman, it is a pleasure to see you 

again. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much. 

Mr. OLSON. I am afraid I do not have any details on that particular case. So if I can get back to you with a response, I would 

do so of course. 

37

Mr. OLSON. We continue to have concern about, in general, the 

treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan. And it is a key area 

of our engagement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So let me just follow up. You just made a key 

area. I happen to think it is an important issue. And I am just 

wondering how are we pursuing this whole issue of religious tolerance? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think that there have been some developments over time in Pakistan that give us a little bit of space. We 

are trying to advance this. One of them certainly was the decision 

by the Supreme Court under Justice Jillani in June 2014 to extend 

greater protection to religious minorities. We, you know, think that 

is a positive step that needs to be followed up on with the government. We have an ongoing dialogue about the rights of religious 

minorities. And we have a particular concern about blasphemy 

laws, not just in Pakistan but everywhere in the world, because of 

the possibility of their being subject to abuse. And that has been 

the case in certain instances in Pakistan. We think it is—within 

the context of having, you know, concerns about the framework, the 

legal framework in which Pakistan conducts antiblasphemy laws—

we think it is positive the case of Asia Bibi has moved to the Supreme Court. And we will continue to press the Government of 

Pakistan for proper treatment of religious minorities. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you. And, first of all, let me say 

it is very good to see you. And thank you for your service both in 

Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am probably going to focus on Pakistan and then maybe a slight question within the timeframe that 

I have left. I know that you have answered the question about Dr. 

Afridi and his status. When President Sharif was here, I questioned him. It seems as if he was trying to suggest that there are 

other issues. Do you have any update? You may have given it already in other testimony. But if I can get that quickly. 

And let me just follow up with my other question which is when 

the Prime Minister was here, there was certainly an impression 

given—Pakistan—that he was attempting to continue to build on 

democratic principles, focus on economic development, education, 

issues that we would be concerned about and, certainly, existence, 

if you will, with India. And so I am wondering what your assessment is. But if you would start with the status of the doctor. 

And then, lastly, if you could give me just a little bit about Afghanistan, I am concerned in terms of whether or not the frontier 

land or the areas are even embraced by the central government 

and whether or not we actually have a functioning, tranquil, growing government in Afghanistan. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

With regard to Dr. Afridi, we do believe there is no reason for 

his continued detention. We have been assured by the Pakistanis 

that he is in good health. But we continue to press his case absolutely at the highest levels of our Government and seek his release. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you see no other accounts or charges, 

which has been represented to me that there are some other 

charges, you see no reason for him to continue to be incarcerated? 

Mr. OLSON. Well, we just believe inherently that he should not 

be in a position of detention for helping out in the capture or the 

38

Osama bin Laden raid. So that has been our position from the outset. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you continue at the United Nations level 

and other levels to be able to secure his release? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. We continue to work every avenue that is open 

to us and continue to press hard on it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the other questions? 

Mr. OLSON. With regard to Afghanistan, the government actually 

does face some challenges. That is not surprising. But on the other 

hand, the government of national unity has held together for over 

a year. The government of national unity, any government of national unity, coalition government anywhere, there are challenges 

associated with it. When I was in Kabul last week, I got a sense 

of renewed determination from the government to improve its governance, particularly after the security challenges that 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. And there is a particular provincial focus to the government’s reform efforts right now. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If the chairman would be kind enough, if you 

could just, under Prime Minister Sharif, who came to the United 

States, do you see the country moving toward more democratic 

principles, economic development? You are in and out of the country; do we have a line or a measuring stick that moves Pakistan 

with all of its population, all of its desire for education, to a level 

where you are empowering the many young people that are there 

in the country? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Congresswoman, thank you. 

There was an important transition in Pakistan, as you know, in 

June 2013 when the first civilian-elected government took over 

from a civilian-elected government, the first successful civilian 

transition in Pakistan’s 65-year history at that point. And I think 

that after facing some domestic political challenges, the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has, I think, largely settled 

those political issues. And I think the political situation is stable. 

And the government has indeed focused on several key areas of 

stabilizing the economy. Pakistan was—the coffers were quite 

empty at the time that the Nawaz government took over. And there 

was the potential at that point of a balance of payments crisis. 

Pakistan is now on an IMF program. It has been through eight 

tranches. And that is longer than any previous IMF program in 

history. 

There is still some important structural reforms that need to be 

undertaken, especially in the energy sector. But, on the other hand, 

they have moved to diversify their energy supply. They are importing liquefied natural gas with a company from Houston helping out 

in that process, which we were very happy to try to promote successfully. And they have also focused on infrastructure. 

The Prime Minister has also committed to increasing the proportion of spending on education. And in that regard, I think it is 

worth noting that the Prime Minister’s daughter, Maryam Sharif, 

signed on with the First Lady, Mrs. Obama, for the Let Girls Learn 

initiative during the Prime Minister’s visit. And in that regard, 

Pakistan has expressed its seriousness about addressing issues of 

39

education, particularly for adolescent girls. And we encourage them 

to continue to spend, to increase their funding on education. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you for your service. 

And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

for your courtesies. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Eliot Engel of 

New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ambassador Olson, it is good to see you. We had a good 

meeting yesterday in my office. I was just debating a bill on the 

House floor and also a New York delegation. So I apologize for 

missing the first part of the hearing. But we discussed many of the 

issues. And I am delighted with your appointment. What I am 

going to do is make a statement and then ask you to comment on 

it. This week, we marked 5 years since the passing of Ambassador 

Holbrooke, who was our first Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we still feel his loss. He left a remarkable 

legacy. And his final effort was laying the groundwork for resolving 

the long conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I hope we are 

able to take advantage of that work. As I mentioned before, Ambassador Olson, I am confident that with your previous experience in 

both Afghanistan and Pakistan, this important task is in the right 

hands. 

When President Obama took office, I was encouraged by the bipartisan commitment to support our military forces, diplomats, and 

development workers in Afghanistan, and to renew our partnership 

with the civilian leadership of Pakistan. This focus on Pakistan 

was reflected in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill passed by Congress 

in 2009. But that authorization recently expired. And now is a good 

time to take stock of the status of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. 

We are used to hearing some bad news about Pakistan. But the 

Pakistani people have achieved some noteworthy accomplishments 

in recent years. Pakistan has seen its first peaceful transfer of 

power from one democratically elected government to another. I 

think this was a historic moment for the country. 

Thanks to collaboration with our own USAID, today Pakistan 

has added 1750 megawatts of electricity to its energy grid, 30,000 

new jobs, nearly 1,000 new or refurbished schools, and the more 

than 18,000 newly trained teachers. And let me commend our development experts for their hard work in a very challenging environment. 

On the security side, we have seen much more modest progress. 

Terrorist groups based in Pakistan continue to pose a serious 

threat to Americans, Pakistanis, and our partners throughout 

South Asia and the world. Moreover, Pakistan has provided some 

extremist groups safe haven and a permissive environment that allows extremist ideology to spread. The result is terrorist attacks in 

Afghanistan, India, in the U.K., and here in the United States. But 

the hardest hit have been the Pakistani people. Terrorism inside 

Pakistan has killed more than 50,000 people since 2003. That is 

50,000 people. 

A year ago today, terrorists affiliated with the Pakistani Taliban, 

also known as TTP, massacred more than 140 teachers and students at the Army Public School in Peshawar. Absolutely horrific. 

40

After years of prodding and far too many lives lost, the Pakistani 

Government finally took military action against TTP in North 

Waziristan. Along with many others, I had high hopes for those efforts. I was also hopeful when Pakistan’s Parliament took a leading 

role in establishing a National Action Plan to comprehensively address terrorism in the aftermath of the Peshawar attacks. 

When Pakistan’s Government decided it would no longer differentiate between good and bad terrorists, that suggested a real 

change in Pakistan’s approach, a positive change, to addressing terrorism in the country. But, yet again, we have seen little evidence 

that the Government of Pakistan has followed through on these 

commitments. And so some violent groups continue to operate in 

Pakistan with impunity, including the Haqqani Network, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Afghanistan, and 

Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, also called LET, the group responsible for the 

2008 Mumbai attacks, which also cost American lives. There are 

some in Pakistan who believe they can manage these groups. Yet 

Lashkar terrorists end up fighting our troops in Afghanistan. And 

Haqqani Network terrorists have pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. It 

is clear that Pakistan is a long way from solving these problems. 

So, Ambassador Olson, as we discuss these issues, I hope we can 

focus on a few key areas. First of all, what is it going to take for 

Pakistan to stop differentiating between good and bad terrorists 

and start treating all terrorists as bad and all terrorists as the 

threat that they are? Does our own policy effectively convey to 

Pakistan that the harm from these relationships outweigh any perceived benefit? 

Next, I am curious about how Pakistani acquiescence in or support for terrorist groups is affecting its neighbors. Can Afghanistan 

stabilize while Pakistan continues to host groups like the Haqqani 

Network? Can Pakistan and India have a normal relationship 

when Pakistan continues to support LET? 

And, lastly, I am concerned about the messages we are sending 

when we continue to provide Pakistan security assistance, despite 

Pakistan’s ongoing relationships with the Haqqani Network and 

LET. We need to be clear-eyed about Pakistan’s counterterrorism 

efforts. 

Now, I believe in the U.S.-Pakistan alliance. I believe that the 

United States and Pakistan should be allies and continue to work 

together. But I think the question about terrorism is a very important question. And it really has not been satisfactorily, in my opinion, met by the Pakistani Government. Also, I hope we can soon 

see a country strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan from USAID 

so that we can maximize the remaining foreign assistance to both 

countries. In my view, we need to include incentives that encourage 

Pakistan to make much needed energy sector and tax reforms. We 

all want to see a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Pakistan that is 

an integrated part of a larger, more connected Central and South 

Asia. This simply cannot happen with the continued instability 

that exists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

So I am wondering, Ambassador, if you could answer some of 

these questions I made. If you have already done it, then we can 

do it in writing afterwards. But if you can answer, I would be 

grateful. Thank you. 

41

And I wish you good luck. And as I said before, I think you are 

the right man for the job. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, thank you very much, Ranking Member Engel. 

That means a great deal to me that I enjoy your confidence. And 

thank you for your support. You started by mentioning it is 5 years 

since the death of Richard Holbrooke. I was actually in his outer 

office waiting to see him on the day that he collapsed. And I think 

all of us who are working on this account greatly, greatly miss him 

to this day. And I am well aware that I am filling very big shoes. 

And thank you for your very comprehensive and balanced statement. Let me say with regard particularly to the issue of terrorism, 

we appreciate the statements that Pakistan has made at the level 

of the Prime Minister and the army chief of not differentiating between good and bad terrorists. We think there is still work to be 

done in this area. We think that Pakistan has moved decisively 

against any 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 just note that we had a very constructive week last week 

with the Heart of Asia conference, at which President Ghani attended and which Pakistan committed in its public statements to 

uphold the sovereignty, territorial integrity and legitimacy of the 

Afghanistan Government and its constitution, which was important 

for the Afghanistan side. And they committed to renewing and reinvigorating a peace process. 

Pakistan did host talks at Murree between the Taliban and the 

Afghanistan Government, the first such talks, last summer in July. 

And I think we are all agreed that it is important to get a political 

settlement process going with a sense of urgency. And we look to 

Pakistan to bring—help to bring the Taliban to the table. At the 

same time, we continue to raise our concerns about the threat that 

specifically the Haqqani Network represent to us and our forces 

and our Embassy and civilians in Afghanistan, as well as the 

Taliban more generally. 

And, finally, we certainly have the same view with regard to 

Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and the need to not just ban Lashkar-e-Tayyiba 

but to take action with regard to prosecuting the perpetrators of 

Mumbai. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

And I look forward to continuing to working with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. And I believe Mr. Higgins had an additional 

question or two. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just, you know, I just keep going back to the double game that 

is being played by Pakistan. And, you know, you had said that 

Pakistan expressed a seriousness in addressing the education 

needs of its country. Pakistan spends 3 percent of its budget on 

education, 3 percent. It spends 3 percent of its budget on infrastructure. According to the World Economic Forum, countries that 

spend less than 15 percent on education, health care, and infrastructure are countries that are very susceptible to collapse. So 

when Pakistan says or expresses a seriousness in addressing its 

42

educational needs, one only needs to look at the amount of budgetary resources its addressing for that need. 

Additionally, Pakistan, I think, inflates the amount it spends on 

counterterrorism operations so it can receive more money, particularly from us. And as has been stated here throughout this hearing, 

some $30 billion over the past 15 years has been spent, both military and economic development aid for Pakistan. According to U.S. 

military officials, the legitimate costs are only about 30 percent. So 

my question is, where is the rest of that money going? And it is 

very, very significant, and I suspect for nefarious purpose. 

And are we winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis given 

the extraordinary aid that we have provided? Well, I would refer 

you to the Pew Research Center, which says that the majority of 

Pakistanis view the United States as the enemy. The majority say 

that U.S. assistance has a negative or no impact at all. And Pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. 

So I think by any measure, when you look at the extraordinary 

aid that we have provided, at the very least, we have not used that 

aid package as a basis from which to force very, very reasonable 

reforms with respect to helping the Pakistanis help their own people. Because if you are not making a commitment to education, if 

you are not making a commitment to health care, if you are not 

building the roads and bridges of your community, why are we? We 

spent $87 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of Afghanistan. 

We spent $73 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of Iraq, roads 

and bridges they blow up to kill our people. So, you know, I think, 

if anything, you know, we look at this exercise today, this hearing, 

as underscoring, I think, the urgency of better utilizing the leverage that we have with Pakistan so to ensure that not only that 

money is more wisely spent, but we, you know, the benefactors of 

huge amounts of foreign aid to Pakistan aren’t viewed by the vast 

majority of the Pakistani people as the enemy and the money that 

we give them as ineffective. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. 

And I appreciate the very thoughtful comments that you have offered here. And we agree with you on the need for Pakistan to be 

investing more in education, in health, in its own people. I think 

there is really no doubt about that. And we support Prime Minister 

Nawaz’ stated commitment to devoting 4 percent to education, 4 

percent of GDP. And we would like to see that. We would like to 

see that happen. 

I think it does have to be said that Pakistan faces a huge number of challenges right now. It faces huge security challenges. And 

we could have a very long discussion about how that happened. 

And I think, you know, there are domestic—there are certainly 

large domestic factors at play. And I think Pakistan is attempting 

to turn that security situation around. But that does consume, I 

think, a significant amount of their budget in doing so. 

On the question of hearts and minds and views of Americans, it 

is not—it is not a happy story. And I agree with you. On the other 

hand, it is something that is somewhat improving. The numbers 

have gradually improved on Pakistan’s perceptions—Pakistanis’ 

perceptions of Americans. I can tell you from personal experience, 

I think there is less of an impression now amongst the political 

43

elite that the United States is playing some kind of nefarious role 

with regard to Pakistani domestic politics. In other words, we are 

perceived as not intervening in Pakistani politics. And that is because we haven’t. We have been very careful not to do that. So I 

think that this is something that is not going to change overnight. 

But the trends are, albeit modest, they are in a positive direction. 

And I think we need to keep working away at that. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, Ambassador, let me—I am going to yield 

time to Mr. Brad Sherman of California for an additional question. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Pakistan is the only schizophrenic nuclear power. 

Winning over the people of Pakistan is one of the most important 

things we can do. Voice of America spends a lot of money around 

the world. I hope that you would be an advocate for making sure 

that we have a robust program not just in Urdu but also in the 

Sindhi and other languages. Please do not be fooled by them saying: Well, a lot of people have some working knowledge of Urdu. 

You are in the marketing business. People in my town spend billions of dollars advertising in Spanish to people who prefer to listen 

in Spanish. They don’t say: Well, you know, we are going to test 

those people and see, what is their working knowledge? 

You reach people in the language they want to listen in. And the fact that we are talking about $2 billion a year and we are not 

spending $1 million a year to reach people in the Sindhi language 

is something I hope you will do something about. I have been trying. I have not been successful. I am counting on you. 

I want to second just about everything Mr. Higgins said. I was 

an advocate in my first 5 minutes, or a devil’s advocate, for a zerobased budget for Pakistan. That is obviously not what we are going 

to do. I do hope that you will confer to the Pakistanis, though, that 

if there ever was a vote on the floor of the House to say not one 

penny can be disbursed until Dr. Afridi and his family are safe 

here, it would pose a danger to the U.S. Congress because we 

would be stampeding to vote yes. And that would be a danger to 

some of our colleagues. 

As to—yes, everybody would stampede; those voting first would 

be stampeded by those trying to be first. 

Focusing on that aid, obviously, schools are important. USAID 

dedicated more than $155 million to building and improving 

schools in Sindh. A 2014 USAID inspector general report found 

that 3 years in, the program was not achieving its goals; it had unrealistic expectations; that no schools had been built; that there 

was little improvement in early grade reading. 

That was a report in 2014. Has anything been done to make sure 

that education aid in Sindh is more effectively spent? And if you 

don’t have that information, you can respond for the record. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Sherman. 

Let me say with regard to Sindhi, I hope that you are aware that 

our Consulate General in Karachi has started putting out all of its 

social media work in Sindhi, and it has received a very positive reaction. So Facebook——

Mr. SHERMAN. That idea may have come from Congress. Go on. 

Mr. OLSON. We are happy to implement it, and I will take back 

the message on Voice of America. I don’t have specific detailed inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:25 Feb 17, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\121615\97997 SHIRL
44

formation on the schools in Sindh, but I can tell you that I have 

participated in the inauguration of schools, so they are being built. 

They are going up. But I will have to get you a detailed status report. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I look forward to that. I would also like you to explore with USAID the idea that a good chunk of our aid should go 

there in the form of providing free textbooks. That would allow us 

to make sure that the content of those textbooks, perhaps not passing a politically correct test in the Democratic Club in the San Fernando Valley, would be consistent with, if not reflective, of American values. 

Second, every student sees on the front page, ‘‘Provided by the 

people of the United States,’’ every day. 

Third, it is very hard to steal a textbook because if the United 

States is providing free textbooks, who are you going to sell the 

textbooks to? Everybody who wants textbooks got them for free. 

And, fourth, one of the advantages of the madrassa is they got 

free textbooks; we ought to have free textbooks. 

Finally, what would it take to get Pakistan to be a status quo 

power? That is to say, generally accepting a Kashmir situation. Is 

there any amount of development aid the world could provide to 

the Kashmiri people? Is there any change in the level of local autonomy that India could provide? I realize everybody wants to get 

a Nobel Prize for solving the Israeli-Palestinian question. There 

might be a prize in it for you. Is there anything—not so that Pakistan would formally accept the situation, but so that they could 

calm down, agree to live for a decade or so without Kashmir being 

at the top of their list? 

Chairman ROYCE. If I might interject here, I am aware that Ambassador Olson has to appear on the Senate side, and I am aware 

that——

Mr. SHERMAN. That is not important. 

Chairman ROYCE. Regardless of our feelings on this, he might interpret it differently, and so maybe that is a longer discussion that 

we might have either in writing or sit down with him. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And we were supposed to meet in my office. They 

closed every school in my district. I look forward to meeting with 

you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

And just in closing, I did want to bring up the remarks that Mr. 

Engel made about your predecessor, Ambassador Olson, in your 

job, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. He was a personal friend to 

myself and Eliot Engel, and I know certainly from the day that he 

began engaging with this committee, I remember the Dayton Peace 

Accords and the work he did on Bosnia and Kosovo with Eliot 

Engel and others, with those of us here. We counted him as someone who had very wise counsel on a lot of issues. We miss him. I 

can’t 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 here, and 

we appreciate your time and patience today. I know that you are 

on your way to the Senate, so I will just say what you have heard 

are some deep concerns from both sides of the aisle here today 

45

about the direction, this issue about getting more money into public 

education in Pakistan. It is clear to us that this has got to be a 

priority. Members are frustrated. 

You have a difficult job, but you have the full backing from us 

to weigh in forcefully with the responsibilities you have in your position. 

So, with that said, we thank you again, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

48

f


97997n.eps
49


97997m-1.eps
50

f


97997m-2.eps
51

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


97997b-1.eps
52


97997b-2.eps
53


97997b-3.eps
54


97997b-4.eps
55


97997b-5.eps
56


97997b-6.eps
57


97997b-7.eps
58

f


97997b-8.eps
59


97997c-1.eps
60

f


97997c-2.eps
61


97997d-1.eps
62

f


97997d-2.eps
63

f


97997e.eps
64

Æ


97997f.eps