Done against the band organization in pakistan. I to be very honest, i would not agree with that the assessment for the simple reason that why we launched the operation in the north which was a huge success, simultaneously, we also launched operations against various coming up live next, a hearing on u. S. pakistan relays. Richard olson will testify this morning before the House Foreign Affairs committee. This is live coverage on cspan3. And maybe some of the other members will be able to as well. So 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. Pakistan which is now home to the worlds Fastest GrowingNuclear Weapons program has remained a fount of radical islamist thought. It was no surprise that one of the San Bernardino attackers Tashfeen Malik studied at a Pakistani School spreading a particularly fundamentalist message. After more than a decade under sanctions, 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. While the u. S. Was quick to embrace pakistan, pakistan has hardly reciprocated. Pakistani governments have come and gone, but its northwest frontier has remained a terrorist haven which its Security Services protecting these groups and destabilizing afghanistan and threatening neighboring india. Today, schools create an infrastructure of hate. 600 funded with gulf state money teach intolerate hatefilled rhetoric that inspires the foot soldiers of jihadist terrorism. Pakistan must do the work to register schools and close those creating new generations of radicals. And those are the schools that are being funded with gulf state money. They need to be closed. Meanwhile, Pakistans 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 longrange missiles to f16s, but under 2. 5 on education. Through all of the double dealing, u. S. Policy has essentially stood still. Security assistance, cash in arms has continued to flow under the occasional temporary delays despite some department of defense assistance for pakistan being held because of inadequate efforts, the state department is currently seeking more arms for islamabad. Pakistan itself has been devastated by terrorism with 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 that killed over a hundred children. We want a Strong Partnership with the country. But a new policy is long overdue. One option as Ranking Member angle 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 advisor 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 Witnesses Today whether there is reason for hope or if our policy is stuck in the same rut. I now will turn to mr. Ted poe of texas and then mr. Dana rohrabacher of california for their opening statements. 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 on in pakistan on Osama Bin Laden, we didnt 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 f16s 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 didnt 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 ill yield back, mr. Chairman. Okay. And i now yield time to mr. Dana rohrabacher of california. Thank you very much. When i was elected 28 years ago, i think most people considered me pakistans best friend in the house of representatives. And let me just say that i 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. Weve given 30 billion, 30 billion since 9 11 to pakistan, yet we realize that since 9 11 yet we still see theres all ample evidence that pakistan is still deeply involved with various terrorist networks including supporting the taliban in afghanistan and radicals who kill americans. Weve been, 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 dont think anybody believes that the high level people of the Pakistan Government didnt know about that. They continue to hold a doctor just to rub it in our face that they the type of relationship they have with us. And to their own people, theyre slaughtering people and others who are being brutal lly opress by a click in their government. The click that runs that country is treating us like suckers and they should because we are. Were acting foolish. We are very foolish giving people money who have continually to involve themselves in activity thats 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 Pakistan 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 to have on the relationship that weve had. I would like to at this point 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, and i submit that for the record at this point. Without objection. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. We have four votes on the floor so we will recess the hearing and return for witness testimony and questions after those four votes. We appreciate it patience of our witness and those in attendance. And for now, we stand in recess. So, as you heard this hearing on u. S. pakistan relations in a break now as Committee Members head over to the house for a brief series of votes. After those votes, we expect the committee to reconvene. Well have live coverage when that happens here on cspan3. We have other live coverage coming up later today when we bring you remarks by the governor of puerto rico. Theyll be talking about the steps they are taking to payoff a 70 billion debt and revive Economic Growth on the island. Also at 2 30, Federal Reserve chair janet yellen scheduled to hold a News Conference to discuss Monetary Policy following a meeting with the fed board of governors. Live coverage of that announcement here on cspan3 starts at 2 30 eastern. After that, well join the house rolls committee. That bill including a number of individual and business tax breaks. Republicans and democrats will decide the rules for house floor debate which is expected tomorrow. Again, we will have live coverage of this hearing on u. S. pakistan relations as it convenes in just a few moments. While we wait for that, bring you a discussion on Pakistans Nuclear program. Okay. Thanks. Great to be back at the Atlantic Council and pleasure to share the stage with you and my colleagues here. So its it feels like its a little bit artificial to start this conversation from today when the sort of starting point for my involvement in this issue is several months back and a lot has happened in the intervening period. For the sake of the discussion, ill kind of start at the beginning. Why should there be a consideration of a nuclear deal with pakistan . I use that term nuclear deal in very vague ways. We can be more specific about it as we go along. I think in general theres a sense that because of the evolution of Pakistans Nuclear arsenal, theres a growing sense of danger. Thats being felt here and in other capitals. These growing Nuclear Dangers are raising the possibility of Nuclear Terrorism or nuclear war or what have you in the region. So the despite the very good work that pakistan has done on Nuclear Security over the last several years, that its image is starting to change and that the perception of danger is also starting to grow. It is a threat to peace and security in the region and internationally. A lot of that derives, i think, from the recent sort of announcements about having tactical Nuclear Weapons, the testing of longer range system, the idea of putting Nuclear Weapons at sea. Those kind of developments i think are what is driving this narrative. This scrutiny has led to some sense of a need to think through what the options are. And frankly the options are not particularly good. If you think about what leverage exists versus what the incentives are, i would submit on the leverage side, theres very little, and our record in addressing states that already have Nuclear Weapons with punitive measures doesnt necessarily produce better results. And so in this particular instance, im not sure that theres good leverage to be had. In terms of pakistans priorities, in speaking with officials there, you get a sense that its pretty comfortable with where it is. It doesnt like the reputational part of this, but it has a sense of security that Nuclear Weapons have provided and that theres very little outside pressure could do to change that. But at the same time, the reputational piece does come into play when it comes to joining the Nuclear Regime. In that sense, if you were to assess pakistans priorities, First Priority is to keep india out of the Nuclear Suppliers group as a member. If india goes in, to make sure that pakistan has a way in, too. That discreet some set of incentives by a way of establishing a path to join Nuclear Regimes. Theres a question about whether its wise to negotiate on that basis. Thats the reason that were here and ill return to that in a little bit. My sense is that trying to negotiate these things kind of in a vacuum is not going to work. And in part, that has to do with the need for there to be a different internal logic in pakistan in order to accommodate these kinds of changes. Essentially that as long as there is a military driven logic for more Nuclear Weapons, any sorts of measures that pakistan would take would need to take to join this path to the Nuclear Regime are unlikely, unless theres a change in the military logic and understanding of Nuclear Weapons. Theres obviously institutional politics and military relations that come into play. In thinking through this problem, we tried to have this discussion in pakistan a year ago. We asked people, okay, you want to get into the Nuclear Suppliers group, how are you going to do that. Essentially, the answer we heard was, were going to do exactly what india did. Which is fine, but pakistan is not india. So we thought, well, theres some potential for pakistan to join the regime if it were to take certain steps. But what does the future look like. So we postulated two futures. One the status quo where it continues, that the Pakistan Military continues to think of deterrence in largely terms. That leads to a growing arsenal. When we looked at the numbers, purely on a fissle material capability. Thats just based on physician l material. But at some point, you have to question what additional capabilities actually do for deterrence. An alternative future also exists which is that at some point if theres a recognition that Nuclear Weapons arent going to continue to deter at 300, 400 whatever the number is, then it becomes possible to think slightly differently about the Nuclear Capabilities that pakistan has. And that if pakistan were to decide its secure in its capabilities, then it opens the possibility for some constraints. These kinds of constraints arent denuclearization. Its thinking about what is the optimal number and force posture for pakistan to have and what does that do in terms of the diplomacy potential for pakistan. Well, i would suggest that these kinds of questions arent really well debated in pakistan. What is the optimal number of weapons, what is the right force positive chur. What you tend to get is a sense that any constraint imposed from the outside would somehow compromise National Security. Without really thinking through what Nuclear Weapons do provide in terms of National Security or even other ways of thinking about National Security, but the strong feeling that any constraints and any demand for pakistan to compromise will somehow inhibit its National Security. But for the sake of argument, if the military were to arrive at an understanding of Nuclear Weapons that was different from its current understanding, the number of Nuclear Weapons it has today are sufficient or some years down the road is sufficient, that it doesnt need to add more, then diplomacy becomes an option and a nuclear deal i think becomes an option. In our report, we suggested five things that pakistan could do. These were exemplars, not prescriptions or demands. We suggested that changes in the declaratory policy would be useful. That somehow formalizing its recessed Nuclear Posture and thinking about numerical and tactical constraints would be a useful signal. That coming up with limits on fissel material production would also be useful and think about signing the ctbt before india with the understanding that if india were to test that pakistan would be able to exercise its Supreme National interests cause and leave the treaty. Is it wise to seek this path . I think that really depends on what your assessment of priorities is. Whether you think terrorism is a more important priority or other priorities. Depends on your assessment of alternatives and whether we have other measures available to address this sense of concern about the direction and magnitude of pakistans Nuclear Weapons program. Is the status quo better or worse than trying to negotiate some sort of deal. What is the impact to the nonproliferation regime from trying to negotiate a deal. What would the impact be on the u. S. India Strategic relationship. I think theres a lot of important questions that really havent been adequately addressed and deserve further discussion. Focusing just on pakistan is also a little bit artificial. And a lot of the criticism that we received is that we didnt address the india side of this question. We didnt call it a normal nuclear india, we called it a normal nuclear pakistan. Even so, you do have to recognize because the path way for pakistan depends on indias membership, you have to look at these things together. If theres an open door for india but a closed door for pakistan, that limits our policy options. There is wisdom in thinking about a bargain, both here and south asia. So i look forward to more discussion about it. Thank you. Great. Ill try to pick up where toby left off. I wasnt one of the coauthors on this report, but i read it, saw the merits in it, and some arguments why it would be beneficial for the United States, potentially for india as well. Sort of the critical one in this mix is that if a nuclear deal or a Nucl