▶ 0:05:29Sorry. The subcommittee on South and Central Asia will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the current terror threat landscape in South and Central Asia and examine potential opportunities for US action and regional cooperation to address the terrorist threat. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
▶ 0:05:50Today we will discuss the current terror threats and the landscape throughout South and Central Asia and potential opportunities for the Trump administration to enhance our regional counterterrorism strategy. Since the Biden administration's ill-conceived and executed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the subsequent Taliban takeover, the terror threat landscape in South and Central Asia has changed dramatically.
▶ 0:06:14Despite the Taliban's Doha agreement's commitments, Afghanistan has once again become a hotbed for terrorists looking for safe harbor as they grow their ranks and abilities to pro to project attacks across the region and frankly the world. Uh threats from groups uh such as ISIS K and the uh TTP, also known as the Pakistan uh Taliban, are higher than any time in recorded history.
▶ 0:06:41And internally, Pakistan has seen the highest rates of terror attacks in many years. And of course, the recent attack uh in uh Palagram reminded us all that the threat the militant threat in Kashmir has not subsided. For decades, the United States has remained the global leader in the fight against terrorism.
▶ 0:07:00And we have engaged our internal international partners through bilateral agreements and multilateral mechanisms that have supplied our allies with training and equipment to ensure that they are able to stop the spread of terrorism from further poisoning our world. However, the threat has persisted since the 2021 ISIS K bombing at Abbegate, which killed 13 American servicemen and 170 Afghan civilians and wounded many others, including one of my constituents from Southwest Michigan.
▶ 0:07:30The Taliban claimed to be doing claims to be doing their best to eliminate the ISIS K threat. However, while the Tal Taliban claim victory, ISIS K continues to wreak havoc, conducting attacks that target everyone from innocent civilians to Taliban officials, all while continuing its effort to radicalize and recruit from dysphoria communities across and even outside of Central Asia.
▶ 0:07:54Last year, we saw the growing ISIS K threat manifest as hundreds were killed in attacks in both Moscow and Thran and through the foiled plot to attack the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. Nevertheless, the United States continues to display strong leadership working closely with our partners such as the Pakistanis who recently arrested a key planner in the Abigate attacks. That individual has since been brought to the United States to stand trial for his crimes.
▶ 0:08:22The Pakistanis themselves are no strangers to the terrorist threat that fers within their own borders. 2024 was one of the most violent years in over a decade for Pakistan. S groups such as Tariq Taliban Pakistan and the uh Baluchistan Liberation Army ci threatened civilians and Pakistani security forces alike.
▶ 0:08:45Rising violence from such militant groups and others possess sorry pose a significant threat to Pakistan's internal security and has been the source of much friction between Pakistan and its neighbors in the region. Most recently we saw the devastating attack on the Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir uh where the 20 where 26 individuals primarily tourists were brutally and deliberately killed in cold blood by militants.
▶ 0:09:11The attack led to a military conflict between two major nuclear powers, the first of its kind in years. I want to be clear. I respect India's so sovereign right to defend itself against rogue actors seeking to seow instability in the volatile region, but I support and encourage both sides to work earnestly to resolve the areas of conflict.
▶ 0:09:34As we discuss the challenges emanating from the region, it's essential to assess the tools that we have at our disposal to continue the fight against terrorism. The Trump administration is uniquely has a unique opportunity to find new ways to engage our regional partners and find a new path to stability and security. So, I want to say thank you to our witnesses, uh, Miss Curtis, Miss Todd, for being here today. Uh, and I, uh, look forward to a robust conversation.
▶ 0:10:00And with that, I yield back and I recognize ranking member Kam Loger Dove for five minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today. I know one of whom just got in last night from the other side of the globe. You know, I am glad that this subcommittee is having our first regional hearing on such a critical bipartisan issue. Uh, and just off script, you know, counterterrorism is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.
▶ 0:10:28um and nor should it be and uh it shouldn't be subjected to the partisanship that we are seeing um in these halls and I know that there's so many hearings that are put on for the culture wars and the clickbaits and this is not one of them and I applaud the chair for working to get this back on the schedule.
▶ 0:10:48Uh though I believe there are many reasons why we should be invested in the future of South and Central Asia, being an effective and credible partner on counterterrorism is particularly important. Just two months ago, we witnessed a terrible attack targeting civilians in Palum which set off a crisis between two nuclear powers. The threat remains serious. The world's largest concentration of US designated foreign terrorist organizations is in Central and South Asia.
▶ 0:11:18I want to focus in on particularly ISIS K, the terrorist group that increasingly poses the greatest direct threat to the United States. ISIS K is the most lethal branch of ISIS and is internationalizing its recruitment to carry out attacks beyond the region. Successful high-profile operations in Russia and Iran in 2024 demonstrated the group's growing ability to direct and inspire atrocities around the world.
▶ 0:11:47ISIS K has increasingly targeted Europe with plots foiled in Germany, Austria, Turkey, and France. I think we should all take seriously the US intelligence community's warnings that the group's ultimate goal could include striking the US homeland. Although ISIS K's operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan remain a serious concern, an important enabler of the group's expanding global reach is its ability to recruit and radicalize individuals from Central Asian states.
▶ 0:12:18Political repression, lack of economic opportunity, community fragmentation from mass labor migration and governance failures and corruption all create grievances among Central Asian nationals that ISIS K is quick to weaponize. Added to that, a lack of education and poor media literacy increases people's vulnerability to online propaganda that ISIS K is aggressively dis disseminating.
▶ 0:12:43Like many of the foreign policy challenges we face, addressing and preventing the threat of ISIS K from ever reaching our shores requires the US to be engaged and proactive, not isolationist and retreating. And dealing with a challenge as complex and persistent as terrorism requires a multiaceted and well-resourced foreign policy toolbox, including security cooperation, public diplomacy, economic support, development, and intelligence.
▶ 0:13:14Unfortunately, I'm concerned that this administration has eliminated many of the tools we have used to address a terrorist threat in the region, removing lines of defense we have had in place for decades. In fact, it's hard to imagine what resources will be left if US foreign assistance is cut by 84%. How much of the remaining funds will even be devoted to South and Central Asia Asia if it's all merged into an America first opportunity slush fund or whatever that is?
▶ 0:13:44or what personnel will be available to support counterterrorism efforts if we're firing entire chunks of the department, including riffs supposedly going out tomorrow to the counterterrorism unit. But even if we ignore all of that, the administration has already taken actions that I'm worried have sabotaged our ability to combat terrorism in the region.
▶ 0:14:08illegally dismantling the US institution of peace, which was supporting the repatriation and reintegration of ISIS fighters to their home countries and breaking the cycle of extremism and cancelling US assistance to civilians in Afghanistan, contributing to a worsening humanitarian crisis, terminating USAD's countering violent extremism and economic development programs that were critical to addressing the drivers of radicalization in Central Asia.
▶ 0:14:38IA and then shutting down RFl including its local Tajik network radio ozodi. If this committee is serious about countering terrorism and we should be and I believe this chair is, it is essential that we not only maintain hard capabilities but deploy the tools that help our partners address the root causes of terrorism and radicalization. It is time for us to stand up and talk about these issues.
▶ 0:15:08I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important bipartisan issue. And with that, I yield back. Gentle lady's time has expired. Uh we are pleased to have our distinguished witnesses with us here today. First, we have Lisa Curtis, senior fellow and director of the Indopacific security program at the Center for a New American Security and a former NSC senior director for South and Central Asia in the first Trump administration.
▶ 0:15:32We also welcome Brianna Todd, professor of the practice of Central America Asia, I'm sorry, Central Asian studies at the National Defense University. So, thank you both for being here today. Uh, your full statements will be made part of our record and I uh request that each of you keep your oral remarks to five minutes so that we might have time for questions from our uh from our members. And with that, I now recognize Miss Curtis for five minutes for your opening statement. And please turn your mic on.
▶ 0:16:01Make sure that that red light is on. Thank you, Chairman Hazena, Ranking Member Kamlagar Dove, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to testify before you today, and I will briefly summarize my written remarks.
▶ 0:16:20The terrorism landscape in South and Central Asia is complex and it requires the focused attention of the United States to monitor and contain threats that impact the security of the US homeland as well as broader US national security interests. The presence of ISIS K in Afghanistan has become an increasingly global concern, especially since it claimed two major attacks last year in Russia and Iran.
▶ 0:16:48ISIS K operatives plotting attacks in the West have also been arrested in Europe and the United States. And US officials have raised concerns about ISIS K's capabilities and intent to target the United States. While US and Taliban interests converge on the need to counter ISIS K, the two sides differ considerably on how to contain the overall terrorist threat in the region, as well as on human rights and women's issues.
▶ 0:17:17The Taliban can never be viewed as a counterterrorism partner. This is for several reasons. First, the Taliban remains allied with al-Qaeda, with whom it fought sidebyside for 30 years.
▶ 0:17:33Second, the Taliban have opened tens of thousands of religious schools, which are inculcating a new generation of young Afghans with their extremist Third, the Taliban has increasingly cracked down on the rights of women and girls. Afghanistan is the only nation in the world that forbids girls from going to school. Now, let me turn to India and Pakistan.
▶ 0:17:57The recent IndiaPakistan conflict was precipitated by the April 22nd terrorist attack in Indian Kashmir which New Delhi has blamed on the US designated Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkari India retaliated on May 7th by striking the leashgarita headquarters in Meridke in the Punjab province of Pakistan as well as at several other sites in Pakistan.
▶ 0:18:25What transpired afterward was arguably the most serious conflict between India and Pakistan since their 1971 war. Following four days of Indian and Pakistani missile and drone strikes on each other's military installations, US officials intervene to broker a ceasefire on May 10th. Pakistan has long hosted terrorist groups that attack India.
▶ 0:18:52It's even backed uh groups like the Hakani network that conducted some of the most brutal attacks on US forces in Afghanistan. More recently, however, we have seen tensions between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban over their harboring of Turiki Taliban Pakistan or the TTP which now conducts regular attacks inside Pakistan.
▶ 0:19:18So, how should the US deal with this volatile mix of terrorist threats and conflict? First, Washington should implement tailored counterterrorism cooperation with each nation of the region, especially Tajikhstan, given the increasing number of Tajikhstan citizens susceptible to ISIS K recruitment.
▶ 0:19:41Second, Washington must continue to invest in the strategic partnership with India and improve counterterrorism cooperation with New Delhi while avoiding trying to mediate a solution to the vexed Kashmir dispute.
▶ 0:19:57Third, the US should increase counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan on mutual threats like ISIS K but press Islamabad to crack down on US designated terrorist organization like Zashkari Taiba that attack India.
▶ 0:20:15Pakistan's dual policies on terrorism requires a delicate policy approach from the United States that makes careful distinctions between helpful and harmful Pakistani actions regarding terrorism. Fourth, while it may be necessary to engage with the Taliban on ISIS K, the US must condition any movement toward recognizing or legitimizing the Taliban on their improving the rights of women and girls.
▶ 0:20:44Additionally, the United States must continue assistance for online education as well as scholarships for Afghan women and girls to study abroad. These are inexpensive programs that help blunt extremist ideologies that fuel terrorism. And that completes my opening remarks. Thank you very much. General yields back. With that, uh, Miss Todd, you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:21:12Chairman Heisinga, Ranking Member Comm Logger, Dove, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. As the ranking member noted, I just returned last night from a counterterrorism seminar in Usuzbekiststan. So, I'm delighted to be here with you today and I would underscore that all of the opinions and views expressed are my own. You've received my written testimony.
▶ 0:21:40So today I will focus on three main points about the evolving terror threat in Central Asia and why US leadership remains crucial. First, the terror threat in Central Asia is reaching an inflection point. Central Asia has not historically been a center of terrorist activity, but we are now witnessing some troubling trends.
▶ 0:22:04The Islamic State Horizan Province, also known as ISIS K, is expanding its influence and exploiting regional Central Asians were involved in several high-profile attacks last year, including the deadly Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow.
▶ 0:22:23To attract recruits, ISIS K and its related affiliates have become more agile, more globalized, and more ideologically seductive to the Today, they are radicalizing, recruiting, and directing attacks with unprecedented speed and precision.
▶ 0:22:43ISIS K has leveraged encrypted messaging apps, cryptocurrency platforms, and AI generated content to coordinate attacks and disseminate propaganda, as seen in its recruitment efforts following the Crocus City Hall attack. Second, US engagement in Central Asia is essential for our national security.
▶ 0:23:06I've asked them to project a map and if you can see the map, the region sits at a strategic crossroads bordered by Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iran. For over 30 years, the United States has supported the sovereignty, stability, and security of these countries.
▶ 0:23:26Stable partners in Central Asia work with us to share intelligence, disrupt terror financing, intercept returning foreign terrorist fighters, and support the rehabilitation and reintegration of returning fighters family members. They are key to preventing attacks against the United States and our allies. Third, US assistance has made a difference.
▶ 0:23:54But if the United States steps back, then the region's needs will go unmet or others will fill the gap. US aid programs like the resilient communities activity and employment and enterprise development activity addressed some of the root causes of extremism by supporting rural economic development, youth opportunities, and civil society. These modest investments produced real results.
▶ 0:24:24However, as these programs conclude, our ability to bolster Central Asia's resilience is at risk. Some may argue that US resources are better spent elsewhere. However, the cost of inaction could be greater in the long term. The Central Asian states have sought deeper ties with the United States because they value our partnership on security and development issues.
▶ 0:24:50A vacuum left by the United States could embolden extremist groups as local governments may lack the capacity to counter evolving threats without our support. Russia and China are also poised to expand their influence.
▶ 0:25:07China's Belt and Road projects have already increased Beijing's economic leverage and Russia's security agreements could limit limit our access to intelligence and regional Let me close by emphasizing that now is not the time to abandon our Central Asian partners.
▶ 0:25:26Sustained strategic US engagement in Central Asia can advance our national security interests by working with the region toward long-term stability and preventing future terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Thank you for your attention and your continued commitment to our security. gentle lady yields back and I uh on a personal level I hope you had a layback seat and were able to get a little rest.
▶ 0:25:54Uh but what I what it does underscore is um I think the importance of the issue but your dedication to it and and I would just want to say thank you on behalf of everybody uh for uh for your commitment to that. So, uh, Miss Curtis, under the Doha agreement, uh, February 2020, negotiated in good faith by the Trump administration that you were a part of, uh, last go around, the Taliban uh, pledged to prevent terror groups from using Afghanistan soil uh, to threaten US security
▶ 0:26:25and that of its allies. Subsequently, the Taliban has claimed that it is fulfilling those counterterrorism and commitments successfully fighting ISIS K. Um, as I wrote this down, I think you you had said something along the lines of uh Taliban the Taliban can never be a counterterrorism partner. Uh, but I'd like you to clarify uh that and and how do you assess these claims based on that? I'm I'm I think it's dubious your your view on that.
▶ 0:26:53Uh, and is the Taliban upholding its counterterrorism Well, thank you for that uh question. um you you know rightly talked about uh the US and the Taliban both wanting to counter ISIS K and so I think it's reasonable to consider that kind of cooperation uh whether it's information sharing uh where we have mutual goals however I think the point I wanted
▶ 0:27:23to make was that we uh while we haven't seen any indication that al Qaeda in Afghanist Fanistan is actively planning an attack on the United States. Um they could at any time and uh the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee has reported that Al Qaeda has established new training camps inside Afghanistan which would be a direct violation of the Doha agreement.
▶ 0:27:53Um so despite their claims, correct? I mean, the the Taliban still claims that that the terrorist groups are not operating on their soil. Well, they they claim they're not allowing terrorist groups to, you know, actively uh plan attacks against the United States. So, is this a distinction without a difference having having planning and training camps yet uh not allowing the actual execution of the plans happen?
▶ 0:28:22Are you making that distinction? I mean either way it seems it would violate the certainly the spirit if not the letter of the I think it violates the letter of the agreement because if you read closely the agreement the agreement says that they will prevent training training uh recruiting and fundraising and so clearly if there are training camps there's training going on uh so I think it is and who's operating those is it the Taliban government themselves or are they just turning a blind eye and allowing another
▶ 0:28:53is it ISIS Okay. Or who is it that would be operating uh al Qaeda? So I think it's it's um a matter of the Taliban turning a blind eye and allowing this to happen. Um so I would say that that is a violation of the Doha agreement and longtime old friends. That's right. Um in fact, some al Qaeda members were at times part of the Taliban regime. Uh they've held positions such as provincial governors.
▶ 0:29:22Um, so you know, I think it's clear that they still have a close uh symbiotic relationship. Um, and you know, we know that al-Qaeda still considers the United States an enemy and could decide to conduct an attack against the United States at any time. And I would argue that al-Qaeda's very existence poses a threat to the United States.
▶ 0:29:45Um unfortunately I think the Doha agreement um you know what didn't had some loopholes and was uh a bit weak on these counterterrorism commitments. So I think the Taliban is exploiting some of the weaknesses in the agreement. Um but as I said I also think they are directly violating it. Okay. Uh we're going to do some followup on that in my remaining a little over a minute minute.
▶ 0:30:10I want you to uh comment on uh after the uh uh pelagram attack India claimed that some in the Pakistani military and government uh supporting such groups as TRF and less you had referenced earlier. Um you know as I noted in my uh in my opening remarks I believe India has the right to defend itself uh and that the Pakistani should make every effort to end any sanctioned or unsanctioned support for terrorist groups.
▶ 0:30:39Do you believe that Pakistan is supporting or rather rather tacitly supporting militant groups operating in Indian controlled territory? Well, of course, the resistance front TRF um is an offshoot of the Lashkari Taiba, a US designated um terrorist group that is based inside Pakistan and TRF has not been designated as of such yet. Uh I think the US government is in the process of designating them. You know, these offshoots come up and then you have to actually designate that group.
▶ 0:31:08So I think they're in the process of doing that. Last 10 seconds. What steps should Pakistan take to condemn terrorism and end its support for these military groups. So first of all they should throw terrorist leaders in jail. Hafas Muhammad say the leader of Lashkarib Taiba is only under house arrest. He's not in jail. The leader of Jes Muhammad Masud Azar is not in jail. He operates freely inside Pakistan. The Merid complex for Lashkar Taiba is still open. This is one of the sites that India attacked.
▶ 0:31:37So there's a lot that Pakistan could do that it hasn't done yet to crack down on terrorists that attack uh India. Okay, my time has expired. Uh with that, I recognize the ranking member, Miss Conerd Dove, for five minutes and 30 seconds. Thank you, Mr. Chair. He's so kind. Um so, Miss Todd, uh USIP was supporting the repatriation and rehabilitation of ISIS fighters to their home countries in Central Asia.
▶ 0:32:06Can you so why why are repatriation and rehabilitation efforts so critical to counterterrorism in the region and how will they suffer from the dismantlement of USIP? Thank you for that question ranking member. Uh so first of all I think USIP I'm not entirely sure what their current status is right now. It seems like they may be back operating.
▶ 0:32:32Um but the point is they did have a program where they were working extensively with partners in the region on rehabilitation and reintegration of foreign terrorist fighters but more specific more specifically their family members. Um a lot of these individuals were in camps in Syria. Um that is not a place that we want them to stay. the conditions there are terrible, but also by having these individuals in a camp in Syria, we are increasing the risk that they will be radicalized there.
▶ 0:33:03Thus, we wanted to work with our partners in Central Asia to bring them home, help them get treatment, um, help them be reintegrated back into their communities. And uh that was a large part of what USIP was doing with their programs, working with local partners on the ground, both governments, but also civil society organizations, but also doing it with support from the US government, specifically US aid.
▶ 0:33:28Um a lot of these programs require just material support in terms of when these individuals return home, many of them do not have jobs, do not have homes to return to. So helping them get settled, find their footing essentially in their local communities and help them reestablish their lives.
▶ 0:33:47So that's a good segue to my next question because the president's budget request would zero out the existing accounts used to provide assistance to Central Asia and South Asia and redirect resources into one large America first opportunity fund which would have actually no visibility from Congress, no guardrails. when I was young, people called it mad money.
▶ 0:34:10Um, and you know, so I'm but both of your testimonies suggest that we should be looking at Central and South Asia and really doing what we can to support our partners. Um, and you just also mentioned material support um, and other forms of assistance. So can you talk about the risk um, that now we will have if we are not designating support uh, to this region?
▶ 0:34:37Yeah, I will admit I have a lot of concerns about the America First Opportunity Fund. I think in theory it's a good idea, but I think how it ends up being executed in practice is something I'm concerned about because $2 billion sounds like a lot of money, but it really isn't. And then when you open it up to global uh emerging priorities, I think that there will be a lot of competition among countries among issues in terms of what does the US government fund.
▶ 0:35:06Uh one of the things that we're always emphasizing to our partners is that we do not fund oneoff things that we are looking to achieve long-term goals that require sustained engagement. I think if we don't have dedicated funding for engagement with South and Central Asia, we risk having funds diverted to other countries, other issues as more emerging priorities come up. So that is something that I'm very concerned about.
▶ 0:35:33I think too, as you pointed out earlier, um, with restrictions or reductions in personnel at the the State Department, I'm a little concerned about how that funding will be executed in terms of individuals being qualified to do some of these programs if these are just not people who've been working in the region who don't have experience in things like public health, education, civil society. Do we have the experts that we need to use these funds most effectively? Thank you for that.
▶ 0:36:03Miss Curt uh Curtis, I have a question for you. Interestingly enough, the chair and I probably took the same note from your um opening remarks. The US withdrew from Afghanistan, but we continue to provide, you know, educational assistance and then those programs were terminated by this administration. And we know that women and girls are um vulnerable in the last few seconds.
▶ 0:36:26you know, if we're terminating education programs that are even online, forcing women to go to Madras, where we know radicalization is is happening, how vulnerable are these folks to the radicalization that is coming um out from the Taliban and their partners, al-Qaeda? Well, I'm glad you raised this point because I think this is a crucial point that if we stop providing education programs for the women and girls in Afghanistan, it's not only a humanitarian cost to those women.
▶ 0:36:55It also will help to fuel extremist ideologies in the country. There will be no way that uh these women can get educated and it will make it easier for the Taliban to inculcate their extremist ideologies uh throughout the population. So I think this is a national security interest and my hope is that the Trump administration will continue the programs that we have. Uh American University of Afghanistan which is educating women now in Doha.
▶ 0:37:24That campus is now in Doha and Qatar. 200 um Afghans including many women were scheduled to start uh classes in the fall at the Doha campus. Um, and I've heard that that uh funding may be cancelled. So, my hope is that the Trump administration will maintain these programs because they're important to protecting US national security interest. And I also would like to make the point you raised Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.
▶ 0:37:54Um, in the interest of full disclosure, I am the board chair of Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty. Um, these programs also are helping to fight extremism in the region. Uh we can talk about Central Asia where uh RFl broadcasts in all five of the Central Asian languages. Um they report on extremist um extremism, terrorism. They report on uh trends uh in the region.
▶ 0:38:20Um and they help to um uh promote you know dradicalization and to fight extremist trends in the region and in Afghanistan. I'm so sorry. Lady's time is well expired by now. So, we'll be able to continue that in in written form. Added into another answer. Thank you. Uh at your discretion at Yeah, the gentle lady's time has definitely expired. So, with that, uh the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Scott, Scott Perry is uh recognized for five. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:38:51Chairman. Ladies, thank you for your presence here today. Uh Pakistan's been playing a game for a long time now. um harboring terrorists and supporting terrorism and funding or being supportive funding of terrorism playing both sides of the same coin. At what time at what point do we consider putting them back on the financial action task force grrey list? Is there a time is there is there any is there any action they could take would would prompt you to believe that that should take place?
▶ 0:39:24Uh okay. Either one. Okay. Uh, sure. I'll take it. Um, yes, I think this is something that should be considered. I think we should be looking at the links of the April 22nd attack in Indian Kashmir to Pakistan-based groups and if those are indeed found. I will note that the um, uh, Indian media has reported that uh, in Indian investigations they have found that three of the perpetrators of the April 22nd attacks are Pakistani nationals.
▶ 0:39:55one with um direct links to lashgari taiba. So I think surprise surprise. So again h how you know look we got a limited amount of time to ask questions here. American tax dollars are at stake. I think you're marginally at least I could characterize you as somewhat critical of the president's agenda to to to curtail some of this funding to this region. I think that's a reasonable discussion to have with the rising China and their involvement there.
▶ 0:40:23However, Americans don't want their tax dollars to be taken from them to support terrorism. So, is there some like that that that's a horrific attack and it's tied directly to Pakistan? What's the point? Like what when do we say we've had enough? We're not going to spend American tax dollars on a country that supports materially supports Yes.
▶ 0:40:48Well, I think the US should demand that um Lashkari Taiba and Jashi Muhammad, two US designated terrorist groups be completely shut down in Pakistan. This is and if they're not, then you would suggest put them on the gray put Pakistan on the gray list or the blacklist. I think that is a reasonable policy to pursue. We don't want to and I think you might agree with this. We don't want to destabilize the reason, but is there something that we can do?
▶ 0:41:13Many Pakistani the elite in Pakistan the military's running the show there has been for a long time enjoy sending their students to America or the west. Visas uh are included in that. Um assets of course uh tuition. Do you recommend using any of the control that we have in that in that regard to to kind of encourage them to start doing the right thing regarding terrorism? I mean down to the person. Yeah.
▶ 0:41:40I I would not uh encourage restricting visas for you know Pakistanis uh Pakistani students etc because I think that the relationship is still important for the United States um that we need to have a nuanced uh partnership where we work together where we have mutual interests such as ISIS K um you know President Trump acknowledged Pakistan's role in helping to um capture and extradite one of the perpetrator traitors
▶ 0:42:11of the Abbegate bombings. So there there are uh areas where the US and Pakistan can work together. Um we also don't want to see Pakistan wholly reliant on China. Um you mentioned uh China.
▶ 0:42:24I would agree with that, but I feel like a targeted approach, if you'll pardon the term, individual by individual that had been known to be in material support of some of the groups that you previously mentioned or terrorism in general might be an inducement to uh to help them see the way and the path uh out of that. We don't want China.
▶ 0:42:48Um obviously you know we're concerned about the chi China Pakistan economic quarter and and what that portends um we'd like to see more uh and and you know regarding India and SARC but uh let me in the remaining time Mod's statements seem to depart from their traditionally pacifist his recent statement their traditionally pacifist stance um what can the
▶ 0:43:18United States be doing to encourage a more of a collaborative and reliable partnership with the biggest democracy on the planet which is of course India. Uh given the careful balance that we're trying to strike India used to be a Warsaw packed nation there's some history there. what what can we be doing now to encourage a better stronger relationship as the United States visa v Pakistan and China.
▶ 0:43:48Uh well on India we should be investing in that strategic partnership um across the board. India is one of the most important countries when it comes to countering China. We have mutual interest um in working together and India you know fastest growing economy, fifth largest economy, fourth most powerful military and my time is expired. I appreciate it. Thank you. I yield. Gentlemen yields back.
▶ 0:44:15Uh with that the congressman from California, Mr. Bar is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um obviously this hearing comes at a very timely moment. The issue of terrorism in South Asia was brought back into focus by the deadly um pahalam attack in which 26 innocent civilians were killed in April of this year. I want to join my colleagues in condemning terror wherever it originates from and whatever targets.
▶ 0:44:43Um I also want to you know commend both the governments of India and Pakistan. You know it was tenuous in May. Um and a lot of us were worried about an escalation between two nuclear powers.
▶ 0:44:58Um I'm encouraged that both governments started a dialogue um found the ability to um come together in a tenuous ceasefire and I think it is important for the United States to play a supporting role um as this tenuous ceasefire hopefully moves into something more productive. I also when I think about these two countries these are two very different countries on two very different trajectories.
▶ 0:45:23you see um India Miss Curtis you just pointed out fastest growing economy in the world um the importance of the US India relationship you know from the quad to you know strategic geopolitical security in the region to countering the threat of China in the region you know this is a trajectory that is moving in a very positive direction you contrast that with Pakistan a struggling democracy um the highest terror threat um in
▶ 0:45:53in the world in terms of domestic terror um and you know certainly crossber terror threat to to India um struggling economy um you see climate change impacting Pakistan so both countries have two very different reasons for not wanting uh a return to war and again I think the United States has a important critical role supporting the dialogue between these two countries but it is a dialogue discussion um between the governments of India and the governments
▶ 0:46:24of of Pakistan. Miss Curtis, in an you alluded to this in your opening statement, but in an article you authored in foreign affairs in May, you wrote that Trump, a self-styled dealmaker, may be tempted to try to permanently resolve the status of Kashmir. But he should resist the urge. Any effort by Washington to strike a final deal could encourage Pakistan to fuel further terrorist attacks against India.
▶ 0:46:50it will needlessly strain the US India relations and it will almost certainly not work. Would you um care to elaborate on on that? Well, thank you. Um yeah, first let me start by saying uh the Trump administration played um an enormously important role in getting a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.
▶ 0:47:09This was a very dangerous conflict uh between two nuclear armed adversaries and I think the Trump administration deserves credit uh for uh working to get that ceasefire and prevent what could have been a a nuclear catastrophe in the region.
▶ 0:47:24Um, the point that I wanted to make in my foreign affairs article is that there's a difference between uh the US getting the two countries to back away from the brink of war and the idea that somehow the US might be able to get the two sides to resolve this 80year-old territorial dispute which I don't think is possible. I've been following India Pakistan relations for 30 years and I it is not possible for the US to be able to mediate a solution. I know we're Americans.
▶ 0:47:53we have this can do attitude but this is something that only the two countries themselves can resolve. That was my point. Right. Um and as I think about next steps you pointed out um the identification of some of the folks that led some of these attacks in terms of crossber threats.
▶ 0:48:14It does seem you know from the Indian perspective if Pakistan were to address and arrest some of these individuals that may be a necessary next step to you know thinking about further dialogue. Again I don't know what peace in this region looks like and and I fully agree with you that it it's going to take the two countries. I do think that that America has a role in you know supporting that that conversation. What do you think those next steps should be?
▶ 0:48:41You know, both from Congress, but also, you know, as we try to support a dialogue between these two countries. I think that's right. I think the US does have a role in encouraging the two sides to get back into a dialogue because if they're not in a dialogue, uh, you know, we're apt to have another crisis uh, very soon.
▶ 0:49:00uh but I would say that India is probably unlikely to agree to go back to a broad-based dialogue until Pakistan takes active steps to crack down on terrorists on its own territory. So I think we need to as we're encouraging dialogue, we also need to press Pakistan to take tangible concrete steps that show they are cracking down on terrorists that attack India. Great. And I'm out of time.
▶ 0:49:30Gentleman's time has expired. Uh the delegate from Guam, Mr. Muan, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although the threat of terrorism from global actors has diminished from its peak, it remains a clear risk to US homeland and US interests abroad and regional stability. Major terrorist groups continue to operate mainly in the Middle East.
▶ 0:49:52However, according to the Homeland threat assessment 2025 by the Department of Homeland Security, ISIS regional branches in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been increasingly active beyond um Afghanistan and now pose a growing threat to the broader region. The recent example in India illustrates that terrorism and related military actions remain real threats to peace and stability in the region and that could impact global security.
▶ 0:50:20Uh the president's announcement that the US mediate the ceasefire here demonstrates that the US has vested interest in Central Asia and highlights the need to develop comprehensive plan to contribute to the regional stability. The US has been engaging in counterterrorism cooperation with major regional player India through the quad framework.
▶ 0:50:43These four countries have been depending their uh collaboration on information sharing and counter measures against the use of emerging technologies by terrorist groups. And since global terrorism needs to be addressed through multinational efforts, the Quad framework has great potential to counterterrorism threats in the region.
▶ 0:51:03So, Miss Curtis, you know, during your service, and thank you for your service at at NSC, you contribute to expanding cooperations within the Quad and advancing the South Asia strategy. Based on those experiences, how do you access current administration strategies for engaging with the Quad? Also, how can Quad enhance its collaboration to address terrorist activities in the region? Well, thank you for that question.
▶ 0:51:30um very proud uh what I did in the first Trump administration and uh you know what President Trump himself did to revive the Quad after a 10-year hiatus. Um and it's now become a the um a focal point for US engagement in the Indopacific region and uh President Trump has committed to attending the Quad Summit in New Delhi this fall.
▶ 0:51:57So I think we can expect to continue to see the Quad um expand and deepen its cooperation and this will be critical to meeting the challenge of a rising China. Um and so I think that we'll you know we can expect to see um expansion in technology cooperation, energy security, maritime security um across the board. It will never be a military pact.
▶ 0:52:24um that is not something that um India wants to be a part of a military alliance but it can be you know everything just short of that um it could be these four democratic maritime powers working together to shape a free and open Indo-Pacific region and it's a it's a critical grouping and uh I think we can expect to see President Trump continue uh to grow and um deepen the cooperation with these three other countries countries.
▶ 0:52:54Thank you for your push on that. Appreciate it. Uh, Miss Todd, you served at at NSC as well and as the Central Asia expert managing US policies for the region across diplomatic, economic, defense, and intelligent domains. From your perspective, what's the most serious recent development related to terrorism in Central Asia and how might it impact global security?
▶ 0:53:18I think the most uh important development is there is a perception particularly here in the United States that China is only active in Central Asia and the economic realm. I'm here to say that that is not true. There is a lot of military cooperation going on between China and the countries in Central Asia.
▶ 0:53:37And I think particularly in terms of counterterrorism, that's important to note because increasingly if we are not present, if we are not working with our partners in Central Asia on counterterrorism, they will be looking for other partners to assist them in those efforts. And it is predominantly going to be China that is there ready and able to assist. Russia has been very distracted by its war in Ukraine. Otherwise, it would be be there and be doing more with the countries in the region.
▶ 0:54:05Many of them are members of the collective security treaty organization but in the absence of Russia they will turn to China. So I think that is something we need to be very cognizant of and I think that is the most important development in terms of counterterrorism in the region today. Uh thank you to the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. With that, uh the representative from Texas, Miss Johnson, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:54:34Um and thank you both for being here uh and for the cander of your testimony. Um you know I agree with my colleagues that uh counterterrorism continue must be a priority because we never know when it's going to rear its ugly head and so we must constantly prevent and prepare uh wherever we can. As both of you highlighted in your testimonies not addressing the root causes of radicalization can have tragic consequences.
▶ 0:55:00Miss Curtis, you referenced, for example, how ending education and scholarship opportunities for Afghan girls could encourage radicalization, and I couldn't agree with you more. Uh, Miss Todd, you listed high unemployment and weak governance and religious, political repression as determinants as well. And I also agree with you.
▶ 0:55:19Um, so I'm I'm presuming that we can we can all agree that it is fundamental for the United States national security that we continue to tackle the underlying drivers of radicalization and continue to use the soft power of the United States um in this region and it's critically important. Is that correct? Yes.
▶ 0:55:38And so I presume that you all both also agree fundamentally that the administration's reckless dismantling of USAD and these programs in there um is a is a complete compromise of our national security and it's making us vulnerable. Is that true as well? Yes. Yes.
▶ 0:55:59Um, and and I appreciate that because the thing is is that we've had lots of hearings in foreign affairs and you are not the first two witnesses to come before this committee and say that the reckless dismantling of USID by this administration is putting our nation at risk. But yet the Republicans in Congress consistently fail to do I would love to see, Mr.
▶ 0:56:24chairman, a bipartisan letter from this committee to the administration to tell them how important USID programs in Afghanistan are to educate women and girls for our national security. I would love for the bipartisan area of this of this committee to tell this and make this move this forward, but instead we have hearing after hearing where witnesses as highly educated and trained as yourselves come before us to say these programs are harming America if we cut them.
▶ 0:56:52And yet the administration is still recklessly cutting them, making our nation less safe. You and you brought up something that was that was really important to me also was Radio Free Europe. You agree, don't you, that it is critically important that the United States have free Europe, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, all of these programs that disseminate the values of democracy in these in this part of the world. Don't you? Yes, I do.
▶ 0:57:22Yeah. And I really appreciate that because yesterday we had to endure Carrie Lake coming to our committee to tell us how they are dismantling the entire program. But it is a valuable program. You're intimately in involved with it. And it is not a program that solely disseminates Chinese propaganda, is it? Absolutely not. Yeah. So her testimony yesterday was completely false.
▶ 0:57:47when she comes to this committee and says that voice of America and environment American investment in these programs is not effective that's wrong because you are on the grounds and you were part of the Trump administration and so and you've come to this committee honestly with with accurate cander to tell us just how important these programs are in keeping America safe and it is so troubling to me that this administration has so recklessly abandoned and US
▶ 0:58:17role. And I really appreciated um both of your comments when you implied that if if we leave the space, who's coming in when we abandon our partners, we abandon these programs of education and economic um of of creating people the ability to grow their own food. I mean, these programs are vital to keeping people out of a radicalized, militarized, terroristic bent of their mind frame. Isn't that right?
▶ 0:58:48Yes. Would you, either one of you care to elaborate? Yeah. If I could just expound on Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty's work. Um, they also still broadcast to Afghanistan through Radio Aadi. Um and you know half the Afghanistan population listens to this reporting which provides a US perspective on uh global developments. Also radio uh radio zadi reaches Afghan women.
▶ 0:59:16It has a call-in show where Afghan women's voices can be heard. Their concerns can be that is so important. It is so important to have these perspectives and these ideas and these values broadcast and communicated to these countries because if they don't hear from us, they're not hearing it from anywhere, right? They're just hearing the opposition. They're hearing the voices of anti-American propaganda if they don't hear these programs. Russia and China invest billions in getting their propaganda and disinformation out.
▶ 0:59:45And US does not have international broadcasting. I really appreciate you both being here. Thank you so very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. General's time has expired. Uh with that, the uh congressman from Indiana, Mr. Shre is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, uh, Chairman Heisinga, and I would just lead off by saying that I appreciated the remarks, uh, that, uh, the ranking member led off with. I don't think this is a bipartisan or messaging, uh, hearing.
▶ 1:00:11I think, uh, we all care about stability in the region uh, authentically. I'm not trying to to to lead Miss Curtis in this question, but in your view or the view of your senators, how would you characterize the difference in the approach of the Trump administration as it relates to its approach uh to uh to uh security in the region relative to
▶ 1:00:41that of of the Biden administration? in broad strokes that characterization of the the difference here. Well, I I think u the Biden's uh withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster.
▶ 1:00:58It was a chaotic disaster, completely unplanned um and you know resulted in the horrific terrorist attack at Abbeby Gate where we lost 13 uh US service members and uh you know almost 200 Afghans.
▶ 1:01:13Um so I think that um you know a major difference that you know I have seen is um you know more uh thought given to uh protecting United States interests um by the Trump administration and thinking about uh the security of our service members um as well as you know Americans on the ground.
▶ 1:01:42Um so I think that's one difference. Um and uh in terms of I think that uh the Trump administration also um you know showed that it could uh calm down tensions between India and Pakistan and that it was um capable of interven intervening in a positive way to get a ceasefire uh between the two countries.
▶ 1:02:09Um even though we didn't see such an IndiaPakistan crisis during uh the previous administration, the Biden administration um you know I'm I'm not sure that they would have had the sort of you know um ability to to get the two sides um to pull back from the brink.
▶ 1:02:29I appreciate that the intervention that uh resulted in a quelling of the tensions that that that that came to a crescendo just recently there in the region. Uh was that a consequence of the president leaning in between the two parties at nearly the level that he he did just recently uh with Iran and Israel? uh although we clearly didn't take a a a military interventionist role there.
▶ 1:02:59Did you see that direct intervention from the chief executive in quelling uh the the peak of tension just recently in India and Pakistan? Uh I think are you asking about the resolve of um President Trump in trying to bring a solution to a problem in the region? Is that your question? Yes.
▶ 1:03:25It's just he he leaned in so directly uh principle to principle uh in Iran and Israel and did you see that in your from from your close-in perspective uh in India and Pakistan? Uh yes. Well, uh, so I'm not in the administration now. Um, so let me be clear. So, you know, I don't know exactly what happened, uh, behind the scenes.
▶ 1:03:50Um, but I I from what I have understood by talking to people, uh, the US, uh, did play a role in getting the two sides to a ceasefire. And um you know I I don't have the details on you know President Trump talking directly to leaders but I do know that US officials were talking uh to leaders inside India and Pakistan and helping them come to this ceasefire agreement. Thank you.
▶ 1:04:20Miss Todd, you noted that uh China's engagement in the region wasn't just economic but also military. Would you characterize their approach as being agnostic? uh they'll sell to anyone or have they picked sides in terms of who they're keen to uh to trade with in the region. I think it on the surface would look agnostic in terms of you have these five countries to the west of China. It's a great neighborhood. They're they're seeking partners.
▶ 1:04:48They're they're going to go forth and work with whoever they can there. On the other hand, they very clearly have targeted the countries that immediately border China. So that would be Kazakhstan, the Kyuggis Republic and Tajjikhstan. I think first and foremost, China's most concerned about its own security. So certainly they want to work with the countries that they see as their most immediate partners in dealing with their own internal security issues. I think that's part of the reason why we've seen so much cooperation with Tajjighstan in particular.
▶ 1:05:19uh they're very concerned about the area bordering both Tajjikhstan and then that little piece of Afghanistan the Wakong corridor. So in so far as they can work with their central Asian partners to address their own needs that is their foremost priority. Sorry the gentleman's time has expired. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Yes and uh we are uh these are great issues and we're looking at potentially a second round here as well that we might be able to explore some of those a little more in depth but uh we do need to get through our folks right now.
▶ 1:05:46So uh with that uh Congresswoman Jaipal is recognized for five minutes. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Our country's foreign policy has long suffered in my view from an over reliance on military interventions and reactive security measures and often uh importantly taken without congressional approval as our constitution says.
▶ 1:06:11I have been quite consistent um in calling out both Republican and Democratic presidents who have taken actions that amount to war without approval from Congress, just as I did recently with uh Donald Trump in calling out the dangerous and escalatory strikes on Iran that I think put us on the brink of another forever war and risk the safety of American service members and civilians.
▶ 1:06:37Um, I certainly hope that the ceasefire holds and that we can get back to a negotiated agreement to ensure that Iran does not develop um, nuclear weapons. I think we have to recognize that radicalization and repressive regimes don't develop in a vacuum. These are dangers that arise from extremely complex and multiaceted socioeconomic drivers.
▶ 1:07:01And to truly address these issues, I think we have to be proactive and confront root causes instead of adopting that purely reactionary posture. Um, I'm deeply concerned that our ability to address radicalization and extremism, including with our soft power tools, has been decimated in numerous ways by this administration, including the cuts to USID programs throughout the region.
▶ 1:07:26I worked in international health and development for more than a decade before coming to Congress and really saw the effect that the United States can have um on both the relationship between two countries but also on the uh you know substantive issues that are on the ground that may lead if unchecked to uh more radicalization and repressiveness.
▶ 1:07:50Trump's State Department has maintained a level four do not travel advisory for Afghanistan, noting risks of civil unrest, crime, terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping, limited health facilities, including specific threats to dual nationals or green card holders who previously supported the US mission in Afghanistan. Despite these dire conditions, his administration recently announced the end of temporary protected status for Afghans.
▶ 1:08:19Miss Todd, how does the termination of this designation and possible repatriation of uh Afghan nationals who supported the US affect our ability to recruit individuals on the ground to work with us to combat terrorism? Thank you for that question. I think that it is a sign to both our partners on the ground, but also Americans working with them that we may not always be a reliable partner for the long term.
▶ 1:08:48Um, if you go back to our engagement in Afghanistan and look at the withdrawal, whatever your opinion is of how the withdrawal was executed, there were a number of US military officers and veterans who worked very hard with Afghan partners to to support them during that period and following that. Everything from Afghan evac to women working with the female tactical platoon.
▶ 1:09:12I think that the Afghans that we worked with um are really struggling now because if they're here and they were brought in under humanitarian parole, there is a risk that they will be repatriated to Afghanistan. I think for Americans working with these individuals, there's great concern because these are our allies. These were our partners. We worked with them for 20 years. And what message does it send if we abandon them now?
▶ 1:09:39The um expansive foreign aid cuts represent a short-sighted and deeply irresponsible approach to counterterrorism. Since the disastrous cuts, extremist threats have grown and in Pakistan after the elimination of a $40 million program targeting youth in Hib Paktuna, the Terry Taliban has increased recruitment by 37%.
▶ 1:10:05It's particularly concerning in the wake of the May 6 terror attacks in Pahalam, Kashmir, which I condemned in no uncertain terms at the time. Um, I wonder if you can give me more uh context for the negotiation that's been interrupted by those bulgum attacks, the Indiswater treaty.
▶ 1:10:27Over the weekend, Indian Home Minister Amit Sha stated that India will never restore the indis water treaty with Pakistan, which Pakistan relies on for 80% of its agriculture and a third of its hydro power. How could a lack of reliable water source impact crossber violence between India and Pakistan? I would certainly defer to Miss Curtis on the details for South Asia, but in terms of water insecurity, that is a major driver of conflict both in Central and South Asia.
▶ 1:10:56I think if you look at the Indis River treaty, it is an agreement that is held up during previous issues um that the two countries have experienced. The fact that it may now be at great risk is very concerning I think for all parties involved. And I think also time has expired. Thank you. All right, gentle ladies. Time has expired. And as I was trying to gently say, we may get to another round of this. So if we could keep it to five minutes, that'd be helpful. All right, with that, uh, Representative Bumgardner is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:11:26Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and, uh, thank you for holding this important hearing. I want to start by joining my colleagues in unequivocally, uh, condemning the terrorist attack, recent terrorist attack on, uh, India.
▶ 1:11:40uh every terrorist attack uh should be uh condemned and it is imperative uh that all countries take every measure uh to uh fight back against terrorism particularly terrorism that originates uh within their own borders. Uh well, I've enjoyed this uh this committee hearing. I've been a little surprised how much of your testimony has uh relied or been gerine to sort of the softer sides of uh counterterrorism.
▶ 1:12:10I agree that uh things like girls schools are are important. Uh having uh uh important information operations or media operations are important, but it's been a little light on some of the uh intelligence and in kinetic uh discussions that are important uh for that uh that part of the world.
▶ 1:12:30I I'm wondering with Central Asia specifically, could you could you uh maybe get into uh which countries there you feel are the most robust in counterterrorism and which are the least robust? And I understand the Afghan situation a little different. So let let's leave Afghanistan out of it, but just talk to me about Central Asia and who's the best at counterterrorism and and who's the weakest. So I think there's a question of both capacity within the specific militaries, but then also how they address counterterrorism.
▶ 1:12:59I think there's a long-h held view that Kazakhstan has the most professional military, which could be true. But I think in terms of counterterrorism, probably our best partner is Usbakistan. They have a border with Afghanistan. They are very actively working with us on things such as intelligence sharing uh partner training in terms of military um capability. I think the one that we would like to do more with, as Miss Curtis pointed out in her testimony, is Tajikhstan.
▶ 1:13:26I think the main obstacle there is just capacity in the Tajjik military and also the fact that they have partnerships with other countries. They are a member of the collective security treaty organization which means they do a lot of training with Russia. Um also are working very closely with China but that is certainly a partnership that we should continue to support. And with respect to those countries how would you rate their biometrics uh analytical programs and their surveillance programs?
▶ 1:13:54I mean certainly China has used a lot of those programs and we're seeing them across uh the region in places like the UAE and others but do you have a read on their biometrics? I think that they will work with us in terms of when we are able to provide them both training and equipment and that is something that we have sought to do. However, you also have the Chinese training and equipment that can be provided. So in so far as we are able to work with them in our way of of working um that is certainly the preference.
▶ 1:14:24And uh how much different would our counterterrorism the capability of our counterterrorism operations be there if we had a foreign operating base at a place like Bram versus uh run operations out of Qatar? I don't think I'm qualified to to make that determination at this point. But I think having a forward operating base in the region certainly poses particular benefits but also risks at the same time.
▶ 1:14:51And can you speak to the terrorist attack on Russia from Islamic terrorists originating from that region and what's the Russian response been and how are they working with those countries? Initially the Russian response was that Ukraine was responsible for that attack. We know that that was not in fact true that it was very much individuals from Central Asia who had been radicalized by ISIS K who executed that attack. I think initially then the Russian response was to crack down on all individuals from Central Asia.
▶ 1:15:20That has been a very unpopular response both in Russia among the migrant communities but also in Central Asia as well as a country with which many of the the Central Asian countries have had long-term partnerships. It was it has been viewed very negatively. And I I do want to return to Afghanistan just quickly in my remaining 40 seconds. We're this really quick.
▶ 1:15:41Uh obviously we have deep fundamental differences with uh the Taliban government, but how would you rate uh their efforts at the moment to uh prohibit transnational uh terrorists? I don't think that we should trust the Taliban. I get that. But are they are they prohibiting transnational terrorists? I don't think they're doing it to the extent that we need them to. Thank you. gentleman yields back. Uh with agreement with the uh with the ranking member, we are going to go uh into a second round.
▶ 1:16:11I'm actually going to forego going first uh and I will uh do follow up and go last. And with that, I'll recognize uh Congressman Perry for five minutes. I thank the chairman and I just want to address the questions or the comments maybe about the voice of America and Pakistan and the region generally and just point out that the voice of America could could do great things and I think many of us especially those of
▶ 1:16:41us a little bit older believe that it has over time done great things. Unfortunately, there's a different experience in the recent past and it's important that we acknowledge that so that we can fix that.
▶ 1:16:54And I think that while um Miss Lake, who was here yesterday testifying, acknowledged those things, also said that those programs could be rolled back up into the State Department where they originally existed, where there could be some oversight because there is none now. There is none. There's none now. And it is evidenced just by a couple And we'll go beyond the Voice of America and USAGM.
▶ 1:17:24But I'll just remind everybody in the room that Sesame Street Pakistan, which was $20 million neck deep in corruption, finally finally ended, thank goodness, when it was explo when it was exposed. Um that that's just one of the of of the many of the many things.
▶ 1:17:47Um there was a you and I I I I don't even know how this happened, but uh the fact that a transgender cross-dressing man reporting for the VA in Pakistan, I I mean, I just thank the good Lord that the man's able to stay alive because those parts of the world usually don't see that as something that they approve of.
▶ 1:18:09and um and and I don't know that how that helps promote America's core interests abroad, but we spent money on that. We also wasted $100,000 on a cricket team sponsorship in Afghanistan. The voice of America did that. That's the voice of America.
▶ 1:18:27So, while I agree with the gentle lady, Miss Curtis, that that it could do great things, but I would say it has not done great things and it's been on too many occasions antithetical to uh America's interest at a time, and I don't know what time is good, but we don't have extra money to be blowing on on transgender uh uh reporters in prohibited areas of the world to promote whatever that agenda prom.
▶ 1:18:57promotes in Pakistan and we don't have the time or the money for uh for for Elmo over there. We we've got serious adversaries that are working in that arena and um and we should be working on that. But furthermore, because we're just talking about generally the area and and and US funding, not necessarily or directly USAD or USAGM, which clearly clearly has problem.
▶ 1:19:25USAD spent 840 millions in the la million in the last 20 years on Pakistan's education related program including 136 million on on building 120 schools of which there can there's no reports that any of them were built. I mean that's a great goal. American taxpayers went there.
▶ 1:19:50But I mean the insult to the injury is is not only that the money was spent and American taxpayers earned it and sent it to Washington and we sent it there but not that the schools weren't built but it's we don't even know where the money is. I mean, it's likely because Pakistan supports terrorism, the money was all grifted away and and likely went to agencies, industries, organizations directly opposed to America.
▶ 1:20:20directly opposed to America. USAD spent 21.5 million on the political party development program in Pakistan. And according to the inspector general's report, the project was a complete failure. Was a complete failure. The partner did not ensure compliance with federal financial requirements is another way to say that the money was lost to corruption. And unfortunately in Pakistan, corruption equals terrorism.
▶ 1:20:49So while we're here to get your opinion on things and we want to make sure that we're countering China, we certainly want to do that. We think that India will be a great partner. We think that Pakistan could be a great partner like the VA could be a great tool.
▶ 1:21:04Right now neither one of those are the case and we get better get serious about getting after it so that those things are the case and spending this money willy-nilly and throwing it away and and or even worse allowing it to fall into terrorist hands is wholly and completely objectionable and unacceptable to the American people. I yield. Gentleman's time has expired. With that, the ranking member is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:21:30You know, I had to take a shower immediately after the hearing yesterday um because I had had my fill and my hope was that I would not have to do that today after this one because it is an opportunity for us to have a substantive uh uh discussion about opportunities that we are leaving on the table and that we could grab back. Um, so I appreciate thus far um the uh discussions we've been able to have. I hope we can recalibrate.
▶ 1:22:01I'm asking us to recalibrate back to uh the important topics at hand. So um Miss Todd, you were talking a little bit about um what would happen if Afghans are repatriated. And so you know in my mind it's like we've sacrificed people who actually helped keep some of our people alive. Could you be a little more specific about what could what might happen to um Afghans that are repatriated? Sure.
▶ 1:22:30I I think that there are differing views on what the situation is currently in Afghanistan in terms of reprisals against former government officials and military personnel. Um so certainly if we were to repatriate those individuals, I think there might be some assessments that they would be fine, that the Taliban would leave them alone. There are other assessments that they would be at great risk. I think that's one issue.
▶ 1:22:54For women in particular, I'm very concerned both in terms of how women in Afghanistan are being treated today. But as I mentioned, the female tactical platoon, these were women who specifically helped our special operations forces by being able to go into places that men could not go in Afghanistan as we were conducting military operations. If we repatriate those individuals, not only are they women in Afghan society, they are women who helped the US military.
▶ 1:23:23I think that that will put them at extreme great risk. Thank you for that. Uh Miss Curtis, I know we've talked a lot about um uh Radio Ozodi specifically. Um could you give examples about how the independent news reporting actually has helped counter extremist narratives in Yes.
▶ 1:23:44Well, uh I think there's a couple of examples here and uh I would point to um some reporting that uh the Taji service did the RFl Tajik Service in exploring the social and economic factors that give rise to youth radicalization in Tajjikiststan.
▶ 1:24:05Um and also the um you know the fact that they are reporting in the languages of the region um providing a US perspective um is important.
▶ 1:24:19Uh and I think there has also been reporting where uh the RFl reporting in Tajjikstan on the family members of the perpetrators of the attacks in Moscow um on the Crocus City Hall. So they did some in-depth reporting um that uh on the actual attackers that came from the family members. So they were able to do that. They're on the ground. Um they have good sources.
▶ 1:24:46So, a lot of really good investigative reporting that is helping us um actually, you know, figure out the sources of extremism and terrorism uh in the region. I'm going to I'm going to cut you out because I have limited time and I don't want the chair to hit the gavl on me. Uh but quickly, in your view, what kind of assistance or cooperation should the US be providing to help support stability in Bangladesh?
▶ 1:25:13So I think the US does need to be engaged in Bangladesh and uh the US was doing important work um that was being carried out um excuse me by organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican Institute working with political parties encouraging um election participation. Um these are all you know very important activities democracy promotion.
▶ 1:25:42Bangladesh is at a crucial stage in its um you know democratic development. Uh they overthrew uh Shik Cassina. There were student protests uh last year that overthrew the government and they now have an interim government. So this is not the time that the US should be disengaging from our assistance programs. I have 30 seconds left and I want to give the last remarks to Miss Todd. you flew all this way.
▶ 1:26:07Um, how can the US support economic development and resilience in Central Asia? Real quick, even if we can't restore all of the programs we were doing previously, I think we need to go back and reook some of the programs that had the most impact in the countries that need that assistance the most. We've mentioned Tajikistan repeatedly. Certainly, we should be doing more in terms of economic development with Tajjighstan. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chair. The gentle lady's time has expired.
▶ 1:26:35I'll recognize myself for five minutes and and let me start by saying um I actually share many of the concerns that the ranking member brought up about uh the uh shift in the approach towards the resettlement of our Afghan allies. I've heard from veterans um uh who are concerned about that uh in the district. Um and uh and I just wanted to put that uh put that out there.
▶ 1:26:58I think there's many of us up here that are uh making a distinction uh between those Afghan allies and uh and and who have helped us and put their lives at risk. Um I want to I want to move on a little bit uh because I would love to hear about Tajjikstan and and China where you know where is our main challenge there but uh also um I do feel like I need to
▶ 1:27:28get back to Afghanistan and and I sit on the financial services committee as well and do a tremendous amount of work on sanctions. Um it's been an interesting intersection both there and here with this committee and sanctions are only as good as the uh willingness to enforce them and we have seen in my opinion a lack or a relaxing of many of those enforcements.
▶ 1:27:56And I think the the the question that I have uh and I have a bill actually that would prohibit any payments to the Taliban government for any taxes, fees, fines, anything from US dollars. Um we did pass a a version that was going to create a report uh earlier this week. I applaud that. I think we could go further. I think ultimately the question is is what is the risk of diversion in Afghanistan, in Pakistan?
▶ 1:28:24You know, the the congressman from Pennsylvania was bringing up some of those diversions. If we're building schools, pick the country around the world, but we're talking about Central Asia here. Um, and and we have no evidence that those projects, especially hard infrastructure projects, are being done. Um, how how are we not supposed to look at this a little differently?
▶ 1:28:47So I'm I'm I'm just talk to me about what types of programs will actually help people and then how do we guarantee that that money is actually getting to those folks in a manner that one promotes the interests of the United States and two helps the the folks that are there. So Miss Curtis, I'll put you on that. Yeah. No.
▶ 1:29:08Uh look, I share your skepticism particularly when it comes to Afghanistan and uh you know we should not be uh providing any support that goes to the Taliban who you know are still supporting terrorist groups like al Qaeda who are repressing severely repressing the women and girls of that country. Um while while we're on that, okay, so we we've got we know that they're severely repressing these folks yet we did $10 million in a condominium condom distribution program.
▶ 1:29:37Do we know that that actually happened? Do we know how it benefited either the United States or Afghanistan? I think that's the criticism that many of us have had about some of the programs and the aid programs and the effectiveness of that. Uh yeah, I I agree with you. I don't know anything about what uh the program you mentioned but um you know I would agree with you that we need to enforce uh sanctions on Taliban leaders both within the UN security council but also within the US government.
▶ 1:30:07Um uh those sanctions need to be enforced um and restricting their travel um their ability to travel. uh with regard to you know what are the programs that we can support that would you know help us fight terrorism and extremism I've already talked about some of the international broadcasting which I think is important um I've talked about scholarships for Afghan women um but uh we can also talk about uh you know providing counterterrorism
▶ 1:30:38assistance to partners um I think you know Pakistan is one of those partners as difficult as they are and as much as we need to press them on support for some terrorist groups, they can also help us fight other terrorist groups like ISIS K. Um, a country like Tajjikstan also needs our um counterterrorism training.
▶ 1:30:59They need some of our technology to be able to stop terrorists from coming across um to the in their border in Tajjikstan to make sure that uh Tajik citizens are not joining ISIS K and participating in terrorist attacks. So there there are ways to uh provide counterterrorism assistance uh to our partners. I was gonna I'll give you the last word, Miss Todd, in 15 seconds.
▶ 1:31:26Yeah, I really want to address the the issue that you raised about like how do we hold these programs accountable for delivering real results. The good news is I think we have those structures in the US government. I happen to have with me two reports that I found very interesting. Um the most recent IG report as well as the most recent cigar report.
▶ 1:31:47These are organizations that have been regularly reporting quarterly on programs that we have been doing with Afghanistan in terms of are they delivering the results that we need them to deliver? If not, why? Um, and I think that that's the kind of program that you need specifically for Afghanistan, but it also looks at how does that affect countries like Pakistan or the Central Asian countries as well. So, those mechanisms are in place. My time has expired. I will point out I am familiar with the cigar report and it's not all rosy and glowing.
▶ 1:32:17There are problems, significant problems including that 10 that 10 million that I was just referencing or nearly 11 million that is paid to the Taliban. U so with that um I uh deeply appreciate your uh your time and your willingness and especially as we go uh through uh through multiple rounds. Uh I have a little housekeeping here about the uh the uh ability for our members of the subcommittee. they have additional qu questions for the witnesses.
▶ 1:32:44We ask that uh uh they are submitted to the chair. We will pass those along and ask that you respond to those in writing. Uh pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record. Subject to length limitations and without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. All right.