Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s weekend declaration of emergency rule could bolster support for a provision curtailing military funding to that country as the House and Senate meet to negotiate the 2008 defense policy bill.

The provision introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, would withhold reimbursement for Pakistan’s support of the U.S. military in the war on terrorism unless the president certifies quarterly to the defense committees that Pakistan is making substantial efforts to eliminate safe havens for the Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremists in areas under its sovereign control.

“Now with what is taking place the House may be more sympathetic to the Levin language,” said a source with deep knowledge of Pakistan. A congressional source, who asked not to be quoted by name, also said that Levin’s provision could gain more traction in light of Musharraf’s actions over the weekend.

Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s constitution on Saturday for the second time since he took power in a 1999 military coup. He fired Pakistan’s top judge under fear that the Supreme Court would have determined he is ineligible for another presidential term, and ordered the arrest of hundreds of lawyers, judges and opposition supporters.

Musharraf also said elections due by Jan. 15 may be delayed.

In response to the declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) charged Musharraf with making a blunder and said U.S. aid should be suspended.

“The United States will continue its support to the Pakistani people,” Leahy said in a statement. “But U.S. aid to the Musharraf government should stop until constitutional order, civil liberties and judicial independence are restored, until political prisoners are released, and until free and fair elections are allowed.”

The United States has reimbursed Pakistan about $4.5 billion since 2001 for its operations along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in support of the U.S. military.

The United States has poured more than $10 billion in aid into Pakistan since 2001, turning Pakistan into the largest recipient of U.S. aid in Asia after Afghanistan.

In the 2008 emergency war supplemental, the Bush administration requested $100 million in coalition support for countries aiding the United States in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lion’s share of that request would go to Pakistan. The Bush administration also asked for an additional $60 million to fund Pakistan’s so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas Sustainable Development Plan.

Meanwhile, the 2008 state and foreign operations appropriations bills awaiting conference between the House and Senate provide about $785 million for Pakistan, with approximately half going to military aid.

Leahy is not alone in calling for a change in the U.S. policy toward Pakistan. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential contender, said in a statement that the United States should move from a “Musharraf policy” to a “Pakistan policy” in which more non-military aid is provided over a sustained period of time to allow a moderate majority in Pakistan to succeed.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), whose Appropriations State and Foreign Operations panel holds the purse strings for much of Pakistan’s aid, said Monday that Congress and the State Department “should review all relevant economic and military aid from which Pakistan currently benefits in order to ensure that taxpayers’ money is advancing American interests in the region.”

Many lawmakers have criticized Musharraf for not doing enough to fight the Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups along the border with Afghanistan. In the bill implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, Congress slapped Pakistan’s wrist by requiring the administration to confirm Pakistan is making progress combating al Qaeda and the Taliban before sending the country U.S. foreign aid.

At the end of September, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte sent a determination to Congress certifying that Pakistan is committed to eliminating from its territory terrorist organizations, including the Taliban and al Qaeda fighting in Afghanistan.

Based on the most recent certification, the administration could provide a similar determination if the Levin provision becomes law, said the source with close knowledge of Pakistan. However, Levin’s provision also provides a waiver giving the president the option to claim national security interest in releasing the military reimbursement to Pakistan. The Senate defense authorization bill also requires the president to send a report to Congress describing the long-term U.S. strategy towards Pakistan.

It is in the still-pending appropriations bills that Congress could make its mark on Pakistan by cutting the funding or placing conditions on the aid. Yet some key lawmakers are still taking in the volatile situation in Pakistan before they make any drastic decisions. Much could be determined in the House after Negroponte testifies on Pakistan before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  

Congress and the White House could find themselves in a tough balancing act, both promoting a moderate majority in Pakistan and retaining that country’s continued cooperation in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban along the Afghanistan border.

“A strategic partnership with Pakistan is vital to America’s ability to wage an effective campaign against terrorism,” said Mark Tavlarides, who represents Pakistan at the Van Scoyoc lobbing firm. “Pakistan is going through one of the most challenging periods in its history, and Congress has legitimate concerns over what has transpired.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a member of the Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee, spoke out more forcefully in favor of curtailing aid to Pakistan.

“I wouldn’t support Pakistan with U.S. aid here. He’s doing everything which is against democracy. Seizing the Supreme Court is just outlandish. What he’s done is declared himself the dictator,’’ Specter said. “And he hasn’t been helping us enough on terrorism, so that I think we ought to get very tough with him and try to drive him into line.’’

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the United States “could put a moratorium on military aid at this time.” She said that Musharraf “must call for resumption of the Supreme Court and for the elections next year.” Feinstein also expressed concern that if the country disassembles and with it its military power, the country’s nuclear power, now under the strong control of Musharraf’s army, will become “a huge, huge risk.”

Levin had not made any statement on Musharraf’s actions by press time, according to his  spokeswoman.