Verbatim, as delivered

May 5, 2009

Chairman Berman’s opening statement at hearing, “From Strategy to Implementation: The Future of the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship.”

It’s a real pleasure for me to welcome Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Committee this afternoon for his first appearance testifying before Congress in his new capacity, although he’s been to this committee a number of times over the years. 

We know you have an extremely busy schedule, particularly with the second round of trilateral U.S.-Afghanistan-Pakistan meetings starting tomorrow.  We appreciate your taking the time to be here. 

Our second panel this afternoon will feature several noted regional experts, including Christine Fair from the RAND Corporation, Lisa Curtis from the Heritage Foundation, and Dan Markey from the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Ambassador Holbrooke, all of us are deeply concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Pakistan.

As I noted in our recent hearing with Secretary Clinton, the United States has an enormous stake in the security and stability of that country. We can’t allow al Qaeda or any other terrorist group that threatens our national security to operate with impunity in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Nor can we permit the Pakistani state – and its nuclear arsenal – to be taken over by the Taliban.

In short, it appears to many of us that Pakistan is at a tipping point – and we need to do whatever we can to make sure it goes the right way.

We know you understand the gravity of the situation, and commend you and your colleagues in the Obama Administration for developing a comprehensive Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

But now comes the hard part – translating that thoughtful strategy into real changes on the ground.

How can the United States forge a true strategic partnership with Pakistan?  What can we do strengthen Pakistan’s democratic government, and to make it a force for stability in a volatile region? 

To help achieve those goals, a bipartisan group of my colleagues and I recently introduced H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act.

This legislation would massively expand economic, social and democracy assistance to Pakistan, and also provide a significant increase in military assistance. 

Specifically, the bill provides funding to strengthen the capacity of Pakistan’s democratic institutions, including its parliament, judicial system and law enforcement agencies.  It also calls for increased assistance for Pakistan’s public education system, with an emphasis on access for women and girls.  To demonstrate America’s long-term commitment to the stability and democratic future of Pakistan, H.R. 1886 authorizes a permanent fund in the U.S. Treasury that will serve as a conduit for most non-military assistance to Pakistan.

With regard to military assistance, our legislation increases funding for professional military education, with an emphasis on training in counterinsurgency and in civil-military relationships.

It boosts the funding available for Pakistan to purchase military equipment, and requires that 75 percent of those funds be used for items directly related to counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. 

The legislation also codifies the 2006 contract between the United States and Pakistan that requires Pakistan to pay for F-16 fighter aircraft with its own national funds, rather than American tax dollars.

To strengthen civilian control of the military, H.R. 1886 mandates that all military assistance flow through Pakistan’s elected civilian government. 

Finally, there has been much discussion – and, I think, a great deal of misunderstanding – about the accountability provisions in this legislation.

When I hear people talking about “rigid” or “inflexible” conditionality, I’m not sure exactly what they’re referring to.

Let me just read from the bill.  Section 206 provides that no military assistance may be provided to Pakistan unless the President determines, and I’m quoting, “that the Government of Pakistan during the preceding fiscal year has demonstrated a sustained commitment to and made progress towards combating terrorist groups, including taking into account progress the Government of Pakistan has made with regard to:

A)      ceasing support, including by any element within the Pakistani military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against the United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, including Afghanistan National Security Forces, or against the territory of India or the people of India;

B)      closing terrorist camps in the FATA, dismantling terrorist bases in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke, and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets;

C)      preventing cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, and

D)      strengthening money-laundering and anti-terrorism laws.”

These are just factors in the consideration the President would give.

Ambassador Holbrooke, we are simply asking that the Pakistanis keep the commitments they have already made to fight the terrorists who threaten our national security and theirs, and that they make some progress doing so – with progress defined very broadly.

If the President is unable make that determination -- or a second one relating to cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation – then he can always take advantage of the waiver we provide.

Which of these conditions are unreasonable or unattainable?  And if they are, then what does that tell us about our relationship with Pakistan?

We hear that the Administration will soon propose its own set of benchmarks for Pakistan.  We look forward to working with you on accountability measures as H.R. 1886 moves through the legislative process, and remain very open to hearing other formulations of the kind of accountability that I think all of us want.

Ambassador Holbrooke, we look forward to hearing your assessment of the situation in Pakistan, your recommendations for implementing the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, and your thoughts on the legislation we recently introduced.