Washington, D.C. - Today, Rep. Berman testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee on his bill, the Iraq Benchmarks Act, H.R. 1263.  This legislation mandates the withdrawal of American troops from the non-Kurdish areas of Iraq within 180 days unless the President is able to certify on a continuing basis-and Congress agrees -- that the Iraqi government is making substantial progress in meeting a series of benchmarks, including a reduction in sectarian violence.

 

The text of his testimony is below:

 

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling this hearing.

 

I'm happy to have this opportunity to say a few words about H.R. 1263, the Iraq Benchmarks Act.

 

First, a little bit about what it does.

 

My bill would codify the security, political and economic benchmarks for Iraq spelled out by the Bush Administration and endorsed by the Iraqi Prime Minister.

 

These include commitments that the Iraqi government will provide the required number of Iraqi troops to secure Baghdad, allow U.S. and Iraqi forces to go after all extremists, and seriously pursue reconciliation initiatives like the enactment of a law to equitably distribute oil and gas revenues.

 

Beginning on July 1, and every 90 days after that, the President would have to determine that substantial progress is being made in meeting all the benchmarks.

 

And starting on October 1, and every 90 days thereafter, the President would have to determine that the level of sectarian violence is going down.

 

This is sort of a "super benchmark"

 

If the President isn't able to make one of the required determinations, or if a joint resolution disapproving a determination is passed under expedited procedures and enacted into law, then the bill would require the redeployment of U.S. troops from the non-Kurdish portions of Iraq within 180 days, and prohibit the use of funds for any further deployments after the conclusion of that period.

 

The only exceptions would be for protecting the U.S. Embassy, training the Iraqi security forces, and engaging in very limited operations to kill or capture al-Qaeda terrorists that pose a real threat to U.S. national security.

 

Finally, if the President's new strategy doesn't result in tangible progress, then any new proposal the President has could not be implemented unless it was approved by a joint resolution of Congress.

 

So why does my bill deserve support?

 

Members who believe that our continued military involvement in Iraq is a disaster should embrace my bill because it provides the means - through force of law - to hold the President accountable for the success of his surge strategy.

 

Other bills cutting war spending or ordering an immediate or date-certain  withdrawal won't pass the Congress and even if one of them did, it would be vetoed by the President.

 

Members who believe that the surge will turn the tide in Iraq should also embrace my bill.

 

By predicating our continued military involvement on meeting the benchmarks, H.R. 1263 gives the President and General Petraeus the leverage they need to demand the full cooperation of the Maliki government.

 

It empowers them to maximize the chances for success.  If Iraqis don't cooperate, if the sectarian violence does not subside, my bill will leave Sunnis and Shiites to their own fate.

 

Finally, those members who are (or were) generally supportive of our involvement in Iraq, but who are now distressed by (or at least fear the haplessness of) the Administration's prosecution of the War - and I put myself in that category -- should embrace my bill:

 

H.R. 1263 will light a fire under the Administration - and keep the fire burning!

 

By making it clear that Congress will hold the Administration accountable for meeting the benchmarks and most importantly, for substantially reducing sectarian violence, President Bush will have no option (no denial of the facts on the ground, no 'hope it will all work out') but to do everything he can to force the Maliki government to cooperate, now. 

 

And because H.R. 1263 holds him to account indefinitely, the President will have no excuse to let up on the pressure.   If all that doesn't work, it's time to acknowledge the futility of this endeavor.

 

Many members philosophically oppose benchmarks, time deadlines, any indication that America¡¦s patience has limits. 

 

But that ignores reality - and already there has been too much of that when it comes to Iraq. 

 

The American people (and their representatives in Congress) will not sit back, ad infinitum, while our troops are under attack - for no further clear gain.  

 

H.R. 1263 both maximizes whatever chances there are for success and, if success is not in the cards, accepts that reality. 

 

It is true that the President has the power to veto this bill. 

 

But if he does veto H.R. 1263, his message will be, "I don't want to be held accountable for the effectiveness of my new strategy." 

 

This is not an acceptable message for a Commander in Chief to send to the American people.  

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify.