How Congress Is Fiddling Around

From the office of Congressman Howard Berman

THE IRAQ BENCHMARKS ACT: A BALANCED APPROACH

March 1, 2007

Dear Colleague,

I'm writing to request your support for HR 1263, the Iraq Benchmarks Act of 2007.

What is the appropriate role for Congress in the conduct of a war it has authorized? The Iraq Benchmarks Act of 2007 is an attempt to stake out a responsible and practical framework for Congress to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated role for oversight and funding. It is a statute - not a non-binding resolution.

Like it or not, additional U.S. troops have already been deployed to Baghdad, and the President's plan has become a reality. No matter how you voted on the non-binding resolution disapproving the deployment of additional troops, it would be thoroughly consistent to support my bill.

Those members who believe that a continued military involvement in Iraq (surge or no surge) is a disaster should embrace my bill:

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.

- HR 1263 will provide by law the means to hold the Administration accountable for the success of its surge strategy. If the results of the surge (a sjudged by the President's own standards) fail to measure up (as determined by a majority vote of Congress), an immediate redeployment out of the non-Kurdish areas of Iraq is mandated by force of law.

Those members who believe that the surge will turn the tide in Iraq should embrace my bill:

- HR 1263, by predicating our continued involvement on the substantial reduction in sectarian violence, on Iraqi oil revenues being fairly shared, on the Iraqi Armed Services stepping up to the plate, 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, HR 1263 will leave Sunnis and Shiites to their own fate, with American troops deployed in only peaceful Kurdish areas. The ball will be in their court. We will no longer have a role.

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, should embrace my bill:

- HR 1263 will light a fire under the Administration - and keep the fire burning! By making it clear that Congress will hold the Executive to account 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 HR 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 (and pundits) think that the American people want us out of Iraq, now. Some members (and pundits) think that the American people do not want us to leave until we achieve success.. But there is a third

view: The American people want us to win; if we can't win, they want us to get out.

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 brave heroes in the Armed Services are

under attack - for no further clear gain. HR 1263 both maximizes
whatever chances there are for success and, if success is not in the cards, accepts that reality.

HR 1263:

- Writes into law the security, political and economic benchmarks spelled out by the Bush Administration (and endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki).

- Beginning on July 1, 2007, and on an ongoing basis, the President would have to determine that the Iraqi government is making substantial progress in meeting these benchmarks, and explain the basis for his determinations in a report to Congress. He would also have to determine that the Iraqis are succeeding in reducing the level of sectarian violence.

- 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 for the latter provision would be for troops to protect the U.S. Embassy and other American diplomatic facilities, train the Iraqi Security Forces, and engage in very limited operations to kill or capture al-Qaeda operatives that pose a real threat to U.S. national security.

- 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.

It is true that the President has the power to veto this bill. If he does veto HR 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.

If you have questions about HR 1263, or would like to cosponsor, please contact Doug Campbell of my staff at doug.campbell@mail.house.gov or 5-4695.

Sincerely,

/s/

HOWARD L. BERMAN

Member of Congress