House votes to set deadline for Iraq withdrawal plan

WASHINGTON - The House, with overwhelming bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.

The 377-to-46 vote was the first salvo of a new legislative strategy of House Democratic leaders, away from partisan confrontation and toward a more incremental approach to war policy that can bring Republicans to their side. The withdrawal planning bill had met fierce opposition this summer from ardent foes of the war in Iraq who scuttled an earlier vote by saying it would do nothing but give Republicans political cover for their support of President Bush's policies.

This time, amid the stirrings of a bipartisan centrist coalition on Iraq, Democratic leaders stared down the antiwar left and went forward with the vote. With Senate leaders stymied on their efforts to force a change of course in Iraq, House Democratic leaders faced a choice of whether to continue pushing firm time lines for troop withdrawals, as many liberal Democrats want, or to search for bipartisan comity, even after the Senate had failed to find it.

"Our objective is to change direction in Iraq," said House majority leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. "Those who want to support us in that are welcome to join us."

"Very clearly, there are people in Democratic Caucus who would like to work across party lines and have Congress play a constructive role in Iraq policy," said Representative Phil English, a Pennsylvania Republican and one of the bill's authors. "There is a center building in this institution that can now help drive this debate."

Under bill, the secretary of defense would have 60 days to present to Congress plans for withdrawing combat forces and transitioning the military mission to counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces. But it would not mandate a time line for withdrawal or require the administration to implement the plan.

The report would have to detail the number of troops necessary for the new missions, the equipment that would need to remain, exactly how troops and materiel would be brought home, and a time line for making the transition. After the initial report, the administration would have to report back every 90 days. Advocates said the continual reporting requirements would keep discussion of troop reductions in the forefront of the war debate.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who has said any Iraq legislation should ensure troop withdrawals, gave no assurance that he would give the bill a Senate vote.

The bill, coauthored by Democratic Representatives Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and John Tanner of Tennessee, and English, attracted the support of 196 Democrats and 181 Republicans. Thirty Democrats, largely from the party's antiwar wing, and 16 Republicans voted no.

The bill's authors touted the overwhelming vote as a turning point, if for no other reason then it will force a recurring debate on how the United States can get out of Iraq.

"I think this bill is the crucial fulcrum, the key, the tipping point for pulling out of Iraq," Abercrombie said.

Republican leaders dismissed the bill's significance.

The staff of House minority leader John Boehner of Ohio released a fact sheet emphasizing that the bill would not mandate a withdrawal of forces and merely would require the Defense Department to do what it is already doing: Draft contingency plans for withdrawal.

If anything, Boehner said, the bill is simply "a slap in the face to the left."

Many Democrats were not particularly impressed, either.

"I don't think anybody likes it, but it does paint an important picture: Can we at least get a plan on the table?" said Representative Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat.