House Dems More Confident on Iraq Vote
    By Anne Flaherty
    The Associated Press

    Friday 23 March 2007

    House Democrats are increasingly confident they have the votes to pass legislation designed to force an end to the war in Iraq next year.

    Several party members dropped their opposition to the bill following days of wrangling within a deeply divided caucus. The House planned to vote Friday on a $124 billion bill that would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but require combat troops return home before September 2008.

    The measure is unlikely to sail unchanged through the Senate, where many Democrats oppose a firm timetable on the war. And President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it ever makes its way to his desk.

    Still, Democratic supporters say passage would mark a major step toward ending the war. The bill would be Congress' first binding challenge to the war since it started four years ago and cost the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

    "This is a good compromise bill that has the virtue of setting a date certain," said Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md.

    Wynn and other party liberals were concerned the bill was insufficient to end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats were uncomfortable with setting deadlines on military operations.

    With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats can afford only 15 "no" votes within their own ranks. The narrow margin prompted an aggressive whip operation aimed at getting enough Democrats in support of the bill before putting it up for a vote.

    Four of the bill's most consistent critics said Thursday they had told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi they would help round up support despite their intention to vote against it.

    "Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.

    More conservative Democrats said they remained opposed.

    Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who represents a district with strong ties to the military, said he wants to give Bush's new strategy in Iraq a chance to work and shrugged off the pressure by his party's leaders.

    "Remember, I'm here to represent southern Mississippi," he told reporters.

    Republicans tried unsuccessfully to force a vote on a measure that would protect funding for troops and resorted to rhetoric to try to bring down the spending bill. At least two Republicans - Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland - have indicated they will break ranks and support the bill because of their frustration with the war.

    "Is there a strategic rationale for this date?" asked Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a presidential hopeful. "Nothing that I have seen on the ground in Iraq - and I was there just 10 days ago - suggests that Congress should force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and tie the hands of American military commanders."

    Across the Capitol, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed legislation that would take a slightly different tack. Its $122 billion bill would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with the goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Unlike the House bill's 2008 date, the Senate deadline is not a firm requirement.

    Republicans said they would attempt to strip out the withdrawal provisions when the issue comes before the full Senate next week.

    Senate Democrats fell short of a majority, 50-48, last week on a similar attempt to set a timeline for the war. Since then, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and others have made changes in hopes of persuading Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas to support the withdrawal proposal. The changes include a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly.

    The Senate panel adopted several amendments to its bill, including one intended to improve safety of commercial traffic along the Mexico-U.S. border and another that would protect state chemical security laws from being overridden by federal regulations.