By Martha Angle, CQ Staff

The House voted Thursday to set an April 1, 2008, deadline for a withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, even as President Bush insisted that more time is needed to stabilize the “young democracy” there.

After a day-long debate, the House by 223-201 passed a bill (HR 2956) that would force a change of course in Iraq. The measure would require a troop redeployment to begin within 120 days of enactment and be completed by April 1, 2008.

The vote marked the second time this year that the Democratic-controlled House has voted to set a firm deadline for a troop withdrawal. In March, the House by 218-212 passed a fiscal 2007 Iraq war supplemental funding bill (HR 1591) that set an August 2008 target. Bush vetoed a modified version of that legislation, and he has vowed to veto any bill that similarly attempts to force his hand on Iraq.

House Democrats argued that an interim progress report on this year’s U.S. troop surge issued Thursday morning simply confirmed that it was time to start withdrawing most U.S. troops and redefining the mission of those who remained.

Republicans countered that a U.S. withdrawal would ensure the collapse of the Iraqi government and potentially destabilize the entire region. They said it was important to give the troop surge more time.

At a morning news conference, the president said he understood the frustration of Congress and the public with the continuing violence in Iraq and the loss of American and Iraqi lives. But he insisted it was too early to gauge the impact of the troop surge he ordered last January.

“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want to see the day when our brave service men and women can start coming home,” Bush said.

He added, “The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost or not worth the cost and those who believe the fight can be won, and that, as difficult as the fight is, the costs of defeat would be far higher.

The interim White House progress report released just before Bush spoke painted a decidedly mixed picture of the situation in Iraq.

The report, mandated by Congress under the final fiscal 2007 Iraq war supplemental spending bill (PL 110-28), finds a “complex and extremely challenging” security environment, an “uneven” economic situation and little sign of progress toward political benchmarks.

Lawmakers adopted a closed rule governing debate of the bill by a vote of 221-196. The rule barred all amendments.

House Republicans continued to back the president, for the most part. Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, dismissed the Democratic bill, saying, “To engage in this debate today is nothing more than a partisan political stunt. ... This is not leadership, this is negligence.”

David Dreier, R-Calif., declared, “The Democratic leadership wants to wave a magic wand and make this war go away. But I’m afraid this solution attempts to salvage nothing but party politics.”

Democrats disagreed. “If the president of the United States will not respect the will of the American people and end this war, then Congress must,” said Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

Senate Debate

The Senate, meanwhile, continued to debate Iraq policy as it considered the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (HR 1585). Proportionately more Republicans in that chamber have begun distancing themselves from Bush’s strategy in Iraq and demanding the start of a troop withdrawal.

The Senate is expected to vote next week on an amendment by Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would require a redeployment of U.S. troops by the end of April 2008, one month later than the House bill. Like the House version, it would mandate a start to the redeployment within 120 days.

Although that amendment has three Republican cosponsors — Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — Levin cannot yet muster the 60 votes that would be needed to overcome a filibuster and adopt the proposal.

Indeed, the amendment is unlikely to have the support of all Senate Democrats. At least one, Jim Webb of Virginia, has indicated he will support a mandatory start to a troop redeployment but not a fixed deadline to complete the withdrawal of combat forces.

Bush has threatened to veto any bill cleared by Congress that sets a fixed timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq or attempts to dictate troop missions or deployment intervals.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sought to hold his caucus in line against the Levin amendment, arguing — as the White House has — that it is too soon to tell whether Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq is a success or failure.

“At full manning, this strategy has been in place for less than a month,” McConnell told the Senate. “We’ll get a report on its progress in September. What sense does it make to short circuit that strategy now?”

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the GOP Conference Chairman, pronounced satisfaction with the degree of support within the Republican caucus for the Bush strategy and the troop surge led by Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“The story that I see leading the headlines about Republican defections is not the story at all,” Kyl said. “After all the bluff and bluster ... at the end of the week we’re left at the same place we were at the beginning. I think next week the result will be the same. We have ended the week where we began, with the U.S. Senate affirming its support for Gen. Petraeus” and his plan.

Even some of the senior Republicans who have distanced themselves from Bush’s policies remain reluctant to go as far as the Democrats on a troop withdrawal deadline.

John W. Warner, R-Va., a senior Armed Services Committee member, said he was working with Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., the top Foreign Relations Republican, on an amendment that will “lay down the essential steps that the president could be taking now ... being very careful to respect the president’s prerogative under the Constitution as commander in chief.”

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., remained adamant, however. He said the interim White House progress report on Iraq merely underscored the need for Congress to intervene with a firm target for action.

“The report confirmed what many had suspected: The war in Iraq is heading in a dangerous direction. It’s well past time for a change of course in Iraq,” he said.

Reid, Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said they would send a letter to the president Thursday afternoon asking for information about the reported buildup of Al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere and what the United States is doing to combat it.

Durbin made clear that the Democratic strategy is to present next week’s vote on the Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment as the one key vote on Iraq policy.

“There will be one clear, unequivocal vote,” Durbin said. “This will be a moment for those Republican senators who question the policy of this administration to show that they really want change.”

Reid and other Democratic leaders continued to dismiss as toothless a bipartisan alternative proposed by Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that would embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group without setting a firm deadline for withdrawal.

John Donnelly, Adam Graham Silverman, David Nather and Michael Teitelbaum contributed to this story, which originally appeared in CQ Today.

© 2006 Congressional Quarterly