Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

House OKs measure opposing troop surge

By BILL ADAIR
Published February 16, 2007

WASHINGTON – In a strong rebuke of President Bush, the House voted to formally oppose his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The non-binding vote was largely symbolic, but it sets the stage for a contentious and much more consequential fight over whether Congress should use its power over spending to force a troop withdrawal.

After an extraordinary 45-hour debate in which nearly every member delivered a speech on the House floor, 17 Republicans – including Rep. Ric Keller   from the Orlando area – joined 229 Democrats in opposing the president’s plan. The final vote was 246 to 182.

The Senate, which has been tied in knots over a similar resolution, will hold an unusual weekend vote today about whether to take up the bill. On Friday, Democratic Leader Harry Reid declared that any senator who votes against proceeding with the debate is “voting to give the president a green light to escalate the war.”

But the parties in the Senate are entrenched on either side of the matter, and today’s vote is unlikely to break the impasse that has prevented a vote on the resolution.

Senate Republicans want Democrats to allow a vote on a resolution pledging not to restrict funding for U.S. troops in combat. Democratic leaders have balked, but they say they’re willing to consider alternatives.

Friday’s House vote on the two-sentence resolution records the chamber’s view on adding more troops to Iraq, but it does not force Bush to do anything. The White House, realizing the bill was going to pass, did little to oppose it.

White House spokesman Tony Snow issued a statement noting the House vote but offering no real reaction to it.

“The President concluded that this new strategy was necessary in order to help the Iraqi government gain control over Baghdad , assume more responsibility for security, and pursue reconciliation of all of Iraq’s communities.”

Lawmakers from the Tampa Bay area voted along party lines, with Democrat Kathy Castor of Tampa supporting the resolution and Republicans C.W. Bill Young of Indian Shores, Adam Putnam of Bartow, Gus Bilirakis of Palm Harbor, Ginny Brown-Waite of Brooksville and Vern Buchanan of Longboat Key opposing it.

The 17 Republicans who broke with their party to support the resolution represented a wide spectrum. Some, such as Keller, are conservatives from Republican districts that Bush won in 2004 by large margins; others, such as Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware, are moderates whose districts often elect Democrats.

Keller spoke in favor of the resolution throughout the debate, arguing that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated too much to commit more U.S. troops now.

Congressional aides said the week-long debate was remarkable because so many members gave speeches on the House floor. They said 392 of the 434 members   spoke, the most in recent memory. During the October 2002 debate about whether to authorize the war, 307 members spoke.

Congress will be in recess next week and will return the week of Feb. 26 for a debate that will be even more contentious.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, plans to propose spending restrictions that would effectively make it impossible for Bush to keep 160,000 troops in Iraq, as the president has planned.

Murtha’s plan would not allow Bush to extend the tours of U.S. forces in Iraq or send additional troops unless they’ve had one year out of combat duty to retrain and re-equip.

“This country needs a dramatic change of course in Iraq and it is the responsibility of this Congress to consummate that change,” Murtha said.

On Friday, his plan drew differing reactions from Republican leaders.

Republican leaders accused Murtha of playing politics. They said the fact that he chose to announce his plan during a program hosted by MoveOn.org, a liberal organization, shows he is more concerned with political gain than helping the troops.

“It shows the debate for exactly what it is: phase one of a political campaign with their left-wing friends,” said Putnam, the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Putnam described Murtha’s plan as “just a defacto way of choking off funding without having to have a straight up-or-down vote on funding the war.”

But Young, the veteran lawmaker from Indian Shores who is the ranking Republican on Murtha’s subcommittee, was more open to the Democratic proposal.

Young said he and Murtha, who have negotiated many appropriations bills together over the years, are “in the work-it-out stage” and might be able to make a deal.

Young said he is close to the Democratic chairman and noted that “he’s not the same Jack Murtha when we’re talking that he is on TV.”

Information from the Associated Press and Congressional Quarterly was included in this report. Washington Bureau Chief Bill Adair can be reached at adair@sptimes.com or (202) 463-0575.

[Last modified February 16, 2007, 20:34:29]