House Passes Troop Withdrawal Bill
March 23, 2007 — -- Despite the threat of a presidential veto, the House of Representatives made an historic vote today, passing legislation by the narrowest of margins to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
The legislation passed by a largely party-line vote of 218-212, garnering the bare minimum number of votes needed to pass. Drafted by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., the bill ties troop withdrawal provisions to more than $100 billion in emergency funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more than $20 billion in projects that have little or nothing to do with Iraq.
Friday's result was a direct result of last November's midterm elections -- every one of the 42 freshman Democrats voted to support the bill.
Congress "voted no to giving a blank check to an open-ended commitment to war without end," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "and yes to begin the end of the war and the redeployment of our troops."
But only 80 minutes after the vote gaveled to a close, a blistering reaction came from President Bush. Standing with military families as his backdrop, the president promised he would veto the bill.
"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," said the president. "This is not going to happen."
The bill imposes benchmarks on the Iraqi government for reform programs, such as an oil revenue sharing program, and clearing militias from the Interior Ministry. If Bush fails to certify that progress on those benchmarks has not been made by June 1, or accomplished by October 1, U.S. combat troops would begin redeploying out of the country.
Regardless, troops would begin redeploying in March 2008, with a deadline for a complete exit at the end of August 2008.
Right up until the vote, which took place around 12:30 p.m., the House debate was furious.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said the disagreement was "about whether we have the courage to give victory a chance or whether we are just going to bring our troops home and give up."
Boehner said Democrats were advocating defeat and ceding the Middle East to terrorist control.
"If anybody doesn't believe that this won't end Israel as we know it, you are kidding yourself. And if you don't believe that these terrorists won't come here and fight us on the streets of America instead of the streets of Baghdad, I think you are kidding yourself."
Countered an emotional Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of a key defense appropriations subcommittee whose opposition to the war served as a tipping point for congressional Democrats, "We are going to make a difference with this bill. We're going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country."
A block of anti-war liberals from the Progressive and Out of Iraq caucuses had threatened to sandbag the bill, since members believed it was too cautious, allowing funds to be spent on the war on waiting until next year for mandated combat troop withdrawal. But Pelosi had threatened the anti-war members that if they defeated this bill, the next one she issued would be a clean spending bill with no withdrawal provisions. As the week progressed and the vote was rescheduled from Thursday to Friday, anti-war liberals began to change their minds.
After the 15-minute vote clock counted down to zero, the vote stayed open for two minutes and five seconds as Democratic leaders made sure the bill passed and two anti-war protestors were ejected from the gallery for shouting "Don't buy the war!" and "Bring the troops home now!"
Many from the anti-war members of Congress were among the last to vote, since they had promised Pelosi enough votes for the bill to pass.
"Everybody came to the conclusion that 'more of the same, no change' was not a viable option," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We had to fund our troops. The only question is, are you going to put accountability on the Iraqis for their own future?"
The president repeated another popular GOP complaint about the bill -- that the "bill has too much pork." By "pork" the president was referring to approximately $21 billion in projects that have nothing to do with Iraq. Democratic leaders added those provisions to this bill to win the support of wavering Democrats. Among the more controversial items -- $125 million for shrimpers, $25 million for spinach farmers, and $74 million for peanut storage.
"What does throwing money to Bubba Gump, Popeye the Sailor Man and Mr. Peanut do for winning the war?" asked Rep Sam Johnson, R-Texas.
But primarily the anger from the president and most in his party is rooted in their view that this bill is defeatist and micromanages the war, and later in the day Senate Republicans pledged to defeat the Senate version when it comes before the next week.
"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'Hang on, we'll give you a date when we're leaving,'" said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
One Democratic congressman told ABC News the House was "calling the president's bluff," and indicated that House members do not believe he will veto this bill, because It includes billions for the troops.
The president vows he is serious. No matter who will ultimately get the blame, troops are due to run out of funding next month.
ABC News' Dean Norland and Z. Byron Wolf contributed to this report