A bill calling for the 2008 withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq is now one step closer to reaching President Bush’s desk.

On Tuesday, the Senate rejected a Republican-backed amendment [3] to strip a timeline for withdrawal from a $122 billion supplemental spending bill, 48-50. Democrats were joined in opposing the amendment by two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel [4] (Neb.) and Gordon Smith [5] (Ore.). One Democrat, Sen. Mark Pryor [6] (Ark.), sided with the remaining Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman [7] (Conn.) in supporting the amendment. Hagel and Sen. Ben Nelson [8] (D-Neb.), both of whom supported keeping the withdrawal timeline in the spending bill, had just two weeks ago opposed a separate Senate resolution [9] calling for an identical timetable.

The defeat of the amendment, which had been sponsored by Sen. Thad Cochran [10] (R-Miss.), now clears the final bill for a floor vote, where it is expected to pass. If approved, it would require that U.S. combat troop withdrawals begin within four months of enactment of the bill. It would also call for a complete withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, though this date would not be binding. On March 23, the House passed a similar (but stronger) measure [11], one which would require U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by September 1, 2008.

Like the House bill, the Senate measure is loaded with earmarks [12]. These include:

• $100 million for state and local law enforcement agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul to provide security for the 2008 presidential nominating conventions.
• $6.7 billion to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, including housing aid, public infrastructure funding and aid to Gulf Coast fishermen.
• $1.2 billion for small-operation dairy farmers.
• $24 million for sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley.
• $20 million to combat Mormon crickets.
• $4.2 billion in disaster aid for farmers hurt by drought, floods and other disasters in recent years.
• $500 million to combat Western wildfires.

As he did after the House passed its measure, President Bush promised to veto any spending bill calling for the removal (or complete withdrawal) of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [13] (D-Nev.) responded by stating, “This is a new thing for the president...In six years he’s had one veto, because he’s basically gotten everything he wanted.” He added, however, that he hoped to reach a compromise with the White House, stating, “I would like to have a bill that he wouldn’t veto.” Despite the defeat, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell [14] (R-Ky.) expressed confidence following the vote that Bush’s request for a “clean spending bill” (one without any calls for withdrawal) would ultimately pass. He stated, “It may take two tries to get there, but I think that’s very likely going to be the final outcome.”

We at Congresspedia [15] have been closely following legislation in the 110th Congress aimed at ending the Iraq War [16], as well as all congressional action on the conflict [17] since the initial authorization of military force in October 2002. We will continue to update the pages as events transpire, and we urge you to both visit and improve them with your own edits!