By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives, in a surprise and largely symbolic move, defeated legislation on Thursday to fund the war in Iraq for another year. But it also sent the Senate a controversial troop-withdrawal plan that will give that chamber an opportunity to restore the money for waging the conflict, which is deeply unpopular with the public. With a large group of anti-war Democrats voting against giving the Pentagon $162.5 billion to keep fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through mid-2009, the House defeated the measure by a vote of 149-141. Meanwhile, 132 Republicans voted "present" -- meaning neither "yes" nor "no" -- on the legislation, which brought another difficult debate about U.S. war policy just as the presidential and congressional elections are heating up and Republicans fear large losses in November. Some Republicans said they were protesting the way Democrats brought the legislation to the House floor without House Appropriations Committee consideration. Most Republicans support the money for the war and oppose timetables for pulling troops out of Iraq. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters he expects the Senate to restore the war funding and give House Republicans another chance to approve it. The White House has issued a veto threat against setting dates for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq as part of a war-funding bill. President George W. Bush vetoed such a measure a year ago. "The legislation provides for a new direction in Iraq that will end this sad chapter in America's history and bring home our brave men and women in uniform," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters before the vote. But in the face of the veto threat and Senate Republican opposition, even some House Democratic leaders acknowledged that their troop withdrawal plan likely would be abandoned before war funds are ultimately sent to Bush for his approval. The House bill "seeks to tie the hands of our military commanders and impose an artificial timeline for withdrawal," the White House said. Lawmakers may fall short of the goal of passing a final version of the legislation, which also expands U.S. food aid abroad, by the end of May, when a congressional recess begins. The Pentagon says it needs the money by sometime in June. MORE THAN $800 BILLION Under the House-passed plan, U.S. combat troops, who have been fighting in Iraq since early 2003, would begin withdrawing within one month of the legislation being enacted. It would set a goal of completing the troop withdrawals by the end of 2009. Assuming Congress eventually delivers the new funds, more than $800 billion will have been appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going for Iraq. By proposing to send the Defense Department enough money to pay for the wars through the middle of next year, Democratic leaders said they would have given the next president, who takes office in January, several months to come up with his or her own war plans. But the move also was aimed at eliminating the need for Congress to pass more war money later this year, shortly before the November congressional and presidential elections, in which the unpopular war is expected to play a prominent role. Also on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said the five-year-old war in Iraq can be won within four more years. Earlier in his quest for the White House, the Arizona senator had talked about a U.S. military commitment that could continue for a century. Pelosi mocked that new forecast, saying, "That's not what people usually mean in a presidential year when they say 'four more years.'" As the House debated, the Senate Appropriations Committee worked on its bill to fund the wars while adding more money than Bush sought for U.S. hurricane recovery efforts and other accounts. It might be debated next week. Besides withdrawing troops from Iraq, the House bill would give more financial help to war veterans to attend college. Democrats want to pay the cost -- $51.6 billion over 10 years -- by imposing a 0.5 percent tax on individuals with gross incomes over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million. Republicans said the tax would hurt small business owners. In the midst of an economic downturn, the bill also would help the unemployed by continuing jobless benefits for an additional 13 weeks. In states where unemployment is highest, another 13 weeks of benefits would be added for a total cost of $11 billion over 10 years. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Thomas Ferraro; editing by Patricia Zengerle)
A portrait of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is planted on soil and rock barricade set by Sunni Muslim gunmen to block the main road to Syrian borders in the Masna'a ...
