Dems to leave Iraq bridge fund out of first spending package

Under pressure from anti-war caucus members, House and Senate Democratic leaders have opted not to include temporary "bridge" funding to continue military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a massive $673 billion spending package being negotiated this week.

The measure will provide funding for five Cabinet departments and many smaller agencies, and the Pentagon's portion of the bill will equal the lion's share, about $460 billion.

The bill will also provide funds to the Veterans Affairs, Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008. In addition, about $1 billion might be added for emergency measures to help respond to the recent wildfires in Southern California.

But Democratic leaders are hesitant to provide any more "blank checks" for the Iraq war effort.

Liberal caucus members forced leaders' hands by threatening to oppose the massive bill, even though it will contain billions of dollars above President Bush's request for social services for the poor, medical research, education and job-training.

"It's going to cause some problems" if more war-funding is included, said an aide to a prominent anti-war House lawmaker. "The bridge [fund] would be a poison pill for a lot of folks if it was wrapped up with everything else."

Senate Democrats are also hesitant to provide additional war funds. But the move appears to be driven by the House leadership, which is trying to demonstrate unity in its Caucus when the massive Defense-Labor-HHS-Military Construction-VA package comes to the floor.

Bush has said he will veto any spending bill that is above his budget request, and Democrats will need all members of their Caucus on board before expecting any more Republicans to oppose the president.

Additional funding for the wars will likely be included in the next stopgap continuing resolution to replace the one expiring Nov. 16, which simply extends the $70 billion bridge fund approved last year.

The military can also borrow funds from base operations and maintenance accounts in the fiscal 2008 Defense bill to provide enough of a cushion to last into February or March.

Congress could also act on additional interim funds in December when remaining appropriations and other legislative business will have to be concluded.

Bush has asked lawmakers for another $196.4 billion for the wars, mostly for the Defense Department. But not providing any of that additional funding as part of the massive spending bill, which they want to send to Bush to coincide with Veterans Day, could be a risky proposition.

One GOP aide characterized the Democrats' decision as a "gift" that would backfire politically on the Democrats, who they have already been lambasting for holding the regular Pentagon and VA bills "hostage" in exchange for added domestic funds.

Bush and Republican leaders have repeatedly been urging Democrats to pass "clean" Defense and Military Construction-VA spending bills, and kept up the drumbeat Monday.

"Given that they've delayed all year, what could possibly excuse further delaying funding for the troops, veterans and their families? But that's exactly what would happen if they play politics with the funding bills instead of getting their job done," said a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., brushed off GOP criticism. "If the Defense appropriations bill passes as I hope it will and expect it will, there will be funds sufficient to get us into next year," he said. "Certainly we're not going to leave the troops defenseless or unfunded."

But Congress has not generally gotten around to approving supplemental requests in recent years until around May, which Republicans argue could put the troops in a perilous position if Democrats only provide enough money to last into early next year.

When asked if there was pressure from liberal members to at least temporarily drop the proposed bridge fund, Hoyer replied: "There's pressure from the whole country as to what we ought to do" in Iraq.

Christian Bourge contributed to this report.