War funding measure likely to move without strings

House and Senate Democrats are moving forward with a risky budget plan they hope can produce an outcome acceptable to congressional Republicans and President Bush, one that combines war funding without strings with added domestic spending backed by both parties.

The strategy relies in part on running the clock on lawmakers anxious to get out of town, and in part on the willingness of Senate GOP leaders to persuade their House counterparts to come to the table.

That could be a tall order, as House GOP leaders appear increasingly in lockstep against any domestic spending increases above Bush's top-line.

Regarding war funding, when asked by House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., in their Thursday colloquy if it would move without troop withdrawal language, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said, "I anticipate at some point in time that would be the case."

Such a position is a major reversal for Democrats, demonstrating how far they are willing to go to secure a budget deal.

This week's visit by White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle for talks with Democratic leaders is viewed as a positive step, even if no serious negotiations took place.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he got the impression that "everything is on the table," although he would not get into details.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wants a deal, according to sources, but it must include Iraq war funds. The same goes for Appropriations ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

"We've got to do something, and it's got to be sooner rather than later," said Cochran, who was encouraged that Democrats have accepted the idea of added war funds.

"The Democrats have continued to come up with what they will approve. They still need to keep moving in that direction. They haven't gotten there yet," he said.

On Tuesday, the House will take up a roughly $520 billion omnibus package, including about $31 billion in military funding for Afghanistan but with flexibility to shift equipment and training funds to Iraq.

It would cover gaps in the Pentagon's stateside budget, such as services for families of soldiers serving abroad, that it must fill because it has had to borrow funds to pay for the war.

The measure would then be sent to the Senate, where it would be amended to add as much as $40 billion more for Iraq, which the White House considers a floor, not a ceiling, sources said.

The measure would then be sent back to the House for separate votes on the Senate war-funding amendment and the underlying package, allowing anti-war representatives to vote "no" on the war funds and "yes" on the domestic portion.

The same scenario played out with the $120 billion spring Iraq war supplemental, which contained $17 billion in add-ons above the Bush request. Bush signed that bill into law, a factor both sides have not forgotten.

It would be sent to Bush's desk as a combined bill around the time the continuing resolution expires Dec. 14.

Another one-week CR will be necessary to get Bush the necessary paperwork for his signature or veto, and perhaps a small series of day-to-day CRs if there are to be more negotiations.

The stakes are higher than in the spring debate.

The clock is winding toward Christmas and Democrats do not want to go home for the holidays without having passed some military funding that could avert some of the harsh steps the Pentagon is contemplating, such as sending out furlough notices to as many as 200,000 civilian employees.

At the same time, the measure funds 15 Cabinet departments at roughly $11 billion more than Bush wants, spending levels that in many cases do not even keep up with inflation. Emergency funds to help the poor pay their heating bills and bolster nutrition for low-income women, infants and children are included -- tough items to vote against before leaving town for Christmas.

A senior Democratic aide said Reid thinks he can get a veto-proof 70 votes for this approach in the Senate.

The problem for Democrats lies with House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Mich., and Minority Whip Blunt, who, backed up by the conservative Republican Study Committee, oppose any increases in spending above the president's $933 billion request.

Additional war funds could change the equation, but so far they are not budging.

GOP aides point to the fact they lost only 14 votes on the energy bill Thursday as evidence they will be able to hold their conference together on the omnibus.

They simply seem eager to see the Democrats fail.

"I understand the difficulty the majority has in trying to make a process work that was designed by our founders, frankly, not to work. But you know, they've played around all year playing political games and now they've run out the clock," Boehner said Thursday. "And while there is an awful lot on their agenda, given what needs to happen with no time left in the year only signals to me that this Congress has been a train wreck and we're about to have a really big train wreck."