Democratic and Republican negotiators have reached a tentative deal in the ongoing battle over funding for the war in Iraq. The Pentagon will receive all of the money requested by the White House for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without restrictions, while Democrats will get some domestic measures inserted into the bill to help satisfy their political base. Most important politically for the Democrats, however, is that the deal will provide funds for the war through fiscal year 2009; thereby avoiding an election season vote on war funding. The compromise is slated for a vote in the House today.

A House source with knowledge of the deal said that Republican negotiators were able to secure the funding with no restrictions, eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood, and cut two Senate amendments from the final bill which would have added $8 billion in spending on pet projects and prevented the Bush Administration from restricting states from extending access to the the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In return, Democrats won a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, although they had wanted 26 weeks, and generous spending on education benefits for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a new GI Bill, without increasing taxes. The White House has indicated that it will sign the bill once it is passed.

On balance, it appears that Congressional Democrats, in order to avoid a politically tricky vote on the war funding this fall, gave more than Republicans in reaching the deal. Like any good compromise, neither side will be entirely happy with the outcome. But more important than the scoring of who won or lost, is the fact that the troops will receive the funding they need and deserve to continue operations in the war on terror. With violence declining steadily in Iraq, and the Iraqi government demonstrating more control over the country, interruptions in funding for the troops helping to achieve that progress could have been devastating to the growing success there. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, attacks by Taliban militants are up, and the funds are needed to help extend the reach of the government in Kabul.

Taking a cue from their counterparts in the House, the Senate will begin debate on the president's supplemental war funding measure today. The Administration is seeking $108 billion in funds for the remainder of the fiscal year, which concludes on September 30th, and has agreed to include $70 billion for operations lasting into the first half of 2009. That allows Congressional Democrats a small victory on one of their key goals, avoiding a vote on war funding in the month before the November elections. Many House and Senate Democrats may have felt compelled to support funding so close to an election, potentially angering their anti-war base.

Also like the House, the Senate is weighing the bill down with additional spending on domestic programs. The Senate would include some $50 billion more for education benefits for veterans, a new G.I. Bill for returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, $14.5 billion in extended unemployment benefits, home heating oil assistance for the poor, money for rural schools, funding to fight Western wildfires, and an immigrant farm labor provision that would allow about 1.4 million farm workers to stay in the country for up to five years to help pick crops. Altogether, the Senate would spend $193.1 billion in the bill, more than $10 billion over the president's request. The White House has threatened a veto.

The House of Representatives voted on the latest supplemental war-funding bill requested by the president today. But in a strategic twist, 132 House Republicans voted "present" rather than cast yes or no votes, affectively removing their votes from the total. The result was that the funding portion of the bill was defeated 149-141, on the strength of anti-war Democrats' votes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the Democratic leadership had decided on a novel strategy to address the war funding measure. It called for the bill to be split into three parts, one each for war spending, non war-related domestic spending, and anti-war policy provisions. The strategy was supposed to make the supplemental more palatable to the anti-war caucus of Democrats in the House while protecting the moderate Blue Dog caucus, whose members could not afford to vote against funding the troops in this election year. But the Republicans' move thwarted the Democrats' plans, saddling them with the defeat of funding for troops in harm's way. After the vote, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was triumphant.

"[T]he Democratic Majority has chosen to play political games with our troops and delay their funding by at least several more weeks. This is unacceptable, and House Republicans will not be party to such a cynical political ploy. A troop funding bill should fund the troops. Period. The exercise today on the House floor would instead hijack the troop funding bill and use it as a vehicle for billions upon billions in unrelated Washington spending and a $54 billion tax hike on small businesses. This is reckless, it is dangerous, and it must not stand."

The long-delayed supplemental war funding measure was delayed again in Congress last week, this time by an internal struggle within the Democratic caucus. Moderate and conservative Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, objected to the leadership's plan to load up the bill with billions in extra spending items. The Blue Dogs are upset with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) plan to include spending for unemployment benefit extensions and a new entitlement for troop education, a new GI Bill, in the bill. They fear a backlash against the increased spending and the use of the supplemental as a vehicle to score electoral points in their districts, which are conservative in nature. Republicans also object to the supplemental on procedural grounds. Democrats have by-passed the appropriations committee in drafting the legislation and are not allowing minority Republicans to offer proposals on the measure. Republicans have retaliated by forcing procedural votes in protest.

Democrats took control of the House in 2006 partly on the strength of wins in Republican leaning districts. There are thirty-four Democrats serving in the House from such districts, and their re-election in the fall is critical to Democrats hopes of keeping control of the chamber. Accordingly, the Blue Dogs' concerns are being given great weight by the speaker. "Their concerns are very legitimate," Pelosi said, "They must be addressed." Pelosi also must deal with the anti-war liberal members of her caucus, however, and they are not likely to support the war funding bill without inducements like the unemployment benefits. It makes for a perilous balancing act for the Speaker, one that she lost to the White House's veto in last year's supplemental war funding battle.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, is warning Congress that the Pentagon will be forced to stop paying soldiers after June 15th if a $108 billion supplemental war-funding measure is not passed soon. He told Roll Call (subscription required) that the uncertainty surrounding the bill creates unnecessary pressure in the military. "It makes it extremely difficult to execute the day-to-day business of the Pentagon without knowing the money is coming," he said.

The Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have been calling on Congress to pass the supplemental war funding bill before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Democrats have been debating within their own caucus on how to proceed with the funding request. Some Democrats want to pass a bill nearly double the size requested by the White House to cover the remainder of this fiscal year and next in an effort to avoid having to vote on another supplemental funding bill during the fall election season. Others want to limit the amount of aid that the United States would provide the Iraqi government for infrastructure projects due to rising oil prices. The White House has said that the president will veto any bill that exceeds his funding number; and stresses that cutting aid for the Iraqi government could actually prolong the war effort.

In either case, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sees no need to hurry. "I think we'll do our best to finish this before the Memorial Day break, but if we don't, it's no big deal. There's money there," he said.

The Bush Administration has requested $108 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of this fiscal year. Democratic leaders in Congress are trying to decide how to proceed on the measure. President Bush has threatened to veto any war spending measure that exceeds his funding request or that contains added provisions. Democrats are considering both strategies to make the funding request more palatable to some in their caucus. It's a reprise of a battle fought between the Administration and Congress last year, one the Democrats eventually lost, and the experience has made them just a little more wary of this year's exercise.

Earlier this week, reports indicated that House Democrats were considering adding withdrawal language to the supplemental. That's a tactic that failed them last year, as a series of vetoes and failed override attempts led to Democrats caving in to the Administration and passing a bill containing no restrictions on troops and every dollar requested by the White House. Their strategy this year strategy may be to try and add favorite Democratic economic measures to the bill like food stamp assistance and extended unemployment benefits. Democrats may still try to make a stand on withdrawal language as well. But the fact that the leadership in Congress is already considering inducements to get its more stridently ant-war members to vote for the bill shows that Democrats realize the politics of using the supplemental request to make a point of their opposition to the war are not on their side.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put the brakes on a possible compromise between the Bush Administration and Congressional Democrats over disputed funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terms of the compromise would have had Congress providing additional funding sought by the White House for the war and agreeing to lengthen the time frame for American troops to stay in Iraq. In exchange, the Administration was prepared to accept readiness standards for troops being sent to the war and a ban on torture.

The deal was being worked out between President Bush's Iraq adviser, Gen. Douglas Lute, and staunch anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha made news yesterday when in a conference call with reporters after a recent trip to Iraq, he stated that he had seen military progress occurring there. "I think the surge is working," he said. House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), pounced on Murtha's comments, calling on Congressional leaders to pass a "clean supplemental funding bill," by the Christmas recess.

President Bush has formally sent to Capitol Hill a supplemental funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration is seeking an additional $46 billion for operations in fiscal year 2008. The White House says the money is needed primarily for day-to-day operations in both theaters and is in addition to a $147 billion request made in February.

The request sparked the predictable reaction from Congressional Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the president should not expect the Congress to "rubber stamp" his latest funding request. House Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said that the president has shown his priorities by vetoing the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion while seeking more money for the war. "[H]ealth care for children is too expensive, but more of the same in Iraq is worth billions in debt," Emanuel said.