Democrats Pull Troop Deadline From Iraq Bill

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.

The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal.

But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, indicated that they would not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of Republicans would have to sign on to ensure the plan’s approval.

Ms. Pelosi made clear that if money for the war was going to be provided without a timeline for withdrawal, it would be without her personal support. “I would never vote for such a thing,” Ms. Pelosi said as she entered the office of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, to put the final touches on the $120 billion proposal.

The Democrats’ decision to give way appeared likely to bring an end to a legislative battle that has raged since Feb. 5, when Mr. Bush first requested the additional war financing. Mr. Bush had insisted that the money not be bound by time constraints, and Democrats proved unable to override his veto of their initial, defiant vote in favor of a spending bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin on Oct. 1.

In backing down on Tuesday, the Democratic leaders accepted an outcome that had appeared increasingly likely for weeks, particularly as Democrats became concerned that their defiance could be portrayed as indifference to the troops. But the Democrats have pledged to renew their fight this summer by seeking to attach timetables to subsequent war financing measures.

As late as last week the Democrats were still pursuing timelines in their negotiations with the White House, and the decision on Tuesday by Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and other leaders to abandon them was not going over well with most antiwar lawmakers or with some activist groups that had argued that Democrats should seek to cut off money for the war.

“There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who was unsuccessful last week in his push for a withdrawal of combat troops by spring. “Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”

Other Democrats said they had no choice. “It was a concession to reality,” said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, who said he intended to oppose the war spending portion of the bill.

In an effort to appease antiwar Democrats, the party’s leaders plan to allow two votes in the House. One would provide the war money, and seems likely to be opposed by large numbers of Democrats. The other, separated out to allow more Democrats to vote in favor, would include popular measures that are also part of the package, including a minimum wage increase and $17 billion in added domestic and military spending.

The bills would then be combined into one and sent to the Senate, with the idea of getting the measure to the president by the weekend.

At the White House, officials said they were waiting for the actual language of the proposal. “We’re hopeful that discussions on the emergency war supplemental for the troops are nearing conclusion,” said a spokeswoman, Dana Perino.

Four Senate Democrats running for president sided with Mr. Feingold last week, but some said Tuesday that they could not say how they would vote on the new proposal without reviewing it. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, indicated that he had reservations.

“I am disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the bill, because I believe that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end,” Mr. Dodd said.

Senior Democratic officials said the final bill would probably be stripped of other features that Mr. Bush had previously resisted, including readiness standards that would have prevented troops from being returned to Iraq within one year of serving there or without adequate training and equipment unless Mr. Bush signed a waiver determining it was necessary.

The compromise legislation is far from a total victory for the president. It requires that the Iraqi government show progress on improving security and forging political unity. Mr. Bush has resisted Congressional intervention in the conduct of the war, and the benchmarks and new reporting requirements, which had strong Republican support in the Senate, represent new accountability in the eyes of many lawmakers. “We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” Mr. Reid said. “But no one can say with any degree of veracity that we haven’t made great progress, and this bill is further proof of that.”

The measure would also force the White House and Congressional Republicans to accept significant new spending. Democrats say there is about $17 billion beyond the president’s initial request, with about $9 billion devoted to extra spending on military programs and health care, veterans’ health care and military base realignment. The remaining $8 billion goes to agriculture programs, additional Gulf Coast recovery efforts, children’s health care and other Democratic priorities. The minimum-wage increase will represent a domestic victory for Democrats.

“I think that it’s one thing to take care of the troops in Iraq, but it’s also something else to take care of their children, their spouses and their parents here at home,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

Republicans said many of their lawmakers in the House and Senate would be less than enthusiastic about the additional spending but were unlikely to scuttle the compromise.

“Many of our members are not going to be happy by the amount of spending beyond the core purpose of this supplemental, which was to fund the troops,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “It’s not a deal I personally would have made. But if we can prevail on the core portion of the bill, my guess is that it will pass.”

Lawmakers said the final version was still being negotiated with the White House and Republicans to make certain it was acceptable to both, but it was expected to be voted on in the House on Thursday. “I think we’re very close to having things tied down,” said Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

While Democrats were bruised by the veto fight and their decision to back away from the showdown, they believe they are slowly gaining ground. “I view this as the beginning of the end of the president’s policy on Iraq,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.