War funding bill will test Pelosi's strength

Expectations high for major policy concession

WASHINGTON - After years of seeing the House pushed around by President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has learned to say no.

The California Democrat's refusal last month to schedule a vote on a warrantless surveillance bill that the president favors, followed by her decision this month to scuttle a fast-track vote on a US-Colombia trade agreement, have shifted some power to the eastern end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

But those tough stands also have raised expectations among antiwar activists and some lawmakers on the larger issue coming in the next two weeks: funding for the war in Iraq.

"What she's done is show people you can stand up to Bush and it's not the end of the world," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, a prominent opponent of the Iraq war. "She reminded the rank-and-file here not only do we matter, but we're an equal branch of government, and she reminded the president we're no longer a cheap date."

Added Representative James P. Moran Jr., Democrat of Virginia, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for war funding: "She's got a hot hand right now. We want to make sure she keeps that momentum going."

Republicans continue to say that Democratic opposition to the surveillance bill has jeopardized national security and strengthened Al Qaeda, and that failure to pass the US-Colombia agreement has bolstered Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Raúl Castro in Cuba. But national security arguments that in the past have buckled Democratic opposition have had little impact this time.

"I think that the president has finally realized that the leverage has changed," Pelosi said.

In large part, Pelosi's new resolve comes from a changing political environment, according to Democratic aides. With the economy slowing, the war dragging on, and Bush's popularity ratings as low as ever, swing-state Democrats are finding their reelection prospects improving steadily. That has given Pelosi more latitude in her confrontations with Republicans.

Domestic concerns are now weighed against foreign policy ventures. Record gasoline prices have made assistance to oil-rich Iraq more difficult for lawmakers of both parties to accept.

"The Iraqi government has been grotesquely irresponsible with the money we have given them," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire.

Republican leaders still say Pelosi's stands on warrantless surveillance and Colombia will hurt both the economy and national security. "If they're feeling their oats, I wish they'd feel them in areas that are less dangerous to the country," said House minority whip Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri.

In the next two weeks, Pelosi's resolve will be put to the test.

By month's end, House Democrats plan to produce a major supplemental spending bill - totaling as much as $170 billion - to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the next presidency, channel more federal money to the ailing domestic economy, and set policies they hope will begin to move US troops out of the Middle East.

"I think it's important for the government of Iraq to know that they're going to have to take responsibility for the security of their own country, and soon," Pelosi said. "And that's why the message in a supplemental or something else about redeployment is essential to this, or else they will never move."

Democratic leaders have repeatedly said that, in the end, US troops in the field will be funded. But expectations are high that finally Congress will be able to extract a significant policy concession for that money.

Win Without War, a coalition of 42 groups, is circulating a letter declaring that "the best course of action in the upcoming defense supplemental appropriations bill is to provide funding only for the safe and timely redeployment of US troops out of Iraq."