President George W. Bush and Congress are continuing their power struggle over policies related to the war in Iraq and a war funding bill containing a "goal" timeline for withdrawal of soldiers. Congress sent the funding bill to the president on May 1, the fourth anniversary of Bush's "mission accomplished" visit aboard an aircraft carrier, and he promptly vetoed it shortly thereafter. With the House unlikely to override a veto, Democrats in Congress are faced with the difficult task of finding a compromise in the next month. The battle lines have been drawn between the president and Congress, now that the latter has passed H.R. 1591, the supplemental appropriation bill providing all the remaining funding Bush has requested for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the wider "Global War on Terror" for Fiscal Year 2007, which ends September 30 of this year. The House cleared the supplemental bill conference report on April 26, 218-212. The Senate did likewise the following day, 51-46. The supplemental bill provides $124 billion in funding for the war and wider military needs, as well as other domestic spending, benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve, readiness and equipment standards and combat tour limits for U.S. soldiers, and a deadline "goal" of removing soldiers by March 31, 2008. The bill also provides for an increase in the minimum wage, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years — the first such increase in close to a decade — and a $4.8 billion dollar tax cut package. The president vetoed the bill because he opposes the timelines for the withdrawal of soldiers from Iraq and additional domestic spending items. The House is expected to attempt an override vote that will likely be far short of the necessary two-thirds support to succeed. Democrats have set a May 31 deadline to get a new supplemental bill to the president should Congress be unable to override his veto. The current impasse has become a momentous confrontation between a president who demands executive authority over war funding and policy, and a Congress that believes it has a mandate to pressure the president for a plan to end the war. The immediate challenge for congressional Democrats should Bush veto the bill is to craft a new version of the bill that will appease the president while not weakening conditions for soldier withdrawal so much that it causes currently supportive anti-war legislators to oppose it. Because of the narrow margin of passage in both chambers, this may be a difficult compromise to strike. Congressional leaders are scheduled to meet with Bush on May 2 to discuss areas of compromise. Administration officials have suggested that they have flexibility regarding the Iraqi benchmark provision, but the real impasse lies with deadlines for withdrawal of American soldiers. Some leaders such as House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chair Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) have suggested that a pared-down version, stripped of any troop restriction and providing only two months' worth of spending, be sent to the president, enabling all parties to evaluate the progress of the "surge" policies in Baghdad. The chances that the president would find this approach acceptable are likely to be remote. Another possible compromise that might succeed is for Congress to adopt funding on the president's terms without troop withdrawal provisions, but use the upcoming defense authorization and appropriations bills as vehicles for soldier withdrawal language. Murtha supports this approach, which indicates its viability within the Democratic caucus. Yet another alternative that some Republicans are interested in would identify benchmarks for accomplishments in the war. In some way, funding might be tied to achieving those accomplishments. While the impasse continues and Congress awaits the veto-override vote, recent polling shows that a large majority of Americans continue to oppose the war in Iraq and favor a complete withdrawal of soldiers by the end of calendar 2007.