Democratic objections to the immigration reform proposal have focused on its restrictions on the right of legal immigrants to be joined by their families and its preference for high-tech workers. Under the proposal, undocumented immigrants would be able to obtain a probationary card allowing them to live and work legally in the United States, but which would not place them on the road to permanent residency or citizenship. The proposal also seeks to create a temporary guest worker program that would be implemented once the borders are declared "secure." Up to 1.5 million migrant farm-workers can also obtain legal status through an "AgJobs" measure, supported by Sen. Diana Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). AgJobs creates a five-year pilot program that would grant legal status to those who have worked in US farms for at least 150 days in the last two years.

"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing," he said.

The Democratic-led Congress sent Bush the bill on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech, during which he declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

The war, however, has dragged on, and has claimed the lives of over 3,300 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

The bill, which would require the Bush administration to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March, was designed to provide nearly 100 billion U.S. dollars for American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal "is setting a date for failure," and that was "a prescription for chaos and confusion."

Urging the Democratic-led Congress to give his troops buildup plan in Iraq "a chance to work," Bush also expressed his desire "to work with the Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible."

Bush and congressional leaders from both parties would meet at the White House Wednesday on the spending bill.

He warned that without a war-funding bill, the military "has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need" and to "consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment."

Democrats immediately rebutted Bush's veto.

"The president may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we're not -- and neither are most Americans," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid said the president's refusal to sign the war spending bill was "his right," but he "has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war."

"We had hoped that the president would have treated it with respect," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

"Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does," she said.

Acknowledging there was "great distance" between the White House and Congress, Pelosi also expressed the wish to work with Bush to "find common ground" on the war funding bill.

Without sufficient votes in both chambers of Congress to override Bush's veto, Democrats were considering writing a new war spending bill that would provide funding to U.S. troops but also set certain benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, news reports said.

Bush announced a reinforcement plan in January by sending over 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to help quell escalating sectarian violence there, but his plan has met strong resistance from Congress, and the Iraq war, now in its fifth year, has become increasingly unpopular with the U.S. public.

A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in April found that 57 percent of respondents now felt the Iraq war was a mistake, against 41 percent who said it was not.

In a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, 56 percent of those interviewed said they agreed more with the Democrats on a deadline for troop withdrawal, against 37 percent who said they agreed with Bush that there should not be a deadline.

"It's good beef; it's healthy beef. As a matter of fact, I'm going to feed the prime minister's delegation a good hamburger for lunch," he said.

U.S. officials, along with the beef industry, have been pushing Japan to loosen its import rules on beef, hoping to rebuild a robust trade with the Asian nation. They want to see Japan accept meat from older animals and also seek an end to mandatory inspections of each box of beef.

Currently, Japan accepts U.S. meat from animals 20 months or younger, but exporters would like to see meat shipped from animals up to 30 months old. They would also like to see a full range of beef exports — boneless and bone-in.

But most industry officials do not expect any change until after a ruling next month from the World Animal Health Organization (OIE), which is expected to confirm the United States as a "controlled risk" country.

U.S. beef exports to Japan were about $1.4 billion a year until 2003, when mad cow disease was discovered in the United States. For 2006, that figured stood at $66 million.

Earlier this week, the Agriculture Department announced it would allow Japan to inspect U.S. beef processing plants, which puts the United States one step closer to more trade.

According to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, Japan will drop its mandatory inspection rule for U.S. beef shipments once those plant visits take place.

Beef trade with Japan is just one instance in which U.S. agriculture interests complain trading partners fail to set import rules according to world health and safety standards.

Legislation seeking to improve enforcement of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has been introduced in the House of Representatives in the past three terms, but never became law.

During a similar time frame in 2005, Republicans raised 62 million dollars through their national and congressional committees, and Democrats about 32 million dollars. At the end of the first quarter of 2003, the Republican advantage was bigger: 54million dollars to the Democrats' 19 million dollars.

The Democrats' fundraising gains were most evident at congressional level. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raised 13.7 million dollars to the National Republican Senatorial Committee's 7 million dollars. The DSCC also ended March with nearly triple the money in the bank -- 9.5 million dollars to 3.45 million dollars.

The House picture was not much better for Republicans. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee collected 19 million dollars between January and March and had 9.8 million dollars in the bank. The National Republican Congressional Committee raised 15.8 million dollars in the quarter and had 2.5 million dollars to spend.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) was the lone saving grace for Republicans' financial hopes, raising 24.6 million dollars in the period -- nearly 10 million dollars more than the DNC. The RNC closed March with 12.8 million dollars, against the DNC's 6.9 million dollars.

In the presidential race, leading Democrat candidates also enjoyed a money advantage over their Republican rivals.

From January to March this year, Democrat Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Barack Obama, of Illinois, raised 26 million dollars and 25.7 million dollars respectively for their presidential campaigns. The only Republican candidate who raised more than 20 million dollars during the three-month period was Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, who raised 20.7 million dollars.

Deadlocked in a political impasse over a war funding bill, U.S. President George W. Bush and Democrats failed on Wednesday to agree on how to conduct discussions on the issue.

Bush insisted that Democratic leaders should come to the White House next Wednesday to talk, but there will be no negotiation on his position on the bill.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats want him to meet Friday on Capitol Hill.

Neither side showed signs of any backing down.

"It can't be his (Bush's ) way or no way," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, made it clear that Bush has no plans of going to Capitol Hill.

Both the House and Senate have attached language to legislation calling for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq in 2008 -- the House by the end of August, the Senate by March of that year.

But Bush said he will not accept any bill that includes a timeline for withdrawal.

If he vetoes the bill, which looks certain, the congress will need a two-third majority to overthrow the veto.

Otherwise, the congress will have to draft a new funding bill and send to Bush again.

With neither side willing to back down, there seems no way out of the impasse at the moment.