The Senate voted 59-39 on Wednesday to cut about $2 billion from President Bush's Iraq request, a move Republicans argued would not harm military operations but trim excessive fat in the Pentagon budget.
The vote came in the wake of a toughly worded promise by the White House to veto the $106.5 billion defense spending measure unless it is cut back to less than $95 billion.
In a statement, the White House said the bill contains too many items that are "unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs." It said a final House-Senate compromise "must remain focused on addressing urgent national priorities while maintaining fiscal discipline."
Wednesday's vote on an amendment by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. - to cut 3 percent of the war operations budget - split largely along party lines.
"In the best of circumstances, border security is a daunting challenge," Bennett said in a statement, "but when forced to use outdated equipment, or worse, have no equipment at all, we dramatically weaken our borders and jeopardize the safety of our citizens."
Bennett said he considers the vote for more border security in line with the overall fight against terrorism.
Hatch seconded that, saying border security is a "crucial part" of the war on terror and he noted that the amendment was a "first step in a long journey toward securing our nation's borders."
"The funding targets our most pressing needs, and we've been assured the offsets won't impact our soldiers in the field," Hatch said.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada offered an amendment that would have added the border security funds, but not taken away from the war financing, but the measure failed 54-44. Hatch and Bennett voted against Reid's amendment.
Democrats argued that GOP senators were voting to undermine the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We all agree it is vital that we secure our border, but Democrats believe we shouldn't do it on the backs of our troops," Reid said. "It is outrageous that Senate Republicans have decided at a time of war that we could do without defending against Improvised Explosive Devices, training the Iraqi Security Forces, and giving our troops the body armor and benefits they deserve."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Gregg's cuts would "take money from troop pay, body armor and even the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund. Now that is a false choice and it is a wrong choice."
Gregg responded heatedly, arguing that the cuts eventually would come from other parts of the massive Pentagon budget rather than U.S. forces in Iraq.
"To come down here and allege that these funds are going to come out of the needs of the people on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan is pure poppycock," he said.
The White House veto-threat - the 135th, according to ABC News, though no legislation has yet been vetoed - is likely to force senators to drop most of their $14 billion in add-ons for farm aid, highway repairs, aid to the Gulf Coast fishing industry and other projects. The additional money had won the ire of the White House and GOP congressional leaders and scorn from conservative allies whose support is crucial on Election Day.
The bill is sure to be carved back in House-Senate negotiations next month, and Bush may not have to follow through on his veto promise.
The underlying bill contains $67.6 billion for Pentagon war operations and $27.1 billion for hurricane relief, including grants to states to build and repair housing and $2.1 billion for levees and flood-control projects. The funding for hurricane relief exceeds Bush's request by $7.4 billion.
Congress has provided about $315 billion for the war in Iraq and anti-terror spending since September 2001.
