The bill promptly drew a veto threat from President Bush.

After four hours of floor debate yesterday and today, the House approved the bill by a vote of 218 to 212. One lawmaker voted present and three did not vote.

In a brief but sharply worded speech at the White House with several uniformed service members, veterans and their families standing behind him, Bush said House Democrats had engaged in "an act of political theater" and "voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."

Saying that the bill contains "too much pork" and includes restrictions "that would require an army of lawyers to interpret," Bush vowed, "I will veto it if it comes to my desk." He expressed confidence that his veto would be sustained, pointing to the closeness of the vote.

The bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represents a major challenge to Bush, who opposes any mandates or timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

It marks the first time that the House, which shifted to Democratic control as a result of last year's midterm elections, has set a firm deadline for pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq after four years of an increasingly unpopular war that has left more than 3,200 Americans dead and 24,000 wounded.

The vote came a day after a Senate committee passed a spending bill that sets a goal of bringing troops home from Iraq within a year.

In a largely party-line vote, 216 Democrats were joined by two Republicans in supporting the bill, while 198 Republicans and 14 Democrats opposed it. Voting with the Democratic majority were Republicans Walter B. Jones of North Carolina and Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) voted present. Reps. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.), Paul E. Kanjorski (D-Pa.) and Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) did not vote.

Among the Democrats who opposed the bill were conservatives reluctant to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and liberals who want the troops out immediately. The 14 Democrats who voted no were: John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), Barbara Lee (Calif.), John Lewis (Ga.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.), Michael H. Michaud (Maine), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Diane Watson (Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

In two hours of debate before the vote today, Republicans assailed the inclusion of spending for what they called pork-barrel projects in the bill, charging that the Democrats were buying votes with sweeteners of special interest to individual lawmakers. Republicans also denounced the bill as an effort to "micromanage" the war in Iraq and said it would guarantee the failure of the U.S. military mission there.

Democrats argued that Congress has the obligation to bring to a close what they called a "war without end" that never should have been waged in the first place. They said the bill in part is aimed at refocusing the U.S. military on what they described as the "real war on terrorism" in Afghanistan against resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda extremists.

The House bill includes military funding beyond the level requested by Bush, adding money for health care for returning service members and veterans in the wake of a scandal over the treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Dubbed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act, the bill requires the Pentagon to stick to its standards for training and equipping combat troops being sent abroad. It enforces rules that limit the tours of deployed troops to no more than 13 months and stipulate that they have to stay home for at least a year between tours.

In his response to the House passage of the bill, Bush said a "narrow majority" in the chamber had "abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job."

Instead of providing the "vital funding" he had requested, House Democrats "set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret," Bush said. "They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror."

Bush added, "This bill has too much pork, too many conditions, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. As I've made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk."

He said the House action "does only one thing: It delays the delivery of vital resources for our troops." He asserted that "we're beginning to see some signs of progress" in Iraq, where U.S. troops are engaged in a plan to secure Baghdad from rampant sectarian violence.

"Yet to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground," Bush said. "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen."

He said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned that if Congress does not approve the supplemental spending bill by April 15, service members "will face significant disruptions, and so will their families."

Calling the war in Iraq "a grotesque mistake," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a floor speech before the vote, "The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war."

She added, "The American people see the reality of the war; the president does not."

Pelosi urged lawmakers to take the "historic opportunity to vote to end the war in Iraq," which she asserted is "separate" from the war on terrorism.

"Will we renew the president's blank check for an open-ended war without end, or will we take a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq?" she asked. "The American people do not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who concluded the debate for the GOP side, said it was "exasperating that the Democrats have turned an emergency spending bill into a pork barrel project giveaway." He accused Democrats of "trying to buy the majority vote today, one pork project at a time."

"We all want our troops to come home -- when the job is done," Johnson said on the House floor. Announcing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq "literally hands the enemy our war plan" and tells them they will win "if they just wait us out," he said.

"The sweeteners in this bill are political bribery, and our troops deserve more than this," Johnson said.

Other Republicans also charged that the bill violates recent legislation restricting the use of "earmarks," as special appropriations for lawmakers' pet projects are known. Democrats defended the non-military spending in the bill and denied that any of it represented earmarks, arguing that none of the projects in question was requested by an individual lawmaker.

Kucinich, one of the liberal Democrats who opposed the bill, said in a floor speech, "This war now has a momentum of its own." He charged that "the same false logic that trapped members into voting for the war is trapping members into continuing it." He exhorted lawmakers, "If you want peace, vote for peace now. If you want peace, stop funding the war."

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a supporter of the bill, said, "The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is: a failure." But instead of heeding public opinion against greater U.S. involvement, "the president in all of his arrogance and all of his lying chose a surge," Miller said, referring to Bush's plan to deploy about 30,000 additional combat and support troops to Iraq.

That brought an admonition from the chair to refrain from personally insulting the president.

"All of us whish that Iraq had gone better; we all wish that the mistakes hadn't been made," said Rep. John A. Boehner R-Ohio), the House minority leader. But he warned that the Democrats' path would lead to "chaos and genocide in Iraq," as well as the establishment of safe havens for terrorists there, the destabilization of moderate Arab governments and "the end of Israel as I know it."

The bill provides about $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more than $20 billion in new domestic spending for such items as agricultural subsidies, veterans' health care and rebuilding efforts in Gulf Coast states hit by hurricanes two years ago.

Among other things, it provides about $3.5 billion in additional funding above Bush's request to address the health care problems faced by veterans and by returning service members wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

To help deal with an expected spring offensive by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bill adds $1.2 billion to Bush's funding request for military operations in that country.

But it also includes such expenditures as $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans, $500 million for wildfire suppression, $250 million for milk subsidies, $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $25 million for spinach farmers in California.

Republicans ridiculed some of these spending items, saying they did not belong in the bill and were included to entice reluctant lawmakers to vote for it.

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) defended the expenditures, denouncing those he said were "squawking" about such items as the spinach spending. "You can laugh about it now," he said, "but people were dying last year because of an E. coli breakout."

At the heart of the bill is a Democratic plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq. It requires Bush to hold the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to political, economic and military benchmarks that Bush himself has set in calling for progress toward national reconciliation. While setting out steps he expects the Iraqi government to take, Bush has steadfastly refused to set any sort of a timetable or to spell out penalties for failing to meet the commitments.

Under the plan, Bush must certify by July 1 that there is progress in meeting the benchmarks. If such certification is not submitted, the proposed legislation calls for the United States to then begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq on a six-month timetable.

If Bush provides the initial certification, he must subsequently certify by Oct. 1 that the Iraqis have finished meeting the benchmarks. If the second certification is not forthcoming, a 180-day withdrawal period would start, with completion of it set for the end of March 2008.