"This process has been drug-out a long time, which says to me it is political," he said. "There is no wrong doing."

Opposition Democrats are calling for the Attorney General's ouster over what they say is the politically-motivated firing of eight federal prosecutors. The Justice Department says those dismissals were based on poor performance.

During this trip to Europe, President Bush also suffered a set-back to his top legislative priority of the year: comprehensive immigration reform.

A bipartisan bill fell short of the votes it needed in the Senate because some members of the president's own party object to its provisions giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

The president says he knows it is a tough debate, but he is still optimistic about getting the bill through.

At dusk, illegal immigrants prepare to use an inner-tube to cross the Rio Grande River at the U.S-Mexico border in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 02 June 2007
"I believe we can get an immigration bill," he said. "Now it is going to require leadership from the Democrat leaders in the Senate, and it is going to require me to stay engaged and work with Republicans who want a bill."

While in Europe, the president telephoned three Republican Senators to lobby for the immigration bill. He will go to Capitol Hill Tuesday to press them further.

"It is important that we address this issue now and I believe we can get it done," he said. "Listen, a lot of progress was made between people in both parties making hard decisions necessary to move a comprehensive plan."

Mr. Bush says the legislative process often takes two steps forward and one step back. He says he will start Tuesday to work toward taking some steps forward again, telling a reporter on the trip, "I will see you at the bill signing."

"The United States takes this issue seriously,"  Mr Bush said.

"The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

He promised that America would work with other countries "to establish a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012".

The President's language is a marked contrast to that of earlier in his administration when he questioned whether climate change was a man-made problem and refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, not least because it exempted China and India – who were emerging as competitors – from the first round of emissions cuts.

But his administration also made plain today that it remained opposed to Germany's call for the imposition of a strict upper limit, allowing global temperatures to increase by no more than 2C.

These would mean a worldwide reduction in emissions effectively of 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Nor is Mr Bush willing to accept EU proposals for a global carbon-trading program under which companies would buy and sell pollution permits.

Paula Dobriansky, the US Under Secretary of State, told reporters today  that the administration doubted the effectiveness of measures that "would restrict economic growth and investment for new research".

She added: "There is not a one-size-fits-all or silver-bullet solution to climate change."

The US argues that its own progress in cutting carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 shows that a less rigid policy of promoting new technology can also achieve results.

Mr Bush said that all countries, including "rapidly growing economies like India and China" needed to "establish midterm management targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs".

His proposals did little to impress environmental groups.

Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, branded them a "a complete charade", adding: "It is an attempt to make the Bush administration look like it takes global warming seriously without actually doing anything to curb emissions."

There was a more muted reaction from European leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, who have led international pressure for more action on climate change.

Mr Blair, speaking in South Africa, said there was now a "real chance" of a deal on global warming at the G8 summit and then appealed for greater understanding over Mr Bush's position.

Mr Bush has also sought to dampen down growing tensions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, over the stationing of US interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe, inviting him to a meeting at the Bush's family holiday residence at Kennebunkport, Maine, next month.

Today, however, Mr Putin raised the rhetorical stakes further, saying that the recent test of a new Russian missile was a direct response to US actions and "imperialism" in world affairs.

"We are not the initiators of this new round of the arms race," he added.

Bush spoke at the nation's largest training center for law enforcement.

He chose the get-tough setting as conservative critics blast a Senate proposal as being soft on people who break the law. Hoping to blunt that message, Bush emphasized that any new options for immigrants and foreign workers would not start until tougher security is in place.

The presidential stop came during a congressional recess, with senators back home and facing pressure from the left and right on the immigration plan. Bush's aim is to build momentum for the legislation, perhaps his best chance for a signature victory in his second term. The Senate expects to resume debate on it next week.

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems," Bush said.

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving," Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Bush repeatedly cast the matter as one of political courage.

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

The bill would give temporary legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, provided they came forward, paid a fine and underwent criminal background checks. To apply for a green card, they would have to pay another fine, learn English, return to their home country and wait in line.

The plan also would create a guest worker program. It would allow foreign laborers to come to the U.S. for temporary stints, yet with no guarantee they can eventually gain citizenship.

Both the new visa plan and the temporary worker program are contingent on other steps coming first. Those include fencing and barriers along the Mexico border, the hiring of more Border Patrol agents and the completion of an identification system to verify employees' legal status.

The legislation would also reshape future immigration decisions. A new point system would prioritize skills and education over family in deciding who can immigrate.

Georgia's senators both played leading roles in producing Bush's deal with the Senate. Yet they have also said they may not support the final bill, depending upon how it is amended.

Bush chastised those who say the proposal offers amnesty to illegal immigrants. He called it empty political rhetoric.

The U.S. House advanced a final $120 billion Iraq war spending bill today that would keep military operations afloat through September.

The bill was a major concession by Democrats who wanted to include a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals, but relented because they didn't have enough votes to override another presidential veto. The House and Senate both planned to approve the measure by the end of the day.

For his part, Bush agreed to accept some $17 billion in added spending so long as there were not restrictions on the military campaign.

"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Obey said the deal was the best that Democrats could manage because "the White House is in a cloud somewhere in terms of understanding the realities in Iraq."

The bill includes the nearly $100 billion that President Bush requested for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as billions in domestic spending, including $6.4 billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance.

Republicans were unhappy about the added domestic spending, but said they were relieved the final measure did not attempt to set a timetable on the war.

"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "And we cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made."

The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion. But it also has exposed a sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the war.

Democratic presidential contenders on Capitol Hill are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military.

"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to have to protect them," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "We're going to have to fund them."

Biden was alone among the potential Democratic candidates in immediately pledging his support for the bill.

Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.

Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders. Last week, the two voted to advance legislation that would have cut off money for U.S. combat operations by March 31, 2008, cutoff.

Challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their view it issued a blank check to President Bush on the Iraq war.

"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now — with clarity and conviction."

While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The president, however, could waive that restriction.

Biden said that while he would vote for the measure, he disagreed with the approach because it could hamper the Iraqi government's ability to take on more responsibility.

Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House today to ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for domestic and military-related projects.

While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.

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.