House Democrats are close to finalizing a $100 billion-plus emergency supplemental spending bill that will disappoint Iraq War critics by failing to impose airtight conditions on future troop deployments.

Yet House appropriators detailed proposals Thursday that could attract support from lawmakers on the left and the right. The provisions would include requiring the president to seek authorization to use force in Iran, boosting efforts by $1 billion to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and tying spending for the Iraq War to Iraqi government performance benchmarks.

Democratic leaders huddled for about two hours with appropriators Thursday to vet their plans in a session that was described by one attendee as “lively.”

Liberal rank-and-file Democrats are calling for an open process that would allow them to offer amendments aimed at curtailing the war, both in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor.

But the meeting produced one convert who was one of the toughest critics of party leaders’ insistence on including presidential waiver authority for standards imposed on troop and equipment deployments.

“It’s a leadership call. I’m going to follow the leadership,” said James P. Moran, D-Va., an appropriator.

“The president’s not going to like this bill, nor will the Republicans,” Moran added.

Indeed, the ranking Republican on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, C.W. Bill Young of Florida, said the GOP will oppose conditioning deployments on troop readiness.

“I don’t think that Congress can micromanage any battle,” Young said. “Our leadership and our defense folks would be opposed to including any of these restrictions, with or without the waiver language.”

The House Appropriations panel is expected to consider the supplemental March 8, according to Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha, D-Pa. The fiscal 2007 spending measure will provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, provide funds for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and carry other spending items intended to win votes for the measure.

Military funding in the supplemental would total $98 billion, Murtha said.

Conditions like those that Democratic leaders intend to use for troop and equipment deployments would be applied to support for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Moran said. Like the readiness requirements, President Bush could waive the Maliki standards, he said.

Such a provision could establish a shadow timeline for a drawdown of U.S. troops and economic commitments but keep decision-making authority in Bush’s hands.

“If Maliki can’t achieve what he has promised to achieve within the next six months, we can no longer continue committing the lives and resources to hold him up,” Moran said.

Murtha and Moran said they would include $1 billion more than the president requested for Afghanistan to counter the resurgence of the Taliban.

Murtha also said he would include in the supplemental $3.1 billion to fund base realignment and closures and $450 million each for treating soldiers’ brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Several appropriators who did not want to be identified said language that would require the president to seek authorization to fight Iran is under consideration.

Appropriators also may include funding for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where some veterans have been receiving substandard care, according to media reports. In a Feb. 27 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said once problems with the facility were “identified,” the administration would ask for additional funds if necessary. Murtha will hold a hearing on the issue March 5.

Though Democratic leaders hope that conditions on the Maliki government, funding for the war in Afghanistan and spending on agriculture disaster aid will help win support from liberals and centrists, any plan that allows Bush to waive conditions on troop deployments will run into opposition from a large anti-war segment of the caucus.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., noted that he already voted for a non-binding resolution opposing the president’s troop surge.

“I don’t want to vote on another” non-binding resolution, he said. “If we’re going to put conditions into the supplemental, I want it to be meaningful. I want it to stick.”

McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, said he does not know whether lawmakers will be allowed to offer amendments to the supplemental on the floor.

“My sense is the leadership has a point of view, and I would hope that, through the amendment process, they would allow members to express their points of view,” said Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill.

Lawmakers also continue jockeying to add non-war spending items to the supplemental to fund a variety of priorities. House Democratic Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina said the measure will include funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and to rebuild the hurricane-damaged levee system in Louisiana. That state’s lawmakers have been seeking additional funding for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said lawmakers also are discussing including $1 billion to prepare for a possible bird flu epidemic, as well as $500 million for California salmon and to combat Western wildfires.

The added spending has raised concerns at the White House and among fiscal conservatives. Rob Portman, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, reiterated Thursday the administration’s opposition to funding for unrelated items in the emergency supplemental.

“We want to make sure that the war supplemental remains the war supplemental,” he said. “We’ll certainly do everything we can to keep it clean.”

John M. Donnelly and Steven T. Dennis contributed to this story.