House and Senate Democrats inched closer to an accord on the supplemental spending bill for the military, but party leaders emerged empty-handed from a meeting with President Bush.

“We will give the president what we come up with in conference,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday after leaving the White House meeting. “We’re close to that conclusion now.”

On Capitol Hill, Democratic and Republican negotiators on the military spending portion of the $123 billion-plus measure (HR 1591) said after a brief meeting that they had resolved all but the thorniest of issues — the Iraq withdrawal language. And House Democrats began to acknowledge the likelihood that they will have to yield to the Senate’s position on redeploying U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

Bush has said repeatedly that he will veto the measure if it includes Iraq withdrawal language and billions of dollars in added spending unrelated to defense.

Republican lawmakers were as defiant as ever after the White House gathering. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, said nothing had changed as a result of the meeting. “The real issue here, and the first big issue, is whether in fact we’re going to agree to a surrender date, and that’s not going to happen,” Boehner said.

“We’re not prepared to negotiate today,” added Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Congress plans to send Bush the spending bill next week.

But first Democrats must reconcile the troop withdrawal language in the House and Senate versions, while holding on to enough votes in each chamber to clear it.

James P. Moran, D-Va., who is a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, acknowledged that the conference committee would likely have to go with the Senate’s less restrictive language that would set a “goal” of withdrawing troops by a particular date.

“I think the president is going to get a bill that is already very much compromised,” Moran said.

The House bill includes a binding requirement to withdraw the troops no later than the end of August 2008. The Senate would establish a non-binding “goal” of withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of March 2008. It also includes binding language that would require the phased redeployment of troops to begin 120 days after enactment.

“There were some operating assumptions that were spelled out,” said a Democratic aide who was briefed on an April 17 meeting with Pelosi, members of her “kitchen cabinet” and of the Out of Iraq Caucus. “The committee will likely keep the [House] readiness components but take the Senate language on goals.”

Democrat John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, who chairs the House Defense Appropriations panel, acknowledged that negotiators must strike a difficult balance.

“You’ve got to come to a compromise so we can both pass it,” Murtha said. “This is the early stages, even though it’s only a week away.”

Asked if he could support the Senate’s language on goals, House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said, “I could vote for anything that contributes to putting the pressure on Bush.”

Obey said he wants the pressure to build on Republican lawmakers with each vote, until they tell the president, “ ‘I’m sorry, our tongues are hanging out. We’re not going to do it anymore.’ ”

Still, if the bill includes the weaker language it could jeopardize House passage, or at least make it more difficult. A number of liberal members voted for the initial measure despite reservations that the language to curtail the war was not strong enough. Further compromise could lead some to defect.

But Democratic leaders could pick up votes from some party conservatives. Of the 14 Democrats who voted against passage of the House measure, the vote was essentially split between conservatives and liberals.

Republicans will have virtually no say in the final withdrawal language in the bill. Still, they plan to take a stand beyond just voting against the measure.

Boehner said Wednesday that he would offer a motion that would force the House to vote on whether the final bill should include the binding House language for troop withdrawal. He plans to offer that motion when the House appoints conferees, which is expected to happen Thursday.

Democratic Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida, co-chairman of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, said he would vote against the motion. “Motions to instruct don’t have any force,” he said.

Meanwhile, the top four defense appropriators — Murtha, Senate Defense Appropriations Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, and their Republican counterparts, Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida and Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska — met to put the finishing touches on the defense spending portion of the bill.

However, the bill also includes billions in domestic spending, and Inouye said Democratic leaders have not yet settled on a topline number for the bill. The House version totals $124.3 billion, while the Senate version totals $123.2 billion.

The defense appropriators did not discuss the withdrawal language.

“That’s above our pay grade,” Murtha said. “It has to be something settled by leadership.”

Young said he and Murtha had previously “agreed to disagree” on the timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, though they did agree on the defense spending figure.

Earlier in the day, when asked about the Senate benchmarks for the Iraqi government, Young did not immediately rule them out. “I think it would depend on what those benchmarks are,” he said.

After the expected veto, Democrats could pursue several options. One would be to approve short installments of war funding.

Boyd said he would support such a move. If the president vetoes the conference report, “We ought to give him a clean bill that’s 60 days,” he said. “It continues the debate on the policy.”

Although Bush has said the military needs the money immediately, Democrats have pointed to a report by the Congressional Research Service that says there is sufficient money until July if the Pentagon uses its transfer authority. Though Democrats are trying to move quickly on their proposal, Murtha indicated that he believes they have a little leeway. “We think June 1 is the deadline,” he said.

Patrick Yoest and Susan Ferrechio contributed to this story.