Democrats torn over how strong a message to send about the Iraq War decided to set a goal of withdrawing most U.S. troops by late March 2008 if the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks — and by the end of this year if they do not.

The conference agreement on a $124.2 billion war spending bill announced Monday tracks the Senate-favored approach of setting goals, rather than firm deadlines, for withdrawal from Iraq.

Democratic leaders plan to bring a conference deal on the fiscal 2007 supplemental appropriations measure (HR 1591) to the House floor Wednesday, but first they must persuade liberal members who voted last month for more stringent House language to accept the compromise.

“I think the leadership is probably going to hold most of the votes,” said Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va. But he conceded that leaders will have a backup plan if too many balk.

“We’ve got to see what the vote looks like,” he said.

The House-passed version of the bill included a firm deadline for withdrawal by the end of August 2008.

If the conference report is adopted in the House, it would likely move to the Senate for a vote Thursday.

President Bush has vowed to veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal and also has objected to additional funding he did not request.

“We all know that this bill is going nowhere fast,” Jerry Lewis of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said during a public meeting of conferees Monday afternoon.

Democratic leaders have been discussing a plan to send the president a smaller tranche of war funds if this measure is vetoed, which would continue funding the war for a shorter period — and would keep the war debate on the front burner.

Under the conference deal, a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would begin no later than Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completion 180 days later if the president can certify that Iraqis have met certain benchmarks. If he fails to make that certification, redeployment would begin July 1, 2007, with a similar 180-day goal for completion.

Republicans attacked the Democratic plan mandating the start date but not the end date of a withdrawal. “Moving up a mandatory surrender date for retreat in exchange for an open-ended timeline for its completion is not a serious compromise, it’s just plain senseless,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.

The conference report would allow some U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel and infrastructure, train and equip Iraqi troops, and engage in targeted counterterrorism operations — exemptions that were included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Additionally, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would have to report to Congress on the progress of the Iraqi government’s efforts to take control of the country and on the status of redeployment efforts every 60 days, beginning Sept. 1, 2007.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized the required redeployment of troops. “This latest proposal mandates that no matter how well the Iraqi government meets its benchmarks, and no matter how well our troops succeed in Iraq, the surrender must begin no later than Oct. 1,” he said.

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said the intent of the legislation is to send a message to political leaders in Iraq that the U.S. presence there will not be permanent. Leaders are also trying to convince those who didn’t agree with the Democrats to reconsider their position so that “in the end, the president and the Congress can sit down and work out a mutually agreed way of extricating ourselves from what has most assuredly become an Iraqi civil war,” he said.

Alluding to the non-binding “goals” of the withdrawal dates — which may cause problems with some Democrats who want stronger language — Obey added, “What is important is the unity that we express in doing so, so that people understand that we are going to be coming back at this issue again and again.”

Of the $124.2 billion provided in the bill, the final version would allocate $95.5 billion for the Pentagon — $4 billion more than the president requested. Of that, $50.4 billion would go toward operations and maintenance, with another $25.6 billion for procurement, $13.5 billion for military personnel and $3.3 billion for defense health.

The measure also would provide $6.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, more than twice the president’s request; $5.7 billion for the State Department; $3.5 billion for agriculture disaster aid; $2.25 billion for the Homeland Security Department; $1.8 billion for veterans’ health programs; $3.1 billion for military base closings, and $1.7 billion for military construction.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a federal-state program, would receive $650 million, $250 million of which would be offset by Medicaid savings. Another $400 million would go to energy assistance for low-income households.

The agreement also includes a phased increase over two years in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, along with a package of $4.84 billion over 10 years in tax breaks for small businesses.

The ranking Republican on the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, Jack Kingston of Georgia, sounded a note of political warning to Democrats on the additional spending. “We’ve heard from the majority. A couple of people have said, ‘Well, the Republicans added non-military items to the military supplemental bills.’ Well, you know, I don’t follow the thinking,” Kingston said. “We’re in the minority now.”

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., supported the extra funding but said her state needs far more Community Development Block Grant money. “We’re going to get that money in this supplemental, or we’re going to get it in some additional supplementals because it is only fair,” she said.

Two of the most controversial House-backed items, $74 million for a peanut-storage program and $25 million for spinach farmers, were dropped in the final version.

The conference report includes a provision that was in both House and Senate versions of the measure that would bar the Homeland Security Department from pre-empting stronger state and local chemical plant security regulations. It also includes language from the House version that would codify site security plans for chemical plants as “sensitive security information,” rather than the comparatively higher security standard of “classified material” in current law.

The conference report contains House-favored “readiness” benchmarks the Pentagon would need to meet before U.S. troops could be deployed to Iraq. Those provisions, promulgated by House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha, D-Pa., would require troops to receive full training and proper equipment before they could be deployed. They also would require at least one year between deployments for Army, Army Reserve and National Guard troops and 210 days for Marine and Marine Reserves. And troops could not serve in Iraq for longer than those time limits. Bush, however, could waive those requirements.

Bush reiterated his opposition to the Iraq withdrawal language Monday. “An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, ‘Just wait them out.’ It would say to the Iraqis, ‘Don’t do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives.’ And it would be discouraging for our troops,” Bush said.

Richard Rubin and Patrick Yoest contributed to this story.