House Democrats named their conferees at the beginning of this week  and they are to meet Monday, though much of the work on the conference report has been done. The conference report is expected to include an “advisory” date for the withdrawal of troops, rather than the firm September 2008 deadline included in the House version of the bill.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he expects the bill will be sent to Bush by late next week or the following Monday. Bush has repeatedly threatened to veto the bill.

House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D-Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude.

“Six months is probably too long,” Moran said. “One month — it takes longer than that to pass the thing.”

Moran said the legislation could not be treated like a continuing resolution, keeping funding at existing levels. The amount of money flowing to the military has to increase, he said, to cover additional spending on “re-tooling” the National Guard and military healthcare.

Moran nodded with an expression of resignation when asked if the two-month bill, as currently envisioned, would fund the ongoing “surge” of U.S. combat troops in Iraq.

He was not as clear about whether the non-military spending, such as money for peanut storage, reimbursement for spinach farmers whose crops were recalled and asbestos removal in the Capitol, would be included. Moran simply said he didn’t like it.

“I wish we’d take that s--t out,” Moran said. “It was all put in by leadership after we wrote the bill, and it didn’t get us a single vote.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) a founding member of the House Out of Iraq Caucus, said she expects there will be even more pressure to withdraw troops in two months if events in Iraq continue on their current violent course.

“In two months it might be really clear how bad it is,” Woolsey said.