Iraq, Afghanistan funding needs may top $50 billion next year

WASHINGTON -- President Bush may seek more money for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year than the $50 billion figure his budget director cited months ago, White House officials say.

The acknowledgment comes amid growing doubts in Congress that the amount will be enough to finance U.S. operations in the two countries, especially in an increasingly violent Iraq. Lawmakers also say they will probably give the administration less leeway than it wants in spending the money.

Joshua Bolten, Bush's budget chief, cited $50 billion in February as "the upper limit" for what might be spent for the wars next year. But administration officials, who have repeatedly said they can't predict what will be needed, said this week that the figure has been misinterpreted and that they might request more or less than that.

"He feels very strongly that that wasn't meant as a marker," budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said Thursday, referring to Bolten's mention of $50 billion.

Administration officials asked congressional leaders on Wednesday for an initial $25 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the first months of fiscal 2005, which starts Oct. 1.

The request is expected to take months to move through a Congress facing fall elections and a federal deficit likely to set a record this year of perhaps $500 billion.

To explain what they said was confusion over the $50 billion, White House officials cited the government's complex budget procedures. Under them, less money is often spent for an activity than is actually provided because the expenditures can take time.

In a briefing Wednesday, a senior administration official cautioned reporters that the amount requested for an activity "is always higher" than the amount actually spent.

That would seem to suggest that Bush would request more than $50 billion if the administration felt $50 billion needed to be spent next year.

Many news organizations have used the $50 billion figure repeatedly since February. This week was the first time White House officials have offered this explanation for what it meant.

With a sustained insurrection in Iraq, the Pentagon now plans to keep 138,000 American troops there for all of next year, the same number there now. That figure was to drop to 115,000 this spring, and perhaps further later, meaning that anticipated savings from lower troop levels will not occur.

"I'll be very surprised if we don't find ourselves at least" needing $75 billion next year, Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the House subcommittee that controls the Pentagon's budget, said Thursday.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, and House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, all said in separate interviews Thursday that it was too early to tell how much will be needed.

"The $50 billion was never intended to land us on the dime," Nussle said.

Legislators also said they expected Congress to provide less flexibility for spending the money than the White House wants.

"They'd like to have it unspecified," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said of the White House request. Hunter said he wanted "a significant level of specification" for the money.

"We're prepared to give some flexibility, as usual, but we'd also like to have some accountability," said Young.

Some lawmakers complained last month that the administration did not inform them when it used anti-terror funds to prepare military facilities near Iraq in 2002.

The measure also clarifies language requiring the Transportation Security Administration to collect no less than $750 million from airlines to pay for aviation security, according to Chad Kolton, Office of Management and Budget spokesman.

The airlines, which pay $315 million annually, say they shouldn't have to pay an additional $435 million because it's a new tax.