Democrats say additional money is needed for war

House Democrats said Tuesday that additional costs for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that lawmakers will consider in September might be as much as $40 billion above the $145.2 billion supplemental request submitted by the White House in February.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., also said Democrats are contemplating a shorter-term funding measure, perhaps covering six months of the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

That might require a vote on Iraq funding around the time of the 2008 primary season, he said, putting pressure on Republicans to support a change in Iraq policy or possibly face the wrath of voters.

Murtha said he estimates total unbudgeted needs associated with President Bush's move to station another 21,500 troops in and around Baghdad and other costs could total $30 billion to $40 billion, including extra money needed simply to fly new mine-resistant vehicles to Iraq.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., cited similar if slightly smaller numbers, ranging from $25 billion to $30 billion; although both said their figures were unscientific at this early stage, the added costs are indeed starting to pile up.

In testimony Tuesday before the House Budget Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said the Pentagon would need an additional $5.3 billion for mine-resistant vehicles, known as "MRAPs," that are better able to withstand roadside bombs. He also said more money would be needed to support Bush's surge plan of increased troop levels, which the White House did not include in its supplemental request, although he did not specify how much.

House Democrats have been preparing additions they argue went unheeded in the White House's request.

In addition to funding for MRAPs, they want to provide money for additional C-17 cargo aircraft; plug shortfalls in housing allowances and defense health accounts created by a requirement that the services find savings within their medical budgets; buy more Black Hawk Medevac helicopters; train and equip other nations' military forces contributing to anti-terror operations, and improve the readiness of reserves training at home for overseas deployments.

Murtha also said he has been trying to obtain cost estimates for redeploying troops out of Iraq, which could add to the cost.

"Here's the concern we have: We lost 21,000 people when we came out of Vietnam, after [President] Nixon had signed his agreement," Murtha said. "Now we're not going to lose 21,000 people this time. This is going to be carefully planned and fairly expensive."

The House could take up a $459.6 billion fiscal 2008 Defense spending bill as early as today, which will not contain war funding.

The Senate is not expected to take up its version until after Labor Day. Congress will not turn to Bush's war request until September, after Gen. David Petraeus updates lawmakers on conditions in Iraq.

The two bills might be combined into one $600 billion-plus package this fall -- not counting any domestic appropriations Democrats might want to add, as Bush is threatening to veto spending bills that exceed his request.

Murtha said he will push language in September calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, dangling more veto bait in front of Bush.

The situation creates an unlikely prospect for completing the Defense measure by the beginning of the new fiscal year.

"It won't be done Oct. 1," Murtha said. "I'm saying this: They'll run out of money very shortly after Oct. 1. They can get by a couple weeks, but this is crunch time."

Murtha added that Congress might have to use a series of stopgap funding measures to fund military operations in the interim.

But he said the prospect of a prolonged veto fight with the White House over war-spending might bode ill for achieving the administration's goals in Iraq, as the alternative is a continuing resolution at lower spending levels.