By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 24, 2003; Page A01

The U.S.-run government in Iraq has vowed to seek no congressional funding in 2005 to reconstruct that nation if it receives the Bush administration's full $20.3 billion request this fall, raising questions about how it will meet its total spending needs.

The written pledge, in a document responding to lawmakers' questions, appeared at odds with the Coalition Provisional Authority's estimated costs of reconstruction and the amount of money likely to come from other nations. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow put the total rebuilding cost at $55 billion in a speech yesterday at an Iraq donors conference in Madrid.

If the administration secures its full request from Congress, the United States will have committed less than half that amount -- $24 billion in 2003 and 2004. Pledges from the World Bank and other donors total little more than $8 billion so far, and the Madrid conference started on a disappointing note for U.S. officials, largely because of reluctance from Saudi Arabia.

The provisional authority's document to Congress concedes that any money pledged from other nations will not be available until 2005, leaving the near-term rebuilding costs solely on the U.S. government. Still, the authority wrote to Congress this week: "If we receive our full request of $20.3 billion, then we will not seek additional reconstruction funds in FY 2005," which ends in September of that year.

The authority's document comes to light as administration allies in Congress fight to restore Senate and House cuts to the rebuilding request and to make all the money an outright grant. The House response to President Bush's $87 billion request for reconstruction and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- which includes the $20.3 billion to rebuild Iraq -- sliced $1.7 billion. It had been earmarked to establish Zip codes and a new phone numbering system; build seven new communities, two prisons and a pediatric hospital; and restore marshes in southern Iraq, among other things. The Senate cut out the same items and trimmed an additional $200 million from a $900 million fund to import petroleum to Iraq.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said yesterday that the provisional authority believes it can meet its overall needs with money from international donors, multilateral lending organizations and private investments.

In its document to Congress, the provisional authority defended the costs of its requests for police trainers, a military training curriculum, prisons, a new telephone numbering system and court security. Although Iraqi wages are about one-third those in the United States, equipment and materials typically cost much more.

"If you choose to construct using U.S. materials, equipment and construction techniques, then identical construction can cost you as much as 200 percent more in Iraq than in the U.S.," the document states. It implies that the provisional authority plans to do just that. The authority defended its $400 million request for two new maximum-security prisons, saying the $50,000-per-bed rate "is reasonable in light of U.S. construction standards where the cost per bed of a prison ranges from $60,000 to $120,000. . . . We are not paying a premium."

Asked why the administration is seeking $800 million for 1,500 police trainers, or $530,000 per recruit, the authority responded that only $525 million of the request is "directly required to recruit, staff, uniform and maintain" the 1,500 trainers. That reduces the cost per trainer to $350,000.

The authority repeatedly defended its request as vital to stabilizing Iraq before a pull-out of U.S. forces. "Contracts will be competitively awarded to the greatest extent possible," the document said.

But critics are not so sure taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

"It seems to reflect an expense-account mentality," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent critic of the Iraq rebuilding effort. "If it's your money, cost matters. But the administration is taking taxpayer dollars and spending it quite freely."

James W. Dyer, Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, also was skeptical of the authority's pledge, given the uncertainties in Iraq and among international donors. "It reminds me of the response we got last spring with the first request," he said. "They need to see how things go in Madrid and how things go in Iraq on the ground before they make any promises."

In August, L. Paul Bremer, administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, told The Washington Post that Iraq will need "several tens of billions" of dollars in the coming years.

Already, the authority plans to begin projects it lacks the funding to complete. For example, it has requested $150 million to build a "cutting edge" children's hospital, complete with oncology, plastic surgery, burn treatment and high-risk pregnancy units. The total cost is estimated at $500 million to $700 million, but no mention is made in administration documents of where the rest of the money would come from.

Meanwhile, the Washington watchdog group Common Cause, has begun a new "Eye on Iraq" campaign to shed more light on the reconstruction effort. An online petition campaign demanding more competition and transparency in the contract bidding process garnered 10,000 signatures in less than 24 hours, Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle said.

"War for generations has meant profits for politically connected companies, but that cannot be the case now," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. "Much of the world opposed a U.S. war against Saddam Hussein and continues to question our motives for intervening. We must rebuild right -- rewarding contracts openly and making transparent decisions -- or risk serious damage to our credibility."