Hill battle on war spending looms

President Obama’s $83.4 billion war-spending bill is headed for an unexpectedly tough time on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are scrutinizing the funding priorities and rank-and-file Democrats want to include performance benchmarks for the Afghanistan mission.

Despite bipartisan support for Mr. Obama’s war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans are taking a stand against the more than $81 million requested to shut down the prison camp at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week railed against the administration’s move to close the outpost without a plan to relocate the roughly 240 terrorism suspects now locked up on the island.

“Americans want some assurances that closing Guantanamo won’t make them less safe, and for good reason,” the Kentucky Republican said. “Guantanamo currently houses some of the most dangerous men alive. These are men who are proud of the innocent lives they’ve taken and who want to return to terrorism.”

He noted that the Defense Department has confirmed that 18 former detainees had returned to the battlefield and at least 40 more are suspected to have rejoined terrorism networks.

The debate of policy priorities and performance benchmarks may slow down the legislation and possibly succeed in reshaping the spending plan, but even antiwar lawmakers determined to vote against the bill expect it will ultimately win passage.

Mr. Obama, who is fulfilling a campaign promise with moves to close the prison camp by January 2010, faces stiff resistance to bringing detainees into the United States. Most other countries don’t want to take them in, either.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, dismissed the Republicans’ objections as another example of what Democrats have been characterizing as partisan obstructionism.

“It would be highly irresponsible for Republicans to attempt to hold up funding as part of their just-say-no strategy,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.

Republicans, who have made criticism of massive new spending the cornerstone of their opposition to Mr. Obama and the Democrat-led Congress, also are ready to pounce on any funding not directly linked to the war effort.

“It’s possible we’ll get into an arm-wrestling fight over spending,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat.

Mrs. McCaskill and fellow lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are eager to restore some of the military budget cuts announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, such as ending production of the F-22 fighter jet. The war supplemental is an attractive vehicle for retaining the programs and the jobs they create in some lawmakers’ home states.

Mrs. McCaskill said she would push to include funds for more C-17 transport planes that Mr. Gates put on the chopping block. “They’re flying the wings off of them,” she said of the old C-17s that are a U.S. workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of the Appropriations’ defense subcommittee, who will play a lead role writing the war- spending bill, also is a fan of buying more C-17s for the war effort.

The airplanes and other additions Mr. Murtha has in mind for the bill, however, are expected to boost the price tag by at least $10 billion.

Story Continues →