Future of Guantanamo dominates war spending debate

[May 08, 2009]  WASHINGTON (AP) -- The future of 241 terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay military prison dominated a congressional debate on war spending Thursday, as Republicans warned that the Obama administration was preparing to release dangerous killers into American neighborhoods and Democrats accused the GOP of fear-mongering.

"We don't have any plans to release terrorists," Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate hearing where he was grilled about President Barack Obama's order to shutter the prison by January 2010. "With regard to those who you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into this country and release them, anyone we would consider to be a terrorist."

Ultimately, Republican attempts to prevent the Guantanamo facility from being closed were defeated along party lines in the House Appropriations Committee. However, the panel refused to give Obama the $50 million he had requested to relocate Guantanamo prisoners and it demanded a detailed plan from the White House by Oct. 1 on the future of the facility.

The Guantanamo provision is part of a $96.7 billion measure the committee approved to pay for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through the fall. The package is nearly $12 billion more than Obama sought.

The spending bill would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Republicans had previously seized on Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo as a way to criticize him for being weak on serious national security issues. At Thursday's session, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said voting against the Republican plan would endanger U.S. citizens.

"They're not repentant sinners," Tiahrt said of the detainees. "I don't want them in my hometown."

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said Tiahrt and the Republicans were playing politics. The Guantanamo prison has become a "recruiting tool" for al-Qaida and other terrorists groups, Edwards said, and needs to be shuttered.

The committee also turned aside an amendment from Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., to shift $200 million out of foreign operation accounts to the Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. agencies fighting the drug war along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"There is an absolute crying need for us to give money to these agencies," Rogers said.

Democrats said these agencies have enough money to do the job.

The committee also approved a compromise plan to shift to the State Department control of hundreds of millions dollars in security and counterinsurgency aid for troubled Pakistan.

They rejected Republicans' bid to keep the fund in the Pentagon's hands.

Under the compromise, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund would remain with the Pentagon until September 2010. After that, the $400 million account would be transferred to the State Department.

Republicans on the committee objected, saying President Barack Obama and senior U.S. military leaders wanted the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund to remain in the defense budget.

But Democrats argued that in Pakistan, where there is not a significant U.S. military presence, the State Department should be the agency with greater authority.

While the committee backed the Obama administration's plans to send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan, it also made clear speedy results are expected.

Obama has approved 68,000 U.S. troops for Afghanistan, which combined with troops from NATO allies and other countries would total about 100,000. Committee chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., attached language to the bill requiring the administration to issue a report by February on whether the weak governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are doing enough to deserve continued support.

Obey said he was "extremely dubious" about the ability of the Obama administration to achieve its goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nonetheless, he said the president was entitled to "all the tools he needs to succeed."

Even as Congress takes up the new war bill, there is uncertainty about whether the administration's 2010 follow-up supplemental will be enough to cover the buildup of forces in Afghanistan. Obama has committed 21,000 new troops to the 38,000 already stationed in Afghanistan.

The bill also expresses alarm at the growing use of contractors to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obey's bill demands the military shift more of the lucrative work handled by U.S. companies to the Iraqis and Afghans.

"Let's not only get the troops out (of Iraq), let's get the contractors out," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the panel's defense subcommittee.

The overall $11.8 billion increase in the committee's bill would go to military personnel accounts and for the procurement of cargo planes, armored combat vehicles, helicopters and other items.

___

On the Net:

House Appropriations Committee: http://appropriations.house.gov/

[Associated Press; By RICHARD LARDNER]

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.