Senate Democrats say they will strip out $80M in new funding in a wartime spending bill to begin the process of closing the Guantanamo detention facility. | REUTERS Democrats fold on closing Gitmo

In a clear setback for President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to both wipe out $80 million in new funding for the closing the Guantanamo detention facility and bar the administration from moving prisoners to U.S. soil until there is a more detailed plan provided to lawmakers.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) confirmed the decision, which follows intense pressure from Republicans going into debate over a $91.3 billion wartime spending bill expected to come to the floor late Tuesday.


“We’ll wipe out all the money,” Inouye said, “And I’ll put in a provision that says none of the funds in this bill or any other bill can be used to pay for the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.”

Inouye held out the option that Obama could still seek funding as part of the regular Defense and Justice Department appropriations bills for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But at this stage, securing the money now—without an approved plan—was a “non-starter,” he said.

Following House debate last week on the same bill, Obama is left with no money and less flexibility than when he first made his funding request this spring.

The wholesale retreat heightens the importance of a Thursday speech by Obama when he is expected to address the Guantanamo issue. At a time when new polls actually show the president riding high on national security issues, Guantanamo has proved especially nettlesome.

The Politico 44 Story Widget Requires Adobe Flash Player

This was well illustrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s seemingly contradictory comments following a Democratic caucus luncheon Tuesday. Reid said that closing Guantanamo was the right decision but “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” Asked next, if he could see a day when Guantanamo detainees might be transferred to prisons on American soil, Reid refused to clarify his remarks. “We don’t want them around,” he said.

In recent days, Obama has sent mixed signals himself as he sorts through the complexities of how to bring to trial the remaining prisoners. Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

“Obama hasn’t done us any favors on this,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “He’s a little of this, a little of that. The Republicans have one compelling message.”

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was early to see the localized politics of the issue and has been beating the drums steadily for weeks on the Guantanamo issue. With his blessing, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)—whose state is home to Ft. Sill, a possible detention side-- was already poised to offer language barring the transfer of any detainee to American soil.

Whether Inhofe will still proceed was not clear, but Democrats clearly hope by their action to preempt what promised to be a messy fight.

As reported from Inouye’s committee last week, the Senate bill had provided $80 million sought by Justice and the Pentagon to begin to carry out Obama’s executive order that Guantanamo be closed by early next year.

The House last week stripped out all of the money, but Inouye had hoped to chart a middle course that kept the money in place but allows none of it to be released until the White House has come forward with a detailed plan to address security concerns among lawmakers. Given the emotions of the moment, these hopes were short lived.

In a week when Obama is poised to win both credit card reform and anti-foreclosure legislation from Congress, frustrated Republicans have seized on Guantanamo as an opportunity to bloody the president on what’s been a signature issue for him.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could see his Democrats already wavering, as signaled by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) over the weekend. Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who must run for re-election in Republican-leaning Indiana next year, (D-Ind.), said he welcomed the decision to drop the money. And even freshly elected senators with a six year term in front of them could see the dangers.

“I didn’t hear anybody bring it up,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) recalling town meetings he held during the spring break in April. “Buy my guess is if you had one headline that we were opening a facility, the first issue would be where? And if it was in Albuquerque New Mexico, I’d think we would get many, many calls.”