WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a $633 billion defense bill for next year despite Pentagon complaints that it spares outdated but politically popular weapons at the expense of the military's ability to fight.
The vote was 315-107 and sent the legislation to the Senate, where leaders hoped to wrap up the measure. The White House had threatened a veto of earlier versions of the bill, and spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the threat still stands.
The far-reaching policy bill that covers the cost of ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel would authorize $528 billion for the Defense Department's base budget, $17 billion for defense and nuclear programs in the Energy Department and $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan.
In this June 27, 2006 file photo, reviewed by a U.S. Department of Defense official, U.S. military guards walk within Camp Delta military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. The White House is threatening that President Barack Obama would veto the defense bill unless Congress makes changes. Specifically, the White House complained about provisions restricting the administration's ability to transfer detainees from the U.S. Naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries.
The bill is $1.7 billion more than Obama requested.
House Republicans and Democrats debated the measure against the backdrop of high-stakes talks to avert the so-called fiscal cliff of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts and the loud cry for a sweeping deal to slash the deficit.
Democrats argued that the bill runs counter to demands for fiscal discipline.
"This bill is more money than the Pentagon wants," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "We're just throwing money at them."
Specifically, the bill spares a version of the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, includes upgrades for tanks and money for armored vehicles.
In a speech this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta criticized the pressure on the Pentagon to keep weapons that it doesn't want. "Aircraft, ships, tanks, bases, even those that have outlived their usefulness, have a natural political constituency. Readiness does not," Panetta said. "What's more, readiness is too often sacrificed in favor of a larger and less effective force. I am determined to avoid that outcome," he said.
Panetta said members of the House and Senate "diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need."
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., insisted that the bill "safeguards military readiness in times of declining budgets."