House OKs $633B Defense budget over Pentagon gripes
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on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a $633 billion Defense bill for next year despite Pentagon complaints that it spares outdated but politically popular weapons at the expense of the military's ability to fight.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 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.
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.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge orders W.Va. agency to release pollution data
- Man caught jumping White House fence
- Academic scandal at University of North Carolina bigger than previously reported
- Coast Guard to seek billions to protect Arctic interests
- Ferguson slaying of Brown reconstructed in county autopsy
- 4 private security guards convicted
- Coburn’s final ‘Wastebook’ tallies $25B in what he considers ‘pork’
- Social Security recipients to get increase in benefits
- Personal use of Secret Service agents on staffer’s behalf draws investigaton
- Security at Capitol questioned
- 8 arrested in post-game riots in Morgantown