House Approves Big Defense Bill, Setting Up Showdown

The House approved a massive boost in military spending early this morning, setting up a showdown with the Bush administration by providing funds for the Crusader mobile cannon over the Pentagon’s objections.

The spending bill, approved 359 to 58, calls for $383.4 billion for the Pentagon in 2003, about $4 billion more than President Bush sought in his February budget plan. Bush’s proposed $48-billion increase over the current year’s military allocation marked the biggest one-year jump in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1966.

Despite the House’s willingness to outspend a defense-minded president, members invited conflict with the administration over their inclusion of funds for the $11-billion Crusader program.

The Army, backed by influential lawmakers, favors continued development of the self-propelled howitzer, but Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that he intends to cancel it, calling the weapon outmoded for future warfare.

The largely internal Pentagon battle erupted into a feud between Congress and the Bush administration Thursday, when the White House Budget Office promised to recommend a veto if the defense authorization bill required funding for the Crusader.

The House bill provides $475 million for the Crusader for 2003, and a nonbinding endorsement of the weapon system. But the bill skirts the likelihood of a veto by including no language that would prohibit the system’s cancellation.

The bill also includes major policy changes that would exempt the Pentagon from environmental laws, raise military salaries by at least 4% and fund research into nuclear-tipped missiles, which could penetrate mountain redoubts like those that have sheltered Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.

Strict rules barred most amendments, leaving Democratic opponents to vent their anger through a series of time-consuming procedural votes that postponed final passage until almost 2 a.m. EDT today. Yet the Crusader clause holds the greatest potential for a battle between the Bush administration and Congress.

The administration wants to jettison weapons designed for Cold War threats to free up funding for Space Age weapons such as unmanned bombers, while Congress supports the howitzer, long sought by the Army.

The Crusader’s fate is seen from the Pentagon to the White House to Capitol Hill as a litmus test for Rumsfeld’s plan to transform the military.

“Sometimes there is a tendency in the Congress to fund military programs that the military is not asking for,” Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said. “And this will be an important test case to see whether Congress spends the money in any case, or whether they agree with the experts and follow the recommendation of the Pentagon.”

The Crusader, first proposed in 1994, is a heavy, self-propelled, rapid-fire cannon that was to have entered service by 2008. The Army argued that it was badly needed to replace its 40-year-old predecessor, but critics say it is too heavy for a military seeking to respond more nimbly and quickly.

The Crusader has powerful supporters. It would be built by United Defense, owned by the Carlyle Group, headed by former Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci.

The assembly plant is in Elgin, Okla., a state that is home to some of the project’s strongest advocates.

Oklahoma GOP Sens. James M. Inhofe and Don Nickles are expected to press for the Crusader in the Senate, as Rep. J.C. Watts Jr. (R-Okla.) has in the House.

Inhofe has vowed to save the program he calls the “crown jewel” of Army weapons, but will face strong opposition from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The Senate Armed Services Committee, refining its version of the bill behind closed doors for a second day, postponed its decision on whether to require Crusader funding until next Thursday.

The battle over the Crusader has already split Army brass and their Pentagon superiors. Defense analysts say it has further imperiled Army Secretary Thomas E. White, a retired general already under fire for his ties to Enron Corp. and for his use of Pentagon planes while on personal business. Rumsfeld this week said White, who has been a vocal supporter of the Crusader, retains his confidence.

A Pentagon inspector general’s report is expected to blame mid-level Army staff, rather than White, for trying to save the system over Rumsfeld’s opposition.

As they pressed for the Crusader, House members planned to act later on an additional $10-billion fund to pay for costs related to the war on terrorism. They also added other funding the Bush administration didn’t ask for.

That included an extra $17.4 billion to replace aging aircraft and other weapons and equipment--$3.2 billion more than President Bush requested.

Among the congressional add-ons were 12 new H-60 helicopters for the Army National Guard, 10 JPATS training aircraft for the Navy, six TH-67 “Creek” training helicopters, $96 million for engine upgrades to F-15 and F-16 aircraft and more than $1 billion in Navy shipbuilding increases.

The House bill also boosted National Guard and Reserve funding by $450 million, or 17%, beyond the Bush team’s budget request.

House members approved an amendment by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) allowing research and development of nuclear-tipped “bunker buster” missiles. It was assailed by critics such as Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who sought to bar funding for the missiles.

“What the House has done is move the most destructive weapons ever invented back into the mainstream of American security policy,” said John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based arms control organization.

Proponents argued that the missiles serve as a deterrent. “Nuclear weapons are useful precisely because they are unusable,” said Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).

The House voted to give the Pentagon exemptions to two major environmental laws--the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act--without debating the issue or voting on it.

The bill would free the military from permits and record-keeping requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when birds are killed or harmed during exercises.

It would also exclude military bases that already have management plans to protect endangered plants and animals from having their territory designated as critical habitat for these species by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

It was not clear if the Senate version included the exemption from environmental laws.

Times staff writer Elizabeth Shogren contributed to this report.