Washington — The House passed a defense policy bill laden with several controversial policy changes Wednesday evening, serving up a $610 billion measure that dips into wartime funds, shrinks the National Security Council, and stymies presidential directives on climate change and protections for LGBT federal contractors.

The White House already has threatened to veto the bill, which passed, 277 to 147, just 13 votes shy of a veto-proof majority. A few dozen Democrats backed the measure, while a handful of Republicans voted against the bill.

The House’s defense policy bill is expected to clash at several points with similar legislation that goes before the full Senate next week.

While both measure are chiefly focused on authorizing funds for Defense Department programs, modernizing materiel, streamlining procurement procedures, and supporting military personnel and campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, against the Islamic State and elsewhere, the Senate’s bill does not follow the House’s in several key, high-profile respects.

The Senate’s bill does not have a provision echoing the House’s exemption for religious organizations that contract with the federal government from certain provisions of civil rights law and the Americans with Disabilities Act; it also contains a provision requiring young women to register for a potential draft with the Selective Service that was stripped out of the House legislation before it hit the floor.

While the Senate’s bill also takes aim at shrinking the National Security Council, it does not reduce the numbers as dramatically as the House’s legislation, which would cap the NSC at 100 staffers, or reserve for itself any role in confirming the National Security Adviser if the NSC’s numbers exceed that threshold.

There currently are about 400 people on the NSC, about four times the size it was at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Yet the most critical difference between the House and Senate bills may be in the way each chooses to fund the military budget.

While the Senate holds to a budget agreement that was struck last year, the House uses an extra $18 billion of war funding to cover both the president’s requests and House GOP priorities.

That setup means the country will run out of money to pay for the U.S. military campaigns abroad next spring, likely necessitating an emergency supplemental.

The White House and many Democrats, including Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Washington, cited the financial discrepancy as a key reason to vote against the bill.

Smith also strongly objected to the language exempting religious organizations from LGBT protections applying to federal contractors.

“We are funding a defense that we cannot sustain,” Smith said, arguing that using war funds to cover pet projects is perpetuating a “fantasy” that Congress can simply circumvent the budget caps without putting the military “in an impossible situation” where they cannot count on funding from year to year.

“We start all of these programs,” Smith said. “There is not enough money to finish those programs.”

Republicans argued there is precedent for the move in the defense policy bill passed in 2008, which established a “bridge fund” to keep war operations going through the presidential changeover, but not through the entire fiscal year. Democrats reject the comparison, as there were no budget caps in place at the time.

But House GOP leaders maintain Democrats are “just looking for some excuse to vote against the bill,” as Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said, despite the fact that Democrats supported the bill through the committee process.