WASHINGTON — Immediate family members of deceased veterans will be able to obtain duplicates of their war medals for free, if a measure proposed by Rep. John M. McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor, becomes law.

The House Armed Services Committee easily approved Mr. McHugh's proposal Wednesday as part of a broad bill covering defense programs for the next year. The measure also gives military personnel a 3.9 percent raise, blocks a proposed increase in health insurance costs for retirees and — over the objections of Mr. McHugh and other Republicans — trims the Army's multibillion dollar plan for future weapons systems.

Mr. McHugh, ranking Republican on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, said he was surprised to learn from a constituent that veterans' next-of-kin who ask the services for a second set of war medals are sometimes charged a fee or, in the case of the Navy, not provided with them at all.

"I just don't think that's a fair, humane policy," Mr. McHugh said during the panel's consideration Wednesday.

Mr. McHugh said only the Navy does not provide a duplicate set of medals, while the Army, Air Force and Marines have done so voluntarily. His measure would require all the services to provide a replacement set if asked.

The defense bill, with Mr. McHugh's provision attached, appeared set to move through the committee late Wednesday, making a vote possible in the full House within days. The Senate will consider a separate version, and eventually a House-Senate conference committee will work out a compromise measure.

Skirmishes remain on issues related to the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on weapons systems. Those will continue to play out after the House finishes its bill.

On Wednesday, lawmakers quickly worked through one of the biggest personnel-related issues, dealing with fees for the Tricare insurance program. In a replay of the past few years, the committee refused to accept the Bush administration's proposed increases in out-of-pocket costs for retirees younger than 65, particularly for prescription drugs bought at pharmacies.

In rejecting the proposal, lawmakers rejected advice from a Pentagon task force suggesting some out-of-pocket costs must be raised to deal with the skyrocketing cost of health care. Beneficiaries' shares have not increased since the mid 1990s.

Blocking the proposal carries a cost of $1.2 billion because the Pentagon's budget assumes the increases will be enacted, said Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Personnel Subcommittee.

"Each year it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the necessary direct funding to prohibit these increases in the future," Mrs. Davis said.

Mr. McHugh criticized Mrs. Davis's choice for finding that money this time — a one-month, one percent pay cut for military retirees, he said.

"It is a gimmick," Mr. McHugh said.

In one of the day's more partisan moments, the committee rejected, along party lines, a Republican proposal to restore $233 million to the Army's Future Combat System. Democrats said the cut would apply only to parts of the system due to be fielded in 2015 or later, preserving funding for systems due for fielding by 2011.

"This is a crucial year for this program," said Rep. James Saxton, R-N.J., citing the Army's plan to review the FCS for continuation, modification or cancellation. He called the program "unique and revolutionary."

But the FCS also has proven far more costly than advertised, estimated to be $110 billion over budget and five years behind schedule. Government analysts say it could cost $200 billion, and the bill provides $3.3 billion for next year, on top of billions of dollars provided in prior years.

"I hardly think they have been cut short," said Rep. Neil A. Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

Last year, House Democrats proposed a deeper cut to the weapons system but were thwarted in the Senate.

Mrs. Davis complained that Mr. Saxton proposed to restore the money by cutting $138 million from unexpended personnel accounts. But Mr. McHugh said the $138 million proposed to come out of those accounts is less than Democrats have proposed in similar situations in the past.

He said the complaint "rings a little disingenuous."

The committee rejected Mr. Saxton's proposal 33-23.