It is very important the membership understand, but especially the membership of the Committee on Armed Services and the appropriate Appropriations subcommittees, there is little doubt that there is serious potential impact to our ability to prepare for the national defense in this bill. It is my view this bill should have been designed in a fashion to deal with those questions straightforward, that is, in the bill, so it would have gone to the Committee on Armed Services. There is no question it was designed to bypass that committee in terms of this debate. It is very important that the membership know that we need to look at this very carefully.
Jerry Lewis: “It is very important the membership understand, but especially the membership of the Committee on Armed Services and the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about national defense implications in a bill before the Committee on Armed Services.
Share
More from Jerry Lewis
But in the meantime, we are talking about regular order, trying to change the appropriations process so it makes sense, not destroy our committee. I would suggest we are on a pathway to destroy this committee.
This program will cost about $30 billion if it follows that path. Yet despite pledges in this House to adhere to the letter and spirit of PAYGO, this bill does neither. Our colleagues' argument is that today's economic conditions…
I wanted to mention it is very interesting to see my colleague, the chairman, to use statistics and data for his own purposes. We have, over the last 12 years, had nine omnibus appropriations bills, and where those bills were put together…
Mr. Speaker, one of the delights of this process, preparing for this bill, has been to go back through the process of the past and look at some of the protestations and expressions of concern by my colleague, now the chairman of the full…





