I cochair the Bipartisan House Army Caucus. I represent the largest Army installation in the United States, Fort Hood. I represent over 65,000 military retirees and veterans. I will match my record in supporting veterans and a strong national defense with any Member of either party in this House. This amendment is not about fighting for veterans. If we want to fight for veterans, then maybe some Members of this House can vote ``no'' tomorrow on some tax cuts, that because of those tax cuts we will have less money for veterans' health care. This amendment would actually allow an anti-veteran, anti-defense group to run a sham ad in the last hours of a campaign under the guise of a Texans for Veterans group. So let no one be deceived. Despite the good intentions perhaps of this amendment that this is all about pro-veteran, pro-military, pro-senior citizen groups wanting to come in and want ads, most veterans I represent in my district do not have $1 million to put into a soft-money account. They are hard-working, decent Americans like most others, trying to struggle to pay their bills. Mr. Chairman, if we want to fight for veterans, let us fight for funding for veterans' health care and not try to make this amendment look like it is a litmus test vote of whether you are for or against military might or veterans and our servicemen and women. This is a bad amendment; it is a Trojan horse; it is a poison pill. We should vote against it.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to veterans' health care and campaign advertising.
Share
More from John Bel Edwards
The American people don't go home before their job is done, so why should Congress? In the nearly five decades that our current appropriations process has been in place, Congress has passed all 12 appropriations bills only four times--four…
Every year since 1996, Congress has failed to pass our annual spending bills on time. Every year since 1996, despite work still left to be done, August rolls around and Congress goes home, kicking the can down the road and leaving funding…
Today, I was unavoidably detained due to a flight delay, but below is how I would have voted. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 233 and YEA on Roll Call No. 234. personal explanation
that is why I fought to include two provisions that bring real oversight and real answers. First, the United States Postal Service is now directed to report to Congress within 90 days with a concrete plan to reopen and restore service…





