I have to say, though, here today that campaign rhetoric is one thing but when the rubber meets the road on this huge, important bill to have this kind of a process in this kind of a bill is not right. To have over $21 billion of extraneous spending added to this bill, under a closed rule, which is not the regular way here in the House, especially on appropriations, and, frankly, to then even violate your own budget rules is not right. I have to say that first. It is kind of insider talk, but it is important to know that this is not the regular order and not the way this should be done. Then I respect all the Members in this House that have served in the military, and I respect so much the gentleman from Pennsylvania and his expertise here. But I disagree that if you vote against this bill, you are not supporting the troops, and you are not supporting the veterans, because I am going to do both, and I always do both. I do believe that this bill needs to be changed dramatically.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the appropriations process and extraneous spending in a military funding bill.
Share
More from Zach Wamp
we know there's a problem. Republicans have great empathy with the people that are hurting. Our constituents are your constituents. But there's little faith that the Federal Government is going to make things better. The financial rescue…
I just wanted to make our colleagues aware that besides the Smith bill, which I'm pleased to hear the Rules Committee will take time to hear, there is another bipartisan alternative that Mr. Hill of Indiana and myself have offered as well…
And frankly, if this were anything other than the United States military sitting across the table having this versus what I just heard, we would have a field day at ripping you apart.
Let's try to find some logical middle ground. And then write some language that allows these outside groups to contribute to these unbelievable Americans and their families.





