On the recordMay 19, 2016
I do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer under an open rule, in a different bill, his objections to what occurred last night. Last night, the House of Representatives passed the bill. And today, the gentleman is offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that agreement that we made. Mr. Chairman, several days ago, the House Armed Services Committee handled this issue. It was not sneaking something in. It was a straight-up vote. It was a vote that was held in the Armed Services Committee, it passed. The final vote was 60-2. Mr. Chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. That is a vote from people on the committee who viewed that they were not going to let one issue or another get in the way of supporting the men and women of our United States military. They very clearly--all of them on the committee-- understood during this long markup exactly the implications, and they lived with the decision. I am here today to say that the gentleman is fully entitled to do as he is doing, but the vote was held last night. The overwhelming viewpoint was let's support the United States military and let's get this done, not the next day come on the floor with spilled milk on your face and say: I want to go back and I want to relitigate a decision that we made last night with every Member here on the floor.





