On the recordMay 14, 2015
I appreciate the point that the gentleman made. My point is that for 53 years this product has been the result of bipartisan effort. And never before, I don't believe, have we had a party decision to oppose the NDAA in order to try to leverage it for some purpose outside of defense. And yet that is what is happening here. So my point is simple. I appreciate the contributions that Members on both sides have made. It is not some little something that the Members have just gotten in here. These are important issues: traumatic brain injury, Russia, Syria, human rights, maritime job training. They are significant contributions. But my point is not necessarily a moral one, it is a practical one. You work to get these amendments included in the bill, but then if you vote against the bill and it goes down in defeat, what have you accomplished? Nothing. So I hope that Members on both sides who have made contributions and who do support a strong military will rethink the position that they are being asked to take with this bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). The en bloc amendments were agreed to. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 114-112.
