mr. chairman , i would not describe it as breaking the agreement . 
if the gentleman would be kind enough to let me explain what i think has happened here . 
the gentleman from illinois ( mr. kirk ) xz4002220 and the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 both missed their opportunity to offer their amendments in regular order because the reading went fast and neither of them was on the floor . 
we had a unanimous consent agreement which was about to be propounded by the gentleman from ohio . 
when the gentleman from illinois and the gentleman from new york discovered that they had missed their opportunity , the gentleman from illinois asked for an opportunity to go back . 
at that point , i suggested that the unanimous consent agreement be rewritten to include your amendment and the gentleman 's from new york . 
the committee majority preferred , and i can understand why , because it was time consuming , the committee preferred to simply rely on our ability to get unanimous consent to go back to consider yours and the gentleman from new york 's amendment . 
however , the gentleman from hawaii ( mr. abercrombie ) xz4000010 was not part of the arrangement . 
and since your amendment takes money out of a program in his state , he felt required to object . 
so i do not think that anyone is `` breaking an agreement. '' this is what happens , number one , when members are not on the floor when they need to be . 
secondly , it is what happens when we do not include matters like that in the uc agreement . 
we were relying on an assumption that proved to be erroneous , and i am certain the gentleman from ohio feels as badly about it as i do . 
but in my view , no one on the floor is breaking his word . 
this is just an unfortunate set of circumstances , and a member has the right to protect his own state 's interest if the opportunity presents itself . 
