On the recordJune 5, 2013
I rise with great disappointment, and I think ``sadness'' is the right word. This is an amendment that I very much hoped would not be offered tonight. I know that many in this Chamber hoped it would not be offered tonight. It's a ``poison pill'' amendment. That's a term I've not used tonight, and it's a term I don't use lightly. I very much hoped this amendment would not be offered, and I hope now that it's been offered that it is not fated to pass. We've worked for months cooperatively on this Homeland Security appropriations bill. As I said in announcing bipartisan support for this bill at the beginning of today's debate, I commended the chairman heartily and the staff and Members who have worked so hard on this in a bipartisan fashion, trying to come together. We gave a little, we took a little, but we did understand that it was important for this institution and for our Nation's security to come together on a Homeland Security bill that most Members of this Chamber could support. And for that reason, most divisive issues, most extraneous issues that have the capacity to divide us, and, in fact, to destroy that bipartisan support, most of those have been conscientiously avoided. And that has included, until this moment, the offering of amendments on this floor. The gentleman describes this as an amendment he offered last year. Yes, it's an amendment that he offered last year, and it's an amendment that blew up bipartisan support for this bill last year.…
