I'm trying to understand this. As far as I could tell, there was a willingness to correct a significant flaw in the bill. I repeat, we're talking about a violation of farmers' rights. This is about allowing people whose barn or silo was partially or completely destroyed in a disaster to earn a livelihood. How does that make the law and the rail project more complicated? I'd like the member to explain that. I think I'm a pretty smart guy, but this I don't understand.
