On the recordJuly 19, 2013
I thank the gentleman for that comment; however, I'm somewhat perplexed, Mr. Leader. You and I had a relatively animated colloquy some, I think, 2 or 3 weeks ago, at which point in time you said that we passed the farm bill that, of course, we didn't like and none of us voted for, that we passed the farm bill so that, in fact, we could follow regular order and go to conference. We passed that farm bill. The Senate has now voted to go to conference, but what I hear the gentleman saying is, like the budget bill, we're not going to go to conference unless something else happens; in the case of the budget, until Mr. Ryan apparently gets Ms. Murray to agree on--I don't want to characterize it too heavily, but to agreeing with him as opposed to compromise. But I'm a little, as I said, perplexed, because a few weeks ago you told me that the reason we passed that farm bill without the provision for nutrition, which had been in there for half a century, was so that we could go to conference. Well, now we're there, but there's no motion to go to conference. I'm perplexed, and I would appreciate if the gentleman--because we now have the opportunity to follow regular order. We now have the Senate who has voted to go to conference, acted on our bill that we sent there, substituted their bill for ours, and now have asked for a conference on the same. That is regular order.…





