Jim Costa: “I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, as well as the chair from Oklahoma. I rise to support this motion to instruct, and…”

“I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, as well as the chair from Oklahoma. I rise to support this motion to instruct, and let me tell you why. The farm bill traditionally, around this place, has been one of the most bipartisan efforts that we engage in. Unfortunately, for over the last year, it hasn't seemed that way. I think that the importance of maintaining the permanent law of 1938 and 1949 is not to suggest that farming today is as it was then. Of course it is not. But the fact is that it has always provided, in the past efforts, back in 2008, and back in the last three or four decades, the sort of incentive necessary to come together, in a bipartisan fashion, to put together a bill that reflects not just current farming needs throughout this great country of ours today, but also to focus on the necessary importance of the nutrition programs that go to so many of those in our society that are in need. Now, that brings me to the second point that is reflected in the Senate measure, that is reflected in this motion to instruct, and that is, bifurcating the nutrition programs. It makes absolutely no sense. There has been a tradition here that I think has worked well in maintaining the incredible amount of cornucopia of food that we produce in this Nation and also never forgetting those in our society who are most in need.…”