On the recordOctober 11, 2013
I would note to my colleagues that many of the points of great merit offered over the course of the discussion of this motion were points debated and discussed on the floor and in committee. I respect the sincerity of all of my colleagues, but we need to remember this motion has two key central points: Number one, the 1938 and 1949 law remain permanent. We take away the conference's ability to negotiate that point with the United States Senate. Take it away, take it off the table is the goal of this motion to instruct. The second point, of course, deals with the authorization on SNAP. Should it be 3 years? Should it be 5 years? That is the question you have to decide in this motion. Do you take away the House's ability to have the option of making whatever we can all agree on permanent law? Do you insist that we continue to have the food program, SNAP, run concurrently with the rest of the farm bill? It's a very simple set of issues to consider. From my own perspective, I would ask the House to allow the conference committee as much flexibility as possible in negotiating with the other body--as much flexibility as possible--and that would require rejecting the motion to instruct. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.…





