Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished Member of the Democratic leadership.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding us additional time. It is important, I think, that we be heard on these issues. One of the reasons why we are so passionate about reopening the government is because this government shutdown is hurting people, and it is hurting the most vulnerable people in our society the most. One of the things that has troubled me about the direction the Republican leadership has taken in this Congress is that it has become unfashionable to worry about the poor and the vulnerable in this people's House of Representatives. Time and time and time again, my friends seek to balance the budget by cutting programs that help the most vulnerable. The $40 billion cut in SNAP will throw 3.8 million poor people off the program, it will throw children off the program, it will throw working people off the program. A lot of the people--contrary to what my friends say--who are on SNAP work for a living, they work full time. If you are earning minimum wage working full time, you still qualify for SNAP. There are people in this country who are hurting, who are depending upon us to be there, to make sure that there is a social safety net that will make sure that people don't fall through the cracks. One of the reasons we object to this nutrition provision in the farm bill is because it will hurt people--it will hurt people. We were sent here to help people. This used to be a bipartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans need to join together on this. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally going to conference on the farm bill. I believe strongly that we need to reauthorize a 5-year bill to provide some clarity and provide some certainty not just for our farmers, but also for the millions of Americans who rely on nutrition assistance to feed themselves and their families. I need to just say a few words about the process. I do not think I have ever seen a motion to go to conference with two motions to instruct conferees to the majority party in the House as all part of one rule. This is kind of an odd precedent, Mr. Speaker; but there are a lot of odd things going on around here during these last few days. We see major pieces of legislation, appropriation bills, coming to the Rules Committee that have never even been considered on the floor; and all of a sudden, they are brought before the House under a closed process. But anyway, I think it is pretty clear that regular order has been discarded in this House. But putting that aside, let me say that I would like to take most of my time here to talk about the issue of hunger in America because this bill is very relevant to that subject. After a $20 billion cut to the SNAP program was voted down by the House in June, the Republican leadership sadly decided to double-down on the cruelty with a nearly $40 billion cut. That bill also narrowly passed, and I want to thank the brave Republicans who stood with us, who listened to their own constituents, and who listened to their consciences and joined with us in voting ``no'' on that $40 billion cut. Supporters of those cuts say it is all about ``reform.'' Well, this is not about reform, Mr. Speaker. It is about trying to destroy a very important part of the social safety net. I am happy to talk to anyone and everyone about how we can improve SNAP. Where there is waste or there is fraud or there is abuse, we should crack down on it; but the House bill takes a sledgehammer to a program that provides food--food, Mr. Speaker--to some of our most vulnerable neighbors. The CBO says that the nearly $40 billion cut would throw 3.8 million low-income people off SNAP in 2014 and millions more in the following years. These are some of America's poorest adults as well as many low- income children, seniors, and families that work for low wages. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, so there is no confusion. People who work or who don't make enough to feed their families would be cut from this program. Well, if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families will also lose their free school meals; and 170,000 unemployed veterans will lose their SNAP benefits. Now, we all stand up here and tell our constituents how much we care about our veterans and how much we honor them; but to throw 170,000 of these veterans off this food program because they can't find work, that is unbelievable. That is unbelievable, and it is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to be poor in America. It is not a glamorous life. It is a struggle just to make it through the day. The average SNAP benefit is $1.50 per meal. Housing costs, transportation costs, child care costs--they all add up. Fighting hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. Think of people like Bob Dole and Bill Emerson working with George McGovern and Tony Hall. I am hopeful that once we get to conference, we can resurrect that bipartisan spirit and work together to strengthen our Nation's food assistance programs. I would also note that we are approaching November 1, a day of reckoning for my Republican colleagues. Automatic cuts to SNAP are already scheduled to take place. If they do not end the Republican shutdown, we are going to see even more terrible, terrible consequences for the hungry in this country. We have already seen some assistance delayed or denied. If this shutdown isn't ended, SNAP, WIC, Meals on Wheels, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program will all be devastated. I would say to my colleagues, you can't approach the budget in a piecemeal way, and you can't approach the social safety net in this country in a piecemeal way. If you miss a part of that net that makes up the social safety net in this country, then people fall through the cracks; and people are falling through the cracks because of this ridiculous shutdown that my Republican friends have thrust upon this country. We shouldn't be here talking about a shutdown or about whether we are going to default on our debt come October 17. We should be talking about how we create jobs for people or how we strengthen programs to end hunger in America and how we make life for people in this country better, not worse. And yet here we are, as we are about to go to conference on the farm bill, dealing with this shutdown that is making hunger worse in America. I would urge my colleagues to, once again, come to the floor with a clean continuing resolution. Bring up the Senate bill, the Senate bill that is at Republican numbers, the budget numbers that my Republican friends said they wanted, the sequester numbers that I think are awful; but let's bring it up and have a clean vote. I am willing to compromise and cooperate with my Republican colleagues to pass a short-term continuing resolution at their numbers to keep the government going. I think that is the least we could do. And I would urge my colleagues, before the day is out, to bring that kind of resolution to the House floor. So I urge my colleagues to pass a clean continuing resolution and remove the sword hanging over the heads of the hungry in this country. I would also urge all of my colleagues, as we go to conference, to insist that in that conference we fix this terrible, terrible mistake that this House of Representatives made when they passed a $40 billion cut in the SNAP program. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member on the Ag Committee, Mr. Peterson, when he talks about kind of how unusual this process is with the sense of Congress resolutions that are put into this rule, basically, to instruct conferees on what to do. It is highly unusual that the majority gives itself two of these sense of Congress resolutions. But this whole process has been really strange. I would just say to my colleagues, I come to this floor every week and I talk about the issue of hunger and food insecurity in America. There are 50 million people who are hungry; 17 million are kids. I think it is something we all should be ashamed of. I am on the Agriculture Committee, as well as being on the Rules Committee. I am on the Subcommittee on Nutrition. I was anxious to get on that committee so I could talk about the importance of a social safety net, about the importance of making sure that people in this country have enough to eat. Much to my surprise, Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Nutrition held a total of zero hearings on SNAP. The full committee held no hearings. Then, even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, was that the nutrition title wasn't even written in the Agriculture Committee. It was written in the majority leader's back room somewhere by God knows who wrote this thing. But it never came to the Agriculture Committee. It was never brought up for a hearing. There was no markup. There were no amendments that were to be offered. And then it showed up at the Rules Committee magically and was brought to this floor, a $40 billion cut that would throw 3.8 million people off the program, that would throw 170,000 veterans off the program. No hearings, nothing. Nothing. And my colleagues like to talk about regular order. That is not regular order. That is blowing up the whole process. If my friends have concerns about the SNAP program, which, by the way, is the most efficiently and effectively-run Federal program we have, with one of the lowest error rates--I wish the Department of Defense had those kind of low error rates--then you hold a hearing. You talk to the people who are on the program. You talk to the people who administer the program. You do this thoughtfully. You do it so that people who don't deserve to get the benefit don't get it, and people who deserve to get it get it. But my friends come to the floor with this sledgehammer approach, this mindless approach of just gutting the program, close to $40 billion. We are slowly but surely getting out of this terrible economy, and as we do, fewer and fewer people will be on the program. That is the way it works. When the economy is good, fewer people need the benefit. When the economy is bad, more people need the benefit. But to pull the rug right from underneath people who are still struggling--my friends say all we want to do is make sure that able- bodied people who can work, work. Well, most of the people who are able to work, work, who are on SNAP, but they earn so little that they qualify for this benefit. If my friends want to help lift people off the program, raise the minimum wage. But there is something wrong in this country when you have got people working full time and earning so little that they are still in poverty. That is what we should be addressing. But rather than going through regular order, rather than having the Agriculture Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, come up with a proposal, the majority leader takes this in his own hands and does it on his own and brings it to the floor, and we are all supposed to just take it. I want to, again, thank the handful of Republicans that had the guts to stand up and do the right thing and vote against it. We came very close to defeating it. But I will tell my friends right now that people like me are not going to support a farm bill that makes more people hungry in America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I strongly disagree with the gentlelady's statement--strongly disagree. My friend talks about oversight. There were no hearings-- none. She talks about research somehow shows that there is lots of fraud, waste, and abuse. What research? The Government Accountability Office and the USDA have all documented fraud, waste, and abuse in the SNAP program, and it is minimal--a little over a 2 percent error rate--and much of that is underpayment. People are not getting what they are entitled to. Enough of this demonizing poor people; enough of diminishing their struggle. We ought to do the right thing and make sure that people in this country have enough to eat. That shouldn't be a radical idea. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, with jobs and the economic recovery continuing to be a top concern of many of my constituents, I rise today to call attention to the results of a new public opinion survey about higher education and workforce development recently released by Northeastern University. There's a great deal of public concern about whether colleges and universities are preparing students for employment--as well as how best to prepare them. To ensure hard data is part of this discussion, Mr. Speaker, Northeastern University has released a new, timely national public opinion poll about the future of higher education. Last year, Northeastern released a poll focused on innovation in higher education, including public attitudes about the online revolution that is currently underway. This year, Northeastern has taken it one step further by not only asking the public for its views, but also asking hiring decision makers at a cross-section of employers nationwide what they expect from our higher education system. The results, which challenge the conventional wisdom, provide an important window into how well our colleges and universities are doing in preparing graduates to be competitive in the 21st century global workforce. In particular, the poll finds that--nearly two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) and almost three-quarters of hiring decision makers (73 percent) believe that having employees who are well-rounded with a range of knowledge is more important than possessing industry- specific skills. While almost two-thirds (62 percent) of those surveyed say that the higher education system is doing a ``fair'' or ``poor'' job of preparing recent college graduates for the workforce, Americans continue to believe higher education is critical to achieving career success. A large majority (70 percent) say that a person's level of education is the most important factor in a job candidate's success in the employment market. Nearly three in four Americans (74 percent) believe that a college degree is more important today than it was for their parents' generation, by far exceeding other factors such as current economic conditions, socioeconomic status, nationality, and race. Mr. Speaker, Northeastern's poll results show that Americans also see a shared responsibility when it comes to preparing recent graduates for success. They believe the number one reason for employers struggling to find qualified job candidates is that companies do not invest enough in training new hires. However, hiring decision-makers say that colleges and universities are not in tune with industry needs and not preparing graduates accordingly. In fact, 55 percent of business leaders surveyed say their firms have trained recent college graduates on skills they should have learned at an academic institution. Consistent with the findings of last year's Northeastern survey, Americans strongly support experiential learning in which a student's classroom education is integrated with professional work experience. Nearly nine in 10 Americans (89 percent) believe that students with work experience related to their field of study are more successful employees--and nearly three in four hiring decision-makers (74 percent) agree. Among those that gained work experience during college, a large majority (82 percent) says it was valuable for their personal and professional development. Mr. Speaker, other important findings from Northeastern's survey include: A strong majority of hiring decision-makers (87 percent) believe teaching students about entrepreneurship, including how to start their own businesses, is important to prepare students for the workforce; A majority of Americans (64 percent) believe the federal government should grant visas to international students who graduate college in the U.S. so they can remain in the country and work, while only 41 percent of hiring decision-makers agree; and Although only a small percentage of Americans surveyed have studied or worked abroad in college, the majority of them (66 percent) believe that global experience was valuable for their personal and professional development. While most Americans (58 percent) believe that students with global experience are generally more successful employees, only 39 percent of hiring decision-makers agree. These important results were released on September 17, 2013 at The National Press Club here in Washington, DC, where Northeastern hosted its second annual summit on issues facing higher education. The summit, entitled Innovation Imperative: Enhancing Higher Education Outcomes, featured a high-profile panel of experts and a keynote address by Northeastern President Joseph Aoun. Moderated by Catherine Rampell of The New York Times, the panel included Mitchell E. Daniels, president of Purdue University; James Kvaal, deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council; Jeff Wilcox, corporate vice president for engineering at Lockheed Martin Corporation; and Deborah L. Wince-Smith, president and CEO of the Council on Competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, I commend Northeastern University, under the strong leadership of President Aoun, for undertaking this important work. As discussions get underway in the House about renewing the Higher Education Act, it's important that we focus on approaches that generate value and produce excellent outcomes for students. As policymakers, understanding what the American people, education consumers, and employers want and need from our higher education institutions is vital. Northeastern's work in this area is a great contribution to the public dialogue. I urge all of my colleagues to take the time to review Northeastern's important effort.