Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, my community was shaken by the murder of Second Lieutenant Richard ``Richie'' Collins III, a young African American stabbed to death while waiting for a bus on the campus of the University of Maryland. He was a student at Bowie State University just days from graduation. Richie was in College Park visiting friends to celebrate his recent commission as an officer in the United States Army. He was a young man of great promise, very talented and driven to success. He was popular on campus and helped create Bowie State University's first lacrosse team. He was an avid player of golf, soccer, and baseball. Richie loved deep conversations about life, politics, and philosophy. The individual on trial for his murder has been charged with a hate crime. Mr. Speaker, we must do more to combat the spread of hatred by spreading tolerance and respect instead, and we must never forget those, like Richie Collins, whose lives were cut short by hatred and prejudice. I again offer my condolences, as I have, to Richie's parents, Richard and Dawn, his family, his friends to mark this somber anniversary. We ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolled for us.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. I include in the Record remarks by Isabella Bosrock. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence. March for our Lives Remarks (By Isabella Bosrock) My name is Isabella Bosrock, and I am a senior at West Morris Mendham High School. Today you will be hearing from seven incredible high school students from across the district who are here today to say `enough is enough' and `never again' to senseless gun violence. Before we begin, I would like to take a moment and thank Mr. Steny Hoyer, a U.S. Representative for Maryland's Fifth Congressional District and the Minority Whip of the House for being here today. On March 20, a mere four days ago, a seventeen year old boy named Austin Wyatt Rollins walked into Great Mills High School with his dad's hand gun and shot two students, one of which was an ex-girlfriend. Reports say he did this because of a recent break up with the girl he shot. The student resource officer on duty, Blaine Gaskill managed with great bravely to shoot and kill the gunman, avoiding the loss of many more lives. While this event is incredibly upsetting it is not unlike many things that have happened in the country is the years since Columbine. It is horrible that as adolescents we have become used to the idea that gun violence is a method of dealing with our problems. This pattern of gun violence has been perpetuated by adult lawmakers who refuse to do anything about the bloodshed in their schools. I bring this up today because Mr. Hoyer is the representative of the district where Great Mills High School is located, yet he is still here at our march today. Let's all thank him for being here today. I also bring this up because I think that it is so important that we make sure we acknowledge every instance of senseless gun violence that occurs within this country. While Parkland was able to get mass media attention, hashtags on social media and `thoughts and prayers' from everyone around the world, there are so many acts of violence that occur in the U.S. every single day that go completely unnoticed. Often times we give them attention for a couple of days, maybe a week, then we forget, and other times we fail to acknowledge them at all. In fact there have been eighteen instances of a gun firing at schools in the U.S. since the beginning of 2018, which averages out to about three per week. This cannot be our reality. However many people do not know this because they never gain the same attention as events like Parkland. These other shootings often resulted in no bloodshed or a few injured. But this doesn't mean that they are any less catastrophic because every single life of those students will be forever changed. Each and every day they walk into the school that almost cost them their lives, and they are forced to face their worst fears. The lives of the students in the eighteen schools will never ever be the same. It is so easy for us to watch these catastrophic events unravel on the news for a week, donate money to the cause, post a hashtag on social media, then move on with our lives. But it is so important in our crazy, ever changing lives to never forget. We have to make sure that we not only remember to hold the lives of those lost in our hearts, but to make sure that we are holding the people who are accountable, responsible for the lives of innocent people murdered. It is up to us to change the future, but these changes will only come by reflecting on the past and acknowledging what happened. Forgetting will not do anything but make us complacent and allow more of these massacres to happen. That being said, I encourage every single one of you today to go out and read about the other school shootings that you may have missed and hold those victims in your memory so that we can use those losses to fuel the fire of change.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. Because they were too long to insert into the Record together, I am submitting them individually. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence. March For Our Lives' Remarks by Caitlyn Dempsey ``Hi. My name is Caitlyn Dempsey, I am a senior at Randolph, NJ. A few weeks ago, in a dark room as my class cowered in the comer, we were taught how to avoid getting sprayed with bullets if a shooter were to break a window. We were given tips on throwing projectiles at the perpetrator. I was in calculus. I should've been learning derivatives and integrals. Kids debate if they should jump out a window and risk death or broken bones or stay in the classroom if they were accosted by a shooter. Teachers have to decide if they should throw themselves in front of students. Teachers consider what it would mean for them if they had to be trained to use firearms. This is what it's like to be educated in America. We are being prepared for war. Because at the base of it, that is what our society is doing. Our children, from kindergarten to high school are battle ready. And we should angry about that. This is our future. Our lives are on the line. These teachers, the people we look up to and trust, their lives are on the line. I challenge you to consider how afraid we are. This is not a joke, a ploy, a means to get something done. This is a real, tangible fear that we feel every single day. We talk about it at lunch. In class. On the bus. This is what it's like to be educated in America. And there's something wrong with that. As a result, this talented, passionate group of young adults and I have become a force to be reckoned with. However, the assertion that this is a recent movement is incorrect. We have been begging for this since Sandy Hook. Since Columbine. We're done begging. We demand that our legislators take action to create more comprehensive gun legislation. We assert that it is time for our elected officials to be held accountable for their constituents. A good friend of mine recently reminded me that we have been learning that actions speak louder than words since Kindergarten. So we walked out. So we've written our congressmen. So we planned this March. Now that is what it should be like to be educated in America. Kids standing up for what they believe in, creating a better future for themselves and the next generation. I urge students who feel like they have been wronged to stand up, and speak out. Your voice has been silenced but enough is enough. Thank you so much.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. Because they were too long to insert into the Record together, I am submitting them individually. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence. `March for Our Lives' Remarks (By Bella Bhimani) Hi, everyone. Before I begin, I would first like to thank everyone for coming today to support such an important cause. The overwhelming support we've received has made all the difference. And to everyone who donated, whether it be your time, money or even knitting hats, I cannot thank you enough. I would also like to thank both the mayor and the Morristown Police Department for all the help they have provided and doing everything possible to make this march happen. We also have four sponsors, Blue Wave NJ, Moms Demand Action, NJ-ll for Change, and League of Women Voters. These organizations are all truly amazing and have done so much for us. Lastly I would just like to say how grateful I am for the incredible group of students that we have. These students have worked so hard and without them none of this would have been possible. One of the questions I've been asked a lot is ``what makes this shooting so different?'' I can't speak for everyone else, but I know at least for me, when the last major school shooting happened, (Sandy Hook) I had only just turned eleven. It's not that I didn't care, because I was obviously upset, but I knew that as a fifth grader I didn't have the power to do anything. Because we live in a world where we are taught growing up that ``the adults will handle it''. We expect that the president and all of our legislators will do their job and when there is a problem they will actually do something about it. However as we have grown up we've realized that that is not the case. If we want change to happen we have to make it happen ourselves. One of my favorite Gandhi quotes is `Be the change you wish to see in the world.' And that is why I am up here today. We are the ones affected and we are the only ones willing to fix this. But before I go any further I want to address the preconceived notion that we are trying to take away all guns. This is not the case. All we want is to make the world safer, which is something I think everyone can agree. We believe this can be accomplished through stricter gun regulations. We are asking for stricter background checks, raising the age limit of purchase and, while not everyone may agree, I am certainly in favor of a ban on assault rifles, which are truly weapons of war. Going off of that another question that I am frequently asked is, what am I actually trying to accomplish with this march. With that comes the constant criticism that this march isn't going to suddenly make change happen. And to some extent they're not wrong. This is not something that will happen overnight and is a fight that is going to take time. Every fight has to start somewhere and this is only the beginning. So to answer the question what I want is to keep this conversation going. To get Congress to begin discussing passing stricter gun laws and to show the world that we won't stop. That being said, I would like everyone to take a second to turn to the people around you and introduce yourselves. Get to know each other, because we are ultimately all one community, and we are here for the same reason: to put an end to gun violence. And this change is only going to happen if we are united.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information and for the bonus of a little longer-term view of what we might be considering on the floor of the House. One of the things I didn't hear on that, and perhaps I asked the majority leader about this before, is whether the majority is expecting to offer on the floor or consider a budget resolution this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, although it was not on this list, I wonder if we might expect a budget resolution to be offered at some point in time in the future. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, April 15 is the day set forth. Many times we did not meet April 15. Clearly, last year we didn't meet April 15 by many, many months, but I appreciate the gentleman's answers. Let me say that I will be joining Sunday night at the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, D.C., the ceremony to honor those who have given their life in service to our country as law enforcement officers. We ought to pause not just next week, but every week, to recognize the extraordinary service given to us by what I call our domestic defenders, both our police and firefighter personnel, and emergency medical response teams. It is appropriate that we say thank you. They obviously have a very, very tough job. They get a lot of flack from time to time, but without them, we could not maintain the system of order that we have in this country that allows democracy to proceed. So I want all of us to join, not just next week, but next week particularly, to recognize. We will have, of course, a ceremony on the west front of the Capitol. We just had a ceremony the other day, which the Capitol Police conducted, remembering the loss of life that we experienced here in this Capitol to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson in defending the Capitol and those who reside therein and who visit this Capitol. Mr. Speaker, on the farm bill and on rescissions, the farm bill, as I understand it, again, I think pursuant to what the Speaker said after we passed the tax bill in which we gave 83 percent of $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest in America, the farm bill is now trying to fill that $1.8 trillion hole that was constructed by the tax bill by reducing benefits to those most in need in this country. I would not so much ask a question of the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, but simply to observe that I would hope we would not try to fill that very, very deep hole that we have dug by passing that tax bill by taking it from those who are most in need. I notice that, as well as the farm bill, the rescission bill was referred to by the leader as coming to the floor as well, and that seeks to cut a very substantial amount from the contingency fund for child health insurance. The majority leader will make the point, well, that is money that is not necessarily expected to be spent. In fact, he wrote to CBO asking them a question. The CBO said they didn't think any children would be dropped off because if the contingency is not realized, no children will be dropped off. If, however, the contingency is, and there are no contingency funds available to do that, then, in fact, children will be at risk, unless we pass additional legislation. I think it is unfortunate the majority is pursuing a policy now, both on the farm bill and on the rescission bill, that seeks to undermine the safety and security of those who are nutritionally underserved in this country. It is amazing, in the richest country on the face of the Earth, we have people--one out of five children is going, Mr. Speaker, to bed at night hungry. We ought to be moving in the other direction. This bill has, historically, been a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Lucas and Mr. Peterson, in the last reauthorization, brought a bipartisan bill to the floor. Very frankly, it was turned into a partisan bill on the floor, Mr. Speaker, when an amendment was offered and voted on by much of the leadership on the majority side, which would have cut $40 billion from food stamps for those who are hungry Americans among us. This is less than that, but I understand that the Heritage Action, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity are opposed to the bill because it is not a deep enough cut, either in farm programs or in nutritional programs. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we hope that these will not be policies that we will pursue as a House of Representatives, or as a Congress, and, very frankly, we think the farm bill has little chance of passing the Senate. I would say zero, but that perhaps is a little bit too strong, but certainly little--so that we will be spinning our wheels to send an ideological message to constituencies, I suppose, that want to undercut the ability to ensure that people have food that are hungry in our country. As to the rescission bill that the majority leader mentioned, Mr. Speaker, rescissions are pretty common. Rescissions are common and mostly done by the Congress of the United States, and we do it annually. In almost every appropriation bill that we pass, or omnibus that we pass, not so much CRs, but they have been present in CRs as well, that we have rescissions. The Congress has also gotten, as the majority leader will point out, rescission requests from the executive department. Largely, those have been not agreed to by the Congress. Only in one instance has one President had even a majority of his requests acceded to, and that was President Clinton. But the fact of the matter is, for the most part, rescissions have been pursued by the Congress of the United States, appropriately so, doing its job. And, of course, President Bush asked for no rescissions. President Reagan asked for a lot of rescissions, but President Bush asked for no rescissions--I refer to the second President Bush--nor did President Obama, notwithstanding when the Republicans were largely in charge of the Congress of the United States. And we exercised our judgment and did, in fact, do rescissions in the appropriations process. Now, we have not had a budget. It is the middle of May. It is a month after the budget was to come forward. Our side does not see a budget moving, but perhaps the majority leader is correct, the committee is considering that, and that would be another place where the Congress could take initiatives and a decision to rescind various amounts of spending. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I said if there was spending that was neither necessary nor had been authorized over long periods of time, then I would have no objection, personally, to that rescission, and would think that we could initiate that action. But I would hope that, in both of these instances, we would not take actions which would adversely affect those who are challenged in America, either because of health reasons or nutritional reasons. I would secondly say, and lastly--the majority leader, I am sure, wants to make some comments--60 percent of the budget that we passed, which our Republican friends apparently think was too much, was defense. Not a single red cent is included in the President's rescission from the defense side of the budget, only the nondefense discretionary funding, the people part of the budget. Now, I am a strong supporter of national security, Mr. Speaker, and I have been for the 37 years that I have been in this House. But I do not delude myself that every bit of money that has been appropriated-- trillions of dollars over the last 4, 5, or 6 years--has either been spent or is not subject to, perhaps, the Congress saying, well, we put that money on the table but it hasn't been spent. But apparently the President can't find a single red cent for that, but he can find places where we can undermine research for innovation, Children's Health Insurance Program. I understand the leader is going to say that CBO says not a single child will be dropped. That may be true; but if we drop the contingency fund, which has been available and has been used year after year, either directly for health insurance or for related programs for children, then we will be at risk of hurting people whom I don't think anybody in this body wants to hurt. So I would hope that, before those bills are brought to the floor, we would keep those matters in consideration. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. 2000, as I recall, when Mr. Clinton was President.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He mentioned a number of facts. Economically, I think all of us can be happy that unemployment is down. The gentleman then mentioned that there are less unemployment requests being made. Is the gentleman aware that, in 2016, we created 400,000 more jobs than we created in 2017? Is the gentleman aware of that fact? That is a fact. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I presume the answer is the gentleman did not know that there were 400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than were created in 2017. I didn't get the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask, however, if the gentleman is convinced that there is not a single nickel that can be rescinded from the Defense Department budgets over the last 10 years, trillions of dollars of money, and that only the nondefense side of the budget is subject to rescissions, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman of the opinion that there are no sums available from the defense budget to try to fill the $1.8 trillion hole created by the tax bill? Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that question is yes. Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the majority leader, the Congress has rescinded billions of dollars through the years, and I have voted for rescissions that have been sent down by Presidents of the United States and there may well be rescissions that are sent down that I could support. I do not intend to support rescissions, Mr. Speaker, that I view as undermining children's health. I know what the majority leader says: nobody is going to be hurt. Now, interestingly enough, in that answer, he does not answer my question except we all want a strong defense. Nobody on this floor has longer supported Israel's right to be safe and defended than I have. The issue is I asked the majority leader this does not include a single red cent of rescissions from the trillions of dollars to the Defense Department, not because I want to undermine the Defense Department any more than he says he wants to undermine children's health, but this is not about rescissions, per se. What it is about is the flack that the majority party is getting, that the President is getting from the Club for Growth, from Heritage Action, from Americans for Prosperity, saying: Your budget was too big. The omnibus was too big. We don't like it. Show some fiscal discipline. So in an effort to show fiscal discipline, who do they go after? The Children's Health Insurance Program. He can say it all he wants, but he well knows, and the appropriators will tell him, Mr. Speaker, that that money has been used on an ongoing basis by the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and by the Appropriations Committee to backfill in places where there were clearly shortages on services to children and families. The gentleman may want to say whether or not he believes--because outlays are not affected, he says--that, in fact, this rescission will lower the nondefense discretionary baseline in 2019. That is what I think the real purpose is, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the majority leader has not answered the question about whether there is a single cent to save the taxpayer money--we all want to save the taxpayer money--out of the Defense Department side of the budget or whether that is simply sacrosanct and not worthy of oversight by the Congress or by the President. That was my question. It was not answered, and I regret that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is the majority leader aware of the fact, when he says that the rescission was cut or the CHIP was cut, is the gentleman aware of where that money went when it was cut, or--I would say it in a different way--reprogrammed to other items in the omnibus or in the Labor-Health bill in previous appropriations? Is the gentleman aware of the difference between the cut and the reprogramming of money for a different objective related to the appropriation that was included? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not answered either one of my questions, A, whether there was a single red cent available in the Defense Department for rescission, because that money has been laying there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years. Is there a single red cent there? B, he did not answer the question whether or not this rescission will adversely impact the discretionary baseline for the 2019 budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I did yield to the gentleman about the single red cent, because all of this deals on the nondefense side of the budget, which is, by the way, the smallest part of the budget. The gentleman keeps saying we need to make sure we do these cuts. He wasn't as concerned, apparently, about balancing our budget when he cut $1.8 trillion, $1.5 trillion--$1.8 trillion when you include the interest. I know they say it is going to pay for itself. I have been here a long time. They have said that before. It never has paid for itself. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will not answer those two questions: Is there not a single red cent in the Defense budget; are they looking at the Defense budget to see whether or not we put money on the table that is either no longer necessary or has not been used for a significant period of time--that seems to be his rationale--or, secondly, whether or not it is going to have an adverse effect on the budget deal that was reached in terms of where the nondefense discretionary spending base will be for the 2019 budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Is the gentleman aware that there are $95 billion of unobligated funds in the Department of Defense? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader--he wants to do these rescissions. Congress usually does these. They do them in the appropriations process, and that is fine. Presidents have also done that. My question to him was: If you want to see rescissions, and--as he has quoted me over, and over, and over again--funds that are not necessary, not needed, not going to be spent, obviously, we will consider rescissions for those. However, what I have asked the gentleman is, you make the assessment. Very frankly, the first time we make a rescission suggestion on defense, he will stand up, or others on his side will stand up, and say: See, they are against defense. I am strongly for our national security, and I always have been. But I think it is perverse in the farm bill to look at people who need nutritional help. This CHIP program, if there is $500 million as he claims, and he is probably accurate--I don't want to assess the gentleman's saying something inaccurate--but clearly, these funds have been used for other issues almost annually by the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Cole would say that. Mrs. Lowey would say that. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, for both the President and the majority to propose where those $95 billion in unobligated funds might also add to his desire to make sure that taxpayers get some money back that is not being used. I yield to my friend and then we will conclude.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned numerous times that I voted against some of the bills that were offered on this floor, and he is right. He tries to make it as if I voted against the CHIP program. He knows that is not an honest representation, Mr. Speaker, any more than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voting against one of those bills with me being against defense. I was against it, frankly, because the Speaker and the majority leader made a representation in September that we are going to solve a problem we have yet to solve. And I am sorry about that. I think it is wrong not to have solved it, and we were told we were going to have a solution to it. But the fact of the matter is, what I am saying is, the Republicans talked and talked mightily about deficit reduction and giving money back to the taxpayer. But if you break their bank, the money is going to be taken from our children. And so they passed a massive, $1.5 trillion tax bill, massive, and then they come here with nickel-and-dime programs and say they are going to give money back to the taxpayer. I am for giving money back to the taxpayer. I am not for doing it by creating additional debt for their children and their grandchildren. I think that is not only an intellectually bankrupt policy, but an immoral policy. But we are not going to resolve it today. I understand that. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this administration will have the largest deficit increase of any administration in history. They haven't been here very long, so that is a prediction I make, and I am absolutely positive I am correct. They are now trying to bring that down, as I have said, by going after investments on the domestic side of the budget, both in the farm bill and in the rescission package. There are clearly rescissions that are justified and that the Appropriations Committee and administrations have made on a regular basis. When administrations have made them, almost invariably, the majority of the rescissions requested by the administrations--Democrat or Republican--have been rejected by the Congress of the United States. But I am hopeful, as the majority leader says, that we can reach bipartisan agreement on rescissions that, in fact, make sense. I would also hope we could reach some bipartisan agreement on solving issues that confront this country. The farm bill is a perfect example where it historically has been a bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a partisan bill this year, as they made it the last time when Chairman Lucas reported out a bipartisan bill and pleaded with his party not to make it a partisan bill. They made it a partisan bill and, of course, it failed in the Senate. It wasn't even brought up in the Senate. The Senate did its own bill. So I would hope that the words of the majority leader about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion will be realized with respect to all of these issues, including rescissions. And I would hope that we could perhaps have some rational policies to try to stem the extraordinary deficits that will inevitably be caused, as they have been in the past, by a tax cut bill that gave 83 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest in our Nation. Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on March 24, I was in Morristown, New Jersey, with former Assistant U.S. Attorney Mikie Sherrill, where we attended the March for Our Lives. The March for Our Lives was organized by students around the country to speak out against gun violence and call for action in Congress to strengthen our gun laws. This march came just days after a deadly shooting at Great Mills High School in St. Mary's County in my district, and it came in the wake of horrific incidents of mass gun violence at a school in Parkland, Florida, and at places of worship, entertainment, and even public streets across the country. Congress can and should act. Nine in ten Americans, 90 percent of our fellow citizens, believe we ought to do so. We have the ability right now to strengthen background checks and ban the kinds of assault weapons that make our communities unsafe. Law enforcement wants us to get this done. So do parents and so do teachers. In Morristown, we heard directly from students, nine of whom spoke at the march that Ms. Sherrill and I attended. I was moved by their words. Because they are too long to insert here together, Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting these students' speeches individually into the Congressional Record in the coming days. But today, let me just share with you some excerpts from each of them that capture the spirit of the march and the fears and hopes of these young Americans. One student, Bella Bhimani, summed it up very well, and she said this: ``All we want is to make the world safer, which is something, I think, everyone can agree on.'' Would that that were true, Mr. Speaker. Another, Caitlyn Dempsey, said this: ``We have been learning that actions speak louder than words since kindergarten. So we walked out. So we've written our Congressmen. So we planned this march.'' They took action. Senior Isabella Bosrock from West Morris Mendham High School lamented: ``It is horrible that as adolescents we have become used to the idea that gun violence is a method of dealing with our problems.'' Another student, Mia Paone, a sophomore at Chatham High School, declared: ``I am not old enough to vote yet, but I am old enough to speak out against gun violence.'' She concluded: ``I will not be silent.'' Nile Burch, a student at Morristown High School, shared his hope that: ``Piece by piece, we will inspire other students to gain the courage to stand up for what they believe in.'' What a lesson for all of us. Luna Aguilar declared: `` . . . we, the youth, the future of our country, are deciding--right here, right now--that our lives are worth more than the right to own an assault weapon.'' One of the students, Benjamin Douglas, spoke about how he rides with Team 26, a group of cyclists who ride in memory of the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School where so many children and teachers lost their lives. They stop along the way to raise awareness of gun violence. He said this: ``We must continue to organize these events and never stop making noise until''--until--``until our Representatives get it.'' Raniya Madhi, a junior at Ridge High School, spoke about how many students now live in fear. How tragic. She told us this: ``Most of us are just teenagers. We should be worrying about doing well on our AP tests and finals at the end of the year, not about being shot by someone who can enter our school.'' What parent is not terrified at that possibility? Finally, Danilo Lopez, a junior at Dover High School, chose, instead of delivering remarks, simply to read aloud the names of the victims of the recent Parkland, Florida, shooting. When he concluded, he expressed what we are all feeling, by saying: ``Let us hope and pray that they are in a better place--and we will always remember.'' Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, remembering is not enough. Action is required. We stand on this floor and have a moment of silence for those we lost. We are sad for them, for their families, and, yes, for our country. A moment of silence is not enough. Action is required to ensure that future moments of silence will not be necessary. The nine student speakers in Morristown, Mr. Speaker, like those across the country that day, gave voice to the millions who are scared but determined to see things change. These speeches represent but a snapshot of what Americans heard on March 24 at the nationwide March for Our Lives. I hope my colleagues will read what these extraordinarily poised and thoughtful students had to say, and I hope we can listen to their fears and their hopes and come together to take action. That is what they want us to do. That is our responsibility. That is what we ought to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that the Chaplain is elected by the whole House to be the Chaplain of the House of Representatives?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does, in fact, the Speaker of the House have the right to remove the Chaplain?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Are we in the position where the House will be unable to speak to the issue of removing the official, i.e. the Chaplain, elected by the whole House?