Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today not so much to oppose this legislation, as to deride it as a sham, as a fraud, as a pretense of fiscal responsibility. If you want to balance the budget, just do it. I have served here for years and years and years when my Republican colleagues have controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Just do it. Don't talk about it. Now, I come here as someone who has voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, but I have become extraordinarily cynical at people who vote to cut the cost of their product way below the price of producing it. That is a formula for bankruptcy in any business any place in the world. For Republicans to bring a balanced budget amendment to the floor just weeks after adding $1.8 trillion to deficits and tax breaks for the wealthiest is the epitome of hypocrisy. Nobody--nobody believes anymore that Republicans care about deficit reduction or balancing the budget, let alone their own members. Now, ladies and gentlemen on the Republican side of the aisle, let me call to your attention the chair's remarks of your Freedom Caucus. Hear me. I am going to quote Mark Meadows. The Freedom Caucus, the most conservative element, supposedly, of Congress, Mark Meadows says this: ``There is no one on Capitol Hill and certainly no one on Main Street who takes this vote seriously.'' Mark Meadows. Conservative Republican Tom Massie, a Republican, a very conservative Republican, says this: ``Audacity, noun: Voting on a constitutional balanced budget amendment only 4 legislative days after ramming through massive deficit spending because you believe this stunt''--Massie's word, not mine--``this stunt will convince constituents that you care about balancing the budget.'' Not my words. Two of the most conservative Republicans in this House. And Republican Senator Bob Corker said this: ``Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. If we were serious''--this is the Republican Senator saying--``If we were serious about balancing the budget, we would do it.'' We know what it takes to balance budgets, Mr. Speaker. We did it during the Clinton administration 4 years in a row. Now, my Republican colleagues may jump to their feet and say: Yes, but we were in charge of Congress. That is correct. And President Clinton would not let them cut the price of our product because to do so would have led to bankruptcy. So what did we do? We balanced the budget 4 years in a row--the only time that has been done in the lifetime of any listener to these words. But what happened? Our Republican colleagues took office, they took the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and they cut the price of the product, but they didn't cut the cost of the product. And what do we have? We increase the debt by 87 percent in the Bush 8 years. Democrats instituted paygo rules to pay for what we buy, and they worked, and we balanced the budget. Republicans came into the majority and scrapped those rules. Now we are mired in growing deficits. The CBO baseline--Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan--released on Monday shows that accounting for Republican policies passed since President Trump took office just a few months ago, the deficit will reach, this year---- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, since President Trump took office, this year, fiscal year 2018, $980 billion in deficits; next year, $1 trillion. Every year thereafter, during the Trump administration, another $1 trillion of debt. It will total some $14 trillion. After Republicans passed their tax law, they knew they would be on the hook for its enormous deficit price tag, so immediately they said they wanted to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and other safety net programs to do it. This amendment would essentially write those cuts into the Constitution. Hear me. Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, write those cuts into the Constitution. This is a backdoor effort to gut the programs that help working Americans get ahead. I said I rose to deride this amendment. It is a fraud, a sham, a pretense, but it is also bad for our country, bad for our people. I urge my colleagues to defeat this silly waste of time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 155 inventors who will soon be inducted as the 2017 Fellows of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI). To be named as Fellows, these men and women were nominated by their peers and underwent the scrutiny of the NAI Selection Committee, having had their innovations deemed as making a significant impact on quality of life, economic development, and welfare of society. Their induction ceremony here in the nation's capital will feature a keynote address by U.S. Commissioner for Patents, Andrew Hirshfeld. Collectively, this elite group holds nearly 6,000 patents. The individuals making up this year's class of Fellows include individuals from 124 research universities and non-prof it research institutes spanning the United States and the world. The group of Fellows, now 912 in total, is composed of more than 100 presidents and senior leaders of research universities and non-prof it research institutes, 439 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; twenty-eight inductees of the National Inventors Hall of Fame, fifty- two recipients of the U.S. National Medal of Technology and Innovation and U.S. National Medal of Science; twenty-nine Nobel Laureates; 261 AAAS Fellows; 168 IEEE Fellows; and 142 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, among other awards and distinctions. The NAI was founded in 2010 to recognize and encourage inventors with patents issued from the U.S. Patent and Trademark of fice, enhance the visibility of academic technology and innovation, encourage the disclosure of intellectual property, educate and mentor innovative students, and translate the inventions of its members to benefit society. All Americans are greatly indebted to innovators such as these for contributions to our country and the world through their work. I commend these individuals, as well as the organizations and taxpayers that make their work possible, for all they do to revolutionize the world in which we live. I hope attention brought to this round of inductions will encourage future generations to strive to meet this high honor and continue the spirit of discovery and innovation. The 2017 NAI Fellows include: Samuel I. Achilefu, Washington University in St. Louis; Dereje Agonafer, The University of Texas at Arlington; Mark G. Allen, University of Pennsylvania; James P. Allison, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Hiroshi Amano, Nagoya University; Richard R. Anderson, Massachusetts General Hospital; Leif Andersson, Texas A&M University and Uppsala University; J. Roger P. Angel, The University of Arizona; Diran Apelian, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Plamen B. Atanassov, The University of New Mexico; Craig H. Benson, University of Virginia; Cory J. Berkland, The University of Kansas; Vijayakumar Bhagavatula, Carnegie Mellon University; David J. Bishop, Boston University; Donald L. Bitzer, North Carolina State University; Randy D. Blakely, Florida Atlantic University; Helen M. Blau, Stanford University; Timothy M. Block, Baruch S. Blumberg Institute; Daniel J. Blumenthal, University of California, Santa Barbara; Susmita Bose, Washington State University; Steven T. Boyce, University of Cincinnati; Edward S. Boyden, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Anthony B. Brennan, University of Florida; Carrie L. Byington, Texas A&M University; Marvin H. Caruthers, University of Colorado Boulder; Dennis S. Charney, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Yang-Tse Cheng, University of Kentucky; Yet Ming Chiang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Joanne Chory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies; Mooi Choo Chuah, Lehigh University; David E. Clemmer, Indiana University; Geof frey W. Coates, Cornell University; Stanley N. Cohen, Stanford University; James E. Crowe Jr., Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Pieter Cullis, The University of British Columbia; Mari Dezawa, Tohoku University; William L. Ditto, North Carolina State University; Prabir K. Dutta, The Ohio State University; Jack A. Elias, Brown University; Zhigang Z. Fang, The University of Utah; Tim A. Fischell, Michigan State University and Western Michigan University; Paul B. Fisher, Virginia Commonwealth University; Edward P. Furlani, University at Buffalo, SUNY; Guangping Gao, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Suresh V. Garimella, Purdue University; Bruce E. Gnade, Southern Methodist University; Lawrence Gold, University of Colorado Boulder; Sheila A. Grant, University of Missouri, Columbia; Mark A. Griswold, Case Western Reserve University; Horng-Jyh Harn, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital; Robert W. Heath, Jr., The University of Texas at Austin; Walter Brown Herbst, Northwestern University; Mark C. Hersam, Northwestern University; David M. Holtzman, Washington University in St. Louis; Ming Hsieh, University of Southern California; Ian W. Hunter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mikko Hupa, Abo Akademi University; Oliver C. Ibe, University of Massachusetts, Lowell; Eric D. Isaacs, The University of Chicago; Subramanian S. Iyer, University of California, Los Angeles; Joseph A. Izatt, Duke University; William R. Jacobs Jr., Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Rakesh K. Jain, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University; Stephen Albert Johnston, Arizona State University; Ranu Jung, Florida International University; Brian L. Justus, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; Alexander V. Kabanov, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Aravinda Kar, University of Central Florida; Kazunori Kataoka, The University of Tokyo; Howard E. Katz, Johns Hopkins University; Arie E. Kaufman, Stony Brook University, SUNY; Donald B. Keck, University of South Florida; Jeffery W. Kelly, The Scripps Research Institute; David V. Kerns Jr., Olin College of Engineering; Robert S. Keynton, University of Louisville; Dennis K. Killinger, University of South Florida; Kwang J. Kim, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Wayne H. Knox, University of Rochester; Philip T. Kortum, Rice University; Philip T. Krein, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; John J. La Scala, U.S. Army Research Laboratory; Jonathan J. Langberg, Emory University; Sang Yup Lee, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; Fred C. Lee, Virginia Tech; Eric C. Leuthardt, Washington University in St. Louis; Nathan S. Lewis, California Institute of Technology; Tsu-Jae King Liu, University of California, Berkeley; Chih-Yuan Lu, National Taiwan University; Zhenqiang Ma, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Michele Marcolongo, Drexel University; Laura Marcu, University of California, Davis; R. Kenneth Marcus, Clemson University; Gary S. Margules, Nova Southeastern University; Mary Helen McCay, Florida Institute of Technology; Kishor C. Mehta, Texas Tech University; Deirdre R. Meldrum, Arizona State University; Bhubaneswar Mishra, New York University; Gregory Moller, University of Idaho; Clayton Daniel Mote, Jr., University of Maryland; Shouleh Nikzad, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; John R. Nottingham, Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic; Mariappan P. Paranthaman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Christopher R. Parish, The Australian National University; Peter L.T. Pirolli, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition; Daniel A. Portnoy, University of California, Berkeley; Dennis W. Prather, University of Delaware; Paul R. Prucnal, Princeton University; Nirmala Ramanujam, Duke University; Jennifer L. Rexford, Princeton University; Kenner C. Rice, National Institutes of Health; Camillo Ricordi, University of Miami; Gabriel Alfonso Rincon-Mora, Georgia Institute of Technology; Bruce R. Rosen, Massachusetts General Hospital; Barbara O. Rothbaum, Emory University; Jonathan M. Rothberg, Yale University; Max F. Rothschild, Iowa State University; Clinton T. Rubin, Stony Brook University, SUNY; Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert, The University of Texas at Austin; Henry Samueli, University of California, Los Angeles and University of California, Irvine; Ulrich S. Schubert, Friedrich- Schiller-University Jena; Paul A. Seib, Kansas State University; Terrence J. Sejnowski, Salk Institute for Biological Studies; Mohammad Shahidehpour, Illinois Institute of Technology; Yun-Qing Shi, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Subhash L. Shinde, University of Notre Dame; Richard W. Siegel, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Krishna P. Singh, University of Pennsylvania; Hyongsok T. Soh, Stanford University; Steven L. Stice, University of Georgia; Steven L. Suib, University of Connecticut; Russell H. Taylor, Johns Hopkins University; Jeffrey A. Toretsky, Georgetown University; Rocky S. Tuan, University of Pittsburgh and The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Robert Vince, University of Minnesota; Andrew J. Viterbi, University of Southern California; Tuan Vo-Dinh, Duke University; Scott A. Waldman, Thomas Jefferson University; Thomas A. Waldmann, National Cancer Institute; Peter Walter, University of California, San Francisco; Fei Wang, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Scott C. Weaver, The University of Texas Medical Branch; Thomas J. Webster, Northeastern University; Chin- Long Wey, National Chiao Tung University; Lorne Whitehead, The University of British Columbia; Cheryl L. Willman, The University of New Mexico; Alan N. Willson, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles; Teresa K. Woodruff, Northwestern University; Amy E. Wright, Florida Atlantic University; Eli Yablonovitch, University of California, Berkeley; Paul Yager, University of Washington; Jackie Y. Ying, Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology; Bin Yu, SUNY Polytechnic Institute; Mona E. Zaghloul, The George Washington University; Zeev Zalevsky, Bar-Ilan University; Lynn Zechiedrich, Baylor College of Medicine. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating these new NAI Fellows.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Scott Fleming, a former House staffer and longtime public servant who is retiring in May after seventeen years working for Georgetown University. Over the years, I've had the opportunity to get to know Scott well, both through his work on Capitol Hill and in the Clinton Administration as well as later during his long tenure as a liaison between Georgetown University, my law school alma mater, and Congress. Scott's association with Georgetown goes back more than four decades. He graduated from Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in 1972 with a bachelor's degree. Already, though, he was working for Sen. Stuart Symington, from his home state of Missouri, as a Staff Assistant. After obtaining his master's degree in public policy from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin, Scott went to work for Rep. Dan Glickman from Kansas, serving from 1975 to 1988 in the roles of Legislative Assistant, Legislative Staff Director, and Chief of Staff. When Rep. Nita Lowey was elected, she hired Scott in 1989 as her first Chief of Staff and to oversee the opening of her Congressional office. Leaving the House in 1995 with a wealth of legislative experience and institutional knowledge, Scott joined the Clinton Administration's Department of Education as Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director of Congressional Affairs. Later, he served as Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs. When President Clinton left office in 2001, Scott left government service but didn't venture too far. He returned to his alma mater to serve as Georgetown's Associate Vice President of Federal Relations. While doing so, Scott has also served on the boards of the National Association of Independent College and Universities and of NAFSA: Association of International Educators Public Policy Advisory Committee. During his tenure, Scott worked tirelessly to secure federal funding for key educational initiatives benefitting students at Georgetown and at institutions of higher education across the country. He's won accolades for his work to shape the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and related legislation to increase benefits available to veterans seeking to attend college and graduate school. In recent years, Scott has been at the forefront of efforts by Georgetown and other universities to prevent the deportation of DREAMers studying in this country, which they've called home from a young age, and wishing to be a part of building its future. Throughout his time at Georgetown, he's been a fervent promoter of public service careers, taking time to bring students to Capitol Hill and teaching classes at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy. Scott has been an advisor, friend, and--in my opinion--the embodiment of the Jesuit principles that make up the `Spirit of Georgetown' throughout his career. I wish my fellow Hoya all the best in retirement and thank him for his service to the Congress, in the executive branch furthering educational opportunities in our country, and to Georgetown University and institutions of higher learning throughout America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland's Fifth District. On April 1, 1943, the Navy formally commissioned the installation, marking the start of Pax River's long and storied contribution to the defense of our nation in times of both war and peace. Over the past three quarters of a century, history has been made at Pax River again and again. The XP59-A, America's first all-jet aircraft, was first tested at Pax River in 1944. The flight test program launched in the late 1940's and expanded in the 1950's trained many of our nation's top military flight test pilots, including the members of NASA's Mercury 7 program. In the 1960's, several key developments in helicopter technology, surface-to-air missile systems, navigational equipment, and ordinance came out of Pax River and its innovative workforce specialized in development and testing. In 1983, Lt. Colleen Nevius became the first woman to graduate from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, making history at Pax River once again. The Naval Air Systems Command moved to Pax River in 1998, making the installation the center of naval aviation. Today, Pax River continues to play an outsized role in our defense and in the development and testing of new naval air systems. With the advent of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology and the emergence of Southern Maryland as a UAV development hub, Pax River will surely continue to lead the way into the future of naval aviation. I've been proud to support these efforts in Congress in recent years. Pax River has been so successful throughout its history not only because of the men and women who have served there but because of the strong support for the installation in the local community. All of Southern Maryland is proud of the work being done at Pax River, and St. Mary's County residents tell me all the time how honored they are to host it. The local alliances that have sprung up over the years to bring military, business, and local community leaders together have enriched life both on and off the base. I hope my colleagues in this House will join me in paying tribute to all who have made the Patuxent River Naval Air Station a success for seventy-five years, and I join in celebrating this milestone anniversary.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. When the Speaker became the Speaker, he said: ``We will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' How can any self-respecting Member of this House, how can any self- respecting Republican who made that representation to my Tea Party friends, vote for this rule? I have no idea. This is an abomination of the legislative process. You have had 6 months to get it right. Six weeks ago, the Speaker promised that an issue of great importance to us, DACA, would be solved. It hasn't been addressed, much less solved. But the real problem is that nobody knows what is in this legislation. With all due respect to the chairman of the Rules Committee, he hasn't read this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I have been here long enough to see my Republican colleagues bring to the floor these bills and plop them down heavily on the table. I have been here long enough to have citizens assault me in a town meeting and ask: ``Have you read the bill?'' I have been here long enough to hear the demagoguery about: ``What's in the bill? Do you know what's in the bill? Have you read the bill? How can you do this?'' I have heard demagoguery about the 3-day rule. I call it the 24-hour- and-2-second rule. That is the last second of the first day, 24 hours of the second day, and the first second of the third day. We are not even going to make that. This was filed at 8 o'clock last night. I ask any Member in this House to join me in the well if you have read this bill. Join me if you have read this bill. No one is joining me. These are earmarks. They call them authorizing legislation, but they are earmarks. They are pieces of legislation in this bill that are against the rules, of course, but we will waive those rules. They are things that were gone through in the dark of night, at 8 o'clock last night. These are the appropriations bills, the only piece of this legislation that were done properly.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. McGovern hasn't read the bill. I have not read the bill. It was 8 o'clock last night. The only person that could read this bill is the supercomputers. None of us even claim to be supercomputers. This rule ought to go down. Very frankly, there are a lot of things in here I know that I like and I know that everybody else likes, but if we defeat the rule, we ought to go back to a process that we can respect, that you argued you were going to follow, that you pledged to the American people you were going to follow, and that Mr. Cantor and Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Ryan wrote a book about and said they were going to change this institution and do it right. This is wrong. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, not a single person has read this bill. It was filed at 8 o'clock last night. If we had put this on the floor, not a single one of those on the other side of the aisle would have voted for it. Not one. They have demagogued for years about reading the bills. This doesn't come close to their 3-day layover rule. Not close. It is being rushed through because some have fundraisers, perhaps, this weekend, or have flights or codels they want to go on. We have wasted 6 months in passing the appropriations bills, which, supposedly, should have been passed by September 30 of last year. No one can be proud of this process. The Speaker said, when we set the caps, that he would bring a bill to the floor. He promised the 73 of us that made it possible to set these caps--because you don't have the votes on your side--that he would bring to this floor a fix for the Dreamers who are at risk of being kicked out of the country. I know there is a case, but it is short-term, not permanent. The Speaker did not keep that promise. It has not been on the floor. What we now have on the floor is an appropriations bill. I think most of us know what is in this appropriations bill. These are earmarks. You don't call them earmarks. You call them authorizing language. They are bills that nobody in the Appropriations Committee has read. If you have, stand up and correct me. As I said, nobody has read that either. This is report language. Come to the well if you have read this language. None of you--none of you--would support this process if we had offered it. Now, the good news is that what the Appropriations Committee has done is quality work; and I congratulate Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, the subcommittee chairs, and the ranking members. It is worthy of support. But I am waiting for all the Tea Party people who harangued me and others on my side about reading the bills, giving us sufficient time to consider them. The Speaker of the House said, when he became Speaker: We will take issues one at a time. Is there no shame? Is there no realization of the hypocrisy that is being displayed? Mr. Speaker, the product is a good one. And I say that about the appropriations bill. I have no idea what all the report language says.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker, and I thank Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Speaker, we brought this country from the brink of depression to a growing, robust economy with a stock market that has almost tripled by passing the National Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Not a single Republican voted for that, Mr. Speaker. Not one. I wonder how many will vote for this bill after they have said time after time, after time, after time: Read the bill; have 3 days' layover. Actually, your 3-day rule is a 24-hour-and-2-second rule: the last second of the first day, 24 hours of the second day, and the first second of the third day. You put everybody in a quandary because this is a good product that the Appropriations Committee has delivered. It does good things for our country, both in terms of national security and in terms of domestic investment. What a sad state of affairs. How dysfunctional this body has become. How marginalized has the Appropriations Committee, on which I was so proud to serve, has become. Rushing it through in just a matter of minutes. It is a sad day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and angered that the high school in my district, Great Mills High School, in St. Mary's County, was the site of the most recent school shooting, of which there have been 17 just since the beginning of this year. Two students were injured, and the gunman, also a student, was killed. And an entire community of parents, students, teachers, and faculty has been shaken by this violence. If it had not been for the courage and quick action of the school resource officer, Blaine Gaskill, and local law enforcement, the casualties might have been far, far greater. Blaine Gaskill is a hero, as are the teachers, students, and other school personnel. Tim Cameron, the sheriff of St. Mary's County, and the sheriff's office, of which Blaine Gaskill was a member, responded exactly as they had practiced: efficient, effective, and caring. Kathy O'Brien, who heads up a place called Walden in our county and in southern Maryland, was on site within an hour, dealing with the crisis and the mental health challenges it caused. Principal Jake Heibel made sure the school responded effectively. The superintendent of schools, Dr. James Smith, had made sure that the school would act in a way that was appropriate. We thank all of them. But, Mr. Speaker, our Nation is suffering from a crisis of gun violence. It has affected schools, places of worship, entertainment venues, city streets, and other places where a lot of people congregate. No other industrialized society or nation faces such a crisis, and that is because, in America, our laws allow almost anybody to access dangerous firearms, almost no questions asked. Furthermore, we allow the sale of assault rifles of the kind used by soldiers in the battlefield, designed to kill a lot of people quickly. In this instance, it was a handgun, a Glock. I do not know the capacity of the magazine that was used, but it was not an assault rifle. This Republican-led Congress, Mr. Speaker, has chosen to follow the lead of the NRA and do nothing of substance. We did pass a bill the other day that gave schools some help, some grant money, to ensure the safety of their schools. That was appropriate to do. But they could do that now on their own. We will help, that is good, but it does not address the real problem. Perhaps that was the point. And America's students, however, Mr. Speaker, won't have it. I had the opportunity last Wednesday to stand with thousands of students who walked out of their schools, walked into democracy, and marched to the Capitol to call for action against gun violence. These young people, Mr. Speaker, displayed the best of America, using their voices and their actions, to promote a just cause and a worthy effort to make our Union more perfect. The other Members and I who joined these young Americans could see that they do not take this and other national challenges lightly. Indeed, they had much to say about the future they want for our country and for the role they want to play to shape it. One of the students, Mr. Speaker, from Maryland, Matt Post, spoke extraordinarily eloquently. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record his remarks. My name is Matt Post. I'm a twelfth-grader, the Student Member of the Board for Montgomery County, and, I think, as students we need to make a few things clear. To start, we will not sit in classrooms with armed teachers. We refuse to learn in fear. We reject turning our schools into prisons. We will accept nothing less than stricter gun control. If it's what it takes, we are going to shame our national policymakers into protecting us, not just in schools but in churches, movie theaters, on the streets, and for the communities of color who are disproportionately devastated by the sickness of gun violence. The lawmakers who fail to support us, those who look for every answer to our nation's gun problem but the guns themselves, are complicit in every single death that comes after. To every politician sitting in the Capitol behind us, you get to decide who lives. And so, this is not a partisan issue for us. There's nothing cosmetic about life or death. This is about our basic morality as a country. When the commander-in-chief's solution to this gun epidemic is more guns, you know we have a moral problem in the White House. When national policymakers value the blood money of the NRA over the lives of children, you know we have a moral problem in the Halls in Congress. And when this is doomed to happen again--when, in the coming weeks and months, more of my peers will be slaughtered in their own classrooms, when their deaths will be dismissed as collateral--you know we have a moral problem in this country. So let's make one last thing clear: their right to own an assault rifle does not outweigh our right to live. The adults have failed us. This is in our hands now. And if any elected official gets in our way, we will vote them out and replace them ourselves. `Enough is Enough!'

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the remarks in their entirety, but I do want to highlight one thing Matt had to say, which I thought was so profound. He concluded his remarks by saying: `` . . . their right to own an assault rifle does not outweigh our right to live.'' His right to live is guaranteed by the Constitution as well. There were many others like Matt, Mr. Speaker, other student leaders from our area, who stood up and spoke out and roused their peers to be engaged. Along with Matt, I want to recognize Brenna Levitan; Eri Shay; Emily Dohler Rodas; Michael Solomon; Nate Tinbite; Christian Crawford; and a student from American University, who helped them organize, Aaron Thorp. These student leaders, and their many peers who marched with them last week, deserve to be heard in the Halls of Congress. Mr. Speaker, we must not fail them. Like the young leaders of generations ago, of centuries ago, a millennia ago, these young leaders are calling to our conscience to take action, and we must not fail them. We must not fail the students and teachers and parents of Great Mills High School in St. Mary's County; or Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; or Marshall County High School in Kentucky; or Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon; or Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; or Virginia Tech; or Columbine; or any other school that has witnessed the carnage of a school shooting. Mr. Speaker, we must take real action--action to make our schools and our communities safer from gun violence. I am proud to stand with the young Americans who walked out--and I thank them for their passion and their advocacy--and who say they do not want to go to school and be afraid. One young woman said the first thing she does when she goes to school now is to look for a place to hide. Mr. Speaker, we must do better than that. I will continue to work closely with the community in Great Mills in the days and weeks ahead, as we try to heal and move forward. But, Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, this body, the people's body, who raise our hand and swear an oath to the Constitution and the laws of our country, designed to create a more perfect Union, a Union in which the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is protected by the people's House, Mr. Speaker, let us act.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my friend and colleague Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio on becoming the longest- serving woman in the history of the House. On Sunday, March 18, she will surpass the late Representative Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, who held the previous record of thirty-five years, two months, and fourteen days. But more than her longevity, Representative Kaptur has brought to the House her tireless work ethic, her intellect, and her devotion to serving the people of lakeshore Ohio. A Toledo native and the first in her family to attend college, Representative Kaptur began her public service career as a member of the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commission and later as a domestic policy advisor to President Jimmy Carter. When she defeated an incumbent Representative in a stunning upset election in 1982, Representative Kaptur came to Congress and hit the ground running. She has been a leader in the fight for higher wages, workers' rights, and ensuring access to affordable health care. It was Representative Kaptur who first proposed the idea in Congress of creating a National World War II Memorial, and she wrote the legislation that eventually authorized its construction on the National Mall. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Representative Kaptur has been at the forefront of efforts to invest in both our national security and in domestic priorities that help working families access opportunities to achieve economic security and get ahead in Ohio and across America. I have very great respect for Representative Kaptur's intellect and her passion for working people and the pain she feels whenever they feel pain. No Member is more committed to drawing attention to and addressing the difficult challenges so many working people experience-- not only in her native Ohio, but throughout the middle of our country. I've been honored to serve alongside Representative Kaptur, both on the Appropriations Committee and on the Floor of the House, for the past thirty-five years. I look forward to continue working closely with her as Democrats carry forward the fight for economic opportunity, equal justice, and stronger communities.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, 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 majority leader for that information. Mr. Speaker, throughout the last year, we have continually run up against deadlines on how we were going to keep the government of the United States operating properly. The omnibus is currently being discussed. The negotiations for the omnibus were made possible by the fact that a significant number of Democrats voted for it, while a significant number of Republicans voted against it. It was a bipartisan statement proceeding. That omnibus needs to be passed by March 23. We are not scheduled to be here, Mr. Speaker, on March 23. That does not mean that we might not go over, but it means that it needs to pass the House and the Senate and be sent to the President prior to or on March 22. Negotiations are, unfortunately, not proceeding as effectively as I would hope they would. I am hopeful that there will be a clean bill from either side without any riders that would lead either side to oppose that bill. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about an issue. First of all, let me say that the leader has announced a number of bills for consideration next week. I venture to say that an extraordinarily infinitesimal amount of the American people have any ideas what those bills do or are urging those bills to be passed. I do not mean that they are without substance. I mean that they are not the issues on the mind of the American people. This is the people's House. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker appeared on television at a townhall on CNN some 14 months ago. He made a promise at a CNN townhall to a Dreamer that asked him a question. House Speaker Paul Ryan strongly suggested to that young woman that ``revocation on protection for the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out.'' Notwithstanding that, the President of the United States put that Dreamer and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers--indeed, close to 2 million Dreamers--at risk by withdrawing their protections, which Speaker Ryan indicated would not happen: ``Will not be carried out.'' That was some 6 months ago, Mr. Speaker. Not the CNN; that was 14 months ago. I have talked to the Speaker, I have brought it up continuously on this floor, and I have been told by the Republican leadership: Don't worry, we have got until March 5 to do something. I was told that in October, I was told that in November, I was told that in December, I was told that in January, and I was told that in February: Don't worry, we have got until March 5. March 5 came and went. No action. None. That Dreamer to whom the Speaker spoke is still at risk, still worried, and still twisting in the wind. Eighty-six percent of the American public, Mr. Speaker, say that that young woman should not be kicked out of the country that she knows: brought here as a child, went to elementary school, middle school, high school; some to college, some practicing medicine, some practicing law, some being social workers, many being teachers. I was told: Don't worry. They were told: Don't worry, March 5 is a long way away. It has come and gone. And we are told this week that we will consider H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act. I am not sure that any of my constituents have talked to me about the TAILOR Act. H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, I doubt that a single one of my constituents has talked to me about that act. They are fillers, Mr. Speaker. They are fillers while we fiddle, while Rome burns. I have asked, Leader Pelosi has asked, frankly, and leaders of the Catholic Church and other denominations have asked to put the Dreamer bill on the floor in the people's House. The Speaker of this House, when he became the Speaker, said: We will not duck the tough issues. We will take them head-on. Don't worry, we have got until March 5. March 5 is behind us, and we consider these bills, which I think are filler bills, and controversial bills at that. We have asked, Mr. Speaker, that the majority party put on the floor three bills on an issue of vital importance to the American people, that every American knows about, that the people's House ought to have the right to speak on, and express the views of the American people and establish policy they support--86 percent of them. So I will, again, ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to put the Dream Act on the floor; to put Mr. Goodlatte's bill on the floor; to put the bipartisan bill, sponsored by Mr. Hurd from Texas and Mr. Aguilar from California; put them on the floor. Take the issues. I know they are tough. The Speaker said he wants to take the issues head-on, Mr. Speaker, not duck. Show some political courage. And not only that, respect this institution and every Member in it who wants to express their opinion on this legislation of critical importance to at least 1.8 million Americans, vital to their future, to their life. And 86 percent of Americans believe they ought to be protected, just as Speaker Ryan pledged they would be 14 months ago when he said revocation of protection for the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out. Mr. Speaker, that bill ought to be brought to the floor to carry out that representation and that assurance. I have been patient. I have talked. I have worked. I have come to meetings. I met with the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague and friend, the majority leader, and Mr. Durbin and others, 25 of us sitting around the Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker, when the President said we will take care of DACA, and he said: You send me a bill; I will sign it, and I will take the heat. He was not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker, because we had a bill, called the commonsense crowd, about 25 United States Senators brought a bill to the floor. It took care of a couple of the things the President wanted to take care of, but it wasn't good enough for him, notwithstanding the fact he said: You send me a bill. You decide, i.e., the Congress, the coequal branch of government that now stands suppliant in the face of saying we will pass something only if the President will sign it. That is not what the framers meant, Mr. Speaker. We are a coequal branch, not a subservient branch of the government of the United States. Mr. Speaker, if we brought those three bills to the floor that I just referred to--the Dream Act, cosponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, and Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat; and the Goodlatte bill, sponsored by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and a bipartisan bill sponsored by many Republicans and many Democrats, Mr. Hurd, a Republican from Texas, and Mr. Aguilar, a Democrat from California--if we brought those bills to the floor, the problem is they know the Hurd-Aguilar bill would pass, which would reflect the views of 86 percent of the American people. No, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the American people are overwhelmingly for that, we are going to be considering H.R. 1116, H.R. 4545, H.R. 4263, ignoring that 1.8 million people, ignoring that promise that the Speaker made to that young woman that she would be protected. The Speaker has told me over and over again: Oh, I want to do this. I want to do that. I am going to have some task force. I am going to do this, that, and the other. March 5 has come and gone. Nothing has happened. I used to be the majority leader. I could bring a bill to the floor. If I said something was going to happen, I tried to make sure it happened. If I sound angry, it is because I am angry. If I sound frustrated, it is because I am frustrated. The people's House ought to be given the opportunity to express the will of the American people on this issue. There is another issue, and we do have a bill, the so-called Rutherford bill that we are bringing to the floor on suspension. We are probably all going to vote for the Rutherford bill. But we are going to ignore a bill, as we have been ignoring for years under Republican leadership, a bill that is supported even more than the DACA, Dreamer bills, and that is comprehensive background checks, which clearly will save lives, which will close the loopholes, which will make sure that those with criminal records don't get guns, will make sure that those with mental health issues don't get guns, will make sure that terrorists who can't fly on airplanes can't get guns. Mr. Speaker, we have been urging and pleading for that bill to be brought to the floor over and over and over again. The National Rifle Association is not for that bill. I can't understand why. Rather, we bring a bill to the floor that will help schools--I think that is positive--do what they can do right now. Should we help them? Of course. But we ought not to pretend that we are doing something to make our children safer in their schools, to make concertgoers safer at their concerts, to make churchgoers safer in their church, to make people who go to a nightclub safer in that nightclub, to make people who go to shopping centers safer in those shopping centers. We ought not to pretend the Rutherford bill is going to do that. Will comprehensive background checks do it all? It will not. There are other things I think ought to be done. But at a minimum, the American people think that we ought to make sure that everybody who purchases a weapon has a background check to make sure that they are not a criminal, somebody with a substantial mental health problem that makes them unsafe to own a gun, spousal abusers. Mr. Speaker, the bills we are going to consider next week I am sure have some merit from some perception, from somebody's perception, but the two bills that I have just discussed are on the minds of the American people, and millions are at risk if we do not pass legislation dealing with that issue. I do not criticize the Rutherford bill, but it will not solve the problem, and everybody knows it will not solve the problem; nor, frankly, will universal background checks in and of itself solve the problem, but experts say it will save thousands of lives over time. It would have saved lives in Charleston, South Carolina, the nine people killed in Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I like to work in a bipartisan way, but that requires respecting one another. My Republican friends wrote a book in which they were very critical of the way we ran the House because it wasn't open and transparent. I would ask them to reread that book. I have read it. My friend is smiling. In that book, they really wanted to change the way this House runs, make it open and transparent, take the tough issues head-on. That is what the Speaker said. Mr. Speaker, they are not taking the tough issues head-on. They are hiding from the NRA. They are hiding from some of their hardline people who want to kick people out of America, who want to take that lamp that the Statue of Liberty holds high and bring it down. Yes, I am disappointed. Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am frustrated. I came to this body to express my opinion on the important issues confronting my country and to try to make it better. Mr. Speaker, I would plead with the majority leader to perhaps delay those four bills. Rutherford's could be on suspension. It won't take much time. Delay those three bills that a miniscule amount of Americans, there may be 100, there may be 200 Americans who would be concerned those bills aren't brought forward, and put on the floor the three bills I referred to--the Dream Act, the Goodlatte bill, and the Hurd-Aguilar bill--and let the people's House express its opinion. That is not an unfair request. And let the background check, universal background check bill come to the floor, and let the House vote. I know that there are some Republicans who don't want to vote on that bill because the public is so overwhelmingly for it and they may upset the NRA. That is what this business is about, Mr. Speaker, expressing openly and clearly what we think the policies of our country ought to be to make our public better, to make our country safer. Mr. Speaker, I would end on those two issues, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to just make a correction. I said a significant number of Democrats voted for it and a significant number of Republicans voted against it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader talked about a lot of issues, one of which was NICS. What he didn't say was they put a poison pill in the Fix NICS bill, which is why so many of us voted against it on concealed carry. There is a disagreement in this House on that. We disagree, for the most part, on that provision. We don't think that makes America safer. There are differences of opinion on that. My suggestion to the majority leader is, the Rutherford bill is on the floor. By unanimous consent, let's put the Fix NICS bill in the Rutherford bill without the poison pill in it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to see if he will be agreeable to doing that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my question was, will you agree--you talked a lot about NICS and where it is failing, and we can fix it. We agree with that. So what I am asking you--you put the Rutherford bill on. I think most of us are going to vote for the Rutherford bill. Maybe all of us will vote for the Rutherford bill, which says let's help schools make themselves more safe. Why should anybody be opposed to that? What I say to you is: you just spent a significant amount of time talking about how we could make the NICS process work better, but that many of us voted against it and it hasn't moved in the Senate. I guarantee you--I don't know that I can guarantee you, but my thinking is: if you do the Rutherford bill, and if you add in the Fix NICS bill--not with concealed carry, but the Fix NICS bill that you talk about in the Rutherford bill-- I will work with you to get that passed in the United States Senate, and I think we will be successful. My question to the majority leader: Will you agree to a unanimous consent request to add the Fix NICS bill into the Rutherford bill on the suspension calendar? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no, because we want to continue to have that on which we agree defeated by that on which we do not agree. That is the pattern. And when the gentleman says all those bipartisan bills, there were some, obviously, Democrat votes on many of those bills, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a word about a bill that has the majority's support on the floor of the House of Representatives that I spoke about, and that is Hurd-Aguilar. Mr. Goodlatte, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said if Goodlatte was put on the floor, it will lose 50, 60, 70 Republicans. Mr. Goodlatte said that, and that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee. It hasn't been brought to the floor because it would fail. Hurd-Aguilar, which has not been considered by the committee, but which has the majority of votes on this floor, that bill has not been brought up; just as the bill that passed the United States Senate 5 years ago, to deal with so many of the problems that immigration confronts us with, including security at the border, 5 years, has not been brought up. March 5, nothing happened. Come and gone. The majority leader spent a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about things that are important but were not on the subject because he doesn't want to deal with the subject. Apparently the Republicans don't want to deal with the subject and they won't put it on the floor. They are obstructing the will of the American people and they are putting thousands and thousands and thousands of people at risk. The majority leader, with all due respect, is wrong. All of the DACA recipients are not protected, and many of them are not signing up again because they are afraid their government will come after them. They feel they were flim-flammed. I disagree with the majority leader, Mr. Speaker. Many of us believe what the President did is absolutely legal. It is consistent with what Ronald Reagan did, with what George H.W. Bush did, with what Bill Clinton did, and what George W. Bush did. Every President, since I have been serving here, has modified immigration consistent with their executive authority. There was nothing mentioned about the quote of the Speaker that was clearly directed at this young woman to say that revocation of protections for the Dreamers brought here as children will not be carried out. Nobody can sign up for DACA protection now under the court order-- nobody. You can re-up, but you can't sign up--1.8 million. The President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, sent a message down here, or maybe he tweeted it, they would agree to 1.8 million and a pathway to citizenship, parenthesis, if you agree with this, if you agree with that, if you agree with the other. That is not what was said at the White House, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the majority leader. He brought up some other points, said we need to agree to discuss those. I agreed to discuss them. I didn't agree to agree to them, nor did anybody else in that room. And the President of the United States, 25 Members of the House and Senate sitting around the Cabinet table, said: Are we agreed that we are going to solve the DACA issue first? Not a single Member demurred. Not a single Member said no--not a single one, Mr. Speaker, yet we can't get that bill to the floor. And the majority leader says: Oh, well, we are bringing up a bill that will create jobs. I am for doing that. And, frankly, if we do that the week after or the week after that--frankly, I don't know the bills well enough to be speaking about them with much depth of information as to how they were voted on in committee, but my inkling is that the majority Democrats--I don't know what is in there, in these bills--may well have voted against them. Most of those bills coming out of committee are pretty partisan. We didn't discuss the three bills that I brought up. The majority leader didn't mention them. They have bipartisan support on two; and one, the chairman of the committee admits, does not have the votes on this floor. He would get no Democratic votes, and he would lose a substantial number of Republican votes, and the majority leader knows that, Mr. Speaker. And we talk about NICS. I want to fix NICS. I don't want concealed carry to be part of that. And I regret that the majority leader would not agree to let's fix NICS and put the Rutherford bill through. That would pass the Senate, but he has got a bill over there he knows won't pass the Senate but maybe it makes a good talking point. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what we have to do. We have been waiting a long time, not just the 6 months since September, waiting for March 5 to come and go. We have been waiting for a long time to have bills on the floor with an open amendment process so we can, in fact, do the people's will on immigration and on protecting our students and our families and our citizens from the irresponsible use of guns. We are not against the responsible use of guns. We believe the Second Amendment protects people on owning handguns and hunting guns; but the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, said there are things that the community could do. There are things that the government can do to protect its people and to make sure that gun use, within the framework of the Second Amendment, is responsible. I don't know what we have to do, Mr. Speaker. I don't think anybody doubts that the Hurd-Aguilar bill has the majority votes in this House. I would urge people to, if they believe in this issue, sign a discharge petition. They refused to bring the Export-Import Bank bill to the floor for 1\1/2\ or 2 years. Some of the leadership weren't for it. As a matter of fact, the two highest weren't for it. But 127 Republicans to 117 Republicans, they were for it, and over 300 votes were for it, and they would not bring it to the floor short of a discharge petition. That is not transparency; that is not openness; that is not taking the tough issues head on. That is obfuscating. That is undermining democracy in the people's House. If the gentleman wants to respond, I will yield to him. If not, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. I did not.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the leader what I said, and I knew what I said, and I know what the facts are. The Republicans could not pass that bill on their own. There were over 60 Republicans who voted ``no'' on that bill, and they got 167. You may have given me--or 170. That is, Mr. Speaker, almost 50 short of passage. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, when I was majority leader, we didn't get much help from the other side, and we always had 218 to pass what we wanted to pass on our side. Seventy-three of our Democrats voted for it, which is why it passed. Not the majority, because the majority of us were so frustrated. Again, the majority leader has not spoken to the bills. He has spoken about what we have passed. And the CHIP bill, by the way, was brought up weeks after its authority expired. Weeks after it expired.

Mr. HOYER. He says it was because of our committee. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we can't stop anything in committee. They have a majority on every committee and can bring a bill up tomorrow--the next hour if they decide to do so.

Mr. HOYER. No, after.

Mr. HOYER. It expired on September 30. You didn't bring it up until weeks after that.

Mr. HOYER. I have consulted with the staff person for whom you have great respect and affection, and she says that I am right. Now, she is my staffer, so maybe she is somewhat biased, but I will tell you that we believe we are right on that. But that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is not what we have done in the past--particularly what we have done. And we all are for CHIP. That is not the point. The point is we have two critical pieces of legislation this House must address and that the overwhelming majority of the American people think we ought to address and think we ought to pass and are for. And I don't mean 51 percent or 52 percent of them. I mean 86 percent of the people or more. It is not a close question. And rather than talking about, well, we did this, we passed 5,950 bills, I am not talking about those bills. I am talking about bills we haven't brought to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't allowed the House to consider; that we have hundreds of thousands of kids, young people who we respect and who are teachers, are doctors, are workers in our factories making a difference, working in restaurants and hotels. I was with the Chamber of Commerce in Maryland just the other day, and three different CEOs came up to me and said: We have got DACA people working for us and doing an excellent job, and they are worried that they are going to be kicked out of the only country they know. But we talk about NICS, and we talk about this, that, and the other. Bring those bills to the floor. That is what we are asking for. We want that respect. We want that respect for this institution. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to the majority leader again. It is those two bills that we believe would pass with significant majorities in this House--the three bills, and we can choose between them. We have offered the queen of the hill, with the explanation for those who may be watching and not bored stiff. One of those three bills that I have mentioned, one a Republican bill, the other two bipartisan bills, Ros- Lehtinen-Roybal-Allard bill and the Hurd-Aguilar bill, both of those bills are bipartisan. Certainly one of those will get a significant majority of this House, and I am not denigrating the bills. I may or may not be for them that are on the schedule, but there are no issues that the country feels are more important right now than background checks, and there is no issue more timely than fixing--as the Speaker pledged to do 14 months ago, putting at risk that young woman and hundreds of thousands of other individuals in our country similarly situated. That is what we ought to be doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.