Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ICE has gone rogue. I was sickened to see an ICE officer shoot a 37-year-old mother, leaving her 6 year old an orphan. That officer needs to be arrested and prosecuted.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the human rights of people in ICE detention facilities. I visited the California City Immigration Detention Center and spoke with 47 detainees. They talked about rocks in their food. They talked about having blood in their urine and not being able to see a doctor. They talked about freezing in the night because they didn't have clothes.

These are human rights violations. This is not the way America acts. We need accountability to ICE, and we need to act with our values.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow at midnight is the deadline for Pam Bondi to release the Epstein files. That is what Thomas Massie's and my bill calls for. It passed this body 427-1, passed the Senate 100-0, and the President signed it. Now, three Federal judges have ordered the release of all of these files from Maxwell's and Epstein's grand jury.

Here is the reality. Any Justice Department official who does not comply with this law will be subject to prosecution for obstruction of justice. If Pam Bondi does not comply with the law, she will be held either in inherent contempt of Congress or subject to impeachment.

We will not rest until the law is complied with and justice is served.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm on the military buildup in the Caribbean, edging us closer to a regime-change war in Venezuela.

The Trump administration has sent the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, our largest aircraft carrier. Mr. Speaker, 10 percent of our Navy is in the Caribbean, including destroyers and submarines.

We have got 15,000 troops in Florida and Puerto Rico, including marines who are ready for amphibious landings, and we have F-35s and B- 52s flying across the Caribbean and Venezuelan airspace.

After Iraq, after Libya, after 20 years in Afghanistan, after Yemen, we do not need another regime-change war. It is time for the American people to oppose a regime-change war in Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Smith for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, as our country wastes trillions of dollars in wars overseas, the American people are frustrated and saying: Why is it that we are doing that, while China, with its Belt and Road Initiative, is building its industrial base? They do not want us investing in wars overseas. They want us investing in manufacturing here at home, in healthcare here at home, and in childcare here at home.

As we debate this bill, President Trump is announcing that he has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. People voted for President Trump because he was going to end the endless wars. This Congress must stand up against another war in Venezuela like we had in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. The American people do not want a regime change war in Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, while I have such tremendous respect for the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, it is not enough for Pete Hegseth to come and just testify behind closed doors. I trust their judgment, but we need an accountability and a full hearing where Pete Hegseth answers to the American people for what happened off the coast of Venezuela.

It is not the American way of doing business of killing people who are unarmed. That may be how Putin acts. That may be how Xi Jinping acts. That is not how America acts. I know there are Republicans on this committee who are concerned about how Hegseth has acted. We need Hegseth before the Armed Services Committee, answering to the American people.

Shame on him for throwing an admiral under the bus. The admiral has far more honor than Pete Hegseth has. We need him to give answers to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this committee and Congress to listen to the American people and stop getting us into endless wars.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership over the last 5 months to make sure that this bill came to the floor. I thank also Don Sisson for his leadership and understanding of all the rules to make this possible.

As we are here today, I saw on CNN that the President is meeting with the Saudi prince. What does America First mean to me? How about meeting with the survivors? How about making sure that America's girls are not being raped? That is what it means to be America First. It doesn't mean going and meeting with Saudi princes.

I am so honored to be here and to work together with Congressman Thomas Massie, who has shown so much courage and principle. I am so honored to be here next to Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Congresswoman Nancy Mace.

Someone ask me what I learned through this process. I said that sometimes we have to see people not just through their caricature. I had caricatures of Representative Greene, Representative Massie, and Representative Mace.

What I saw was they cared as Americans and human beings. They stood with courage. They looked at this not from politics, but they looked at this as what is right. I am proud today to be a Member of Congress. I am proud to work with them. I am proud of what we are showing this country is possible.

If we actually care about American values, maybe we can overcome some of the bitter divides in this country. If we didn't care about just getting the credit and maybe worked together, we could actually care about forgotten and abandoned Americans like the survivors that testified today. I was so moved by their testimony.

How can we hear their testimony, as all of us have heard, see their tears, see them hold up photos at the age of 14, and think they are not telling the truth? This is not politics. This is humanity.

Sometimes we get into these Chambers, and we forget what happened. We forget how we grew up. When most of us grew up, we went to barbecues. We went to Little League games. We went to church or temple. We didn't fly around in private jets and go to a rape island. We didn't buy off politicians and tell them to keep quiet. We didn't think that it was normal to abuse or rape young girls.

Then they say they don't know if they were 18 or 22. Come on. It is rotten. Then they say to just care about the price of eggs. Care about the price of healthcare. What is more important than that? American values are more important. These rich, greedy men abused American values. They abused what is sacred about this country. They abused what built this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is time. They are going to have a reckoning. The Epstein class is going to go. The reason they are going to go is because the progressive left and the MAGA right and everyone in between is finally waking up against this rotten system.

When people are united and when people work across the aisle, amazing things can happen because the American people are kind and good and decent.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to have worked with Congressman Massie. I particularly salute the courage of Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace. None of this would have been possible without their courage in standing up on the petition and for what they did.

Mr. Speaker, our country is at a moral crossroads. Just today, it comes out that billionaires are worth $8 trillion. That is more than 50 percent of Americans combined.

What does the President do? He decides he doesn't have the money for the American people. He is going to starve the American people to give $40 billion to the corrupt Libertarian leader in Argentina. Mr. Speaker, $9 million would have fed the American people. How is that America first?

Then he says he doesn't care about the cab driver who is now paying $2,600 per month in healthcare as opposed to $44. He doesn't want to save the 20 million Americans who are going to face high premium increases. How is that America first?

Mr. Speaker, we need national health insurance in this country. We need to tax billionaires in this country. We need to fund SNAP in this country. We need to stop funding Argentina and corrupt foreign leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I am just returning from hearing the survivors tell their stories, and I was so deeply moved. This is not a political issue. This is an issue of 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds who told the stories of how they were solicited by Jeffrey Epstein and raped and assaulted. Then they went to the police and the police didn't do anything because Jeffrey Epstein knew rich people, because he knew Presidents, because he knew donors.

This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. Marjorie Taylor Greene was there speaking out for the survivors. Nancy Mace was in tears, because she is a survivor, when she heard their stories. Lauren Boebert has said we need to speak up for the survivors.

This is an issue that could actually bring this country together to say that a Nation in which rich and powerful men can rape young girls without consequence is a nation that has lost its moral and spiritual soul.

We can fight about a lot of things. We shouldn't fight about this. We need two more Republicans to sign the discharge petition. I have a pretty simple rule. Most people don't understand all the jargon of Congress, but the survivors very clearly said they want the Massie- Khanna bill. They want it for closure. They want it for the release of the files. You know what the irony here is? President Trump could actually be the person who does good in this. He can still change his mind.

Speaker Johnson is a true Christian. I know him. I know his family. He is a good Christian man. He can be for bringing justice. I really don't understand why we are fighting over this. Why don't we do something good for this country? Why don't we stand with these survivors and show this Nation we are still capable of coming together when it matters for truth and justice?

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to highlight the rising danger posed by the unchecked expansion of global nuclear arsenals. As we mark 80 years since the Trinity test, we must confront the urgent need to reverse course before miscalculation or escalation leads to irreversible catastrophe. I include in the Record the following article, 80 Years After Trinity, the Dangers of Nuclear War Have Never Been Higher by Norman Solomon:

The dangers of nuclear war have never been higher, but

poitical pressure to prevent it is at low ebb. Eighty years

after the atomic age began with the Trinity bomb test in New

Mexico on July 16, 1945, words can't possibly be adequate to

describe the extent of global horrors that today's nuclear

arsenals are capable of inflicting. But mainstream US media

outlets and partisan politics are routinely oblivious to the

threat of oblivion

Despite the efforts of individuals and groups striving for

arms control, the national discourse ignores the likely

results of nuclear buildups--which continue to boost the

actual risks of annihilation. Pronouncements from the nuclear

establishment about a need to ``maintain deterrence'' and

``modernize'' usually go unquestioned as to the underlying

assumptions. Senators and representatives praise nuclear

systems with components produced in their state or district.

Even well-informed and dedicated advocates of halting the

arms race are often reduced to arguing for fiscal

responsibility. Within the narrow confines of regular

``national security'' debates, the wisest lobbying tactic

appears to be a focus on exorbitant costs of ``modernizing''

nuclear weapons. Yet cost-cutting arguments bypass how the

weapons push the world closer to doomsday.

Northrop Grumman--the contractor for the new Sentinel ICBM,

which is meant to replace the current Minuteman III

intercontinental ballistic missiles--has racked up such huge

cost overruns that the project at times seemed to be in

jeopardy of cancellation. Meanwhile, the political response

detoured around the unique dangers of ICBMs, which (as land-

based missiles vulnerable to attack) remain on hair-trigger,

``use them or lose them'' alert. Given the long record of

false alarms, such hypervigilance is a possible tripwire for

an accidental apocalypse.

``Getting trapped in an argument about the cheapest way to

keep ICBMs operational in their silos is ultimately no-win,''

Daniel Ellsberg and I wrote for The Nation in autumn 2021. We

added: ``Better sooner than later, members of Congress will

need to face up to the horrendous realities about

intercontinental ballistic missiles. They won't do that

unless peace, arms-control, and disarmament groups go far

beyond the current limits of congressional discourse--and

start emphasizing, on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, the

crucial truth about ICBMs and the imperative of eliminating

them all.''

More than 700 scientists signed a letter last summer going

beyond the focus on cost to urge the complete elimination of

America's ICBMs. The letter, organized by the Union of

Concerned Scientists, explained that ``the US could eliminate

the land-based leg of the triad tomorrow and the US public

would only be safer for it.''

Progressives working to defund new weapons systems

recognize that massive military spending is, in the words of

Martin Luther King Jr., a ``demonic, destructive suction

tube''--depleting enormous resources that should be devoted

to meeting human needs instead of destroying lives and

threatening human survival. But for typical Congress members

of either party, disputes about how to get the most bang for

the buck are affirming the arms race rather than impeding it.

Certain firms might lose specific contracts if some

Strangelovian projects are sufficiently exposed as

boondoggles, but the nuclear-arms industry and overall

military business remain on a steep upward trajectory.

Congresspeople are accustomed to juggling billions of

``defense'' dollars. What they aren't accustomed to

acknowledging--and what constituent pressure should demand

they face--is that the latest weapons systems further

endanger human life on Earth.

The history of the last eight decades tells us that

Americans will go along with astronomical spending for

nuclear weaponry if they believe it makes them safer. Unless

we effectively make the case that the opposite

is true, the nuclear arms race will continue to play out in

media and politics as a pricey necessity

In recent years, numerous activists and groups have given

priority to calling for abolition of nuclear weapons. It's a

position that occupies the highest moral ground, famously

seized by the Nobel laureate scientist George Wald in a

widely reprinted 1969 anti-war speech at MIT. ``Nuclear

weapons offer us nothing but a balance of terror, and a

balance of terror is still terror,'' he said. ``We have to

get rid of those atomic weapons, here and everywhere. We

cannot live with them.''

During the past several years, accelerating work by

activists for abolition has drawn inspiration from the Treaty

on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now signed by 94

countries, and visionary organizations like the International

Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

Unfortunately, campaigning for abolition of nuclear weapons

does not have any evident capacity to hinder the US

government's leading role in propelling the momentum of the

arms race. No matter how heartfelt and imbued with wisdom,

pleas for abolition do not present a threat to the

unrestrained and voracious power of the military-industrial

complex.

A truly horrific reality in 2025, and for the realistically

foreseeable future, is that nuclear weapons will remain on

this planet, brandished against the entire human species. The

word ``realistically'' may cause some to bristle. But a lack

of such distasteful realism can divert resources, time, and

energies away from where they're most needed.

Desperate needs include far greater activism, public

messaging, and political organizing to avert the worst. The

top of the agenda should include: renewal of US-Russia New

START treaty set to expire next February: reinstatement of

three vital nuclear-arms pacts canceled by the US government,

the Anti-Ballistic Missile, Intermediate-Range Nuclear

Forces, and Open Skies treaties; and initiation of step-by-

step disarmament measures that can sometimes involve wise

unilateral actions by the US government, as in the case of

ICBMs.

``We are closer to nuclear catastrophe today than at any

point since the Cold War,'' Representative Jim McGovern said

this spring when reintroducing a House resolution ``urging

the United States to lead the world back from the brink of

nuclear war and halt and reverse the nuclear arms race.''

With 21 cosponsors, the resolution ``calls on the president''

to take major steps toward sanity, none of which Joe Biden

chose to take and none of which Donald Trump shows any

indication of taking.

Looking at the names on the nonbinding resolution, a reason

for discouragement is that only 10 percent of House Democrats

and not a single Republican signed on. A less obvious problem

is that the signers are not speaking out for vigorous

American diplomacy to end the Ukraine war, which may be a

prerequisite for restarting any semblance of dialogue on

nuclear dangers between Washington and Moscow.

For more than three years, ever since the Russian invasion

of Ukraine, congressional Democrats have rarely advocated the

kind of diplomatic efforts that might stop the war's carnage.

Such efforts could supply a scaffold for rebuilding the arms-

control architecture.

But the default role for even progressive Democrats on the

Hill has been to support no-strings arming of the Ukrainian

military (``let's you and them fight'') while depicting the

Kremlin as incapab]e of serious negotiations. Yet the

McGovern resolution says that the United States should lead a

worldwide effort to prevent nuclear war by ``in particular,

pursuing and concluding new nuclear arms control and

disarmament arrangements with the Russian Federation to

prevent a buildup of nuclear forces beyond current levels.''

So while some congressional Democrats are emphatic that the

United States should directly negotiate with Russia to

prevent nuclear war, those same lawmakers are not willing to

push for US negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine war.

In reality, thawing the deep freeze of the new Cold War is

essential to halt and reverse the race toward annihilation.

Voicing hope that nuclear-arms negotiations can be successful

in tandem with belligerence toward Russia may seem politic,

but it is not realistic.

While hawkish legislators make no pretense of interest in

any step toward detente, it's important that at least a

minority of Democrats at the Capitol are urging diplomatic

talks aimed at preventing nuclear war. Yet it's hard to

imagine those Democrats sounding anything like President

Lyndon B. Johnson at the close of his summit with Russian

Premier Alexei Kosygin in mid-1967 in Glassboro, New Jersey,

when LBJ said, ``We have made further progress in an effort

to improve our understanding of each other?s thinking on a

number of questions.''

Today, the Democrats who talk about the need to avoid

nuclear war do not seem especially interested in ``an effort

to improve our understanding'' of the Russian leadership's

thinking. The rote storyline--that Vladimir Putin is evil,

end of story--blends in smoothly with US news media and the

punditocracy. What it also does is give more fuel to the

momentum toward nuclear holocaust.

Many who justifiably derided President George W. Bush after

9/11 for his Manichaean view of the world are now largely

replicating it. Implicit in the current worldview is that--

after decades of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, causing deaths

into the millions, and now while continuing to serve as the

crucial accomplice for ongoing genocide in Gaza--the US

government is clearly virtuous, in complete contrast with the

Russian government because of its own unconscionable

aggression in Ukraine,

The prevailing reflex, to act as though US-Russia relations

could roll along on two tracks--escalating geopolitical

conflicts while restoring and concluding major nuclear-arms

treaties--is the political equivalent of magical thinking, if

not simply craven expediency.

Meanwhile, for the corporate beneficiaries of a trillion-

dollar Pentagon budget and an out-ofcontrol nuclear weapons

program, the more hostility toward Russia and China the

better. And the country that first brought atomic weapons

into the world is continuing to lead the way toward

thermonuclear destruction.

For those of us who have lived in the era of nuclear bombs

for many decades, still being alive can seem close to

miraculous. Luck and collective efforts for sanity must have

been factors. Now, the generations with most of their lives

potentially ahead are in a world that could instantly make

that impossible. The heightened militarism of American

politics is threatening to seal their fate.

Mr. Speaker, the American people, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats want the Epstein files released with the victims' identity protected.

Now most people don't understand how this town works, so I am going to try to explain this really simply.

Congressman Massie and I introduced a bipartisan bill to release all the Epstein files and to make sure victims were protected. There are 10 Republican cosponsors of that bill, including MAGA stalwarts like Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Tim Burchett. We have the votes tonight to pass it, but what happened in the Rules Committee is they don't want to have this vote tonight because they know they are going to lose because they know their own Members want to vote for it.

What is even sillier is they had this nonbinding resolution, so I thought surely we would vote on a nonbinding resolution. They don't even want to vote on the nonbinding resolution in case Donald Trump gets slightly offended. They don't even want the vote on the nonbinding resolution tonight.

Now, the President is paying attention--not just because his favorite Congressman Thomas Massie is involved--and he directs the Attorney General Pam Bondi to ask the courts to release the grand jury testimony.

Here is the problem: The grand jury testimony is largely about Epstein and Maxwell, not about all the rich and powerful men who abused, assaulted, and abandoned young women. Those people are still being protected.

By the way, the courts usually don't release grand jury testimony. The President is hearing the American people, and the President knows that if there is a vote tonight, this body overwhelmingly would vote for the release of the files.

I don't need more than 30 seconds. I need 10 seconds. This question is: Whose side are you on?

Today, the Democrats are on the side of the people. The Democrats are on the side of the children. There are 10 Republicans who are on the side of the people and the children, but the entire Democratic Party is on that side and the Republicans have chosen to protect the rich and powerful men who have abused our children. It is wrong, and that is the clear difference tonight.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Speaker's Rules Committee voted to block my amendment that called for the full release of the Epstein files while protecting the victims' identity.

Let's just be clear. They voted to protect rich and powerful men who were abusing, assaulting, and abandoning young women. That is what this vote is about.

A nation that chooses impunity for the rich and the powerful at the expense of children is a nation that has lost its moral purpose.

You ask why did they vote this way? Let's speak plainly. It is because these rich and powerful men donate to the politicians in Washington, D.C., and play golf with the elites in Washington, D.C. They are foreign leaders who we don't want to offend. They interact with our intelligence agencies that we don't want to disobey. There is something rotten in Washington.

This is a question of whose side are you on. Are you on the side of the people? Are you on the side of America's children? Or are you on the side of the rich and powerful who have had their thumb on the scales and shafted Americans for decades?

We are going to get a vote again this afternoon. I hope people will find the courage of a Republican like Ralph Norman or a Republican like Marjorie Taylor Greene or a Republican like Thomas Massie or the many MAGA Republicans who are demanding the full release of the Epstein files. It is not a question just of Epstein. It is a question of trust in our democracy. It is a question of restoring a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of the rebirth of a nation that stands for our children. I hope everyone in this up-or-down vote will vote to make sure that the Epstein files are released while protecting victims' identity.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced today an amendment demanding the full release of the Epstein files. The Speaker's Rules Committee should demand a vote tomorrow of every Member of Congress. Yes, we should release it or, no, we should not.

This is a question of: Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of protecting the rich and the powerful who have put their thumb on the scales of government to suck out millions of dollars, while working- class Americans suffer, or are we on the side of the people?

The Attorney General said on her desk was the Epstein file. Now she is saying: No, no, nothing to see. Don't release it.

This is a question of trust. We need to release the Epstein files so we can restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Every Member of Congress tomorrow should be forced to vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I never want to hear the Republicans lecture about fiscal responsibility again. The last President to actually balance this budget was Bill Clinton. Today, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that every American should read.

Their budget will take the deficit up to 8 percent of GDP. It is historically unprecedented in the history of our country during peacetime. We never had a more reckless, deficit-exploding bill than what they are proposing.

The Democrats have a proposal to bring the deficits back down under 4 percent. Bob Rubin and Larry Summers were the last ones who have done it. Hakeem Jeffries is leading with a sensible proposal to lower deficits.

If you care about debt in this country, if you care about our grandkids

being burdened with debt, if you care about a bond market devastation, then you need to recognize that this bill hurts America, and you need to support the Democratic plan for deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose war in Iran or any wars of choice in the Middle East.

We need to be investing in good-paying jobs at home, healthcare at home, and childcare at home, not billions of dollars in missiles targeted at the Middle East that we can't afford. That is why Representative Massie and I introduced a resolution to prevent more wars of choice.

What did we achieve? The intelligence tells us that we just pushed Iran back 3 to 4 months in building a bomb. Vice President Vance says they still have enough nuclear fuel to have 10 nuclear missiles.

We need tough diplomacy to deny Iran a bomb, not more wars at the expense of the American people. Americans of all parties do not want more war.

Mr. Speaker, one of the largest challenges our country faces is exploding deficits. The Republican budget would add $2.4 trillion over 10 years to the existing deficits.

Let me show this chart. On this chart, the yellow line shows the existing deficits as they currently are projected. The Republicans would take those existing deficits and add, over 10 years, $2.4 trillion.

Now, Ray Dalio and Jamie Dimon have said that this is a disaster and that the bond markets are afraid.

Why are the bond markets afraid?

It is because they know that the Fed would engage in quantitative easing, buying up more Treasury bonds, as people outside view the Treasuries as more risky. This will lower the value of the dollar, and it will make basically all Americans poorer.

However, people are tired of just hearing one side bash the other side about deficits and no one doing anything about it. So, today, we are introducing a plan, a real plan, to lower deficits in America.

This plan would take the deficit down over the next 10 years to below 3 percent of GDP. The historic leverage over the last 40, 50 years has been under 4 percent of GDP.

As far as the Republican plan, by the way, independent analysis takes the deficits to 8.6 percent of GDP. That is the highest it has ever been in peacetime. Our plan would take it back down to under 4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, here you see the Republican deficits, here you see the current deficits and here you see our plan which would reduce deficits by $12 trillion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you say: How are we going to do this deficit reduction?

Where are the spending cuts, and where are the revenue generators?

It is pretty simple actually. We need to start with the Pentagon and modernizing the Pentagon. This is what Elon Musk actually signed up to do with SpaceX and initially with DOGE. He wanted to cut the bloated defense contractors and the waste out of the Pentagon. We need not cost-plus accounting. We need new competition.

Secondly, we need to go after negotiating with Big Pharma. Medicare should be negotiating drug prices.

Third, we should be stopping Medicare Advantage from ripping off the American people. They are upcoding, and they are making people sicker than they actually are. We should make competitive procurement for the government.

None of this, by the way, is in the Republican plan. These are the big-ticket items that would actually start to reduce the deficit. They always say that our side is not for spending cuts. Right here are actual spending cuts of what we can be doing to reduce the deficit.

Also, Musk has called for ending fossil fuel subsidies. Let's have some revenue generators. We have to vote to cut spending and generate revenue.

Let's tax billionaires. I never understood the billionaire argument. I have more billionaires than anyone in this Chamber. There are five trillion-dollar companies in my district: Apple, Google, Invidia, Broadcom, and Tesla. I am saying: Let's raise taxes on them.

I don't understand how this is a hard vote for 434 other Members of Congress. We should be making sure that we are taxing our stock buybacks. We should be making sure that when we have large inheritances that people who are inheriting it actually have to pay capital gains so that we, in this country, start to reward hard work again and not just speculation.

This is so we celebrate the people who are doing daily work and paying taxes as opposed to just speculators who are avoiding taxes.

Anyway, this plan would reduce the deficit, reduce debt by $12 trillion over 10 years, and it would also reduce the interest payments on the deficit every year which would add an extra $2 trillion of savings.

Now, I am not saying this plan is perfect, but here is what I think every Member of Congress should do: Propose how you are going to reduce the deficits, and tell the American people how the math works.

Every Member of Congress owes that to their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, if you disagree with me, then have your own plan. Here is what I do know: The Republican plan is just going to explode deficits, and it is going to hurt the American economy and make us all poorer.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, we can come together in this body to be honest with the American people, to actually have a calculator to do math, and to propose real plans for deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the nine Black worshippers murdered at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. June 17 marks the 10-year anniversary of that horrific act by a white supremacist.

Representative Wendell Gilliard has introduced a hate crime bill. It still hasn't been passed. We must pass it.

Today isn't just about remembering the Emanuel Nine. It is also about confronting the attacks on Black history. President Trump called the African-American history museum oppressive and gave Vice President Vance the power to erase Black history.

Mr. Speaker, 44 States now are debating laws to limit the teaching of Black history. One Pennsylvania district even banned children's books about Rosa Parks and Dr. King.

As we honor the Emanuel Nine, we must stand up for teaching honest Black history. I think of my friend, Representative JA Moore, who lost his sister, Myra Thompson, today. His call is not just to remove symbols of hate but to dismantle the systems of hate that Dr. King talked about.

Let the Emanuel Nine inspire us today to teach honestly about Black history and confront the systems of hate.