Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.J. Res. 142, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia because D.C. deserves the right to govern itself.

The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to D.C. for local matters, but Republicans in Congress choose not to do so.

Last year, President Trump and congressional Republicans passed the one, big, betrayal bill, a deeply unpopular law that is the single largest transfer of wealth and resources from the working class and the working poor to the ultrawealthy billionaires and corporations in our Nation's history. The law ripped healthcare coverage away from millions of Americans to give tax breaks and tax giveaways to billionaires and megacorporations.

Not only that, but for States across the country, it has caused a revenue shortfall that has thrown State budgets into chaos, threatening services like healthcare, childcare, schools, eldercare, and emergency response. To protect against this, numerous States have passed laws to decouple their tax code from the tax provisions in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This includes States like Maine, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, and Alabama. This also includes the District of Columbia.

To avoid a more than $600 million budget loss over the next 4 years from the big, betrayal bill tax changes, the D.C. Council enacted a decoupling law. As part of this law, D.C. increased the child tax credit and earned income tax credit benefits to put more money in the pockets of working families struggling to afford the basic necessities in their life.

H.J. Res. 142 would overturn this law and rip away the money that parents and low-earning families could use to stay afloat in this disastrous Trump economy. Today is just another day in Congress where instead of being on the floor debating legislation on healthcare, instead of debating legislation on bringing down the cost of groceries, instead of debating legislation on making sure we can make this country more affordable for working people, congressional Republicans want to use this time to attack working families in the District of Columbia.

Overturning this law will create chaos for D.C. families and businesses at the start of tax filing season. The gentleman brought up businesses, but D.C. began accepting and processing tax returns on January 27. Families are already beginning to file their taxes and claim the newly expanded EITC.

This resolution would force D.C. to suspend this year's tax filing season, which is already underway, for several months. Changing their tax code now would create additional hurdles and confusion for families and, yes, for local businesses, as well, especially families that are already counting on receiving that larger earned income tax credit to deal with the failure of congressional Republicans and Donald Trump to bring this economy to a place that works for working people.

The D.C. business community even sent a letter to Congress urging opposition to this disapproval resolution because it would create chaos and financial instability. This group includes the Federal City Council, the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, the D.C. Association of Realtors, the D.C. Hospital Association, and the Hotel Association of Washington, D.C. They are all opposed to this resolution.

The big betrayal act is so deeply unpopular that half of the public believes it will hurt them and their families, including two-thirds of Medicaid enrollees. Instead of accepting this reality, congressional Republicans are disregarding home rule and forcing it down the throats of D.C. because they can.

I find it also very interesting and kind of cool that today I get to debate with a colleague from the other side of the aisle where we are both the youngest Members of the United States Congress. We may be the youngest, but his ideas are very old.

Undermining democracy in D.C. isn't new. It is just wrong. The people who live in the Capital of the world's greatest democracy deserve that democracy themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting, as we sit here, I keep hearing my colleagues bring up the ``working families tax cut bill.'' They keep bringing it up, and I am asking the staff here, I don't remember voting on the working families tax cut bill. We have looked it up, and we can't find it. This body has not voted on the working families tax cut bill this Congress. We did vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and I asked myself, why do they keep changing the name of their legislation?

Mr. Speaker, they don't want to say the name of their legislation. The reason why is simple. We know that Donald Trump came here to the Hill after this bill was passed, and because it was so deeply unpopular with the American people, he said that we have to rebrand, have to change the name.

It goes to show how unpopular and how bad this bill is. They even called it the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It has the word ``beautiful'' in it.

The bill is so bad for working people that 64 percent of adults-- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and people who don't care about politics--hate it so much that the bill that they put the word ``beautiful'' in, they can't say the name anymore because it is so damn toxic because it takes most of the resources from working people and gives it to the billionaires and megacorporations. Now, months later, they still want to tout the bill, but they won't dare call it the name.

It just goes to show that this administration is obsessed with helping the well-to-do and well-connected and not working people.

Anytime we hear in this debate this working families tax cut bill, we never voted on such a bill. The name of it was the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

These are the most resources in the history of this country that are going from working people to the ultrawealthy, billionaires, and corporations.

Say it three times: One Big Beautiful Bill Act, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That is the bill that we voted on. Mr. Speaker, 64 percent of Americans are against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentlewoman say loud and proud, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a bill that 64 percent of Americans don't like and believe gives more resources to the rich, the well- connected, the wealthy, the billionaires, and the corporations than them. So say it out loud, and I am glad to hear that after I pointed out this fake name that my Republican colleagues keep bringing out.

As we are talking about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, my colleagues continue to bring up the fact that they worked hard to write and pass it. They worked hard to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They said that they ``had numerous congressional debates,'' but D.C. didn't get a vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

They bring up that they have put this resolution forward. They are running from their offices over here to the House floor to debate on this resolution to overturn a local law passed by members of the D.C. Council who were elected by the people who live here. They claim to care about the taxpayers of D.C., but I guess they don't care enough to give them the real representation that they deserve: a vote in the United States Congress.

That alone shows us what this is all about. They don't care about the taxpayers of D.C. They have no problem

taxing them without representation. They care about using D.C., the people who live and work here year round, as a pawn and as a political punching bag so that they can go home and say that maybe they actually did something.

If they truly cared about the taxpayers of D.C., they would put this resolution aside and pass H.R. 51, free D.C., and make sure that we have D.C. statehood. That is making sure that you care about the taxpayers of D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there it is again from one of the highest-ranking people of the Republican Party on the other side: working families tax cut bill. No bill exists. We haven't voted on a bill called the working families tax cut bill. We voted on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Mr. Speaker, even one of the gentlemen who was most instrumental in passing this bill that they are here blatantly lying about and saying that it helps working people when it really helps the richest, wealthy people in this country, he won't even call it by the name because most adults in this country know the truth. They know that it is the largest transfer of wealth from them to the billionaires, the corporations, and people like Donald Trump and his friends.

Mr. Speaker, there is something that Ranking Member Garcia brought up that I think is really important. This is the tenth piece of legislation this Congress that the Republicans have brought forth focused on the District of Columbia, focused on D.C.

If we polled every Republican district, polled my colleagues' districts on the other side of the aisle, polled everyone who spoke, polled everyone's district in the United States Congress, except for Eleanor Holmes Norton's district, polled every single one of them, I promise you that trying to overturn the laws that the D.C. Council has voted for will not appear in the top 10 issues that their constituents are dealing with.

Actually, I will go a little further. I don't think it would appear in the top 100 issues that their constituents are facing.

Instead of bringing forth 10 bills to undo democracy for the people of D.C., we could have done 10 other things. Instead of bringing forth a bill on D.C., we could have done something on housing. Rent is skyrocketing. People can't afford to live in a home because of the rising costs of rent.

Number two, instead of bringing the second bill on D.C., we could have done something about utility prices. The power of heat, the power of A/C, the power of power is up 6.7 percent. Donald Trump said that he would cut utilities in half. That hasn't happened. They have gone up.

When the third bill to do something on D.C. came to the floor, we could have done something about healthcare. We have a broken healthcare system in this country. While health insurance companies are making skyrocketing profits, we are paying more. More Americans are dying because they are not rich and because they don't have money.

When the fourth bill on D.C. came to Congress, we could have done a bill to lower grocery prices for Americans. Donald Trump ran saying that he would do something about it. Donald Trump said that when he was elected as the President of the United States, he would lower grocery prices on day one--on day one. Grocery prices are up.

When the fifth bill came to the House floor on overturning a D.C. city law, we could have done something on corruption or something on Congress. We could have banned Members of Congress from buying and trading stock. We could have done something to put some guardrails on the Presidency so that no President can make money off of being the President of the United States. We know that being the President is one of the most lucrative things that Donald Trump has done. We could have handled the corruption in the Supreme Court.

When the sixth bill came to the House floor on the D.C. laws, we could have done something on campaign finance reform. We could have ended Citizens United or done something about the fact that corporations and billionaires can flood our elections with unlimited amounts of dark money, essentially trying to change the outcome and to elect pawns and puppets to help them do what they want.

When the seventh bill came to the House floor on Washington, D.C., we could have done something to maybe rein in ICE, this agency that is going around and terrorizing our neighbors. I mean, maybe--maybe, just maybe--Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti would be alive right now if maybe on the seventh D.C. bill, we did something about this.

On the eighth D.C. bill, we could have done something to help small businesses by passing legislation because we do too much to help the big corporations and nothing to help small businesses and entrepreneurs.

On the ninth one, on the ninth bill that Republicans brought to the floor this Congress, maybe we could have done something on reversing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that they passed, and we could have taxed the billionaires.

The gentleman was saying we are the tax party. I want to tax the billionaires more. I want to make sure they are paying their fair share. Hell, if a teacher, a nurse, someone who works at a grocery store is paying their fair share, how come billionaires aren't?

On the 10th one, which is this time, maybe we could have done something about the tax that the Republican Party and Donald Trump have put on working families, which are the Trump tariff taxes, which are part of the reason why costs are skyrocketing across this country from housing to groceries.

There were 10 bills to undo the democracy of people who live here in D.C., 10 issues and 10 solutions we could have worked on to help working families.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all of my colleagues in Congress to oppose this joint resolution.

Voting ``no'' means that we refuse to support this congressional Republican effort to end the child tax credit in Washington, D.C.

Voting ``no'' means that we oppose the fact that Republicans are using important time in Congress that should be spent on making life better, safer, and more affordable for American people instead of attacking the residents of Washington, D.C., with higher prices and lower budgets for D.C.'s schools,

childcare, first responders, healthcare, and other services.

Voting ``no'' means supporting D.C. home rule and defending D.C. against bullies in Congress.

The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act is an attack on the working people of this Nation and across this entire Nation. It cuts healthcare and food assistance from working families to give massive tax breaks for billionaires and megacorporations.

Republicans in this Chamber need to work on accepting the unpopular and damaging nature of the law that they passed. It sounds like they are almost there because they have even gone so far as to rename the bill called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that they passed that 64 percent of Americans believe are bad for them.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Edward ``Eddie'' Cole, a devoted public servant, community advocate, and beloved leader who passed away on Saturday, December 20, 2025, at the age of 67. Eddie Cole proudly served as Mayor of Florida's oldest Black incorporated municipality, the Historic Town of Eatonville from 2016 to 2022.

A tireless champion for preserving Eatonville's history, including the legacy of the Hungerford School, Mayor Cole led with passion, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to his community.

Beyond public service, he spent more than 30 years as an assistant coach for the Rollins College women's basketball team, earning induction into the Rollins Sports Hall of Fame in 2023. He also served as chaplain for the Orlando Magic, offering guidance and faith to players and staff.

Perhaps his greatest pride was his two decades as executive director of Every Kid Outreach Inc., where he transformed countless young lives through mentorship, encouragement, and opportunity.

While his accomplishments were many, Eddie Cole's greatest impact was the love he poured into people.

Mayor Cole led with love, compassion, and a deep commitment to uplifting others, serving his community for decades as a public servant, coach, and trusted leader.

Sending much love and prayers to his family, loved ones, and all who were blessed to know him. His legacy of service will live on forever.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are in a state of total desperation. For weeks, Floridians have been calling my office in tears. They are looking at their budgets with panic while President Trump rips away their healthcare, sends ICE to neighborhoods, deploys soldiers to new global conflicts, and floods billionaire and megacorporations with free money.

People cannot pay their bills, and Republicans here in Washington, D.C., are totally unfocused, busy defending the latest cruelty done by the administration.

Healthcare open enrollment ends next week. Enrollment is down. Americans can no longer afford their coverage. We are in a healthcare crisis.

Democrats don't control the House, the Senate, or the White House, but we still managed to get this bill to the floor to extend the Affordable Care Act tax subsidies. We are fighting with every tool, with every option we have to save healthcare for our people.

I am voting ``yes'' to get this bill passed this week. I encourage every single Member of Congress, whether they are a Democrat or Republican to do the same. I say this as someone who represents a community in the State of Florida, the largest Affordable Care Act marketplace in the entire country. We have millions of people in the State of Florida that will be impacted by this, and I encourage everyone to vote ``yes.''

Renee Nicole Good

Mr. Speaker, I rise today deeply disturbed, distraught, and angered by the shooting and the killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent that happened just yesterday in Minneapolis.

This is a direct result of Trump's dangerous weaponization of our immigration system and Federal law enforcement. This is the direct result of an agency that is so emboldened by the President that they truly feel like they can do anything with zero impunity and zero accountability.

It shows up in small ways, like when I showed up to tour an ICE facility in my own community and was asked by a Federal agent, in a very condescending way, how old I was, to what we saw yesterday, which was the killing and shooting of a U.S. citizen in her own damn community.

Then yesterday, on the Oversight Committee, my Republican colleagues voted ``no'' on a simple subpoena so we can get information, documents relating to the murder of a U.S. citizen by a Federal agent. Then my colleagues broke into this righteous debate: Let the process play out, let DHS do their investigation, the agent gets due process.

Yes, all persons in the United States are entitled to due process. Renee Nicole Good didn't get that due process because the agent was the judge, jury, and executioner in the middle of a residential neighborhood. There was no process or due process before the administration that runs our Nation labeled her as a domestic terrorist just minutes after this happened.

We won't allow this President to gaslight us, and we won't allow this administration to lie to us about what we have seen before our very eyes.

Not only am I going to vote ``no'' on any funding bills that gives this agency more resources to do this type of thing and terrorize our communities from the State of Florida to across this entire Nation, but I am going to continue to show up physically at bases of operation, field offices, detention centers, and the so-called Alligator Alcatraz to conduct oversight and work with our communities to keep our people safe.

Renee Nicole Good was the mother of three, had a daughter and a son aged 15 and 12, and a 6-year-old with her husband who tragically died in 2023. She was a devout Christian who participated in youth mission trips to Northern Ireland when she was younger. According to multiple reports, she was a poet, a writer, a wife, and a mother.

She had lived most of her life in Colorado and briefly moved to Kansas to stay with her parents after her second husband, a military veteran who suffered from PTSD, died in 2023.

We will honor her life with action, of course fighting to end gun violence because what happened yesterday was gun violence, but also to fight to end ICE's campaign of terror on our communities and our people.

Madam Speaker, Republicans' whole healthcare plan is to restrict our ability to access healthcare. They are raising premiums, kicking millions off of Medicaid, and now forcing children to go without lifesaving care.

Under this bill, doctors and parents will spend 10 years in prison for saving kids' lives. If trans kids need care, they should have the freedom to get it, and their parents and doctors should not be jailed for it.

It amazes me that Republican politicians can't think of any better use for the power of the Federal Government than to bully transgender kids in bathrooms and schools. Now they want to be inside of their doctors' offices.

What amazes me even more is that they dare to call this bill the Protect Children's Innocence Act. Do you know what actually robs a child of their innocence? When they have to hide in a closet, in a bathroom, or in a locker as someone shoots and murders their classmates right in front of them.

If you want to protect the innocence of a child, why don't you ban assault weapons instead of banning healthcare. After all, the leading cause of death for a child in this country is bullets.

Mr. Speaker, in just a few weeks, tax credits for the Affordable Care Act are set to expire.

The President has had weeks and months to negotiate a deal that addresses the healthcare crisis in this Nation. Instead, here in the House of Representatives, the Speaker chose for us to be out of session for 8 weeks, while people across this country and in my State of Florida are getting letters in the mail saying that their healthcare premiums will go up anywhere from 50 to 300 percent. Mr. Speaker, 189,000 of my own constituents have been getting these notices.

One of my constituents, battling stage IV breast cancer, said that without these credits, she can't afford insurance or the lifesaving medicine that she needs.

For her and millions more, this isn't about partisan politics. It is literally about life or death.

Donald Trump's latest idea is to give money directly to the people to pick their health insurance, but that is exactly how these ACA subsidies worked.

Since he can only make concepts of a plan for our healthcare system, I have a plan. Let's fix it, let's invest in it, and let's make our government actually work for the people, not just the ultrawealthy. I believe healthcare in this country should be a human right.

Mr. Chair, today, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which will put American lives at risk.

The gentleman from the other side of the aisle made a point to talk about the Civilian Marksmanship Program and what it was intended to do and what it is intended to do.

This amendment would make our country more dangerous by adding another responsibility and priority to the program, to not just train people but to essentially become an arms dealer, putting more weapons on the streets of this country. It will increase the number of military firearms that will be put into circulation by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It will increase the types of firearms that can be put into circulation by the CMP. It will transform an entity that has existed for a century intended to focus on gun safety and education into an arms dealer.

Since 1996, purchasing a firearm from the Civilian Marksmanship Program has required a person to certify that they are purchasing a gun only for their personal use. Just like purchasing a gun from any federally licensed gun dealer, it is illegal to buy a handgun intending to sell it to somebody else.

This amendment would change that. It would allow military guns to be bought and then immediately resold. We aren't just talking about World War II rifles or pistols, as the CMP has sold for about 100 years and like it currently is. This amendment will allow modern military and government shotguns and some rifles to be sold.

To save lives, Democrats have now twice passed the bill that would expand background checks on every gun sale, and here my Republican colleagues are wanting to make it even easier to dodge the rules that we do have.

Mr. Chair, recirculating retired service weapons already has inherent risk. More than 52,000 retired law enforcement firearms have been resold to the public and have been found at crime scenes between 2006 and 2022. That is 52,000 resold guns. They now want to make the number even more.

We have more guns than people in this country. We have a gun violence problem in this country. The solution is not the Federal Government putting more guns on the streets of this country.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the interesting thing is the sponsor of this amendment, Mr. Pfluger, in his home State of Texas, there were 22 mass shootings in just the first 4 months of this year.

Mr. Chair, I am confused on where this amendment is coming from. Why do we need to task the CMP with selling more guns with less restrictions in a country where we have a gun violence problem?

It is interesting. It was one thing when the guns in questions were relics of World War II and World War I. This amendment takes it several steps further. It increases the potential number of weapons being transferred. It expands the type of weapons to include modern .45- caliber pistols and shotguns. It adds sources to every Federal department and agency so they can off-load their firearms to the secondary market, including folks like the FBI or ICE.

We have to dig deeper here because the CMP is a nonprofit. This new rule for the CMP, where they would sell massive amounts of firearms, is actually going to help gun manufacturers make mountain loads of money by putting more guns into circulation.

It is interesting. I looked it up. On a list of the 22 major sponsors of the CMP, 6 are gun manufacturers. They are companies like Colt, Glock, and Springfield. Mr. Chair, seven make gun accessories, and they produce ammunition.

That means that the gun manufacturers funding the CMP stand to benefit from the CMP selling even more weapons and having less restrictions. It is the same old-same old on every issue. They are finding loopholes for corporations to make more money when we have kids dying on the streets due to gun violence.

The research shows that more guns lead to more violence. Most Republicans, most Democrats, and--my favorite one--most NRA members are for commonsense gun reform like universal background checks.

Instead of wasting time on figuring out ways to make quasi-Federal agencies sell more guns on the streets, why don't we partner on this?

I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I will take the 1 minute to say this: This is one of many amendments I have come to debate this Congress where it seems like it was just written by the gun industry and the gun manufacturers.

It is disappointing. When gun violence happens, it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican. Bullets don't care who you voted for. It impacts every single one of us in all of our districts.

I am member of Gen Z, but I call my generation the mass shooting generation. When I visit the schools in my district, they tell me they go through more school shooter drills than fire drills.

In fact, we just had a shooting at the Florida State University where a student used a retired service weapon to go into the school and kill people. This is not what we need to be doing at this time. We can argue on the merits of the CMP and the work they do on gun safety.

Adding another priority where they can sell more guns with less restrictions in our country, where we have this problem where we lose over 100 lives a day due to gun violence, is disgraceful. My hope is everyone will vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I honor the work and advocacy of Dr. Adora Obi Nweze, affectionately known as ``Mother Nweze''. She has dedicated her life to education, civil rights, justice and community empowerment and today is retiring as Florida State Conference NAACP President after 25 years of service.

A Diamond Life Member of the NAACP, she has served with distinction as President of the Florida State Conference NAACP, as well as a member of the National Board of Directors and numerous national committees, including ACT-SO and Education.

Under her leadership, the Florida NAACP spearheaded landmark lawsuits challenging voter disenfranchisement, affirmative action rollbacks, school vouchers, and felony disenfranchisement, leaving a lasting imprint on the struggle for justice and equity.

Mother Nweze, a devoted mother and grandmother, is a true public servant-leader and I am grateful for her leadership and unwavering commitment to improving the quality of life for all people.

In her retirement, Mother Nweze will have more time to focus on the things that truly matter most and know that we will continue to proudly carry the mantle of the NAACP mission.

I am happy to congratulate Mother Nweze on her retirement and for her incredible contributions and service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shine light on a moral atrocity going on in my home State of Florida, an immigrant internment camp that Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and his administration have propped up in the middle of an abandoned airfield deep in the Florida Everglades.

It is a place where nearly 1,000 humans are being forced to live in a tent city in the middle of the hot Florida summer, hot sun, where folks are not getting enough food. Detainees are exposed to the heat, and wildlife, and mosquitoes that can potentially carry disease. They are being stripped of their civil rights, and as of this past Saturday, they have been cut off from legal counsel.

While this humanitarian nightmare unfolds, soulless politicians like Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, and Kristi

Noem grin and call this place--I am actually not even going to use the name that they are calling it and dignify it. Mr. Speaker, they sell merch. They make jokes. They print hats with cartoon alligators dressed up as ICE agents, and they laugh as people and families are suffering.

I can't tell you the amount of constituents I have heard from, for example, that their dad is in this facility and haven't heard from them for weeks. No one with eyes and a conscience can ignore what this really is. It is an internment camp. It is a place full of people who look like me, Latinos, Haitian men, subjugated to inhumane conditions under the guise of immigration enforcement. It is disgusting. It is un- American. It demands oversight.

Members of Congress have a legally protected right to conduct oversight of immigrant detention centers. That means that we have the power to show up unannounced, as I have on other occasions, and see what is going on with our own eyes.

That was my plan and the plan of my fellow Florida congressional Democrats last week. We were ready to do our jobs. Somehow word got out to the DeSantis administration that we were showing up, and so they decided to invite us at the same date and time we were going to show up anyway.

We took them up on that. We went in the facility. I am here to talk a little bit about my experiences there.

The State of Florida and DHS got wind of our visit. They got scared. They invited us. Of course, what we got was a sanitized version of the way things usually are. Even that sanitized version to me was abhorrent conditions.

I also heard reports that the night before we showed up, magically the detainees got their first shower they had in a while. Also magically, they got one of their first actually good meals. It just shows why the unannounced visits are so important. It is to see how things really are. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, a clean cage is still a cage.

At the end of the day, in this facility we have 32 men being crammed in each cage, about 4 to 6 cages in each tent. We brought a thermometer in there and each tent was about 84, 85 degrees, of course, in the hot Florida sun.

I will always remember walking in that front door and looking at these gentlemen in there, everyone screaming for help, one guy asking me to call his family. He was screaming out a phone number. I couldn't hear him. I couldn't get all the digits down.

Only three sources of water per cage, the spigots connected to the toilets, much like the jail units we have seen. Usually in those jails, it is one of those units for 2 to 4 people, not three for 32 people.

I have to tell you, one of the most emotional parts for me was when we looked at the cages from afar. We weren't let in the tent but stood at the doorway, hearing those chants: ``Freedom, freedom''; ``libertad, libertad.'' People were yelling.

This isn't security. It is cruelty. It is not immigration policy. It is dehumanizing people.

Trump said this was about keeping people safe. He said it was about going after criminals, but we all know it was one big lie. Hundreds of the people being held in this internment camp have no criminal charges.

I won't stay silent while our government turns the Everglades land-- protecting it used to be a bipartisan thing. The State is spending $450 million from our Division of Emergency Management to run this internment camp, and we are in hurricane season.

I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican. I don't care what you are. The Division of Emergency Management has the ability to spend up to $500 million without going to the legislature for emergency money. They are going up to $450 million.

We are about to go into hurricane season, which means that when a hurricane is barreling toward our State, they are not going to do what they need to do immediately to save lives. Every minute matters, and they will have to go back to the legislature and beg for more money because they spent $450 million of our money on a damn internment camp in the middle of the Everglades.

Along with partners, we are going to do something about it. Of course, litigation has been filed.

I think what is important for people to know is that this is a Federal facility--we were told that ICE is calling the shots here--a Federal facility run and operated by the State.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Chair, the theme for congressional Republicans in Congress is putting corporations over people. That is exactly what they are doing in this bill.

Instead of focusing on supporting our veterans, they have added one of the most reckless giveaways to the gun lobby that we have ever seen, gutting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the very system that keeps guns out of the hands of abusers, felons, and people who might be a danger to themselves and others.

Republicans want to ensure that even if the VA determines that a veteran has a mental health condition to the point where they can't cash their own check, the check has to be given to a family member because they are going through a crisis, congressional Republicans want that person to be able to go to a gun store and buy a weapon.

Most veteran suicides involve firearms. This will deeply worsen the veteran suicide crisis. This does not protect veterans' rights. This protects the gun lobby's profits over the lives of our veterans.

If my colleagues vote for this, they are voting for veterans to die. Mr. Chair, don't let them tell you this bill is about liberty and freedom.

Mr. Chair, there is no liberty in a coffin, and there is no freedom in a funeral. Veterans will die if this passes, and anyone who votes for it should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, 9 years ago today, 49 lives were stolen and ripped away from us at Pulse nightclub in my district, in my home of Orlando, Florida, a safe haven for Orlando's LGBTQ+ community that was turned into the site of unimaginable horror and a mass grave.

Pulse was more than just a club. It was love. It was joy. It was freedom and a space for a community facing constant adversity, from our State, and people like in our inner administration.

Just today, Governor Ron DeSantis deleted from the annual anniversary statement the words and acronyms ``LGBTQ+'' and ``Hispanic,'' when most of the people who were killed that day were from the LGBTQ+ community and Hispanic. This was armed bigotry, and it was armed hate.

I am oftentimes asked why I don't join moments of silence that include Republicans for gun violence, and the reason why is because they refuse to do anything about it. I am not going to be a prop in some social media video that is posted later to placate constituents about ending gun violence. I am going to continue to honor them with action, not just with thoughts and prayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a law duly enacted by the District of Columbia because D.C. should be free to govern its own local matters.

Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can score political points, such as by demonizing immigrants.

Where is this passion and work on affordable housing for D.C. residents? Where is this impassioned work on ending gun violence for D.C. residents? They only bring it up to the floor when they think they can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people here in D.C. and home rule.

The Framers expected Congress to establish a local government for D.C., and Congress has established various forms of local government for D.C. since 1802.

The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate to D.C. legislative authority over local D.C. matters. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which gave D.C. an elected chief executive and an elected legislature, the Mayor and the D.C. City Council. The purpose of the Home Rule Act is to ``grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self- government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' H.R. 884 contravenes the purpose of the Home Rule Act.

D.C.'s Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 allows D.C. residents who are not yet U.S. citizens to vote only in local elections--namely, for Mayor, members of the city council, the State Board of Education, attorney general, advisory neighborhood commissioner, and ballot measures.

The D.C. law does not allow noncitizens to vote in Federal elections, which is a crime under Federal law.

Regardless of your views on the merits of noncitizen voting for local elections, we have to acknowledge that D.C. is not the first nor are they the only jurisdiction in our country to allow this. At various points throughout American history, Congress and 40 States have allowed noncitizens to vote in local, State, and territorial elections, including the home State of the sponsor of this bill.

Congress did not prohibit noncitizens from voting in Federal elections until 1996, and today, about 20 municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

I also want to address very specific concerns that we are hearing from our Republican colleagues. Number one, they are concerned that foreign diplomats might vote in local D.C. elections. We believe, number one, that that is highly unlikely, both because they have to renounce their right to vote in their home country and because D.C. has no authority over Federal matters and has only limited local self- government.

In D.C., the penalty for voter fraud includes imprisonment for up to 5 years. To be eligible to vote in D.C., a person must maintain their residency in D.C. for at least 30 days before the election and cannot claim voting residence or the right to vote in any State, territory, or country.

In a letter to Congress, the D.C. Board of Elections made it clear that to vote in a D.C. local election, a foreign diplomat would have to ``effectively renounce their right to vote in their country of origin.'' The board noted that a foreign diplomat would have to ``swear under penalty of law through the D.C. registration application that that person is not claiming voting residence in another country.''

The board also noted that an embassy address could not be used to register to vote since it is considered a commercial or business address and that a foreign passport cannot be used to register to vote since it does not contain a residential address in D.C.

While Republicans are concerned about foreign diplomats voting in local elections, I wonder if they are aware that currently in this country, United States citizens who are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act are currently allowed to vote in elections at all levels of government in the United States, including Federal elections. That is right. Registered foreign agents who are currently U.S. citizens can vote anywhere in the United States.

Republicans are also concerned that undocumented immigrants might vote in local D.C. elections. That is highly unlikely because the D.C. voter roll is a public record, and undocumented immigrants likely will not want to identify themselves, including their addresses.

In closing, the House of Representatives is considering the wrong D.C. voting rights bill here today. Republicans claim that voting is a core right or privilege of American citizenship. Not only is that historically incorrect, but as I described earlier, it is also hypocritical.

Republicans have fought tooth and nail to defeat legislation that would give the American citizens who reside in D.C. voting representation in the House and Senate. We, of course, continue to push for D.C. statehood.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to reject H.R. 884 and, instead, to pass H.R. 51. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman just asked our constituents to ask us what we think about this issue. I think the better thing would be for the gentleman to ask his constituents what they care about. I promise this issue will not be in the top 3 or 10 things that they want us to focus on.

At the same time, they are pushing a bill to take away healthcare from 15 million Americans. Give me a damn break.

D.C. believes in universal adult suffrage, that all adult D.C. residents, regardless of their immigration status, are subject to D.C. laws and taxation and must register with the Selective Service System. D.C. believes they deserve a say in the local laws that govern them and how their local taxes are spent.

Congress should not decide which residents are fit to govern on local D.C. matters. I promise the gentleman that if he spoke with his own constituents, they don't give a damn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting because the gentlewoman who just spoke said this is about preserving ``our elections.''

This is not about our elections. It is not about my election. It is not about her election, being from New York. It is about the elections, the local elections, of residents of D.C. It is not

about hers or mine. It is about their local elections.

I think it is interesting because I don't know what happened. My Republican colleagues always like to talk about limited Federal Government. My Republican colleagues always like to talk about how important local governance is. Yet, they want to rip it away from the people in this city.

My question is: How many doors have they knocked on in D.C.? Have they knocked on a single door? Have they spoken with a single resident, a person who lives here, about what they care about? No, they are using this Chamber and these bills to score national political points on local issues.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing the gentlewoman said is that this is about protecting the sanctity of citizen voting. Like every other issue, Republicans want our people to believe that in order to protect us, we have to take something away from somebody else. That is how we protect the sanctity of voting for citizens. We have to take something away from D.C. that they voted for when, right in front of us, if we want to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in D.C., then we know what we have to do. It is D.C. statehood.

We have to ensure that citizens in D.C. are able to have a fully voting Representative in the United States Congress and have full representation in this country.

That is what we do to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in Washington, D.C. We don't encroach on decisions that the people here have made locally.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to hear about our elections. Local D.C. elections are not my elections. They are not their elections unless they live here. The local D.C. elections are about the residents of this area.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues want to deflect on this issue focusing on undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are unlikely to vote in local D.C. elections.

Again, why?

It is because the D.C. voter roll is public record. Undocumented immigrants are not going to want to identify themselves, including their address, where they live.

Noncitizen voting, again, this is consistent in a lot of jurisdictions across the entire country. We talked about 20 municipalities doing this to allow universal adult suffrage, the ability for people to take part in local elections.

The other thing, really quick, that one of my Republican colleagues brought up that the purpose of this bill is to: ``Stop diluting the voices of American citizens.'' What is really diluting the voice of American citizens are voter suppression laws like we see in the South and like we see in Florida where I am from: poll taxes, voter roll purges, and voter intimidation. That is what is diluting the voice of American citizens.

I haven't heard a single Republican in this debate talk about ensuring that citizens who live in D.C. can have full representation in Congress.

Where is that?

I bring it up again. In every issue Republicans want to talk about protecting us by taking away stuff from other people. They never want to talk about giving citizens what they deserve. The citizens of D.C. deserve to have full representation in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if the esteemed chair from Wisconsin would indulge me, he brought up a set of laws in Georgia, which I thought was very interesting, talking about what we need to do. However, I would yield 30 seconds to the chair if he could let me know who voted for those laws that were enacted in Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time. I am curious what body wrote the legislation, voted on the legislation, and sent it to the Governor's desk?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time. The reason I ask the gentleman is he brings up a law in Georgia that was written by the elected representatives of the legislature voted into office by the people of Georgia.

My Republican colleagues would have us believe that today a lot of Democrats are going to vote for a bill to give noncitizens the ability to vote in D.C.

That is not what we are voting on. We are not voting on a bill to do something. We are voting on a bill to allow something to stay in place which was voted into action by the elected representatives of the local government of D.C.

That is what we are doing here today. We are not voting to give noncitizens the ability to vote. We are just saying: Let D.C. make their own local laws just like they did in Georgia, just like the esteemed chair brought up earlier.

The other thing I want to mention that was brought up has to do with the length of residency to vote. D.C.'s length of residency requirement is not a unique thing. To vote in D.C., yes, a person has to be a resident for at least 30 days before an election, but to vote in Kentucky, for example, a person has to be a resident for at least 28 days.

I haven't heard our esteemed chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform complain about the laws in Kentucky. In fact, under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, States cannot set a voter registration deadline for Federal elections more than 30 days before an election.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned here today, no matter what my Republican colleagues say, they want to frame this as the Democrats voting to do something here today. We are not voting to let noncitizens vote in D.C. today. What we are voting to do is allow D.C. to make their own decisions. That is something my Republican colleagues used to talk a lot about, home rule, the ability for localities and people to elect their representatives to a body and those representatives to do something.

If my friend has a problem with local D.C. laws, then pick up a damn clipboard, go knock on doors, and try to change it in D.C. To do it from this institution, I think is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a moment I am never going to forget because, tonight, hundreds of Republican Members of Congress are wanting to line up to vote for the biggest transfer of wealth from the working poor and the working class to billionaires and megacorporations that we have seen in this country's history.

This is a deep moment of betrayal, a complete absence of loyalty to the people that we represent, and an abandonment of the values of hard work and a dignified life.

Mr. Speaker, I am 28 years old. My generation already expects that we will never be able to afford a home, to get out of debt, to retire, or to live comfortably. No, it is not because we have lived beyond our means, but it is because we have been denied the means to live.

Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are making it worse by gutting Medicaid and food assistance to give tax cuts to billionaires and special interests.

Mr. Speaker, out of all of the things that you could give tax breaks for, this bill will cut taxes on silencers for guns. For those who don't know, gun silencers can be attached to a gun to muffle the sound of a gunshot.

In mass shootings, these silencers make it harder to identify and respond to the source of the gunshots. Earlier, I put forth an amendment to strip this tax cut for the gun lobby, and House Republicans wouldn't even let it come up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans then made the bill worse in their manager's amendment by making silencers completely unregulated. In 2023 alone, the ATF recovered over 400 silencers from violent crime scenes. For this reason, silencers have been highly regulated for nearly 100 years.

In May of 2019, the Virginia Beach shooter attached a silencer to his .45-caliber handgun that he used to kill 12 people on three floors of a city building. Survivors of the attack said that they weren't even aware that a mass shooting was going on due to the silencer.

My question is: Why did this get added to the bill just a couple of hours ago? Which congressional Republican just couldn't stand to vote for the horrible bill until it promised even more death to people?

Mr. Speaker, I will yield to hear a name.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield just to hear the name of the Republican that couldn't vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am just curious which Republican couldn't vote for the bill until we completely deregulated silencers.

My generation isn't just defined by a bleak financial future. We are also defined as the mass shooting generation. We have done more active- shooter drills than fire drills. We have grown up watching classes of our students die a brutal death, helpless inside classrooms, on our blocks, and in our churches again and again and again.

Mr. Speaker, I say to America, we have to be very clear and truthful about this budget. Laws for gun manufacturers to make more money off the deaths of children and our people? Yes. Food for children to eat? No. Healthcare for seniors, disabled Americans, and millions more? No. Resources to help working families fight to make ends meet? No.

This is why they have been told to not host any townhalls back in their districts. That is why this debate is happening in the middle of the night. It is nothing short of theft.

Congressional Republicans are really helping me understand why half of this country doesn't vote. It is because they will look people in the eyes and make promises only to come here in the middle of the night to advance a bill that will take away the benefits that they have earned. Republicans would have us believe that the person most likely to steal from you is a Black person in a hoodie or an immigrant with tattoos.

This is to distract from the fact that, at least here tonight, the people stealing from Americans are not folks with tattoos and hoodies. It is people wearing suits, ties, and congressional pins, sitting in this Capitol right now, not in some random alley wrapped in darkness, but in the United States Congress wrapped in the flag.

It is disgusting, and we will never forget this.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really interesting that one of my colleagues from Florida just brought up a

terrible mass shooting that happened at Florida State University, which is horrible. Part of the reason I ran for Congress is to end gun violence.

When he brought up the shooting, I thought it was interesting because he left out one of the most important parts. He brought up that he never wants to see one of these shootings happen again, but he left out how the shooter got his gun.

The shooter got his gun from his stepmother, and it was a retired service weapon that was not kept in a safe way. He stole the gun, the retired service weapon, from his stepmother, and then he went to Florida State University and murdered two people and wounded six others.

Mr. Speaker, I bet you that that same gentleman who talked about that shooting is going to vote ``yes'' later on H.R. 2255 which I deeply oppose.

Just 1 month later, after this former service weapon was used to carry out a mass shooting and kill people at Florida State University, Republicans here in Congress are pushing the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which would flood the gun market with even more former service weapons without any additional precautions, zero safe storage and zero background checks. In every State, a police officer would be able to purchase an older gun from their department at a discounted price.

House Republicans would not even consider my amendment to encourage caution by letting people hold law enforcement agencies accountable with what is done with the weapon. The United States already has the highest number of mass shootings in the world, and gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in this country.

So I am glad that one of my Republican colleagues from Florida wants to make sure that the shootings don't happen again.

Let's start by ensuring that we block this bill, H.R. 2255, so that way police officers don't even have to respond to a mass shooting in the first place. I am done with talking about how we are going to handle these things after they happen. Let's talk about how we are going to prevent these shootings from happening in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Florida's 10th Congressional District, I want to recognize the exceptional Hispanic leaders of Florida's 10th congressional district who have shown outstanding dedication to the Hispanic community.

These individuals have worked tirelessly to uplift and empower our communities, contributing to the preservation and advancement of Hispanic culture, values, and traditions.

Their commitment to service and advocacy has had a profound impact on our community and beyond, their names are:

Yesica Ramirez

General Coordinator, The Farmworker Association of Florida

Tatiana Quiroga

Executive Director, Come Out With Pride, Inc.

Stephanie Loraine Pineiro, MSW

Executive Director, Florida Access Network

Sonia Ledger

Former Local Group Lead, Moms Demand Action

Nancy Rosado, MSW

Community Advocate, UCF RESTORES and Alianza Center

Melissa Marantes, Esq.

Executive Director, Attorney, Orlando Center for Justice

Karla Radka

President and CEO, Senior Resource Alliance

Cyndia Morales Muniz, Ed.D.

Senior Director, Hispanic Serving Institution Initiatives,

University of Central Florida

Andrea Guzman, Ed.D.

Vice President for Access and Community Engagement,

University of Central Florida

Laudi Campo

Florida State Director, Hispanic Federation

William J. Diaz

Founder, Casa de Venezuela Orlando & Made in Venezuela

Business Club

Marco Antonio Quiroga

Founder and Executive Director, Contigo Fund

Juan Pablo Santa Luna

Director of Strategic Business Development, Mills Gallery

Arts and Multicultural Foundation

Juan Marcos Vilar

President and CEO, Alianza Center

Fernando I. Rivera. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology and Director, Puerto Rico Research

Hub, University of Central Florida

Felipe Sousa-Lazaballet

Executive Director, Hope Community Center

Eric Camarillo

President & Founder, SALT Outreach Inc.

Rev. Dr. David Maldonado

Bishop of Christ International Church and Co-Founder for

Hablamos Espanol

Chief Charlie Salazar

Fire Chief, Orlando Fire Department

Rev. Dr. Jose Rodriguez

Rector, The Episcopal Churches of Christ the King and Jesus

de Nazareth