Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, imagine sending your 13-year-old daughter to school and waiting nearly 50 years for her to come home.

That is what Sakie Yokota has endured since North Korean agents abducted her daughter, Megumi, in 1977. As a parent, that thought is absolutely heartbreaking.

I think about my own sons. I imagine them growing up without me at an age so young that, after all those years, they might not even recognize my face.

Koichiro Iizuka knows what that is like. His mother was abducted when he was just 1 year old.

There are 17 Japanese citizens officially recognized as having been abducted by North Korea. While 5 returned home, 12 remain unaccounted for.

Their families have grown old waiting. Many passed away. Sakie is now 90 years old. Every year without answers is another year stolen from them.

This is not only Japan's tragedy. David Sneddon, an American college student who disappeared while hiking in China in 2004, is also believed by his family and many others to have been abducted by North Korea. His fate remains unknown.

These cases are a warning. When governments are allowed to make people disappear, no family and no country are beyond their reach.

Japan is one of America's closest friends and allies. If President Trump has an opportunity to speak to Kim Jong-un, he must raise these abductions directly. He must press for the return of every abductee and a full, credible accounting for those who remain missing, including David Sneddon.

Diplomacy cannot be limited to weapons, sanctions, and security agreements. It must also be about human beings. Democracies must stand together in defense of our people and their most basic human rights. Time has already taken far too much from these families. We cannot allow silence to take away their last hope for answers.

restoring funding for public broadcasting

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have taken to the floor to talk about Kauai Community Radio, KKCR.

When Congress defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, KKCR lost $83,000. I warned then that this wasn't simply about radio programming. It was about whether communities would have a trusted lifeline when disaster strikes.

Last week, Hurricane Lowell proved the point. When the storm hit Kauai, power went out across the island. Cell service and internet became unreliable. Roads were blocked. Trees came down. Communities were cut off.

KKCR stayed on the air. When the power failed, they switched to a generator. When the internet went down, they used a donated Starlink connection. When trees went down around their North Shore station, they kept broadcasting.

For a time, KKCR was the only station that Kauai could hear. They carried updates from the mayor and emergency management officials. They relayed calls from listeners who were reporting weather, road conditions, and power outages in their neighborhoods. They told people where they could find food, ice, water, and help. They played music to keep people calm. In the digital age, when clocks and phones had gone dark, they even reminded people what time it was.

KKCR was founded after Hurricane Iniki to provide emergency communication. More than three decades later, Hurricane Lowell shows us why that mission still matters.

This is what Congress put at risk when it cut public broadcasting-- not entertainment but a lifeline. We must restore this funding because when the next disaster comes, the question is not whether people will need KKCR. It is whether KKCR will still be on the air to answer the call.

Madam Speaker, imagine sending your 13-year-old daughter to school and waiting nearly 50 years for her to come home.

That is what Sakie Yokota has endured since North Korean agents abducted her daughter, Megumi, in 1977. As a parent, that thought is absolutely heartbreaking.

I think about my own sons. I imagine them growing up without me at an age so young that, after all those years, they might not even recognize my face.

Koichiro Iizuka knows what that is like. His mother was abducted when he was just 1 year old.

There are 17 Japanese citizens officially recognized as having been abducted by North Korea. While 5 returned home, 12 remain unaccounted for.

Their families have grown old waiting. Many passed away. Sakie is now 90 years old. Every year without answers is another year stolen from them.

This is not only Japan's tragedy. David Sneddon, an American college student who disappeared while hiking in China in 2004, is also believed by his family and many others to have been abducted by North Korea. His fate remains unknown.

These cases are a warning. When governments are allowed to make people disappear, no family and no country are beyond their reach.

Japan is one of America's closest friends and allies. If President Trump has an opportunity to speak to Kim Jong-un, he must raise these abductions directly. He must press for the return of every abductee and a full, credible accounting for those who remain missing, including David Sneddon.

Diplomacy cannot be limited to weapons, sanctions, and security agreements. It must also be about human beings. Democracies must stand together in defense of our people and their most basic human rights. Time has already taken far too much from these families. We cannot allow silence to take away their last hope for answers.

restoring funding for public broadcasting

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have taken to the floor to talk about Kauai Community Radio, KKCR.

When Congress defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, KKCR lost $83,000. I warned then that this wasn't simply about radio programming. It was about whether communities would have a trusted lifeline when disaster strikes.

Last week, Hurricane Lowell proved the point. When the storm hit Kauai, power went out across the island. Cell service and internet became unreliable. Roads were blocked. Trees came down. Communities were cut off.

KKCR stayed on the air. When the power failed, they switched to a generator. When the internet went down, they used a donated Starlink connection. When trees went down around their North Shore station, they kept broadcasting.

For a time, KKCR was the only station that Kauai could hear. They carried updates from the mayor and emergency management officials. They relayed calls from listeners who were reporting weather, road conditions, and power outages in their neighborhoods. They told people where they could find food, ice, water, and help. They played music to keep people calm. In the digital age, when clocks and phones had gone dark, they even reminded people what time it was.

KKCR was founded after Hurricane Iniki to provide emergency communication. More than three decades later, Hurricane Lowell shows us why that mission still matters.

This is what Congress put at risk when it cut public broadcasting-- not entertainment but a lifeline. We must restore this funding because when the next disaster comes, the question is not whether people will need KKCR. It is whether KKCR will still be on the air to answer the call.

Mr. Speaker, after the Lahaina wildfire, West Maui knew we could not afford to wait to strengthen fire protection and emergency response, so the community got to work.

They donated land and raised $3 million to build a new fire station in Olowalu. This station will cut emergency response times by up to 15 minutes. That can mean the difference between life and death, between a home burning and a home being saved. It will also cut fire insurance costs by nearly half for homeowners, saving families thousands of dollars annually.

The land was donated. The money was raised. The project was fully funded. Then President Trump's steel tariff slapped over $300,000 to the cost, not because the project changed, not because it went over budget, but because the President changed our trade policy. This is what reckless tariffs look like in real life.

Today, it is a fire station on Maui, but across our country, families, businesses, and communities are paying more because of the President's tariffs, including for the things that they need to keep themselves safe.

A fire station is not a luxury, not in West Maui, not after Lahaina. I am fighting to get relief for Olowalu, but we cannot fight these tariffs one fire station, one small business, or one community at a time. Congress has the constitutional authority over tariffs and trade, and it is time we take that responsibility back.

No President should be able to unilaterally impose tariffs that make it harder and more expensive for Americans to protect their homes, their communities, and their lives.

West Maui has already paid too high a price. We should be making communities safer, not making safety more expensive.

Hurricane Lala

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Lala never technically made landfall in Hawaii, but disasters aren't measured by whether the eye of a storm crosses a shoreline. They are measured by what they leave behind, and Lala left devastation.

Over 3 days, an estimated 1.3 trillion gallons of rain fell across our State. Hawaii Island took the brunt of it, with some communities seeing 20 to 40 inches. I saw the damages myself.

At Na'alehu Elementary, buildings were pushed off their foundations by the force of water and debris. Parts of Highway 11 were washed away. At Na'alehu Cemetery, floodwaters tragically disturbed the resting place of generations of loved ones.

Hundreds of homes across Hawaii were damaged or destroyed. At the height of the storm, over 200,000 people were left without power.

However, I also saw Hawaii at its best: neighbors checking on neighbors, community hubs feeding families, supplies flown in by helicopter and carried on horseback to communities cut off by damaged roads, school workers preparing food and hygiene supplies for our ``children,'' ``keiki,'' even while their campuses were closed.

When disaster strikes, Hawaii shows up. Now Washington needs to show up for Hawaii. I am grateful the President approved an emergency declaration, bringing critical FEMA resources to Hawaii, Maui, and Honolulu counties, but we need a major disaster declaration and individual assistance to help our families, farmers, and small businesses recover.

The storm may be gone, but the emergency is not. Families are still without power. People still need food, medicine, clothing, and basic necessities. Roads, homes, schools, farms, and businesses need to be repaired and rebuilt. Even as we recover, we have to prepare, because the Pacific is still churning. More storms are coming, and they will not wait for Hawaii to recover.

We need to replenish supplies, strengthen critical infrastructure, restore essential services, and make sure our most isolated communities are prepared to withstand whatever comes next.

Help our people recover, prepare for what is coming next, and do it now. That is what Hawaii needs from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years after the Lahaina wildfires, survivors are rebuilding and finally returning home. They should be welcomed back and not told that the basic services they had before the fire are now gone.

Yet, the United States Postal Service is denying street delivery to rebuilt homes and forcing residents to use cluster mailboxes instead.

That is a slap in the face. A cluster mailbox is not a welcome mat for families who fought to come home. It is an insult. Now, adding insult to injury, the U.S. Postal Service is considering permanently closing the downtown Lahaina post office damaged in the fires, with little notice and virtually no meaningful community input.

The United States Postal Service needs to restore home delivery, stop the closure, and listen to Lahaina. Our community has already lost enough. Recovery means restoring what was lost, not taking more away.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of James B. Castle High School, a special place that has shaped generations of students, families, and our entire Windward community, myself included.

For those of us who are Castle Knights, Castle (KASSO) is not just a school. It is a lifelong bond. No matter the graduating class, no matter the generation, there is an instant connection that comes from sharing the experience of growing up beneath the Pali lands. That Knight pride stays with us long after we leave campus, and it is especially meaningful as we celebrate our alma mater's diamond anniversary.

Castle's strength has always come from the community that surrounds it. It begins in our complex elementary and intermediate schools, where lifelong friendships are first formed and future Knights begin their journey. It grows through the unwavering support of families, neighbors, alumni, and the entire Kane`ohe community, who have always lifted up Castle and its students. Together, they have created something far greater than a school--they have built a family.

For 75 years, Castle has prepared students not only for college and careers, but for lives of purpose and service. Whether in the classroom, on the stage, in the band room, on the athletic field, or through partnerships with the University of Hawaii, generations of students have discovered their talents, built their confidence, and learned the value of working hard and giving back.

On a personal note, my husband Kyle and I are proud that our sons have followed generations of our families in attending Castle High School. I know I would not be the person I am today had it not been for the teachers, faculty, and school community that embraced and guided me. And as I now watch my sons chart their own course through the same hallways and classrooms as we did, it brings me joy to know our sons have become proud Knights.

I offer mahalo to the teachers, staff, administrators, coaches, volunteers, students, families, and alumni who have made these 75 years possible. I thank them for believing in generations of young people and for making Castle a place where every student knows they belong.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating James B. Castle High School on its 75th Anniversary and wishing the Castle Knights many more years of excellence, pride, and community.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, which would require the Department of Defense to develop plans to eliminate 200,000 civilian employees.

I have news for you: This administration already did that, and I saw the consequences with my own eyes. I had lunch with junior enlisted marines in Hawaii. They told me it took months to fix their broken washing machines, a full year to fix a sink in a barracks room. I saw windows duct taped and mold painted over. Childcare rooms were empty because they had no staff to care for servicemembers' children. When I asked the base commander why it took a year to fix a sink, he said it is because almost all of the maintenance staff took the deferred resignation program, and with the hiring freeze, they couldn't find replacements.

There are 20,000 DoD civilian employees in Hawaii and about 800,000 worldwide. They are essential to readiness. At a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet, they are good jobs. They have been and should remain stable jobs, too, allowing people to serve their country and care for their families.

Bottom line, our war fighters rely on civilian employees for everything, from maintenance to acquisition, to healthcare, to childcare. They keep our subs and jets battle-ready and our servicemembers healthy.

Mr. Chair, it is time we stop treating them as disposable. Instead, we should be investing in the civilian workforce, not continuing to threaten to cut their jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, let's be clear: Our servicemembers already have the ability to bring personally owned firearms into military installations. They simply have to meet commonsense Department of Defense safety requirements, be legally eligible, properly trained, meet age requirements, demonstrate responsible conduct, and safely transport and store their firearms.

Those aren't burdens. They are basic safeguards.

This amendment turns that standard on its head. Instead of commanders deciding who can safely carry a personal firearm on base, it creates a presumption that requests should be approved unless commanders can justify saying no. It weakens commander authority and lowers the safety standards that have protected our installations for years.

When we lower standards around firearms, we increase risk. We have lived through the consequences. Some of the deadliest mass shootings on military installations were carried out with personally owned firearms. At the same time, our military continues to face a heartbreaking suicide rate, with firearms accounting for the vast majority of Active- Duty suicide deaths.

We should be strengthening safe storage, responsible ownership, and commander discretion, not making it easier for firearms to be carried and stored on our bases with fewer safeguards.

Military installations are not public parks. They are secure workplaces. They are homes for military families and critically important national security assets. Commanders must have the authority to protect the people entrusted to them.

If we expect discipline, readiness, and accountability from our troops, we should expect the same when it comes to firearms on our installations.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros).

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

Madam Chair, this amendment is a dangerous solution in search of a problem. Not only is it absolutely unnecessary, but it constrains base commanders in their duty to keep facilities, servicemembers, and families safe.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, we all want the same thing for our military families. While our servicemembers carry out the mission to protect and defend our Nation, we have a duty to care for the loved ones whom they leave behind. For families with school-aged children, that means investing in safe, stable, high-quality schools where every child can learn, grow, and thrive.

This amendment does the opposite. It creates a new, unfunded voucher program that diverts taxpayer dollars to private, including religious, schools instead of strengthening the public schools that educate most of our military-connected children.

This year, taxpayers are investing $3.6 billion in DoDEA schools, but the majority of military-connected students attend local public schools, which receive just $70 million in Impact Aid, even though they lose local property tax revenue because of nearby military installations. These schools welcome military children every time new orders arrive, helping them navigate new classrooms, new communities, and the challenges of constant moves and deployments.

If Congress is prepared to invest more in military children's education, and I fully support that, we should be investing where most of them are already learning: our public schools.

This amendment also falls short for families raising children with disabilities. Public schools are legally required to identify students with disabilities and provide the services and accommodations they need. Private schools are not. They may lack specialized staff or refuse to admit a child altogether.

Unlike public schools, private schools are not required to follow the same Federal civil rights protections. Taxpayer dollars could fund schools that discriminate in admissions based on disability, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and other characteristics.

A voucher is not a real choice if a school can simply turn a child away.

Our military families deserve better. Let's strengthen the schools they rely on, fully support DoDEA and public schools through Impact Aid and ensure every military child has access to a well-funded, accountable education.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I stood on a farm in Haleiwa for the blessing of the Pacific Gateway Center's new land. I looked out at the fields and at the farmers and families gathered there ready to work, grow food, and to build something of their own. It was immigrants focused on strengthening their community, our economy, and creating a better life for their children.

As I stood there, I could not stop thinking: This is it. This is America. This is what a true celebration of 250 years of America looks like. It is a more honest portrait of our country than any gilded ballroom or caged fight on the White House lawn could ever offer: hands in the soil, families laying down roots, people arriving with hope, working hard, and building a life for their children and their grandchildren.

That is my family's story, too. I am a Yonsei, a fourth-generation of Okinawan descent. Like so many other Japanese, Filipino, Chinese families in Hawaii, agriculture and the plantations were the gateway that allowed us to come, to work, to lay down our roots, and to build a real future for our children.

I would not be standing here today as a Member of Congress if my family had not been given that chance, had that pathway not existed for so many immigrants like us.

For so many, somewhere in our family's story, someone got here. Someone arrived with the same hope, the same courage, and the same belief that tomorrow could be a better day than today, that their children could go further than they did, that this country could be a place where hard work, sacrifice, and community still meant something.

That is where this administration has twisted the story. They want us to believe immigrants are the enemy, but when you attack immigrant children and women and workers and families, you are attacking the very people who helped create our American identity.

When you detain families, separate children, strip people of their rights, and tell whole communities they do not belong, you are not protecting America. You are betraying her promise. They can try to paint over the truth. They can try to dress it up, cover the cracks with gold, or write immigrants out of the story, but the truth is carved into America's foundation: America's heritage is, in fact, immigration.

It is arrival. It is hard work. It is sacrifice. It is the belief that tomorrow can be better than today. That is what America first should mean, not pitting immigrant against nonimmigrant.

By the way, unless you are indigenous to this land, you are, in fact, an immigrant. Not turning families into targets, but creating opportunities and pathways for the people who came here, laid down their roots, helped build this country, and still carry it forward every single day. That is what gives me hope.

Because there are still people in this country who have not lost sight of that dream. I saw them in Haleiwa. I saw people and families choosing work, choosing community, choosing to build, and choosing courage. I saw people making sure that pathway is still there for the next family, the next generation, and the next person looking for a chance.

That is the America I believe in. An America where immigrant families are not treated as threats, but recognized as part of who we are. An America that understands the American Dream has never been about where you came from. It is about what you are willing to build when you get here.

As we celebrate National Immigrant Heritage Month and prepare to mark 250 years of this country, let us tell the truth: Immigrants are not outside America's story. They are the story. They are not a threat to America's heritage. They are America's heritage.

If we are serious about honoring 250 years of America, then we have a responsibility to fight for the people still reaching for that same promise--to lay down roots, to build a better life, to raise a family in safety and dignity, and to contribute, and with hope to belong to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I saw hope that day in Haleiwa. I saw the American Dream. That is what I am holding on to.

It is up to each and every one of us to carry on the dream of our forefathers. As long as there are people who carry that dream forward, and as long as we have the courage to protect it, that dream will continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 629.

Keeping food affordable starts with keeping farmers in business. As natural disasters become more frequent and more devastating, bipartisan, bicameral legislation like this is exactly what our agricultural producers need.

Hawaii is still recovering from the Kona low storms that tore through our islands this spring, leaving behind damage that communities and producers will be rebuilding from for years to come.

I have walked farms across our State and seen firsthand the waterlogged fields, crops buried in mud, and equipment totally destroyed beyond repair. Our farmers are resilient, but resilience alone cannot pay the bills after disaster strikes.

Hawaii is far from alone. This year, producers across the country have faced devastating freezes, severe winter storms, flooding, drought, and wildfire. These events are no longer isolated incidents. They are becoming the reality of farming in America.

For many producers, the challenge isn't simply recovering from the disaster. It is finding enough cash on hand to begin recovery in the first place.

Today, even after USDA approves assistance, farmers are often forced to pay costs up front and wait for reimbursement. For many family farms, that delay can mean the difference between recovery and closure. That is why this legislation matters.

Cash is king after a disaster, and flexibility is key. By extending advance payments, this bill helps ensure USDA programs can meet farmers and ranchers where they are and provide assistance when it makes the greatest difference, not months later, but when recovery work must begin.

If this authority had been available following the Kona low storms, eligible producers could have started rebuilding immediately instead of scrambling to find the resources needed to bridge the gap. They could have repaired damaged infrastructure, restored farmland, and returned fields to production sooner.

This is a practical, commonsense policy that recognizes a simple reality: When disaster strikes, recovery delayed is often recovery denied.

Passing legislation is only half the job. The disaster after the disaster would be enacting proactive policies like this while lacking the workforce needed to deliver them. USDA programs are only as effective as the workforce responsible for getting that help to farmers on the ground.

Since the start of this administration, the Farm Service Agency workforce has declined by more than 24 percent, while at least 158 county offices are operating without an FSA employee.

We cannot control Mother Nature. We cannot stop the next storm, drought, wildfire, or flood, but we can ensure USDA has the staffing capacity necessary to get assistance out the door quickly and efficiently when producers need it most.

Our farmers and ranchers are not asking for a handout. They are asking for a fighting chance to recover, rebuild, and continue producing the food, fuel, and fiber our country depends on.

Let's give USDA the tools they need to meet this big challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 629. I thank my colleagues for their strong support of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation.

Before we vote, I want to reflect on why this matters. When the Kona low storms swept across Hawaii this spring, they left farms flooded, infrastructure damaged, and producers facing months of costly recovery. Many are still working to restore their operations today.

Even as that work continued, a 6.0 earthquake struck our island chain just last month, less than a month ago, damaging roads and water systems on Hawaii Island, our State's largest agricultural producer.

It is a reminder that disaster doesn't wait for recovery to finish before the next challenge arrives. Whether storms, drought, wildfire, or earthquakes, our producers are increasingly operating in a world where disruption is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

That is why S. 629 is so important. This bill recognizes that timing matters. For farmers and ranchers trying to get back on their feet, access to resources when recovery begins can make all the difference in how quickly they can restore production and keep their operations viable.

While the need is clear, success depends on more than good policy alone. Congress can provide USDA with the right tools, but those tools must be backed by the workforce needed to put them into action. Passing legislation without the capacity to implement helps no one.

We cannot prevent every disaster that comes our way, but we can make sure the Federal response is faster, more flexible, and better equipped to support the people who grow the food we depend on.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support S. 629, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week the President said he doesn't think much about Americans' finances.

Families in Hawaii do. They think about it every time they fill up the tank, every time they open their electric bill, and every time they stand in the grocery aisle deciding what they can afford.

While Donald Trump wages a war of choice in Iran, pushes a $1 billion-slush fund for his buddies, and fights for a royal ballroom in the White House, working families back home are being forced to make impossible choices.

Gas prices in Hawaii are now averaging $5.65 a gallon. Food prices keep climbing. Electricity costs are expected to surge even higher, and families are deciding whether they can afford groceries, medicine, rent, or the drive to work.

This is the cost of indifference.

Instead of lowering costs, this administration is making it worse with tariff and trade wars and blocking renewable energy projects that would help Hawaii build real energy independence and bring bills and costs down.

It is time to end this reckless war, lower costs, and put working people first.

Mr. Speaker, this Friday, May 15, the Nation will observe Peace Officers Memorial Day. This year's observance is especially difficult and deeply personal for our Maui ohana.

Maui Police Department Officer Suzane O was added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this spring. Officer O, a beloved daughter, sister, partner, auntie, and friend was killed in the line of duty in August 2025, when she encountered an armed suspect in response to a terroristic threatening call.

Raised in American Samoa and a graduate of Farrington High School, Officer O was a role model for many Pacific Islander girls. She was a dedicated public servant and a proud member of the MPD Honor Guard and had received a Certificate of Merit for her heroic efforts during our Maui wildfires.

Officer O is deeply missed by her family, friends, and colleagues.

All police officers and their families deeply understand the risks that come with putting on the uniform every single day. Today, we remember and honor the courage and the sacrifice of officers like Suzane O who have paid the ultimate price to keep our communities and our families safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Colleen Hanabusa, a proud daughter of Wai'anae, a tita at heart, and a former Member of the House who represented Hawaii's First Congressional District.

When I was first elected to the Hawaii State Senate, Colleen made history as the first AANHPI woman in the Nation to lead a legislative body. She understood something important about being the first: Your job is to hold the door open so you are not the last.

That is who Colleen was.

At her memorial last week, I looked around the Hawaii Senate floor and saw her legacy everywhere--in the leaders she mentored, the people she believed in, and the confidence she gave so many of us before we saw it in ourselves. It was hard to feel like she was gone because so much of her remains in all of us.

When I think of strength, I think of Colleen. She always had the answers, but she never needed the spotlight. She pushed others forward while making it clear that she had our backs. As a young mother in public office, she never once made me feel like I had to choose between leading and loving my family.

To her husband, John, who was her rock, and to her beloved fur babies, Frannie and Puppers, and Little, who is up there with her now, they were her soul.

I thank them for sharing Colleen with all of us. They definitely broke the mold when they made her, and I dearly miss my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me now in a moment of silence in her memory and her honor.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment seems innocent enough. Surely, we do not want our foreign adversaries to acquire agricultural land here in the United States, but ultimately, this is a solution in search of a problem.

As of December 2023, the USDA reported that foreignly held agricultural land is approximately 3.5 percent of all privately held agricultural land in the United States. Essentially, five countries, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, U.K., and Germany, account for 62 percent of this 3.5 percent, with land owned by China coming in at approximately 0.9 percent of the total foreign-owned land, this 3.5 percent, in the United States.

The definition is also very general and leaves the President with a lot of discretion to decide which countries or people fit within the definition. We have seen President Trump turn against longstanding allies and partners, calling them adversaries and targeting individuals who stand up to him or refuse to bow down before him. Allowing a President, any President, to target landholdings seems like a very dangerous tool to place in the hands of our current President.

Let's be clear: I share the concern about protecting U.S. agricultural land and national security, but this amendment is overly broad and risks serious unintended consequences.

We have been down this road before. So-called alien land laws once barred those deemed ineligible for citizenship from owning or leasing land, disproportionately targeting Chinese and Japanese communities because discriminatory Federal laws denied them naturalization.

In recent years, States such as Florida and Texas have passed laws restricting ownership of agricultural land by citizens or entities from foreign adversaries, which has resulted in xenophobic and discriminatory practices against Asian Americans, with Realtors literally concerned about selling land to Chinese Americans, insinuating any kind of affiliation to the CCP.

If the goal is to address national security, we should be precise. Restrictions should be narrowly tailored to foreign governments and individuals already identified through existing authorities, such as the Treasury Department's specially designated nationals list. We already have the tools to review and block risky transactions, including the CFIUS list that can be used to identify specifically who should not be purchasing our land.

We should strengthen and enforce these tools, not create vague, sweeping prohibitions that invite confusion and discrimination, particularly against immigrants and people of color.

We can protect our national security without undermining civil rights or opening the door to racial profiling. There is a better way to protect national security, protect our agricultural land, and protect our Asian-American community from the threat of racism. This amendment is not it.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think it is rich that the previous speaker insinuates that China may buy all our agricultural land when most of the land in Hawaii was stolen by the United States of America when it was illegally annexed by this country.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the ranking member, to speak on this issue.

Mr. Chair, earlier today, we sat in the Armed Services Committee and heard a $1.5 trillion defense budget request. That is not including the $1 billion a day going to the Iran war. Just imagine what even a fraction of that could do if we invested it in our farmers and in feeding American families.

Right now, every part of American agriculture is under strain, and too many families are going hungry.

This is not a moment for a skinny farm bill. It is a moment for a serious, bipartisan one. Yet, once again, specialty crop farm producers, the backbone of agriculture in States like Hawaii, are being shortchanged. They got 7 percent of the USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance funding, even though we have specialty crop growers in every single State, every territory, and 95 percent of all counties with farms.

Democrats fought to fix that. We pushed for an additional $10 billion in support so these farmers could survive and compete. We were blocked.

At the same time, this administration ripped away $660 million that helped get fresh, local food into our schools--literally, taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids and income out of the hands of farmers who grew it. We fought to cancel those cuts, but we were blocked.

Let's be clear about the broader context. Tariffs, taxes on our own farmers, have cost them billions and made food more expensive for everyone. That is not support. That is harm.

Yes, this bill does harm for what it does and what it does not do.

It opens the door to privatizing SNAP administration, making it harder for families to access basic nutrition.

Conservation programs are lifelines when farmers are facing more severe natural disasters. This bill strips over a billion dollars from conservation programs and guts in-kind assistance for RCPP partnerships, the very projects that help farmers invest in their land and build long-term resilience.

It shields the most powerful corporations while leaving everyday Americans with fewer protections. It is an outright poison pill that denies Americans their day in court.

That is not a compromise. That is a step backward. A farm bill that ignores these realities doesn't just fall short. It deepens the crisis. It tells farmers we are not listening. It tells families they are on their own. We can and must do better.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Come back to the table. Come back at a decent hour, not in the dark of night where we are trying to push through this bill and this amendment. Do the hard, bipartisan work to deliver a farm bill that actually meets this moment. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, though I understand wholeheartedly my colleague's position on this topic, I must oppose this amendment. The United States benefits from broad animal disease monitoring networks that extend worldwide.

Through these scientific connections, our scientists here at home can prepare for and mitigate new and emerging pathogens that would affect livestock here in America.

Global health and safety also depend on shared data, and just because we remove ourselves from collaborative efforts doesn't mean the research stops. We simply remove ourselves from receiving any of the benefits that shared research could yield.

This amendment would also prohibit education activities on animal research in those countries, and I would ask my colleagues: Do we really want to limit education that could prevent the next outbreak of a zoonotic disease, even if the education is in a country of concern? I, for one, am not eager to see another pandemic threaten the United States and understand the devastating risks if we are isolated and alone against these threats.

Mr. Chairman, I humbly oppose this amendment and strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to urge all Members to oppose this amendment. Again, while I understand the perspectives and the points of view of the majority, again, eliminating ourselves from the opportunity to engage in shared research to the benefit of the health and wellness and the lives of all American people, we cannot support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles for all Americans, but I have serious concerns with any policy that would make life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet. For many, like my constituents, who live in food deserts, we shouldn't make a program that is supposed to provide relief too confusing and too frustrating for anyone to want to participate in or be able to participate in.

It is not that SNAP recipients buy different foods than other Americans. USDA research has shown that SNAP participants purchase foods at rates similar to nonparticipants. Despite this, USDA has now approved 22 different State waivers, each of which have different restrictions on what can be purchased with SNAP through restriction pilot programs.

One restricts soda and candy. One restricts soda and energy drinks. One restricts soda, energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts. Another one restricts candy, candy-coated items, gum, licorice, mints, fruit leathers, sweetened baking chocolate, fruit or nuts with any sugar or honey added, granola bars--unless they include flour--and some types of popcorn if it has sugar in it like kettle corn, are excluded.

That is just way too confusing for too many people. Better ways to address diet-related chronic disease include investing in fruit and vegetable incentives like GusNIP and nutrition education programs.

Unfortunately, as we know, funding for SNAP-Ed, which benefited many States, including mine, provides grants to State and local organizations in all States and territories to teach people how to stretch their SNAP dollars, cook healthy meals, and lead active lifestyles, was eliminated in the big, ugly bill.

The cherry on top is that these restriction pilots depend on the now- nonexistent SNAP-Ed program to evaluate their effectiveness. The study proposed in this amendment can provide valuable data about the lack of effectiveness of the waivers, though it is certainly not going to be making up for the loss of SNAP-Ed. I cannot emphasize enough that we must seek to restore the funding to this essential program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

I rise to oppose this amendment which would extend automatic grazing renewals to the national grasslands, eliminating environmental review, public participation, and Tribal consultation in the management of our public lands.

Our national grasslands are extraordinarily precious ecosystems. Sixty-two percent of similar landscapes have already been lost globally.

As stewards of these public lands, we, therefore, must ensure that they undergo fulsome analysis to prioritize their restoration and long- term conservation.

This amendment would allow grazing permits to be renewed indefinitely when agencies fail to complete the NEPA on time. In a time when the Forest Service has lost more than 15 percent of its staff due to forced retirements and DOGE-ing, this is the wrong approach.

Though I support responsible grazing of our public lands, this amendment would incentivize the Trump administration to keep cutting staff and degrade these landscapes, which are our national heritage. I must oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would send us backwards when it comes to animal disease tracing and herd management.

Electronic ear tags for cattle and bison reduce human error and empower veterinarians and animal health experts from APHIS to traffic potential outbreaks.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has prioritized the implementation of unique identification of animals and premises, which is essential for tracing origin and destination of all livestock, and in particular, food-producing animals in order to protect the Nation's livestock industry and public health.

That is why the electronic ear tag proposal was supported by the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association.

The USDA has provided free tags to producers to combat any economic burden while enabling the fastest possible response to animal disease.

At a time when highly pathogenic avian influenza has been proven to affect additional species and the New World screwworm is again threatening American cattle herds, we should not take tools out of the USDA's toolbox to prevent the spread of disease.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.