Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, each year, I have the honor of recognizing women on the Central Coast whose leadership, service, and dedication have made a lasting impact on our community through the Women of the Year Award. This year, it is my pleasure to recognize Linda Krop for her decades of environmental advocacy, public service, and commitment to protecting the natural resources of California's Central Coast.

Linda has devoted more than three decades to the Environmental Defense Center, a local public-interest environmental law firm. She joined the firm in 1989 and has served as its Chief Counsel since 1999. Throughout her career, she has specialized in environmental law involving offshore oil and gas development, ocean and coastal conservation, open-space preservation, natural-resource protection, and energy policy.

Linda's work has produced lasting protections for communities and ecosystems throughout Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Among her most notable legal accomplishments, she helped secure the termination of 40 federal oil and gas leases off the California coast. She prevented the extension of 37 federal oil leases off the coasts of the three counties. She also played a leading role in response to the 2015 Refugio oil spill, which released 140,000 gallons of crude oil and polluted both the ocean and surrounding land. She led the EDC's legal team in efforts that forced the companies to pay more than $700 million in damages.

Beyond her courtroom advocacy, Linda has helped advance environmental protections through public policy. She served on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council from 1998 to 2013, representing the conservation community. She was also appointed by the U.S. Minerals Management Service to serve on the California Offshore Oil and Gas Energy Resources Committee and the High Energy Seismic Survey Task Force.

Since 2006, she has regularly taught in the Environmental Studies Program at UCSB and at the Santa Barbara College of Law.

Through litigation, policy advocacy, and education, she has helped preserve some of California's most valued landscapes and has strengthened environmental protections throughout our region. Today, she continues those efforts by challenging Sable Offshore Corp.'s plans to restart offshore oil operations, helping protect the Central Coast's coastline and communities.

I am proud to recognize Linda Krop for her extraordinary record of leadership and service and her lifelong dedication to protecting the natural beauty and environmental future of the Central Coast.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. We know that the military does not need this provision to ensure a stable supply. We already are the largest oil producer in the world, producing nearly 14 million barrels of oil a day.

Let's be clear: This is not about energy independence or national security. It is about giving Big Oil special treatment at the expense of California. Under this amendment, a single certification from the Secretary of Defense unlocks sweeping legal protections for fossil fuel projects. States and local governments cannot interfere. Courts are told to presume that delaying this project harms national security on the Secretary's word alone, and we know what that means.

Challengers cannot dispute the Secretary's determination and developers

receive procedural advantages that no other litigant enjoys, including the ability to essentially choose which Federal court will hear a challenge.

It is interesting to me that this amendment is sponsored by Congressman Hunt from Houston, where Sable Offshore Oil's headquarters is located.

Sable Offshore, of course, is the operator of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System, which the Trump administration forced back online over the objections of California. This is the pipeline that caused the devastating Refugio oil spill in 2015 in my district.

My constituents, who must live with the risk this operation poses, are overwhelmingly opposed, but the Trump administration used the Defense Production Act to preempt State law.

The State of California is challenging that authority in court. I guess Sable is worried about losing in court, as they should be, because this amendment would allow the company to avoid accountability by moving to a more favorable court, blocking the California lawsuit, and preventing any court from issuing an injunction against this project.

Let me be clear again: This isn't about national security. This is a bailout for polluters.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is an outrageous attack on States' rights dressed up as a fake energy emergency.

My colleague refers to a national emergency during World War II where the Army and our country's posture was different. The current environment is not legitimate. It is not a legitimate war environment as he refers to from the past.

Let us be clear about what this does. It would allow the Federal Government to seize California's owned lands through eminent domain for the Santa Ynez pipeline system.

This is the same pipeline that caused the 2015 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in my district.

Instead of trying to restore it to safe operating condition, Sable has spent years ignoring and evading California law to try to restart this operation, and not using the latest and best technology available.

California's State Fire Marshal also already indicated the pipeline is not in safe operating operation, but Sable does not think a little thing like State laws or the health and safety of our coasts should stand in the way of their profits.

At the company's request, the administration stripped California of its oversight of the pipeline and used the Defense Production Act to force it to restart operations, and this was before this illegitimate Iran war.

Apparently, that was not enough. Now, Sable is asking its friends in Congress to rig the system in its favor, seize California lands, and issue an irrevocable operating permit. Yes, these are friends from another State.

Let's talk about the hypocrisy here.

What happened to States' rights? This is the most blatant example of corrupt Federal overreach, so why aren't my colleagues across the aisle up in arms? Oh, because it is not convenient.

No one should be able to use the Federal Government as their personal trump card to trample on State laws and regulations for their personal profit, no matter the party, no matter the State.

Unfortunately, this amendment fits a broader pattern of attacks on California by this administration, attacking our clean air standards, undermining our offshore wind industry, and now trying to bulldoze our environmental protections for Big Oil--a Big Oil handout.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous project and the precedent it sets.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chair, I am a marine. I served our country. I know what it is like to fight for our country and to stand up and be ready to be called when we need to do so. But to use the Defense Production Act for a frivolous reason undermines our democracy and undermines the integrity of what we are about, and when we really need to use it, it makes a mockery of us.

Mr. Chair, this is ludicrous. We should not proceed forward with this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I served in North Carolina in Camp LeJeune. I know the weather there. I know North Carolina, and I also know why I live in California.

I am opposed to this amendment. Once again, this amendment has nothing to do with national security, as much as people want to say that over and over and over.

Yet, it has everything to do with politically motivated attacks on State policies that the other side of the aisle happens to disagree with. Just call it what it is. It specifically requires a report on ways for the Federal Government to preempt State laws, including, once again, through national security waivers.

Mr. Chair, how far the principled have fallen. I thought the Republican Party was the party of States' rights. Maybe it is selective States' rights. But apparently that principle only applies when they agree with the State's policies. Let's call it what it is: selective.

This amendment would strip States of their ability to adopt stronger protections for their communities' air, water, and public health. Unfortunately, it appears that States' rights take a back seat when there is a favor to be done for Big Oil.

This amendment is a roadmap for the Federal Government to undermine States that choose to protect their residents. In places like California, communities have fought for stronger safeguards against pollution and environmental hazards, not weaker ones.

That is why we also believe in renewable energy, something this administration does not. If we were really concerned about energy and diversifying our energy capacity, we would support offshore wind.

This President has gone to great lengths to kill offshore wind projects in California. Let's not talk about energy supply when we are doing everything possible to just give a handout to the oil industry.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chair, I think I heard that my colleague supports offshore wind, which is in contrast with the President. I am assuming he disagrees with the President.

Mr. Chair, I am willing to yield for the purposes of a colloquy to ask for an answer to that question. I kind of heard that the gentleman supported offshore wind.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment. Don't get me wrong. I am glad to see my colleagues across the aisle recognize that recycling needs to be part of our minerals and materials strategy. We absolutely should be recovering valuable materials instead of relying entirely on new mining.

This amendment isn't really about recycling, is it? It is another attempt to use national security as a phony justification to override State laws that this majority doesn't like. What happened to States' rights again? Are we being selective again?

It would prevent States and local governments from enforcing requirements governing the recycling and disposal of defense materials unless those requirements are identical to Federal law. Many States and localities have adopted stronger safeguards to protect communities from pollution and industrial hazards. We know that defense equipment can pose significant risks to surrounding communities.

In an era where this administration is trying to roll back every single environmental and public health protection it can, an amendment like this is particularly dangerous. I know. I served in the Marine Corps. I serve on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I don't know what they teach in Georgia. In California, let me tell you, we learn how to read and write. I understand this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chair, in California, we really believe it is important to protect the public health of our constituents, so I am flabbergasted that this is trying to undermine the standards that we want to have to protect our public health from hazardous and toxic materials.

Now, if you live in another State and the people want to have lesser standards for hazardous materials that could damage their public health, hurt their public health, that is one thing, but to try to undermine those standards in California is another.

This amendment does exactly that. It tries to undermine the will of the State of California and its people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in California we have higher standards. It is about public safety. It is about making sure we protect the public health.

If you want to lower your standards somewhere else, knock yourselves out, but in California we are going to fight for the people that elected us to protect their public health.

We know recycling. We know how to do it in a safe and responsible fashion, and we will not lower our standards as other States have done.

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

Mr. Chair, again, I will say it is interesting how two individuals could see something so different. Like I said, in California, it is all about protecting our public health, using recycling in a safe and responsible fashion.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 2026, due to unforeseen aircraft mechanical issues that delayed my arrival to Washington, D.C., I missed the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 224, H.R. 6644, and YEA on Roll Call No. 223, S. 629.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage every Member of this Chamber to support my dairy business innovation initiative amendment.

The dairy business innovation initiatives support dairy businesses in the development, production, marketing, and distribution of dairy products. They provide technical assistance to dairy businesses directly or through industry experts and research institutions.

USDA initially awarded three equal grants through a competitive selection process to the University of Tennessee; the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets; and the University of Wisconsin.

A fourth initiative was later awarded by USDA in 2021 to the Pacific Coast Coalition-Dairy Business Innovation Initiative, DBII, at Fresno State University, which serves California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and 135 grantees from 34 congressional districts.

Even with the addition of the fourth initiative, congressional appropriations have consistently directed the majority of funds to be equally distributed between the three original initiatives outside of the Pacific Coast Coalition's region.

That is even when accounting for California being ranked number one in milk production, number one in butter, number one in milk powder, number one in ice cream, and number two in cheese, with over 140 manufacturing facilities.

Despite the Pacific Coast Coalition's region of six States producing 29 percent of all milk in the U.S. and 45 percent of total exports, they still do not get an equal amount of funding.

My amendment simply would update the statute to recognize that there are four regionally located initiatives and ensure that each of these initiatives is accounted for when funding is administered--just achieving parity.

This could also allow for a more equitable distribution of funding between the four initiatives, which has historically not been the case since the inception of the Pacific Coast Coalition.

Mr. Chair, I ask this body to join me in passing my amendment to ensure more equitable distribution between the four dairy business innovation initiatives, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for speaking on the merits of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to amendment No. 36.

Mr. Chair, greyhound racing is cruel and inhumane, resulting in hundreds of injuries and deaths of otherwise healthy dogs. It is already prohibited in 44 States and exists in only one, West Virginia.

Despite existing only in West Virginia, Federal legislation to end greyhound racing is necessary because greyhound races are still transmitted to bettors across the United States. Bets placed on these simulcast races prop up this cruel but dying industry both in the United States and abroad.

The bipartisan Greyhound Protection Act--did I say bipartisan?--has been a legislative concept since 2020, building off of the work of former Representative Tony Cardenas and now-United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz.

I have been the lead sponsor of this bipartisan legislation for the past 4 years, alongside my colleagues Randy Fine, Zach Nunn, and Don Davis.

During these 6 years, the Greyhound Protection Act has earned dozens of Democratic and Republican cosponsors. It is endorsed by over 250 animal protection groups, local humane societies, and community leaders.

In March, the bipartisan Greyhound Protection Act passed the House Agriculture Committee by voice vote during the farm bill's committee markup.

Since that time, the final greyhound protection language in the bill has been modified to ensure it applies to greyhounds and nothing else. That change to protect sportsmen and hunting dogs was something Representative Nunn and I recognized and expressed our willingness to the Agriculture Committee on amending this language. It represents a diligently crafted compromise between animal protection groups and hunters, exactly the type of bipartisanship we come to expect from the farm bill.

If this amendment were to pass, it would effectively gut the Greyhound Protection Act and give a free pass for greyhound racing to continue to operate in one State in the United States.

My door has been opened for years to discuss this language, and I know the Agriculture Committee's doors were open all this time, as well. While I understand the concerns surrounding the impact on a very small group of individuals, no pension solvency should hinge on a single, volatile revenue stream, particularly one tied to an inhumane industry in long-term decline.

I have served in local government myself, and I know that States routinely adjust revenue frameworks when phasing out activities deemed inconsistent with public values or policy priorities. West Virginia already has an alternative gaming revenue, including lottery and casino operations that can be recalibrated, if needed.

This amendment runs counter to public sentiment and ensures more greyhounds will not continue to live lives of confinement in stacked metal cages and be subjected to predictable and preventable risk of injury and death on the track.

It has taken decades of work by greyhound rescuers to reach this point, as well as the work done by myself, my colleagues, and committee staff over the last number of years. I ask my colleagues to please oppose this amendment and end the cycle of government-mandated cruelty.

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

Mr. Chair, I support unions, but this is about cruelty to animals, and we are trying to justify one good over a lot of evil. It is important that we not use this issue and call it just jobs for a very small amount of individuals, in one State in our Nation, when it comes to really protecting humane approaches to how we deal with greyhounds and animals.

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

Mr. Chair, in this country, we have done a lot of inhumane things, whether it is to animals or people. We oftentimes try to justify it in one way or another, but it is hard to justify jobs over being humane. It is a matter of values, and that is really what it is about.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, each year, I have the honor of recognizing women on the Central Coast whose leadership, service, and dedication have made a lasting impact on our community through the Women of the Year Award. This year, it is my pleasure to recognize Sarah Aguilar of Oak View, for her outstanding contributions to animal welfare, public service, and community engagement.

Sarah Aguilar became Director of Santa Barbara County Animal Services in September 2022 and has since transformed the agency through innovative leadership, transparency, and collaboration. With a background in business and prior leadership roles in animal welfare organizations across the country, she brought a collaborative approach to an agency that had long faced significant challenges. Under her stewardship, the care of more than 6,000 animals at county's three shelters annually has been reimagined through programs that prioritize humane outcomes, community partnership, and transparency, helping change the atmosphere for volunteers and staff in a positive way.

Among her most notable achievements is the creation of the ``Dog Day Fostering'' program, an initiative that has enabled more than 2,000 community members to provide shelter dogs with enrichment, socialization, and exposure to potential adopters. This has reduced stress on animals, increased adoption rates, and strengthened community investment in the wellbeing of shelter pets.

Ms. Aguilar has also demonstrated leadership through securing a $200,000 grant from the UC Davis Koretz School of Shelter Medicine to establish a ``Pawsitive Care Coordinator.'' This bridges the gap between human social services and animal care, ensuring that individuals facing hardships are not forced to surrender beloved pets due to lack of resources.

Her dedication extends beyond policy and program development to direct, hands-on action. In one instance, Ms. Aguilar personally intervened to rehabilitate and transport a high-risk shelter dog to a safe, permanent home hours away. An act of courage and compassion that not only saved that animal's life but inspired ongoing rescue efforts for others in need.

In a field often challenged by limited resources and complex public demands, Ms. Aguilar has remained steadfast, advocating for sustainable funding, developing fundraising strategies, and maintaining a solutions-oriented approach in the face of fiscal uncertainty.

I am proud to recognize Sarah Aguilar as a Woman of the Year for her inspiring leadership, her deep commitment to both people and animals, and the lasting difference she continues to make in the Santa Barbara County community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank Representative Pfluger for his leadership today.

I rise in support of the Defending American Property Abroad Act. This is a commonsense and targeted bill that gives the United States a real tool to respond when foreign governments unfairly seize property owned by Americans without due process.

The bill would look to identify foreign ports, harbors, and marine terminals where American-owned property has been expropriated or taken without due process.

Once identified, goods loaded at those facilities and passenger vessels serving them may be restricted from entering or operating in United States ports.

Let me be clear about what this means.

It means that if you take American property, you don't get to do business as usual with the United States. We can identify those ports and terminals and restrict the ships that use them from entering our ports.

That is real consequences, not just words.

It is a targeted solution to support American innovation. This legislation focuses on one bad actor.

In recent years, an American company, Vulcan Materials, invested in port and terminal infrastructure in Mexico in good faith under the expectation that its property rights and contracts would be respected.

Instead, the Mexican Government took action that resulted in the seizure of that port facility, despite longstanding agreements.

What makes this even more frustrating is the justification that was offered. Mexican officials pointed to environmental and permitting concerns, but the same government that is accusing this company of environmental harm awarded six Clean Industry awards from PROFEPA, which is their environmental enforcement agency, for the company's environmental stewardship.

You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth.

And at the same time, the Government of Mexico has allowed for the use of Vulcan's deepwater port by another company.

That is not what good faith partnerships look like, especially from our largest trading partner.

Trade should not be a race to the bottom. It should support good- paying jobs, protect the environment and labor standards, and strengthen local communities.

And it should be grounded in mutual respect, where countries that benefit from access to U.S. markets also respect the rights of workers, investors, and communities tied to that trade.

This bill reinforces that principle.

Just like I have been willing to call out unfair practices by foreign governments, I have also spoken out when our own government does something similar, including under President Trump, who has imposed blanket tariffs without rhyme or reason, an equally reckless action.

This bill is a targeted solution. I urge my colleagues to also support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 2026, I missed the vote on H. Res. 1131. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 99.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition to H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025.

On its face, this legislation may seem like a narrow procedural change of streamlining permitting for undersea fiber-optic cables. In reality, it strips away critical environmental and economic safeguards that we and the communities we represent depend on to help power our Nation's blue economy.

We know that four of the five national marine sanctuaries in California generate more than $114 million a year and support over 1,800 jobs in commercial fishing alone.

H.R. 261 is a giveaway to megacorporations at the expense of the American taxpayer, the oceans, and the Great Lakes we have advocated to protect.

Some of the marine sanctuaries most at risk because of this legislation are iconic spots off the coast of California: Monterey Bay, Channel Islands, and the newly created Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, a sanctuary that was decades in the making. First nominated by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council in 2015, the sanctuary became effective on November 30, 2024, after review by Congress and the State of California.

Through this legislation, my constituents and the Chumash Heritage

National Marine Sanctuary will lose big. Waiving the future fees on cables from industry would cost between $2.7 million and $7 million per every 20 miles each year. While there is a 2-year exception for the newly designated Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, current law requires operators and installers of deep-sea fiber-optic cables to obtain a permit from NOAA and pay fair market fees for use of these areas.

I and many others here today believe we need secure and reliable telecommunications infrastructure. I understand that the 5-year time limits on permits cause concern for companies looking for long-term certainty. However, I firmly believe that we can find a solution that protects these sanctuary resources and treats all stakeholders fairly.

We can find a win-win solution that supports innovation, continues to support our local economies, and ensures that the American taxpayer gets a fair return for use of our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, that is why, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment is straightforward: Allow tech companies to have their alternative permitting pathway in sanctuaries but add in a few commonsense guardrails.

First, allow an alternative license or permit, but require that the project be compatible with the purpose of the sanctuary. That means protecting the sensitive areas of the seafloor and avoiding cultural and historic sites.

Second, require public comment as is currently the practice with special use permits.

Third, require these companies to carry liability insurance for the project. We don't want to see another disaster like we saw off the coast of Oregon, a Meta subsidiary dumping drilling fluid and drilling equipment on the seafloor, then leaving the taxpayers on the hook to clean up the mess. Yes, did I say taxpayers? Yes, they are the ones who paid.

Finally, my amendment would maintain the status quo and allow NOAA to collect a fair market fee for the use of these sanctuary resources, just like any other public land management agency does for cables that cross their protected lands.

These are all standard provisions for the use of public resources, and I hope we can bring back a little bit of common sense to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recomit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit to protect our marine sanctuaries for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, this year marks 125 years since the founding of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. From its inception, Cal Poly has been a pillar of the San Luis Obispo community embodying the spirit of its motto ``learn by doing''.

In the past 125 years Cal Poly SLO has educated more than 230,000 individuals who have gone on to be everything from astronauts to iconic football players, and even world-famous musicians.

The university's partnerships with local communities, industry and government exemplify the vital role public higher education plays in advancing opportunity, innovation and regional prosperity.

The university has been a constant over these past 125 years in providing high quality education throughout various fields of study, earning its place for the past several decades as one of the top public universities, not only in California, but in the entire Nation.

Cal Poly SLO consistently ranks higher year after year in the top 500 public and private not-for-profit universities in the United States, coming in 55th place just last year. In the state of California, Cal Poly SLO has continued to climb, ranking 12th overall for two consecutive years.

The university has already established an unforgettable legacy for its longstanding commitment to academic excellence, innovation, and public service. Cal Poly has distinguished itself as a national leader in hands-on education, preparing generations of students to contribute meaningfully to all aspects of their communities.

Cal Poly's emphasis on practical learning, research, and community engagement has produced graduates who serve as leaders across engineering, agriculture, business, education, public service and the sciences.

I commend Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for its enduring impact on the Central Coast and the State of California, and for its continued dedication to student success and service to the public good. May the next 125 years be as great as the last.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address ICE's horrific killing of Renee Nicole Good.

Like so many Americans, I am outraged by Renee's murder, and I am disgusted by the disinformation campaign the Trump administration has waged to cover up their actions.

Secretary Noem called Renee a domestic terrorist, falsely claiming she tried to run over an ICE officer, yet the many videos of the incident clearly disprove this. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident.

This administration has repeatedly turned official channels of communication into engines of disinformation. I saw it in my own district last summer after I investigated a violent ICE raid. They tried to muddy the waters then, and they are trying to do it now.

Their attempt to smear Renee while her loved ones are grieving is outright cruel and outrageous. We must continue to shine a light on these abuses and hold this administration accountable.

Today, I stand with the people of Minnesota and every community that has experienced ICE brutality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life and legacy of James Kunkle, a decorated World War II fighter pilot, aviation leader, and American hero whose service and courage spanned more than a century.

James Kunkle was born in October 1922 in New Kensington, Pennsylvania, and later moved to California, where he graduated from Beverly Hills High School in 1940. His commitment to service began early, joining the California Air National Guard as a teenager. During World War II, he earned his pilot's wings in 1942 and served as a fighter pilot with the 401st Fighter Squadron of the 370th Fighter Group under the United States Army Air Forces, flying the iconic P-38 Lightning in combat missions over Europe.

On September 16, 1944, during a mission over Aachen, Germany, Mr. Kunkle displayed extraordinary heroism in aerial combat. Despite being wounded, sustaining severe aircraft damage, and enduring an onboard fire, he shot down two enemy aircraft. He successfully bailed out over what he believed to be enemy-held territory, evaded capture, returned to Allied lines, rejoined his squadron, and continued flying missions beyond his required tour. For his valor that day, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Army's second-highest award for heroism in combat.

Following his military service, Mr. Kunkle devoted his life to aviation. He operated aviation businesses, developed airports and airport facilities across California, throughout the United States, and in Guam, and remained an active pilot for decades. He made his longtime home in the Santa Ynez Valley, where his contributions left a lasting mark on the Central Coast aviation community.

In his later years, Mr. Kunkle was honored repeatedly for his service, including recognition at the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy, designation as an honorary member of the United States Space Force, and the naming of Santa Ynez Airport as Kunkle Field, honoring three generations of aviators in his family. Even after turning 100, he continued to inspire, receiving honors from the Nebraska Air National Guard and being recognized as one of the last surviving pilots of the 401st Fighter Squadron.

James Kunkle passed away peacefully at home on November 29, 2025, at the age of 103. His life stands as a powerful testament to courage, perseverance, and lifelong service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, each year, I have the privilege of honoring women on the Central Coast who have made a meaningful impact in our community through the Women of the Year Award. This year, it is my pleasure to recognize JoAnne Meade Young of Santa Barbara, California, for her outstanding contributions to education and community leadership.

JoAnne's lifelong commitment to educational equity was shaped early in life. Born on February 11, 1946, she attended a segregated two-room Catholic school--an experience that profoundly influenced her dedication to ensuring that low-income children, children of color, and students with learning disabilities received equitable access to learning and support.

JoAnne began her career in Ohio, where she served in Title 1 schools as a Primary Language Development Specialist and later as a Library Media Specialist. Her talent for instructional leadership led her to Middletown, Connecticut, where she became an Instructional Consultant responsible for diagnostic testing and monitoring literacy and math programs. In 1987, JoAnne made history as the first Black principal in the Hamden Connecticut School District.

After relocating to Santa Barbara in 1990, JoAnne once again broke barriers, becoming the first Black principal in Santa Barbara County when she was appointed principal of Mountain View School in Goleta. Over the next 17 years, she served as principal of Brandon, El Rancho, and Ellwood Schools and directed the Goleta State Preschool. Throughout her career, JoAnne centered the well-being and success of all students. She introduced innovative enrichment opportunities--including drumming circles, swing dancing, and visiting artist programs--and organized a Spring Sing performance at UCSB's Campbell Hall that brought together hundreds of students and families.

Following her retirement in 2007, JoAnne continued her public service by directing the Santa Barbara County Spelling Bee, co-founding the Santa Barbara Martin Luther King, Jr. Committee, and serving on the board of the Family Service Agency. She remains a dedicated community leader through her work with Democratic Women of Santa Barbara County where she is Treasurer and Tri-Chair of Membership & Community Engagement, and she represents District 2 as a Commissioner for Women.

In 2024, she was elected to the Democratic Central Committee for District 2 and was honored as Women of the Year by California State Senator Monique Limon.

It is with great pride that I honor JoAnne Meade Young as a 2025 Woman of the Year for her exceptional leadership, her steadfast advocacy for educational equity, and her lasting impact on the Santa Barbara community. Her work has enriched generations of students and continues to strengthen the Central Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage every Member of this Chamber to support this legislation honoring one of Santa Barbara County's own, Brigadier General Frederick R. Lopez.

My bill would name the South Patterson Avenue post office in recognition of General Lopez's distinguished legacy of service and his dedication to our country, serving in the United States Marine Corps for over 30 years, both in Active Duty and the Reserves.

General Lopez was born in Santa Barbara as the oldest of six siblings and spent his childhood between the communities of Santa Barbara and Lompoc, and later in Goleta.

After graduating from Lompoc High School, he attended Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, where he earned a degree in mathematics.

Upon graduation, General Lopez joined the United States Marine Corps in 1967. Soon after, he was deployed overseas for the Vietnam war, serving as an infantry rifle platoon commander and a regimental sniper platoon commander, as well. His service earned him both a Bronze Star and a Combat Action Ribbon, as well as the respect of the marines he served with.

Over his 30 years of service, General Lopez served in a number of critical leadership roles, including as a company commander of the Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, commanding general for the 4th Marine Division, and deputy commanding general of the 1st Expeditionary Force.

He is a distinguished graduate of the NATO Joint Warfare Officers Course, the Naval War College Strategy and Policy Course, the Armed Forces Work Colleges National Security Course, the Senior Reserve Components Officers Course at the U.S. Army War College, and five other professional military schools.

Outside of his military service, General Lopez has been an active member of his community, serving on the board of directors of many organizations, including the Pierre Claeyssens Veterans Foundation in Santa Barbara. He has also been a member of the Military Order of the World Wars for over 20 years. He was elected the 90th National Commander-in-Chief for the MOWW in 2020 and serves as the local Colonel George C. Woolsey Chapter commander.

General Lopez's service is beyond worthy of recognition by Congress. He represents the best of our servicemembers, and his leadership will inspire others to continue in his footsteps for years and decades to come, serving our Nation and the military families of the central coast.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and thanking General Lopez for his exemplary service to our country by passing my bill to name the South Patterson Avenue post office in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I represent California's Central Coast where close to half of our residents are Latino and where farmworkers are essential pillars of our community.

Since Trump's return to the White House, our community has experienced an unprecedented level of chaos, fear from ICE raids, and family separations. I witnessed one of these raids myself in Carpinteria, California, where ICE agents unleashed a disproportionate show of force.

What I saw was completely unacceptable, masked ICE agents in military gear firing tear gas and other projectiles into a crowd of peaceful civilians and reporters. Even a child was injured by shrapnel.

Upon seeing these violent tactics, I demanded to speak to the person in charge, but I was denied.

As the elected Representative of the Central Coast, I have a duty to respond to my constituents and demand accountability for ICE's actions that day.

Sadly, this has not been an isolated incident. Throughout the year, ICE has carried out aggressive, indiscriminate, and often unjustified operations across our country, actions that erode our freedom and undermine our civil rights and public trust in government.

ICE claims they need to be aggressive to keep us safe, but how does harassing law-abiding farmworkers, families, and children make anyone safer?

While I agree our immigration system is broken, cruelty is not the solution. Harassment is not reform.

We must continue to shine a light on the Trump administration's abuses. We must enact legislation that holds ICE accountable and builds a fair immigration system.

At the end of the day, this is about who we are as a Nation. True reform is possible, and I will keep fighting to make it happen.

Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Scott for yielding.

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I rise to speak in support of my colleague from Georgia's amendment to authorize the Baltic Security Initiative.

This amendment comes up at a crucial time. Just last week, the administration announced the U.S. would be pulling out of all security assistance programs for Europe, including the BSI.

I have had the privilege of traveling to the Baltic. When we speak with the people there, it is not a question of if Russia will invade. It is a matter of when. Now is the time to stand firm in our support of these allied nations to deter Russian aggression.

What type of signal does cutting support send to the Kremlin? Cutting off the BSI is a massive gift to Putin.

Deterring a war between Russia and NATO is in our best national security interests.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote.