Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TOKUDA. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. TOKUDA. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source