Ohio House Public Safety Committee - 3-17-2026

You have to take a seat. Okay.

The chair recognizes Vice Chair Miller for a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that House Bill 217 be favorably reported and recommended for passage.

Chair Abrams.

Vice Chair Miller. Yes.

Yes Representative Creech Yes Representative Hall Yes Representative Luray Yes Representative Willis Yes

Good morning, Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the Ohio House Public Safety Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Adam Savitt. I'm director for China Policy at the America First Policy Institute, a role I held previously previously when I testified before the Ohio Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee in support of SB 226 in April of 2024. In the intervening period, I served as Senior Advisor for National Security to United States Secretary of Agriculture, Rollins, where I worked directly on the National Farm Security Action Plan and on modernizing enforcement of the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, or AFIDA, two of the most significant federal actions taken to address foreign adversary ownership of American land. The significance of the HB1 bill assignment is not lost on me. This is designation that speaks for itself and one this body has reserved for what it considers the most consequential legislation of the year. We at AFPI agree that protecting Ohio and America from foreign adversaries must be a central concern for all governments, federal, state and local. This bill is building on Ohio's history of supporting Ohioans. In 2023, through HB 33, Ohio enacted the Save Our Farmland and Protect Our National Security Act, prohibiting foreign adversaries listed by the Secretary of State's registry from acquiring ag land in this state. Ohio joined a movement of more than a dozen states that recognized the same threat that year. HB 1 builds on that foundation. It expands the prohibition beyond ag land to cover protected property, real property within 10 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility. that expansion is what this body is seeking to advance today, and it's long overdue. To understand why expanding these protections matter, it helps to understand where the threat began. In 2010, investors from the People's Republic of China held 13,700 acres of U.S. agricultural land. In 2019, a CCP-linked billionaire acquired 15,000 acres of agricultural land near a Loughlin Air Force base in Texas with plans to build a wind farm that would give him access to the state's electricity grid. In 2022, Fufung Group, a CCP food manufacturer, purchased land near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota in a transaction that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, claimed was outside of its jurisdiction. I apologize that time limit here. Ohio does not have to look far to understand the proximity threat.

The summary is that these proximity restrictions are required to protect critical infrastructure and military bases from foreign-owned adversaries in which the Communist Party of China, for example, either owns a controlling stake or most of their executives are directly linked to the Communist Party.

You're mentioning critical infrastructure. Help me understand exactly what does that mean. We've got railroads, we've got cell phone towers, all those considered critical infrastructure. Help me understand exactly what is a critical infrastructure.

Okay, thank you, Representative. We have defined critical infrastructure in this state. It's already in the Ohio Revised Code. Okay. So any further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

The chair now recognizes Michael Lucci for proponent testimony. Welcome to committee.

Sure. Thank you, Michael, for your testimony. Do any members have any questions for the witness?

On the particular property protection, similar to this legislation, I think that what Texas did that's most notable is they defined the Chinese diaspora as a community that they must protect. There's about a quarter million of them in Texas. The Chinese leader says anyone in the United States with a drop of Chinese blood is subject to his jurisdiction. That's why you have what's called transnational oppression. Texas passed the first law in the United States, probably the world, to increase penalties for any foreign agent attacking a member of the Chinese diaspora here. And they protected the genetic data from Chinese military companies. They created ethics reforms. They banned gifts from the Chinese Communist Party to public officials. They passed 15 or 16 reforms last year. The Attorney General of Texas is suing Chinese companies right now for massive and rampant fraud, if you'd allow me. I visited the school where I grew up yesterday, or I went to church there Sunday, and the school where I grew up in Youngstown, Ohio, Catholic school, the entire playground is monitored by high-cowish cameras. All of that data goes back to the Chinese Communist Party. That's why that camera is banned in the United States. And so if you allow, it's somewhat personal when I go back to the school where I grew up and the kids are being monitored by the Chinese government through the spyware that's in the school program. So this is a threat that's very serious. We need to address it in a comprehensive way, and I think Ohio can do that.

Members, do you have any further questions? Ranking Member Thomas.

Absolutely, and our federal reports always say that. ODNI always says that.

Representative Thomas, we are sticking to the policy at hand. We are not sticking to what the president is doing. This bill is about policy here in Ohio. Please direct your questions to the bill.

Yes, Representative. The President of the United States is currently trying to remove four government leaders who are allied with the Chinese Communist Party, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran. I don't think that the President of the United States is treating them gently. These are their sources of foreign oil. These are their strategic allies, according to the Communist Party. Yes, the President of the United States is talking with them. There are a lot of reasons for him to continue doing that. But I think that the Chinese Communist Party is on its back foot right now as their allies are being removed across the globe. It's not just their allies. That is their global economic infrastructure to build their global alternative apparatus to the United States.

Members, any further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you.

Chair now recognizes Jacqueline Deal from State Armor as a proponent. Welcome to Committee, Jacqueline.

Your time is up, so you need to finish up this last comment.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions?

Thank you, Representative Thomas and Madam Chair. That's a great question. I think actually this bill protects the livelihoods and employment prospects of people in Ohio. Just to take one example, Fuyao North America Glass, an affiliate or subsidiary of a Chinese company, has been subject to multiple federal investigations. And part of the scrutiny has to do with concerns that they are illegally trafficking workers from outside the United States and engaging in the accusation would be some kind of fees or fraud. And in general, what we see with the Chinese Communist Party's effort to bury capitalism and replace it with socialism is heavy subsidies for Chinese Communist Party-linked businesses that seem to engage in law-breaking behavior and not employ Americans. So actually, to protect the employment prospects of Ohioans, we need to defend our market and make sure that the companies abide by our rule of law, labor standards, that kind of thing. Otherwise, we won't have jobs. We'll have Chinese Communist Party-linked firms bringing in people illegally and subsidizing raw materials, and that will be a real threat to our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I've been informed that my mic is, according to the Ohio Channel, my mic is muted.

No problem. My pleasure to come here. Chair, vice chair, ranking member, and members of House Public Safety Committee.

substitute version of House B-1. My name is Yun Gao, living in Mason, Ohio, asking this committee to oppose the HB-1 subview. I strongly oppose the subview because it would prohibit individuals from six designated countries from owning property within 10 miles of extremely broadly served so-called critical infrastructure. This restriction would cover 98% of Ohio land. Such a broad restriction represents unprecedented level of government overreach. The sub-year targets law-abiding immigrants and long-time residents solely based on their nationality, including international workers and students. who live, study, and contribute to a higher economy and communities. I came to the USA as an F1 student. After graduating with a PhD degree in ECE at Auburn University, I worked as a postdoctoral research at Washington University, at St. Louis, and then University of Cincinnati. During these over 10 years, I have over 20 publications as a first author. One of my papers won first place paper prize in 2001 IEEE paper competition Alabama section. I also have a patent. Because of my academic achievements, I received my green card after over 10 years of hard work as a PhD student and then postdoctoral research. I bought a house during these years as home for my family. If HB1 sub-year was passed during these years, it would be impossible for me to buy any house as a home for my family. It would therefore be impossible for me to focus on my research to complete those achievements either. HB1 sub-year would also harm a higher economic competitiveness, since a cheating message to global talent and investment at a time when our state should be attracting innovation, research, and economic growth. It discourages investment, drive away skilled professionals, and complicates ordinary real estate transactions. If there are legitimate national security concerns, they should be addressed through evidence-based reviews of genuinely risky transactions, not through sweeping bans that unfairly single out people based on where they come from. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on substitute HB1. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Just one. Ranky, mayor. Thank you, ma'am, for this testimony. Would you agree with me that this bill is clearly a discriminatory bill?

Are there any other questions from the committee? Thank you for your testimony. The chair now calls Jackie Tsong. Welcome to committee. Jackie, I apologize if I butchered your name.

Please proceed.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee?

Yeah, I came here as a F1 student. So really, I came here with the simple goal. I love America. I want to come here to pursue my dream. I want to study here because I believe we have the best education in the world. And I want to work here. I want to work for this country. So really, there isn't like, I don't understand how people think every Chinese has a tie to the government. We're just purely individuals who work from the company, who work here in Ohio and who want to build our family and root here.

Thank you Madam Chair and very happy St. Patrick's Day. To Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas and members of the House Public Safety Committee thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony again on House Bill 1, Ohio's Property Protection Act. Foreign persons connected to adversary nations purchasing land near military installations and critical infrastructure presents a clear risk to our communities and national security. Facilities such as refineries, power generation plants, water treatment facilities, and military bases are vital assets that must be protected. HB 1 establishes common sense safeguards that restrict certain foreign adversaries from acquiring agricultural land or property located within 10 miles of military installations and critical infrastructure. The legislation also strengthens enforcement by allowing county prosecutors or the Ohio Attorney General to investigate violations and take action when necessary. Additionally, this bill aligns Ohio's protections with federal national security determinations when identifying foreign adversaries. The threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party and other adversarial governments is not new. Having spent 32 years in military service, I can say that the United States military and intelligence community have been monitoring these efforts for decades, many, many decades, the entirety of my federal military service. Other states have already taken action, and 24 states have enacted laws addressing foreign ownership of sensitive land, and several passed new legislation just last year. Ohio should take similar steps to protect our strategic assets. House Bill 1 is a prudent and necessary step to safeguard Ohio's land, infrastructure, and military installations from potential exploitation by foreign adversaries. Chair Abrams and members of the committee, thank you for your opportunity to testify. I would append my comments by saying that this bill does not go after any individual. It goes after foreign adversary governments who have dedicated and well-stated missions to actually do harm to our country. That is its purpose, not to harm any individual, not to harm our economy, not to take any racist kind of posture toward any group of people that might happen to just have the same nationality at some point or others who have come to our country the proper way and have actually become American citizens or have become military members. And I believe now that the amended version of this bill covers all of those bases very well and takes care of the people that we still want to be able to take care of while protecting Ohio. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Yes, thank you.

Through the chair to the representative or the ranking member.

Okay, Representative Humphrey with a question.

Through the chair of the representative. Thank you for the question, ma'am. And I agree with you. And I believe that the amendment has gotten exactly what similar concerns were the first time that I spoke about this, that we have looked at what are the possible protected classes of people that would fall into those, and we do not want to punish anyone who is doing the right thing. I think that's the bottom line. That went not only to, I think, your concern, but actually I think it was Representative Brent at the time I'm talking about the fact that we had potential people from other countries that might have been put on an adversary list well after they had made a transition into the United States who were getting their citizenship maybe by military service, and they covered that also. So I believe we're actually at the spot where it is actually doing exactly what you want it to do, and I think everyone does. They want those who are doing the best things to be protected and not have some harm from this, understanding that we still, again, this is not about people as much as it is about the government that is forcing people to do things that they wouldn't normally do. Thank you, Representative. Representative Humphrey, page three on the synopsis, you'll see what we did in the dash five version. And again, acquired by an individual who is a U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident, or an active or reserve member of the U.S. Armed Forces or has retired or was honorably discharged from the service, U.S. Armed Forces, again. So we cleared up everything that members had a problem with the first round. Any further questions?

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, and Ranking Member Thomas. For those who don't know me, I'm an OB-GYN who's had a practice in Central Ohio for the past 34 years, and I'm also your colleague and your friend. HB1 is a bill that reflects the history of racism over the entirety of the United States, racism that was once directed against the Irish and Italians, and the use of fear to push an agenda that doesn't make anybody in the United States, let alone Ohio, safer. If this law had been in existence when I started my practice, I wouldn't have been able to buy the building I work in because it sits right across the street from a critical structure, a hospital. That would have limited access to the thousands of patients I've taken care of over the years. The business owners from China, India, and other countries around the world who have made Ohio their home and contributed to the economy would not have been able to do that had this law been in place When my parents immigrated here in the 1960s they were welcomed with help from the community America was the shining city on the hill that welcomed everyone with open arms knowing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, more likely to contribute to the economy more than they take. But now, hatred and discrimination from leaders at the top has created an environment of fear which hurts everyone. It impacts mental health on both sides to constantly distrust your community. The same thing happened during World War II, when Japanese and Indians and other immigrants lost their homes and businesses because of terrible laws that eventually were overturned with restitution from the federal government to these families. You may be wondering why I'm testifying when this bill only applies to foreign adversaries. However, as we all know from the historical poem by Pastor Niemöller, first they came for the communists and I didn't speak out. And by the time they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. Physical proximity and land ownership are not the only way to attack sensitive spaces, as we have seen when drones are used from a distance to attack embassies, churches, schools, and other places of worship. If your goal truly is to improve Ohio and create a state where our citizens can thrive, then we should work towards welcoming those who want to settle here and contribute to the economy through business, medicine, professional sports, or even politics. In conclusion, as your colleague and peer, I would strongly ask you to vote no on HB1.

Thank you, Representative, for being here today, and thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask, part of your testimony said that you wouldn't have been able to buy the building that you work in because it's across the street from a hospital. Was that because? I'm not sure what the reasoning is. It's a critical infrastructure. It's not defined in this bill. Critical infrastructure can be anything. It's really very poorly defined. There are certain things that are defined in it, but not everything. So that could be taken or misconstrued. One follow-up? One follow-up about critical infrastructure.

Well, yes, I was going to say that it is defined in the ORC, but also you were a legal resident in Ohio at the time. You were actually a legal permanent resident, correct?

And citizens are covered now under the amended version of the bill?

Okay, just wanted to make sure.

Representative Thomas. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Simani. I guess my question is centered around the fact that this bill basically separates people from their government, people that have lived here who have worked here who have been given the opportunity to at some point establish residency in the United States do you believe it's fair to discriminate against a race of people by separating them from their government based on the fact that they are not of American descent?

You know, when you think back in history, this same type of discrimination has occurred over and over again. And it's a way to other people to create fear. When Irish came over, when the Italians came over, again, Chinese, Indians, Japanese have been here since the 18th century. Every time a culture or race has come over, there has been that fear, that discrimination. Eventually people assimilate. Eventually they become part of society. But to start out with the assumption that they are here because they're spies or because they're not here to do what's best for the country is just part of that racist history. Thank you.

You may proceed. Thank you.

No relation. All right. Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you for your service, Rep. Gambari. My name is, excuse me, I'm battling a little cold. My name is Wes Miller. I currently live in Plano, Texas, but Ohio still feels like home to me. I spent the first 34 years of my life here in Columbus. My entire family, many close friends, several of whom are here with me today, still live here. because this bill will directly affect people I care deeply about in institutions across the state of Ohio. I've reviewed the November 19th revision of HB1. I'll acknowledge that it changes the bill from terrible to bad. But I'm still here to testify against it on principle. This bill does nothing to improve national security. The bill has been framed as a matter of such that logic simply does not hold up. National security is the responsibility of the federal government. States do not determine foreign policy, intelligence strategy, or counter espionage. Ohio's legislature simply does not have the tools or authority to do that work. If the concern were truly national security, we would be discussing federal visa policy and intelligence coordination. What this bill does do is restrict property ownership by people who are here legally, students, doctors, engineers, researchers, entrepreneurs, simply because where they were born. That doesn't stop espionage. It simply tells some of our neighbors they are not trusted here. Let's be honest. This bill is about politics. The political climate today is not the same as when this legislation was first introduced a year ago. America is deeply divided, and voters across the country are showing fatigue with policies that pick communities against one another. Recent polling, special elections, and primaries across the country reflect that frustration. Don't take my word for it. Ask Cecil Bell or Stan Kitzman, two incumbent Texas House reps and sponsors of SB 17, both defeated in their primaries just two weeks ago. Voters are smart. They know the difference between policy and politics. They are asking for solutions not more division The question before this committee is simple Do Ohioans really want legislation that divides them even further This bill does not just affect legal immigrants it will hurt all Ohioans It will hurt the economy. When states pass laws that target legal immigrants, talented people choose to live, work, and invest somewhere else, like Michigan. It will hurt Ohio's workforce. The state is already struggling to find talent in several sectors, including healthcare, where many communities face shortages of doctors and specialists. This bill will only make that problem worse by discouraging skilled professionals from coming here. It will hurt education and academia. Universities depend on talented students, researchers, and faculty from around the world. Policies... I spent the past several months meeting with members of this committee. I've met with all four Democrats and most of the Republicans. I'm not going to call anybody out by name, but I will say that at least two of the Republican committee members shared serious concerns about this legislation at the fundamental level.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for being here. I certainly appreciate it. I wanted to ask you, you talked about it takes the bill from going terrible to bad. And I want to talk to you about something that has changed in the bill. And I want to kind of gauge your sense as to whether you think this helps or does it, or do you think it could potentially cause a little bit more confusion. So it says here that it shifts enforcement of protected property prohibition from the attorney general's office to county sheriffs and county prosecutors. Now, when I look at this, for due respect, I do feel like decisions with that shift could become inconsistent and subjective. Now, that's my thoughts, but I want to get your thoughts on if this shift makes this bill go from that terrible to bad in your thought process.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Texas.

You came from Texas.

Yes.

Thank you.

Turn it to the cameraman Thank you ranking member Are there any further questions from the committee Well, I know I can't. I got more questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The chair now calls How Hong? Thank you. Welcome to committee. I apologize.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness?

I feel very fearful, which I never felt before. I thought that 2020, during COVID, I thought that was worse because I have a son and a daughter. At that time, my nine-year-old one day came back to me and said, Mom, I'm not going to ride a bike around the community. I said, why? The weather is so nice outside. He said, probably somebody's going to hit me, just like I see on the TV. At that time, as a parent, my heart just shattered. I thought the worst, and I thought the nightmare is over. But now, I'm more feared than before, just because the whole, at that time, probably, because the rumor about China, the virus from China. But now the whole political environment is making me feel like I don't have a – I just don't feel like I could exist in this country. I feel like I don't belong. Even I'm a U.S. citizen, I don't belong to the country, which is a country I worked so hard to contribute and obey the law for the past 20 years. And I also fear for my children because they're low. even the Warren Rees here.

Representative Humphreys. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and thank you, Ms. Kong, for your testimony today. Something that you said in your testimony at the end really stuck out to me, so I want to ask you a question based on that. You said, I do not believe the goal was to punish thousands of good, hardworking people simply to target a few bad actors. And I want to say publicly that I agree with that statement as well, but I think we all understand that sometimes when we put together legislation and don't always see the bigger picture, sometimes that happens, even though I do not believe that that was the intention at all, honestly. But I do want to ask you, knowing all of that and knowing that you have just mentioned that you wanted to hope that you all could work together, I do acknowledge that this bill has gone from, as Mr. Miller mentioned, terrible to bad.

Thank you for that.

Thank you so much. Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and esteemed members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Chin Yuan. I testified previously against House Bill 1, and I'm here again to testify about this sub-bill because it doesn't change the fundamental flaws of this bill. I am both angry and deeply saddened, especially hearing that the gentleman of the proponent laboring me as a national security risk. This is a very serious accusation, and I demand a clarification for that. I want to acknowledge that many of you took the time to listen to our concerns, and many of you acknowledge that this bill, the definition of prohibited person, restricted infrastructure, are far too broad. And yet the sub-bill didn't change that fact. And nearly 300 Ohioans submitted the opponent testimony for the original bill. Because this bill still didn't change the core of the provisions, those voices still count. And your concerns should be faced, right? And we also asked a very simple question. what's the evidence of home ownership threatens national security? None was provided because none exists. All the evidence provided was about government entities, military bases, nothing about home ownership. So what's the legal base of this one? The green card exemption doesn't change the fact because for 10 years I was in this legal process waiting for my green card. So this bill would have labeled me as a national security risk for 10 years. That's very daunting. And you all see the map. Reducing the range from 25 miles to 10 miles doesn't make a difference. It's still a statewide ban, just saying how careless this one was drafted in the sub-bill. This bill harms Ohio's economy and is a waste of taxpayers' money. because international companies hire nearly 323 Ohioans this bill will drive away those investments and talents because one could be placed on this prohibited list at any time and their property could even be confiscated Who wants to come here if there's such an uncertainty? And the cost of enforcing this bill would be really high, which is noted by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney's Association. So that means Ohio taxpayers will be paying for a bill that doesn't improve national security, and also this bill exempted real estate brokers, which is a shallow response to fair lending, but those are the people who know the transaction the most. Why shouldn't they be excluded from the responsibilities if the goal is truly for security? Look at what happened this past weekend. Thousands of Ohioans are left without power because of aging facilities. If we really want to do something that put Ohioans first, Why can't we spend money, taxpayers' money, have bills to address those real threats? And also in February, a man drove into a Las Vegas power station. That is a real threat to critical infrastructure. That man is not from the country from the prohibitive list from this bill.

Thank you for your testimony.

Are there any questions from the committee? Ranking Member Thomas.

Thank you so much for that question. It is daunting. You can see that not many people here today at the first hearing. I cannot blame them because trying to follow up with this bill has put a significant mental and physical toll to me. Back when this started last year, I was struggling from a full-time job, a newborn baby, and trying to navigate through this bill. And the stress was overwhelming. I lost nearly 15 pounds in two months. And then what's most hurtful to me is that I'm realizing that that was the first months of my son, the time I could have spent with him, but I was spending the time trying to navigate in this bill. And then later in the summer at the playground, a teenager called my son and his friend, Ching Chong. I was there. I witnessed that. That stayed with me. Racism is still there. If a bill singled out people from certain nationalities simply because of where they come from, this bill is validating that behavior. How am I going to protect my son? Looking at what happened in Minnesota, I was in fear. It was the first time in my life I was in so much fear. I couldn't help but running that worst scenario in my mind over and over again. What if one day that I would just be snapped out of the street off here because I'm still in this lengthy legal process to try to get my citizenship and I still don't have it. So what if I get deported or something? What can I do to make sure that my kid is safe? What can I do to make sure when the moment that I get taken out, that my kids will be warm in this bizarre winter? I ran this over and over, and I was just so in fear. I'm a very logical person. I want to work with you. I care about national security. I deeply care about Ohio, which is my home, my kids' home. I want to protect here. I just don't know how this bill will achieve the goal, like the example I gave you. People drove into a power station. this bill doesn't prevent that kind of event at all.

Thank you. So first of all is to identify the real risk, right? If we are talking about government entities and the real threat, then it should be very targeted to those entities and then have a very clear definition on what is restricted. It shouldn't just be abroad, 10 miles, 25 miles, who come up with those numbers, who can prove that is the most effective one because the drones can be there, right? So it should be something that's risk-based. For a railroad that's just going across all the cities or for, like, the Alum Creek Dam, which is a public metro park, the state park, people have free access to there. How are you going to restrict that, right? But for the real important ones, probably should set some zones that no one can be there, not just the certain people from, like, certain countries, because how can you be sure that the threat only comes from those adversary countries? How about domestic terrorists? Are we not concerned about those ones, right? So a risk-based approach should be put there. And the language, because this is so sensitive, the language should be very clear who is restricted, what is restricted, and why is it restricted, and what is the evidence. Because taxpayers' money should be only put in bills that have evidence to support it, We already see so many of competing priorities in this state, in this country. And why should we pay more to do things that offer so little benefit rather than focus on the real things? Like just spend, you know, Rep. Humphrey, over the weekend, I think many of you lost power, right? Why can't we spend money to fix those aging facilities so that we make sure our Ohio people will always have power, they don't have to suffer from the cold in this winter. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Please proceed when you're ready. And just to direct the members, that map is on your iPads. Oh, great. then I can save the time.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Representative Humphrey.

Well, unfortunately, they have no much details like about the Apple Visa. I tried to read the data, I couldn't. But the most important thing is the message that this bill tell people. Because right now, there are 4,000, maybe 3,000, maybe 2,000, especially international students are not coming already because this is not a place for them. This is very hostile to the environment if they know about this and everything. So they are very worried. I have a lot of students already worried that they don't want to stay here. They would want to find somewhere else. So I think that the message is very clear. Although the bill sponsors say that, well, it only targets a certain group, actually, we have to know about a chilling effect, what it means to people who are from whatever country of origin, that may be an enemy of the U.S. in future or now. No one knows. Right now it's six countries. Maybe next time it's seven countries or eight countries, nine countries, ten countries. Who knows? So anyone who is not born here, at least foreign-born, any foreign-born person, would be afraid, afraid, should be afraid, because nobody knows who will be next.

Ranking Member Thomas. Yes. Thank you. Ma'am, for your testimony, you indicated that you're a registered voter from Toledo, Ohio.

And according to the 2024 data related to the number of registered voters that are Asian, of Asian descent in the state of Ohio, there was like 390-some thousand. And so my question is that as a registered voter, a contributor to the overall economy of the state of Ohio, you're an educator contributing to the learning of our young people. how does this make you feel when you see that you came here, you've done all that was supposed to be done to become a naturalized citizen, and you've done everything, and all of a sudden now you're targeted as someone who is a threat, or your demographics is targeted.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there any further questions from the committee?

Thank you. Thank you, Professor. The chair now calls Jufeng Li-Hung for testimony.

Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and the members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to the sub-House Bill 1. My name is Jufeng Graceland. I'm a data scientist, a long-time resident of Dublin, Ohio. a voter and active community volunteer. As an analytical professional and civically engaged or higher, I share a goal of protecting our military bases and the critical infrastructure from genuine threats. However, this sub-bill does not effectively advance that goal. The bill creates a 10 mile restriction around sensitive areas that effectively bans property ownership for certain immigrant groups, while still allowing them to rent. If renting near a base is allowed how does a ban on ownership make Ohio safer I suspect the bill sponsors did not propose a ban on rentals because they know how essential immigrants are to Ohio's economy and the workforce. A time when Ohio healthcare, immigrants make up one in four in physicians nationwide at a time when Ohio healthcare job postings have surged by 80% in just four years. Here in Ohio, nearly 37,000 international students contribute $1.3 billion annually to our economy and help sustain the research universities that our innovation depends on. Though only 5% of our population, immigrants account for 12% of STEM workers, 26% of software developers, and estimate $53 billion in Ohio's economy output. Ohio already depends on this global talent. This bill would push it away and damage our reputation as a welcoming place for innovation and investment. Importantly, Ohio already has targeted state law restricting agriculture land purchases by foreign adversaries. When the previous proposal attempted to extend the ban to other types of properties, Governor DeWine vetoed it, warning unintended economic development consequences. House Bill 1 revives the same broad approach, inviting confusion, litigation, and the lost opportunities. Real national security concern usually stem from opaque corporate entities buying land near sensitive sites, not from law-abiding individual immigrants for buying the home. Federal and state laws, such as Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States,

Thank you. So we already have our laws to allow regulators to review and block truly high-risk purchases. So for these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on sub-House Bill 1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and then thank you for your testimony. Your testimony, I feel like, directly kind of ties into some of the questions I was asking before. Currently, you have some percentage of immigrant workers in, you know, Ohio's population in our economy, 12 percent of STEM workers, 26 percent of software developers. And then it also says here an estimated 53 billion in statewide economic output. But do you I guess the question I want to ask is, do you really, truly believe that if this bill is implemented, do you believe that this is going to drive out folks such as the folks here testifying and drive out potentially immigrants from the state of Ohio?

Thank you, Representative.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. One of the problems that Ohio is attempting to address is the aging of Ohio. Our state is losing a significant amount of young, of the younger population, students graduating, and they're not staying in Ohio. Your thoughts on this and the impact that this particular legislation will have on the overall population itself and how this bill negatively will impact that?

Thank you.

Welcome to committee. Proceed when you're ready.

and thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, through the vice chair. Well, I'm not a historian, but I do know that property ownership is an incredibly important part of being able to achieve the American dream. and folks whose communities were prevented from being able to own property then don't have that property to hand down to their children, creating generational wealth. So if my parents were able and my grandparents were able to own property in a certain area

Thank you, Representative. The chair recognizes Ranking Member Thomas. One question.

Yes, I definitely do. There are so many ways. Thank you through the vice chair. So many, I think some of the previous speakers have talked about ways that we could make our country safer, you know, building, strengthening our infrastructure. There are so many things that we can think of that would make us safer. and this doesn't appear to be one of them, preventing a legal resident from owning a home nine miles from a railroad doesn't feel to me like the safest, most urgent thing that could be done. I also, you know, I wanted to refer to something that a previous testifier mentioned. There was a lot of concern about the Chinese Communist Party, but, you know, let's be honest, a lot of folks who have immigrated away from China may have done so because they didn't want to have anything to do with and were not in any way connected to the Chinese Communist Party. Somebody's national origin doesn't indicate their politics and how they would act in relation to the Chinese Communist Party. Thank you.

Thank you.

The committee. My name is Yuxing Wang. I'm speaking today on behalf of AWARE Ohio, an organization dedicated to fostering understanding, civic participation and constructive dialogue across Asian communities in our state. We express deep concern about the HB1 bill. The bill risks weaponizing state law in ways that create fear rather than safety. Through our work at Aware Ohio, we consistently hear that such policies that single-out people based on their national origin make them feel less secure about fully participating in civic life. While recent revision to the amendment, such as exempting green card holders and reducing certain geographic restriction from 25 miles to 10 miles attempt to soften the policy the fundamental nature of the bill remains unchanged It remains the broad restriction targeting individuals based on their national origin. Furthermore, the amendment also raises serious constitutional concerns. The law risks violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discriminations based on national origin. We are already seeing laws of similar natures challenged in court in other states. If Ohio adopts similar policy, our state will likely face the same costly legal battle. Ohio taxpayers should not bear the financial burden of defending a law likely to be found unconstitutional. Lastly, we're in a fierce competition with China on the technology front. For decades, CCP faces a severe problem, a brain drain problem. After all, most people here are simply seeking a better life. This bill makes it much harder for graduates, engineers, scientists from STEM field to justify staying in the United States, which begs the question, how driving away talents that build better AI models, batteries, and rockets serve national interest? Ohio is strongest when it's welcoming and committed to equal treatment under the law. Policies that breed suspicion among neighbors move us away from that goal. Therefore, I respectfully urge the committee to vote no on House Bill 1. Thank you for the time and consideration.

Ranking Member Thomas. Aware or hire you, can you kind of give us an idea of what, tell us about aware or hire?

Okay, any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony today. The chair now recognizes Zhen Wei Yang for opponent testimony. No? Okay, we'll come back to that one. The chair now recognizes Ying Wu for opponent testimony. Welcome to committee.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions?

St. Patrick's Day is like one demonstration of the American value, right? Like welcome immigrants and celebrate the culture and celebrate heritage, no matter where you are from, Ireland or anywhere else in the world. We are a country of immigrants. So in this spirit of St Patrick Day I truly appreciate American value But part of this bill makes me feel that this bill does not truly represent the American value That's why I wanted to ask here, standing here and vote, and respectfully ask you all to vote no on this bill. Thank you for your question.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chairwoman Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on substitute the House Bill 1. My name is Lucy Hutchins. I'm an accountant, a U.S. citizen, and a registered voter. There are two major differences between the previous version and Sub-HB 1. First, Sub-HB1 reduces the restricted distance from 25 miles to 10 miles around military installations or critical infrastructure facilities. Second, Sub-HB1 adds exemptions for lawful permanent residents and active or reserved members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Same as the previous version, sub-HB1 still prohibits legal immigrants who are from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela from purchasing a residential house in most of Ohio. Sub-HB1 still targets people not based on what they've done, but where they come from. It doesn't make distinction between hostile governments and law-abiding residents, between national security risks and neighborhood parents like me. This bill won't make us safer, but it will harm innocent families, deepen division, and turn fear into law. I oppose sub-HB 1 for four reasons. First, overbroad and discriminatory. Same as previous version, sub-HB 1 still targets individuals based on nationality rather than actual conduct or threat level and still violates Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin, equal protection principles under the Constitution. Second, national security impact is minimal. Modern threats to infrastructure come through cyber attacks, not land ownership. Hackers don't need deeds. They need network access and system weaknesses. Let's invest in cybersecurity. security, public and private intelligence sharing, and insider threat protection. That's where real vulnerability exists, not in someone's deed to a house. Third, economic and diplomatic consequences. Risk of retaliation against U.S. citizens or companies abroad. Could hold foreign investment, university enrollment, and even real estate market. Fourth, slippery slope and historical parallels. raised concerns of racial profiling or echoes of past discrimination, like the Japanese intimate policies or alien land laws targeting Asian immigrants in the early 1900s, hate crimes, and incidents targeting Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemics. My son and I were blamed for bringing COVID-19 to the U.S., even though we didn't travel outside the country at that time. In closing, SubHB1 still uses national security as a disguise to discriminate against people based on their birthplace. It is a step backward for Ohio as it drives talents and foreign companies out of Ohio and undermines the state's economic vitality and also risks violating federal civil rights law. Therefore, I respectfully urge this committee to vote no on sub-HB 1. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Ranking Member Thomas. Thank you for your testimony. The sponsors have labeled this bill as public safety, and the focus has been on Asian community, in particular China. Do you feel that this bill, by singling you out, is putting you in a situation where you're going to feel like you're being profiled whenever you go out into the general public? Definitely. That's a great question. Yes.

Thank you for your testimony. The chair now recognizes Yen Fing Yung, Yen Fing, Yung, Young? How do you spell it?

Okay, sorry, I'm doing the best I can. I'm trying.

Welcome to the committee.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions for the witness?

Well, actually, it's way before that individual becomes a citizen, way before he gets his green card to stay here as permanent resident. So my point is, before he could get a green card, become a permanent resident, that's quite different from legally resident here. So a visa holder, like a student visa, like H1B working visa holder, they are all lawful by residents. They pay taxes, like we did before, before we became permanent residents. We pay taxes. We contribute to our communities, to the state. So taking the right to own a house, to buy a property, it's ridiculous, I'm sorry for the language. No, no, no, thank you, you very appreciate it, thank you.

The chair now recognizes Shi An Okay see you know welcome to committee Yeah thank you You welcome Chairwoman ranking member and members of the committee

Thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions for the witness? Ranking Member Thomas, I'm going to caution you. Ask the question. We have nine more people to get through, and I really would like to hear from everybody in the next 30 minutes or less. Thank you. Just straight questions.

Actually, when I first came to the United States, I still remember clearly it was 1998. And it was not until 2012 I got my green card. It took a total of over 14 years. and this also need to pass the security check of the federal government level. And if this bill is passed the first is that the talent from the worldwide will have the concern if they want to come to the United States to contribute to this country And I can give you an example about what happened in my school, in my university. Right now the situation is that the international talent is very difficult to get the visa to come to work in Ohio. And as a result, in my department, many of the research projects has to be stopped and paused. Another situation is that if this took so long for me, for 14 years, to get a green card, it is unlikely that international talent, Ohio State, will be attractive to international talent. And also people will think that Ohio will be a hostile state. and that affects the moral standing of Ohio. This is just one of the reasons I cast. Thank you very much.

One more question, sir.

Thanks, Chair. I've got one concern about protecting American citizens. Do you know anything about the Chinese Communist Party flooding the Americans with fentanyl that's killed thousands and thousands of Americans in the past 10 years? Is that true?

Is fentanyl coming from China, from the government?

You know what fentanyl is?

Very quick follow-up.

Would the CCP, in your knowledge, be controlling fentanyl flowing to the United States of America?

Okay, thank you for your testimony.

Any further questions? All right, seeing none. Just a friendly reminder to everybody in the room, the only people allowed to be talking are the members and the person at the podium, period. The chair now recognizes Ya Men Yin. Yamin Yin so it's Y-U-M-I-N Y-I-N Y-I-N He's not here Okay Yes, we have the written testimony here Thank you, I'm just making sure I wasn't sure if he wanted to be here in person or not The chair now recognizes Li Xin Yi Yang Welcome to committee.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions?

Yeah, just because some small percentage, I'm sure there are always some small percentage of any ethnicity that will do something that's not good, right, illegal. But that does not mean that all the people from the same origin will do the same thing. So I do feel like the pressure of social profiling and feel like it's not only the bill itself, it's the sentiment, the anti-immigrant sentiment that is sent to the community, that we have more fear and don't feel welcomed anymore. Thank you.

Chair Abrams Chair Miller thank you member Thomas and the members of the committee My name is Shagia Zeyvang Thank you for the opportunity to speak here I have been a realtor of real estate agent for the past 25 years. Since I came here in 1994, actually my almost full-time job, only job is a real estate agent. So from a real estate agent perspective, I want to tell you I strongly oppose this bill due to the following facts. Throughout my career, I've been helping many, many international people relocating to Ohio because they love Ohio as a place to work, including many Chinese international, Chinese community. Those individuals also always come here to work for the big institution as well as large corporations. They contributed a lot for our innovation and development of the society. For many of these participants, for many of these individuals, when they first came, normally they didn't have a green card or citizenship yet. So if these people were prohibited from buying a house here, they would not have been able to settle down and call Ohio truly a home for them. Secondly, I want to also mention as a result of this sub-bill, basically it violates the fair housing law that we will cherish as the federal law as our guidance of our business. So from that, I generally feel this is very illegitimate in a way to have this bill pass, if it passes. Thirdly, the sub-bill raises concern about our basic property rights and the free housing market. Homeowners should have the freedom to sell to the house to whoever they feel right. But the restriction by the government will interfere with this fair market law and also will interfere with the functioning of the real estate market and may also reduce the the housing market demand, and also property values and local tax revenues. Ohio has always been benefited from global talent and entrepreneurship. Policy like that makes skilled professionals feel unwelcome here, and that will weakening our state's competitiveness in the global economy. So as someone who has spent the last 25 years in the real estate community, I strongly oppose this bill and respectively ask all the committee members to vote no on this bill. Also, I just want to say one more thing. Since this morning, I've been listening because I know a true democratic process, not only the right to speak, but also a duty to listen. So while listening, I feel some of the proponents, they actually spoke the fact. I don't know if it's the fact because they've never been to China. They've never really known our, let's say, community. For example, one person mentioned about UCA. I'm proud to say I'm part of the UCA funding member. I can tell you this organization is a civil organization by mostly American citizens of the Chinese community. We advocate for the American benefit and Chinese-American well-being, and we really fought for the fairness in the society. So for those people who don't know about us, we welcome you to join our fifth anniversary convention in July in Las Vegas. Fun location. All right.

Just one Ranking member Thomas Thank you for your testimony I had two but I not going to say One question I know Less than 20 minutes One of the testimonies from one of the proponents talked about ties to somebody in you all's organization or group that was tied to the Communist Party of China or whatever. Can you respond to that and whatever he was saying, the individual testimony, I think it was a young lady, she testified. Can you respond to whatever it was that they were referring to that tied your group to the Chinese Communist Party?

Thank you for your testimony. Any further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you. Thank you, happy since, bye today, bye. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Dee Lee. Welcome to committee.

Thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions for the witness?

Like, I don't even have a home. I cannot purchase a home, if I understand your question correctly. Okay. All right. Yeah.

Yes. And that's great.

Yeah.

No, I'm still waiting. So I came here 2010.

That's already 16 years.

Yes. So now I'm still waiting on the green card because they limit a certain amount of people that can get the green card. It's based on the nation. So they allocate 7% people. So like people from India, they might be waiting for 20 years. Currently, I'm on year 16. So it's a long process. It's not just a status you can get overnight. And there are really a lot of people like me. In OSU for 2025, they have 3,000 enrollment students from China. Just considering all those young talent, if they know when they graduate, they cannot even buy a house here to settle down, where are they going? They are moving to other states. That's a huge talent loss. And then, like, international students pay triple or at least double tuition. because of all those like tension and bill if it passed, it will decrease the enrollment. So it will be direct revenue loss for Ohio, for the great state of Ohio, every one of you. well-in to take this position to represent the people. So please really consider to hear us and then make it a good place to stay because we do want to stay in Ohio and not leaving. I want to attend my friends' graduation. I want to take them to mountain bike, take them to ski. My river is not bad, actually. So please, thank you.

Chairwoman Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony for substitute House Bill 1. My name is Gary Daniels, Legislative Director for the ACLU of Ohio. I understand time is limited. I'll be brief. First, this testimony addresses the impact of HB1 on individuals and their purchase or acquisition of personal residential property. That is, we choose not to concentrate on HB1's impact on commercial interests, business properties, and so on. It's outside of our area of expertise. Second, we recognize sub-House Bill 1 is better than House Bill 1, as introduced. Welcome changes include exempting legal permanent residents from HB1's provisions. I also mentioned there retroactive application. Please disregard that part of it. that's from SB 88 over on the Senate side and was not part of House Bill 1. Do not mean to confuse things here, but we're grateful for the improvements that are made via substitute House Bill 1. But it still remains what opponents have all along accused it of being. That is, it's a resurrection and modernization of the various exclusion laws stretching from the 1880s to the middle of the 20th century in this country. In this particular case, House Bill 1 forbids the acquisition of real estate arguably throughout all of Ohio to people with foreign citizenship deemed a threat to Ohio or the United States is largely determined by one person, the Ohio Secretary of State. The reference to HB1 applying to all Ohio comes from HB1's application to critical infrastructure facilities and military properties. Under current law, unchanged by House Bill 1, critical infrastructure facilities are numerous and widespread, including such nearly ubiquitous locations as railroad tracks, utility poles, telephone poles, telephone lines, utility lines, fiber optic lines, and also including, but not limited to, refineries, ports, trucking terminals, dams, steel plants, and much more. The point being, I believe one would be hard-pressed, even in Ohio's most rural locations, to find property not within 10 miles of any of these various locations and buildings. With regard to the Secretary of State's broad authority to create, utilize, and designate targets for property ownership exclusion, the restrictions on that authority are few. HB1 requires the Secretary of State to consult, but only consult, several lists developed and used by the federal government to determine the risk and security status of foreign entities and individuals, but the Secretary of State is not bound by HB1 to actually incorporate any or all of those lists. Otherwise, like with HB1 as introduced, the ACLU of Ohio is concerned. Substitute House Bill 1 violates any number of at least the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and is unnecessary duplicative of the Federal Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. Instead of welcoming newcomers hoping to build a future for themselves and their families in the Buckeye State, HB1 treats people as suspicious, undesirable, disloyal, and security risks, the same discredited rationales used throughout the sordid history of exclusion laws in our country HB1 supporters we believe simply have not made an effective case This type of legislation is needed For these reasons and more the ECOE of Ohio urges this committee rejection of substitute House Bill 1 Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Ranking Member Thomas. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Can you drill down a little more on the constitutionality of this particular issue and talk about that?

Representative Plummer.

But we don't see this as providing the type of security or preventing the types of situations that I think a lot of supporters talk about. I think, actually, amendments to this bill make that case, actually, because if security was such a paramount concern with regard to this bill, why make those exemptions for green card holders? Now, we like those exemptions, but if the people, anybody here from China or the other assorted countries subject to this were truly a threat, why make any exemptions whatsoever? Why lower the ratio of miles that apply to certain sites? So, again, we appreciate the exemptions, but we think it also makes our case that this has less to do with security than some supporters say. Okay.

It was through the chair to the representative.

Through the chair to the representative, those matters that you're talking about are not impacted by this particular bill. What we talking about here is people who are here when you talk about entirely legally who are getting shut out of the process and the ability with regard to home ownership Undocumented people and their ability to buy property seems to me to be a separate matter from what exactly this bill here addresses Okay. And I should mention, too, people accused, as I say in my testimony, accused of no wrongdoing. They haven't been arrested. They haven't been indicted. They haven't been convicted of anything. Thank you for your testimony.

Hi, Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and committee members. My name is Yen Fin. I actually testified last year, and I didn't have any political engagement experience at all. So I was shaking back then, and I'm still shaking now. But I want to be here because I want you to hear our voice. So I'm going to tell a little bit my story. Me and my husband, we came here after we graduated from medical school. That was 19 to 20 years ago. And my husband is a pathology, and I'm a clinical research professional working on development immunotherapy for cancer treatment. We bought our house four years after we got here, and we became green card holder eight years after, and it was not until 12 to 15 years after we became citizen. So it just took so long time for us to get green card and become citizen. and we have two caring and loving children here. So the sub-bill compared to the original version, it's getting a little bit better, but I have to say that fundamentally it's still the same because it's still telling people that some people can get the basic rights that everybody else has, but not those people, only because they're from those countries. and they also sent the signal that people like us are not trusted no matter how hard we worked and how much we contributed and I know it's national security but I have to say that when we got the visa we went to rig we went we got rigorous background check it always it always at a minimum one month two months or even more longer time and bad characters everywhere from this world and we cannot it's just not fair and not right to label a whole group of peoples as national security threats because few few of the bad characters and looking at the history book, this is not new. From Chinese Exclusion Act to Alien Land Law, Chinese being excluded from owning property. And we know that those laws are discriminatory, religious law, and they were stemmed from political rhetoric that label Chinese people as national security threats. and from 1882 to mid century it almost a whole life of one person being excluded And the impact of two to three generations even last two to two nowadays. I know it's policy, but it for sure hurt people, regular people. And so I respectfully urge you to vote no, because we don't want to repeat the history. And I believe that I don't believe zero-sum game. I think we work together. There's already a lot of problems in this world. We work together. We can make the world much better. Thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

My husband, he became a citizen earlier than me.

Okay. Yeah.

Thank you so much again.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranked Member Thomas, and the members of the Public Safety Committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today in opposition to a substitute bill for HB1 accepted by the committee in November last year. My name is Vincent Wang. I'm testifying on behalf of the Ohio Chinese American Association. I respectfully urge you to oppose HB1 sub-bill due to many serious legal and economic and civil rights concerns it raises. The latest sub-bill primarily includes two enhancements to the original bill to narrow the bill's reach. One is exempt the green card holders. Second is reduce the restriction from 25 miles to 10 miles. While these changes are welcomed and indicate that all of you were willing to listen to the public opinions, and we appreciate that, but it does not go enough to address the fundamental problem with the bill. First, it still discriminates people based on national origin, right? If you look at the whole room here, a lot of Chinese faces, do you know who is the citizen, who is the green card holder, who is the student visa, work visa? So as many people shared, federal fair housing law and other federal laws prohibits people from using like a, using natural origin information in real estate transactions. So that will cause a lot of fear and suspicion. People, you look like Chinese, so maybe I should not deal with you. So there's a lot of uncertainty. It is bad for our economy, bad for our community members. Second is also restrict business opportunities and business activities because some of the businesses, they will be subject to restriction under this bill. The conflicts with all the laws in existence. And what's troubling is the unprecedented government overreach imposed by this bill by using the broad definition of creative infrastructure, which is the existing law. They said, oh, we call this infrastructure, which a lot of people share. Look at this. This only includes the gas, water, and electricity. than somebody talked about the hospital. It hits all the marks here. Hospital has sewage, has water, has telephone lines, has communication lines. It's all part of the critical infrastructure. So if you impose this limit, all the people who are legally here that don't have a green card, don't have a citizenship, they won't be able to buy a house, just like Dee here. She's a hard worker working for a business. She's working hard to make money and want to build her American dream, right? Want to build a life here. She won't be able to buy a house. And under this bill, there's also another clause under this bill. It's actually similar to SB 88, which is divestiture requirements. I read it multiple times. The comparison of the current sub-bill and the original bill, It says if you are restricted under this law, for example, if you buy a house, now the bill passes, the bill becomes law in five months, then you are subjected to restriction under this law You have to sell the house within two years of the ownership So it a lot of so that is like that cost a lot of people They have their livelihood. They want to build equity. Then their dream will be destroyed. So that's the concerns over here. And also I want to address that. Wrap it up very quickly.

Sorry, just quickly.

Just quickly, people we talk about, they come here, they study hard, get a visa. Not necessarily because people want to come here, all of a sudden take over the job from our existing Ohio American citizen. That is because under federal work visa, they want to supplement the existing workforce because they can't find the skilled workers. That's why they created this program to let people to come here. actually that helps supplement the existing workforce that can build the ecosystem, that build the Ohio's innovation and so forth. That's why people are here, they want to work hard, support local economy, and contribute to the American society. For all of these reasons, I respect to ask you to oppose this bill. Thank you so much.