Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the Biden-Harris administration's reckless immigration policies are now on full display for all to see.

Newly released Border Patrol data shows that nearly 530,000 illegal aliens have flown into the U.S. under the administration's irresponsible mass parole program. If that wasn't enough, another 800,000 are set to enter.

Yet, on top of that, they are suppressing the information about how many people are coming into this country, including those who are on the terrorist watch lists.

San Diego Chief Aaron Heitke recently spoke to the Homeland Security Committee, talking about how he was told to suppress these numbers, to keep them hidden from the American public and from Congress to do anything about that.

This is the height of hypocrisy by the Biden-Harris administration, especially border czar Harris, trying to keep us from knowing and taking action to repair the sieve of a border we have.

We have to do much better than that because the American public is being subjected to all sorts of fentanyl and potential terrorists, as well as a crime level and all the other things we are seeing that are harming our country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading this Special Order tonight as we certainly have plenty of things to talk about and what Congress and our Federal Government should be doing.

The topic I am going to hit on is the crime situation.

Now, you will hear different things reported in the news on how crime is in the U.S. Well, I think normal people, regular everyday Americans see that it is a problem, but the way it is reported or the way it is spoken about under the Biden-Harris administration is like, oh, crime is not a problem, crime is down.

Tell that to the people or the storefront owners in various blue cities where you see these massive break-ins by hordes of people smashing their way in and smashing the countertops and all that, taking cell phones and jewelry and whatever else might be on their minds.

Where do they come up with the statistics like crime is somehow down?

Well, we are seeing more and more evidence that perhaps the mayors of these blue cities, perhaps other leaders, are telling their people to not report them. If the police departments--and many jurisdictions around this country are underreporting what is really going on. I guess that is how you can skew the statistics to look like they are better, and that crime is somehow down.

I tell you, theft is up, breaking and entering is up, violent crime is up, and it is due to lax policies.

As a Member from California here, it is very acute in some of our large cities, as well as we have these soft-on-crime recent efforts being made by the Newsom administration and others that have basically made it almost a free-for-all in my home State.

For example, the dollar amount got bumped up several years ago via one of the propositions fooling the voters as to what the proposition was actually doing on crime. Prop 47, which is one of the big problems, was known generically as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, yet all it did was relax the level of felonies down to misdemeanors to the level of $949. That means you can steal $949 of stuff out of the store and still have it just be a misdemeanor instead of a felony as it should be.

People go in sometimes with calculators and add up how much they can steal and brazenly carry it out the door because there are not enough police around, and, of course, the retailers, especially the large corporate box retailers say, oh, don't dare go and try and impede them, don't go talk to them, don't even go out in the parking lot and take a picture of their car or their license plate because we don't want to offend them or we don't want to incur that somebody might get injured.

Well, I tell you, people are getting injured by this happening. The price of everything in the stores--I mean, look how many stores are closing around the country as it is, and then tell that to the mom-and- pop stores that only have one or maybe two markets that they deal with and they are not supposed to do anything about this rampant crime, the rampant stealing happening in their stores?

So this was put in place in my home State by legislation called AB 109, which is supposed to be trying to help empty overcrowded prisons, as they termed it at the time.

Now, I don't know that the prisons are overcrowded, I actually had a chance to visit them, and thankfully they let me out of them when I was done with the visit, but you see, prisons are designed with two bunks in them, and they were only keeping one person in there due to somebody's idea of how that would be crowded.

So what else happens?

When the Federal court ruled that California had overcrowding, they started trying to release prisoners to meet a number. Also, the State had several out-of-State prisons it was contracting with to take some of its extra prisoners.

What do they do first thing?

They bring those back. They bring them back from out of State, which

they are actually getting a good deal on the cost of keeping them in those out-of-State prisons. They actually brought them back home so they could crowd them even more and have even more to release.

Does that make an ounce of sense to anybody?

Crime is up in California because they are releasing more.

Under AB 109 called ``realignment'' it pushed more and more hardened criminals down to the county jail level, which means now the county jails have to deal with them when they have got more normal neighborhood crimes or even something up to the level of assault or stealing a car or things like that, there is no room for them.

They are releasing people. Normally, Madam Speaker, you would have a local county jail on their own recognizance or on a small amount of bail or what have you. Now, they get rid of bail, as well.

They keep pushing the problem down, and now, we have chaos at the local level for what our sheriffs, jailers, and district attorneys have to deal with locally. It all starts at the top on this.

The crime wave we saw during the riots that one summer in Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis--especially I want to underline Minneapolis here, where the Biden-Harris administration wants to claim crime is down--Madam Speaker, you saw Kamala Harris actually advocating for people to send in money so they could bail out the people who were arrested for all the chaos, damage, vandalism, and burning of Minneapolis. Let's chip in to help get them out, because she thought that was some form of justice.

In this campaign, she seems to want to run away from all that, changing her spots to some other, as a political chameleon would do.

There is no lack of crime. There is no lack of prisoners. My home State, again, is bringing the ones back from private or other prisons out of State to crowd ours even more and then closing down more and more prisons. Gavin Newsom has in mind closing down four more.

I keep telling people: It is not as if the population of our State and country are running out of bad guys. Our population of the State and our country increases anyway, so you think the number of prisoners and the number of criminals is going to increase probably commensurately with that, especially in these times when we are encouraging people to do it with lax laws.

We had AB109. We had Proposition 47 fooling the voters by saying it was somehow a safe neighborhoods, streets, and schools act. Indeed, it just lowered the level.

Then Proposition 57 came in, and it had some horrific crimes it made into misdemeanors or less, including some forms of date rape and things like that. It is horrific.

Those three things have helped put California in this mess, and a lot of times this body here tries to emulate what California does. Certainly, the White House does, bringing a lot of Californians in when they came into power. To emulate what California does isn't good for the country.

What we have in California, for example, is to counteract a lot of Proposition 47. One currently on the ballot is called Proposition 36, which will restore some of the jail sentence lengths and some of the crime classifications back up to what really should be a penalty and doing other things that are going to tighten up the idea that crime is so far paying in California because they can walk away and get away with it.

We are seeing more and more people go into these markets, stores, and big-box stores. When they are catching somebody coming out, obviously with armloads of stuff they haven't paid for--they are disguising themselves, et cetera--this is someone stealing. We are seeing more citizens stepping up and saying: No, I am not going to watch this happen.

They are detaining because the store won't do it. I consider that kind of heroic actually, but some on the corporate level might say they shouldn't do that because someone might get injured or whatever.

The buyers and consumers see that their prices go up because they can't keep insurance anymore. They go into a large-box retailer and find everything is locked up. I don't if it is this way all around the country, but the retailers, many of them in my home State, are locking up a whole bunch of the items.

Madam Speaker, you have to go ask the clerk to come open it up so you can get into the make-up counter or some of the medicine counter. I hear even socks and underwear in some cases are being locked up behind glass, or the tool section. We have to have people come help us get these items because it is going to walk out of there otherwise.

Crime is down? I don't think so because we are seeing those effects.

Madam Speaker, you are seeing it in places like San Francisco, more and more corner markets and drugstores. They might have quite a few of a particular chain of drugstore in downtown, but they are closing several of them because of the rampant conditions of theft and other things going on in the city.

Why are they promoting this? Why are their city leaders allowing this? It is a mystery to me.

It does start at the top, and when we get the signal being sent from the White House and even Congress of soft on crime, then this is what the results are going to be.

Again, in my home State, voters have an opportunity with Proposition 36 to turn back that tide at least somewhat. Even the retailers were behind it there, which generally they are kind of afraid to upset the applecart in Sacramento because of the three-to-one Democratic majority there, and they don't want to make them mad.

So far, they are sticking with it, which is actually admirable, for a change.

Fentanyl and drug charges that have been made weaker during this time would actually be increased and put back in place in prop 36. We are not talking about the guy being caught with a little bit of marijuana that Kamala Harris has made famous. We are talking about serious drugs and serious amounts of them being dealt out there that is going to be curtailed, at least in part, by Proposition 36.

I hear it is polling quite well, and I hear Governor Newsom has given up on it, too. He went so far to say that with all the support for Proposition 36, because the people are speaking back with their initiative process, that they are tired of the crime and tired of the inaction by the government, he says: I don't know what State I am in.

Well, Governor, I think I agree with you because I don't know that you know what State you are in either.

It is pathetic, and he doesn't seem to care much about neighborhoods and regular folks who have to deal with this stuff.

Lastly, this crime extends to our border, and we are talking about this Biden-Harris administration, the czar, Vice President Harris, allowing 530,000 illegal immigrants to be flown in on aircraft into our country and then turned loose because we can't possibly process them.

Madam Speaker, they are ending up in your neighborhoods, and they are overwhelming some of these neighborhoods. They are overwhelming the school system. They are overwhelming the other services, hospitals and all that, because they are just flying them in for an unknown reason.

They will try to float themselves on the idea that they are helping refugees or something, but it is way beyond that, especially when we find, talking to the Border Patrol, that a high ratio of them is coming from China. These are likely going to be agents of China's efforts to undermine the United States.

We are expecting also maybe another 800,000 of them are going to be attempted to be brought in by the Harris czar situation.

They get 2 years of the humanitarian parole and work permits, but they are not even tracked. They are completely blowing the idea of what asylum is as a temporary respite for people in a bad situation in another country. We are still sympathetic toward that, but there are no holds barred on how it is being abused, especially in this last 3\1/2\ years.

ICE officers are overwhelmed by the work they are having to do at the border and with the expectations of parole that they have to deal with. Madam Speaker, 8 million illegal immigrants have come into this country under this administration--8 million. That is

more than the size of several States, but they go on, push the Border Patrol out of the way, take their jobs, and really demean them. Morale is as low as it has ever been.

The last kicker on top of this is when the administration orders the Border Patrol agents to underreport, to skew the statistics, and to basically be forced into lies about how many people are coming in, especially those on the terrorist watch list.

We have a serious problem. People need to be brought up on charges for that, not the Border Patrol guys who are trying to execute their plan, but people in the administration who are telling them to lie about it. How pathetic. How deranged.

We have a lot of choices to be making in the next few months here. The American people are tired of the crime, and they are tired of the sieve at the border. They can make some very clear choices if they want to improve this.

In my home State of California, Proposition 36 will go that way, but also demanding from their politicians that they care about them, their communities, their storefronts, and their ability to do normal business like the United States used to until this administration has made such a farce of our borders and fighting crime.

Americans must pay attention this fall and ongoing.

Mr. Chairman, for my colleague from California (Ms. Porter), I have an amendment that should raise the balance to loving this bill.

Mr. Chair, as part of the Fix Our Forests Act, I have been able to add my amendment, which is contained in H.R. 7666. It directs the Forest Service to expand the use of utilizing targeted animal grazing in fuels management programs to reduce wildfire risk.

It will make the use of grazing to reduce fine fuels found in forest floors and the meadows near them, which make fires burn hotter, faster, and more dangerously. Utilizing livestock for fire fuel management is common sense, and it has been practiced for many years. It is being curtailed by more and more difficult permitting processes in more recent years.

It is a very important tool that, unfortunately, is not being utilized enough, whether it is cattle on the vast plains and areas around our forested areas, sheep, or, as we have seen success, even in urban areas, people hiring goatherds to come in and clean those difficult areas that are hard for people themselves to get in, such as along riverbanks and places like that.

We know this tool works well in order to curb that flammable material.

The West continues to face a wildfire and a forest health crisis. In California, as we have listed out here today, we have seen many firsthand instances of fire that are just unbelievably large and devastating. It is even more increasing in later fire seasons here.

I can talk about my district itself and the catastrophic damage we have had. The Camp fire in Paradise was over 100,000 acres, but key to that argument is the loss of 85 lives in that devastating fire. The North Complex, my colleague from Arkansas mentioned earlier, has consumed portions of Forbestown and Berry Creek, and it was over 318,000 acres. Then, we had, later on, the million-acre Dixie fire. Most recently, the Park fire, which started in a park near Chico, ended up consuming right under 430,000 acres.

These are all six- and seven-digit numbers that have burned right in my backyard, in just one district, and over 2 million acres in just a few short years, with the Park fire being now the fifth largest in California history.

Seven million acres have burned in the Western States this year. This legislation is important across many fire-prone areas.

Herd agencies are limited in the scope of tools they can consider, and often the post-fire teams bear the burden of suggesting creative tools, like livestock grazing.

This isn't creative. This is actually well-known. If they want to call it creative, I am for anything that will get us to use this tool even more.

My amendment would enhance the intent of the Fix Our Forests Act and help with preventing more catastrophic and preventable fires. It is known to work.

Mr. Chair, I also thank my friend, Mr. Vasquez, for his support with this legislation as we partner on this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the effort of my colleague from the OC in bringing this forward.

Really, it is about simplicity. It is about streamlining a process for people who are just seeking to engage in a process that requires paperwork, permits, and forms. Why would we not make that easier for them?

With all the different interests and needs that we could have, especially in our rural lands--parks, public lands, and the recreational users of those--the Electronic Permitting Modernization Act creates a simple online website to get and complete any necessary permits.

On the other hand, when businesses are interested in raising, logging, mining, or anything else, they will be able to find any approval documents or applications on a single web page, one-stop shopping.

I am happy that we can make it a little bit easier because, for my farming business and me, sometimes it is hard to get to the forms you need and get the stuff done. That is frustrating because all you want to do is get back to what you are doing there to begin with.

This bill actually builds off some of the work we completed last year with the Fiscal Responsibility Act by further directing Federal agencies under the Department of the Interior to provide electronic means to complete any required documentation.

This is a good step to make it simpler to get the work done. I hope it is not an excuse to create more permits and more paperwork, but this is a great way to help out with people who are just seeking to get their work done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5509, and I appreciate the bipartisan effort on this.

Madam Speaker, underlying the gentlewoman's point, on top of that, you can get so much more out of current vehicles. The regulators will not allow the type of mining we need in this country to get the materials, the minerals to produce these electrified vehicles and electrified everything else.

I hear all morning that, oh, this isn't a mandate, nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything. You are forcing the marketplace to build these cars. In California, you can't buy certain models of gas-powered Jeeps because they have to sell X amount of electric Jeeps, so you have to go out of State to buy what you want.

This is being forced upon the people, and it is being forced on the manufacturers. It is going to force all of our jobs over to China or Mexico for production, all ostensibly to be chasing a little bit of carbon dioxide. I remind you once again, 0.04 percent is the greenhouse gas that we are chasing, carbon dioxide.

Indeed, we are forcing the marketplace to do things people don't want, people cannot afford. These vehicles weigh at least 50 percent more than the same type of gas vehicle, and they are tearing up our highways more. People don't want this. I talk to my dealerships, and I talk to regular people. They don't want to be forced into this. We need to support Mr. James' legislation.

Mr. Speaker, an electric vehicle mandate presents serious challenges for our economy, families, and everyday life. While these vehicles are often promoted as the future, they come with significant limitations and costs.

Long-distance travel can be difficult due to fewer charging stations than are needed, by far, and longer refueling times, rather than just the few minutes it takes to fill up with gasoline or diesel, this compared to gas-powered cars.

Also, we have this futile program with the Federal Government that has so far put aside $8 billion a while back, and what have we got of it? Seven charging stations. There might be more by now, but it is pathetic.

This is particularly problematic in rural areas like I represent where there isn't the infrastructure at all to have the electricity. The amount of load the power lines would need to carry isn't even there yet.

How are you supposed to travel outside of a city area? Maybe it could just be a city mandate. Who knows?

They have high upfront costs and horrifically high costs when you go to replace the batteries. Heaven knows, we have seen what happens when they catch fire. You can't put them out.

We need not force these vehicles on a public that does not want to buy them.

Mr. Speaker, California's high-speed rail project has been a boondoggle of epic proportions, funded mostly by California State taxpayers but also some $3 billion plus in so-called shovel-ready stimulus money from 2009.

After 15 years and a $9 billion bond plus Federal money, what do we actually have? We have a project that has ballooned to over $120 billion with zero miles of track laid and a completion date pushed back another decade into the future.

This is all ostensibly to save carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but I point out to you here that CO2 is actually .04 percent of our atmosphere.

This is a bottomless money pit, and continuing to throw State and Federal dollars at it is a terrible waste when we need to be doing so many other things for our people, including agriculture and water supply. Revolving doors of CEOs of the California High-Speed Rail Authority aren't going to fix this anytime soon.

California faces a great need for water supply, infrastructure, and forest management that could provide a whole lot of benefit that the high-speed rail project never will do.

American taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for California's boondoggle, so let's instead focus on things that will help the American people such as building more water supply and growing those needed crops that somewhere between 90 and 98 percent only grow in California that help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we recently had a field hearing in central

California facilitated by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries, and hosted by the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte).

We were talking about the water supply issue for the State of California. Why do my colleagues have to hear about water in California? These are the crops that California grows right here on this poster. Somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of them are grown in my home State.

If they aren't grown there, then U.S. consumers will not receive them. They would have to get them from somewhere else, some other country, with whatever quality and supply steadiness issues they might have there. It is important that the water supply in California continue to be directed to agriculture instead of directed to the Pacific Ocean.

We are losing tens of millions of acre-feet because we can't seem to harness the water with the existing dams we have because they let it all out due to dubious supposed environmental needs, whether it is fish, whether it is the smelt, which no longer really exists in the delta, so they find another smelt to call endangered and take more water away.

We need water for agriculture to feed this country.

Madam Speaker, last year in California, the State's air pollution regulator, known as CARB, which stands for the California Air Resources Board, finalized a new rule that would require freight railroads in the State to adopt zero-emissions locomotives for industrial use, such as in local yards and ports, by 2030, and for normal, long-distance hauling by 2035. It is now requesting a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to proceed.

Madam Speaker, the EPA should deny this since this EPA CARB rule would effectively require all locomotives to operate in a zero- emissions configuration when operating in California, including out-of- state locomotives that would come into California and then proceed back out again. One of these noncompliant locomotives would have to unhitch at the border and bring other locomotives in just to drive into our State.

This regulation would limit the useful life of thousands of locomotives across the rail network and requires a transition to zero- emission technology. Even by CARB's own admission, this rule will drive many short-line railroad operators and rail lines out of business.

CARB also admits this rule will be shifting the transport of goods to trucks, which ultimately are going to raise highway miles traveled and likely raise emissions from trucks and the whole window of emissions because you can have many trucks hauling up to 80,000 pounds typically versus a railroad with the many, many tons they can haul efficiently. This is the opposite of the goal of CARB by causing a raise of emissions and vehicle miles traveled.

Rail operators have not yet been able to acquire the full tier 4 locomotives due to unavailability, and the technology isn't even fully developed yet on tier 4 locomotives. CARB, once again, is jumping the gun to move to even more stringent standards. Essentially, they are mandating tier 5 locomotives when tier 4 locomotives don't even fully exist yet. It is just amazing.

It would make more sense for the bureaucrats at CARB to take a break from their carbon-neutral crusade and let rail operators come up to tier 4 compliance standards. If they could make the tier 4, you would already see a dramatic cut in emissions across the board since these tier 4 locomotives are 85 percent cleaner than older technology, instead of pushing net-zero locomotives, which seems to be the holy grail, on such a ridiculous timeline.

Since they are obsessed with net zero and carbon reductions, they have actually worked against their own goals, as I mentioned, with forcing it onto trucks and on and on.

It is estimated that EPA approval would result in close to 65 percent of the Nation's class I railroad locomotive fleet being banned from operating in California by the year 2030. He notes that other States are going to do the monkey see, monkey do like California does.

General Van Ovost, the head of U.S. Transportation Command, expressed concerns that this regulation will negatively affect the economy and military readiness posture of moving military equipment as they need to. By reducing this ability to transport goods and military equipment in and out of the State from other parts of the country or having a lack of locomotives to do so, military operations could be severely impacted by this regulation. Imagine if we can't move the material we need in a timely fashion because of a California rule if the U.S. EPA gives them this waiver.

A large collection of national, State, and local agricultural groups have expressed great concern that this CARB rule poses a significant danger to U.S. agriculture and its ability to transport ag products domestically or to our ports. Members may remember a few years ago, there was a giant port problem in California. It was not an all-out strike, but a slowdown of work, where many ag products were left on the docks so long that the more perishable produce and agricultural food was rotting; it wasn't getting shipped out or, in some cases, even shipped in.

Do we want to add to that problem with, instead of the trucks at that time, having the railroads also be in that state?

It needs to be stated again that the technology required for these replacements does not yet exist for what would be called a tier 5 locomotive.

Freight railroads contribute only 0.5 percent to total U.S. emissions and about 1.7 percent to transportation-related emissions.

All of this is to reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, which I will remind my colleagues once again, which I have done many times on this floor, CO2 is only 0.04 percent of the gases of our atmosphere. When Members look at the pie chart, it is that tiny, little wedge in there that is typically listed as trace gases or other, along with krypton and water vapor.

This rule will slow the food our farmers grow getting to our tables and ports for trade and, indeed, as I mentioned, rotting while sitting at the ports. It will delay and raise in price the materials used to build and heat our homes. Every stage, of course, of automobile production, including EVs, will be slowed down as well by not being able to move these materials. The rule causes lots of problems. EPA, deny this rule.

Madam Speaker, today, I will talk about the ongoing water crisis manmade in the Klamath Basin.

Over a decade ago, water levels in Upper Klamath Lake were set to support the endangered suckerfish. Yet, we have no new adult suckerfish that can be counted as having been produced during that time.

Meanwhile, the impact on the basin's wildlife and farmers is severe. On and off, once-thriving wetlands are now dry, leading to massive die- offs of ducks, geese, etc., from avian botulism. Also, the waterfowl population has dropped to record lows. You see it farther down in the valley with fewer waterfowl in the rice lands.

Farmers are also suffering as water meant for irrigation and livestock is being diverted with little success in actually protecting endangered species.

This policy has failed on all fronts. We are saving neither the suckerfish, nor protecting the region's critical ecosystems or the agricultural economy.

Madam Speaker, I urge this body to reassess the water management in the Klamath Basin to ensure that our farmers, wildlife, and communities get the water they need and not be left in crisis constantly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Kenneth Lee Freeman of Marysville,

CA who recently passed away at the age of 77 years old.

Ken was born on July 29, 1947, to Tom and Emily (McCornack) Freeman in Atascadero, CA. He was raised at Walking Y Ranch, in San Ardo the family's farm located on 4,000-acres. Due to the isolation of the community, Ken received a special Driver's License at the age of 14 allowing him to attend King City High School which was a 40 mile drive each way. While in high school, Ken played baseball, football, participated in FFA, and became an Eagle Scout.

Ken would go on to attend California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, earning his Bachelor's Degree in Agribusiness Management in 1969. Ken would marry his first wife Marilyn Wilson of 32 years, whom he met while they both attended Cal Poly. Ken would then attend the University of Nevada, Reno earning two Master's Degrees. During college, Ken worked as an oil field drill hand in San Ardo, at the Cal Poly Power Plant, and as a resource researcher in Reno.

Ken and his family would move to Yuba City in 1977. The young family would purchase Feather River Mills, Inc. a western wear, tack, animal supply, and feed store. He would serve as the CEO and lead the daily operations of the business for the next 26 years where he valued his staff, customers, and community. The family would keep the business going until 2003.

Ken also taught Ag Business, Business Management, and Animal Science classes at Yuba College for over 20 years and greatly enjoyed his students. In 2002, Ken married his second wife Sharron Perkey of 22 years, adding two stepchildren to the family. Ken loved Sharron deeply and was grateful for the many years they had together.

Ken was known as a community leader in the Yuba-Sutter area, founding several causes like the Youth in Agriculture and the Tri-Counties Jr. Rodeo. He was also one of the founders of Focus Marysville and the Marysville Historic Fair. He was also an active member of the Sutter County Masonic Lodge, Sutter County Sheriff's Posse, the Exchange Club, Yuba-Sutter Fair Junior Livestock Committee, Yuba-Sutter Chamber of Commerce, Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation, and conducted fundraisers for Saint Jude Children's Hospital along with many other community groups.

Ken is survived by his daughters, Kim Freeman and Sandy Fowler, stepdaughter, April Rogers, sister Kathy Rossi, and 9 grandchildren. Ken was truly a leader, and his passing will be felt by all those who knew him. Rest in Peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and service of John Martin Adema, Jr., who at the age of 100 years old, passed away peacefully surrounded by family and friends.

John was born on February 16, 1924, in New Orleans, Louisiana to John Adema and Christine Kessler. John would go on to attend Jesuit High School on a music scholarship for the French Horn as well as lettering in Track and Field.

John graduated in 1942 and began classes at Louisiana State University (LSU). John would put his studies on hold to serve his country in World War II, enlisting with the United States Marine Corps as a Radio Operator in an LTV4 Landing Vehicle assigned to the 4th Amphibious Tractor Battalion.

John served in the South Pacific where he participated in the landings of: Guam, the Marshall Islands, British Solomon Islands, the Marianas Islands, and the Kwajalein Atoll and earned two Bronze Stars. At the time of his death, John was the last survivor of his battalion, the last of the Greatest Generation.

At the conclusion of WWII in 1945, John would return home, resuming his studies of Forestry at LSU graduating in 1948. While working to pay for his education John would meet June Corcoran, the love of his life. They would remain inseparable until her death, 73 years later.

John's career would move the family all over the world, from Colorado, to Texas, to California, to Germany, and to Vietnam. John worked for the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Forestry Service, the United

States Army Corps of Engineers, and as a civilian military liaison in both Vietnam and Germany.

John was also dedicated to helping veterans and immediately began his volunteerism upon returning from the war. He was a proud member of the Marine Corps League as well as the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) where he served on multiple board positions and roles.

Family meant everything to John, if you where his friend, you were his family too. His proudest titles came from his family, as a son, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and finally as a great-grandfather.

John is survived by his children June McJunkin, Jamie Millen, Joel Adema, Jill Dahlen, and Justin Adema, 11 grandchildren, and 13 great- grandchildren. John's legacy lives on through his family. John was a beacon of the American Spirit and will be missed greatly by all those that knew him. Rest in Peace.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, over one-third of all food produced is never consumed, including a significant portion of livestock and animal products.

Think about that for a minute. For the amount that is consumed, half of it is not. That is the equivalent of 143 billion meals, enough to feed every American three times over for a year.

This waste comes at an enormous financial cost. Over $473 billion worth of food is thrown away annually. Beyond that monetary loss, this waste results in unnecessary consumption of resources, water, and energy.

The production of animal resources demands significant amounts of water and energy. When food is wasted, so too are these critical resources. When meat is discarded, all the water used in its production is wasted as well, which is a high water use.

Energy expended in raising, processing, and transporting these products is lost and wasted, contributing to inefficiencies and waste of resources.

Farmers--I am one--invest countless hours, labor, and resources into growing crops and raising livestock. It drives us crazy to see it wasted.

Transportation also plays a crucial role. We lose that energy.

We must do better so our kids don't go hungry.

Mr. Speaker, the situation facing Israel is critical and it is escalating. The nation is under attack, not just from isolated factions, but from a coordinated effort orchestrated by Iran.

Rockets have rained down on Israel from Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Yemen, forcing Israel to defend its citizens and its sovereignty from these relentless threats.

It is crucial to understand that these attacks are not random acts of violence but are part of a larger, more coordinated plan.

In each of these regions, there exists a militia backed by Iran. In the Gaza Strip, it is Hamas. In Yemen, it is the Houthis. In Lebanon, it is Hezbollah.

These groups are not acting independently. They are funded, supplied, and directed by Iran as part of a calculated strategy to encircle and weaken Israel.

The current situation is exacerbated by the policies of previous U.S. administrations and currently the Biden administration that has only encouraged Iran.

Secretary Blinken recently warned that Iran is potentially within weeks of nuclear weapon capabilities. This is not hyperbole; it is a dire reality.

I appreciate greatly Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking to us today to underline how important our alliance is with Israel and that victory is the only acceptable outcome over the vile acts of Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, we must stand with Israel.