Doug LaMalfa

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Again, Mr. Chair, it is a very simple amendment, and it will make a clear picture of what the real backlog is of informal claims, which has not gotten enough attention in the work of the VA in recent years. Again, we keep finding that it is an issue of importance and one of great concern as we have discovered what some of the regional offices have to deal with. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, each quarter the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must submit a report that includes several metrics from every VA regional office to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The report includes the average time to complete a disability claim, the backlog, error rates, and other important details. With this amendment, the Secretary of VA must also include the number of informal claims that are unprocessed. This amendment allows Congress to receive a more complete picture of the regional office's workload. We have seen troubling instances in Oakland and other VA regional offices of informal claims not being handled properly and even waiting decades for some of those claims to be processed. Informal claims should be included in this quarterly report from the Secretary, and this amendment simply requires that that be done; therefore, giving Congress and veterans a better picture of what that load would be and then we can address that appropriately. So that is the amendment.

Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, again, this will be an important step towards helping reduce that backlog and getting our veterans claims processed and the service they deserve. I ask for an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in memory of Mary LaRae Richter. Everybody knew her as ``Rae'' in the Chico, California, and northern California area. She was a truly inspiring woman who left a deep, lasting impact on her family, on the community of Chico, and on all who knew her. I knew her very well for quite a few years. She was a very, very sweet lady, indeed. Born in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, Rae was an exceptional student and a joyful daughter who was no stranger to hard work. Her first job was behind a soda fountain in a drug store in order to help support her family. She married her husband, Bernie, in 1953 after they met in high school. Their marriage lasted for 46 years until Bernie passed away. Of course, with Bernie's having been a political figure, including in the State legislature, she played a very supportive role in that endeavor, which was sometimes an arduous one, but she always had the right thing to say, including, ``Oh, Bernard,'' when, maybe, things were getting a little out of control. Bernie and Rae moved with their three children up to Chico in the 1960s. Rae poured her heart into her town and into her community and into her family-owned businesses while always making time to volunteer for the students just across the street at the Rosedale Elementary School. Rae fought valiantly with Parkinson's disease since 1998, and she displayed courage and joy even in that battle. Being that supportive wife, a loving mom and grandmother, a joyful business manager, and a good friend to many, she will be greatly missed by all who knew her in northern California.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, amazingly, in the fourth year of record drought in California, the Bureau of Reclamation, in its infinite wisdom, decided to release 15,000 acre feet of additional water to help aid the downstream swimming of six steelhead fish--this in the time of agriculture being cut anywhere from 100 to 50 percent in some areas, receiving 0 percent allocations, cities seeing their needs for horticultural and ornamental needs being cut off, everybody having to scrimp and save on water in California, except for the Bureau's interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. It is high time we put accountability back into interpretation of the Endangered Species Act as what was put in place in 1973. 15,000 acre feet would be enough for 30,000 households for a year, 4,000 acres of crop land; yet the allocation to move six fish merrily down the stream is the priority right now in California. We need to build water storage. We need to have smarter interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and these water allocations, ostensibly, for fisheries.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, President Truman had a plaque on his desk that said, ``The buck stops here.'' Many veterans are probably wondering why this old poker expression doesn't apply to the VA. However, on Monday the House passed H.R. 280, which gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to make sure the bucks do stop on back bonuses given to management of the VA, which is very, very backlogged. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the House has acted, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the President to join this effort. It is clear that it is time to send a message to the VA that the days of rewarding subpar work and service for hidden and lost files or long waiting periods are over. We need to continue to fight for commonsense reforms that will provide this type of system that our veterans deserve. At many regional offices of the VA around the country, including my own of Oakland, veterans have waited far too long to have their benefit claims processed and are struggling to access the care they need and deserve. There are countless examples of dysfunction, and the VA is falling short of its mission. Does anyone actually think the VA deserves bonuses for failing our veterans when we have these long lists of people waiting for medical care, having their claims serviced? No, I think not. Mr. Speaker, the VA bonus bucks stop here.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, March 2, 2015, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General issued a report last Wednesday on their investigation into the nearly 14,000 veteran benefits claims that were found in a filing cabinet in Oakland, California. Last year, these claims were brought to our attention by VA staff members, who have known about these claims for many years--despite their best efforts to raise awareness of the injustice in how these claims were being handled. In July 2014, the former Deputy Under Secretary of the VA for Field Operations testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the 14,000 claims that were found in a file cabinet had been brokered so that they would receive attention by the VA's highest performing offices. Just 2 weeks prior to that on a site visit to the Oakland VA, the regional and division management told me that these 14,000 claims basically never existed. As a matter of fact, they claim it was a story made up by disgruntled employees. The VA's Office of Inspector General's investigation confirmed the discovery of 14,000 claims in a filing cabinet, confirmed that some of these claims dated back to the 1990s, confirmed that thousands of these claims had not been processed, and confirmed that the staff at the Oakland VA had not been directed to properly store these claims. Oakland VA's management claimed after my visit that they then had discovered 13,184 veteran benefit claims and 2,155 claims which required action or review. But during an onsite review, the Office of Inspector General could not confirm the existence of these claims due to the Oakland VA management's ``poor recordkeeping practices.'' How was the Oakland VA able to arrive at such exact numbers without maintaining records that allowed the OIG to verify the existence of these claims? It just doesn't make sense, and we have to get to the bottom of these numbers. The VA is required by law to respond to every initial claim they receive, to safeguard Federal records, and to protect private information of the veterans they work with. When the Oakland VA managers discovered that 2,155 claims were more than several years old and required action or review, a special projects team was formed to complete this urgent task. Members of this team have told my staff that many of those claims belonged to veterans who had passed away while waiting for benefits to be processed and that their families were never contacted. Inexplicably, the Office of Inspector General later discovered that 537 initial claims that had been marked by this special team as processed were never actually processed. Some of these claims were as old as June 2002, yet another troubling instance of the Oakland VA managers failing to provide the type of service northern California's veterans deserve. The VA Office of Inspector General viewed only 34 of these unprocessed claims, though for some reason they declined to select a random sample. Instead, the 34 claims were selected ``judiciously,'' which didn't make any sense. Of the 34 claims that were reviewed by the Inspector General's office, seven still remain unprocessed. In fact, though, these claims had been reviewed several times from December 2012 to June 2014 without any action being taken. In one instance, a veteran with PTSD was underpaid almost $3,000 because his initial claim was not processed correctly. This type of dysfunction and complete lack of oversight and accountability cannot continue in Oakland or at any VA regional offices across the country. Sadly, this report sheds very little light on who should be accountable for these failures and is incomplete. I am grateful the report was done and that the inspector general did delve into this issue at Oakland and many other offices, but the fact that no real conclusions were made on who is to be held accountable means much work remains to be done. We must continue to search for these answers and work to make sure the VA regional offices are properly serving our veterans. I am also grateful, on the positive, for the many staff members of the VA--many, former veterans themselves--who care about this. They process many of these claims and make sure veterans are served. But we see there are a lot of holes in the system, obviously, that are making many veterans not have the confidence that they are going to be served, that they are going to get their claims processed, or indeed get health care if they need it later. Indeed, the tragedy we have is that anywhere from 12 to 22 veterans give up each day in this country and commit suicide. Because they have no hope left of having the promise kept to them shows that we have much to do. So I am grateful for those VA staffers that come to us blowing the whistle on what is wrong with the system when they can't get help from their management to make things right. We ask them to please keep coming forward. Contact my office, contact my staff on what needs to be done to get the word out to help make this right, because we want the VA to function well. We want the employees to feel like they are part of a system that is serving veterans and to have a good relationship within their office, but also to ultimately serve what we need as taxpayers and Americans that revere our veterans.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing slowdown occurring at our west coast ports is causing devastating economic conditions for our agricultural industry and an alarming ripple effect to supply chains across the Nation. Recent estimates have predicted retailers could lose as much as $7 billion this year and that it will cost the overall economy $2.1 billion every day if this shutdown continues. In California, our citrus shippers are reporting delays as long as 4 weeks versus the typical 3 to 4 days for cargo to leave ports, causing their products to spoil and rot on the docks and increasing the already sizable backlog. One California almond company reported they already had to lay off 50 employees due to the slowdown at the port. Without action, these numbers are only going to worsen as long-term or permanent damage is even done to our export markets. We cannot afford to sit back as our producers and growers and workers bear the brunt of this labor dispute. I strongly urge both parties and, if necessary, this administration to get involved--to get back to the negotiating table and enact a swift resolution--to prevent serious long-term harm being done to our local and national economy and to our export markets.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, as California enters what looks like its fourth year of a severe drought, we need to take action so that when we do finally get rain once again, we will be able to store it. Sites Reservoir is a project that has been talked about for many, many years in northern California that would store nearly 2 million acre-feet of water in its best possible configuration. So we need to take that action. A little bit later on in this session, we will be introducing legislation to authorize that. We also need help from the Bureau of Reclamation in putting the funding forward to finish the feasibility studies that are necessary to go from talk, from dream, to getting construction going and having the water reservoirs that we need for California to stave off drought in the future years.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service brought up a possible concern on salmon habitat on a water storage project in California. This would be above Shasta Dam. There is a proposal to possibly raise the dam. But what really gets me is that the concern more is about a fictional problem with salmon habitat that really doesn't exist above a possible raise of the dam, and not much more attention focused on what the effects would be on the people that live around the lake and the need they would have for infrastructure, their resorts, marinas, the things that they do there. So it is really disconcerting that U.S. Fish & Wildlife is creating a fictional problem on an environmental side and not looking at the human impact of what a possible raise--it may be a good thing; it may be not a good thing--the raise of Shasta Dam could be. I implore them to take a look at what the needs are of the people around that lake.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, thank you to my colleague from Washington, Mr. Reichert, for this opportunity and, really, privilege to be able to speak about those in law enforcement that are really on duty for us every day and being able to support and show my gratitude for them across our country because we know that they are there daily to keep us safe and secure in our communities. They have an incredibly important role and a vital responsibility to uphold our rule of law, which is the core of our Constitution and ensures everyone is accountable under the law. Everyone needs to be accountable under the law. That is a huge responsibility. It is up to us, whether it is in Congress or at the State legislative level or local government, to make sure that they have the tools that they need to do their job. In the time of budget cuts and other constraints put on them, their job gets that much harder; indeed, sometimes, they feel handcuffed in their ability to do their work. When you speak to the officers sometimes--they always have an air of professionalism about them, but when you really get down to it, sometimes, they don't feel very appreciated and that they don't have the tools to do what they need because of things sometimes the government does or frivolous lawsuits, for example. We even sometimes see our elected officials participating in vilifying our people in law enforcement. That is really, really irresponsible because we are all in this together, us as lawmakers and those in the executive branch down to our beat officer that has that responsibility. We are supposed to work together in upholding the law and making sure they have the tools, as well as providing oversight. We want to make sure everybody is behaving the way they should, but as we see so hyped lately with a tiny, tiny minority of incidents out there compared to the contacts--I heard a statistic the other day, much less than 1 percent of contacts that officers have with the public results in any kind of physical action needed, much less than 1 percent; yet you would think, from all the hype, from all the media, it was a much higher number than that. The vast majority of it is an officer helping you out. You have brushes with the law here and there, but they are very professional in what they do. What you really need to do is step into their shoes for a minute, think about where they have come from to get where they are. They had to have a very clean record to get through background to be accepted into academy and be accepted into whatever force that they are working in. It is a high bar. You can't have a bad record in your background. They have chosen to come forward and put themselves at risk. Look what they go through each day in their jobs if they have made it through academy and were brought on to a force. If they are called into a situation, they don't really have the option of saying: No, I am not going to go. If someone has called from a home, they have a domestic problem, what have you, they have got to get to a solution because someone's lives may be at stake inside that home, even though there might be something outside that would make you or I uncomfortable, a mean dog in the yard or some characters hanging around outside that you wouldn't normally want to deal with. They have to get to a solution on that because somebody called them, somebody dialed 911, and we expect that they are going to get to a solution. Officers have to go into every situation prepared for the worst because it could mean their life, maybe their partner's life, or someone else in a vulnerable situation that has called upon them. If you think about being in their shoes, we all have a responsibility to make their jobs simpler. It could even help us in not being in a mistaken situation because they have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. I can certainly feel for them in that they might be a little stressed on every call, every car they might pull over for speeding or a broken taillight or having to answer to someone's household or even a bigger deal like a bank robbery. They have to be prepared every moment because it is their life or the other lives around them. They have to have the protocol and the training to know how to handle that situation just right. When you look at that high bar, you look at the amount of stress that they are going through to do that, they do an amazing, remarkable job of getting it right; so we need to give them a little grace, a little room to do their job as best they can. Then we have a responsibility as regular citizens to make their job easier. If they ask for your driver's license and ID, just give it to them. If they ask you to stay in the car so that they can see where your hands are and stuff--they don't know who else is in that car--make it where they can do their job, and you are going to have a heck of a lot better interaction with them. Use basic common sense. There are instructions out there how to get along with that. I have even seen comedians out there saying how not to get in trouble with the police. Pay attention to the common sense on that because we need them more so than ever in a country that is becoming less and less safe, it seems, from outside threats, as well as people within that don't seem to understand the rule of law and sometimes governing officials that don't seem to care about upholding it. We all have the responsibility as citizens. Those costs have been high because, in the previous year, well over 100 officers have been lost in the line of duty--and that is tragic-- trying to defend us. I am glad to be able to stand here today with my colleague from Washington to recognize their bravery, their devotion, and for all of us to remember how to make their job a little bit easier.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, today, I am glad to be a Californian who is in favor of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Indeed, we have heard some interesting debate on this today, deflecting issues like higher pay or building more infrastructure, which we desperately need in California, as well as the water supply, and even entering the word ``child care'' in when we are talking about paying for abortions. Interesting. Even words like ``access.'' Well, abortion has been certainly accessible for 42 years, millions of times. The central point is, Are the taxpayers going to be compelled to pay for it? Are the American people out there--those 68 percent, in the latest poll--going to be compelled to pay for something? Jefferson said: To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical. People who are pro-life, as well as many that are pro-choice, might agree with the idea that abortion should be available--on the pro- choice side. But many, many disagree, a supermajority. The number of people who disagree with this would override a veto in these two Houses in the Capitol. Yet what we are finding in my own State of California is an interpretation of ObamaCare--which is one of those job-killing, non- infrastructure building items that is hurting our economy in California and in this country--where we are being compelled, whether you are a church or religious charity, employer or individual, to have included in your insurance plans these provisions paying for abortions. Where is the freedom in that? Where is the conscientious objection to that? Where is the freedom of expression that I hear a lot from the other side of the aisle--until recent years? Our First Amendment? This bureaucratic mandate, which includes their opinion on what it would be under ObamaCare, largely done quietly, in the middle of the night, out of the public eye, is now being put on Californians. We need to send the message back that Californians should not be compelled to have to provide this in their coverage.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for leading this Special Order today, and also for the comments started out by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), very heartfelt, that reflect the importance of this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the sanctity of human life and to recognize those who will be in Washington, D.C., tomorrow for the March for Life. I am pleased to join my colleagues and individuals who have traveled from near and far to be in solidarity to protect the rights of the unborn. I applaud those marchers who come here year after year despite snow, rainy conditions, and cold conditions to stand up for such a vital cause. It is their efforts and determination which gives substance and meaning to this year's theme, ``Every Life is a Gift''--and to march for the truth. As a parent, I wish all parents would understand what the gift is that the Lord has bestowed with one of these young lives upon you. That is part of our mission, to help them understand, to educate. That is part of the mission of the March for Life, to appreciate that these are gifts, even through the hard times. We have struggles in all matters of our lives, and that is an important one we have to get through as well. To understand these blessings that these lives are. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to convey to these marchers that their voice will be heard and will continue to be heard as we fight for the dignity of human life.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the President drove right past the Phoenix VA hospital, the facility at the center of the biggest scandal plaguing our Nation's veterans, without taking a second to stop. Last night in his hour-long speech, the President hardly skimmed the surface in addressing the major challenges our veterans are facing, but he did mention we need to do more to provide our veterans more job opportunities. We agree. In fact, on this same floor just a few weeks ago, Members of the House passed legislation that would do just that: encourage our employers to hire more of our heroes. Astonishingly, though, our President failed to even mention one word about the excessive wait times, second-rate care, fraudulent records, destroyed files, and complete incompetence that had been brought to light last year in the VA. He made no mention on the appeals process or recommendations to improve the lengthy process our veterans face to access the care and treatment they deserve, a topic the House is scheduled to have a hearing on tomorrow. Fixing the VA is difficult but not impossible. We are here to provide solutions, but we need our leader to be ready to work with us, to be ready to help us so we can finally give our veterans a system that works for them, not against them, in a timely fashion.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's Constitution is clear. Congress holds the power of the purse. There are no exceptions. There is no asterisk, and there is no fine print. The Founders designed our government in order to prevent these exact circumstances--a President who ignores the law, refuses to work with Congress and intends to govern unilaterally. Whatever your views on the President's plan, it is the responsibility of every Member of this House to support this amendment, to maintain our representative government, and to uphold the framework of our Republic. Our immigration system isn't broken. It is just not being used.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, late last year we saw the President knowingly act to ignore Federal immigration law, claiming to grant legal status to millions who entered the country illegally--which looks a lot like amnesty to many Americans--an action done in complete defiance of our Nation's rule of law. This week the House will act to defund the President's plan. Some have claimed this plan is funded by fees and fines and that Congress can't prevent it. I have one answer for them: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. These are words straight out of Article I, section 9 of the Constitution. There are no exceptions, no asterisks, and no fine print. The unilateral attacks on our rule of law and unprecedented power grabs from this President need to end. These measures included in H.R. 240 are important steps in doing just that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will stop the President's executive overreach and defend the will of the American people.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, today I once again will speak about California's high-speed rail system. Now, just this last week, they had a symbolic groundbreaking for this system in the context of getting started. California has been, since 2008, anticipating the start of high-speed rail. What do we have instead? Empty promises, a lot of waste, and a lot of money going down the tubes. What we see is that when the plan was first put in place, the voters of California approved a $33 billion link from Los Angeles to San Francisco. What they are now being given is something that has tripled in price. What they have now been given at this groundbreaking, which is symbolic, what you saw was a mound of dirt with about an 8-foot section of ties and rails on that. That is very symbolic for those doing the groundbreaking, but also for those of us that will be paying for it. What this high-speed rail system will turn into is several links of rail between north and south California that aren't linked up, that have no way to power them, and no trains will be running on them for several years. So instead of the $33 billion plan that they saw on the ballot in 2008--which, by the way, it was on the 2006 ballot and, before that, on the 2004 ballot, but those involved knew that they would have, politically, a hard time selling that to people in California--it has ballooned to a $100-billion plan until they revise it again downwards by taking away part of the high-speed system in San Francisco and L.A., where they will instead be using local transit to link to the center section that runs through central California. That is not even legal under Prop 1A. What Prop 1A spells out is that it has to be a high-speed system that will make it from San Francisco to L.A. or reverse in 2\1/2\ hours at speeds of 220 miles per hour. This promise will not be upheld. Now, why is this important to a national audience, to Members of Congress, and to people in other States? It is because, after the stimulus package was passed in 2009-2010, some of that Federal money is going to go for the high-speed rail system in California. Indeed, several other States were recipients of those initial grants. After they looked at their own ideas for high-speed rail and saw the costs involved and the infeasibility, they turned that money back into that pot of money. California, of course, stepped forward and said: Hey, give us all of that money. So they have received, at this point, about $3.5 billion that they can spend, dollar for dollar, for the bond money they spend themselves, the State money. So what that means for Americans is that we know Californians will be back at the Federal well once again trying to get more money for their high-speed plan. What we see is that their down-sized plan will still cost $68 billion. They only have identified $13 billion for the whole system. No private sector money--which is what we were told when the ballot measure passed--has stepped forward to be part of this. The plan is $55 billion short. The Federal Government, so far, has offered about 3\1/2\. Did they think they would get the other 52 from the Federal Government since no private sector money wants to come forward for this? Will they get it out of the California taxpayers? Nobody knows. Indeed, the Governor, at the groundbreaking the other day, said: Don't worry about the money; we will get it. Well, part of their measure has been to impose a cap-and-trade program on the people of California which so far has generated about $250 million per year. At that rate, it will be how many centuries before they can catch up and get enough money just to pay for high-speed rail which cap-and-trade wasn't even intended for anyway? Folks, we have a giant problem here. High-speed rail in California should not be the Federal taxpayers' burden. It shouldn't even be the people of California's burden. They barely passed it by 52-48 percent on that 2008 ballot after two previous ballot delays. Delay, delay, delay is what you see with this system. So what really needs to happen is the people of California need to step forward, put this back on the ballot, and have a vote once again on this. And the Federal Government doesn't need to be giving signals that they are going to send even more money for this boondoggle which has been failed, flawed, and deceptive since day one. Madam Speaker, it is a massively flawed project that leaves taxpayers at all levels on the hook for many, many years to come for something that may not even run in our lifetime. So we, as Federal legislators, need to put a stop to any idea--as my colleagues have been doing--for more money to go forward for high-speed rail. And we need the people of California to wake up to that idea and demand that it be placed back on the ballot, this money go instead for other projects that could be helpful for their transportation corridors, for their highway system, and for the normal mode of rail which can be made to be enhanced to drive 125 miles per hour, which would be beneficial. Madam Speaker, we need to get on the ball and get back to reality on what high-speed rail will really cost Californians and the American taxpayer and urge that it be placed back on the ballot and give the people that choice once again.

Mr. LaMALFA

Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, last week on the evening of New Year's Day, I had the honor and privilege of being invited to attend the Fallen Officers Memorial in Chico, California, where I joined members of our community in paying tribute to members of our law enforcement who had made the ultimate sacrifice in the previous year. In the U.S., we lost 118 officers nationwide, 14 in California. We are still mourning and feeling the sting of the loss of Officer Davis and Officer Oliver in a horrific crime spree in Placer County in northern California. Yet what we hear in the news isn't really consistent with how we value our law enforcement--at least, how we should. Nearly 50,000 officers in 2013 were physically assaulted in the line of duty, but all we hear about is the other way. Madam Speaker, less than 1 in 1,000 contacts officers have result in any kind of physical need with the public. Indeed, that is less than half of 1 percent of an estimated 44 million contacts our officers have. Now, in light of what we saw in Paris yesterday where their officers, in many cases, are disarmed, and what it looks like is happening in America, we are disarming the confidence in our officers and our law enforcement, we better change our attitude really quickly and value what our men and women in blue do for us so we don't have a worsening situation like we see going on around the world. I stand today in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in law enforcement and ask that all Americans do the same as we do our business.