Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Greg J. Feere upon his retirement from the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council. Mr. Feere has been an extraordinary community leader at the Building Trades Council and throughout Contra Costa County.

During his tenure as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr. Feere also served as a Commissioner for the Contra Costa County Fish & Wildlife and as a Trustee of Contra Costa College. Prior to his work with the Building Trades Council, Greg was the youngest Business Manager for Asbestos Workers Local 16 to be elected in 100 years of the Local's history.

During his 30 years of service as CEO of the Council, Greg was elected uncontested for his seven terms, which reflects his accomplished tenure. Some highlights of his achievements include designing the first Community Outreach Program in Northern California to create training and job opportunities for women, minorities and economically disadvantaged workers, doubling the Council's membership in two and a half years, at a time when other unions were losing members and development and promotion of the Best Employee Safety Team (B.E.S.T.) program used at Shell refinery, which set a national safety record of 4 million hours worked without a lost time accident; for which Shell refinery received the Business Roundtable National Safety Award.

Mr. Feere's rich legacy is filled with positive impacts on working families and the less fortunate for those living in Contra Costa County and beyond. I wish Greg all of the best in his retirement.

Congratulations to Greg on a remarkable legacy of service in Contra Costa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of a former Contra Costa Assemblyman, Mr. John Knox.

Mr. Knox spent 20 years in the Assembly, representing western Contra Costa County. Besides the state's environmental law, he sponsored laws creating the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which was signed by Governor Reagan and thwarted plans to fill in parts of the bay; authorizing state regulation of health maintenance organizations, rewriting standards for sales of stock and other corporate securities in California, and establishing regional planning agencies.

Even after he retired from the Legislature and joined a law firm, he was often brought back to preside as the house parliamentarian. A section of Interstate 580 leading to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is named the John T. Knox Freeway because of his success in obtaining funding to rebuild a dangerous, undivided highway.

After his time in the Assembly, Mr. Knox was always willing to sit down and discuss issues, whether that be in classrooms or simply over lunch with colleagues and peers. He was always willing to lend his knowledge and experience to the betterment of the Contra Costa community.

John was an inspiration and a friend, and will be greatly missed by not only myself, but the entire Contra Costa community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pledge my support for the Juvenile Justice Reform Act (H.R. 1809).

As a former deputy probation officer with the Boston Juvenile Court, I have seen firsthand the benefits of providing core protections for the treatment of children, youth, and families in the justice system. When I was a Contra Costa County Supervisor in California, I saw the benefits from another perspective when our county received one of the first SafeFutures grants awarded by the federal government. The SafeFutures initiative encouraged communities to tailor prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies to local needs. It was through this program that I had the opportunity to witness first-hand the positive effects that supportive disciplinary practices have on the at- risk population.

I am pleased that the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, like SafeFutures, brings together stakeholders to identify gaps in the continuum of services. Not only will these gaps be filled, but it also encourages finding cost-savings and efficiencies to keep initiatives schools establish with the help of JJRA grants running after that funding is exhausted.

I appreciate the work done by Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott to make the Juvenile Justice Reform Act comprehensive and bipartisan. I strongly support this bill,

which will help equip professionals with the supports they need to contribute positively to the lives of our youth.

Mr. Speaker, this week we considered an important issue that needs to be addressed: youth sexual abuse. Some research shows that as many as 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys will be victims of sexual abuse. Congress can and should do more to reduce the prevalence of this heinous behavior.

Unfortunately, some of the bills we considered this week use the wrong tools to address this problem. Those bills include the Strengthening Children's Safety Act (H.R. 1842), the Global Child Protection Act (H.R. 1862), and the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act (H.R. 1761). All of these bills double down on our country's misguided practice of enforcing mandatory minimum sentencing, which research has shown does not dissuade crime and can tie the hands of judges when mitigating factors warrant lighter sentencing.

Let me be clear--sexual abuse of children is a horrible offense that cannot be tolerated, and I support efforts to address this issue, including the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act (H.R. 1973), which I was proud to vote in favor of this week. My opposition to H.R. 1842 and H.R. 1761 reflects my opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing. I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to improve these measures for the future to best protect our youth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Dr. Joseph A. Ovick, former Superintendent of Schools for Contra Costa County.

Dr. Ovick was an educator for 45 years. He began his career as a special education teacher in Santa Clara County which was followed by serving in the county as a public school assistant principal, principal, and director of special education. He later joined the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE), where he worked as director of special education, assistant superintendent for student services, and associate superintendent for business.

In 1996, he was elected county superintendent of schools. He was well-known for developing strong coalitions of educators, community members, and legislators in support of public schools, while always making it a point to visit countless classrooms throughout the county.

Dr. Ovick's achievements in and out of the classroom did not go unrecognized. In 2005, Dr. Ovick was awarded the President's Circle Award for Outstanding Service to Education and the Community from the Diablo Valley College Foundation, as well as the Government Service Award in Recognition of Outstanding Community Service from Congressman George Miller. In 2008, the East Bay Leadership Foundation named Dr. Ovick Citizen of the Year, East Bay Awards. In 2006, he won the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), Region 6, Superintendent of the Year Award, and in 2010 he earned the ACSA, Region 6, Ferd Kiesel Memorial Distinguished Service Award.

Additionally, in 2008, the Contra Costa County Board of Education unanimously voted to honor Dr. Ovick by dedicating CCCOE's community school in Brentwood as the ``Joseph A. Ovick School'' because of his longtime advocacy for the needs of all students--especially those most at risk and with special needs.

Community service was also an important part of Dr. Ovick's life. He was an active member of the Pleasant Hill Rotary Club, and served as a member on both the local Boys' and Girls' Clubs and Junior Achievement

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to H.R. 998. As drafted, the SCRUB Act requires Federal agencies to repeal existing regulations to offset the cost of new regulations. The bill also authorizes up to $30 million for a new commission to review the Code of Federal Regulations and recommend regulatory repeals.

This commonsense amendment ensures the impacts of public health, including the costs and benefits associated with those impacts, are considered under processes established by the SCRUB Act. This, I believe, is a reasonable improvement to the bill. It ensures that Federal agencies appropriately consider the true costs and benefits of Federal rules with an eye towards saving hard-earned taxpayer money.

As a member of the California State Senate, I worked with a Republican administration to help enact this legislation as the first- ever health act of its type in the country in a State. It was based on the sensible premise that understanding the impacts of government actions on public health not only saves lives, but saves money.

This effort helped provide California State agencies with the direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex environmental, financial, and sustainability factors that contribute to poor health and inequities. Over the 6 years of its existence, this policy has resulted in increased collaboration across large State agencies, saving taxpayer money while promoting improved public health throughout the Nation's largest State.

Today, U.S. taxpayers face a growing burden of largely preventable chronic illnesses. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, and diabetes are but a few of the myriad health issues that millions of Americans face every day that also drive many of their financial and professional decisions.

In many of our most disadvantaged communities, fewer resources are available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the levels of chronic illness in these communities and shorter life expectancies. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots of government policies on public health in our economy.

If the goal of this legislation is eliminating existing regulations to pay for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to understand the impacts of these decisions on our Nation's public health? For example, eliminating the Department of Labor's silica rule might save an employer the expense of

purchasing mitigation equipment, but does that employer truly save money if his health insurance premiums go up due to associated respiratory illness?

When the majority pushed to eliminate the Department of the Interior's stream protection rule, thereby allowing mountaintop mining companies to dump potentially toxic mining debris in nearby streams, there was little consideration to the costs associated with mitigating the inevitable drinking water contamination and healthcare costs of those who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water.

This amendment ensures that Federal agencies, at the very least, consider the health impacts and costs associated with eliminating a regulation. This amendment will help to go a long way in preventing unnecessary healthcare costs, which I hope we can agree is a positive improvement to the bill.

If my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating Federal regulations, I hope that they agree that at least we can make sure that this independent commission will at least consider the benefits of public health as they do their analysis. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act.

As currently drafted, the SCRUB Act requires federal agencies to repeal existing regulations to offset the cost of new regulations. The bill also authorizes up to $30 million for a new commission to review the Code of Federal Regulations and recommend regulatory repeals.

This commonsense amendment ensures that impacts to public health, including the costs associated with those impacts, are considered under processes established by the SCRUB Act. This is a reasonable improvement to the bill ensures that federal agencies appropriately consider the true costs and benefits of federal rules with an eye towards saving hard-earned taxpayer money.

As a member of the California State Senate, I helped to enact legislation focused on promoting public health throughout the state while saving taxpayer dollars. Based on the sensible premise that understanding the impacts of government actions on public health not only saves lives, but saves money.

This effort helped provide California state agencies with the direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex environmental, financial, and sustainability factors that contribute to poor health and inequities. Over six years of existence, this policy has resulted in increased collaboration across state agencies, saving taxpayers money while promoting improved public health throughout the state.

Today, U.S. taxpayers face a growing burden of largely preventable chronic illnesses. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, and diabetes are but a few of the myriad health issues that millions of Americans face every day that also drive many of their financial and professional decisions.

In many of our most disadvantaged communities, fewer resources are available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the levels of chronic illness and shorter life expectancies. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots of government policies on public health and our economy.

If the goal of this legislation is to eliminate existing regulations to pay for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to understand the impacts of those decisions on public health?

For example, eliminating the Department of Labor's Silica Rule might save an employer the expense of purchasing mitigation equipment, but does that employer truly save money if his health insurance premiums go up due to associated respiratory illness?

When the Majority pushed to eliminate the Interior Department's Stream Protection rule, thereby allowing mountaintop mining companies to dump potentially toxic mining debris in nearby streams, there was little consideration to the costs associated with mitigating the inevitable drinking water contamination and health care costs of those who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water.

This amendment ensures that federal agencies, at the very least, consider the health impacts and costs associated with eliminating a regulation. This effort will go a long way in preventing unnecessary health care costs, which I hope we can agree is a positive improvement to the bill.

If my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating federal regulations, it only makes sense to ensure that removing such rules does not harm the public.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``YES'' on this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I look forward to, in the future, working on true bipartisan regulation. I think it is one of those areas, at least in my experience in local and State government, that we should be working in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, this bill I do not believe accomplishes that.

So regulatory oversight is probably the most important thing we could do, and I hope that we can do it in a bipartisan way in the future. I would encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the State of Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for the brief opportunity to speak.

I did want to speak personally just briefly on my experience in my previous job in the California legislature when I voted for the Secure Choice Act. Then we spent over 4 years working with the business community, the investment community, and our attorneys to make sure the issues that the majority have brought up in regards to ERISA and other concerns, and I did this specifically as a former small-business person with the small-business stakeholders, to make sure these concerns were taken care of. We think that they have been taken care of, and we are proud of the Secure Choice Act.

Close to 7 million Californians and 55 million people nationwide, most of them low- and middle-income, don't have access to retirement benefits through their employer. We are talking about people mostly who work for small businesses where neither the employer nor the employee can afford to enroll in expensive Wall Street-type financial advisers. They aren't able to pay the fees and the expenses.

This element of the U.S. economy, and at this point I have to agree with The New York Times editorial today, that this resolution appears to be more directed towards Wall Street than to Main Street. Wall Street, the financial sector, takes around 25 percent of all corporate profits in the United States, represents 7 percent of the U.S. economy, and creates merely 4 percent of all jobs.

The Secure Choice Act was directed away from those expensive investments and allowed for a more efficient process for working class Californians and Americans to be able to replicate this program and to be able to have a secure retirement.

The majority often talks about states' rights and having States be the laboratories of creation. I think in California we have done that on multiple issues, and certainly on this issue.

Without programs like this, most of the 55 million private sector Americans will end up relying on social security for more than half of their retirement income, which averages about less than $1,400 a month.

California and seven other States that have created similar retirement programs are looking out for working families. American workers are doing more today than they ever have before. Over the last 40 years, worker productivity has risen 73 percent, yet hourly pay has only increased 11 percent. Now they find their retirement more and more in jeopardy.

I would ask the majority to strongly reconsider this approach, and to work with California and other States to make sure that we can allow these Americans to have access to a secure retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional young woman who is spending the spring semester interning in my Washington, D.C. office. Ms. Montana Byers came to our office as part of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme (UCWIP), and has been a valuable contributor to our efforts on behalf of California's Eleventh Congressional District.

Since 2000, UCWIP has worked with congressional offices to foster strong ties and understanding between the United States and Australian governments by bringing the best and the brightest from top Australian universities to intern on Capitol Hill. I am proud to be involved in this wonderful program for the second year in a row.

Montana Byers, a student from the University of Wollongong, has worked in our office since January and quickly proved herself to be a highly valuable member of our team. She has drafted legislative requests, attended briefings, written constituent mail, and researched important issues, among many other duties. She consistently displays a deep desire to learn and treats everyone that she encounters with respect. Her hard work and dedication is a tremendous asset to our office and the Eleventh Congressional District.

My team has learned a great deal from Montana about her native country as she has learned about the United States and the U.S. Congress. She is an absolute pleasure to have in the office and I offer her my thanks for a job well done. I wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act in a spirit of cooperation. It is most important for the integrity of the SEC, for the investor community, for the entire U.S. population, and indeed for the economic benefit of the United States that integrity and transparency are paramount. So this amendment strengthens the bill, I believe, on behalf of the American investor as well as industry by reaffirming transparency as a core principle of efficient markets and places public service ahead of personal gain.

By requiring the head of the SEC and his immediate family members to divest themselves of all securities connected to the financial institutions regulated by the agency, we reinforce investor confidence that agency decisions are driven by market forces, not the portfolio of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the power and stability of U.S. markets rely on the fundamental belief that the system is transparent and fair. Anything that causes investors to question the integrity of the U.S. markets, including lack of information or opaqueness of information, will necessarily hurt our markets and make capital formation more difficult.

The SEC plays a critical role in promoting adequate transparency. Requiring the SEC Chairperson to cut financial ties with institutions that the SEC oversees is a commonsense protection of the agency's credibility and improvement to the underlying bill in my belief.

I hope my Republican colleagues agree and will support this amendment that puts public service ahead of potential personal gain.

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

Mr. Chairman, I honestly respect the tutorial, but, with all due respect, I do think that this amendment complements the existing rules and protects the investors.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I really think this is, as intended, a commonsense amendment. I do think it complements rather than adds on to the existing requirements to protect investors. And I really think this House, with all due respect, would want to see the markets work efficiently. We also want to ensure that the integrity of those markets and the investors are also strengthened. So I think transparency in this case with the acknowledgment that there are other already existing regulations and the belief that this amendment complements those, I would ask for the House's support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was trying to think of a BYU football analogy to go with the Clemson-Alabama analogy, but I haven't been able to come up with one yet. I will work on it.

I rise in support of H.R. 274, the Modernizing Government Travel Act, as amended. I appreciate the good work of Representatives Moulton, Hurd, Meadows, Bustos, and Swalwell on this bipartisan measure.

H.R. 274 would expand the transportation options for Federal employees on official government travel by allowing them to be reimbursed for the use of ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft. This bill would also allow for the use of future mobility technologies not yet known or available to be covered as by reimbursable travel expenses. The General Services Administration would be directed to issue implementing regulations. The bill would require Federal agencies to submit to GSA detailed information on their travel costs, including breakdowns of costs by transportation type by November 30 of each year.

GSA would be required to submit annual reports to Congress containing an analysis or survey of agencies' travel costs as well as descriptions of new or revised regulations.

H.R. 274 is a commonsense, good government bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of the TALENT Act, a bill to ensure that we continue to bring top private sector innovators into government to help solve complex technological problems at Federal agencies.

The Presidential Innovation Fellows program was established by President Obama in 2012 to identify and pursue projects that apply and implement innovative private sector techniques in as little as 6 months. The program was made permanent by Executive Order 13704 in 2015, and would be codified by the bill before us today.

H.R. 39 would require the General Services Administration to continue managing the program with guidance from an advisory board comprised of representatives from different executive branch agencies. Over 100 Presidential Innovation Fellows have already been appointed to work alongside dedicated civil servants at 25 Federal agencies and departments.

At those agencies, fellows have been able to merge their experience from top universities, pioneering companies, and successful nonprofits with their desire to contribute to society through public service. This collaboration has allowed the Federal Government to obtain new tools, develop new technologies, and ultimately become more effective and efficient.

Presidential Innovation Fellows have reshaped the way Americans interact with their government in areas ranging from health care and science to law enforcement and disaster response. Fifteen million Americans can access their health data as a result of the program's Blue Button initiative, and cancer patients can search for clinical trials as part of work to support the Vice President's Cancer Moonshot initiative.

Scientists can now obtain more weather data collected by NOAA, and veterans can now more readily access custom prosthetic designs.

Citizens can review police records, including crime statistics and data on officer-involved shootings. And FEMA and other first responders can better target and prioritize their response to natural disasters.

All of these things have been made possible through the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, and it is crucial that we continue our support of these and other endeavors by ensuring its permanency.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 39.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I just briefly congratulate everyone who has been involved. As somebody who represents the bay area and struggles with the innovation in the private sector there to integrate it into the public sector at all levels of government, I really admire the work by Mr. Hurd, the comments and the contributions by the administration, and Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on our side. I congratulate Mr. Hurd.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Henry Lovelace. Henry was born November 22, 1931, in South Boston, Virginia, and passed away on January 28 of 2015.

Henry was a vibrant, pleasant, peaceful person who always kept a positive attitude. He began to work at the early age of 16 as a schoolbus driver. Henry joined the United States Army in 1950 and was promoted to the rank of sergeant. He was stationed at Fort Sill Army Base in Oklahoma where he worked as a mechanic. After his military service, he worked as a public transit bus driver and maintenance worker at a local church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

In 2003, Henry moved to California to be closer to his family. He was a beloved father of two children, grandfather of six, great-grandfather of eight, and father-in-law to Pete Longmire, mayor of the city of Pittsburg, California, in my district. He was an avid storyteller, shared stories about his military life, all of his life experiences, and his many travels. He enjoyed meeting new people, going to church every week, riding the public bus, playing checkers at senior centers, and wearing his crisp white dress shirts, ties, and dress hats.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the remarkable life of Henry Lovelace. I send my deepest condolences to Henry's family, friends, and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Kyle Ean Long who was born in Sacramento on June 14, 1987, and died on January 10, 2015, at the all too young age of 27.

The son of James and Tina Long was born and raised in Sacramento, California, attended local public schools, and was a graduate of Sacramento State University. I became familiar with Kyle when he came to work for me as an intern, quickly rising to a legislative aide in my previous position as a Member of the California State Senate.

Kyle's passion for public policy and his enthusiasm for bringing people together made him a highly effective legislative staffer. During his tenure in the State senate, Kyle successfully steered bills through the legislative process in California that helped to provide counseling services for rape victims, prohibited pesticides at school sites and child care facilities, and provided school supplies for homeless children.

In addition to being an important member of the California State family, Kyle was a beloved friend, family member, and a member of the broader Sacramento community. He died when he went to his local gym in the morning to start his daily exercise regimen, had a heart attack, and passed away at the all too early age of 27.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary but all too brief life of Kyle Long.

Mr. Speaker, last week I regret that I was unable to cast my vote against H.R. 351, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. Had I voted, I would have voted NO on H.R. 351, in order to protect the environment and our natural resources.

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

I am opposed in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the comments of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I must say that it has not been my experience where I come from, but maybe it is a little different with my being from California.

This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill, as amended, will immediately proceed to final passage.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 596 would eliminate critical benefits and health care coverage from hardworking American families. In addition to taking away Americans' health care security, this bill would increase the deficit, make health care more expensive, and degrade the quality of care that patients are now receiving. If adopted, my motion to recommit would ensure that some of the most important protections of the Affordable Care Act would remain in effect.

Yesterday, as others have mentioned, was Groundhog Day, but, today, we are Bill Murray, living the same votes over and over again--in fact, as has been mentioned, 56 times over and over again.

This motion would protect existing law by continuing to, one, prevent insurance companies from discriminating based on preexisting conditions and gender or cutting health benefits for women; two, prevent increases in Medicare D prescription drug costs for seniors; and three, prevent a tax increase for middle class American families by the taking away of subsidies to purchase health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I am a former Republican and a small business owner who supports the Affordable Care Act and who has seen the benefits for small business. I have also seen the benefits for the economy and for the 7 million Californians who do not have health insurance. Many individuals who wanted health insurance were unable to obtain it, either because it was too expensive or because they had preexisting conditions, including nearly 126,000 people in my home county in the Bay Area.

One of these individuals in my district is a young woman named Emily. Emily was born with a congenital heart defect, and as a result, she will need regular monitoring and treatment by a cardiologist. Were it not for the Affordable Care Act, Emily would have been left without critical health care and the necessary treatment for the remainder of her young life.

Her situation is not unique. Approximately 130 million other Americans no longer have to worry about being denied health care coverage because of their health status. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, under the Affordable Care Act, almost 8 million seniors have saved nearly $10 billion on prescription drugs, and under the Affordable Care Act, many people paid less for their insurance in 2014 than in 2013.

Before the law was enacted, health care premiums were increasing exponentially, much faster than college tuition, workers' wages, and inflation. Once the law took effect, premium increases for plans slowed down substantially. Simply, this law is saving Americans money. This year in California, with 2 weeks left to go in open enrollment, more than 273,000 Californians have joined the nearly 1 million covered California customers who were enrolled in 2014. Nearly nine of 10 enrollees received some kind of financial help in 2014, ensuring that Californians can afford the kind of coverage that they need and want.

Repealing the law without including these three protections will cost more than we can afford--$100 billion over the next 10 years, until 2022, and more than $1 trillion in the following decade. It would also discriminate against women in the form of higher premiums, and it would make it impossible for many women to get the care they need.

Mr. Speaker, every American family deserves a plan that covers essential health benefits, like hospital care, emergency care, care for pregnant women, and a plan that won't bankrupt them or this country just because an illness or an accident occurs. Every American family deserves to know that they won't be kicked off their insurance for a preexisting condition or be subjected to lifetime caps that take away their benefits when they need them the most.

Health care, Mr. Speaker, is not a Democrat or a Republican issue; it is an American issue and a human issue. We are here to ensure that every American continues to have access to quality, affordable health care. If we can produce a bill that fulfills the goals set out by the Affordable Care Act, it doesn't matter who wrote or signed the bill. But repealing the Affordable Care Act without including these important protections for hardworking, middle class American families is irresponsible and reckless.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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