Judy Chu

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Dawn, a single mother of two, spends every day looking for a job. After 20 years working in human resources, she was laid off in July; and now, the only thing paying her heat and electricity bills, the only thing putting food on the table, is her modest unemployment benefit. In just 35 days and counting, her safety net will be pulled away if Congress fails to act. If we don't extend emergency unemployment benefits when they expire, by mid-February, 2.1 million Americans will have their benefits cut off. And by the end of the year, 6 million will be without this critical lifeline. Today one out of every 11 Americans is out of work. Congress has never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when unemployment was this high for this long. We should not start now.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Proponents of this bill claim it is about fiscal responsibility, but it is the opposite. This bill makes it impossible, in fact unconstitutional, for the government to save for the future. Under this bill, programs like Social Security or long term Federal highway projects would have to be completely eliminated to comply with the Constitution. Today, American workers put money into a Social Security trust fund built to pay and save for future benefits. But under this shortsighted constitutional amendment, money coming into the Federal Government must be paid out the same year. That means you can't have a Social Security trust fund, so good-bye Social Security. Good-bye saving for retirement. Let me tell you how bad this idea is. Let's say for a moment that this was your family's budget. If this constitutional budget amendment applied to you, you would have to spend everything you earned in the same year. No college fund or IRA, no savings account to put a downpayment on a house or, God forbid, to pay for expensive medical treatment. Not only is that ludicrous, it is tragic. If that weren't bad enough, if this constitutional amendment goes through and no revenues are raised, all government programs will suffer a 17.3 percent cut. That's a $1.2 trillion reduction in Social Security payments through 2021. That is nearly a 20 percent reduction that would directly hurt current and future retirees and senior citizens for the next decade. This so-called balanced budget amendment balances overzealous budget slashing on the backs of our senior citizens and future retirees. Does Congress really want to send the message now, in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, that saving responsibly for the future is unconstitutional? Is Congress prepared to abandon millions of Americans now? I, for one, am not. And so I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless constitutional amendment.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. This bill is a blatant attempt to override and weaken States' laws on an issue that could endanger people's lives. It hurts my home State of California, which developed laws to protect residents by developing criteria on those who could carry concealed-carry weapons. With this bill, that all goes away. This bill is so bad that it even allows drug dealers convicted of selling drugs to minors to carry a concealed weapon. California would not allow it because such permits can only go to those of good moral character. But under this law, we would have to accept the concealed weapon permit for every other State that allows weapons to these drug dealers. I offered an amendment in the Judiciary Committee to stop this, but those on the other side of the aisle voted it down. With this bill, a person who endangers the lives of our children will be allowed to carry a concealed loaded gun nationwide, and you would be powerless to stop it. It is the individual States that are in the best position to determine how to best protect its citizens. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. There was a time when women and minorities could not vote in this country. People were jailed and even killed for the right to vote. But because people fought back, every U.S. citizen gained the right to vote--that is, up until now. This year, an unprecedented 42 bills were introduced in various States to deprive you of that right. States have passed voter ID laws that would stop 21 million legal U.S. citizens from voting, including your grandmother who was born in this country and lived here for 82 years. Why? Because she no longer drives and doesn't have a picture ID. These laws would stop early voting and voting by mail, so that if you know you have to travel out of town or have an operation on Election Day, you would be deprived of casting your vote. This threatens the very basis of our democracy. We must work together to protect every American's right to vote.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Ms. CHU. In conclusion, H.R. 1002 is irresponsible legislation that will restrict State flexibility to raise much-needed revenues, which will force State governments to eliminate essential government programs and services and shift burdens to other taxpayers. For all of these reasons, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1002, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011, will impose on States a 5-year moratorium on any new tax on mobile services, mobile service providers, and mobile service property. This will deny States the flexibility to respond to economic downturns during the moratorium and, therefore, undermine the ability of States to pay for essential services such as public health and safety, education and maintenance of State highways. The legislation is based on faulty information and will benefit the wireless services industry. Further, the legislation contains vague language which will lead to increased litigation for both State and local governments and the wireless industry. Because of these and other concerns presented by the bill, many organizations are opposed, including the League of Cities, National Governors Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the AFL- CIO, AFT and NEA, amongst others. Why are they opposed? Because, first, this bill will force States to cut services and increase taxes on nonwireless taxpayers. In order for States and local communities to continue to recover from this recession, they need all tools at their disposal to balance their budgets, to preserve and create jobs, and to provide essential services like police, fire, and education. In fact, demand for many of the essential services, such as unemployment payments and other social programs, has increased during the economic downturn. Yet this bill takes away one of the tools to tax the wireless industry at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. The moratorium will exclude from possible State taxation millions, if not billions of dollars, in future revenue from wireless service taxes. Thus, to balance their budgets, States will be forced to cut even more services and shift more of the tax burden on to other local taxpayers. As a former member of the California Board of Equalization, the Nation's duly elected statewide tax board, I understand the unique fiscal challenges facing our Nation today and believe we should leave local taxes in the hands of local officials and residents. Finally, State legislators and local officials who are elected by their constituents and accountable to them have decided to impose these taxes. By passing this legislation, Congress impedes upon local elections and is telling local governments how to run their budgets. A second reason for opposition is that this bill is a special interest bill for the wireless industry. It benefits the wireless services industry at the expense of other industries. Despite industry claims, this bill will not lead to more broadband development and competitiveness. Current State and local taxes on wireless services and providers have not diminished adoption rates, nor have they inhibited broadband expansion. In fact, the wireless industry has not yet presented any data indicating that State and local wireless taxes have had adverse effect on wireless subscribership, revenue, or investment. Instead, the wireless industry continues to grow and profits remain high. If this bill becomes law, it would set up a dual tax system on telephone services by giving preferential treatment to cell phone customers but continue to allow taxes on traditional wire-line phones. This will put a higher burden on those without cell phones. Finally, vague definitions within this bill will lead to increased litigation. H.R. 1002 will increase litigation costs for wireless service providers and State and local governments. Courts will have to interpret the many vague terms that are contained within the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. This month is Filipino American History Month. It is time for us to take pride in our country's diversity and to celebrate the ways in which Filipino Americans have contributed to the vibrancy of our Nation. Filipino Americans are civic leaders, health care providers, educators, and hardworking Americans. They've won Pulitzer prizes, been elected to Congress, served as ambassadors, and pitched in the World Series. Filipinos volunteered by the thousands to help us win World War II and have served our Nation's military in every war since. Filipinos first came to the U.S. in California over 400 years ago. Today, Filipino Americans have grown to be the third-largest Asian American group in the Nation, and they reside in every corner of the United States. So as we celebrate Filipino American History Month, I hope you will join me and remember the many contributions that Filipino Americans have made to our great country.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Did you know that small businesses create two out of every three new jobs? That's why we need a plan to invest in them and that's why I support the President's American Jobs Act. It includes tax cuts for every small business. Businesses that hire workers who have been unemployed for 6 months or more get $4,000 off their tax bill; those that invest in machinery or equipment get to write off the whole expense; and the payroll tax cuts will save a small business with 50 workers approximately $50,000 a year, putting money in the bank for every mom-and-pop shop. The American Jobs Act will help small businesses do what they do best: create good jobs, drive innovation, and strengthen the middle class. For small businesses, the economy, and Americans everywhere, let's pass the American Jobs Act now.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. H.R. 358 would stop abortion coverage for millions of women. It allows doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment even if women will die without their help. This bill is so extreme that it prohibits a pregnant woman with cancer from getting an abortion so radiation can save her life. For those women, every day and every week of treatment could be the difference between life and death. If this bill passes, we will see thousands more women abandoned by their doctors--women like Stephanie, who was pregnant at 19 weeks. She came to the hospital with a 108-degree fever. The whites of her eyes were filled with blood. She was dying before her doctor's eyes. But the hospital considered the life of the fetus more important than the life of the mother and refused treatment until the fetus died. Because they delayed, Stephanie almost lost her life. This bill should really be called the ``Don't Protect the Life of the Mother Act.''

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, October 10th marked the 100 year anniversary of the Republic of China (ROC). And how the ROC has grown over the years since the 1911 Revolution! The state played a vital role as a founding member of the United Nations and contributed to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, infusing into it the spirit of Confucianism. And it drafted the most progressive and democratic constitution in Asia. And finally, the state found solid footing on the island of Taiwan in 1949. It has successfully transitioned into a liberal democracy and become the first democratic state in an ethnic Chinese society in history. Today, the ROC is a model of political and economic progress for developing nations around the world. It is a modern and industrialized nation, an early adapter and proponent of a global and interconnected marketplace. Taiwan, Asia's first Economic Tiger, embraced market reforms in the 1950s and quickly launched some of the best known, and most efficient, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that came to serve many U.S. multinationals. Today's Taiwan is a technology powerhouse and the island's firmly entrenched in the top tier of developed world markets. And while many other markets turn inwards when economic times are tough, Taiwan's almost always kept its trade and investment doors open. A founding member of the Asia Development Bank in 1966, the ROC on Taiwan joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. It further acceded to the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) in 2009. And since 2008, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou has removed many of the longstanding trade and investment barriers to mainland China, resulting in Taiwan now best positioned serving as a global gateway to the Greater China market. This new outlook culminated in last year's signing of the Economic and Cooperation Framework Agreement between Taiwan and mainland China. Foreign firms can now access mainland China's vast economic potential from the comfort and safety of a Taiwan market that's among the friendliest in the world to U.S. companies and one that also values and protects their intellectual property. As we celebrate this hundred years of history, let us recall that the ROC of today has come about thanks to generations of people who have fought for social reform and a democratic future. And as the Republic of China embarks on a new century, I hope it will be a model democratic nation for the world and continue to grow and prosper. I therefore urge all my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Republic of China on its 100 years of existence, Taiwan's many economic achievements since 1949, and to further support enhanced economic relations between the United States and Taiwan.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Every 9 seconds, a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States. Every day, more than three American women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. And a staggering 1.3 million women and almost 840,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner every year. For the last decade, in October, during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I stood up with the shelters and hospitals in my district to support the women and men who escaped their abusers. Many of these victims escaped with literally only the clothes on their backs. So together, we put on a donation drive of cell phones, clothing, and personal necessities to benefit victims of abuse. This drive will be going on throughout October, and you can support the effort by donating items at Kaiser offices throughout the 32nd Congressional District in California. Together, we can and must do more to stop domestic violence.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. CHU. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250. Some in Congress want to use the jobs crisis as an excuse to roll back clean air protections that will prevent 9,000 premature deaths every year. Today, we are debating an unnecessary, wasteful bill that only delays long overdue pollution-reducing regulations at the expense of Americans' health. This is one of the Republicans' so-called ``jobs bills,'' conducting redundant and costly studies that will do nothing but add paper to landfills instead of creating jobs by upgrading cement kilns so that they are no longer a threat to public health. These studies have been done. Americans are still breathing mercury, arsenic, and lead; but we have a means to clean it up. It's called the Clean Air Act, and it was passed in 1963. It is known as one of the most successful pieces of legislation in congressional history; yet the Republican majority is trying to gut it over and over, bill after bill, wasting time and energy that could be spent passing legislation that would help create new jobs for Americans. Today's bill would cancel requirements to clean up toxic air pollution, smog, and soot from cement plants. So, while big companies save a penny or two, American families will face billions of dollars in increased health costs. Thousands more people will go to hospitals with cases of bronchitis, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and thousands more will die prematurely. These pollutants are also neurotoxins, causing major harm to the development of unborn babies, infants, and children. While the majority claims that eliminating this antipollution rule for the cement industry will be good for business and the economy, the EPA rule institutes new standards based on the best available technology already in use in the industry. Let me repeat that. This rule that the Republicans are trying to weaken is based on the best available technology already in use voluntarily by a good portion of the companies in the industry. What does that mean? These antipollution standards are actually achievable today, and companies are already using them and making a profit. So today's bill is just another in a long string of anti-environment/ anti-health attacks that look out for corporate interests over the best interests of American families. We cannot afford to give polluters a free pass to spew deadly, toxic air pollution that hurts our health and puts our children at risk. No matter what anyone says, increased pollution is not a sustainable path to job creation. Instead, we should be saving lives, saving our environment, and investing in the clean- tech jobs of the future. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the anti-environment/ anti-American health bill that is up for a vote tomorrow. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, last July, the DC U.S. Court of Appeals found that People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, PMOI/MEK, was not awarded due process when their petition to be removed as a terrorist organization was denied by the State Department. The Court ordered the State Department in conjunction with the Attorney General to review the decision and make a decision. But I stand here today, over 500 days after the Court made this decision, and the State Department still has not given a response. Every day of delay means another day where peaceful MEK democratic leaders and activists are at risk. Nearly 100 of my colleagues have joined together by cosponsoring H. Res. 60 to ask the State Department to heed a federal court order and remove Iran's largest opposition group called the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, PMOI/MEK, from the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, FTO. Because the U.S. needs to use its influence to protect Iranian dissidents fighting for democracy, Iran is using the U.S. terrorist designation to attack MEK leaders opposed to their rule. As long as the MEK is listed as a foreign terrorist organization, thousands of its members living in Camp Ashraf, Iraq are subject to further brutality by the Iraqi government. The longer we wait to remove the MEK from this list, the more we put Ashraf residents and fighters for democracy at risk.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Some in Congress want to use the jobs crisis as an excuse to roll back clean air protections that have prevented 200,000 premature deaths. Today we are debating the TRAIN Act. This is the Republicans' so- called jobs bill, conducting studies that will do nothing but add paper to landfills instead of creating jobs by upgrading toxic power plants so that they are no longer a threat to public health. The studies have been done. Americans are still breathing mercury, arsenic, and chromium, and we have a means to clean it up. It's called the Clean Air Act, and it was passed in 1963. No matter what anyone says, increased pollution is not a sustainable path to job creation. Instead, we should be saving lives, saving our environment, and investing in the clean tech jobs of the future. The TRAIN Act is a train wreck for Americans.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, we are in a time of national economic crisis. There are 14 million Americans without a job. There are another 12 million who wish they could work but have given up looking altogether. That's why last week President Obama presented Congress with an urgent proposal to create jobs and fix the economy. Republican economist Mark Zandi declared the President's plan would keep the U.S. from sliding back into the recession, add two points to the GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs. This plan is based on bipartisan proposals, and it won't add a dime to the deficit. After 9 months of taking over the House, Republicans have not presented a single jobs bill. It's well past time for them to put politics aside and come together with Democrats to put the country back to work. With so many people suffering, we must act and we must act now.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2011, I missed rollcall vote 699. Had I been present for vote 699, on H.R. 2076, to clarify that the Department of Justice can provide investigatory assistance at the request of State and local authorities with respect to certain violent crimes, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, American families are profoundly worried. Many have lost their jobs. They've seen college tuition rise, and watched their nest egg shrink. Unemployment is stuck at 9.1 percent. You can feel the pain. That is why a jobs bill is so critical. And yet, after 9 months of the Republicans taking over the House, they haven't passed a single jobs bill. Instead, they voted 10 times against job creation plans. They passed bills that gut millions of American jobs. And Governor Perry even attacked one of the few programs still keeping Americans afloat, calling Social Security ``a Ponzi scheme,'' blaming seniors for defrauding younger generations. Americans need more than empty promises. Tonight we will hear a proposal from the President. Let's work together to finally provide real solutions that will put people back to work and give them hope for the future.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. What's not safe under the Boehner default plan? Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not safe under the Boehner default plan. In just 7 months, it forces nearly $1.6 trillion in cuts from these programs. They will be unrecognizable. Jobs are not safe under the Boehner default plan. It will force 2 million Americans to lose their jobs, putting greater strain on struggling families. Our economy is not safe under the Boehner default plan. This short- term deal could lead to an automatic tax increase for every American with a mortgage, car loan, or credit card. It would leave a cloud of uncertainty. Businesses won't invest and our economy won't grow. Nothing is safe under the Boehner default plan except tax breaks for Big Oil, companies that ship jobs overseas, and the rich. We must reject this ideological approach and come together on a balanced solution that will ensure that every American will have a safe and secure future.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, for so many, education is the key to the American Dream. But for so many, a good education seems like it is beyond reach. That is why I am introducing the DIPLOMA Act, or Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities that Motivate Achievement. This legislation will address obstacles to learning by giving out grants to schools, social service programs, and the local community to create comprehensive, community-based solutions that will ensure that our struggling students will succeed. For awhile now, I have advocated for changing the tone of debate that surrounds school reform. Too often critics point fingers instead of offering solutions. That is why I am pushing for real change, dramatic change in our schools that harnesses the energy of parents, the community, and the school to turn around our failing schools that lift up all our students. Now, there is no denying that this approach can be challenging and hard work, but research shows when communities, parents, and schools collaborate and work together, there is nothing we can't achieve. I know this because I have seen it firsthand in my district. In East Los Angeles, Esteban E. Torres High School is a shining example of a community school. It's the first new school built in the neighborhood in 85 years, and its facilities and classrooms are simply magnificent. But to me, the most awe-inspiring part is the community- based approach at the heart of Esteban Torres. With the help of the Los Angeles Education Partnership and the Federal Full Service Community Schools Grant Program, Esteban Torres tapped into the resources of the surrounding community to overcome challenges facing their students regarding health care, limited English proficiency, and financial literacy. Esteban Torres partnered with Bienvenidos for a full-service health service on campus that will help maintain the health and well-being of their students so they are ready and able to learn. Pan American Bank partnered to help the high schoolers create a student-run financial center to teach the importance of a budget and proper money management, skills which will stick with these students for the rest of their lives. Luis Rodriguez and Tia Chucha's Centro Cultural joined the effort to establish the first-ever bookstore in East Los Angeles, making it easier for students to expand their education outside their classroom. And the effect of these programs is apparent on the smiles of the students' faces on their way to school, in the cafeteria and the classroom. This type of engagement and support is giving students in the community new opportunities and opening their world. Across America, our students face problems like homelessness, lack of health care, and limited English proficiency. Research tells us that two-thirds of the achievement gap is due to factors outside of school, and even the best teachers have a hard time overcoming these obstacles. A recent study from Chicago found that when we don't address students' social and economic disadvantages outside schools, the hard work done inside the school can be futile. That's why the DIPLOMA Act is so necessary. Local groups can coordinate, integrate, and facilitate services aimed at strengthening student achievement, such as dropout prevention, family engagement, tutoring, extending learning services, health care, and social support. The bill contains strong accountability measures, including independent evaluations to measure results and identify best practices. These partnerships will make a difference in the lives of students in my district. When students are provided the right kind of support and opportunities to help them learn, nothing can stop them. The DIPLOMA Act ensures that America's next Nobel Prize laureate can come from any background or community because they had the support they needed to succeed.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. CHU. I rise today in strong opposition to the 2012 Interior appropriations bill, the most anti-environment bill I've seen on the House floor since I was elected to Congress. If this bill passes, our air will be more polluted, our water will be dirtier, and we will know that much of what we love will disappear. This bill rolls back the clock to a time when big companies could poison our streams and rivers with impunity, when power plants could freely contaminate the air we breathe, and when our national treasures were destroyed by corporations, all for a bigger profit. First, the bill slashes funding to the EPA by $1.8 billion, stealing funding that keeps our drinking water and wastewater systems clean. Then it guts the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This program has done more than any other to expand local parks, recreational green spaces, and public lands enjoyed by hundreds of millions of Americans. This bill cuts this program by 80 percent, to its lowest level in history, nearly eliminating efforts to ensure that our treasured places are protected for families to enjoy for generations to come. Then it abolishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Service, which is crucial to understanding how the changes in our national climate affect our farms, coastal communities, and businesses. Finally, it proposes crippling cuts to the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, only making our Nation more dependent on importing oil and gas from foreign countries. But what's worst of all is that these cuts severely jeopardize the 12.5 million jobs that could be created as a result of American clean energy innovation and undermine growth in our Nation's clean tech industries. Even though some are calling this a cost-cutting bill, it's really a bill to pad the pockets of big corporations and the worst polluters. Unbelievably, it gives away $55 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies and blocks the necessary increase in fees to inspect oil and gas stations from disasters like the BP gulf spill. That's not all. The bill includes 39 different environmental policy bans that open up our natural resources to greedy polluters and keep our environmental agencies from doing their jobs to protect us from contamination. It allows more soot pollution in our air by blocking critical public health standards that ensure our air is very healthy for Americans to breathe. It blocks the EPA from implementing greenhouse gas pollution standards for new cars in 5 years, jeopardizing 7,000 new jobs and the estimated 2.4 million barrels of oil a day saved in just two decades. It prohibits my home State of California from moving ahead with its own clean air standard. It exempts oil companies from complying with Clean Air Act standards for offshore drilling--again, protecting the special interests of Big Oil. It puts the drinking water of 117 million Americans at risk by blocking EPA from keeping our water clean--half of America's streams and some 20 million acres of wetlands. It allows the unregulated discharge of pesticides directly into our rivers and lakes. This bill is a direct attack, a declaration of war, on our air, water, wildlife, and wildlands. It is clear that this bill isn't about cutting spending. It is about cutting years off our children's lives by increasing their exposure to contaminants in the air and water. The Republicans are putting polluters ahead of the health and safety of the American people, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this does not create any overly burdensome responsibility. Instead, it supports the goal of the legislation. It protects those persons who might be the victims of such unfair and deceptive practices. What this does is clarify that this specially designated Commissioner would take into account how language barriers might be impacted by such abusive practices, and it makes sure that that is done. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would give additional responsibility to the Commissioner who is already in charge of oversight of the Bureau's activities pertaining to the protection of older consumers, minorities, youth, and veterans. It would require research on how language barriers can lead to unfair and abusive lending practices, and a report to the full Commission on ways to protect consumers from potentially unfair and deceptive practices. Take the case of Ms. Huang, who went to a car dealership and negotiated a car sale with a salesperson in Chinese. But then when she went to sign the contract, it was totally in English, and she didn't understand it. When she got it translated later, she discovered that she bought a different car with an extremely high interest rate. She went back to the car dealership for redress, but they refused. She was so upset that all she could think of to do was go back to the dealership and wrap herself in a white sheet and hold a sign that said ``Cheaters'' and walk up and down in front of the dealership in protest. Well, that gained attention. It turned out that many other immigrants had been cheated in this manner as well, so I sponsored a bill in the California State Assembly to address these deceptive practices. But that is just one State and one small fix. Now I know that the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Act does not include oversight of automobile loans, but Ms. Huang's story highlights how persons with language barriers can be victims of deceptive practices. We need someone on a national level looking out for people like Ms. Huang and staying on top of ways people are being duped because of language barriers. And that is just what my amendment will do. I urge support of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.