Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would increase funding for the Senior Medicare Patrol program.

Every year, we lose more than $60 billion to fraud and abuse in Medicare. Money lost to fraud means fewer dollars available for needed services and a decreased quality of care for all.

Senior Medicare Patrol supports both Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries by helping them to detect and report healthcare fraud. Each year, this program helps both seniors and the Federal Government recover or avoid losing billions of dollars.

I am proud to say that California's Senior Medicare Patrol program is based in my district and in my hometown of Irvine. The program is administered there by California Health Advocates.

CHA recently received its performance measure numbers from the Office of the Inspector General for 2018. Through the program, it reached 200,000 California beneficiaries, families, and caregivers with fraud prevention messages; hosted nearly 3,000 outreach events; and recruited over 600 volunteers across the State to fight for seniors and families.

I thank those 600 volunteers in California and more than 5,000 across the country, many of whom are retired and are on Medicare themselves, for their tireless efforts.

Last year, the Office of the Inspector General of HHS investigated a case in Los Angeles in which a doctor and a recruiter were found guilty for their roles in frequently billing Medicare for clinic, hospice services, and durable medical equipment that patients either didn't need or didn't receive. This fraud cost Medicare and patients $33 million.

Senior Medicare Patrol helps stop fraudulent actors, saving the system money.

Rising as well are lab schemes in which labs are offering cancer screens using genetic testing, but really, these labs are collecting Medicare numbers for potential medical identity theft or billing Medicare for expensive genetic tests that no one needs. These costs are passed on to Medicare, taxpayers, or to the patients themselves.

Recently, California Health Advocates issued an alert in nine languages about these fraudulent tests. Because of this alert, senior centers that have been approached by those executing these schemes have shut them out, armed with the knowledge they need to protect their patients from fraud.

I am proud to be here today to ensure that this program receives the funding it needs. As a consumer protection advocate, keeping seniors and taxpayers safe from fraud is a top priority.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for her remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill that would provide essential funding to the Health Resources and Service Administration, HRSA, for its critical research to create a strategy to address intimate partner violence.

Intimate partner violence is a critical public health issue that affects millions of women, men, children, and families. The HRSA strategy uses research to help partners identify and address key social determinants of health and their interactions with the impacts of intimate partner violence through awareness, screening, and treatment.

Building on studies from the VAWA health program, HRSA has used this funding to couple the strategy with a program known as Project Catalyst to foster intimate partner violence response and health collaboration at the State level.

More than 25 percent of women and 11 percent of men have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, and I am one of them.

My three children and I were able to move forward with our lives, staying in our community and our home. I found help to heal our family and let us rebuild our lives, and I relied on essential healthcare resources in this process. That rebuilding brought me here to advocate for survivors who escaped the cycle of violence and to speak on behalf of those who haven't.

Each year, millions suffer in silence. Our healthcare workforce needs the tools and knowledge necessary to support every single victim of intimate partner violence. The funding through HRSA's strategy to address intimate partner violence includes the integration of intimate partner violence responses into HIV, home healthcare, and numerous other women's programs.

This fiscal year 2020 request will create dedicated funding under programs at HRSA specifically focusing on community health centers that provide essential local primary and mental healthcare.

My district in Orange County is home to eight community health centers. I hope that with the growth of this program, more of these providers will have the opportunity to address intimate partner violence.

We need funding to complete the work necessary to implement HRSA's strategy and for the growth of Project Catalyst to add more States to this initiative.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chair, it is not eating cake to want women to be safe in their homes and from their partners.

I know a lot about tough decisions and about priorities, and I have faced tough decisions about how to protect my own family. And I am proud that it is a priority of mine and of my Democratic colleagues to support full funding to stop intimate partner violence.

Madam Chair, I respectfully ask for the support of all of my colleagues in this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill which would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide the Appropriations Committee with detailed monthly State enrollment figures.

My amendment requires that these figures include State enrollment numbers, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, preferred language, age, and sex.

It is important to get detailed information on who is enrolling and who isn't in ACA coverage. By understanding trends, we can look for populations that are being missed or underserved.

In particular, under this administration, progress that we had made in reducing the uninsured population has stalled. According to the latest census data, in 2017, for the first time since the passage of the ACA, the Asian American uninsured rate remained virtually flat at 6.4 percent, while the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander uninsured rate increased from 7.7 percent to 8.3 percent.

Previously, disparities in uninsurance rates among these communities had been eliminated because of coverage expansion from the ACA.

Groups engaging in enrollment work have fewer resources because of this administration and, therefore, must engage in more targeted and limited outreach.

Even further, this data is from 2017, before the administration launched even more aggressive attacks to dismantle our healthcare system after they failed to repeal it without a replacement.

Our next census will show how the attacks of 2018 and 2019 will affect enrollment numbers, but we need the information that essential monthly enrollment data can tell us long before the census is published.

By better understanding where gaps exist and in which groups we are seeing negative trends in insurance enrollment, we can better focus essential outreach and education. In particular, this will help organizations serving hard-to-reach populations and communities of color.

While CMS has provided an annual detailed enrollment report, it has failed to provide more regular updates on enrollment during the year and also has failed to provide detailed enrollment data showing enrollment for race subgroups or data to show how people are enrolling.

This amendment would provide the necessary transparency into enrollment trends.

I am proud to represent a diverse district, and I came to Congress to serve and represent their needs. I hope this amendment will be an essential step forward to helping Congress and the country better understand how we are failing communities of color and how we can provide more accessible care.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chair, this amendment would ultimately save dollars, as explained by Chairwoman DeLauro. It would reduce uninsurance rates, particularly in populations that are receiving less care.

This is, ultimately, a bill that will reduce the costs of our healthcare system by making all of our communities healthier. It is a bill about equity, but it is also a financially responsible bill.

I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes on Monday, May 20, 2019 due to a delayed flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES'' on roll call votes 218 and 219.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, not just as a new Member of Congress, but as someone who has spent my career as a consumer protection lawyer studying families pushed to the brink of financial ruin.

I have sat all day long listening to the personal stories of families driven to bankruptcy by predatory loans, financial scams, and unlawful and immoral debt collectors.

I rise today as someone who has personally spoken to thousands of families in foreclosure; as someone who has had to look into the eyes of parents and children and tell them: ``I'm sorry, but the bank is going to take your house.''

These are not experiences that someone can forget. I carry these stories of California families with me every day. That is why I ran for office. It is why I stand up for a level playing field for families.

I cannot fathom how the minority, with this amendment, is shrugging off the devastation of the 2008 collapse.

Ten years ago, in 2009, Orange County was coming off a year when home prices fell 30 percent. Imagine being a family planning for retirement and, all of a sudden, your primary source of security is gone.

Ten years ago, in May 2009, California had an unemployment rate of 11 percent.

Do Members of this body not remember how many of our friends and neighbors spent sleepless nights wondering if they could keep a roof over their heads?

The 2008 economic collapse cast a long shadow. One study from the CDC found that suicides, spurred by evictions and foreclosures, doubled between 2005 and 2010. Those are going to be difficult victims to locate.

Because of this human tragedy, Congress acted and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency whose sole focus is to ensure that financial services companies and Wall Street megabanks could not again cheat families and tank our economy.

We created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though special interests were spending $3 million a day to defeat it. Think about it; an industry so wealthy that even in its collapse, they had $40 million to spend on lobbyists.

Now these same special interests are, again, attacking the CFPB. This amendment is just another effort by the same Members who voted against the CFPB's very creation to limit the agency's effectiveness.

In my nearly 2 decades as a consumer advocate, I have never met a single American, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, who likes being cheated. If the Members today were listening to their constituents, and not special interests, they would support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I am a proud capitalist, and it is in that deep belief in healthy and strong markets, that I rise today in opposition to this motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss women's access to essential healthcare services.

I am the mother of three beautiful children. When I gave birth to my first child, to my second child, and to my third child, I was given the time and opportunity to plan for these pregnancies and welcome these children. I was privileged enough to have the ability to make an informed decision to become a mother at a time in my life when I was ready to care for children.

Prior to having children, I had access to birth control. I received healthcare that helped me have three healthy pregnancies and helped me to be able to get pregnant when I was ready. But too many women in this country don't have these choices.

Across the world, maternal mortality rates are decreasing. Pregnancy and birth are less dangerous across the globe, but not in the United States. While our country is a leader in so many ways, we are failing our Nation's women by not delivering the care they need during and after they give birth.

Too many women don't have access to prenatal and postnatal care. Too many women already don't have access to birth control or abortion services, and if we do not fight back, this crisis is only going to get worse. If we do not fight back, women are going to die.

The bills currently passing at the State level will not stop abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not stop abortion. These acts will only stop safe abortion.

Research has found that every year approximately 25.1 million women receive an unsafe abortion, and 68,000 women die annually of bleeding and infection, almost entirely in countries where abortion is illegal or inaccessible.

If we continue down this road, women will die. The laws being passed in Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia are not pro-life. They are not protecting the lives of women and families that we were elected to serve.

Alabama has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, but instead of focusing on ensuring that women have access to the healthcare services they need when they choose to have a pregnancy, the State is choosing to punish those who do not become mothers.

Alabama State legislature has said that they just simply don't have the funds to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income women, families, and other individuals. Yet they have the millions of dollars necessary to fight a legal battle to overturn Roe v. Wade. These laws are anti- choice, anti-women, and anti-life.

In the Alabama bill, the penalty for aborting a pregnancy caused by rape is higher than the penalty for raping a woman. Let me say it again: in the Alabama law, the penalty for aborting a pregnancy caused by rape is higher than the penalty for committing the rape.

This is not the country we want to be.

How is that upholding our values?

Let's also note that women who have a miscarriage--a tragic event-- could be criminally investigated to determine if the miscarriage was related to an attempted abortion or was otherwise somehow the fault of the woman.

According to March of Dimes, 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester, before the 12th week of pregnancy, but nearly 5 percent of pregnancies that ended with miscarriages happened in the second trimester.

As a mother I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child in the first, second, or even third trimester. For those who choose to get pregnant, this loss is devastating. Imagine you and your partner try for years to get pregnant. You can't afford expensive treatments like IVF because they are not covered under your insurance. You desperately want to be a mother, but nothing seems to be working. Finally, after 3 years, you take a home pregnancy test, and you find out you are pregnant. A short trip to the doctor confirms this incredible and exciting news. You and your partner are overjoyed. But 5 months later you start bleeding and rush to the emergency room. More than halfway through your pregnancy, you have miscarried and will now have to deliver a stillborn child. You and your partner are heartbroken.

Imagine that a few days after this tragic loss you find out that you and your doctor are both being investigated for attempting to abort the child whose death you are still mourning.

This is cruel and inhumane. These bills are not intended to stop abortion, and they will not stop abortion. They are not intended to save lives, and, in fact, these bills will take lives.

This is the proof. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we must ensure safe access to women's healthcare, including birth control and comprehensive family planning options.

I want women in Alabama, in Georgia, in Missouri, and in every State across the country that has passed or is attempting to pass legislation to challenge Roe v. Wade to know that I stand with them.

I want women in Orange County to know that they elected someone who will fight for their access to essential healthcare services.

I want women in California and across the country to trust that my colleagues and I will fight for women

to have the healthcare and the respect that they need and deserve regardless of their income, race, or location.

Protecting women's access to healthcare is one of my top priorities, and I will fight to ensure that every woman has the access they need to live a healthy life on their own terms.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Omar for her remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 23, 2019, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, despite the enactment of marriage equality in 2015, same-gender couples continue to experience persistent and pervasive discrimination when it comes to home ownership.

A recent study by Iowa State University found systemic discrimination against LGBTQ borrowers. The study found that, despite having a lower credit risk overall, same-sex borrowers are 73 percent more likely to be denied a mortgage loan. And when they are approved, they face mortgage interest rates that are 0.02 to 0.2 percent higher, on average, translating to tens of thousands of dollars in extra repayment.

Twenty-six States across the United States do not have statewide housing protections for the LGBTQ community, and the Fair Housing Act does not protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. The Equality Act would change this.

This bill would not only improve the lives of members of the LGBTQ community, it would make neighborhoods across the country more diverse. And making our neighborhoods more diverse means more Americans get to know and understand their neighbors who are gay, trans, or queer; and with that understanding and the friendships and the neighbor relationships, we hope to get tolerance. This is how we magnify the wave of LGBTQ acceptance this country has experienced in the last decade.

Imagine growing up in a community where you never have any LGBTQ role models; where students in your school were harassed for even being perceived as gay.

Imagine growing up in a neighborhood where you never met someone who expressed themselves like you; where you were taught that your sexual orientation or gender identity was wrong or immoral.

Imagine what it would be like to have waited years for your country to recognize your loving relationship as legal and equal under the law. Now, you are finally able to get married, and if you choose to, start a family.

You have saved enough money for the downpayment on your first home. You find that dream house in an area with good schools, plenty of parks for your dogs, and friendly neighbors.

You and your spouse go together to fill out a loan application at the local bank and wait eagerly for it to be granted. However, despite doing everything right, you are outright denied for that loan without reason.

You go to another bank, assuming that this is a mistake, because both you and your spouse have great credit. You apply for a mortgage loan again.

Maybe this time you are approved, but the interest rate would amount to tens of thousands more dollars than you had anticipated; tens of thousands more dollars than your credit risk should have you pay.

You found your dream home, but now you can't buy it because of an artificially, discriminatorily-inflated interest rate.

The Equality Act is vital. By amending existing civil rights laws to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics, no person may be lawfully discriminated against for their sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, education, employment, public accommodations, and so much more.

Not only would it protect LGBTQ families who want to buy a home or take out a loan, but it would allow individuals who identify as gay or trans or queer to see people who look and love like them in their communities, and it would allow their neighbors to see that LGBTQ families are like them: They care about their neighborhoods; they care about their communities; they love and want the best for their children like anyone else; and they take the same pride in home ownership.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and discrimination against the LGBTQ community is a deep injustice. Allowing that discrimination to continue in our country flies in the face of the principles of equality and opportunity that form the basis of our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the Equality Act, and I urge my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Dr. Howard Gillman, Chancellor of the University of California, Irvine (UCI), as a recipient of the Ellis Island Honors Society's 2019 Medal of Honor. In his time with UCI, Dr. Gillman has been an advocate and an example for students, working to foster diversity and inclusion throughout the UC system.

Dr. Gillman grew up in Southern California and was a first- generation college student, an experience that has guided his work at UCI, where he has been Chancellor since 2014. Prior to joining UCI, Dr. Gillman spent more than two decades at the University of Southern California (USC), where he held appointments in the Departments of Political Science and History and the Gould School of Law. From 2007 to 2012 he served as dean of the Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, the largest, oldest, and most academically diverse unit at USC.

As Chancellor, Dr. Gillman has established UCI as a trailblazer in creating opportunities for low-income and minority students. The University of California (UC) system has been called ``California's Upward-Mobility Machine,'' and with Dr. Gillman's guidance, UCI has stood out as a leader within the UC system. The New York Times named UCI the No. 1 University ``doing the most for the American dream,'' and College Access Index ranked the campus as one of the nation's best in its support of low-income students. UCI has also been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) and as an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI), for its role in serving substantial populations of these students, the majority of whom receive federal financial assistance.

The Ellis Island Honors Society was ``created on the conviction of its founders that the diversity of the American people is what makes this nation great.'' Today, UCI is ranked sixth in the nation for awarding bachelor's degrees to minority students in the 2016-2017 school year. I thank Dr. Gillman for his leadership as Chancellor of UCI and his work to ensure that UCI provides opportunities for a quality, affordable education to every student.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act.

This bill would prevent the Trump administration from allowing States to use waivers to provide junk health plans that reduce coverage and decrease cost sharing provisions.

In the Affordable Care Act, section 1332 waivers were created to provide States flexibility to implement innovative plans that would expand coverage, reduce costs, and provide more comprehensive benefits.

Our States can be incubators for opportunity and these waivers allow them the opportunity to improve access to affordable, quality services in groundbreaking ways. But, last year, the Trump administration released guidance that would allow States to use these waivers to take care away from the individuals who need it most, and that is unacceptable.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, 3,826,000 Californians have gained health coverage. In my home district, the 45th District of California, more than 338,000 people have a preexisting condition, many of whom gained coverage or received more affordable coverage because of new protections established under the Affordable Care Act.

This Sunday is Mother's Day. Having given birth, being a mother, is a preexisting condition, a factor that used to contribute to higher insurance costs for most of the women we will celebrate this weekend. We can't go back to the days when being a woman was enough to let an insurance company charge you more for basic healthcare.

My amendment will prohibit the administration from issuing any waivers that would let States craft healthcare plans that would reduce the number of individuals enrolled in comprehensive plans that are compliant with our country's current healthcare laws.

This bill preserves waivers that provide States with flexibility. This bill encourages States to provide innovative plans. But what this bill does is make sure that those waivers can be used for their original intent: expanding care and decreasing costs.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the 30th anniversary of Masimo Corporation, a healthcare technology company based in Irvine, California, and to celebrate its innovation and commitment to improving patient safety around the world. Masimo has helped solve the ``unsolvable'' by introducing lifesaving breakthroughs in noninvasive patient monitoring.

Masimo's founder, chairman, and chief executive officer, Joe Kiani, immigrated to the United States when he was 9 years old and only spoke three words of English. Originally trained as an electrical engineer, he thrived in his new home and graduated early from both high school and San Diego State University.

In 1989, at age 24, Mr. Kiani had an idea that would significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of one of the most commonly used monitoring technologies in health care: the pulse oximeter. By attaching to your finger, the pulse oximeter measures how much oxygen is in the blood within seconds. With a $40,000 loan against his condo in Orange County, Mr. Kiani started his company in a location that many successful California companies often do--in a garage. Today, Masimo Corporation's Irvine headquarters can be recognized as the set for Stark Enterprises in the first ``Iron Man'' movie.

Before Masimo Corporation was founded, pulse oximeters frequently produced false alerts based on a variety of factors and the patient's movements. Mr. Kiani applied a technology called adaptive filters, used in submarine warfare and communication, and created Masimo SET Measure- through Motion and Low Perfusion pulse oximetry. This technology reduced false alarms by 95 percent, and its high degree of sensitivity pioneered new findings--from previously undetectable heart problems in newborns to reducing blindness in premature babies by enabling clinicians to better target oxygen levels provided in neonatal care.

Since its founding, Masimo has grown into a successful publicly traded company employing more than 4,600 people worldwide, with annual revenues of nearly $800 million. The company has more than 600 patents, and Masimo's technology improves the health outcomes of an estimated 100 million patients worldwide each year.

The journey of Mr. Kiani and Masimo is an American story rooted in entrepreneurial spirit and grit. Its worldwide success has created jobs, nurtured research, and improved patient safety. On behalf of the 45th Congressional District, congratulations for 30 years of providing lifesaving and life-altering health care.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I am honored to be here today to introduce my amendment to the Climate Action Now Act, which highlights the critical role of technology in the fight against climate change. The United States must continue to invest in research and development of clean energy technology in order to meet our nationally determined contributions under the Paris climate accord.

We need American leadership in the fight against climate change. The U.S. has always led in the field of research and innovation. Our laboratories and research universities are among the best in the world, and their ability to

innovate to combat the world's challenges are without parallel.

Climate change is an urgent challenge we must address, and America's scientists and technologists have always risen to this challenge. Yet, instead of fighting climate change, this administration proposed slashing the budget for climate research and renewable energy programs.

Let's take a look at the President's proposed 2020 budget for the Department of Energy. President Trump would slash the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by more than 85 percent. This is the home at the Department of Energy for supporting every kind of renewable technology that we have developed and implemented.

President Trump proposed completely zeroing out the ARPA-E budget. ARPA-E was created to incentivize researchers to develop promising research into game-changing technologies that can meet our future research needs. Since 2009, 136 of these projects have attracted billions in private follow-on funding, creating private-public partnerships and American jobs.

President Trump has even proposed cutting State Energy Programs, which help States implement energy efficiency in schools and government buildings, saving taxpayers money.

That is why I believe that it is so important that we now recognize and support the critical role that United States leadership in research and development can and must play in the fight against climate change.

These programs help our country develop new and improved technologies, foster entrepreneurship, urge small business growth, and create clean energy jobs.

In my home, California's 45th Congressional District, there are 5,239 renewable energy jobs and 14,140 energy efficiency jobs. That is a total of 21,622 clean jobs. Those programs filter down to our laboratories, our universities, and our entrepreneurs leading American innovation.

I am proud to say that some of the great research and development happening to combat climate change is happening in California's 45th District at the University of California, Irvine.

UC Irvine is a leader in clean technology innovation and research, helping bring our country closer to meeting the goals of the Paris climate accord.

UC Irvine is home to the Advanced Power and Energy Program and the National Fuel Cell Research Center, which focuses on developing new fuel cell technology.

UC Irvine engineers created the first power-to-gas hydrogen pipeline injection project in the country. This pipeline takes surplus energy from the school's solar panels, converts water to hydrogen and blends it with gas, which can be stored for later use. This allows us to use clean electricity that would otherwise go to waste, helping reduce pollutants in our air.

Now is the time to harvest the innovative technologies we have while investing in improving clean technologies for tomorrow. I am proud to champion and advance research and innovation.

We need to act now and keep the commitments we made to our coastlines, our community, our country, and the world when we signed the Paris climate accord.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, college students around the

country will cross the graduation stage, accept their diplomas, and get ready to begin their careers. It will be a weekend of well-deserved celebration. Their hard work and years of study have paid off. Yet, for too many of these students, they will soon face the reality of paying the high price of their diplomas.

Too many of these students will soon come face-to-face with a mountain of debt that will take them years, often decades to pay. Today, nearly 43 million Americans, that is one in six adults, have Federal student loan debt. The Federal student loan portfolio has risen to over $1.4 trillion.

Tomorrow's graduates will face an average of $30,000 in debt, a crippling amount for any young person to shoulder before they have even entered the workforce. That amount of debt increases every single year. How can we expect young people in this country to choose the course of their careers, to contribute to their communities, and to plan and start their families while simultaneously allowing lenders to saddle them with loan burdens on decades-long repayment timelines?

Among borrowers of all ages with outstanding student loan debt, the median self-reported amount owed among those with less than a bachelor's degree was $10,000. Bachelor's degree holders owe a median of $25,000, and those with a postgraduate degree owe a median of $45,000.

I have heard stories from students at colleges and universities throughout California's 45th Congressional District.

Merhpad and her family immigrated to the United States in 2014. After they settled in Orange County, earning a college degree became her primary goal. But without Federal financial aid programs, such as the Pell grant, she would not have been able to afford and pursue an education. Her commitment and dedication to her education inspired her parents to also attend Irvine Valley College to pursue degrees.

She uses her financial aid to afford transportation, food, healthcare, and school supplies. Because she lives with her parents, she doesn't need to spend financial aid on housing. But other students aren't so lucky.

Community colleges typically don't offer housing for their students, and with an average rent of $1,000 to $2,000 in Orange County, it is almost impossible to afford to live near our colleges' campuses.

Jose, a student at Saddleback College in Orange County is studying psychology and playing football. He is the eighth of 11 kids. He received a scholarship to cover his tuition and meals, but it isn't enough to help him afford housing. Jose was homeless for two semesters, sleeping in his car and at his football teammates' houses. Despite these challenges, Jose has a 3.8 GPA and he hopes to graduate from Saddleback to go on to pursue a degree in clinical psychology.

He explained, ``I move forward towards graduation, believing that if I can overcome the adversities I have faced in my life, anyone can.''

His persistence and dedication are inspiring. But no student should ever have to choose between getting an education and being homeless. Unfortunately, these stories are all too common. Too many students are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads.

Recently, I met with students from the University of California Irvine to discuss the challenges they are facing. One of those students was Stephanie, a first-generation student studying public health.

She completed the full college application process on her own, including applying for financial aid. She received both a Pell grant and a Cal grant, but she still has to work three part-time jobs throughout the year to afford housing and food.

She spends more than 12 hours most days in class and at her part-time jobs, fighting to ensure that she doesn't have to take on student loans, so she can go on to pursue a masters in global public health. Stephanie is not the only one facing challenges affording living expenses while in college.

Another one of those students was Deshay, a junior at UC Irvine who will soon become the first person in his family to graduate from college. Deshay left home at 17, so when he applied for financial aid a year later, he did so on his own, declaring himself as an independent.

His expected family contribution was zero. While he got the funding necessary to attend UC Irvine, the aid didn't cover all of his living needs, including groceries. Deshay had a goal when he started college. He wanted to graduate loan free. He didn't want to take out loans to pay for his living expenses and so he took on two part-time jobs. But the reality of the cost of living in Orange County soon set in.

After nearly 2 months of eating only one meal a day, Deshay was left with few choices. When he finishes college next year, he will graduate with nearly $30,000 of debt.

Still, he is excited to graduate and to start giving back to our community. He plans to move home to Sacramento and he hopes to open a youth center modeled after Boys & Girls Clubs across the country. But Deshay is worried that he may not be able to successfully apply for the loan that he will need to start his business, in large part because of the student loan debt he carries.

College students who have fought to pursue an education, who work tirelessly toward their dreams, are being forced to put these dreams on hold. Why? Because the education necessary to achieve their dreams has left them buried in debt.

This Congress, as we work on the reauthorization of key legislation for students across this country, we need to ensure that students graduating this weekend and in coming weeks don't have to choose between a job serving their communities or financial security or choose between putting food on the table and attending classes.

That is why I will be introducing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Student Loan Integrity and Transparency Act, along with Senators Warren, Brown, and Udall. The bill does just what it says. It mandates that the Department of Education and student loan servicers share information and cooperate with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's student loan education ombudsman. That ombudsman is the number one Federal official tasked with advocating for our students who are struggling to repay loans.

It also requires the ombudsman's office be fully staffed at all times so the office can conduct the level of oversight necessary to protect student borrowers.

This is just the first step of many needed to improve student loan oversight and improve college affordability. I look forward to opportunities to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our students have the opportunity to access an affordable college education.

Madam Speaker, while there are many beneficial provisions in H.R. 1957, Section 1102 should be stripped from the legislation. This section would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from ever establishing a free file system for taxpayers by codifying an existing contract between the IRS and private taxpayer preparation software companies (e.g. TurboTax, H&R Block, Intuit).

The National Consumer Law Center has previously written an opposition letter on this provision in the bill. Such a free filing system could save American taxpayers billions of dollars per year otherwise spent on taxpayer preparation services.

While individuals earning less than $66,000 are currently eligible for free federal filing via private software companies due to the contract with the IRS, only 3 percent of such individuals take advantage of free filing, and millions more households outside the very modest income limit could benefit from an IRS-built system.

An IRS free file system could also have the benefit of ending a current, predatory practice: low-income taxpayers are upsold by taxpayer preparation services into costly add-on products like refund anticipation loans, which are essentially payday loans backed by future tax refunds.

Finally, even if the IRS does not have the capacity to build their own free file system, H.R. 1957 would preclude renegotiation of the current contract with private software developers in order to get better terms for taxpayers in a future, Democratically-controlled IRS.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the Save the Internet Act of 2019 empowers the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, to enforce net neutrality, protect consumers, and assist them with complaints against their internet service providers.

The FCC can fine internet service providers when they break the rules. However, simply issuing fines to a bad actor isn't enough to change the behavior of those bad actors. Those fines need to be collected. Corporations that break the law must pay.

My amendment would require the FCC to report to Congress within 1 year on the number of enforcement actions it has taken against internet service providers that violate net neutrality. Importantly, that report must include both the fines imposed and the amounts collected.

The FCC must act as a cop on the beat when internet service providers misbehave, protecting consumers and keeping the internet free and open to all.

When the FCC finds a bad actor, that fine should be paid by the company. If the FCC is not following through on protecting consumers, Congress should know so it can take oversight action, if necessary.

The FCC failing to collect fines is a real concern. Recently, The Wall Street Journal has highlighted the extent of the problem.

While the FCC has imposed record fines on robocallers--$208 million-- it has collected less than $7,000 since 2015. That is 0.003 percent of the fines imposed.

When everyday Americans get a parking ticket or a traffic violation, the government makes sure that they pay their fines. Corporations must be held accountable as well.

As we vote to restore a free and open internet, we should also vote to provide oversight of the agency tasked to protect consumers.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to clarify that this amendment doesn't define the power that the FCC would have to regulate, but would merely make sure that, when it does take action, the companies are held accountable for the fines that are imposed.

I appreciate that my colleague from the other side of the aisle does not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today to introduce my amendment to the Violence Against Women Act, which integrates the term ``economic abuse'' throughout the legislation. I wrote this amendment to ensure that this largely invisible abuse is recognized federally, and victims are afforded all of the protections offered under VAWA.

Over one-quarter of women and 11 percent of men have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes. I am one of them.

I suffered domestic violence, and every year, millions suffer in silence for many reasons, but one of the most prominent among those reasons is economic necessity. According to a study conducted in 2012, 74 percent of survivors stayed with their abuser for financial reasons.

Financial abuse through consumer credit still has not been appropriately recognized under the law. Using debt to exercise coercive control is one of the most prevalent and nefarious forms of domestic violence. In a Michigan State study, 99 percent of domestic violence victims reported some form of economic abuse.

Economic abuse takes many forms, ranging from employment sabotage to malicious attempts to restrict survivor's access to funds.

Threats of violence cause women to take time off from school or work and interfere with their abilities to maintain employment or complete their educations.

Abusers obstruct childcare and transportation options to disrupt job and academic performance, stealing victim's keys, and leaving children intentionally unattended. They cut off access to financial information to keep their partner in a state of financial dependence and unable to leave. They commit identity theft to run up credit card debt and ruin their partner's credit scores, taking out loans in their partner's name that the victim knows nothing about and cannot pay off.

In intimate partner relationships, on average, physical violence victims lose 7 days of paid employment, rape victims lose 8, and stalking victims lose 10 per year.

For the rest of their lives, these survivors are less financially secure because they endured an abusive relationship.

Abusers often take advantage of their heightened degree of financial sophistication relative to their partner's. They don't tell their partners about the assets the couple owns, and they force their partners to sign quitclaim deeds and give up ownership in major assets like homes without knowing it.

Coerced debt follows victims of domestic violence for the rest of their lives, long after they have left the relationship. It is particularly destructive in the weeks after these women leave, when they try to rent an apartment or otherwise provide for themselves financially.

Burdening a woman with economic obligations that she did not take on as she is trying to escape an abusive relationship can be as crippling to her long-term well-being as violence.

Credit repair is an almost impossible process. Expunging coerced debt from a victim's credit report, even with extensive evidence of fraud, is an intractable task, which is why I will be introducing legislation to provide a way forward for women whose credit scores are ruined as a result of domestic violence.

I endured an abusive relationship, and my three children and I were able to move forward with our lives, staying in our community and in our home. I had a good job; I had a strong credit history; and I was extremely engaged with our family's financial decisions, which allowed me to leave when I needed to.

However, without a substantial safety net, many women can't and don't

leave. When they do leave, almost 40 percent of survivors become homeless. This is wholly unacceptable.

Until we address the full spectrum of abuse that survivors face, we won't significantly reduce rates of domestic violence. And for so long as domestic violence is a glaringly prevalent problem in our society, we will not see gender equality.

Incorporating economic abuse into the definition of domestic violence in this landmark Federal legislation is a huge step.

I am honored to have the opportunity to carry the voices of Orange County families and survivors to the Halls of Congress.

I found help to let my family rebuild our lives. A police officer who had been trained in DV because of VAWA helped create the amazing, healthy children I have. I will count the passage of VAWA among my proudest achievements.

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

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes on Monday, March 25, 2019. Had I been present, I would have vote YES on Roll Call vote 126.