Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another piece of misguided legislation, but this one will jeopardize the health and safety of the American people to benefit corporate America and polluters. Let's be clear. The protections that will be overwhelmingly targeted by this measure are not so-called midnight regulations. These are rules that went through significant vetting. There are a host of statutes that govern how regulations are crafted. From the Administrative Procedure Act to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, to the Paperwork Reduction Act, there are numerous processes to ensure regulations are written in a way that protect the American people while preventing overreach. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I am well acquainted with the need to ensure that the regulatory process is balanced. No one here supports overregulation; but, at the same time, we cannot eliminate safeguards that have a proven record of protecting the American public. This bill also has the potential to create significant regulatory uncertainty for the same small businesses my colleagues say they are trying to help. At its core, this bill is about enabling the largest and most powerful corporations to run rampant--without accountability. The legislation before us could result in less protections for consumers, and it could strip away workplace protections. We should reject this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, access to capital is the lifeblood of every business. By expanding the pool of accredited investors and venture capital firms, improving the equity crowdfunding rules, and giving small business a bigger voice in SEC decisionmaking, H.R. 6427 provides the tools necessary to inject much-needed equity capital into our Main Street businesses. Finally, closing the U.S. territories loophole in the Investment Company Act of 1940 will harmonize regulatory oversight and give millions of investors and retirees, mostly in Puerto Rico, the peace of mind that their hard-earned money will receive the same level of protection afforded to those on the mainland. I thank the chairman, ranking member, and all of the cosponsors for their hard work in bringing this bipartisan package to the floor. I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 6427, a bipartisan package of commonsense measures that will help small businesses raise capital and better protect investors and retirees of the U.S. territories. Today's bill contains numerous bipartisan solutions to ensure the SEC is more responsive to small business regulatory concerns. For example, it creates a new Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and a new Small Business Advisory Committee. Taken together, these efforts will ensure the agency is more responsive to entrepreneurs' needs. Furthermore, we have all heard that demand for small business capital outstrips supply. H.R. 6427 makes targeted changes to attract more investors to the small business market. By expanding definition of accredited investor, raising the investor cap on small venture capital funds, and making improvements to the equity crowdfunding rules implemented under the JOBS Act, this bill will help more startups and fast-growing businesses secure financing. Beyond the small business provisions, today's bill will provide investors and retirees in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories the same protections as their mainland counterparts. For 7 decades, the Investment Company Act of 1940 provided U.S. investors with basic safeguards, regulating everything from leverage limits to capitalization levels, to preventing conflicts of interest. Due to a historical artifact, however, all funds located in and sold only to residents of U.S. territories are exempted from the act. The reason is U.S. territories were deemed to be too geographically distant from Washington, D.C. Obviously, the cost of air travel today is no longer an issue. Regulators routinely travel to Hawaii and Alaska to conduct oversight. In fact, SEC Chair White testified earlier this year that the exemption should be removed. To close the loophole and provide territorial residents with the protections they deserve, I introduced the U.S. Territories Investor Protection Act. Over the past year, we met with stakeholders, heard their concerns and further fine-tuned the bill. Investment companies will have an initial 3-year compliance period, with an option at the approval of the SEC, for an additional 3 years. This balances investor protections while granting more than reasonable time for financial institutions to comply. It is important to note that if investment companies need further relief, they are able to request such a reprieve under existing law. I thank Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters, and Congressman Garrett for working with me on this provision. Their cooperation was critical to developing an approach that would apply the act in a manner sensitive to investors and investment companies alike. In sum, I will argue that this is a strong bill. It will reduce compliance costs, facilitate access to capital for thousands of small businesses, and better protect investors and retirees in territories like Puerto Rico. I urge Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, basically, I will say that it is an honor for me to support this bill and this legislation. I ask all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 2726, legislation that will authorize the issuance of gold, silver, and clad coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the first time in history that mankind successfully completed a crewed lunar landing. The Apollo 11 mission was a momentous occasion in its own right, but it was also a bittersweet achievement, as it also served as a reminder of the first Apollo mission, whose courage we will never forget. I am pleased that, in addition to honoring the Apollo 11 crew, the legislation before us today also recognizes the estimated 400,000 Americans who contributed to make possible the Apollo 11 mission. By calling on the Treasury Department to mint and issue coins in honor of Apollo 11, I hope that we will continue to remind all Americans of the boundlessness of what can be achieved when we set our sights high and, quite literally, aim for the Moon. I also hope the coin minted as part of this legislation will show our young people just how exciting the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering can be and how critical they are to building a brighter future for all. By ensuring that a quarter of the proceeds raised will be made available to the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation to make college scholarships available for students pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the legislation before us will make one step towards opening up these fields to our best and brightest. The remaining surcharges associated with the sale of the coins will go towards the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum's Destination Moon exhibit and be provided to the Astronauts Memorial Foundation for maintenance of the memorial and to further educational initiatives. For these reasons, I hope all Members will support the legislation before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), who has been a champion for this important legislation.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Nadine Whitted on her retirement. Nadine is retiring from serving as the District Manager of Community Board 4 in Bushwick, a New York City agency established to identify the needs of our community and advocate through city government to meet those requirements. In her role, she was a strong voice for local residents, community groups, small business and more. Nadine worked closely with community board members to ensure that recommended policies, capital and expense budget priorities were addressed by City government. Born in Brooklyn, Nadine is the second child born to Rose Rucker and Emerson Whitted. Receiving an award for Outstanding Service to the Senior Class Graduating of Bushwick High School in 1972 officially accentuated the beginning of her love of service delivery and laboring on the behalf of others. She attended Brooklyn College for four years majoring in Education. In 1977, during the NYC fiscal crisis, Nadine applied for a position at Brooklyn Community Board #4 and was hired as an Administrative Aide approximately three days prior to the Black Out of July 1977. Within two years she was elevated to the position of Assistant District Manager; under this new title she began attending more meetings with the community, city agencies, elected public officials and organizations. The neighborhood's distinction as the poorest community district in the city fueled Nadine to work harder and advocate with passion and persistence for the residents. In 1986 Nadine was given the opportunity to become District Manager and after much consideration and prompting by many community board members and other leaders Nadine accepted the position gladly. She served under the direction and leadership of Ms. Julie Dent-- Chairperson of Community Board #4 and its members. Nadine is retiring after faithfully and professionally serving the community for over 40 years. Nadine has a wealth of knowledge and experience that will surely be missed by all who have had the pleasure to work with her, but I am certain that she is looking forward to this exciting next chapter in her life. I thank Nadine Whitted for her community service and longtime dedication to not only Brooklyn, but the city of New York. I wish her all the best and congratulate her on her retirement.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to UPROSE, a pillar of social justice organizing in New York City and Brooklyn's oldest Puerto Rican/Latino community based organization. This year, UPROSE will celebrate five decades of fighting for progress and advancing the rights of New York's working families and people of color. UPROSE was founded during the civil rights movement and has made significant strides over the last five decades. The organization has helped prevent polluting power plants from being located in lower income neighborhoods. It has impacted transportation policy, improving transit options for hardworking Brooklyn communities. The organization has made fighting climate change a centerpiece of its agenda. Indeed, it has sent three young people of color to Antarctica and one to the North Pole on scientific expeditions, to observe these environmental issues firsthand. Likewise, UPROSE has been at the forefront of ensuring that our local industrial sector continues to blossom, while providing good paying, union jobs for local residents in the community. Centered near Brooklyn's Sunset Park, UPROSE has always stood for this neighborhood's diversity. With a thriving immigrant population and more affordable housing than many parts of Brooklyn, Sunset Park attracts new waves of working people every year. UPROSE has stood with them for generations, empowering these New Yorkers to improve and strengthen the neighborhood, borough and City that they call home. Mr. Speaker, after five decades UPROSE remains an anchor in our community, fighting for justice and improving our community locally. I would ask all my colleagues to join me on their fifty years of progress and wish them the best for many more years of achievement and success.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yet, despite this benefit for millions of Americans, this legislation will delay the rule until June 2017, when I am sure there will be attempts to eliminate this rule completely. I cannot and will not support this attack on workers. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the American Sustainable Business Council in support of the overtime regulations. American Sustainable Business Council, July 12, 2016. Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Education and the Workforce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Education and the Workforce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of the businesses represented by the American Sustainable Business Council's, ASBC, network, I write in support of the Department of Labor's recently released overtime rule, and to oppose a Congressional Review Act, CRA, action to roll it back. ASBC advocates for policy change and market solutions for building a vibrant, sustainable economy. Through its national member network, ASBC represents more than 200,000 business owners, executives and investors from a wide range of industries. The rule creates certainty and predictability for business owners. Since the announcement of the draft rule in July 2015 and the release of the final rule this spring, businesses have been planning for its implementation on December 1, 2016. In fact, payroll operations companies have been marketing solutions to help employers handle the transition. Invoking a CRA or other legislative action delaying the overtime rule will create unnecessary and disruptive uncertainty for business owners. Business owners, by nature, are creative at problem solving. When rules are established, they make the necessary decisions to comply. However, when the rules are in flux, business owners react to the uncertainty by holding back on investments in growth and expansion. When employers set fairer, clearer wages, they earn dividends with happier, more productive employees. That's good news for a businesses' bottom line, and for growing the nation's middle class. High road businesses understand that compensating their employees for extra time spent on the job builds a better work culture. The American economy is fundamentally a domestic, consumer- driven economy, unlike some countries where growth is fueled by exports and business-to-business spending. The biggest long term threat to our economy is the hollowing out of the middle class, which is losing its capacity for discretionary spending--responsible for about 70 percent of our gross domestic product. The new overtime rule closes a loophole which has allowed for hourly workers to be deprived of pay by inappropriately classifying them as exempt. Employees are consumers; if they are not earning sufficient wages, demand will remain stagnant. Closing this loophole will help restore consumer spending and give the economy a needed boost. The overtime rule has been under consideration for some time and businesses have weighed in through the public comment process. Most businesses are moving forward to meet the December deadline for compliance. Congress should not take action to stop the progress the business community is making. Sincerely, Bryan McGannon, Policy Director.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. With the minimum wage failing to provide a living wage, Americans are working more hours than ever. Full-time employees are working an average of 47 hours a week. Nearly 40 percent report logging 50 hours or more. Yet, only 7 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime last year, down from 62 percent 40 years ago. Updating the rule to restore the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act was long overdue. In New York State, an additional 23 percent of the salaried workforce, nearly 1 million employees, will directly benefit from the new regulations. At a time when lower- and middle-income wages remain stagnant, these changes will be particularly helpful to American families. Our colleagues on the other side go on about the negative impact on small businesses. Yet, the data shows that this rule will increase payroll less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Furthermore, this money will go directly in the pockets of the middle and working class, who will spend it at their local small businesses. It is not going to diminish job creation in this country. It will increase employment opportunities in this country when those workers will go and spend their money in the local businesses. They are not going to go and get a loan to find--to buy another home. They will not buy a second home. They will spend it in the local economy. So, in turn, this provides an economic boost that will create over 120,000 new jobs. This is a win-win regulation. Let's be clear, no one is asking to be unjustly enriched, only to be fairly compensated for a hard day's work. These ideals are advanced by the DOL's overtime rule.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, Americans everywhere are tired of reading headlines about mass shootings. What happened in Orlando in June broke all our hearts, and we have felt similar outrage about the shooting in Houston this week. But while incidents like this command headlines, we forget just how frequent shootings have become. In New York City, already this year, there have been 897 shooting victims. According to Gun Violence Archive, which tracks shootings daily across the United States, there have been 10,717 gun-related deaths this year and more than 22,000 injuries, and it is only September. There are steps this Congress could take to help stem this violence. Will any one solution stop gun violence completely? Of course not. There are anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States, close to one firearm for every man, woman and child. So we will not solve this problem overnight. But there are some steps we could take, steps that Republicans continue blocking. First, it makes no sense that if you cannot legally get on an airplane, you can still purchase a firearm. If you are prohibited from flying, you shouldn't be buying a gun. That is just common sense. Now, some on the other side of the aisle like to drag up an incident or two where someone was incorrectly placed on the no-fly list. If that is the case, I will say, let's also fix the no-fly list. But we cannot use this as an excuse to do nothing. That is what the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobby want Congress to do--nothing. Second, for 10 years, this Nation used to have an assault weapon ban. President Bush let that law expire. We need to reinstate it. Third, we need a universal system of background checks, something that 87 percent of the American public supports. Mr. Speaker, there are other, tougher steps I would like to see implemented. I have legislation that will invest in community organizations that combat gun violence. My bill will also help stop the flow of stolen guns into New York City and hold accountable gun owners who lose their guns and irresponsibly do not report them missing. For now, there are three basic steps we should take immediately to help reduce this epidemic. Yet Republicans can barely fund the government, let alone take on difficult problems like these. Let me make one last observation, Mr. Speaker. The American people are watching on this issue. If Republicans are in such a hurry to get back to your districts, I promise, you will hear from your constituents on this issue. We are all tired of tragedies like Orlando and what happened in Houston this week, and we are also outraged by the daily shootings that do not make national news but still shatter families. The American people are watching. They are telling the Republican leadership: ``Do your job. Do your job with funding to address Zika. Do your job with money for Flint. And do your job to address the tragedy of gun violence.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Daisaku Ikeda, President of the Soka Gakkai International who is celebrating the anniversary of his first visit to New York. Mr. Ikeda is a leader who has served New York's community--indeed our entire City--with distinction. Daisaku Ikeda's first visit to New York was October 2nd, 1960, to introduce America to the compassionate and enlightening teachings of Buddhism as a practical way for individuals to create harmonious families and communities in order to create a peaceful and sustainable world for all humanity. Dr. Ikeda's lifetime has been focused on striving for peace in New York City and around the world. Since his arrival, the New York SGI organization has grown significantly--today New York City is home to some 13,500 active members of SGI-USA, with 33 Chapters hosting over 200 monthly neighborhood discussion meetings. New York City enjoys two SGI Buddhist Culture Centers, in Queens and Manhattan, with a third center currently under construction in the heart of the 7th Congressional District in Brooklyn--which will be completed in 2017. Dr. Ikeda continues, with tremendous youthful energy and passion, to be a constant inspiration to thousands of New Yorkers as well as millions around the world. His thoughts are best expressed through a passage in his book, The Human Revolution ``a great revolution of character in just a single individual will help achieve a change in the destiny of a nation, and further, will cause a change in the destiny of mankind.'' Dr. Ikeda has demonstrated a steadfast desire for peace and is a testament that a single person can make a difference not only in a community, but in the world. In recognition of his efforts in support of the United Nations, as well as public information and education activities on such issues as disarmament, the environment and human rights, Ikeda was conferred the UN Peace Award in 1983. I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Ikeda and paying tribute to his many achievements.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to another bad trade deal that could soon be forced upon us. It is possible that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, could be brought before this body for a final vote before the end of the year and end of this Congress. We have seen time and again what bad trade deals do to our communities and to working families across this Nation. You see, when NAFTA was under consideration, American workers were told that the trade benefits would mean more jobs and economic opportunities. What actually happened? We saw a net loss of 700,000 jobs thanks to NAFTA. So if history is any guide, we know what to expect from TPP. But in many ways, this agreement is even more harmful than NAFTA. In fact, the core of this deal is allowing foreign corporations to sue the U.S. Government over regulations they simply do not like. Imagine, any time there is an environmental regulation or worker safety regulation that a company does not care for, they can sue. These cases will not go through the regular legal process. Instead, TPP creates a special tribunal of three corporate lawyers to evaluate the case. And if a company convinces these three lawyers that a law or regulation violates their TPP rights, well, then the American taxpayer has to pay these corporations enormous compensation. Let's be clear. There is no appeal process. There is no way to reverse these decisions. The TPP could put the taxpayer on the hook for almost unlimited sums of money. It is no wonder that this agreement was negotiated in private. While corporations were given plenty of opportunity to comment on how they wanted the agreement to look, the public and workers were not given a seat in the room--or even the chance to review the text before it was finalized. The end result, unsurprisingly, is an agreement that is bad for the American people and would affect their daily lives in countless ways. American workers would find themselves competing for jobs against workers in places like Vietnam, who make 65 cents an hour--65 cents an hour. It is no wonder that this agreement would require the U.S. to import food that does not meet our own safety standards. It would mean more expensive prescription drugs for our seniors, and it would curtail policies meant to fight climate change. Mr. Speaker, the TPP is 6,000 pages long. It is too big and covers too much. It has too many unintended consequences. There should be no rush to push this agreement through the House before the end of the year. However, if this agreement is put on the floor this year, I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. Protect working families. Protect the American consumer. Protect our environment. Vote ``no'' on the TPP.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

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

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our committee hears from small businesses too often about the cost and complexities associated with cybersecurity. With businesses having to be familiar with small business data regulations, ever-changing cyber threats, and the cost to install and maintain a cybersecurity system, many small-business owners wonder when they will have time to actually operate their business. The changes made by H.R. 5064 will unify our efforts and create a streamlined process for small employers seeking to install cyber safeguards. Utilizing the existing national network of SBDCs--many of which small businesses already seek assistance from--as a source for cyber education and awareness provides a critical tool for American entrepreneurs. I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 5064, the Improving Small Business Cyber Security Act of 2016. Technology has changed the way we all live, but none more so than for small businesses. It has afforded America's small employers a unique opportunity to sell their products not just nationally, but globally. Despite new occasions for economic growth, technology has also introduced profound risks. We hear too often of data breaches and cyber espionage. Yet, we never really think this could happen to us until it does. All it takes is one incident to have devastating impacts to small businesses. In fact, 60 percent of small entities go out of business after 6 months of being hacked. Clearly, cybersecurity should be a priority to protect our national security and economy. Failure to do so leaves us all at risk. Whether a business is adopting cloud computing or simply maintaining a Web site, cybersecurity should be part of their plan. However, only 31 percent of small firms take active measures to guard against such attacks, making them the ideal target for cybercriminals. A lack of awareness and the high cost to install security mechanisms leaves many small-business owners exposed. Those that are aware of the threat, like government contractors, must navigate demanding IT specifications and complex regulations in order to stay competitive and win Federal contracts. To help facilitate the preventive measures within the private sector, H.R. 5064, the Improving Small Business Cyber Security Act, will leverage the Small Business Administration's vast network of Small Business Development Centers. With 63 lead centers and 900 outreach locations, SBDCs have the capacity to reach small businesses throughout the country. They also have a proven record of assisting entrepreneurs with extensive courses in management and technical assistance. In the last fiscal year, SBDCs trained over 260,000 clients and advised almost 190,000 clients. This bill will utilize these existing resource partners by allowing the centers to assist small firms in developing and enhancing their cybersecurity infrastructure and employee training programs. The bill also calls for an SBDC cyber strategy to be designed to further support small employers to protect themselves, their employees, and their customers. This legislation ensures that our national efforts combating cyber attacks can be utilized by our Nation's more vulnerable businesses. We cannot continue to accept the bare minimum as our Nation seeks to end continued data breaches. Therefore, I ask my fellow Members to support this bill. Let me just take this opportunity, also, to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) for the great work that he has done on this issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it's ironic that, as a country, we consistently advocate for other countries to support democratic traditions and institutions--and empower their citizens. Sadly, because of the Shelby decision, we are not living up to our own standards. But, we cannot lay all the blame on the Supreme Court. The Court was clear in their ruling While they invalidated the mechanism used to determine what jurisdictions required preclearance--they also suggested that Congress could come up with a standard that passes constitutional muster. Sadly, thanks to Republican inaction, we have failed in that task. Now, we are about to have the first Presidential election--in five decades--without the very basic protections that were enshrined in the Voting Rights Act. What does this mean? It means that some of our most vulnerable populations--communities of color, young people, students and women-- are more likely to encounter obstacles to exercising their most basic right. And, let's be absolutely clear--there remain serious challenges and problems when it comes to protecting voters. By no means are the protections in the VRA out-of-date or no longer necessary. We saw a stark example of this earlier this year--in Brooklyn. In April, some 120,000 voters from the rolls in Kings County--the largest county in the state--were improperly purged from the voter rolls. And, an analysis by local media outlets found those affected were disproportionately Latino voters--mostly in working class neighborhoods like Sunset Park, East New York, and parts of Bushwick and Williamsburg. Now, let's recall that Kings County was previously covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Would these voters have been removed if the VRA were still intact? The fact is we do not know. But we do know this--our democracy and our system of voting is not perfect--and to argue that voters are no longer disenfranchised is simply false. We've seen that clearly in Brooklyn. And, let me make one other observation--those who argue that we need more stringent voter ID laws to prevent ``voter fraud'' are making a dishonest argument. Every credible expert who has examined the data has concluded this--voter fraud is exceedingly rare, if not completely nonexistent. Voting rights should not be a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. We should all be passionate about defending and upholding this most basic right--for all Americans. Yet, this Congress--thanks to the Republican Leadership--has failed to do the necessary work to restore the protections in the Voting Rights Act. Earlier this year, my colleagues Hakeem Jeffries, Grace Meng and I hosted a forum on the Voting Rights Act. We heard from local experts about the need to restore these protections. Let me conclude simply by saying this--it is shameful this Congress has not addressed this issue. But it is also not surprising. Just as this House has not acted on gun violence and has not yet allocated appropriate funding to address Zika, or dealt with the Flint water crisis--this is yet one more example of how House Republicans are simply not doing their job. So, I call on my colleagues--do your job. Let's do the hard work of reinstating these democratic protections so voters are not disenfranchised.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, after one of the longest congressional breaks in history, House Republicans are trying to wrap things up and leave town, leaving critical work unfinished. Meanwhile, millions of Americans in New York, Florida, and throughout the United States are justifiably concerned about the dangers of the Zika virus. Nowhere has this disease hit harder than in Puerto Rico, where Zika has become an epidemic. As of last week, more than 1,380 pregnant women in Puerto Rico have been diagnosed with Zika; and overall, there have been 16,000 laboratory cases of the virus found on the island. It would be a tragic and heartbreaking mistake for this Congress to ignore the severity of this threat. Let us be clear: this is the first time we have identified a ``mosquito-borne'' form of birth defect. It is also the first new, major infectious cause of birth defects in five decades. There are some things we do not know about the Zika virus. It is not clear what proportion of infants affected by the virus will suffer birth defects, but what we have seen so far is saddening, troubling, and horrifying. To look upon their helpless faces and do nothing is unconscionable. Yet, despite what we do not know, one thing is tragically clear: this House has failed to provide adequate resources to address this danger. It has now been 7 months since President Obama's administration requested adequate resources to help stem the threat of Zika, but House Republicans have taken zero--I repeat, zero--votes on adequate funding that will help tackle this problem. Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is telling us they are running out of money to deal with this potential catastrophe. There are critical public health steps we need to take but cannot because the CDC is essentially out of money. Already, NIH is drawing resources from other priorities, like HIV and AIDS and cancer research, because this body has failed to act. Sometimes my colleagues on the other side like to talk about how we must ``protect the unborn.'' Well, let me ask you this: When we fail to tackle a disease that causes unborn babies to develop birth defects that will haunt them the rest of their lives, how are we protecting the unborn? These are innocent children--American children in Puerto Rico and on the mainland--who are suffering enormously because this Congress has not done its job. We are learning that this disease is sexually transmitted, making contraception a key part of any solution. But Republicans are raising objections to adequate funding for contraception. Mr. Speaker, protecting the safety and health of the American people is a solemn obligation for every Member of Congress. It is a responsibility that we are currently not living up to. I call on my colleagues to do the right thing. Do your job. Pass a supplemental funding bill so the CDC can get to work and help stop this terrible virus from spreading.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Michelle Denise Brown on her retirement from the Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation (CHLDC) in Cypress Hills Brooklyn, NY, where she started more than two decades ago on March 15, 1993. As a long time community resident and prior to joining CHLDC, Michelle served as President of the P.T.A. at Public School 65 for three years. She was an active parishioner of Blessed Sacrament Church where she served as a volunteer religious education teacher for 6 years. Michelle had been attending Kingsborough Community College pursuing a Business Administration degree when she learned about the CHLDC job opportunity at the new school-based community center Beacon Program. Motivated to return to the workforce after 12 years, she applied for the position and was hired. For five years, she served as the Administrative Assistant at the Beacon School Based Community Center and the Beacon Family Place at IS 302, dividing her time with two programs. She was instrumental in the start-up of these programs which are now neighborhood institutions. Michelle set the tone of safety and caring at the Beacon while establishing intake, health and safety procedures and managing enrollment and scheduling for thousands of young people and their families. Her exemplary work caught the attention of Ms. Neugebauer, the Executive Director who then promoted Mrs. Brown to serve as her right- hand Senior Administrative Assistant which she proudly did for the past 18 years. In addition to her administrative role, Mrs. Brown also serves as a Liaison with the Board of Directors and as the Coordinator of the Communications Committee of the organization--ensuring that the board members are aware of all CHLDC happenings and that agency's 400- plus staff and 17 offices know each other and the array of programs offered by the CHLDC and Cypress Hills Child Care Corporation. Michelle has a wealth of knowledge and experience that will surely be missed by all who have had the pleasure to work with her, but I am certain that she is looking forward to this exciting next chapter in her life and will enjoy spending more time with her husband of 37 years, Mr. Beaufus Lee Brown, her three sons, daughter and 11 grandchildren. I thank Michelle Denise Brown for her community service and longtime dedication to the Cypress Hill LDC community. I wish her all the best and congratulate her on her retirement.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This commonsense legislation is aimed at expanding the resources the International Monetary Fund can tap in order to provide member countries with technical assistance for anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing efforts. Through the IMF's legal department, experts provide assistance to countries that want to put in place effective AML/CFT frameworks in compliance with international standards. Unfortunately, demand is outpacing supply. Currently, the IMF provides only about $7 million dollars in AML/CFT technical assistance a year. It is funded almost entirely through volunteer donor trust fund contributions. The U.S. does not contribute to the trust fund. This bill will require the U.S. Executive Director at the IMF to advocate for additional AML/CFT technical assistance financing through the IMF's administrative budget. The provision of AML/CFT technical assistance should be a top priority, and I think many of us would support a slightly larger transfer of the IMF's annual net profits into the budget to accommodate this important work. This bill represents an important goal, one that the U.S. should pursue at the IMF, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Investment Company Act of 1940 governs investment companies such as mutual funds, closed-end funds, unit investment trusts, and exchange-traded funds. Its purpose is to protect investors in such funds and to provide for impartial oversight of these companies. Among other things, the 1940 act regulates the type of activities that such companies can undertake and establishes standards for their conduct. In doing so, it describes investment companies' functions and their structure; regulates various transactions among affiliated persons; limits the amount of leverage they can undertake; outlines accounting, recordkeeping, and auditing requirements of funds; and describes how securities may be redeemed and repurchased. These matters sound technical, but they provide fundamental protections for investors in U.S. investment companies. Due to a historical artifact, however, all funds that are located and organized in and sold only to residents of U.S. territories are exempted from the 1940 act. The reason for such an exemption was that, at the time the act was being considered in 1940, the U.S. territories were deemed to be too distant from Washington, D.C., thus making travel to them cost prohibitive. Obviously, the cost of air travel is no longer cost prohibitive and not a reason to exempt territories from the 1940 act. As a result of this exemption, investment companies located in U.S. territories can sell products to the residents and not be subject to the oversight, disclosure, and conflict-of-interest requirements that such companies located in the mainland U.S. are subject to. The outcome is that those located in the U.S. territories have been subject to investment losses, some resulting from behavior that likely would have been prohibited if the act applied to the island's investment companies. To address this matter, H.R. 5322, the U.S. Territories Investor Protection Act, applies the 1940 act to currently exempt investment companies that are located, organized in, and sold to residents of these territories. In order to permit investment companies to comply with the legislation, it provides for a 3-year compliance period with an option at the approval of the SEC for an additional 3 years. This time period balances the need to bring the investor protections of the 1940 act to the territories with enough time for affected entities to fully understand and comply with the 1940 act. It is important to note that if investment companies need further relief from any specific requirement of the 1940 act, they are able to request such relief through the SEC under existing law. I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for working with me throughout the last 9 months in a productive manner. Such cooperation was critical to developing an approach that would apply the act in a manner sensitive to investors and investment companies. As a result, I believe the framework of this bill, when combined with current statutory mechanisms, will provide a sufficient time period for adjustment and compliance. I urge Members to support this legislation. This legislation will dramatically benefit investors in Puerto Rico. Those that call Puerto Rico home will now be subject to the same investor protection laws that those on the mainland are subject to. This is not only fair, but it is right, as many Puerto Ricans have lost their life savings in investment products offered only on the island. When it comes to Puerto Rico, it is important to realize that what we are doing is not creating a new law or imposing a Federal mandate on the island. We are simply closing the loophole that has prevented Puerto Ricans from enjoying the same protections as the rest of Americans. With the enactment of this bill, the 1940 act will be applied to Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories in the same exact manner it is applied to all 50 States. Investors and consumers in Puerto Rico deserve this, and this bill is long overdue. Not only will the 1940 act provide Puerto Rico's investors with much- needed safeguards, but the current fiscal crisis on the island is creating budgetary challenges for the local government. Having additional Federal oversight of investment activity is now especially critical for the island's residents. In closing, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling again for his cooperation and bringing this important bill forward to the floor. I ask Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for meaningful action on gun violence. The key word in that sentence is ``meaningful.'' The tragedy in Orlando served as a dark wake-up call to all Americans. Across the Nation, in every major city, to every small town, Americans are speaking with one voice saying: ``Enough is enough.'' The American people are demanding a no fly, no buy bill that prevents those on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. How have Republicans responded? They have put together a weak, unworkable, and convoluted bill that will not address the real problem. Imagine, under this legislation, law enforcement must convince a court within 72 hours that the buyer ``has committed or will commit an act of terrorism'' before it could block a gun sale. Is this your idea of homeland security? Really? Is this how you protect the homeland? Mr. Speaker, the standard is simply unreachable and unworkable. Now, one has to wonder where Republicans got such an unfeasible idea. The answer is as simple as it is sad. The NRA, which represents large weapon manufacturers, wrote this legislation. We need a real, effective no fly, no buy bill that stops those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms. The Republican legislation is simply a giveaway to the NRA that will hobble law enforcement. We also need a system of effective, universal background checks that keeps guns out of the hands of those who would do us harm. Once again, House Republicans are standing in the way. They are preventing consideration of this measure that is supported by 90 percent of the American people. Why? Just to keep their friends in the NRA lobby happy with them. Why? Follow the money. Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable. The week after the Orlando slaughter, I read on this floor the names of the victims. At that time, I said that while we will never forget them, their memory will inspire us to real change. But this is not real change. We do not honor the victims of Orlando by passing legislation written by the NRA and gun manufacturing lobbyists. In fact, if anything, this legislation is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Well, I have news for you. The American people see through this, and they are not buying it. I urge my colleagues: do what is right. Reject this unworkable NRA- backed trick so that we can vote on real, meaningful legislation to address gun violence in this country.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Over the years, the Committee on Small Business has seen the HUBZone program move further and further away from its goal, and this amendment would only amplify this problem. Allowing a massive expansion of the program, as has been proposed, would greatly reduce the efficacy of the program by steering contracts away from active economically distressed areas. The amendment will also dilute the competition in HUBZone contracting opportunities as well as in the free and open marketplace. In some cases, agencies will even be required to pay up to 10 percent more for goods and services to companies that would otherwise not qualify for the program. The chairman and I are committed to working on the HUBZone program. The committee plans on conducting a hearing in the fall, and I am working on a comprehensive reform bill. We will welcome Mr. Delaney's participation as we look further into how we can improve this program, while ensuring that contracts are awarded to those areas that need them most. However, I cannot, in good conscience, support the inclusion of this provision. It has not been vetted by the committee of jurisdiction, and there is not any evidence that this amendment will further the mission of the HUBZone program of supporting economically disadvantaged areas. I therefore ask my fellow Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.