Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is left on both sides.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time both sides have left.

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal family matter I was not present for rollcall votes 294 314. Had I been present, this is how I would have voted: On rollcall Vote 294: H.R. 5651, Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012 I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 295: H.R. 4201, The Service member Family Protection Act I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 296: H.R. 915, The Jaime Zapata Border Security Task Force Act I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 297: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855 I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 298: H. Res. 667, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855 I would have voted no. On rollcall Vote 299: H.R. 3541, Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act I would have voted no. On rollcall Vote 300: Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5743 I would have voted I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 301: Final Passage of H.R. 5743, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 302: Grimm Amendment which strikes Section 517, which prohibits the use of funds for construction bid solicitations that require or prohibit project labor agreements I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 303: Franks Amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being used to enforce the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act I would have vote no. On rollcall Vote 304: Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5854 I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 305: Final Passage of H.R. 5854, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Act, 2013 I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 306: Scalise Amendment to increase the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $10 million for Louisiana Coastal Restoration and reduces the Department of Energy Administration Account by the same amount I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 307: King Amendment to reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $1,000,000 and increases the Operation and Maintenance Account by $571,429 I would have voted no. On rollcall Vote 308: Moran Amendment which strikes Section 110 of the bill. The section prohibits the Corps of Engineers from using funds to issue guidance, enforce or supplement rules regarding definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 309: Hultgren Amendment to reduce the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $30 million and increases the Science Administrative and Facility Account for National Laboratories by $15 million I would have voted no. On rollcall Vote 310: Chaffetz Amendment to reduce funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $74,000,000 and applies the savings to the spending reduction account I would have voted no. On rollcall Vote 311: McClintock Amendment to zero out the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account (a cut of $1.45 billion) and applies the savings to the spending reduction account I would have voted no. On rollcall Vote 312: Kaptur Amendment to increase the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $10 million and reduces the Department of Energy Administrative Account by the same amount I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 313: Tonko Amendment to increase the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $180,440,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program and reduces the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons Activities Account by the same amount I would have voted yes. On rollcall Vote 314: Hahn Amendment to increase funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $50 million and reduces funds for Fossil Energy Research and Development by $100 million I would have voted yes.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking Democrat for his great leadership and allowing me to make this amendment in order as part of the en bloc. Mr. Chairman, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the brave men and women who serve our Nation abroad are treated with dignity. Sadly, in recent years, we have come to realize that too many of these young people endure abuse--not at the hands of the enemy, but from within their own unit. Last year, an Army private from my district, Danny Chen, lost his life after being hazed. Danny's loss has been a profound tragedy for his family, the Chinatown community, and all of New York. While many steps should have been taken to save Danny, it is almost certain if he had transferred to another unit, he would be with us today. The amendment I am offering will ensure that each branch of the military has a process allowing hazing victims to swiftly transfer to another unit. This commonsense policy will prevent future tragedies. Mr. Chairman, all of us owe a great debt to the members of our military who risk so much for our Nation's freedom.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which is an affront to women, their rights and their safety. It is worth noting that the Violence Against Women Act was originally passed under a Republican Congress. Its provisions that protect immigrant women passed in 2000 and 2005--again during Republican majorities. Yet, today, we are voting on legislation that would gut these protections, delivering women seeking help into the hands of their abusers --endangering their safety and their lives. Immigrant women are disproportionately impacted by domestic violence. One study from New York City found that 51 percent of domestic partner homicide victims were foreign- born. Other research has suggested that, among undocumented Latina women, the rate of battering is as high as 34%. For immigrant women, there can be language barriers preventing them from seeking help. In many cases, abusers may try to use the threat of deportation to prevent their victims from leaving. The Violence Against Women Act is designed to help those who are most vulnerable and who need assistance. Instead, the provisions being offered by the Majority, today, would make it harder for those who have been battered to escape abuse and find safety. This legislation weakens confidentiality protections that prevent abusers from knowing their victims are seeking help. Needless, duplicative interviews with DHS would make it harder for those who are abused to secure assistance through the immigration system. The legislation would also make it more difficult for those cooperating with law enforcement to avoid deportation. Collectively, these provisions effectively cut women off from help, making it harder for them to avail themselves of the legal process. Make no mistake: despite what our Republican colleagues say, these provisions will not reduce immigration fraud. That argument is a red herring. Indeed, there is not one shred of evidence suggesting female immigrants are misusing the Violence Against Women Act. How can we turn our back on women who need assistance? What kind of a message does it send to pass this legislation? Are we saying to those who suffer abuse they do not ``count'' because they are undocumented? I say to my colleagues--let us send another message. Reject this legislation. Pass a real Violence Against Women Act that does not divide us by playing politics, but extends help to women who need it.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which would deprive women in need of vital health services. All of us-- on both sides of the aisle--recognize the need to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent. But this bill tackles this problem in exactly the wrong way--depriving women of preventative care aimed at stopping cervical cancer and stopping low income children from receiving life saving vaccinations. For the working families of New York, this legislation robs them of access to quality health care. With this bill, we are saying that for a young person from a working family to afford college, his or her mother must also forego vital medical care. Preventing a rise in student loan rates is critical for our young people. With millions of students graduating into a difficult job market now is the time for serious solutions that keep these loans affordable--not the time to use this problem as a political football. The President has said this bill is dead on arrival, so why are we wasting time debating it? We can and must find a better solution that keeps these rates low without harming working families. Let us reject this bill and craft legislation that has a chance of being signed into law.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. There is nothing in this bill specifically for small businesses. Instead, this is another attempt to award tax breaks to the wealthy. In fact, millionaires will receive nearly half of the benefit from this legislation, while true small businesses accrue only 10 percent. Once again, as the largest corporations get fatter, small businesses have to struggle for scraps. Small, fast growing startups, which often have little tax liability, would see no tax savings--yet these are the firms most likely to create jobs. Even worse, this plan would give tax breaks to companies shedding employees--exactly the wrong incentive. Finally, this bill does nothing to address small business owners' top concern--a lack of demand for their goods and services. A real small business bill would tackle that problem. This is not a small business bill--it is a millionaire's tax break bill. Vote no so we can focus on real solutions to small businesses' needs.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget. Our seniors and working families in New York struggle with rising rent, food, and health care costs. Now is not the time to squeeze working families in order to provide tax giveaways to the most fortunate among us. This budget will mean big cuts to the supplemental nutritional assistance program which provides food assistance to 1.8 million New Yorkers. For students looking to secure an education, this budget will mean drastic cuts to higher education funding, meaning higher costs for students. New York's small businesses and, to that effect, small businesses across this country will see Federal programs they rely on for access to credit and technical assistance reduced by $80 million-- exactly the wrong direction to go as we seek to hasten our economic recovery. Nowhere does this budget fail our Nation more than in the area of health care. Medicaid will be slashed by $810 billion, meaning disabled people, the working poor, and low-income children. For our seniors who have worked hard their entire life, this budget will mean turning our back on the Medicare guarantee for the first time, pushing the 74,000 Medicare recipients in New York's 12th District into an untested, unreliable voucher system. Let's be clear: if you vote for this budget, you're voting to end Medicare as we know it. Madam Chair, the Ryan budget repeatedly chooses millionaires and billionaires over working families. Those are not American values. They are not New York values. We should reject them. Vote ``no.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a less than ideal piece of legislation. All of us recognize it is vital the payroll tax cut be extended. This cut has put money in the pockets of 160 million Americans--17 million of them in the tri-state New York area. These consumers--indeed our entire economy--cannot afford for this measure to lapse. At the same time, this bill does not go far enough in helping those who have been hurt by the recession. Millions of Americans are seeking employment but still cannot find it. Indeed, our economy would need to create 230,000 jobs each month--for two years--to regain all the jobs lost since December of 2007. This bill makes it more difficult for out- of-work Americans, by shortening the amount of time they may receive unemployment benefits to 73 weeks. At the same time we cut these benefits, our Republican colleagues insist on protecting those ``vulnerable millionaires'' who continue receiving tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill--but reluctantly. We cannot afford for Unemployment Insurance or the payroll tax cut to expire. Still, it is my hope that in the future we can do more to protect working families who have suffered from this downturn.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a pillar of the Sunset Park community, an educator and an advocate for Brooklyn's children. Today, a wing of PS 169 is being dedicated to honor Mrs. Aguirre's years of service to the children of Sunset Park. As a teacher, Mrs. Aguirre saw firsthand the needs and potential of our children. She recognized that, when given the resources and opportunity to learn in the right environment, every child can become a successful member of the community. In that regard, she has been a steadfast champion for relieving overcrowding in our schools and neighborhoods. She successfully led a campaign that united the parents of Sunset Park and helped them coalesce behind a vision of better schools, smaller class sizes and a stronger community. In 1997, Sunset Park opened Public School 24, an institution that has now served thousands of our community's children. Mrs. Aguirre became the school's first Principal. In that role she was always committed to ensuring students and classrooms were held to high expectations. That guiding philosophy, coupled with strong faculty development and mentoring, served as a recipe for success for all those who passed through PS 24's doors over the years. While Mrs. Aguirre is now retired, Sunset Park's residents remember her many contributions. Naming a school wing after this prominent leader, woman, educator, principal and mentor is a fitting tribute to her legacy. The name of Principal Yvette Aguirre will remind students and the community of the work of a proud Latina, a positive role model and a champion for education. Mr. Speaker, talented and passionate educators are a gift. They give of themselves tirelessly in an effort to improve our communities and ensure our children have access to opportunity. Mrs. Aguirre is one of those educators and, today, I would ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring her many achievements.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a stalwart champion for New York's working families. After more than 27 years of service to the residents of Cooper Park Houses, Dianne Jackson is retiring. Through her decades of service, she has made countless contributions, improving not just Cooper Park Houses, but the surrounding Williamsburg community. Throughout her nearly three decades of service, Dianne has been an unwavering voice for some of the most vulnerable members of our City. As President of the Cooper Park Resident Council, she advocated for tenants' rights on a range of issues--from fighting to ensure buildings are repaired and maintained to pushing for more green space and ensuring the local community is consulted when development decisions affect the residents. A graduate of the Neighborhood Women's College Program at LaGuardia Community College, Dianne's career is characterized by a tireless commitment to helping others. In addition to serving as President of the Cooper Park Resident Council, she was one of the founding members of the Center for Elimination of Violence in the Family. Today, that organization houses up to 1,000 women and children, each year, providing a helping hand to members of our community most in need of assistance. In addition to her tireless advocacy and work in the community, Dianne overcame personal struggles, as well. A cancer survivor, she exhibited the perseverance, resolve and toughness to not only recover, but remain a driving force for positive change in Brooklyn. Mr. Speaker, one would be hard pressed to find a better example of how one person can make a difference improving their community, city and society, overall. Dianne Jackson should be commended for her years of service. I wish her only the best for an enjoyable, well-earned retirement.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, in less than two weeks, taxes are set to rise, cuts to Medicare payments will occur, and emergency unemployment will lapse. With the economic security of so many Americans at stake, we cannot allow this to happen. Until an acceptable long-term solution is offered, it would be irresponsible to forego a short-term extension that enables small firms and the American people to move forward with our economic recovery. Almost 12 million Americans currently rely on unemployment. Without action, nearly 2.5 million of them will lose their benefits in just two months. At a time when we should be providing them a leg-up, this Republican Congress has continually failed to provide middle-class Americans the assistance they require. And, now, due to the Republican leadership blocking a two month extension, 160 million hardworking taxpayers are faced with a tax increase. We have a modest, bipartisan solution before us. While it certainly does not address all these problems, it can provide some help at a time when it is desperately needed. The House should consider and pass this extension, immediately.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself 1 minute. I need to set the record straight regarding the previous Member who just spoke about how many regulations have been issued under the Obama administration. Let me remind people here that, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, net regulatory burdens increased in the years George W. Bush assumed the Presidency. Between 2001 and 2008 the Federal Government imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on America. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year 2007 alone. With regard to the number of pages of regulations, the Code of Federal regulations totaled 145,000 pages in 2007 alone. The Obama administration issued an Executive order, 13563, and a memorandum on small businesses and job creation, and the Executive order instructs agencies to seek the views of affected entities prior to proposed rulemaking. The Executive order also calls on agencies to engage in periodic reviews of existing regulations.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Since its enactment in 1980, the Reg Flex has reduced the burden of Federal rules on small businesses. It has evolved over time to include new tools, expanding its purview and making a real difference for entrepreneurs across the country. With this important role in mind, the legislation before us makes some essential changes. However, in other areas the bill goes too far. At a time of mounting deficits and growing taxpayer anger at how tone- deaf Congress has become, H.R. 527 will dramatically expand the Federal bureaucracy at a cost of $80 million. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How much time do I have left, please?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Reducing the cost of regulation is a very important issue, but it's not going to turn the economy around. In order for this to happen, businesses need to see more customers coming through their doors--and not just during the holiday season we are now in. With this in mind, it is necessary to create an environment where regulations are not overburdening small businesses, as they do in fact bear the largest burden. These entrepreneurs face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms. And this brings us to the bill before us. Too often on the House floor legislation is painted as either being totally perfect or completely awful. With this bill, neither of these characterizations is appropriate. In fact, on many fronts, H.R. 527 contains several very positive provisions and will make a real difference for small businesses. Many of the provisions were previously advanced by Democrats in the Small Business Committee, and for this Chairman Graves and Chairman Smith and their staff should be commended. For instance, the bill makes agencies' regulatory flex analyses more detailed so that they cannot simply overlook their obligations to small businesses. It also gives real teeth to periodic regulatory look-backs, which require agencies to review outdated regulations that remain on the books. Agencies will also be required to evaluate the entire impact of their regulations, something that is long overdue. And it cannot go without mention that the bill brings the IRS under the purview of the RFA. This is a real improvement for small firms, which will undoubtedly benefit from greater scrutiny of complex and burdensome tax rules. These are all constructive changes that will bring real relief to entrepreneurs. With that said, there are other items in this legislation that leave you scratching your head. Adding 50 new agencies to the panel process is a recipe for disaster. Such a dramatic change will require new bureaucratic processes, more staff, and more paperwork. It must be ironic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this bill attempts to reduce Federal regulation by dramatically expanding the role and scope of government. In fact, H.R. 527 creates more government as a means to limit government. How does that make sense? It also applies reg flex to land management plans, something I have never heard small businesses complain about in my 18 years on the committee. Doing so will enable corporate interests to more readily challenge land use decisions, which could have adverse consequences for the environmental stewardship of public lands. The reality is that the RFA was just not intended to cover this action, and it should not do so going forward. Finally, it is important to note that the Office of Advocacy's footprint has traditionally been minimal, with a budget of $9 million and 46 employees. According to CBO, its budget will have to increase by up to 200 percent per year to handle the new responsibilities of H.R. 527. It is already taxed in meeting its current role, and expanding its powers geometrically is well beyond its capacity. Members are well aware of the fiscal constraints facing the U.S. Government. Now is not the time to make costly statutory leaps when smaller steps might be more appropriate. So, in conclusion, there are some good and some not-so-good things in this bill. I want to acknowledge the effort by the bill's manager, but in the end it is not something I could support, given the imposition of too many questionable policies. However, I want to thank Chairman Graves for always being open to discussions, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself 15 seconds more. If we're going to come here and, instead of dealing with the issues that are impacting small businesses--and that is access to affordable capital so that they could create jobs--but rather come and criticize the Obama administration for issuing regulations, let's set the record straight and talk about the regulations that were issued under the Republican administration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment which will visit harm on working families, prevent government from responding to crises, and cripple the U.S. economy. Under this amendment, it will become difficult to raise the debt ceiling, putting our country at greater risk of default. It is alarming that so shortly after averting the most recent danger of a default, the authors of this amendment will endanger our Nation's credit so directly. Equally disturbing, should a war, domestic crisis, or natural disaster strike, our government could find its hands tied, incapable of responding swiftly. When crises occur, Congress must have the flexibility to respond. It is shortsighted and dangerous to cede this authority from the legislative branch. Not only will this amendment effectively slow our response to future catastrophe, but it will also undercut our current economic recovery, eliminating 50 million jobs. The fact is, if you like 9 percent unemployment, you will love this amendment. Mr. Speaker, our government has in the past been able to balance its books and create surplus. When President Clinton left office, we had a $5 trillion surplus. However, an unprovoked war, unpaid for, coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy erased this windfall and led to our current fiscal problems. If we truly wish to tackle the deficit, the most effective thing we could do is create new jobs. In the 1990s, economic prosperity helped drive deficits down. Rather than wasting this institution's time on a cheap political stunt which has zero chance of becoming law, we should create opportunity and work to restore the American dream. That is a deficit reduction plan all of us could support. Vote down this misguided amendment.