Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time is left on each side.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time I have left?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have two additional speakers, and I ask unanimous consent for 2 more additional minutes on each side.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the record. Mr. Chairman, yes, it might be true they are doing more loans, but they do not say that they are rationing capital in its loan program. The average loan size for the 7(a) loan program today is $170,000. The average for an African American is only $86,000. The average loan for an Hispanic is $128,000, and this is happening because the restrictions that they have imposed on the 7(a) loan program. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close if the gentleman does not have any other speakers.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is a vote for helping small businesses. Today the program is more costly, $3,000 more, and half a billion dollars less is going into the economy. We have also seen a 50 percent drop in lenders, which has a particularly negative impact on rural communities. This is not a picture of stability, but the good news is that we can fix this. By voting ``yes'' on the Velazquez amendment, we can return the 7(a) program to a source of affordable capital for our Nation's small business owners. Almost 20 national groups, from the National Small Business Association and the Hotel and Motel Association to the Independent Community Bankers and the Credit Unions, say that this is a problem, and they want us to fix it. For the small commitment on the government's part, we can create jobs and create economic growth, two of the most important things we can do right now. That is why I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, the same amendment that was voted last year overwhelmingly. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that when SBA claims that they are doing record levels, what they do not say is that they are comparing the program's performance to a time last year when it was shut down and operating under a $750,000 cap. When compared to the last quarter before fees were raised, the program actually shows a decline of over $500. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote for the Velazquez amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2005, H.R. 1224. Among other things, H.R. 1224 would repeal the prohibition against banks paying interest on checking accounts and authorize the Federal Reserve to pay interest on reserve balances maintained by depository institutions at Federal Reserve Banks. The bill is almost identical to previous legislation on the subject passed by the House, including H.R. 758, which passed in 2003. H.R. 1224 contains some long overdue changes. I am particularly pleased that this legislation will permit small businesses to earn interest on their checking account balances. Individuals have been able to receive interest on checking accounts for some time, and small businesses, many of which are individually owned and operated, should have the same ability to receive an equitable return on their checking deposits. Small businesses face an array of barriers to accessing the capital they need for start-up, operation and expansion. One of these barriers is the Depression-era law that prohibits interest-bearing checking accounts. The law, enacted as part of the Banking Act of 1933, was meant to keep banks solvent during the Great Depression. Almost 70 years later, the law is still in effect, despite evidence that it is no longer valid--or necessary. In fact, a 1996 joint report issued by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision stated that the law barring payment on business checking accounts ``no longer serves a public purpose.'' H.R. 1224 effectively repeals this ban and permits small businesses to earn interest on their checking accounts. Similar to past House bills, H.R. 1224 also includes a section entitled Rules of Construction, which ensure that the existing regulatory treatment of certain services and benefits provided by banks in lieu of interest on escrow accounts maintained to complete the settlement of real estate closing transactions remains as it is today. Currently, the Federal Reserve's Regulation Q permits banks to offer services and benefits in lieu of interest to depositors. It also specifically provides that the provision or the receipt of such services and benefits does not constitute interest. Using this option, title companies and agents receive bank services, such as free safe deposit and night depository facilities and low-interest loans, in lieu of interest. This arrangement lowers the cost of maintaining real estate escrows, which in turn lowers the cost of these services to customers of title companies and title agents. H.R. 1224 does not change Regulation Q or any regulatory standard regarding the definition of interest. Rather, it ensures the continued delivery of cost-effective real estate closing services. H.R. 1224 provides for a long overdue change to federal banking laws that will enable small businesses to gain parity with larger firms that are already able to essentially receive interest on their checking accounts. By doing so, small businesses will be better able to grow and create the new jobs that our country so desperately needs. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which offers no solution to our Nation's gang violence problem, and in support of the Waters-Scott amendment which strikes the mandatory sentences provisions. Clearly, in many neighborhoods throughout our country, we have a gang violence problem. Yet dramatically increasing prison terms and failing to fund proven strategies to reduce youth violence is exactly what H.R. 1279 does. Violence in gangs is a critical problem, persistent among low-income and minority communities. Today we see that 95 percent of the largest cities and 88 percent of the smaller cities are confronted with gang- related crimes. More and more younger kids are joining gangs. But no value of hope is given to these children seeking a way out of the gang activity. We must face this reality, rather than hide from it. It seems to me that the only solution being offered by this legislation to our juveniles involved in gangs is locking them into a life path where there is no way out. Whatever happened to gang prevention programs, to the funding desperately needed for delinquency and intervention programs? If we want to deter gang violence and protect our communities, we need to focus on effective and comprehensive solutions to address the root causes of youth violence, not simply punitive actions. Mr. Chairman, passing this bill will do nothing to stem the tide of gang violence throughout this country. What this bill will do is worsen our youth's violent behavior by enslaving our youngsters into prison as an answer to one of this Nation's most critical problems, and that is no solution at all. I urge my colleagues to support the Waters-Scott amendment and to oppose the underlying bill.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. I would say that a blueprint is important, but at some point we need to start building a house. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to say that more than 50 percent of the microloan program loans went to minority entrepreneurs, making it a critical source for funding for new minority-owned firms. That is quite a niche for us. It might not be for the other party. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, small businesses got only $500. That is nothing compared to the $3,000 that they have to pay in fees through the 7(a) program. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). (Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is left.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we are in the middle of recognizing National Small Business Week, most small business owners are going forward with their daily routine; waking up, heading into work, opening up their stores, and figuring out ways to pay their bills, manage their employees, and satisfy their customers. All day today we have been hearing about the numbers of challenges facing small firms, and we will continue to hear about these challenges over and over again. But the sad reality is that small businesses are facing tougher times today, now more than ever. With skyrocketing health care, energy and gas prices, rising interest rates and a $427 billion budget deficit, there are already restrictions facing those entrepreneurs who want to start and expand their business ventures. And now I want to ask, what is Congress' answer to all this, to all these challenges facing small firms? The answer is: Give small businesses some rights. You should have the right to access health care, the right to be relieved of regulatory burdens, and the right to tax simplification. This is all good when it is said and done, but what is Congress going to do to carry through on those promises? What action is going to be taken to back up the rhetoric? Supporters of this bill will tell you that opposition to this resolution is opposition to helping small businesses. However, the truth is that if you votes ``yes'' on House Resolution 22, you have voted to do nothing more than offer empty promises to small businesses, empty promises that Congress probably will not keep. This is because tonight, when this Nation's small business owners go home, probably somewhere around 10 or 11, well after we have been done and gone for the day and after having missed a family dinner and maybe even a Little League game because they believe so much in their business venture, not one of their challenges will be solved because we voted ``yes'' for House Resolution 22. Today's actions will not fix even one of the problems that most small business owners went to work with this morning. The Small Business Bill of Rights will not provide health care, it will not give entrepreneurs more access to capital, it will not relieve them of regulatory burdens, and it definitely will not help minority- and women-owned firms to grow a successful business. So continue talking about what you want to do for small businesses today, keep talking about what the challenges are, but what I want to know is when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to stop talking and start taking action. The bottom line here is that voting for House Resolution 22 today will not make a single thing better for this Nation's small businesses. It might make a great press release for some and another opportunity to boast support for entrepreneurs, but, sadly, that is all it will be. This Small Business Week all that our Nation's entrepreneurs will be getting are more empty promises. By voting for House Resolution 22, you are voting to make more empty promises to small businesses this week. What we need now is for small businesses to see some well-deserved and long-overdue action taken to address their challenges. No more rhetoric. That is the least we can do for this Nation's small businesses this week. This should be seen for what it truly is, a sham, and it should be voted down. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree with the gentleman that we have association health plans, and that is a bipartisan issue that has support; but we have voted in this House four times on that issue. How many more times do we need to vote in the House? The other side controls the White House and the Senate. On the one issue where there is bipartisan support, the other side cannot get the President to call the Senate and get this legislation passed. That is how much the other side of the aisle cares about access to health care for small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, two things. Only one person, one witness, testified on behalf of the 8(a) program. So she represented 100 percent of minority businesses in this country. Secondly, is it not true that in the list of priorities for NFIB, frivolous lawsuit does not make the top 50, it does not rank?