Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, on April 24, the Republicans voted to reject the administration request for WIC funding, a program that feeds poor women, infants and children. When Democrats protested, the Republicans proudly defended themselves. One after another they marched to the well and said, we are not really cutting WIC, we are not really throwing poor babies off the program. Nobody was fooled. The phone started ringing and the mail started pouring in. The American people were outraged. Now, some brave Republicans are jumping off that sinking ship. I would like to commend those Members across the aisle for understanding that the Republican leadership was terribly wrong. I would also like to make it very clear that it took a steady drumbeat of opposition by my Democratic colleagues to help the Republicans to see the light. The Kaptur amendment will restore full funding for WIC and keep 180,000 women, infants and children from being denied proper nutrition. Mr. Chairman, the American people are much smarter than the Republican leadership thinks. Support the Kaptur amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority claims that H.R. 2 is reform. Tearing down an essential program is not reform. I wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand the kind of human misery that their reform will cause. If they are serious about fixing public housing, they must do so without abandoning the very poor. Congress must ensure that these families still have a decent and affordable place to call home. The problem with the Republican majority is that when something goes wrong and does not work, they want to dismantle it. Well, the American public thinks that this institution does not work. Are we going to dismantle it, too? Through reasonable targeting requirements, the Democratic substitute continues assisting the most disadvantaged households, while increasing the availability of public housing to the working poor. H.R. 2 will simply deny millions of women and their children shelter. What is more ironic, the Republicans are fond of claiming that H.R. 2 promotes self-sufficiency. Be honest. How can we expect a family to achieve stability if parents are forced to work without pay? The Kennedy substitute replaces enforced labor with provisions that encourage work, giving families a true chance to achieve the American dream. Mr. Chairman, instead of addressing the real needs of real families, H.R. 2 offers despair and misery. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute and guard our commitment to safe and affordable housing.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for leading this effort. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the so-called Juvenile Crime Control Act, and in support of the Democratic substitute. We might as well call the Republican version the throw away the key act. Instead of providing education for children, the Republicans offer them prison with adults. Instead of offering programs to inspire and challenge children in poor communities, the Republicans offer them prison with adults. Instead of properly protecting children from firearms and drugs, the Republicans offer them prison with adults. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans think that this is the way to solve crime. How naive. My colleagues across the aisle do not seem to want to save these precious lives. They want to take these kids, put them in prison and throw away the key. Mr. Chairman, this is mean, shortsighted legislation. Vote no for H.R. 3 and yes to the Democratic substitute.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that amendments 43 and 44, as modified, be considered en bloc.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would not object to the unanimous consent request.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think that the local housing authorities are facing budgetary constraints? And this is not that they do not want to grant exemptions, just that we cannot trust that they will do that because they are facing fiscal and budgetary constraints.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, once again we are debating a housing bill that is an insult to poor families. Instead of truly helping people move into the work force, this bill includes provisions that threaten a very basic and human need, access to safe affordable and clean housing. If we are really going to help families climb out of poverty and into lives of dignity, decency, and safety, they must have a fair chance to succeed. Across America millions of households pay more than half of their income on rent. H.R. 2 adds to the burden on the poorest families by raising minimum rents to between $25 to $50. Fifty dollars may not seem like much, but it may force the very, very poor to choose between food and shelter. By limiting the minimum rents to no more than $25, my amendment provides a basic protection for the most disadvantaged Americans. It is the final safety net for families that have suddenly fallen on extremely hard times. I strongly urge the adoption of these provisions. My colleagues, families that live in public housing are willing to pay rent. But, consider the 300,000 households who are protected by my proposal. They live in absolute poverty. They are parents who have lost their jobs or have to pay unexpected medical expenses. They are families climbing out of homelessness. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity often points out that H.R. 2 includes exemptions for some families. Yet, consider the context. First, the Republican Congress cuts PHA budget to the bone and now they want to force PHA's to grant exemption, exemptions that work against their own financial interests. As if this was not bad enough, H.R. 2 forces struggling families to jump through intimidating, bureaucratic hoops to get hardship waivers. That is not a helping hand. That is harassment. My colleagues, if this legislation passes, it will create an underclass of people that cannot even afford public housing. Worst of all, with 600,000 people already pushed into homelessness by Republican budget cuts and shortages of homeless shelters, the poorest of the poor will have no place to turn. For a country that prides itself on the American dream, we cannot allow this to happen. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, [Mrs. Carrie Meek].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana, [Ms. Julia Carson].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. My colleagues, once again we are telling disadvantaged families that they do not matter, that they are expendable, all in the name of a capital gains tax cut. I call on all of my colleagues to ask themselves if there is anyplace left for compassion in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations has rejected the Clinton administration request for WIC funding. What a surprise. The WIC Program is one of the most successful Federal programs that has ever been created. The WIC Program reduces the incidence of low- birth-weight babies, infant mortality and anemia. This is a program that serves some of the most at-risk infants in the country, many of whom are Latino or Afro-American babies. The Republicans say we do not need to spend that money on these needy children. Instead, the Republicans tell us we need a capital gains tax cut which will put billions of dollars in the pockets of their rich friends. This is crazy. First they try to cut school lunches to hungry children. Now they literally want to take milk away from hungry infants. For shame.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the proposal of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to compensate tenants forced to work under this bill. From funding cuts in vital assistance programs to heartless welfare reform, the Republican majority seems to do all it can to keep our poor in poverty. Today's housing bill, H.R. 2, goes even farther by including a heartless forced work requirement. This amendment encourages work and is a first step toward self-sufficiency. We cannot expect families to make the transition from welfare to work if they have no income or a place to live. Housing residents should be given real paying jobs. Let us not kid ourselves that enforced labor without pay is voluntarism. It is not. This is the Government forcing people to work in exchange for Federal benefits. The Watt amendment is fair, it provides fair pay for work. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass the Watt amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by Congress's persistent attacks on America's poorest families. Let me just say this is one of the most mean-spirited provisions. It is an insult to poor people in this country. Here they come again. Today we are lecturing poor people. My colleagues want poor people to work for human capital. Let us provide them with the tools that they need to become self-sufficient, not by imposing this provision. We cannot expect families to work and to make the transition from welfare to work if they have no income or a place to live. How do my colleagues think they are going to acquire the tools that they need to become self-sufficient by cleaning toilets and collecting garbage? Is that the way that we are going to provide them with the skills that they need to become self-sufficient? Let us be honest and serious about it. What we are doing today is victimizing the victims, and I can tell my colleagues, most of them have never been into a public housing development because if they have been, they know that they do volunteer. They know that they are the ones working and without any resources to do their job. Let us be serious and stop talking about volunteerism. Yes, I will welcome IBM, I will welcome Johnson & Johnson to come to my district and come to the public housing development and provide some of the money that my Republican colleagues are taking away from poor people.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in fierce opposition to H.R. 2, the so-called Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997. Let me just say that the only thing accurate about that title is the date. Although reform is necessary to meet today's public housing needs, H.R. 2 is not the answer. Sixty years ago the Housing Act of 1937 began our commitment to provide safe, clean, affordable housing for our Nation's poorest families. This bill abolishes that law and abandons that commitment. H.R. 2's provisions read like a litany of injustice. One of its harshest proposals chips away at the cornerstone of public housing, targeting on their income, targeting on this bill. It will take years before public housing authorities will have to accept families earning less than $10,000 a year. These are the very families public housing was created to serve. Mr. Chairman, there are over 5 million families that do not have access to decent and affordable housing, yet H.R. 2 pours salt on the wounds of the poor by setting minimum rents between $25 and $50. That may not sound like much, but it will force many poor families to choose between food and shelter for their children. As if the targeting and minimum rent provisions were not heartless enough, H.R. 2 also imposes a time limit on how long tenants may remain in public housing. Once this limit is reached, families will be evicted even if they still are living in poverty. Coupled with the welfare reform laws passed last year, families will be forced out into the street. It is hard to believe, but the list continues. Instead of providing opportunities for job creation, this legislation will also force the poor into unpaid community service. How can we expect people to make the transition from welfare to work if we force them into unpaid labor? We should be creating real jobs with living wages, not threatening families with eviction. Mr. Chairman, we must reform public housing, but we must do so in a fair and reasonable way. We must make safe, affordable housing available to those in need, and we must provide real economic opportunities so that public housing can help families become self-sufficient. Last year, the Republicans called our Nation's public housing system the last bastion of socialism. If H.R. 2 becomes law, we may recall our new system the first bastion of heartlessness.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, in our Nation's inner cities, minority communities are being victimized by toxic polluters, creating an environmental crisis, a health crisis, and a civil rights crisis in this country. In my district in New York there are over 2000 industrial facilities, a radioactive storage yard and a huge sewage treatment plant. The effect of this pollution is discriminatory. The children in my district are dying of cancer, suffering from asthma, and have toxic levels of lead. Study after study has shown that minority communities bear the brunt of toxic pollution in this country. Today I introduced the Community Environmental Equity Act, which will apply title VI of the Civil Rights Act to toxic polluters. I urge you all to cosponsor this important legislation. It is time to realize that we cannot have social justice until we first have environmental justice.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today across the country parents took their daughters to work. There is one group of workers, however, that does not celebrate taking their young children to work. I bring to your attention this article that appeared in the New York Times. The article reminds us that sweatshops and child labor are a reality in our country. Let us give our daughters positive goals to strive for. At the same time, though, let us work together to fight sweatshops and child exploitation. [From the New York Times, Apr. 23, 1997] Take Daughters to Work? Union Offers Another Idea (By Steven Greenhouse) Upset that so many New York garment factories still use child labor, the nation's largest clothing union has come up with a novel approach to combat this longstanding problem--it is called Don't Bring Our Daughters to Work Day. While the union says it applauds the American parents who will take their daughters to work tomorrow to excite them about potential careers, the garment union will spend the day telling thousands of garment workers, many of them struggling immigrants from China, not to take their daughters to work tomorrow, or any other day for that matter. The campaign seeks to draw attention to the sweatshop conditions by capitalizing on the growing prominence of Take Our Daughters to Work Day. In fliers and educational meetings, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees is warning garment workers who let their daughters work in garment factories that such child labor is often illegal and dangerous. ``Child labor in the shops is a serious problem, especially in the summer,'' said Danyun Feng, coordinator of the don't Bring Our Daughters program. ``Unfortunately, these children are very easy to exploit, and their wages are usually very low.'' The union is pushing this program because it thinks child labor is wrong and hurts youngsters, and it asserts that child labor undercuts union wage scales. It also recognizes that campaigning against such violations could make the union more popular among the Chinese-American workers it is seeking to unionize. The child labor campaign is concentrated in two Chinese- American neighborhoods where garment factories flourish: Chinatown in Manhattan and Sunset Park in Brooklyn. ``Child labor has been a source of heartache for garment workers past and present,'' said May Ying Chen, assistant manager of Local 23-25, representing 24,000 New York garment workers. Ms. Feng said garment workers often tell her that they have little alternative but to take their daughters to work on Saturdays or summer days. They often take 3-year-olds who play next to their sewing machines and frequently take 13- year-olds who are employed at nearby machines. ``They tell us they are low-income families who have to work very hard and need almost everybody in the family to help earn money,'' Ms. Feng said. The campaign aims not just to discourage children from working but also to develop ways for children to spend their nonschool days somewhere other than a clothing factory. Last summer, the union funneled some teen-agers into a voter registration drive. This summer, the union hopes to establish a program in which teen-agers can take courses, care for children and clean neighborhoods. Union officials feared that the Ms. Foundation for Women, which sponsors the nationwide Take Our Daughters to Work Day, would attack their program for mocking the name of the national effort. But Marie Wilson, president of the Ms. Foundation, said: ``I think it's great. When we created this day, it was really to call attention to the conditions in which girls live. This day is all about respecting your daughter, and that's what this program does.'' Union officials acknowledge that part of the Don't Bring Our Daughters drive is intended to encourage the children of garment workers to aspire to better-paying, more stimulating careers. The union also wants to make sure children appreciate how hard their parents toil and how bad factory conditions often are. ``Of course, we want our children to get better jobs than we have,'' said Chung Siu, a garment district seamstress. ``They should go to college. We hate these garment shops.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, this week the Speaker of the House announced that he wants to give a $300 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country. This is a disgrace. But the story gets worse, much worse. Today Republicans are going to try to pay for those tax breaks by taking money from poor people in public housing. Today in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services we will debate H.R. 2, a bill that abandons our Government's commitment to housing the very poor. Under H.R. 2 many poor families will end up spending more of their income on housing or be forced into homelessness. Meanwhile, people making over $350,000 a year will get a tax break. Mr. Speaker, is this what the Republicans stand for: Giving tax breaks to the rich while throwing poor children onto the street? H.R. 2 is extremely unfair and must be stopped.