Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gibbons- McDermott substitute to H.R. 831. Not only does the substitute amendment restore the 25 percent health insurance tax deduction, but it also expands the benefit to employees who are currently ineligible to participate in employer-sponsored health plans. health insurance deduction without sacrificing the FCC's section 1071 program. In an increasingly diverse society, it is alarming that women and persons of color play such a small role in the broadcasting industry. We can never be guided by the truth if we turn a deaf ear to this Nation's many voices. The section 1071 program's tax provisions have proven effective for enhancing the voices of women and minority individuals. Women and minorities held less than 1 percent of the total broadcasting licenses 16 years ago, before section 1071 was enacted. Although women and minority broadcasters still struggle, they now control 3 percent of all broadcast licenses. Like any other program, section 1071 is subject to abuse. The Gibbons-McDermott substitute deals with these concerns as well. It would minimize minority ownership scams by requiring women and minority owners to both demonstrate equity ownership and substantiate voting and management control over their broadcast company. The substitute would also require minority owners to retain their FCC license for a minimum of 3 years. Mr. Chairman, only the Gibbons-McDermott substitute offers both health and fairness. It will expand health insurance coverage, without sacrificing diversity on the airwaves. I urge support for the Gibbons- McDermott substitute.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, today I come to the well of this Chamber in strong opposition of to H.R. 7, the National Security Act. In pursuit of catchy campaign promises, the Republicans will risk our national security by forcing us to spend billions of dollars on an unproven and unnecessary star wars--and all in a mere 10 hours of debate. Every day in Washington we confront a budgetary climate that demands fiscal restraint. Nevertheless, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose to spend billions of dollars to revive a corpse of the cold war that was better left in its grave. They would place a higher priority on building a budget-busting fantasy in the sky than on funding school lunches for our children, and home delivered meals for our elderly. Mr. Speaker, today the choice is clear: pork in the sky, or food on kids' plates down here on Earth. Let us do the right thing. Let us let a bad idea rest in peace.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. In a time when pro-life advocates seem to have taken it upon themselves to play God, this legislation could not be needed more. Five murders in Massachusetts, a bombing in Virginia, a violent assault on a doctor and his escort in Florida, a murder of a respected specialist in Florida--the list goes on and on. These are just a few of the examples of the violence that takes place daily in family planning clinics all over this country. This amendment would help in preventing these terrorist assaults from occurring. Now, some critics on the other side of the aisle might say that this amendment, itself, violates their first amendment rights to free speech and picketing. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I read the first amendment, it did not state that Americans had the right to burn, bomb, murder, and assault. It strikes me as ironic, that these pro-life terrorists, whose soul purpose is to save a life, can so easily justify their reasons for taking one away. It is truly baffling. What most people don't know, is that these clinics are used mostly by women for mammograms, breast checks, pap smears, family planning information, and a whole range of services. Mr. Chairman, pro-life extremists have left us no choice. These measures must be taken so that women all across the United States can take advantage of what is their constitutional right. I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott amendment. The people of my district are as concerned about crime as any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In fact, crime is a defining issue in urban centers like the one I represent. Every time I meet with constituents, crime is at or near the top of the agenda. In my district kids grow up on street corners because there are few healthy alternatives. There are no parks, no playgrounds, and no recreational centers, and overcrowded, ill-equipped schools neither prepare nor inspire the children for useful and productive careers. Prisons alone are not the solution. Without prevention, we will never get control of the crime problem. Punishment and prevention are flip sides of the same coin. Last year we struck a difficult balance between those two impulses. The Crime Control Act provided for more prisons and stiffer sentences. It also made an investment in proven crime prevention programs for education, recreation, and drug treatment. It offered the kids on the corners alternatives and hope for a better future. This bill upsets the delicate balance between punishment and prevention. I support this amendment because it helps get us back to the middle ground that we found last year. This bill pledges $12.5 billion for prison construction, $2.5 billion more than was authorized in the 1994 act. Where will this money come from? From prevention programs? That is $2.5 billion less for our kids. No afterschool and summer programs for at-risk youth, no antigang initiatives, no sports leagues or recreational facilities, no drug treatment programs. With this bill we will be saying to your youth, ``We don't care about you, we do not expect anything from you. Prison is okay.'' Mr. Chairman, I understand that the American people are desperate for urgent action. I understand the temptation to adopt catchy phrases and simple solutions like lock them up and throw away the key. But forget it. It is not about catchy phrases, it is about solutions. I urge the President and the leadership of this House to maintain the delicate balance that was reached last year. I cannot and I will not support a measure that slashes critical social programs in order to appease the critics on the right. I will not play politics with the future of America's youth. I urge my colleagues and the American people to see through this Republican charade of deception.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment to offer my congratulations to the Ridgewood-Bushwick Senior Citizens Center [RBSCC] on its 25th anniversary celebration. Through the leadership of its founder and first director, Assemblyman Vito Lopez, and the support of its staff, the elderly community of Bushwick has a center that is dedicated and committed to them and their families. Like the arches that support our city's bridges, the RBSCC is the arch for the Bushwick senior community. It bonds the older generation with the younger one. It is a place where our pioneers interchange ideas and provide solutions. It provides nutritional, recreational, and support services to over 600 seniors. When the daily struggles of life become overwhelming, the center is a safe haven. Its continuous success is greatly due to the endless commitment and dedication of its staff and volunteers. Their hard work exemplifies that they, like Assemblyman Vito Lopez, share a common vision for a growing community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Assemblyman Vito Lopez for realizing his vision, the staff and volunteers for their undying labor, and the seniors for giving us insight and strength. Congratulations.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we in Washington have witnessed a stark display of hypocrisy over the last 2 days. Yesterday a few blocks from here 45,000 so-called pro-life demonstrators marched against reproductive freedom. They demanded the protection of fetal life from conception to birth. Many Members of this body offered their support. Today, Congress debates a Federal responsibility of the highest order, the duty to protect the child from birth to the grave. Where are the marchers? All gone home. And what of my colleagues? Will each of them who spoke in support of yesterday's demonstration rise today in support of this amendment? Is the protection of the child of lesser value than the alleged right of the fetus? I believe that the protection of the child after birth is a national priority of the highest order. It is a sacred duty above all others. This amendment will ensure that it remains so. It will allow the Federal Government to continue to enact and enforce legitimate child protection measures without undue restraint. It deserves the support of every Member of Congress, pro-life and pro-choice alike. Lead exposure is one important area where the Federal Government has moved to protect our kids. It is also an area where women need to act again. The problem is particularly apparent in my home State of New York. In New York, 65 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1965 when lead paint was used extensively. Thirty years later, more than 30,000 kids were identified with high levels of lead in their blood. Another 1.5 million children under the age of 6 were potentially at risk of exposure. Lead remains a serious threat to our children's health. Many of these same children face another grave risk, exposure to asbestos. Again, we have enacted legislation and regulations to combat the problem. Again, the problem continues. On at least two occasions in recent years, children in my district and elsewhere in New York were exposed to asbestos dust in their schools, years before the city had contracted for the removal of asbestos from school buildings. Little follow-up ensued. As a result, cracks developed in ceilings and walls, sending chips and dust into classrooms. Some areas had to be closed off. Other schools had to be shut down. Both of these examples illustrate the fact that the protection of our children is an ongoing responsibility as science develops the scope of toxic contamination unfolds. It was only a few years ago that we understood that substances like lead and asbestos were dangerous. Today we realize just how much danger they present. The process for controlling dangerous substances is likewise an evolving one. Standards for asbestos and lead protection and removal adopted only a few years ago may tomorrow prove to be inadequate. New regulations may need to be enacted. The lesson here is that we as servants of the people must be able to enact any measure necessary to protect our kids in their school and in their homes. This bill jeopardizes this ability. Its procedural hurdles and points of order create delay and gridlock where none can be justified. Is the drum beat of unfunded mandates so loud that it drums out the cries of children in need? Who here will stand up today and state for the record that the cost of saving lives is too high? Have we as a nation sunk so low? I urge my colleagues to uphold our most sacred duty, and exempt child protection laws and regulation from this bill.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment before us goes to the core of the proper role and responsibility of the Federal Government. Not that many years ago, industrial centers like New York City were notorious for sweatshops and deathtraps. Thousands of workers, many of them children, toiled before dangerous machinery and equipment for long hours, for little pay, and with few rests. Many were killed or injured. Those who complained were shown the door and tainted with a black mark that might prevent them from ever working again. This body eventually assumed its responsibility to protect citizens and residents and enacted landmark legislation--what many would now criticize as unfunded mandates. Many of the most extreme abuses were reversed with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and OSHA. Things improved for working people. However, problems remain, and where there is abuse, there is a proper Federal rule. Indeed, many of the abuses that gave rise to our labor protection laws and regulations persist. The sweatshop, one of the most common symbols of abuse, persists in New York, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. In 1989, the GAO documented a steady rise in sweatshops, which they defined as business that regularly violate both safety or health and wage or child labor laws. Three-fourths of the Federal officials interviewed at that time said that sweatshops were a serious problem in at least one industry in their geographic area. They found too few inspectors and inadequate penalties. This past November, the GAO revisited the issue. They found that the sweatshop problem in the garment industry had not improved. In many cases it had worsened. It found deplorable working conditions when it accompanied Federal and State authorities on raids in New York and Los Angeles. It is estimated that there are between 2,000 and 2,500 illegal garment factories in my home city that operate outside of the law and its protections. Our labor standards are being circumvented at an alarming and rising rate. The solution may be tougher regulations, or improved legislation. Without this amendment and similar ones offered this evening, the Federal Government puts itself into a straightjacket. The cumbersome procedures and points of order erected by this bill slow this body's ability to act swiftly, decisively, and effectively. In this time of rising competition, child labor is growing, minimum wages and maximum hours are being ignored, and occupational safety and health corners are being cut. Now is not the time to cut back on our ability to maintain minimum workplace standards. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, before the Republican Party began rewriting history, it was widely thought that the people had entrusted the Federal Government with a number of basic responsibilities. First among them was the protection of its citizens and residents. The Framers of the Constitution listed the promotion of the general welfare as a fundamental duty of the Federal Government. I am proud to be a member of the party that bore that responsibility in the 40 years that it controlled this House. It introduced landmark legislation to promote the common good, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Lead Abatement Act. I am frankly amazed that laws such as these are now singled out as evidence of a runaway government. Am I to understand that the American people are outraged that their children now drink cleaner water and breathe fresher air? Are my colleagues who support this measure being flooded by constituent mail because their kids no longer eat lead-based paint chips? I urge my colleagues to uphold our constitutional duty to uphold the general welfare.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on September 23, 1994, I attended the graduation ceremony for El Regreso Foundation, a bilingual drug and alcohol abuse treatment program in the Williamsburg, Brooklyn section of my district. The event was an incredibly moving experience filled with tears and applause. The feeling of hope overcoming pain and abuse permeated the evening's festivities. Overcoming the greatest odds and barriers, these graduates literally received a new lease on life, a life formerly plagued with violence, crime, and drug use. This graduation was a perfect example of the ability of our people to take hold of their lives and turn them around, to be able to look into their selves and recognize that they do not want to become another statistic. Events such as this one at El Regreso, are an inspiration to us all. They are of extreme importance to communities such as Williamsburg, which struggle daily for sources of hope. And while the media bombards us daily with stories of violence, crime, and despair, these and other success stories go unnoticed. Success stories such as the one of Carlos Pagan. He too overcame heavy drug use and a hard street life, to become the founder and executive director of El Regreso. He is now a source of inspiration to untold numbers of men and women who go through El Regreso's Program, and a bright beacon of light illuminating the dark waters of addiction. In closing, I salute Carlos Pagan and the staff of El Regreso for reminding our community that the best weapons against poverty, discrimination and even fear are not the escapes offered by powerful hallucigenics. The best weapons against these enemies are the potency of pride and the power of belief in themselves.