Hakeem Jeffries

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege, once again, to come to the House floor on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and join with my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty, as we anchor this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order--the CBC hour of power--where, for 60 minutes, we get an opportunity to talk to the American people about issues of great importance to the African American community, to our democracy, and, certainly, to our country at large. Today, we are here to discuss, tragically, the House GOP's continued failure to demonstrate the ability to govern in a basic fashion--that is to pass a budget, which is required by statutory law, as of April 15. That deadline has come and gone, and we are still waiting for the House majority to present a budget to this body for our consideration. We were told for years by people, including by the current Speaker of this great House, that the most fundamental tenet of governing is the passage of a budget. Yet, even with Republicans in firm control of both the House and the Senate, it seems that this Congress is still unable to get its act together. It is a stunning act of legislative abdication of basic responsibilities. We are going to explore that tonight, not just from a procedural standpoint, but from a standpoint of how this is indicative of this majority's unwillingness and inability to do the business of the American people. It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to my distinguished colleague, my coanchor, my classmate--the always eloquent and effervescent gentlewoman from the great city of Columbus in the great State of Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scott. Let me now ask my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), to just react to some of what we have heard. One of the things that I thought was interesting in the presentation related to this budget is that if you look at the numbers, they are so extreme. I was on the Committee on the Budget during my first 2 years in Congress, but these numbers are even more extreme than what I remember in the 113th Congress. The budget apparently will cut $157 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over a 10- year period. The Republican budget that came out of the committee would cut roughly $2 trillion from Medicaid. When I was on the committee, the number was $700 million. I thought that was out of control, $700 million. Now we are at $2 trillion over a 10-year period apparently. And then we have got cuts in higher education. The proposal is $185 billion over 10 years. You have to ask the question: Why would anyone propose such draconian cuts? The answer is clear. This is not something that is often talked about, but the objective is to create a situation where you can dramatically lower the tax rates for the wealthiest amongst us. The top tax rate right now is 39.6 percent, but what the budget that has been put forth by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would do is that it would create two tax rates, one at 10 and the other at 25 percent. So what you will see is a tax cut that goes from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. The way that you balance a budget and pay for it is on the backs of working families, the middle class, senior citizens, children, the disabled, the poor, the afflicted, and everybody else who doesn't fall into the category of millionaire or billionaire. Now, you wonder how it could be possible that anyone could think that they could get away with such a draconian budget. Well, again, the argument is trickle-down economics. But what I found fascinating--and maybe you could react to this, Representative Beatty--is that if you actually look at a side-by-side comparison of the economy 8 years under President Clinton with a side- by-side comparison of the economy 8 years under George W. Bush, and then a side-by-side comparison of the economy 8 years under President Obama, I think it is pretty clear who actually has been the responsible fiscal stewards. There were 20.3 million jobs created under the Clinton Presidency. America lost 650,000 jobs in 8 years under the Bush Presidency. America has now gained more than 14 million private sector jobs under 8 years of the Obama Presidency. What has been demonstrated is that the argument that if you lower tax rates, you create economic prosperity, is phony. Because Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate to 39.6 percent. It didn't seem to adversely impact the economy. In fact, it was humming between 1992 and 2000. George Bush comes to office, lowers the tax rate for high-income earners from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. We had the greatest recession in the history of modern America; the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama comes into office and he raises the top tax rate again from 35 to 39.6, more than 14 million jobs are created, the unemployment rate has dropped under his tenure from over 10 percent to 5 percent, the deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars. The stock market has gone from 6,000 to over 16,000. Now it is up to 18,000. I haven't been in the 401(k) system as long as Congressman Scott, who clearly is monitoring the situation. So the prosperity numbers have been phenomenal. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for her reaction.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman. In fact, what Representative Clyburn has consistently pointed out, which I think is important in an era where we are trying to find common ground and deal with the problems confronting the American people, if you look at a breakdown of persistently poor counties across the country and overlay that with congressional districts, a majority of those counties are actually represented by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is something that we believe should be embraced by the Speaker and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as it would benefit, by the numbers, the constituents that they represent even more so than those of us within the CBC or on this side of the aisle.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, Representative Beatty, from the great State of Ohio for her leadership and for moving us forward throughout the past several weeks as it relates to the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order, this hour of power. It is 60 minutes where we have the opportunity to speak to the American people about issues of importance to our country, to our economy, to the integrity of our democracy as we are doing tonight. It is an honor to share with you today. I also want to acknowledge and thank our colleague, John Larson from the great State of Connecticut, for his continuing leadership and for taking to the House floor today to highlight both the historic significance of the speech that President Johnson gave from this very Chamber 51 years ago, on March 15, 1965, about voting in America and ensuring that every single person, regardless of their race or their color or their background had an opportunity to exercise their franchise, and to point out to the American people that the Congress will pause tomorrow to honor two true American legends, Representative Lewis and Representative Johnson, who served the American people before they arrived in the people's House and through their service here in the House of Representatives. It is with great humility that I stand today to address a topic that I think is of particular significance at this moment in time that we face in America in terms of the turmoil that many may be feeling, watching, undergoing: the economic changes that have been experienced over the last few decades. We know that the middle class, in many ways, has been left behind. Wages have remained stagnant, notwithstanding the increased productivity of the American people over the last 40-plus years. When the economy collapsed, many high-income earners were able to rebound in no small part as a result of the bailout that occurred. There are a lot of Americans who are still hoping, looking out for their opportunity to be brought back into the economic mainstream by the people they have sent to Congress to represent them. Notwithstanding all of the challenges that we have to confront, whether that is our broken criminal justice system or the economy that has still not completely recovered, we have made substantial progress under the leadership of Barack Obama. But of course there is more that needs to be done, and we could welcome some cooperation from folks on the other side of the aisle because all of our constituents were hit hard in 2008, yet President Obama has largely been left to his own devices. Notwithstanding all of these issues, central to how our government works is the fact that it is designed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Abraham Lincoln, of course, famously uttered those words in his Gettysburg Address. If we are going to have that type of government, then everybody needs the opportunity to be able to participate in choosing their representatives in government without obstacle or obstruction. We understand this is a great country, but it is also a country that has had a stain on its history as it relates to denying some the opportunity to participate fully in American democracy. That is the reason, after all, that, in the aftermath of the Civil War that threatened to tear this country apart, we had a Reconstruction amendment related to slavery and then a Reconstruction amendment related to the equal protection under the law and due process for all Americans; and lastly, of course, with the 15th Amendment designed to make sure that, in the Constitution, racial discrimination, as it relates to the exercise of the franchise, would be prohibited. But, unfortunately, notwithstanding the 15th Amendment being ratified and put into our Constitution, more than 100 years would pass by until this country really confronted the denial of the right to vote in a meaningful way, particularly in the Deep South, and it happened because of the efforts and sacrifice of a great many people: Dr. Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Andrew Young, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the NAACP, and those foot soldiers who were on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on March 7, 1965, and almost lost their lives when they were attacked without provocation by Alabama State troopers as they endeavored to cross that bridge on the way from Selma to Montgomery. That, of course, then prompted President Johnson to deliver that address, where he so famously uttered the words upon his conclusion that ``we shall overcome.'' The 1965 Voting Rights Act continues to be the most significant piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by this Congress, but unfortunately we know that it is currently under attack. It is under attack because the Supreme Court effectively, in the Shelby v. Holder case, eviscerated its impact by striking down section 4, so-called coverage clause, which effectively eliminated the Department of Justice's ability to require States with a history of voting rights discrimination to have to preclear any changes that it makes. Now, what I have been struggling to figure out during my brief time here in the Congress is why voting rights has become such a controversial thing when, it seems to me, it is so central to the integrity of our democracy. For decades, in the aftermath of the passage of the Voting Rights Act, it was actually pretty bipartisan, this notion that in order for our democracy to work there should be no artificial obstacles erected to prevent people--African Americans, Latinos, immigrant families, and others--from being able to participate in what basically makes America great, what makes us unique: the ability to elect our representatives and for there to be peaceful transitions of power regardless of ideology, regardless of your region, regardless of what State a President may come from in order to keep the Republic going. When you look at the history of the Voting Rights Act, as I indicated, it has largely been, until recently, a bipartisan endeavor. In fact, every time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized--and it has happened four times--not only did it pass with bipartisan majorities in the Congress, but it was signed into law each and every time by a Republican President. In 1970, Richard Nixon signed into law the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. In 1975, Gerald Ford signed into law the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Then in 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. This significant piece of civil rights legislation was enacted into law and then reenacted on every single occasion with the signature of a Republican President, indicating that voting, participation in the franchise, having the American people in their full, gorgeous mosaic elect their representatives is an American thing. But all of a sudden, it has become controversial. Now, I don't know if the timing of the election of our current President has anything to do with that. Historians will make that analysis as they move forward. It is above my pay grade. I just find it interesting that this notion of voter fraud, which was always a fiction put forth by the defenders of the race-based Southern hierarchy to deny African Americans the right to vote--and was not an issue when Richard Nixon was elected; it wasn't an issue when Reagan was elected; it wasn't an issue when George Herbert Walker Bush was elected; it wasn't an issue when George W. Bush was elected, notwithstanding the fact that I am still not convinced he won the State of Florida--all of a sudden, in the aftermath of the election of President Barack Obama, apparently there has been an outbreak of this fever that we have got to deal with so-called voter fraud. No evidence of the fraud, not a scintilla of evidence has been produced by a single proponent of this argument, but when people were elected in 2010, in the immediate aftermath of that election during President Barack Obama's first term, more than 180 different pieces of legislation in 41 States were introduced, all, in the opinion of many objective observers, designed to suppress the right to vote. And at the same time, this challenge was working its way through the Supreme Court from, of all groups of people, Shelby, Alabama. Now, the irony of that, John Lewis almost lost his life, as Representative Larson indicated, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge down in Selma, Alabama; and yet the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, in a case brought by the folks from Shelby County, apparently thinking that they were victims because of the oppressive nature of the preclearance provision, the Supreme Court, at least for the time being, bought that argument. So we find ourselves now in a situation here in the Congress where the Court has said to us: Fix it; update the coverage formula. So bipartisan legislation has been introduced, championed by folks like Jim Sensenbrenner, the author of the 2006 reauthorization and a very distinguished and respected former Republican chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and, of course, John Conyers, John Lewis, Joyce Beatty, and many others on the Democratic side of the aisle. Yet we can't get a single hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary on something seemingly so fundamental to the integrity of our democracy. We are not asking you to turn into progressive Democrats. Just act like Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, whom you hold up as someone who is the classic embodiment of conservative politics. Just act like Ronald Reagan did in 1982 or George W. Bush. Let's fix the Voting Rights Act in advance of the American people having to determine what comes next as it relates to both this Congress and the Presidency--not because it is a good thing for Republicans or because it is a good thing for Democrats; it is a good thing for the country: full and robust participation. I just want to add, as I close, that it seems to me that this would be a particularly significant time to deal with the Voting Rights Act and to make sure that everybody can participate fully in our democracy at a moment when many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Senate have said: We want the American people to decide who fills the Supreme Court vacancy. Now, I am a little skeptical about that, but let's assume that that is really your view of the world. If, in fact, you don't want to do your constitutional job right now--once the President sends up a Supreme Court nominee and gives that person an opportunity to be heard before the Senate and the American people--because you claim you want the American people to decide who that nominee is through the vehicle of a Presidential election--then let's make sure that all of America can participate in that process. That means let's remove any obstacles to voting in every community. We haven't seen a hearing in the House, and we haven't seen a hearing in the Senate. I just don't understand. We have had no hearing on the Supreme Court nomination. We have had no hearing on the Voting Rights Act when the Supreme Court told us to fix it. What exactly is going on? The American people are wondering. We see a lot of frustration right now out there in America directed at Washington. That is because oftentimes there are so many critical issues that we simply fail to deal with. So I am just hopeful today that, as we mark this occasion tomorrow of these two American heroes being honored--Representative Johnson and Representative Lewis--we can get back to doing the business of the American people in the spirit of service that they themselves have displayed through their life's work and deal with something so central to our democracy such as the right to vote in an unfettered fashion.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, it is a great question. I look at it in two ways. First, when you think about mass incarceration as a phenomenon, one that, hopefully, in this Congress we will be able to do something about, in recognition of the fact that America imprisons more people than any other country in the world, increasingly, we have become a country that over-incarcerates and under-educates. As a result, we have lost generations of young people, disproportionately, African Americans and Latinos. In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared publicly that drug abuse was public enemy number one. At the time, there were less than 350,000 people incarcerated in America. That was the starting point of the war on drugs. More than 40 years later we have now got 2.3 million people incarcerated in America. A significant number of those folks-- approximately 50 percent at the Federal level and similar numbers at the State level--are there for nonviolent drug offenses. Yet, every single one of those people who have been incarcerated in America has lost the right to vote, some permanently, some temporarily with an opportunity to perhaps recover it. More than a million people are currently incarcerated from the African American community. So our system is broken. Our democracy is in need of adjustment. If there is not an understanding that the absence of refraining from participating in that democracy through exercising the franchise yields consequences that public policymakers will choose either intentionally or through benign neglect to allow things like mass incarceration to overwhelm a community, then we are going to continue to see things happen that are not in the best interest of America. Certainly, electoral participation matters to the African American community. The other thing that we have got to look at in the context of the right to vote--and there is some bipartisan support because Senator Rand Paul on the other side of the Capitol has been very visionary in this regard--is that disenfranchising people who have been incarcerated in America, paid their debt to society, have moved on with their life-- but to permanently restrict them, even in some cases when the conviction is for a misdemeanor offense, is un-American. But some have used this type of disenfranchisement related to the prison industrial complex to overwhelm many communities because of mass incarceration to, again, set up obstacles to full participation in American democracy. So we have got to put everything on the table in terms of our effort to fix our broken criminal justice system, which I am pleased, to date, at least in the House on the Judiciary Committee, has been bipartisan in nature. But we have to take an expansive approach to repairing the damage that has been done over more than 40 years of a failed war on drugs, with millions upon millions upon millions of people stamped with a criminal record, I believe in excess of 65 million people during that time period, disproportionately African Americans and Latinos. It is one of many issues that is on the table that, hopefully, will result in folks understanding that the stakes are high as it relates to who represents you. And the vehicle is just to participate. That is the great majesty of our democracy as it was conceived by the Founders and those who came after: Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, through electoral participation.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for those very powerful words. I can only hope, as we close this Special Order hour, that our colleagues from across this Capitol will see fit simply to adhere to their constitutional responsibilities to consider any nominee put forth by President Obama comprehensively and fairly and to faithfully execute those obligations consistent with their oath of office, not for the good of this President, not for the good of this Article I Congress, but for the good of the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to once again stand on the floor of the House of Representatives along with my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty, coanchor of this CBC Special Order hour, this hour of power where, for the next 60 minutes, we will have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of grave importance to the integrity of our democracy, and that is making sure that the United States Senate fulfills their constitutional obligation to advise and consent as it relates to considering any Supreme Court nomination that President Obama sends up to that body. We know that Justice Antonin Scalia has moved on after a long and distinguished career. Though I disagree with almost every single judicial opinion that he has issued, he served this Nation well. Now that he has moved on, the Supreme Court, which is contained in Article III of the United States Constitution, has a vacancy. It is the obligation of the United States Senate to fill that vacancy by considering whatever nominee President Barack Obama sends forward. Members of the United States Senate take an oath of office to faithfully discharge their responsibilities. When you look at Article II, section 2, of the United States Constitution, which gives the President the power to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, it is the Senate that must consider that nominee. Since the early part of the 20th century, there have been eight different Supreme Court nominees who have been voted on in an election year. Six of them actually were confirmed, but all eight of them received a hearing. So, for the life of me, I can't figure out why Senator Mitch McConnell thinks that he can get away with holding a nomination up without even the slightest bit of consideration. So we are going to explore that here today. We will be joined by any number of distinguished Members of the House of Representatives and the Congressional Black Caucus, but let me proceed by yielding to my good friend and colleague from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), my dynamic coanchor who does such a tremendous job on behalf of the people of the great State of Ohio and the city of Columbus.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her wonderful thoughts and observations, and I look forward to our continued dialogue. It is now my honor and privilege to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), one of those individuals that Representative Beatty mentioned who is really a legal giant amongst us. He is someone who has served this institution well. He understands the Constitution, the notion of separation of powers, and the importance of a fair and equitable justice system.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for highlighting several important points, including the fact that there is no election year exception in Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. This is all in Mitch McConnell's mind, cooked up in some partisan laboratory in order to stop this President from being able to move forward and do the business of the American people. We shouldn't be surprised, because we know Mitch McConnell stated very early on that his objective was to grind everything to a halt here in the Capitol to try to prevent President Obama from being re-elected. Not my words, his words. But here's the thing. President Obama was re-elected in an electoral college landslide. And his opponent in that race, Mitt Romney, tried to make it, in part, an election that was a referendum on the possibility that President Obama would have the opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. That issue was laid before the American people by President Obama's opponent, and the American people responded, processed all of the facts, and decided to re-elect President Obama, send him back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The American people did their job. The President is prepared to do his job. The Senate Republicans need to do their job as well. It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to someone who has been a stalwart for justice in this institution, a revered Member of the House of Representatives, the great whip of House Democrats, and someone who has the respect of everyone in the United States Capitol and beyond for his service to the House and his service to the country, a great friend to the Congressional Black Caucus, and we are so thankful that he is present here today. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Democratic whip for a very insightful and powerful observation, for pointing that the very fabric of the United States Constitution is threatened by the willingness of Senate Republicans to abdicate their legislative responsibilities to hold hearings and act on a nomination put forth by the President of the United States of America. It is now my great honor and privilege to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, as was pointed out by Mr. Hoyer, a former prominent member of the North Carolina judiciary, a legal scholar, a historian, and, of course, the leader of the conscience of the Congress here in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman, G.K. Butterfield.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished chair for pointing out that this is a simple question for Senate Republicans: Do your job consistent with your obligations and responsibilities under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. The Senate Republicans' failure to act or consider any nominee put forth by the President of the United States of America is an abdication of responsibility, a dereliction of duty, and it would be a stunning act of legislative malpractice that undermines the rule of law, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, the United States Constitution, as well as the American people. I am thankful now to be joined by someone who is a powerful voice for the voiceless here in the House of Representatives, who has ably served her constituents in northern California and consistently fought for a fair, equitable society. Let me now yield to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Representative Barbara Lee.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for making several important points as it relates to the absence of any partisanship exception in the United States Constitution, the absence of any exception whereby the Senate will do its job unless, of course, President Barack Obama happens to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I see that nowhere within the four corners of the United States Constitution. I don't see an election year exception in the United States Constitution. So I am perplexed as to what is the situation we find ourselves in right now. I thought that I may ask the distinguished gentlewoman, my colleague, my coanchor from Ohio, to reflect upon, if you might, a few comments that could shed light on the situation we find ourselves in right now as it relates to the Supreme Court vacancy made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the years during his time here in Congress. In 1986, Mitch McConnell said: ``I believe that a heavy burden must be met by those who would have this nominee rejected. Under the Constitution, our duty is to provide advice and consent to judicial nominations, not to substitute our judgment for what are reasonable views for a judicial nominee to hold.'' That was in 1986. Then in 1990, he said: ``It is clear under our form of government that the advice and consent role of the Senate in judicial nominations should not be politicized.'' That was Mitch McConnell in 1990. In 2005, he said: ``Our job is to react to that nomination in a respectful and dignified way, and at the end of the process, to give that person an up-or-down vote as all nominees who have majority support have gotten throughout the history of the country.'' I am trying to figure out what has changed, Representative Beatty.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I really appreciate that. As we are simply trying to point out, all we are asking for is for the Senate to adhere to its constitutional responsibilities and, when the President sends forth a nominee, to conduct a rigorous hearing process before the American people and then, at the end of that process, provide that nominee with an up-or-down vote before the Judiciary Committee and then, ultimately, the floor of the United States Senate. Now, I have been in this institution for a little over 3 years. If I had a dollar for every time some of my colleagues mentioned strict adherence to the United States Constitution, I would be a billionaire right now. For the life of me, I can't understand what is so complicated about this particular issue. As Representative Beatty so ably pointed out, from this moment, there are 325 days remaining in the Presidency of Barack Obama. As this chart illustrates, if you just take a look at the current occupants of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice, the most important position on the Supreme Court, a 23-day confirmation process; Justice Scalia, confirmed in 85 days; Justice Kagan, 87 days; Justice Sotomayor, 66 days; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a/k/a the notorious RBG--one of my personal favorites--50 days; Justice Clarence Thomas, 99 days. You can add some of these confirmation periods together and you still wouldn't get to 325. So what is the problem? Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining on my Special Order today?

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I think we in the Congressional Black Caucus have as it relates to the Presidency of President Obama--and Representative Beatty pointed this out--is that there is a feeling in many corners of America that this President is treated differently. I am not sure if it is because there are some people here in the Capitol who have something against folks from Hawaii. I am not sure if it is his Kansas roots. I don't know if they dislike the fact that he was a community organizer in terms of one of the jobs that he held after school. I don't know if they dislike the fact that he is so well educated from Columbia and Harvard Law Schools. I don't know if it is the fact that he was the President of the Harvard Law Review or a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the top five law schools in this country. I don't really know what it is about Barack Obama that they want to treat him differently than almost any other President who has served at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am trying to figure it out. What is it about Barack Obama that he has to be treated with such disrespect? The amazing thing to me is that they have actually failed to stop this President. They gave him no assistance as it relates to trying to turn the economy around. He inherited a train wreck from George W. Bush and has gotten the economy back on track. Not a single Member from the other side of the aisle voted for the stimulus package, which was necessary to stabilize the economy and then build it up. There was 71 consecutive months of private sector job creation, and 14 million-plus private sector jobs were created under this Presidency. The unemployment rate has gone from over 10 percent to under 5 percent. The stock market has gone from 6,000 to over 16,000. The deficit has been reduced by more than $1 trillion. Gas prices are below $2 per gallon. More than 18 million previously uninsured Americans now have health coverage. Not a single one of those accomplishments occurred with a vote from the other side of the aisle. What is it about this President that they don't like? Now, in his final term--and, by the way, speaking to strict constructionists--when you look at the United States Constitution, I can't find a 3-year term. I can't find it. It is a 4-year term with 325 days left. All we are asking is that they just do their job. It is pretty simple. Give whoever the President puts forth a fair hearing. They have the votes to defeat any of his nominees. Let me ask my colleague from Ohio. What I haven't been able to understand is this Justice who I have disagreed with on many issues. Although he was strong--Justice Scalia--on the privacy rights of the American people, the Fourth Amendment--was concerned about the criminalization of politics, these are areas where there is some common ground. And certainly he was a giant in terms of legal thought. The news of his demise was barely out for public consumption when Mitch McConnell issued a statement saying: We are not considering anyone that President Obama puts forth. How do you explain that? How do you interpret that reaction? We couldn't even respect the death of Justice Scalia before the vacancy was politicized, before he was even buried and funeralized.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 250th anniversary of the historic and illustrious Bridge Street African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church. Reverend David B. Cousin, Sr. and members of the congregation will commemorate this special milestone on Sunday, February 28, 2016 at Bridge Street A.M.E. Church in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, New York. Bridge Street is a church with a rich history that spans two and a half centuries. From its missionary origins in 1766 to its current location at 277 Stuyvesant Avenue in Brooklyn, it continues to be an extraordinary institution deeply rooted in social justice and spiritual transformation. As a stop on the Underground Railroad and platform for speaking out against injustice on both local and national issues, Bridge Street is a voice of conscience representing the least of those in our society. The African Methodist Episcopal Church is a global religious body with over 2.5 million members, who belong to more than 6,000 congregations throughout 20 Episcopal districts across the Americas, Africa, Europe and India. In 1818, Bishop Richard Allen served as the first preacher of the A.M.E. Church, one of the oldest Protestant denominations established on American soil, at Bridge Street. The people of New York are grateful for the exemplary leadership of Reverend David B. Cousin, Sr., who was installed as the Pastor of Bridge Street A.M.E. Church in 1997. Under his guidance, and that of his predecessors, the congregation has touched the lives of countless individuals through their extensive services and wide range of active ministries, which include notable educational, civic engagement, health and wellness, music and youth mentorship programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating the Bridge Street A.M.E. Church in commemoration of its 250th anniversary. This church community has dedicated itself to serving the people of New York, and those of our country, in pursuit of a just and moral nation.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Beatty, my good friend, for those very kind words and, of course, for her tremendous leadership in anchoring and shepherding us here this evening in the same manner that she has done since her arrival here in the House of Representatives, always eloquent, erudite, and effervescent. We appreciate that unique and tremendous combination of skill and ability that you bring to the people that you represent so ably in Columbus, Ohio, and, of course, really, on behalf of America as you stand here anchoring this Congressional Black Caucus Special Orders hour. I look forward to continuing to work together throughout the year as we endeavor to speak truth to power here on the floor of the House of Representatives and articulate issues of significance and importance to African Americans in the United States of America and to all of America. Earlier today I made the observation that this is the first day of Black History Month. Essentially, black history is American history. The two are forever intertwined. That is why the subject matter of this special order is of particular importance. Dr. King once made the observation that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I think what Dr. King was saying is that in this world you have got some good folks and you have got some bad actors. But in order for justice to prevail, what you essentially need is a fair amount of the good folks to come together, sacrifice, work hard, and dedicate themselves to the cause of social change, and at the end of the day justice will prevail. Make no mistake that in the United States of America, of course, it has been a long and complicated march. We certainly have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. During the founding of the Republic back in 1776, in the DNA of this great country was embedded the principles of liberty and justice for all. It was a great document and a great start. Embedded in the DNA of this country was fairness, equality, and opportunity for everyone. But there was a genetic defect called chattel slavery that was also attendant to our birth. If you are going to have any discussion about where we are in America today, you have got to recognize there was a genetic defect that has impacted the arc of the African American community here in America and the American story, and that genetic defect of chattel slavery stayed with us, of course, until the war ended in 1865. Millions of African American slaves were subjugated. It was one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated in the history of humanity. It finally ended in 1865 with the adoption of the 13th Amendment. Of course, we know that the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment followed, equal protection under the law for everyone, 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment was designed to guarantee the right to vote. The so-called Reconstruction period lasted until the middle of the 1870s, but it was largely abandoned thereafter. The African Americans, of course, were given a raw, bad deal. How can you cure the genetic defect of chattel slavery with three constitutional amendments without ever really forcefully implementing them and within a decade or so abandoning the principles inherent in those constitutional amendments? In place we received the Black Codes, Jim Crow, segregation, and an intense lynching campaign unleashed on African Americans in the South, in the Midwest, in the far West, and other parts of the United States of America. So we went from chattel slavery, a brief period of Reconstruction, then you give us Jim Crow. So we dealt with Jim Crow which was at least in principle abolished on paper when the Supreme Court makes the decision in Brown v. Board of Education that separate but equal was just a farce. It was a joke. It wasn't real. So the Supreme Court exposes that, but then says, go ahead and implement it with all deliberate speed. Which basically meant don't really implement it with any urgency, any immediacy, any impactful fashion, just take your time and do it at your own pace. So as we are trying to deal with Jim Crow, then you have, of course, Dr. King and leaders of the civil rights movement, John Lewis, whom Congresswoman Beatty and I are so privileged to serve with, A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, James Farmer, and so many others. The civil rights movement deals with the lingering effects of our original genetic defect of chattel slavery replaced by Jim Crow. Then in the 1960s, we get the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, and efforts to try to finally correct the injustices that have been race based here in America. Like Reconstruction, which lasted for a little over a decade, we get this period of dramatic social change, mainly in the early and mid-1960s that is quickly abandoned and taken advantage of by Richard Nixon in 1968 with the Southern strategy White backlash, particularly in the Deep South, compounded in 1971 when President Richard Nixon makes the statement that drug abuse is public enemy number one. Essentially, the War on Drugs ushered in an era of mass incarceration. When President Nixon made that statement, there were less than 350,000 people incarcerated in America. Today, 40-plus years later, after the War on Drugs, so called, was started, 2.3 million people, more than 1 million African American men, disproportionately and adversely impacting communities of color and as has been mentioned earlier, incarcerate more people in America than any other country in the world, a country where we over-incarcerate and under educate. We have made a lot of progress in America. African Americans as a collective community really haven't been given any room to breathe because we have gone from chattel slavery--the original birth defect in this great Republic--to Jim Crow, to mass incarceration with brief periods of Reconstruction and civil rights era mixed in between. And you wonder why we are in the situation that we are in right now. We have made a lot of progress. Obviously the fact that Barack Obama is sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a significant development, but as Dr. King says, he talked about an arc, which means that similar to what Abraham Lincoln once said, that we have to continue a march toward a more perfect Union, the Congressional Black Caucus with leadership from dynamic representatives like Joyce Beatty, have put forth a series of things to benefit not just the African American community, but all communities, to help bring the promise of American democracy to life. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my good friend, Representative Beatty.

Mr. JEFFRIES. It is a great question. Unfortunately sort of the arc of history here in this great country of ours is that whenever progress has been made it has been followed by a backlash. Progress was made with the Reconstruction amendments. It was followed by a backlash that gave us Jim Crow, the Black Codes, and an explosion of lynching in the South. Progress, of course, was made in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act immediately followed by Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, and a backlash against things like affirmative action which had barely been put into motion and a rollback of the War on Poverty which was designed to help African Americans and all Americans of every race. Then, of course, many thought that we perhaps had reached a post- racial America in the aftermath of the election of President Barack Obama, but we know, of course, that that is not the case sadly. I am hopeful, however, that many of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Progressives who have come together, folks like Raul Labrador, Trey Gowdy, and Jason Chaffetz--good friends of mine on the other side of the aisle--recognize the importance of dealing with mass incarceration for America. Here are a few statistics that I think we need to be concerned about as it relates to your question. African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a nonviolent drug offense, approximately 58 months, as White Americans do for a violent criminal offense, 62 months. Whites in America statistically use drugs five times as often as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of White Americans. Lastly, African Americans represent 83 percent of crack cocaine Federal defendants, but only 28 percent of users--83 percent are defendants, 28 percent are users; whereas, White Americans represent 5.8 percent of Federal defendants but 62 percent of users. Something is wrong. Justice is not colorblind in America. So hopefully we will find the ability to come together to deal with the overall broken criminal justice system and certainly as part of that rectify some of the racial disparities that exist.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Representative Scott, for laying out the steps that are being taken by the President in such a compelling way in explaining why they are items that we should all support as well as some of the steps that need to be taken legislatively by this Congress in order to deal with the fact that more than 10,000 Americans a year die as a result of gun violence-related homicides. I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). She is an incredibly eloquent and passionate voice for the voiceless. We appreciate her service here in the Congress not just on behalf of the district that she represents in northern California, but certainly on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I yield now to Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to rise today and to co-anchor, along with my distinguished colleague from the great State of Ohio, Representative Joyce Beatty, this CBC Special Order hour, this hour of power. Once again, we are privileged to take to the floor of the people's House to discuss an issue that should be relevant to every Member of this institution on behalf of the 320 million-plus Americans that we represent in this great country, and that is the gun violence epidemic. America has 5 percent of the world's population, but 50 percent of the world's guns. It is estimated that there are more than 300 million guns in circulation throughout this country. So it seems to me reasonable that we would do everything possible to ensure that not a single one of those guns finds themselves in the hands of individuals who would do us harm. And that in many ways is what President Obama has done as it relates to his most recent executive action. So today members of the Congressional Black Caucus will come to the House floor to discuss those executive actions, discuss the issue of gun violence, discuss the steps that we should be taking, here in this Chamber, in order to keep the people of America that we all collectively represent safe. It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), my classmate and my co-anchor for this CBC Special Order hour. I look forward to anchoring with her throughout the entire year. She has been a tremendous champion for working families, for the middle class, for small-business owners and, of course, for the young people who are ravaged in our communities all across this country by gun violence.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Representative Beatty, for laying out the case in such an eloquent and compelling fashion, and pointing out that, with respect to gun safety and gun violence prevention in America, it is long past time when we act with the fierce urgency of now. Tens of thousands of Americans have died as a result of gun violence since the moment you and I first set foot in this institution, and not a single thing has been done by the House of Representatives to prevent those deaths. That is shameful, as you have pointed out, and we need a change of course. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member, lead Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, once, of course, chaired by the legendary Adam Clayton Powell, and Representative Scott has continued in that tremendous visionary tradition.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Again, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for her wonderful remarks, observations, and, of course, her support for the President's executive actions on gun safety, making it clear that the President was left with no choice but to act. Tens of thousands of Americans die each and every year either as it relates to homicide or suicide through a firearm, and nothing was happening here in the United States Congress. The classic definition of legislative insanity is to do the same exact thing, which in this instance is nothing, and expect that things were going to change for the safety and the well-being of the American people. That is why we are here on the floor today expressing strong support for the President's executive actions and pushing this institution to do more and finish the job that the President of the United States of America started. It is now my honor and privilege to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston (Ms. Jackson Lee), a forceful advocate and the lead Democrat on the relevant committee on the House Judiciary side of the equation as it relates to criminal justice, reform, and gun safety. She, of course, has been a tremendous champion for the people that she serves down in H-Town, as well as across the country.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for the tremendous work you continue to do on the Judiciary Committee. I look forward to partnering with you. As you point out, the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. It should not protect the ability of others to utilize weapons, often of mass destruction, in doing harm to Americans without a license or any legal bases for doing so. All we want is rational gun safety and gun violence prevention. I look forward to continuing to work with you in that regard. It is now my honor and privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly), one of my classmates. She has been a tremendous and forceful advocate for gun violence prevention measures, not only as the chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, for which she has been tireless on so many different issues, but also in her capacity within the House Democratic Caucus, as well as a chair of the CBC Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, someone who stood up countless times for the children in Chicago and the many others who have been dealing with unacceptable levels of gun violence.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend from Illinois, for the very powerful presentation and for her steadfast leadership. Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we believe that Members of Congress need to act is that State laws are so inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the other. In New York, we experience gun violence in certain communities at unprecedented levels notwithstanding the fact that we have tremendously significant and robust gun violence prevention measures in place. But the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in the Brooklyn communities, represented by me and Yvette Clarke, actually come from the neighboring States of Pennsylvania as well as up the I-95 corridor from States in the Deep South. Chicago, as Robin Kelly has indicated, has been experiencing unprecedented levels of gun violence. Illinois actually has pretty robust gun safety-gun violence prevention laws on the books, but the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in Chicago come from the neighboring States of Indiana and Wisconsin, which have lax laws. Out in south central Los Angeles, the situation has gotten better over the last decade or so. California has pretty strong gun safety-gun violence prevention laws. The overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in south central Los Angeles and in east LA actually come from the neighboring State of Arizona. That is why we need Congress to act in order to deal with what is a national problem. Madam Speaker, it is now my great honor and privilege to yield to my good friend and colleague, my sister from the neighboring congressional district of mine and who has been such a forceful advocate on behalf of the communities that she represents in Brooklyn, the distinguished gentlewoman from the Ninth Congressional District of New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.