Hakeem Jeffries

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend and colleague for a very powerful presentation and for pointing out the sensibility of supporting all of the President's efforts, but particularly as they relate to the ATF, which is the Federal agency charged with enforcing our Nation's gun laws. Two hundred additional agents is the bare minimum that we can hire to make sure that the ATF has the manpower and resources necessary to prevent the illegal trafficking of guns into places like the Brownsville and East Flatbush neighborhoods that Congresswoman Yvette Clarke so passionately represents. If you block funding for the ATF, what you essentially are doing is supporting the efforts of the merchants of death who rely on underenforcement by the ATF, because of an absence of resources, in order to flood communities like Chicago; south central Los Angeles; parts of Brooklyn; Newark, New Jersey; and many other neighborhoods with illegal weapons. Madam Speaker, I yield to my good friend and colleague, Congressman Donald Payne. I thank him as well as R. Kelly. D. Payne and R. Kelly made a fantastic combination. We thank them for their distinguished service last year in leading the CBC Special Order hour. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), a dynamic new Member of the House.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material relevant to the subject matter of this discussion.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Beraca Community Development Corporation (BCDC). In 2010, BCDC's mission to rebuild, repair and restore the lives of the disadvantaged led them to Haiti after the tragic 7.0 magnitude earthquake. On January 10, 2016, this year's awardees were honored at Beraca Baptist Church in Brooklyn, NY, for their invaluable service. BCDC opened offices in the towns of Leogane, Cabaret, Jeremie and Cape, Haiti where BCDC volunteer efforts are wide-reaching. The corporation travels to Haiti several times a year and since its conception has returned over 50 times in an effort to improve the lives of others. BCDC also provides microloans to help support local small businesses, employs over 400 individuals through a taxi company and equips teachers with resources to improve the lives of Haitian youth. At this year's Beraca Community Development Corporation's Haiti Earthquake Memorial Service and Award Ceremony, 4 dynamic individuals were recognized for their outstanding work, Mackenzie Pier, New York City Leadership Center was the recipient of the Awareness and Mobilization Award, Michael Scales, Nyack College was the recipient of the Excellence in Education Award, Marie-Yolaine Toms, Community2Community was the recipient of the Community Development Award and Michael Fromer, Millennium Capital Resources was the recipient of the Philanthropic Services Award. I commend these honorees for their commitment to serving others. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in celebrating the Beraca Community Development Corporation's Haiti Earthquake Memorial Service and Award Ceremony and these 4 great honorees.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished ranking member from Michigan for yielding as well as for his steadfast leadership. This is a new year with a new Speaker and new promises of bipartisan cooperation, yet we are here today on the House floor doing the same exact thing. The asbestos industrial complex is responsible for unleashing mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other exotic diseases of mass destruction on thousands of unsuspecting Americans, many of whom have served this country in the military, and yet we are being asked today to support legislation that would shield the wrongdoers from liability. At the end of the day, if you think about the bill that has been presented to us, the claim has been made that it is about disclosure, but the wrongdoers aren't really being asked to disclose anything further. The claim has been made about this bill that it is about efficiency, yet there is not a scintilla of evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse. The claim has been made that this is about fairness, yet at the end of the day the practical effect of this legislation would be to prevent the victims from being able to achieve just compensation. At the end of the day, this is the same old approach: trying to find a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. This is a messaging bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate and will not be signed into law by the President. Instead of wasting the time and the treasure of the American taxpayer through their elected Representatives here in the House, why don't we just get back to doing the business of the American people? Vote ``no'' against this invidious legislation so we can do what the people have sent us to do here in the United States Congress.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I would like to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), from the Garden State, for her tremendous leadership throughout the course of this year as it relates to presiding over the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Special Order hour, where week after week you have been able to illuminate for the American people some of the challenges that we face here, trying to enact policies that make sense for hardworking Americans, for working families, for low-income folks, for the middle class, for seniors, for the most vulnerable amongst us. For just a moment, I wanted to reflect on one particular aspect of the omnibus bill that I find troubling, and that is the failure to do what is necessary to help put the people of Puerto Rico--United States citizens--on a trajectory that will allow them to achieve some manner of economic stability moving forward. Now, I never practiced criminal law. I am a lawyer, attorney, but I understand that there are sometimes crimes of commission--that is when you affirmatively do something that is damaging--and then there are crimes of omission. I think that the greatest omission as it relates to this $1.1-plus trillion spending bill is the failure to do anything to help deal with the economic crisis that exists right now in Puerto Rico, a crisis, by the way, that, in large measure, has responsibility right here in the United States Congress. In 1996, we began a process of a 10-year phaseout of provisions in the tax law that were put into place in order to help the economy of Puerto Rico. That 10-year phaseout ended in 2006. Over that period, it witnessed a dramatic disinvestment of corporate entities from the island of Puerto Rico toward the mainland and other places. A massive number of jobs were lost. That phaseout was completed in 2006. Puerto Rico has been in a deep recession ever since. Now, every other citizen of the United States of America who lives in the 50 States here lives in a municipality that has bankruptcy provisions available to it to help it restructure its debt when necessary. The people of Puerto Rico, again as a result of a law enacted here in this Chamber in 1984, have been denied bankruptcy protection. Fundamentally, all the people of Puerto Rico were asking for is to make sure that those citizens who live on the island can be put in the same place--not better--the same place as every other United States citizen so that they can avail themselves of bankruptcy protection to enable them to restructure their debt in a way that makes sense, that allows them to pay their teachers, their police officers, their firefighters, and others. And yet, when all that was done, all the acts of commission, with a $1.1-plus trillion agreement, we couldn't help the people of Puerto Rico by simply putting them in the same place through restructuring provisions in a manner that would give them an opportunity without a single cent of taxpayer expense to be in a better place? The people of Puerto Rico participate in the military, die in foreign conflicts of the United States of America at a rate higher than those in the 50 States, yet they are compensated, from a Medicaid reimbursement standpoint, around 40 or 50 percent--if not more--less. We don't have enough time to go through how policy set here in the United States Congress has devastated the people of Puerto Rico economically for the last few decades, but it does seem to me that we could find some way to deal with this issue. We found a way to give away billions and billions of dollars to big oil companies as it relates to lifting the prohibition on the export of crude oil, but we couldn't find a way to help the hardworking people of Puerto Rico. Shame on us here in the United States Congress. Lastly, it is my understanding that the Speaker, who I take to be a man of his word, has said, well, we are going to deal with this issue in the next 90 days. But here is the problem. On January 1, there is a significant amount of money that Puerto Rico owes that it cannot pay, so the island can't wait until March 31 for the Congress to try to work this out. The promissory note is not good enough. As an African American Member of Congress, I am reminded of the speech that Dr. King gave in 1963 right outside these Halls on The National Mall. He talked about the fact that the eloquent and magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were a glorious promissory note: We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator . . . the ability to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But century after century, decade after decade, that promissory note essentially was handed over to the African American community as a check stamped ``insufficient funds.'' I just can't, with all or any degree of confidence, suggest that we could credibly say to the people of Puerto Rico and to those individuals of Puerto Rican descent that I represent back home in Brooklyn and in Queens that this so-called promissory note issued is going to result in us taking any action 90- plus days from now. I just hope that there is a way for us to find some measure of resolution before we ultimately vote on this omnibus bill to deal in good faith with the people of Puerto Rico--United States citizens--who deserve our attention.

Mr. JEFFRIES. The big question I think that we face here, earlier today we voted on a tax extender package, $600-plus billion. None of it was paid for, at least as it relates to what was done today. I think reasonable people understand that making these tax breaks permanent in a way where they were not paid for ultimately is going to blow a tremendous hole in the deficit. As we move forward, the people who will pay for the tax cuts that were passed out of this House earlier today, hundreds of billions of dollars--notwithstanding the earned income tax credit and the child care tax credit that, of course, many of us support--the people who will pay for it will be the poor, the sick, the afflicted, working families, those who need assistance. In good conscience, there is no way that I could support the tax extender package and go back home to my community and say we have just done a good thing. As it relates to the omnibus, I think we all have to ask the question, if the plus-up in the omnibus is somewhere in the neighborhood of $31 billion or $32 billion in additional spending, yet we understand that in the tax extender package hundreds of billions of dollars were unpaid for over a 10-year period and, ultimately, someone is going to pay the price for that--that is one of the reasons why we got something like sequestration. We got jammed as a result of tax cuts that were not paid for in 2001, tax cuts that were not paid for in 2003, a failed war in Iraq, a failed war in Afghanistan. None of that was paid for. Ultimately we find ourselves in fiscal difficulty. Who pays? The most vulnerable in America. That is how we got sequestration. So I am not convinced that we are not going to find ourselves in a similar situation moving forward as a result of what was done with this tax extender package today. I am in the process of continuing to review the omnibus bill and trying to weigh and balance the equities. I will tell you, though, that the failure to do something for the people of Puerto Rico is greatly troubling, because it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, and the fact that some of the programs of importance to urban America, like Historically Black Colleges and Universities, may not have received the resources that some of us think they deserve, and we have got concerns as a result of some of the foreclosure prevention issues in some other areas. We are all going to have to take a look at the equities, but it is clear that we should be able to do much better for the American people, for those that we have come to Congress to represent, for those who have disproportionately borne the burden of reckless and irresponsible fiscal policies over the past decade or so. And let's just hope that we can proceed to do things differently in a way that benefits those we represent here in America. So I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for the opportunity to speak further on this issue. I also want to acknowledge my good friend, Keith Ellison, who is a tremendous champion for working families all across the country.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 36th Annual Recognition Day of Concerned Women of Brooklyn. This organization has helped to make a difference in the lives of countless women, their families and communities in Brooklyn for decades. On December 12, 2015 at Giando's on the Water in Brooklyn, NY, this year's honorees will be celebrated for their invaluable service. The Concerned Women of Brooklyn are proud to honor 12 prominent individuals selected for distinguishing themselves in their chosen fields. Ms. Georgetta Belton, Director of Culinary Ministry at Bethany Baptist Church, Mr. Frank Boswell, Executive Director of Bushwick Economic Development Corporation, Mr. Edie Gonzalez-Devonish, Educational Director of Two by Two Child Care, Dr. Benjamin Igwe, President and CEO of Family Service Network of New York, Mr. Winchester Key, President and CEO of East New York Urban Youth Corporation, Reverend Rose M. King-Bennett of Associated Minister Greater Bright Light Missionary Baptist Church, Ms. Judy D. Newton, independent consultant and community advocate and Reverend Marsha Scipio, Esq. Executive Director of Berean Community and Family Life Center are recipients of Concerned Women of Brooklyn's Excellence in Community and Civic Services. Dr. Jonah Green, Medical Staff President of Woodhull Medical Center, Ms. Marcia Peters, JD, Senior Associated Executive Director at Bellevue Hospital Center and Dr. Ramanathan Raju, President and CEO of the New York City Health + Hospitals are recipients of Concerned Women of Brooklyn's Excellence in Health Services and Ms. Jani Selestine Ahay, a New England College student is the recipient of the Peggy Pinchback Scholarship Award. I commend these honorees for their dedication, commitment and contribution to serving the people of Brooklyn. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in celebrating the 36th Annual Recognition Day of Concerned Women of Brooklyn and these 12 wonderful honorees.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to protect and serve the American people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the best ways that we can uphold this sacred duty is to deal with the gun violence epidemic that we have in America, which claims the lives of more than 11,000 people each year. One of the things that we should be doing is passing legislation to prevent individuals who are on the FBI's terrorist watch list, because they are suspected terrorists, from being able to purchase guns. To me, this seems to be a no-brainer. If you are not able to fly because you are a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to purchase an AK-47, an AR-15, or another weapon of mass destruction which is not used to hunt deer, but is used to hunt human beings. It is time for House Republicans to stop functioning as wholly owned subsidiaries of the NRA. It is time to cut the puppet strings from the gun lobby. It is time to do the business of the American people and pass sensible gun violence prevention legislation.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, for convening us here today on this incredibly important issue on the House floor and, of course, for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the songwriters in America. Over the years, I have gotten to know some very good country lawyers. I have also gotten to know some very good country preachers. My good friend from Georgia is the best of both worlds. We appreciate the tremendous skill set that he has brought to bear here in the United States Congress. We are members, of course, of the class of 2012. It has been wonderful to work closely with you in your capacity as the lead sponsor of this very important piece of legislation. Article I, section 8, clause 8, of the United States Constitution gives Congress, both the House and the Senate, the power to create a robust intellectual property system, in the words of our Founders, in order ``to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' The Founders of this great country understood that it was important to create a robust intellectual property system in order to allow creators and innovators to be able to benefit from the fruits of their labor. Songwriters, of course, are at the heart of the music ecosystem, a music ecosystem that produces a variety of different forms of music. We know that there is country. There is pop. There is rock and roll. There is blues. There is bluegrass. There is jazz. There is Motown. There is hip-hop. There is R&B, which we tend to be partial to in the Eighth Congressional District. What all of them have in common is that someone had to create this music. At the heart of that creation, at the heart of the ecosystem, of course, is the songwriter. Now, if the songwriter were to disappear or to be diminished in number, then the whole system of music creation collapses. In many ways, that is what the Songwriter Equity Act is all about because of the inherent fundamental unfairness in the current system by which songwriters are compensated. Congressman Collins and I have been able to work closely with a variety of different stakeholders from throughout the Nation. Certainly, Nashville, Atlanta, and New York have wonderful songwriting communities. The chairman of ASCAP, Paul Williams, who has been a tremendous advocate, often has said before the Judiciary Committee and in other contexts that songwriters may be the most heavily regulated small- business people in America. Unfortunately, that heavy regulation, as is often the case, is not benefiting them. In fact, in many ways, it is suffocating the songwriting community. It is not working to their benefit. It is not consistent with the DNA of our Constitution as it relates to intellectual property, which is to enable creators to benefit from the fruits of their labor. That is why the Songwriter Equity Act is such an important piece of legislation in order to allow those songwriters, who are spread out in all 435 congressional districts in every great State in the Union, to be able to participate fairly in the music ecosystem that is so central to the genres that we all know and love throughout our land. Music, of course, is universal in nature. It crosses all boundaries of race and religion, socioeconomics, region, cultural boundaries in this incredibly diverse Nation of more than 320 million people. That is why it has been so wonderful to participate in this journey as it relates to trying to do the right thing for the songwriters in this country. As has been pointed out by my colleague from Georgia and the other participants here, there are really two fundamental things that the Songwriter Equity Act attempts to correct. First, it is important to make sure that the rate courts, who often decide the compensation for songwriters in certain contexts, have an opportunity to consider all of the evidence so that they can arrive at an informed decision as to what makes the most sense. It is just illogical to believe that a rate court that is walled off from certain forms of evidence, such as the compensation received by recording artists, can arrive at a fair and equitable decision. In fact, what we have seen is that, over time, because this wall has existed, the compensation for recording artists has increased significantly. The compensation for songwriters has remained at an artificially low level. That is one of the things that we are trying to correct. Let all of the evidence be considered by the courts that are determining these rates. Lastly, the Songwriter Equity Act is designed to bring some notion of market fairness to the compensation of songwriters who create the music that we love. Right now, we have got artificially imposed regulatory rates on these songwriters in a manner that is not fair, that is not just, not consistent with a market-based approach that has made the United States so prosperous for so many other folks. That is why songwriters rightfully can say that this overregulation is not working for us. We would just like to be able to get the fair market value of our creations. That is what the Songwriter Equity Act is designed to do. So I am looking forward to working closely with my good friend from Georgia. He has been a tremendous leader in this regard. I am hopeful that we will be able to soon advance this legislation before the Judiciary Committee. It has tremendous bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats, Progressives and Conservatives. Let's advance this legislation out of Judiciary and onto the House floor and eventually get it to a place where it can be signed into law by the President. Thank you for your extraordinary leadership.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding. And I also thank, of course, my good friend and colleague, Congressman Don Payne, from across the Hudson River, who does such a tremendous job of representing the people of Newark and Essex County. It has been an honor and a privilege to watch my two colleagues during this year preside over the CBC Special Order hour, giving us, as a caucus, an opportunity to share with the American people some of our thoughts and ideas and the issues that we are working on to improve a lot of those that we represent in the African American community and all across this great, gorgeous mosaic in the United States of America. I am troubled, of course, by the events of the last few days as relates to the Laquan McDonald case out of Robin Kelly's hometown in Chicago. About a year ago, many of us from the Congressional Black Caucus were on this very House floor talking about the failure to indict in the killing of Michael Brown; and in the same week, 3 days later, the failure to indict in the strangulation of Eric Garner, who, of course, was put into an unauthorized choke hold and killed as a result of allegedly selling loose cigarettes. It, of course, highlighted the problem of African American men being killed at the hands of police officers, which is a decade-old problem that, hopefully, here in America we will find the courage one day to confront. And now, of course, we are compelled to come to the House floor to deal with the tragedy of the Laquan McDonald case, a 17-year-old shot 16 times in 15 seconds by an officer who had 20 prior civilian complaints filed against him. I am no mathematician, but those numbers simply do not add up. The tape comes out and we see what occurred: an individual, Laquan, who was walking away from the officers, not toward the officers. There is no reasonable circumstance, I believe, that led to that individual being shot down like a dog on the streets of Chicago. The officer has now been indicted 13 months later, and, hopefully, the justice system will run its course and the officer will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I am here today to talk briefly about another troubling issue that relates to this problem of the police use of excessive force. That is not just the bad apples who engage in this behavior; it is the fact that, far too often, the police officers in the department, who may not otherwise engage in excessive force but who have grown up in a culture of a blue wall of silence, support these officers either with their inaction or, in some instances, by actively participating in a coverup. Now, I know that is hard for a lot of Americans to hear because, listen, I also believe that the overwhelming majority of officers are hardworking individuals who are there to protect and serve. I don't take lightly the fact that I am here concerned on the House floor that far too many officers stand by, tolerate, and enable the excessive use of force, sometimes resulting in American citizens being killed without justification. This case actually highlights the problem. Laquan gets killed, and if you look at the reports in the immediate aftermath of his death last October--and I just pulled a few--here is what we were told. ``The suspect fled, and officers gave chase, police said. When the officers confronted him near 41st Street and Pulaski Road, he refused their orders to drop the knife and began walking toward the officers, police said. ``Pat Camden, spokesman for the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, said the teen had a `crazed' look about him as he approached the officers with the knife.'' That was reported by CBS. Let's go to NBC. ``Responding officers found a 17-year-old boy `with a strange gaze about him,' who was carrying a knife and wouldn't drop it when police ordered him to do so, Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden said. ``Other officers used a squad car to try and box the boy in against a fence near West 41st Street and South Pulaski Road, Camden said. An officer shot him in the chest when the teen didn't drop the knife and continued to walk toward officers, police said.'' WGN-TV: ``Chicago police officers shot and killed a 17-year-old after a foot chase near 41st Street and Pulaski . . . Officers shot the teen after he waved the knife at them.'' In the interest of time, let me just read one more. This is from the Chicago Tribune: ``Officers got out of their car and began approaching McDonald, again telling him to drop the knife, Camden said. The boy allegedly lunged at the officers, and one of them opened fire.'' `` `When police tell you to drop a weapon, all you have to do is drop it.' '' I mean, Shakespeare would be proud at the fiction that was put out there to justify the murder of this 17-year-old. Here is what is worse. It has now been reported that in the immediate aftermath of the shooting four or five officers went to a nearby Burger King and asked to view the surveillance tape. The manager at Burger King gives them the password to the video. They spend a couple of hours in Burger King--I mean, a couple of hours in Burger King, allegedly-- and then they leave. Then internal affairs officers apparently come in the days afterward, and they pull the tape. Guess what? Eighty-six minutes are missing. It happens to be the 86 minutes that cover the period of time when Laquan McDonald was killed. When we come to the House floor and people across the country say Black lives matter and they are concerned about the lack of justice in the system, understand that it is not just the excessive use of force; it is the fact that far too many officers, law enforcement folks, participate actively in covering up what has occurred. Until we deal with that cancer of the blue wall of silence, we are going to continue to have to come to this House floor, and you are going to continue to see individuals be killed as a result of the use of excessive force. It is an American problem that we should confront, and we should confront it boldly and directly and without hesitation if we really want to uplift the best values of our great democracy. I thank Congresswoman Kelly, and I thank Congressman Payne for their tremendous leadership.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding and for her leadership. Let's be clear. The opponents of this legislation are not playing the race card. America for centuries has played the race card--slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Black Codes, institutional racism, unconscious bias--that continues to this day. Yes. Of course we have come a long way in the United States of America, but we still have a long way to go. Everyone should have recognized the fact a few months ago when those souls were killed in Charleston, South Carolina, that racism in many corridors in this country is still functional, in existence, and poisoning our society. So when we take a situation where African American consumers are paying higher interest rates for the same financial product when controlling for creditworthiness put in the context of history in this country, we are concerned. All we are simply saying is that, if we really believe in a country where everyone, regardless of color, has the opportunity to robustly pursue the American Dream, we need a level playing field. We need rules of engagement that apply to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. We need equal opportunity. That doesn't exist right now in the automobile lending context. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote against this legislation. Let the CFPB do its work.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 25th pastoral anniversary of Reverend Anthony L. Trufant, senior pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church. During his tenure, Pastor Trufant has overseen the church's exponential growth, community engagement, and raised its profile as one of the most innovative churches in the country. In recognition of his pastoral anniversary and invaluable service to our community Reverend Trufant was honored on November 13, 2015 at the Liberty Warehouse in Brooklyn, NY. Rev. Trufant became the Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Brooklyn's Clinton Hill neighborhood in 1990. Under his leadership the ministry stretches from New York to New Orleans, from Haiti's hovels to the townships of South Africa. Rev. Trufant has not only worked to improve the quality of life for our communities in Brooklyn but has partnered with Global Faith Works in Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town. Emmanuel Baptist Church hosts their annual Mission of Thanks to South Africa where they support women entrepreneurs and Thaba Primary, a school for the local youth. These programs have helped countless individuals over the past 25 years and continue to aid people today. Reverend Trufant was raised in Chicago, Illinois and earned a Bachelor of Arts from Morehouse and a Master of Divinity from Colgate Rochester. Rev. Trufant was licensed to preach in July 1981 and ordained in May 1988 by the Third Baptist Church in San Francisco, California. Rev. Trufant has also received a diploma in pastoral counseling from the Post Graduate Center for Mental Health and has completed coursework towards a Doctor of Ministry at Hebrew Union College. Pastor Trufant is married to Muriel Lynette Goode Trufant, Esq. and is the father of two wonderful daughters, Sharise Emmanuelle and Toni Niara. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in celebrating Reverend Anthony L. Trufant on his 25th Pastoral Anniversary. For his commitment to the people of Brooklyn and his service to the least of those among us, he is worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, if I can add to that observation that was made by my good friend from the Sunshine State, the three of us had a wonderful opportunity to visit Israel together, along with several other members of our class and, of course, Steny Hoyer, who led the delegation in August of 2013. I was struck in our conversations with some of the members of the Israeli society how well those individuals who had served in the IDF and then matriculated into society were treated. Their service in the IDF was highly valued--not just via words, but through deeds--and it enabled them to really build a successful career. They were treated with reverence. Congressman Swalwell, one of the things that perhaps was most disconcerting about my first few years in this institution is there is a lot of rhetoric--I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this is a place where there is a lot of hot air often spewed--that is devoid of substance. And in the area of veterans, in particular, what we find is that there is a lot of talk about treating veterans appropriately in terms of the sacrifice that they have made, their service, but we haven't really filled in the blanks in terms of substance. One of the areas that clearly is problematic is the fact, though we are promising to enable them once they leave their service to assist with furthering their educational goals, we are not providing them with the financial assistance and the resources necessary to actually make that happen. So I embrace efforts by Congressman Murphy and others to try to fill in the blanks in that regard, but a whole lot more needs to be done. We should be treating our veterans with the same reverence and respect, not just rhetorically, but substantively, as is done in Israel, our good friend and ally, and many other places in this world.

Mr. JEFFRIES. That is absolutely correct. I think what we have to do is really work on changing the equation to facilitate the great minds that we have got in this current generation of younger Americans to be able to go out and be innovators and entrepreneurial in the context of a vastly changing economy as well as a changing dynamic in terms of the affordability of college education. I am troubled by the fact, one, if you look at the productivity of the American worker, what we have seen, of course, since the early 1970s is that it has increased dramatically, in excess of 275 percent in terms of American worker productivity. At the same time, wages during that period from the early 1970s to the present have remained largely stagnant, less than 10 percent. So the equation for the American worker has changed. So what we have is that we have got younger Americans entering into a workforce where the fundamental equation in terms of their compensation has changed dramatically for the worse, the cost of a college education has increased, the amount of financial assistance relative to the cost of that college education has remained stagnant, if not declined in real dollars, and the expectation in terms of the student debt loan burden one is expected to shoulder upon graduation has exploded exponentially. You add all those things together and it is no surprise that you are going to find yourself in a situation where people don't have the same capability of being entrepreneurial as prior generations. FDR, of course, brought forth the New Deal. What we need for this current generation of Americans is just a fairer deal in the context of giving them the same opportunities to robustly pursue the American Dream, start great companies, innovate as prior generations, so we can continue to be great. I would also note that downtown Brooklyn, interestingly enough, which I represent in the wonderful Eighth Congressional District----

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman, first, from California for his leadership and for all that you have done to make sure that issues of importance to the next generation of Americans, such as the one that we are discussing here today, get prominence on the House floor, this great vehicle for communicating to the American people, and, of course, to be here with the still young pioneers of this wonderful effort, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and Congressman Ryan. It is just a great honor. Clearly, we have a student loan debt crisis that commands the attention of the American people and should command the attention of people here in the House of Representatives and on the other side of the Capitol, but does not always do so, which is why communicating the urgency of the situation is so significant, just the notion. I have got constituents just shocked by the fact that, collectively, we have got over $1 trillion of student loan debt here in America. That is a very real number in terms of its implications, as you pointed out, Congressman Swalwell, for the capacity of younger Americans to robustly pursue the American Dream. When you are saddled with that level of debt burden, it makes it far more difficult to start a family, far more difficult to purchase a home, far more difficult to be part of the next generation of great American entrepreneurs and innovators, because you are less likely to take a risk if you have got this monthly student loan bill that you are unsure as to how you would pay if you were to take some time off to start a business, to invent the next Google or Facebook or Twitter. And so this is really an issue of great significance to us, as Americans. And it is a shame. I will make this last observation. I sat on the Budget Committee for the previous 2 years in the 113th Congress, and the same is the case this year, that Republicans continue to put forth a budget that is not designed to alleviate the problem of higher education affordability. It is designed to make the problem worse. It will cut over $220 billion over a 10-year period in Federal Government assistance in a variety of ways to younger Americans who are struggling to get a college education and pursue the American Dream. That is something that we have got to be able to address moving forward or move in a different direction in terms of who the American people send to this Congress to do their business.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely the case. Certainly in Brooklyn, which has become now an attractive place for so many people to reside, not just from the city, the region, all across the country and, indeed, the world, yet many of the young people who have moved to Brooklyn who are starting a life in Brooklyn are renting in Brooklyn. They are unable to purchase a home. Some of that has to do with the significant appreciation in home value that we have witnessed over the last decade, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that they can't see their way to either a downpayment on a home or carrying a monthly mortgage, given the student loan debt burden that they have been forced to shoulder as a result of the structure that has been put in place in terms of higher education in America. You made an important observation earlier in referencing the President's plan for free community college education. If we can just dwell there for a second, what is important to note is it used to be the case, for prior generations who started the great American middle class after helping to liberate the world coming back home to America after World War II, that if you just had a high school diploma, for many individuals, that was a pathway into the middle class. That is no longer the case in today's 21st century economy. You can get a high school diploma at a high-quality public school for free without any debt. So, at that point, as you entered into the workforce, you could think about starting a family, purchasing a home, and doing other things consistent with what it means to be part of the great American middle class. That is no longer the case. A high school diploma is not a pathway into the middle class. You have got to at least go to college, if not get a graduate degree. Given the high cost of a college education, it has changed the equation for younger Americans in terms of their entry into the middle class. That is why looking at bold proposals, such as dramatically reducing, if not eliminating, the cost of public higher education at the community college level, if not beyond, is something that we have got to put front and center on the agenda here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. JEFFRIES. That is part of Silicon Alley. I am so glad that you are familiar with our East Coast lingo. But it also has more college students in downtown Brooklyn than Boston and Cambridge combined. So there has been a great number of young people who have come to Brooklyn who are contributing to our fantastic innovation culture, but who are struggling with the fundamentals of today's economy and higher education structure that is working against them. That is why we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives fighting to change that.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the Golden State for his leadership and for putting forth this effort, bringing in younger Members of Congress to be able to speak to issues of relevance, not just to the entire body of the American people, but specifically to the next generation of Americans that will continue to make this country great as long as we provide them with the tools and the opportunity. I agree with my good friend from Florida that this is an issue that should not be partisan in nature. This is an issue that impacts people from north to south, to the east and the west, from urban communities, suburban communities, rural communities, red States, blue States, all over America. I think what we are saying here today is that we extend out our arms, our olive branch of friendship and partnership on behalf of the American people to try to solve this problem together. It is clear that there is a problem, it cannot be denied, and it is one that requires urgent intervention in order to make sure that we can continue to preserve the American Dream for the greatest number of younger Americans possible. Right now, the dream is being suffocated in ways that threaten our economic vitality moving forward, and that is a tragedy. But I remain optimistic. We were sent here all collectively to get things done, and I look forward to working together in that regard.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, from the moment that House Republicans came to power, the majority has failed to do its job. They have consistently abdicated their responsibility to govern. They have consistently taken the American people on reckless legislative joyrides guaranteed to crash and burn. As former New York Knick Michael Ray Richardson once famously observed as his team's season was headed in the wrong direction, this ship be sinking. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans need to end their obsession with the Affordable Care Act, end their obsession with hurting immigrant families, end their obsession with Planned Parenthood. It is time to end sequestration, to fully fund the government, and get back to doing the business of the American people.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I am opposed to it in its current form.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. The murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco was a national tragedy that certainly shocked the conscience of America. We must continue to mourn her passing. We must continue to stand behind her family. We must continue to make sure that her killer is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but we should not respond with irresponsible public policy. Our Founders indicated that the House of Representatives is supposed to reflect the passions of the people, but the passions should be properly channeled into an appropriate legislative vehicle. On December 14, 2012, 20 children were brutally gunned down in Sandy Hook Elementary School. More than 30,000 additional Americans have died as a result of gun violence since that fateful day. Mr. Speaker, 952 days have passed. This House has done nothing. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, 52 Democrats, 14 Republicans, 2 Independents. That bill would have secured our borders. That bill would have reduced the deficit by more than $850 billion over 20 years. That bill would have required undocumented immigrants to learn English, pay back taxes, pass a criminal background check, and then get at the back of the line. Mr. Speaker, 757 days have passed. This House has done nothing. Instead, we are here today considering a misguided legislative response to a terrible tragedy. That is why I offer this amendment, which will prevent the elimination or reduction of funds to State or local law enforcement organizations if the Attorney General determines that the elimination of funding would result in an overall increase in the crime rate, particularly with respect to domestic violence, sex trafficking, and crimes against children, or if it would result in a decrease in the number of trained law enforcement officers on American streets. The COPS and Byrne-JAG programs are essential to public safety and should not be used as a blunt force weapon to carry out a reckless and irresponsible antiimmigrant agenda. That is why the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, and the Major County Sheriffs' Association of America all oppose the underlying legislation. In a letter dated July 15, the National Fraternal Order of Police expressed their ``strong opposition to any amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an effort to coerce a policy change in so-called sanctuary cities.'' In offering this amendment, I stand with law enforcement. In offering this amendment, I stand with the Statue of Liberty that sits in New York Harbor with the inscription ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' In offering this amendment, I stand with the United States Constitution and the 10th Amendment limitation on the Federal Government's ability to commandeer State or local police authorities into the service of Federal areas of enforcement. In offering this amendment, I stand with the Scripture in Matthew 25:35, where it says: I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.