Hakeem Jeffries

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois, Robin Kelly, for once again presiding over this important CBC Special Order hour, as well as her co-anchor, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, who is right across the Hudson River, and who so ably serves the communities of Newark and beyond. Mr. Speaker, this evening we have heard from so many distinguished members of the Congressional Black Caucus, most recently from the gentlewoman from Texas, with whom I serve on the Judiciary Committee, about the importance of the moment in time in which we find ourselves right now related to not just the Confederate battle flag, but perhaps more importantly: What is the legacy that we want to have as Americans, as Members of Congress, in dealing with the complicated issue of race? It is an honor and a privilege to once again have the chance to come to the House floor to have this conversation. This is a most distinguished venue from which to speak to the American people, an appropriate one, I would add, given the House's constitutional relationship to the people of America, this, of course, being the only institution that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers as one in which the people serving in the institution would be directly elected by the people. The Senate's Members, of course, in its original constitutional version, were elected by the State legislature. Then, of course, the Presidency, to this day, is a vehicle through which the individual is selected by the Electoral College. So this is the people's House, the institution most intimately connected to the people of America and the place where we should be able to speak truth to power. We witnessed that last week as we were forced, unfortunately, to discuss the issue of the Confederate battle flag at a moment when people of all races--Democrats and Republicans, Blacks, Whites, the extraordinary leadership from the Governor of South Carolina, and the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Jim Clyburn--came together. At the moment when the Confederate battle flag was coming down in South Carolina, there were Members of this House trying to lift it up. It was quite unfortunate that we needed to detour from this moment that we were having in America, led in South Carolina, to address the battle flag issue on this House floor; but I am hopeful that, as we move forward now in a more productive way, we can begin to confront some of the public policy challenges that we face in America that supporters of the Confederate battle flag have fought against. As others have detailed during the presentation here today, the battle flag, which met its initial defeat in 1865 at the end of the Civil War, remained largely dormant in American history until 1954 in the Supreme Court's decision of Brown vs. Board of Education. It was decided that this facade of separate and equal was constitutionally suspect and that African Americans were being denied the opportunity of being educated in quality public schools in the Deep South and in other places in America. Really, it was in the mid-fifties and then into the early sixties when the Confederate battle flag was resurrected as a symbol of the segregationists who were fighting to uphold Jim Crow. It was a symbol of those who were fighting to stop the efforts of courageous individuals like Congressman John Lewis, who in 1965 was the co-chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. It was a symbol of those who were trying to fight efforts by John Lewis and others to make sure that the franchise--the right to vote-- was colorblind in nature and that the 15th Amendment could actually be brought to life all throughout America and in the Deep South, where there were those who were trying to prevent African Americans from being able to vote. The battle flag was resurrected in the fifties and in the sixties to stop certain things from happening. It seems to me that, rather than having the discussion about whether it should come down, no reasonable person can take the position that it should have a place of honor. So it is extraordinary to me that we had to take to the House floor last week and have to come to the House floor today to continue to address this issue. Hopefully, reason will prevail over the next couple of weeks or the next couple of days--even prior to the August recess--and we can move beyond the Confederate battle flag issue and address some important, substantive issues that many would argue remain as part of the legacy of the Confederacy. We don't want to see the ghosts of the Confederacy invading the United States Congress from a policy perspective. Those nine souls--God-fearing, church-going African Americans--who were killed simply because of the color of their skin died because of someone who charged into that church with the intention of sparking a race war that was inspired, in part, by the Confederate battle flag. One of the things that has happened as a result of that tragedy is the battle flag has come down, but that is just the beginning of the work that we need to do in response to that tragedy and the conditions that so many people find themselves in all across America. As has been mentioned, we have got to confront the gun violence issue that we have in the United States. How can it be that we have 5 percent of the world's population, but 50 percent of the world's guns? It is estimated that we have more than 285 million guns in circulation. Nobody can give you an exact estimate because a chokehold has been placed around the Federal agencies charged with preventing gun violence and dealing with gun safety in America. It is an incredible act of legislative malpractice, but it is estimated that we have got over 285 million guns in America. Isn't it reasonable, particularly in the aftermath of this tragedy in Charleston, South Carolina, that we come together and figure out a way to prevent those guns, consistent with the Second Amendment, from falling into the hands of individuals who would do us harm? It seems to me to be a reasonable thing that we can do as Americans. It also seems important that we would find a way 50 years after the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to stop trying to prevent Americans from exercising their sacred franchise and participating in American democracy. Yet, something happened in the aftermath of 2008, a real interesting moment in November of that year, that seemed to have shocked a whole lot of people across this country. As a result, 2 years later, when there was a midterm election, subsequent to that, there was an outbreak with this concern of voter fraud, fabricated because no one can point to any evidence of an epidemic of voter fraud. Not a scintilla of evidence has been presented anywhere in this country that we have got a problem that needs to be addressed; but we have had all of these voter suppression laws enacted that are consistent with the ghosts of the Confederacy and what those folks stood for who were waving the Confederate battle flag in opposition to the changes of the fifties and sixties. What shocks me is that even the Supreme Court has gotten into the act by decimating the section 5 preclearance through claiming that section 4 is outdated, and this House refuses to act on fixing the Voting Rights Act. I would argue that--again, consistent with our democracy and the spirit of coming together--that, perhaps, that is one of the things we can address so that we can take down, on the one hand, the divisive symbol of hatred--the Confederate battle flag--from here in this Capitol and in whatever form it hangs all across America so that we can lift up policies that make Americans safer, policies that are consistent with our values and that everyone--White, Black, Latino, Asian, Democrats, and Republicans--should be able to rally around. I am thankful for Congresswoman Kelly's and Congressman Payne's leadership--this wonderful tandem, R. Kelly and D. Payne, who are tremendous advocates here in the Congress--and for their giving me this opportunity to share these thoughts.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, had this Confederate battle flag prevailed in war 150 years ago, I would not be standing here today as a Member of the United States Congress. I would be here as a slave. Over the last 150 years, we have made tremendous progress in this country, but we still have a long way to go. As the tragic events in Charleston, South Carolina, illustrated, when nine God-fearing, churchgoing African American citizens were killed by a White supremacist, there is much work that needs to be done to eradicate the cancer of racial hatred. When Dylann Roof committed this act of domestic terror, his emblem was the Confederate battle flag. Later on today we are going to have a vote on the legitimacy of this flag. On Tuesday, it appeared that House Republicans were prepared to do the right thing in support of three amendments to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the purchase, sale, or display of the Confederate battle flag on National Park Service land. But less than 24 hours later, House Republicans reversed course in the dead of night under cover of darkness to introduce an amendment supporting the Confederate battle flag, which is nothing more than a symbol of racial hatred and oppression. There are some in this House who have made the argument that the Confederate battle flag is about heritage and tradition. I am perplexed. What exactly is the tradition of the Confederate battle flag that we are supporting? Is it slavery? Rape? Kidnap? Treason? Genocide? Or all of the above. The Confederate battle flag is nothing more than a symbol of racial hatred and oppression. And I stand here with chills next to it because the red in this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by Africans who were killed when attempted to be kidnapped and thrown into the institution of slavery. The red on this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by millions of Africans who died during the Middle Passage when being transported from Africa to America. The red on this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by African American slaves who were beaten, raped, lynched, and killed here in America as a result of the institution of slavery. What exactly is the tradition the Confederate battle flag represents? We were sent here as leaders to make decisions on the morality of America. And where we are, notwithstanding our painful history and the legacy of slavery, we have an opportunity today to make a definitive statement to be leaders, not individuals who cower in fear of some narrow-minded Americans who aren't aware that the South lost the war 150 years ago. Let's choose racial progress over racial poison. Let's choose harmony over historic amnesia. Let's choose togetherness over treason. Let's come together not as Democrats or Republicans, not as Whites or Blacks, not as northerners or southerners. Let's come together as Americans and vote down the Calvert amendment and relegate the Confederate battle flag to the dustbin of history, which is where it belongs.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds made available to the National Park Service by this Act for the purchase or display of a Confederate flag with the exception of specific circumstances when such flags provide historical context as set forth by the National Park Service in their memo to all park superintendents, dated June 24, 2015. The National Park Service has jurisdiction over operation of the National Park System, associated sites such as national heritage areas, and various State grant accounts. In light of recent events, the display of the Confederate flag has been at the forefront of discussion throughout our Nation. This amendment is consistent with a bipartisan effort across the country to promote harmony and not division in this great Nation. On June 17, we were all shocked by the heinous massacre that took the lives of nine God-fearing African American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina. This act of domestic terror was carried out by an individual who idolized the Confederate flag and harbored racist beliefs, calling for a return to the human subjugation of others on the basis of race. Unfortunately, that same Confederate flag flew on the grounds of the State capitol amidst the funeral of a State senator and dedicated pastor who taught that we are all God's children at the historic Emanuel AME Church. We have come a long way in America, but we still have a long way to go in our march toward a more perfect Union. The cancer of racial hatred continues to adversely impact our society, and people of good will must unite to eradicate it. Limiting the use of Federal funds connected to the purchase or display of the Confederate flag is an important step in that direction. Earlier today, lawmakers in South Carolina from both sides of the aisle came together to support removing the Confederate battle flag from their State capitol grounds. This evening, the United States House of Representatives has the opportunity to further limit the public display of this divisive symbol that is so closely associated with defense of the institution of slavery. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration. For the aforementioned reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 116th birthday of Ms. Susannah Mushatt Jones, who is affectionately called Miss Susie. Confirmed by Guinness World Records as the world's oldest living person, she is a beloved member of the Brooklyn community I am proud to represent in Congress. In recognition of her birthday, Miss Susie will be honored on July 7, 2015 at the Vandalia Senior Center in Brooklyn, NY. We revel not just the years since her birth, but the history she has witnessed in three separate centuries. From experiencing segregation in the South to being a first-hand witness of the Civil Rights movement in New York, we commemorate her birthday with awe and inspiration. Miss Susie was born into a large, loving family on July 6, 1899 in Lowndes County, Alabama as the third of eleven children. In 1923 she moved to New York as part of the Great Migration of African Americans from the rural South to cities in the North, Midwest, and West. Miss Susie dedicated her professional pursuits to children, first as a school teacher and then as a childcare provider. At one point, she moved to Hollywood to work for a family in the film industry. During her time on the west coast, she enjoyed socializing with movie stars and attending movie premieres. She fondly remembers meeting Ronald Reagan, Clark Gable, and Cary Grant. Family has always surrounded Miss Susie: she takes great delight in being an aunt to over 100 nieces and nephews. Throughout her life, she has brightened many lives with her positive attitude and infectious laugh. She resides in Vandalia Houses and was an active member of the Vandalia Houses Senior Center tenant patrol through her 100th birthday. Miss Susie credits her healthy lifestyle free of smoking and drinking for her longevity. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in celebrating Ms. Susannah Mushatt Jones on her 116th birthday.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats continue to try to move this country forward, but the Republican majority continues to try to turn back the clock. The effort to eradicate the Export-Import Bank is just another example of a reckless act of legislative malpractice. First, House Republicans shut down the government for 16 days, costing the American people $24 billion in lost economic productivity. Then House Republicans attempted to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, risking the safety of the American people. Now House Republicans want to shut down the Export-Import Bank, risking tens of thousands of jobs for hard-working Americans. What is your addiction to shutting things down? The American people want us to lift them up, and the best way we can do it right now is to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania for their willingness to work together on this very important issue in terms of the preservation of the attorney-client privilege in the detainee context and look forward to working with the two of them and Members of this august body to resolve this issue. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member from Pennsylvania, for his leadership. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds in connection with the monitoring or review of electronic communications between an inmate detainee and his or her attorney or attorney's agents who are traditionally covered by the attorney-client privilege, except in circumstances where reasonable suspicion exists that a particular inmate's communications with attorneys or their agents may be designed to further or facilitate acts of terrorism. This amendment is designed to protect the legally sacrosanct attorney-client privilege. It would protect the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of individuals who are using electronic communications to share privileged information with their designated court advocate. The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges in American jurisprudence. It is intended to encourage the full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote the broader public interests in the observance of the law and the administration of justice. It, of course, is anchored in the Sixth Amendment. Currently, in-person attorney visitations in facilities that are run by the Bureau of Prisons can take place in attorney-client rooms which provide the privacy to share information necessary for a lawyer to adequately defend his or her client in court. However, this is not the case for correspondence collected through electronic means. Waiver notices in Federal prisons vary from facility to facility, with some having clearly posted notices which state that by using the Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System, otherwise known as TRULINCS, inmates are waiving their privilege rights. Other facilities, however, provide no indication on the level of privacy that a detained individual can expect when using electronic prison resources. The TRULINCS system also does not provide an option for a detained individual who hasn't been convicted to contact his or her attorney without subjecting electronic communications to external review. The reading and collecting of privileged information in instances where clients are having electronic exchanges with their attorneys is a clear invasion of the traditional attorney-client privilege. In this great country, there is a presumption of innocence, as one of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, has eloquently set forth. It is a foundational principle of our democracy. It seems unreasonable to require in the 21st century that protection of the attorney-client privilege at a detention center only occurs through in-person visitation. These correctional facilities are often located in distant locations that cannot be easily accessed. We live in an era of modern technology and communication. The technology is available in these facilities, and our laws should reflect and adapt to the modern age. This amendment would prohibit the prison system from compromising the attorney-client privilege, as anchored in the Sixth Amendment constitutional right to assistance of counsel. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois, Robin Kelly, for yielding, for her very generous introduction, and certainly to my good friend and classmate, Donald Payne, for co-anchoring this Special Order. And as well, I want to acknowledge the presence of distinguished Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California for her continued eloquence and contribution on such a significant issue. I really count it an honor and a privilege to once again have the opportunity to come to the House floor to participate in this Special Order hour, this CBC hour of power, co-anchored by the dynamic duo of D. Payne and R. Kelly. We really appreciate their continued involvement, eloquence, and leadership in helping to articulate for the American people, as part of this conversation that we are able to have periodically, the issues of great importance to the African American community, but issues that I believe are also of great importance to the broader American community. Poverty is an issue that certainly impacts the city of Newark that Congressman Payne represents, the city of Oakland that Barbara Lee represents, the city of Chicago that Congresswoman Kelly represents, and part of the city of New York that I represent in part. Even though the ZIP Codes for those four particular municipalities may be different, the issues of lack of economic community opportunity, of course, are largely the same. Far too many people do not robustly have an opportunity to pursue the American Dream in a manner that is consistent with what America is supposed to be, a place where, if you just work hard and stay on the right path, you have an opportunity to lift yourself up out of the station that you may have been born into in life. But we know, unfortunately, that race seems to play a role in that capacity to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. In fact, while one in three Whites who find themselves in poverty have the ability, it appears, to elevate themselves out of it--and those numbers may even be a little higher--only one in five African Americans appear to have the capacity to lift themselves out of an impoverished condition that they find themselves in. Why that is the case is something that I think we need to be able to explore, because regardless of race, it should be a matter of fact here in America that everyone has got a chance to be able to provide for their families to live a middle class lifestyle. Now, the interesting thing that I found upon my arrival here at the Congress is that issues related to poverty really shouldn't be a Black issue or a White issue, a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It shouldn't be an urban issue or a rural issue. It is an American issue. In fact, when you look at what has often been defined as persistently poor counties, counties where 20 percent of the population have been below the Federal poverty line for 30 or more years, more of those persistently poor counties are actually represented in this wonderful body by Republicans than by Democrats. So for the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out why we have not been able to come together and find common ground to deal with the problem of poverty in America, because this is not some narrow constituent issue that those of us in the Congressional Black Caucus happen to have and our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't experiencing in terms of the people that they represent. This is actually an issue that needs to be addressed by everybody. So I am hopeful that as we stand on this House floor, as we extend our hands out in partnership to the other side of the aisle, that we can begin to deal with some of these issues, like, for instance, giving America a raise. For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out why we would essentially endorse a policy, a minimum wage standard that means you can work full-time, 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and still, when raising a family of three or four, live below the Federal poverty line. Why aren't we making work pay in America? Now, we are seeing that places like Los Angeles that recently raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour are leading the way at the local level, and I guess that makes sense. Brandeis once said that State government, local governments, are laboratories of democracy, and here I found that the House is probably more like the lion's den of democracy. But it seems to me that we should be able to figure out a pathway toward dealing with some commonsense solutions to dealing with the economic problems that face everyday Americans, like investing in research and development, investing in education and job training, investing in technology and innovation, investing in transportation and infrastructure, and investing in the American worker in a way that makes sense because the deck has been stacked against him, the African American worker or the individual within the African American community that is desperately trying to seek work. We are suffering from double-digit unemployment in this recovery. When other communities seem to have been able to get back on track and our unemployment numbers are still higher than the collective number during the Great Recession, that is a scandal. We should all have a problem with that. But the deck generally is stacked against the American worker. Since the early 1970s, the productivity of the American worker has increased in excess of 275 percent. American workers have been more productive over the last 40-plus years, yet during that same time period, wages have increased less than 10 percent. They have remained stagnant. The deck is stacked. The increase in productivity of the American worker has gone to the privileged few, and we have seen that that has continued during this recovery where corporate profits are way up, the stockmarket is way up, and CEO compensation is way up, but people in the African American community and others are still struggling to be able to recover from the devastating impact that the collapse of the economy had on our community and on many communities throughout America. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my good friends for raising the issue, for once again standing before the American people to address this great issue of significance. We were all in recess over the last few days back at home, spread across the country, but now we have come back. We are here for 4 conservative weeks to do the people's business, and I am hopeful we can figure out a way to deal with a laser-like focus the problems confronting the persistently poor and those who are in the middle class or trying to become part of the great American middle class.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, there must be a balance between effective national security protection on the one hand and a healthy respect for privacy and civil liberties interests on the other. This is a balance that traces all the way back to the founding of the Republic. It is rooted most prominently in the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution, in the Fourth Amendment. Yet, in its zeal to protect the homeland, our national security apparatus overreached into the lives of everyday, hard-working Americans in a manner that was inconsistent with our traditional notions of privacy and civil liberties. This overreach was unnecessary, unacceptable, and unconstitutional. By ending bulk collection through section 215, we have taken a substantial step in the right direction toward restoring the balance. More must be done, but I am going to support this legislation because of the meaningful effort that has been made to help strike the appropriate balance.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Orleans for his thoughtful and eloquent exposition of the situation and for pointing out that, while this is not an easy conversation for us to have around the police's use of excessive force, often resulting in the deaths of unarmed individuals such as Walter Scott and Eric Garner, it is a necessary one if we are going to continue our march toward a more perfect Union. I now yield to another distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, who has taken an active role within the Congressional Black Caucus and beyond to introduce progressive pieces of legislation that are designed to address this problem. He is the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Representative Hank Johnson.

Mr. JEFFRIES. The gentleman raised a very important point that I want to make sure is not lost, and then I certainly look forward to you articulating some of the things you have been working on in terms of legislative proposals. But most of us, most folks in America do believe that police officers generally are entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the context of a police encounter because of the inherent dangerousness of what law enforcement officers do. Certainly the former mayor of the city of New York famously said--this is Rudolph Giuliani: In every case, I am going to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. But there is peril in the misapplication of that standard because if it goes too far, as the gentleman points out, there are some who believe that even if I cross the line, there will be no accountability. And in this particular case what was so chilling about the video, after Walter Scott is gunned down, is that this officer, not knowing that this entire encounter was covered on video, felt that he could drop something next to the body of Walter Scott and presumably, in his mind, that would be part of the narrative that he would use to get himself exonerated because he understood that he would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. In the absence of video, in this particular case he could potentially have gotten away with murder. So I thank the gentleman for raising that point. We have got to have a real conversation. In America, yes, the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are hard-working individuals dedicated to protecting and serving; but there is a problem with the misapplication of the benefit of the doubt standard in every instance because, in the absence of video, you may allow some officers who have crossed the line to get away with being held unaccountable. That is a terrible thing for justice and for encouraging proper behavior moving forward. I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank Representative Johnson for raising a very important point. This is a difficult conversation. I understand it. It is not easy to have a conversation about law enforcement conduct that crosses the line into illegality, but we have got to ask the question: Is there a blue wall of silence that exists such that good officers who observe inappropriate conduct engaged in by bad officers are afraid to speak the truth about encounters that take place that cross the line? If, in fact, there is this blue wall of silence, I ask the question: How can that be good for our democracy when it means that a victim of police violence in most instances will never get equal protection under the law consistent with the 14th Amendment because of this almost impenetrable blue wall of silence? As we have this conversation about what we are going to do about police violence, it should be a Democratic conversation and a Republican conversation, a Black, a White, a Latino, and an Asian conversation, a blue State conversation--it happened in New York--a red State conversation--it happened in South Carolina. This is an American problem. I thank the distinguished gentleman for raising this issue. It is a difficult one, but we weren't sent here to the United States Congress to run away from difficult issues when it is impacting the people we represent. We have got to run toward difficult issues and try to confront them.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his continued leadership and involvement in this issue in trying to bring about resolution. As we prepare to close, let me, again, make clear that, in my view and the view of, I believe, many throughout this body and across this country, we know that the police officers--the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officials--go to work every day trying to do the right thing. It is a difficult job; but, because you have the capacity to take a life, we have got to make sure that, when you exercise deadly force, that it is deployed only in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary, not a choke hold resulting in the strangulation of someone who is selling untaxed cigarettes, who pleads for his life 11 times and is killed on video for all of his six children to see. We don't want to see deadly force used when someone who has been tased is running away. The Supreme Court said in 1985 that you can't use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. Walter Scott wasn't even a felon. He stopped him because he had a broken taillight. We just want to make sure that, in America, there is a balance between effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for the Constitution and for civil rights and for equal protection under the law for everyone on the other. That is our objective. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey for her very eloquent and passionate remarks. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we clearly have to grapple with in this country is the fact that the criminal justice system is broken, and there are many components to that. We have got a situation in which far too often a police officer crosses the line, engages in unlawful conduct, and is not held accountable for that conduct. What kind of incentive does that create for good conduct to take place moving forward if, in the overwhelming majority of instances when police officers cross the line, such as in the Eric Garner case, a grand jury or a local prosecutor will often fail to hold them accountable? The other problem that we have got to address is of overcriminalization in America, of mass incarceration. If you look at some of these encounters that have taken place and that have gone wrong and that have resulted in tragedy, they often have begun with what was, really, overly aggressive, unnecessary policing strategy being deployed to tackle, at best, nuisance-like activity. Eric Garner is dead today because he was selling loose cigarettes, and someone at One Police Plaza gave the order to aggressively police this activity. Crime is down in New York, but there are still a couple hundred homicides committed every year. There is still some gang activity. There are still some assaults taking place. But we want to use police resources to aggressively go after someone who is selling loose, untaxed cigarettes? That is an overcriminalization problem connected to broken windows policing. Walter Scott is dead today because he had a broken taillight. Four children are without a father because Walter Scott had a broken taillight. We have got to evaluate this overly aggressive policing strategy connected to the phenomenon of mass incarceration. I am pleased to have had the opportunity in this Congress to have worked closely with someone who is one of the leaders in the House of Representatives and in the Capitol in dealing with our broken criminal justice system and who works closely with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz and others, who are interested in trying to figure out, collectively, how we can make America a fairer, more efficient place in terms of our criminal justice system. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Louisiana, who represents the wonderful city of New Orleans. We refer to him, of course, as the ``franchise'' because of his prolific baseball abilities, but he is also one of the most talented legislators here in the Capitol. I yield to my good friend, the Honorable Cedric Richmond.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, for his eloquent articulation, both of the history of police violence and oppressive laws and statutes done on the color of State law designed to undermine the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law, as well as for suggesting some of the things that we can consider doing to improve this situation, one of which will be to make sure that we capture police encounters on video in a manner that benefits all involved so we can have a real understanding of what took place during the encounter. New York City has begun an experimental program placing body cameras in a few of the precincts throughout New York City, including the 75th precinct in the east New York community that I represent. In talking to the commander of the precinct, the officers, while many were initially skeptical, eventually embraced the presence of body cameras for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it often defuses an aggressive encounter because the officers, upon approaching a situation when they are wearing a body camera, are now required to say to the individual citizens they are confronting: This confrontation or this exchange is going to be recorded. What the officers have found is that, in many instances, that will defuse a situation that otherwise might go in the other direction. Body cameras are something that should be considered. In fact, many law enforcement officers in departments across the country who have gone down this road have embraced it as technology that benefits the law enforcement community, in addition, of course, to making sure justice takes place when a police officer crosses the line. It is now my distinct privilege to yield to a new member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as the House of Representatives, who has already distinguished herself in terms of being a passionate advocate for justice and for progressive change in this country. That is the gentlewoman from the Garden State right next door to New York, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, once again, we are moved and compelled to come to the House floor to deal with the seemingly unending problem of police violence in America. Over the last year, we have seen a parade of horribles, examples of police violence caught on video for all of America to see. We are compelled to ask the question: What more does Congress need to see in order to understand that we have got a problem that requires Democrats and Republicans, people in the House and the Senate, working in partnership with the President to address? I certainly am of the view that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are hard-working individuals who are there to protect and serve their community; but how can we continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that police violence all across America essentially has presented an epidemic of injustice that we have got to deal with in a free and democratic society? What more does the Congress need to see? We have seen 12-year-old Tamir Rice gunned down by a police officer in what many view as a driveby shooting. Tamir Rice didn't present any danger to the officer who simply pulled up and really, without warning, shot him dead to the ground, based on a call that had been made that someone seemed to have a toy gun. Of course, in New York City, Eric Garner was strangled to death with the use of a choke hold employed by a police officer, despite the fact that, for the previous 20 years, choke holds had been unauthorized as part of the policy of the NYPD. Eleven different times, Eric Garner, a father of six, said that he couldn't breathe, and on 11 different occasions, the officers who were there failed to respond to Mr. Garner's pleas for help. As a result, he was killed on a New York City street for all the world to see; then a grand jury fails to indict even on simple assault. Now, of course, we have got the tragedy of Walter Scott, someone who was killed running away from a police officer after having been tased. It is not clear to me that, if a courageous bystander hadn't captured that incident on video, the officer responsible for killing Walter Scott may be patrolling the streets of South Carolina today. What more does Congress need to see to realize that we have got a problem that needs to be addressed? Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that several of my colleagues in government are here, including the assistant Democratic leader, who has got a tremendous history of combating injustice before he got to Congress and his two decades-plus in serving the people of South Carolina in Congress. Let me yield to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of South Carolina, the assistant Democratic leader, James Clyburn. (Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JEFFRIES

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

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first thank Chairman Ryan for his leadership and his support in bringing this important legislation, the Slain Officer Family Support Act of 2015, to the floor of the House of Representatives. Let me also thank my good friend, the lead Republican cosponsor, Representative Peter King, for his partnership on this bill, which is of great importance to the people of New York, as well as law enforcement throughout the entire Nation. It is an honor and a privilege for me to represent the Eighth Congressional District in New York City, proud home of the New York Police Department, one of the finest in the world. On December 20, 2014, unspeakable tragedy struck the Bedford Stuyvesant community that I represent. While sitting in their marked patrol car, Detectives Wen Jian Liu and Rafael Ramos were approached from behind and, without warning, assassinated at pointblank range through the passenger side window. Liu and Ramos, both Brooklyn residents, had been assigned to patrol the Tompkins public housing development in Bedford Stuyvesant as part of a ``critical-response detail'' responding to an increase in violence over the previous year. They volunteered to be there as part of their willingness to protect and serve the people of New York City. They were killed simply for wearing that blue uniform. Detective Liu, age 32, who moved to Brooklyn's Gravesend section earlier that year, was the only son of Chinese American immigrants and came to the United States with his family at the age of 12. He is survived by his parents and his new wife, whom he just married a month prior to that fateful day. Committed to his adopted New York City, Mr. Liu was inspired to become a police officer after witnessing the attacks on September 11. After studying at both Kingsboro Community College and the College of Staten Island, he joined the auxiliary police in 2006 and in 2007 graduated from the police academy. Detective Liu served as a New York Police Department officer for 7 years. Detective Ramos, a 2-year veteran of the NYPD, had recently celebrated his 40th birthday. He was a lifelong Brooklyn resident. He was committed to his community and active in his church in Glendale, Queens. Rafael Ramos first served as a school safety agent before realizing his longtime dream of becoming a police officer in January 2012. He then decided that he also wanted to become a police chaplain. He spent 10 weeks studying to get his certification. His chaplain class was scheduled to graduate at 4 p.m. on the day he was killed. Detective Ramos had intended on going into full-time ministry after retiring from the New York Police Department. He is survived by his wife and two sons, Jaden, 13, and Justin, a 19- year-old college student. Throughout New York and across this Nation, there was an outpouring of love and support for these two men and the families that they left behind. Under current law, individuals contributing to organizations that provide financial support to the families of the slain detectives were required to make their contributions by December 31 of last year in order to qualify for a tax deduction in connection with a 2015 filing. Those officers were assassinated on December 20. This bill extends the date of eligibility. Upon enactment, charitable contributions made by this year's April 15 tax deadline would be deductible immediately. The Joint Committee on Taxation has scored the bill as having a negligible budgetary impact of $500,000 or less over 10 years. It is similar, as Chairman Ryan pointed out, to legislation this Congress passed in 2014 and in 2010 in the wake of natural disasters in the Philippines and Haiti. The assassinations of Detective Ramos and Detective Liu were a national tragedy that shocked the conscience of America and shook New York City to its core. In the aftermath, we cannot forget the families left behind when these two brave heroes were killed tragically in the line of duty. As part of that effort, this legislation will take a significant step in that direction. Let me again thank Chairman Ryan and Representative King, as well as the other cosponsors of the bill, for their support in bringing this legislation to the floor. For these reasons, I respectfully urge my colleagues in the House to support H.R. 1527, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Kelly from the great State of Illinois, for, once again, presiding over this CBC Special Order, this opportunity for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to speak directly to the American people for 60 minutes on matters of great importance. Mr. Speaker, certainly, members of the Congressional Black Caucus recognize the strength, the vitality, the intelligence, and the importance of African American women to the African American experience in this great country--in fact, to the American experience. Consistently, it has been black women who have fought hard to bring American democracy to life, to continue the march to perfect a more perfect Union. I think often of the role that Harriet Tubman played--a bold, fearless woman who managed to free herself from the horrific bondage of slavery in the South and make it to the North but who then decided, at great sacrifice to her own potential well-being, to go back down South an additional 19 times, freeing more than 200 black slaves. I also find it fascinating that, when Harriet Tubman once was asked about her heroics--who spent many of her final years in New York--was dismissive. She said: ``I could have freed more if they only knew that they were slaves.'' I think Harriet Tubman gave us some words of wisdom that can serve many communities all across the country today that are still struggling to deal with social and economic injustice. She said: ``I could have freed more if they only knew that they were slaves.'' Sometimes, we have folks who remain trapped in their own circumstances because they have a mindset issue. Harriet Tubman helped to perfect our democracy. Mentioned earlier by some of my distinguished colleagues were some of the other contributions that were made during the civil rights struggle, and there were many African American women who haven't always gotten the credit for playing a leading role in the civil rights movement--designed, again, to help perfect American democracy--dealing with Jim Crow and racial segregation in the South and in many parts of this country. I think it was Fannie Lou Hamer who famously said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired,'' when asked why she stepped forward at great sacrifice to herself. I think there are still a lot of Americans in many parts of this country, when it comes to the prison industrial complex, when it comes to the problem of the police's use of excessive force, and when it comes to the issue of income inequality, who still draw inspiration from Fannie Lou Hamer's words of being sick and tired of being sick and tired. Now, I also stand here today as someone who proudly represents the Eighth Congressional District in New York, a district that in part was once represented by the Honorable Shirley Chisholm. Of course, great women in the Congress today like Joyce Beatty and Robin Kelly and Marcia Fudge and others stand on Shirley Chisholm's shoulders. She was the first African American woman ever elected to the House of Representatives in 1968. I am proud to represent part of the district that she once served. She was one of Brooklyn's gifts to this country and, in fact, to the world. I am struggling today because, here again, Brooklyn is once again prepared to share some of our tremendous human capital and wealth with this great country in the form of Loretta Lynch, by way of North Carolina. For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out what the holdup is, why it is so difficult for Senate Republicans and for the majority simply to hold a vote so we can confirm Loretta Lynch as the Nation's chief law enforcement executive. We have heard every excuse in the book as to why Loretta Lynch is twisting in the wind, and none of them are legitimate. I don't want Loretta Lynch to be confirmed because she would be the first African American woman to serve as our Nation's Attorney General leading the Department of Justice; I want her confirmed because she is the best qualified person for the job. Don't trust me, Hakeem Jeffries from Brooklyn. Rudolph Giuliani, of all people, the great law and order mayor of New York City, former Federal prosecutor, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and many, many others--Democrats, Republicans, people from the North, the South, the East, and the West-- have all said Loretta Lynch is a talented law enforcement professional and the right person for the job at this particular point in time. What in the world is the holdup? I can't figure it out. Is it a problem with her personal background? Let's see. She is the daughter of a school librarian and a Baptist preacher. That can't be the issue. What is the holdup? Is there a problem with her legal education? I don't think so. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School. What is the problem? Does she not have enough law enforcement experience? She is practically a career Federal prosecutor, who clearly has the ability to allow the law and the facts dictate her decisionmaking process. Is there an issue that she hasn't been adequately vetted? Well, she has actually been unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, not once but twice, to be the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. I think she has been vetted. Well, is it that the Senate doesn't have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as Mitch McConnell indicated? We have got to deal with other matters. Other matters? I don't get it. She has been waiting longer than the five previous Attorney General nominees, combined, since being voted out of the Committee on the Judiciary. We need all hands on deck. There are terrorists all across the world who want to strike the United States of America, and we are holding up the chief law enforcement officer of this country? Then we hear the excuse: Well, we don't like her position on the President's executive action on immigration. You don't like her position? She is the President's nominee. What position do you expect her to have? That is not even a legitimate argument because you had no problem confirming Ash Carter to be the Secretary of the Department of Defense, and my good friends on the other side of the aisle on the other side of the Capitol are obsessing about two things: the President's executive action on immigration as well as the President's negotiations with Iran along with, or as part of, the P5+1. Ash Carter presumably supports those negotiations. You can't stand them so much so that you even wrote to the Iranian mullahs. I mean, that should shock the conscience of the American people. You can't stand the Iranian negotiations, but you didn't hold up Ash Carter's nomination. So for the life of me, I am trying to go through a process of elimination to figure out what is the reason that you have held up Loretta Lynch's nomination. What is the reason? Why are we waiting so long? You have got to come up with a good answer to the fact that she is being treated like a second-class citizen. Unfortunately, as we go down the checklist of excuses that you have provided, not a single one of them hold up. So I am just hopeful over the next couple of days, as we bring Women's History Month to a close, that you will have the decency to do what is right for the American people and allow Loretta Lynch to have an up-or-down vote so we can finally allow democracy to flourish in what allegedly is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Allow democracy to flourish; give Loretta Lynch a vote so we can get back to doing the real business of the American people.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats are trying to move the country forward, but the House Republican budget is designed to turn back the clock. Instead of trying to take a balanced approach to dealing with our Nation's fiscal problems, the House Republican budget seeks to balance itself on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, young Americans, college students, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. Instead of trying to promote progress for everyone, the House Republican budget seeks to enact policies designed to simply benefit the privileged few. It is a regressive, a retrograde, and an irresponsible Republican budget, and it should be soundly rejected. It does not add a single middle class job. It does not increase a single middle class paycheck. It does not help a single middle class family send its child to college. Mr. Speaker, I am urging that the House soundly reject this reckless Republican budget.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding, and of course I want to thank Congresswoman Kelly and Congressman Payne for their wonderful leadership in creating this opportunity for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to speak directly to the American people on an issue of great significance, the justice system generally, but specifically, the urgent need to confirm Loretta Lynch as our next Attorney General. Let me say parenthetically that it feels good to be in the presence of my two classmates, R. Kelly and D. Payne. I feel like I am in the midst of celebrity. Certainly, they have done a tremendous job in calling us all together. We have got a serious issue that we need this Capitol to confront. In the midst of terrorists who are all across the world who want to strike at our homeland, not only are we dealing with a dynamic where some in the House of Representatives refuse to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security because of an unnecessary obsession with the President's executive action on immigration--let me note, of course, though individuals may differ on its legality, every President since Dwight Eisenhower has taken executive action on immigration. It has occurred 39 times since the 1950s. President Eisenhower did it; President Nixon did it. President Ford did it; President Reagan did it; President George Herbert Walker Bush did it; and President George W. Bush did it. Every President since Eisenhower has taken executive action to provide some form of immigration relief. But, of course, when President Obama steps forward to deal with our Nation's current problems, a constitutional crisis has been provoked. What also seems to be interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the effort to address the issues that some may have with President Obama's executive action has crossed over into trying to stop, delay, and obstruct Loretta Lynch from becoming our Nation's next Attorney General. Some over on the Senate side have even said as such: Well, we are concerned that she has got a supportive attitude as it relates to President Obama's executive action. Well, many of my good friends on the other side of the aisle are so- called strict constructionists. They believe in the sanctity of original intent as it relates to the Constitution. Well, the Constitution had an article I legislative branch, an article II executive branch, and an article III judicial branch. And the Founders suggested that if there are issues that need to be worked out, it is the court's job to do it. So there is a lawsuit right now pending in Texas challenging the legality and the constitutionality of the President's executive action on immigration. Let the courts do their job. Stop holding hostage our Nation's safety and security, and stop holding hostage the confirmation of Loretta Lynch. If you take a look at her resume, no reasonable person could argue that she is not exquisitely qualified. Her resume reads like the American Dream: a Southern girl born in North Carolina, raised by a school librarian mother and a Baptist preacher father. She excelled in her elementary and high school studies so much so that she went off to college at Harvard University and then got a law degree from that same institution, one of the best law schools in the world. She then joined a high-powered litigation law firm in New York, excelled there, but then after several years took, I believe, what was a 75 percent cut in salary and left the private sector so she could go work as a Federal prosecutor and do some good. In that office, she quickly rose through the ranks, tried high- profile cases in the rough and tumble of New York City with grace and with dignity, always making sure that she was guided by the law and the facts--not politics, drama, and hyperbole. Loretta Lynch was confirmed twice, I believe, by the United States Senate unanimously. The American people recognize that this is a Congress that can't agree on basic things, yet unanimously Loretta Lynch has been confirmed twice as the lead prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York. By the way, she is a proud Brooklyn resident now, and I had the honor and privilege of representing Ms. Lynch when I was in the State legislature. She has excelled as the consummate law enforcement professional. She is fair, she is equitable, she is tough, and she is just. So we are here today simply to say it is time to confirm her. The President has made the observation: You can't stand Eric Holder. The easiest way to get rid of him is to confirm Loretta Lynch. What is the hold up? Allow her to take the helm over these final 20 or so months so that we have some stability at the all-important Department of Justice. We need all hands on deck right now as it relates to the war on terror. We need the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security. We have got to be correct 100 percent of the time. Terrorists only have to be right once. It seems to me that if you have a confirmation pending of a clearly qualified individual to head the Department of Justice, the responsible thing to do is to act, and to act now. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my good friends R. Kelly and D. Payne for giving me this opportunity to spend a few moments on behalf of a tremendous Brooklynite, by way of North Carolina, who is clearly qualified to be our Nation's next Attorney General. It is time to bring the confirmation to the floor and to allow her to serve the American people.