Hakeem Jeffries

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York. We are here today to do a single job, and that should be to fund fully the Department of Homeland Security. Anything else is an abdication of our responsibility. Anything else is an act of legislative malpractice simply because of the inability of my friends on the other side of the aisle to satisfy the thirst of the extreme rightwing anti-immigration base of the party. So we are playing political games at a time when the safety and the security of the American people are being threatened. I know that all too well, Mr. Speaker, because earlier this week the FBI uncovered a plot in Brooklyn in the communities that I represent where individuals sought to impart bombs to the Coney Island neighborhood that I represent. And yet we are here playing games, government by crisis. This, of course, is nothing new: fiscal cliff, sequestration, 16-day government shutdown in October of 2013, a flirtation with defaulting on our debt, and now we want to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because my friends on the other side of the aisle can't get their act together. We need all hands on deck right now, Mr. Speaker. That means the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security working together. Why would we want to either shut the Department down or create a level of uncertainty where people within the Department of Homeland Security are distracted when we know that the terrorists only have to be right once and where we have to be correct 100 percent of the time in order to protect the American people? You claim to be strict constructionists as it relates to the Constitution. We have an article I legislative branch, an article II executive branch, and an article III judicial branch. The Founders said if there is a conflict, if you have got concerns, if you have got constitutional issues, then let the judicial branch work it out. That is what is going on right now. We should be doing our job instead of taking the American people on another reckless legislative joyride that is simply going to crash and burn, this time affecting the safety and security of the American people. They want us to focus on good-paying jobs. They want us to focus on retirement security, higher education affordability, better childcare, strengthening the middle class and all those who aspire to be part of it. They want us to further the American Dream. But we are here playing games with their safety and security. It is a shame. Let's get back to doing the business of the American people. Vote down this rule, and vote down the underlying 3-week reckless extension.

Mr. JEFFRIES

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

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of a modest change to H.R. 5 that would amend relevant portions of the Student Success Act related to technology to include education about the harms of copyright piracy. This amendment is designed to encourage local educational agencies, teachers, educational staff, and parents to discuss the harms of copyright piracy, as well as the use of technology in a responsible fashion. In the absence of classroom instruction about the importance of intellectual property, as well as the harms of copyright piracy at the elementary and secondary school level, young people are often unaware of the boundaries established in law to prevent the illegal infringement of copyrighted content. Research suggests that in order to uphold the societal value of respect for intellectual property, individuals must learn or be introduced to this principle at an early age. This mission, of course, is anchored in the United States constitutional charge to Congress to protect intellectual property. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution says: The Congress shall have power 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. We have an article I responsibility as Members of Congress to insure that creators and innovators are not robbed of the fruits of their labor. Technology, of course, is a wonderful thing, and it is the way of the future. It is an important tool, and we must ensure that our students are using it in a safe and responsible fashion or, certainly, at least, provide our local educational stakeholders the opportunity to disseminate information in a manner that they see fit. In the classroom, children are currently taught that plagiarism is an ethical violation of academic honesty. This amendment will hopefully facilitate the extension of this discussion into the digital era. To that end, we must help our local schools and parents be given the tools necessary to proactively educate, to the extent that they see fit, information about the unforeseen impact on copyright piracy, the importance of intellectual property, and its connection, of course, to the American economy. A variety of bipartisan stakeholders support this amendment, including the educational organizations such as CreativeFuture, as well as the Copyright Alliance, the Recording Industry Association of America, the National Music Publishers' Association, the Songwriters Guild of America, the Authors Guild, The Association of American Publishers, as well as The Recording Academy. Intellectual property protection is a foundation of the American economy. Our continued prosperity, at least in part, depends on protecting the innovation and the creative output of artists, musicians, scientists, and engineers and insuring that the next generation of creators could flourish as well. Thus, it is important to recognize the vital role that education can play in helping the future leaders of America understand the value of the American creative community and protect the significant sector for future generations. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this modest amendment. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, in less than 2 days, House Republicans are prepared to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, threatening the safety of the American people. At home, there is a noted and beloved philosopher by the name of Yogi Berra, who once said, ``It's like deja vu all over again.'' And once more, House Republicans are taking the American people on another reckless, unnecessary, irresponsible legislative joy ride, guaranteed to crash and burn. You did it first in October of 2013 by shutting down the government for 16 days, crashing and burning parts of the American economy, costing us $24 billion in lost economic productivity. Now you are prepared to crash and burn the safety and the security of the American people. Why would you contemplate, Mr. Speaker, such a reckless action, particularly at a time when there are terrorists all across the world who want to kill Americans, including, as recently uncovered, three terrorists at home in New York determined, apparently, to bomb parts of the Coney Island district I represent? Why would you contemplate shutting down the Department of Homeland Security at this moment--or at any moment--simply to satisfy the rightwing thirst of the anti- immigration faction of your party? Let me pause there parenthetically for a moment. Because they seem to have concluded that this President exceeded his authority when he issued an executive action providing immigration relief, notwithstanding the fact that every President since Dwight Eisenhower has taken executive action to provide some form of immigration relief. 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. President George W. Bush did it. But when President Obama issues an executive action to provide immigration relief to fit these times, all of a sudden, we have got a constitutional crisis. Now, perhaps reasonable people can disagree with the lawfulness of his order, but the reasonable approach would be to allow the courts to work it out, not shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are so-called strict constructionists. What would the constitution have us do? Well, we have got an article I legislative branch, an article II executive branch, and an article III judicial branch. The Founders have indicated, I believe, that they would have us work out constitutional differences through the court system, not by shutting down the Department of Homeland Security--causing 30,000 employees to have to go home and another 210,000 employees to have to come to work without pay, stressed, suffering from anxiety, uncertain as to how to pay their bills, pay their mortgage, pay their rent, pay their medical expenses. Do we want to subject our Homeland Security employees to that type of anxiety when terrorists only have to be right once and we have to be right 100 percent of the time? Then I was troubled, Mr. Speaker, to learn that, apparently, you haven't spoken to Mitch McConnell in several weeks. The people back home in the district that I represent and Americans all across the country are shaking their heads. I know you don't like talking to Nancy Pelosi. I know you didn't like talking to Harry Reid. You don't like talking to the President of the United States. But you can't have a conversation with Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? It is not a long commute from this side of the Capitol to the other side of the Capitol. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you can take the train. Is it not reasonable that you have a conversation to try to work this out? The American people want us to focus on bigger paychecks, better jobs, retirement security, higher education affordability, strengthening the middle class; instead, you are throwing a legislative temper tantrum, jeopardizing the safety and security of the American people? Shame on you. Let's get back to doing America's business.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, in 16 days, House Republicans are prepared to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, you are taking the American people on a reckless and irresponsible legislative joyride that is destined to crash and burn. You are taking the American people on a collision course that will damage the safety and security of the American people at a time when terrorists all across the world are determined to do us harm. Why would you contemplate shutting down the Department of Homeland Security at this time--or at any time--simply in order to satisfy the extreme rightwing of your party? The American people want us to focus on bigger paychecks, they want us to focus on good-paying jobs, they want us to focus on strengthening the middle class, but you are determined to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. It is reckless and irresponsible. Let's get back to doing the business of the American people.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of President Obama's fiscal year 2016 budget. It is a budget that is firmly rooted in middle class economics, designed to benefit working families and middle-income Americans. It is a budget that will facilitate access to quality, affordable child care and will dramatically expand prekindergarten education in a way that will allow the children of middle class Americans to get off to a faster start in life. President Obama's budget, with the full support of House Democrats, will also address wage stagnation. It is designed to put more income-- more money--in the pockets of middle class Americans and of those who aspire to be part of the middle class. It will address the fact that, since the early 1970s, the productivity of the American worker has increased consistently, yet middle class wages have remained stagnant. That is a systematic problem that President Obama, Leader Pelosi, and House Democrats are determined to address on behalf of the middle class. President Obama's budget is also designed to increase the affordability of a college education. We know that Americans right now are burdened with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. That type of debt limits the ability of younger Americans to purchase a home, to start a family, to open up a new business, to take a chance. It limits their ability to robustly access the American Dream. President Obama's budget is designed to allow the sons and daughters of the middle class to pursue their dreams in a more meaningful fashion. When President Obama took office, he inherited an economic train wreck as a result of the Great Recession that was handed to him by the policies of the previous Republican administration. Through the leadership of President Obama, working closely with Democrats in the House and the Senate, we have turned the economy around. We have gotten it back on the right track. So the question that we in this Congress face today is: Will we continue the policies of middle class economics, which are designed to benefit working families and moderate income Americans, or are we going to regress to the policies of trickle-down economics, which have failed middle class Americans time and time again? I am in my second term. When I first got to the Congress, I assumed that trickle-down economics was dead, doomed by the fact that it has failed over and over again. Apparently, it has been revived. In its most recent incarnation, House Republicans would like to drop the top tax rate from 39.6 percent on the wealthiest Americans all the way down to 25 percent. Their argument is: ``Don't worry, everybody is going to benefit.'' But that hasn't worked in the past. In fact, I am convinced that middle class economics is far more preferable to trickle-down economics, which, as it relates to the middle class, simply means you may be lucky to get a trickle, but you are guaranteed to stay down. That is what the record says. Bill Clinton inherited a recession. The top tax rate on high-income earners was 31 percent. He raised it to 39.6 percent, and the purveyors of trickle-down economics predicted economic doom and gloom. What happened when President Clinton focused on the middle class? More than 20 million jobs were created. He then handed over a budget surplus to President Bush and his coconspirators in the Congress, and like drunken sailors, they blew that budget surplus on failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and on a tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and the well off. Did trickle-down economics work when they dropped the top tax rate to 35 percent? No. During the Bush Presidency, 650,000-plus jobs were lost. President Obama inherited this economic mess, and in partnership with Democrats in the House and in the Senate, he renewed his focus on the middle class. He even raised the top tax rate back up to 39.6 percent. Doom and gloom was predicted, but what happened? The economy is humming. The stock market is way up. Gas prices are way down. The unemployment rate has come down. Economic growth is exceeding all of the competitors across the world. There is more to be done, but for us to be successful, we have got to abandon the focus on the wealthy and the well off and pursue middle class economics.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to represent one of the most diverse districts in the entire Congress. Approximately 33 percent of the people whom I represent were born outside of the United States of America. Folks from all over the world come to Brooklyn and to Queens to pursue the American Dream. This is part of what makes America great; yet there is an anti-immigrant cancer spreading in this town that is moving like a malignant tumor amongst some on the other side of the aisle. As a result of this invidious infliction, there are some in the House GOP who are prepared to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, even though America continues to be a top target for terrorists all across the world. This is shameful. This is reckless. This is irresponsible. The American people need to rise up to stop it from happening.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Queens, for anchoring this Special Order hour and for yielding a few moments for me to reflect on the passing of our great Governor, Mario Cuomo. Mr. Speaker, like many other members of the New York delegation, I also served in the New York State Assembly. But unlike most, I didn't get the opportunity to serve alongside Governor Mario Cuomo. I arrived several years after he had completed his three terms in office. So I speak today not from the perspective of someone who served in government alongside Mario Cuomo, but as a young man who grew up in Mario Cuomo's New York. What an opportunity to be able to come of age in the 1980s with a Governor, a leader, who articulated such an eloquent vision of equal protection under the law for everyone. What an opportunity to be able to come of age under a Governor who believed in opportunity for everyone, who recognized that New York State's greatest strength was our diversity from every community, every perspective, and every religious background. It was great to be able to come of age and look up at a Governor who, notwithstanding the political potential pitfalls, stood on principle, was ahead of his time as it relates to his firm opposition to the death penalty at a time when that was not a popular position to take. He was a great leader, a charismatic intellectual, a wonderful family man, a tremendous lawyer, and a wonderful statesman and Governor. I can only imagine that when Mario Cuomo arrived up in Heaven he was prepared to get to work. But I think that there was probably a greeting committee that was there at the gates of Heaven, one of whom was FDR, a former Governor of the State of New York, the other of whom was FDR's cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, two former great Governors of the State of New York. And I think they probably ushered Mario Cuomo to a place in front of the throne of glory where Almighty God Himself may have said to Governor Cuomo: Listen, you can take your suit off and put this robe on. Governor Cuomo, you can rest now. You have been faithful over a few things. You can rest now. Well done, My good and faithful servant, well done.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her observations. Mr. Speaker, we are here as members of the Congressional Black Caucus to have an open, honest, and direct dialogue with America. In a democracy, there has to be a balance between effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for the Constitution and the civil rights of others, particularly of African Americans, on the other. If we are honest, we have not gotten that balance right, and as a result, we see young, unarmed, innocent African American men being gunned down in city after city in America, and we are here to say, ``Enough is enough.'' I am pleased now to yield to someone who has served this institution incredibly well as a Member of Congress, who has served the country well as a member of the military, the lion of Lenox Avenue, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of New York and the village of Harlem, Representative Charlie Rangel.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his always eloquent and poignant observations. Let me now yield to one of my dynamic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way. We still have a long way to go. We look forward to marching toward a more perfect Union. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland. I now yield to one of my colleagues in the freshman class, soon to be a dynamic sophomore, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for her eloquent remarks. People have asked all over the country, in some quarters, perhaps in the Congress, and in the city, why are people upset? Well, you had an unarmed individual, Michael Brown, who had no criminal record, just graduated from high school, on his way to college, killed in what appears to be the excessive use of police force, left to lie in the hot August sun for 4\1/2\ hours. Immediate response by the police chief is to engage in character assassination of the deceased, while refusing to release the name of the officer who pulled the trigger. The Ferguson Police Department responds as if this was a military campaign on foreign soil, not in an American city. The prosecutor decides to get involved and does a document dump; doesn't engage in responsible prosecutorial behavior; fails to ask for a specific charge; allows the officer to testify, unabated; doesn't point out inconsistencies between his initial telling of the events of that fateful day and what he said before the grand jury; and then announces all of this late at night, and behaves as if he was the defense attorney for Darren Wilson. Why are people upset? Those are just a few of the reasons. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York, for his very eloquent and thoughtful remarks, as always. And now it is my honor and my privilege to yield to a great civil rights leader, a former judge, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Texas, Representative Al Green.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his eloquent remarks. Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the great Elijah Cummings, for his remarks.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Congresswoman Clarke. Mr. Speaker, Akai Gurley in Brooklyn did not deserve to die. Tamir Rice in Cleveland did not deserve to die. Michael Brown in Ferguson did not deserve to die. The Congressional Black Caucus is determined to make sure that these and many other deaths at the hands of law enforcement resulting from the use of excessive force will not be in vain. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor and my privilege to yield to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Indiana, Congressman Andre Carson, one of the mighty voices of the hip-hop generation here in the United States Congress who powerfully represents his Midwestern district.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas for lending her powerful voice to this issue. We want a fair, impartial, and color-blind criminal justice system. But if we are honest with ourselves, that doesn't exist for all Americans today, and that undermines the integrity of our democracy. That is not just a Black problem or a White problem or a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. That is an American problem. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus stands on the House floor here today to jump-start--not just a discussion, but a march toward making meaningful progress as we move toward perfecting this great Union. It is my honor and my privilege to now yield to my good friend and colleague from the great State of New York, someone who, himself, is a former prosecutor and who has been involved in the fight for social and racial justice during his tremendous tenure here in the United States Congress. I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York City, the borough of Queens, Congressman Gregory Meeks.

Mr. JEFFRIES. It is now my honor and privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, my good friend. She is a distinguished Congresswoman who represents the neighboring district at home in Brooklyn. She is a fighter for justice and a voice for the voiceless.

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

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Kelly. We are here today to begin a conversation about a fair, equitable, and colorblind criminal justice system. That should be something that all Americans embrace, and that is what we are going to work toward as we move toward the next Congress in 2015. To close, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and I thank Congressman Gohmert for the time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend, a very important member of the Judiciary Committee, for graciously yielding a few moments for us to close this very important Special Order. I yield to Congresswoman Joyce Beatty to finish her remarks as we prepare to conclude this CBC Special Order. Again, I thank Congressman Gohmert for graciously yielding a few moments of his time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. As we prepare to conclude, let me, again, thank Mr. Gohmert for this gracious act of bipartisanship, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).