Hakeem Jeffries

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a bill that perhaps could more appropriately be called the ``Failure to Execute Our Legislative Responsibilities Act.'' This bill is a legislative solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence, there is no basis, there is no record to rationally conclude that the President of the United States has breached his obligations under the law in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution. Now I recognize, Madam Speaker, that there are some individuals in this town who believe that the President of the United States broke the law in January of 2009 when he first took the oath of office, but there is no room for hyperbole or hypocrisy or hysteria in the legislative process. This matter is another diversion from the business of the American people that we actually should be doing. We stand here again today wasting the time and the treasure of the American people. We should be dealing with comprehensive immigration reform, but House Republicans are blocking it. We should be increasing the minimum wage, but House Republicans are blocking it. We should be extending unemployment insurance, but House Republicans are blocking it. This bill is a distraction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and let's get back to doing the business of the American people.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the people whom I represent at home in Brooklyn and in Queens have been hit hard by the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, and many of these working families are still struggling to recover from this vicious storm. Homes were destroyed. Businesses were ruined. Lives have been turned upside down. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with the issue that has been brought before the people who have suffered from this storm and who now face significant flood insurance rate increases as a result of the Biggert-Waters law passed in 2012. The people who were victimized by Superstorm Sandy are now facing the prospect of significant flood insurance premium rate increases that are heading directly at them like an out-of-control freight train, and this House should be stepping in to stop that freight train dead in its tracks. That is why I support the reform of the Biggert-Waters law. We should suspend the flood insurance increases that are heading towards these Superstorm Sandy victims. We should allow for FEMA to conduct an affordability study. We should give Congress the opportunity to get this issue correct. The failure of this House to act on flood insurance reform is yet another example of the delay and the dysfunction in dealing with the real issues that confront the American people, and our inability to move forward as previously planned is just yet another time when a manmade disaster from this House is being imposed on the American people.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for pointing out some of the catastrophic consequences that the American people will be forced to endure if we fail to raise the debt ceiling and force a default and threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America for the first time in the history of the Republic. I just want to go over some of the things that would be at stake as a few of my colleagues have already laid out, but it bears reemphasis: Social Security payments owed to the American people will be jeopardized by a failure to raise the debt ceiling; Veterans benefits will be jeopardized by a failure to raise the debt ceiling; Mortgage interest rates could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling; Automobile loan interest rates could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling; Credit card payments as a result of an increase in interest connected to debt that is held on American Express or MasterCard or Visa, or any of the other credit cards that the American people have, could increase as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. This is not an esoteric concept. This is something that will have a real impact on the American people. That is why we need a debt ceiling increase consistent with what every Congress and every American President has done since the founding of this country. I want to read into the Record, and then perhaps have my good friend react to it, a Presidential letter that relates to this debt ceiling issue, and it reads in part: This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill- afford to allow such a result. This is a letter that was written on November 16, 1983, by President Ronald Reagan, addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker. President Reagan, I believe, my good friends on the other side of the aisle, have deified him as a ``fiscal warrior,'' a ``true conservative.'' Yet we know that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his Presidency, and in this letter to Senator Baker lays out in bold, uncompromising terms the consequences of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. This is not a partisan issue. We as Democrats are not standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives because we want to beat up the other side. We are here to defend the best interest of the American people--east, west, north, south, rural America, urban America, and suburban America--because the consequences of a failure to raise the debt ceiling will hurt everybody. If the distinguished gentleman from Nevada could just react to the notion that this is somehow a partisan issue that needs to be discussed so that President Obama is being fiscally irresponsible by requesting that Congress do its constitutional duty.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend for his very thoughtful and comprehensive remarks and analysis of the situation that we find ourselves in and his very clear-eyed plea that we in the Congress simply do our job and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default and threatening of the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states, in part, that the validity of the public debt of the United States enacted into law shall not be questioned. No more drama. No more theatrics. No more brinksmanship. No more extremism. Let's raise the debt ceiling and get back to doing the business of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I think that is a very appropriate question. We are going to have to have a broader conversation about some of our policies that have resulted in the exportation of middle class American jobs to other parts of the world; and for the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out why anyone in Washington thinks that that is a good idea. We have had an economic recovery under this President, and I believe more than 7 million private sector jobs have been created, but we still have a long way to go. And we certainly cannot afford to engage in the type of policies that, as you have pointed out, have led to the transfer of American jobs overseas. Why? Because we are incentivizing companies to ship jobs abroad as opposed to incentivizing American companies to keep jobs here at home in the great United States of America. And I certainly hope that that is something that can be reversed as we move forward and enter into a discussion about some of the agreements that will be pending before this Congress.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman. As you have pointed out--I think this was very important--in terms of the explosion of the public debt that has taken place over the last decade or so, the most significant factor, as this chart illustrates, is the Bush-era tax cuts. And so the question, then, that many people back home in my district are asking is, What was it all for? Because now we know that income inequality has exploded out of control. The middle class is being left behind. What was it all for? Well, we were told, based on a very stale, old philosophy, that these type of tax cuts help to generate economic activity. They create jobs. Okay. In the previous 8 years prior to the Bush administration, during the 8 years of the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the tax rate for the highest income bracket was 39.6 percent, and 20.3 million jobs were created during those 8 years. And then we have a new President who comes in and, by the way, he inherits a surplus. And then immediately, as a result of these reckless policies, foreign and domestic, creates deficit after deficit after deficit. That didn't happen under this President. It happened under the previous President. But the American people, the people whom I represent back at home, say, What was it all for? A tax rate of 39.6 percent under the administration of President Clinton and 20.3 million jobs created. We get tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 as a precursor to the recession, and during the 8 years of the previous administration we lost 650,000 jobs here in America. What was it all for? We lost jobs. Income inequality has grown. You add it to the debt. And yet folks on this side of the aisle are supposed to be fiscally irresponsible. Let's just have a reasonable, evidence-based conversation. That is all we want. That is what the American people are asking for. And so as we prepare to close, let me just yield to my good friend for any parting remarks.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I will yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend and colleague for that thorough explanation again as to why there is such urgency in terms of our acting now. Throughout my time here in the Congress, we consistently hear about strict constructionism and adherence to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution reads in part: The validity of the public debt authorized by law shall not be questioned. That is a constitutional principle, and it is the reason the brinksmanship that we have seen time and time again is so reckless and threatens the well-being of the American people. Earlier in my remarks, I referenced this being a ``Yogi Berra moment,'' that great Yankee catcher having once made the observation that he feels like it is deja vu all over again. There is another contemporary, urban philosopher I want to quote. Her name is Mary J. Blige. She said: No more drama. I think that the American people are tired of drama and theatrics. If they want theatrics, they can go to Broadway in New York City. If they want drama, you have got Hollywood, but Congress is here to do the business of the American people, not to entertain, but to do the business of the American people. The matter before us that, hopefully, we will deal with this week--not with unnecessary ideological demands that we attempt to inflict on the American people--in order to do what our constitutional responsibility says Congress should do is, again, a clean debt ceiling. I want to explain as best I can to those who are interested in understanding how we arrived at this moment. When you hear characterizations about what is at stake, why we can't just simply raise the debt ceiling without going through the drama and the theatrics, the representation that is made, which seems reasonable to many, is that we have a $17 trillion-plus debt. That is a very significant number, and we can't just simply give the President the unfettered ability to continue to drag this country further down a debt hole. That is the argument that is advanced by many, Mr. Speaker. It is just fundamentally inaccurate. The debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle designed to give the President the ability to spend more money. It is a backward-looking vehicle simply designed to give the President the capacity to pay bills that the Congress has already incurred. And if you actually were to inspect what those bills actually were, many Americans would be surprised to know that it was incurred often by those same individuals who now claim the mantel of fiscal responsibility. And so let's go through this chart. What it does is illustrates both the projected debt under current policies, largely enacted during the administration of George W. Bush, and what the debt would have been without these factors. So the top line is an illustration of what the current debt is and what it is projected to be over time in advance of 2019 as a result of things that this Congress has already done that were not paid for, and the lowest line on the chart is an illustration of what the debt would be had these things not be done, Mr. Speaker. What is interesting is that a significant part of the debt, as this chart illustrates, resulted from the war in Iraq, a completely unnecessary war, chasing down weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Lies were told to the American people and hundreds of billions of dollars unnecessarily spent and debt incurred under the previous administration. The war in Afghanistan was inappropriately prosecuted. Even if it was, in the beginning, a necessary one in response to the tragedy on 9/ 11, it was inappropriately prosecuted because we were distracted in Iraq. We didn't pay for that war either. It is responsible for the debt burden that we now have. The Bush-era tax cuts. A tax cut in 2001 largely and disproportionately benefited the wealthy and well-off, not paid for. It is responsible, in part, for the debt burden that we now confront. Another tax cut enacted by this Congress in 2003 largely benefiting the wealthy and the well-off was not paid for and responsible, in part, for the debt that we have incurred. Of course, there was the economic downturn. That occurred in 2008. It resulted, in part, from the failed policies of the previous administration. And we allowed some on Wall Street to run wild and to plunge us into the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. That, in part, is responsible for the debt that we have incurred. We had to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was the TARP bailout. Then, of course, there were the recovery measures enacted in response to this horrible collapse of the economy inflicted upon the American people. These are the policies that are largely responsible for the debt that we find ourselves in, and that is why we find it a bit curious that President Obama is often blamed and we have got to have this drama connected to the debt ceiling, when, in fact, much of the debt, the bills that he is trying to pay now, he wasn't even responsible for. In fact, when a lot of these policies were enacted, the current President of the United States was in the Illinois State Legislature, yet you want to blame him for the out-of-control spending. It is not just factually accurate.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for a very thorough explanation and for the illustration as it relates to the state of denial that, I think, some individuals within this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, or throughout the Capitol are in as it relates to the real consequences of a default and what it really means to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Now, this denial syndrome is not really a strange concept. It is something that, unfortunately, I have had to familiarize myself with since being sworn in as a Member of Congress on January 3 of 2013. Weather patterns are shifting. Global warming appears to me, based on the scientific evidence, to be a reality, yet there are people in this Congress who persist in denying that climate change is a reality. In advance of sequestration, notwithstanding the fact that independent economists warned that randomly spreading out cuts across the American economy, given the fragile nature of the economic recovery, would be a harmful thing and would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs moving forward, there were people who denied that sequestration would be a tough thing for the American people to have to absorb. Yet, at the end of the year, wisdom prevailed because people saw that it actually was something that was problematic for the American people and our economy. I guess, a long, long time ago, there were people who denied that the Earth was round, who believed that it was flat. So the denial syndrome is something that throughout time has been commonplace as it relates to individuals who want to articulate a particular agenda. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but it is a dangerous game to play--to deny the reality of the catastrophic impact that would occur as a result of a default on our debt for the first time in our history. It would be another self-inflicted wound, as my distinguished friend from Nevada has indicated. I was interested in a study that I came across a few days ago that I wanted to highlight and bring to the attention of the American people, and perhaps my colleague can react to it. There is a new study, the Times reported, from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C.-based research group, that indicated that all of the theatrics--all of the drama, all of the brinksmanship--that occurred in this Congress last year around the government shutdown and the potential debt ceiling default and whether we would be able to come together and reach an agreement--have cost us about $150 billion in lost economic productivity. It shaved off about a percentage point in economic growth, and it may have cost us approximately 750,000 jobs. That is not our saying it; that is an independent research group, the Peterson Institute for International Economics. So there is a price to pay for the theatrics, and that is why we have come to the floor of the House of Representatives today to say we need a clean debt ceiling increase and that we need to do it now. Secretary Lew has indicated that his ability to use extraordinary measures will run out by the end of the month. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are some on the other side of the aisle who are in disbelief as it relates to that statement. We have heard individuals make the representation that that can't be accurate. There is a logical reason why in this particular instance the capacity for the administration to use extraordinary measures to get us beyond the debt ceiling cap is only weeks in this particular instance and not months as it has been in the past. It is because the Treasury of the United States in February and in March and in April and, perhaps, even into May, returns a lot of money--billions of dollars--to the American people who have filed taxes and are owed money in connection with a tax return. I believe that we would all conclude it is a good thing for the American people who are owed money by the Federal Government to be able to get that money back in return. That is why, in February, the capacity at this moment for extraordinary measures to be used is extremely limited. It is because we don't want to short-circuit the American taxpayer. It is bad enough that we are threatening to short- circuit Social Security beneficiaries or veterans and others, but now we are potentially risking withholding money from the American people that belongs to them. We hear that refrain all of the time, but that is what we are faced with right now. Let me yield to my good friend, Representative Horsford.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for walking us through some of the episodes that the American people have been subjected to as a result of the extreme behavior that has been articulated and enacted, in fact, as part of the agenda put forth by the majority over the last two terms. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to end the irresponsibility, end the recklessness, end the extremism, and end the brinksmanship so we can get back to doing the business of the American people with a fiscally responsible, sustainable course; but one that recognizes that here in this Congress, time and time again we have inflicted wounds on the economy and on the American people. We did it last spring in advance of sequestration taking effect. We were warned by independent economists that if you allow sequestration to take effect, $85 billion in random cuts spread out without reason across the economy, it would cost us approximately 750,000 jobs, but yet it happened. Then we were warned that it would be problematic if you allowed the government to shut down. Nonetheless, some people couldn't help the recklessness, the irresponsibility, the extremism, and so the government was shut down for 16 days. Standard & Poor's estimated that it cost us $24 billion in lost economic productivity. Yet here we are again, a Yogi Berra moment, deja vu all over again, confronting an unnecessary, manufactured crisis. Just lift the debt ceiling, consistent with what has happened time and time again across Democratic and Republican administrations. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the coanchor of the CBC Special Order, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State, my good friend, Representative Horsford.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor and a privilege to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and to anchor this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order in partnership with my coanchor, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), where for the next 60 minutes members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have the opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great consequence and great significance for our country, for our economy, for our future, and for our well-being, and that is the debt ceiling. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a Yogi Berra moment. It is deja vu all over again. Time and time and time again we have been forced to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to plunge this country into a painful default and risk the full faith and credit of the United States of America for the first time in the history of the Republic. Whenever we have been forced to have this conversation, we are always put into a position where we need to clarify what the debt ceiling is really all about because it has been subject to a lot of misrepresentation. The debt ceiling is not a forward-looking vehicle that is designed to give the President the opportunity to spend more; it is a backward-looking vehicle designed to give the President the opportunity to pay bills that the Congress has already incurred: bills that were incurred during the previous decade, bills that were incurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration during which time our good friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both the House and the Senate, and we will go into that in greater detail as we move forward. Let's have an honest conversation about the realities that we face concerning the debt in this country, in excess of $17 trillion. There is reason for us to be concerned about it, but let's not manipulate the facts as to how we got ourselves into this situation. I am pleased that we have been joined by a very distinguished Member of the Congress and of the freshman class. In fact, we affectionately refer to him as the ranking member of the freshman class of the Congressional Black Caucus in the 113th Congress, and I am very pleased to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding, as well as for the tremendous job that you have done anchoring this CBC Special Order along with our good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois. It reminds me, back at home, sometimes the pastor in my church would have a guest preacher come and deliver the sermon for the occasion, and the guest preacher will do so well that he will remark afterward, it is a dangerous thing when you bring that type of preacher to the pulpit because the congregation may not want the main preacher to come back again. You and Congresswoman Kelly have done such a tremendous job, certainly, Steven Horsford and I are at risk of losing our anchor positions. Nonetheless, we thank you for all that you have done. It was a particular honor on Friday, along with Congresswoman Yvette Clarke and Congresswoman Kelly and Congressmen Greg Meeks and Charlie Rangel, to be at the official unveiling held by the United States Postal Service of the Shirley Chisholm stamp to commemorate the life and times of this tremendous woman, this Member of Congress, this trailblazer, all that she had done. I recall that she once made an observation to a young person who was considering a career in public service and asked Congresswoman Chisholm whether he should pursue this or not. Congresswoman Chisholm responded by saying to this young man interested in public service, Well, if you decide to run for office, don't be a career politician. She said, Be a statesperson. Representative Chisholm explained that the difference is, a career politician is only concerned with the next election, but a statesperson is concerned with the next generation. As we stand here today, we would all do well to take that piece of advice that Congresswoman Chisholm uttered decades ago as it relates to the policy agenda connected to the theme ``when women succeed, America succeeds'' because, in order for that to be possible, we also have to be sensitive to what we are doing for the next generation of young people in the context of child care availability, universal pre-K, strengthening the Head Start program that has served so many over decades. What are we doing for the next generation to make sure that women, in particular, who are raising up the future leaders of America, are equipped with the resources and the ability to provide them with the best possible upbringing? Now, 50 years ago, in this Chamber, President Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke before a joint session of Congress and he declared a war on poverty. And we know that, as a result of that initiative, there were several legislative programs that were enacted into law between 1964 and 1966--Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, school breakfast program, Food Stamp Act, college work study, minimum wage enhancement. All of these programs, taken together, contributed in a meaningful way to lifting millions of people out of poverty. Now, we know, as we stand here today we have still got a lot of work to be done. But instead of there being a war on poverty, what we have seen far too often during this Congressional session and the previous one is a war on women. That is unfortunate that we have gone from trying to lift people up and give them an opportunity to pursue the American Dream to failing to deal with the issues that women in America face today and, in some instances, aggressively trying to roll back rights that were hard-fought and acquired over the years. Now, as the President mentioned in this State of the Union that we all witnessed over the last week, that women in America make 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. President Obama called it an embarrassment. I agree with that statement. It is also a national outrage. How can it be the case that in America, in 2014, we are still allowing for such significant pay disparity that, as Congresswoman Lee pointed out, is even worse for women of color? So we have got to move forward under the principle--to bring to life the notion that one should be provided equal pay for equal work. The second thing that we can do is to deal with this minimum wage issue that we have in America. As was pointed out earlier today, two- thirds of minimum wage earners in America are women. And so the failure to raise the minimum wage, to have indexed it appropriately for inflation to account for cost-of-living increases in America, disproportionately adversely affects women in this country. The reality is, with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, a woman in America can work full-time, 35 hours per week, across an entire year and, in attempting to raise a family, fall well below the Federal poverty line. It is the classic definition of working poor. So the failure to raise the minimum wage has consequences for women, for the family, and for the overall well-being of communities all across America, particularly when considering the fact that, in 40 percent of American households, women are either the primary or the sole breadwinner. So that means, particularly as it relates to some of our good friends on the other side of the aisle who often express concern for family values--and I share that concern--the best family value is a good paycheck; because if you ensure that when people are working hard they are paid well for it, then we are ensuring that they have the capacity to take care of their families, of which women, increasingly, are the sole or primary breadwinners. So I just commend my distinguished colleagues, Representative Kelly and Representative Beatty, the dynamic duo of the CBC freshman class, for all that they have done and will continue to do on behalf of women, communities of color, and America in the context of their tremendous advocacy.

Mr. JEFFRIES

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

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my colleague. In summation, income inequality is a threat to our economy and the integrity of our democracy, and we must do everything possible to right this wrong in America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nevada for the very precise and comprehensive analysis that was given today on the House floor. There were several important points that you raised that I would like to elaborate on and perhaps have a follow-up discussion. One of the issues that you discuss relates to the failure of the economic expansion as well as the recoveries that have taken place increasingly over the last several decades to benefit in any proportional way people in the middle class and those who aspire to be part of the middle class. This has been a trend that we have seen for the last 30-plus years. It has been particularly pronounced in the 5 years or so since the economy collapsed in 2008. When we look at the recovery, I mentioned earlier today that it is a particularly schizophrenic and inconsistent one because we know that the stock market is way up, corporate profits are way up, CEO compensation is way up and the productivity of the American worker is way up, but middle class wages remain stagnant. Now, why is that a problem? This chart illustrates the fact that essentially since 1950, the productivity of the American worker--our ability as workers throughout this country to produce more in a more efficient fashion, costing less in time and resources, has consistently and exponentially increased--the productivity of the American worker. But essentially over the last 30-plus years or so, wages connected to that output of the American worker have remained flat. So what does that mean? That essentially means that while the American worker is far more efficient and effective in doing their job and in being more productive, the profits and the output generated by the American worker have not inured to the employees. It has inured to the employer and a very small percentage of individuals. So when we talk about income inequality, we are not saying that we have a problem with success. We are saying everyone should benefit from the success that the American worker has created as opposed to just a small number of individuals--the so-called job creators. We are thankful for their ingenuity and their effort; but the reality is the productivity of the American worker has increased, yet the middle class has not benefited. Back between 1978 and 2001, CEO compensation had increased 876 percent--CEO compensation between 1978 and 2001. And what has happened as it relates to compensation for the average American worker during that same time period? It has increased 5.4 percent. That is a shameful difference, one that we should not tolerate in this great country. The other observation that my distinguished colleague made related to the fact that if we increase the minimum wage, it will not just benefit millions of Americans by lifting them out of poverty. Parenthetically, why in the world would we want a society where people work full-time throughout an entire year yet find themselves in poverty? That makes no sense. But increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy, as my colleague indicated, because it increases consumer demand. An increase in consumer demand leads to economic growth, an increase in economic growth leads to additional job creation, and everybody benefits. It is a commonsense solution. So let me now turn to my colleague from Nevada for some parting thoughts. And I appreciate, as always, your comprehensive analysis and observation.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his very thoughtful observations and, in particular, for focusing on the need to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed across America. There has been a myth that really has been put forth unfortunately by those who seek to undermine this program that individuals who are receiving unemployment assistance, who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, simply are sitting home looking to collect a check without going out and actively searching for employment. Nothing can be further from the truth. The reality is--and this is connected to the dynamic around income inequality that we are discussing here today--is that for every 2.8, 2.9 million Americans who are unemployed, looking for a job, there is only one job that exists. So obviously we need to do more in this country collectively to generate employment as opposed to exploiting good middle class jobs to other parts of the world and not seeing any reciprocal economic benefit in return. I am thankful that I have been joined by the coanchor of the CBC Special Order, someone whose very district representing urban parts of Clark County in Las Vegas as well as rural parts of Nevada can speak to the issue quite clearly that income inequality and poverty in America is not simply an urban issue or a rural issue. It impacts all of America, and we are thankful here in this Congress that he has been such a strong champion for his district and for these issues that are impacting people all across the country. Let me yield to my good friend from Nevada, Steven Horsford.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Yvette Clarke, and look forward to continuing the fight and the march toward socioeconomic justice on behalf of the people we represent back at home in Brooklyn and New York City. It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to another good friend, the dean of the freshman class of the CBC, someone who has continued in the great tradition that had been set forth by his father and his predecessor and is carving out his own reputation as a fighter for justice on behalf of the people he represents back at home in New Jersey. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the Garden State, Representative Donald Payne, Jr.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina. As you pointed out, income inequality and poverty should not be a partisan issue. It impacts urban America and it impacts rural America. It impacts blue States and it impacts red States. It impacts the north, the south, the east, the west, and the heartland of this country. That is why it has been unfortunate that, heretofore, we have seen a refusal by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to do commonsense things like raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which would lift millions of the working poor out of poverty and set them on a pathway toward the middle class. Now, one of the places where income inequality is particularly pronounced is in my hometown of New York City, one of the greatest cities in the world, one of the richest cities in the world. But 25 percent of the population in New York City lives below the poverty line. In the shadow of Wall Street, the engine that drives the world economy, that is an unfortunate reality. One of the people who has been raising this issue and fighting hard to address this back home in New York City is my distinguished colleague who represents the Ninth Congressional District, immediately adjacent to the one that I am privileged to represent. It is my honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas. Earlier this month, we marked the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. In this Chamber in January of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke before a joint session of Congress and announced a series of initiatives designed to combat chronic poverty in America. As a result of this effort, there were several legislative battles that were won in the march toward trying to create, as President Johnson said, the Great Society--Medicare, Medicaid, the Food Stamp Act, the school breakfast program, college work study, Job Corps, and minimum wage enhancement. These were all part of the war on poverty. But, unfortunately, as we stand here today, in 2014, some in this Chamber have abandoned this war on poverty and instead have launched a war on the poor. As a result, we have seen income inequality grow. That is why it is such an important issue for us to confront now. I am pleased that we have been joined by one of the strongest voices in the Congress for dealing with this issue, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, someone who is the vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative G. K. Butterfield.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to once again have this opportunity to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and to anchor--along with my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Representative Steven Horsford--the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, where for the next 60 minutes we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great significance for the communities that we represent as well as for the entire country. Income inequality is an issue that is of increasing concern to working families, to low-income Americans, to middle class folks, to those who aspire to be part of the middle class. We know that at this moment in time in 2014 income inequality is the worst that it has been in America since the Great Depression. Now, we live in the wealthiest country in the world. Yet we know that all across America there are people who are struggling to put food on their tables, clothing on their backs or to provide shelter for their families. That is an unacceptable situation, and we know that things have gotten worse over the last 5 years since the collapse of the economy. The recovery, while progress has been made, has been uneven, inconsistent and schizophrenic in many ways. Some have benefited, particularly those amongst the wealthiest 5 to 10 percent of Americans, but others have fallen behind. So, today, the Congressional Black Caucus will speak to the issue of income inequality, but it will also propose why it is something that needs to be addressed and what some of the things are that Congress can do, in working with the President, to deal with this pressing issue in America. We have been joined by several distinguished members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is now my honor and privilege to yield some time to the dean of New York's congressional delegation, a legendary Member of the House of Representatives, the Lion of Lenox Avenue, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JEFFRIES. I certainly thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his eloquent, as always, observations. It is an honor and privilege to be joined by the Representative from Texas, who has been a fighter on behalf of these issues--a voice for the voiceless and someone who is always on the front lines trying to deal with socioeconomic inequality wherever it might be found in America, but certainly in her home district anchored in Houston, Texas. Let me now yield to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. JEFFRIES

Mr. JEFFRIES. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Nevada. I think that you have identified a subject matter that is important for discussion before the American people as a result of this argument that we have heard related to the need to pass unemployment benefits only if a pay-for or an offset or a host of programs on the GOP wish list is passed simultaneously to our trying to provide some measure of relief to unemployed Americans. I am going to let the distinguished gentleman from Nevada address this argument in the current situation, but I would note that we have seen this type of ransom-like behavior here in this Chamber before. We saw it when I first arrived on the floor of the House of Representatives. It was when we were waiting day after day, week after week, month after month for a Superstorm Sandy relief bill to be passed--more than 75 days, unprecedented in the history of our country's response to a natural disaster--for the people I represent back home who were devastated by Superstorm Sandy. The reason for the holdup was that this ransom-like demand of offsets--unprecedented in American history--was put before us. It was the same situation as it relates to the government shutdown, in which we were told that you can keep the government open--that is a proper function for us here in the Congress--but only under circumstances in which you delay, defund or destroy the Affordable Care Act--ransom-like behavior. Now we find ourselves in a similar situation, and I yield to my distinguished colleague from Nevada to lay out why we once again find ourselves dealing with unreasonable demands to do what otherwise is our proper duty here on the floor of the House of Representatives and in Washington.

Mr. JEFFRIES. Let me thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Silver State and the anchor of today's CBC Special Order for his eloquence, his continued leadership and, of course, for all of the hard work that you have put in on behalf of the people that you represent back at home. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with you, as well as with all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who continue to be a voice for the voiceless, the conscience of the Congress fighting hard each and every day to bring to life the American Dream for the greatest number of people possible in this wonderful country of ours. Last week we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. In January of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson came to this House before a joint session of Congress and rolled out a series of initiatives designed to march us toward what he would term the Great Society, a war on poverty to lift people out of their perilous condition and bring to life for them the American Dream. His war on poverty produced programs like Medicare and Medicaid, school breakfast, Head Start, the Food Stamp Act, minimum wage enhancement, Job Corps, college work study, program after program enacted between 1964 and 1966, which, taken together, were effective in lifting millions of Americans out of their impoverished condition. Fifty years later, we have made a tremendous amount of progress. But, unfortunately, there are many in this Chamber who, instead of continuing the great legacy started by President Lyndon Baines Johnson here in January of 1964, have instead engaged in what perhaps is more appropriately termed a war on the poor, a war on working families, a war on the middle class, a war on senior citizens, and, in its current manifestation, a war on the long-term unemployed. Unfortunately, whenever folks identify, set their sights on a government program that they don't like, the operating procedure follows a script that is all too familiar: demonize, downsize, and ultimately pulverize. First, the script says you have got to demonize the program; tell things to the American people that don't necessarily hold up to the scrutiny of a comprehensive factual examination. Once you demonize the program, it enables you to downsize it, to reduce its impact, to reduce our investment. Ultimately, the goal of those who are engaged in this war on the poor, war on the long-term unemployed in its current iteration, ultimately the goal is, once you have demonized it and downsized it, in some way, you just want to pulverize it. So if you think about this in the context of what we face right now in America, we have heard emanating from this Chamber and other parts of the country this caricature of individuals who supposedly are the long-term unemployed. As the gentleman from Nevada has indicated, we have heard representations suggestive that these are individuals who are couch potatoes sitting at home channel surfing, who only get exercise once a month apparently when they are running out to get their unemployment check and then race back into the house, and that is the only exercise that they get. What is the basis for this caricature? What analysis has been done of the 1.3 million Americans who you have unceremoniously thrown off the long-term unemployment rolls to come to this conclusion? You have no evidence to make this caricature. In fact, we know that current statistics suggest that here in America, while we have made significant progress since the Great Recession, 8.1 million private sector jobs that have been created, we know that we still have a way to go. For every 2.8 Americans who are looking for a job, only one job exists. So the facts are working against those who are unemployed at this point. It is not as if they are not working hard to find a job. The jobs statistically don't exist, simply in terms of the raw numbers. We have an economy that needs to produce more jobs. Now, what I found fascinating about this whole situation, in addition to this unwarranted caricature that you have created--folks on the other side of this debate who don't necessarily like unemployment insurance and have been plotting to work against it, perhaps since the moment that it was first put into effect in this great country--is that during the short time that Representative Horsford and Payne and Beatty and Veasey and myself have been here, what folks here in the Congress have systematically done is to undermine our ability to actually recover and produce jobs. This is now at least the third meaningful instance in which this type of unproductive legislative behavior has been witnessed. We first saw it in the march toward April 1 when economists subjectively warned that if we allow sequestration to take effect, what would happen is that we would cost the economy approximately 750,000 jobs. Yet folks on the other side of the aisle, many people in this town decided that, notwithstanding the random nature of the $85 billion in sequestration effects, the impact that it would have adversely on the economy, that we were going to allow sequestration to take hold on April 1. That is exactly what was done; an unproductive, unconstructive action that robs the American people of jobs that might have otherwise existed. Then in October of this past year, we see another unproductive action taken by those who constantly complain about the alleged slow pace of the economic recovery but then consistently take actions to undermine it. So on October 1, we shut down the government because of this unbridled obsession that some people have with the Affordable Care Act, even though at the time it was the law of the land, it remains the law of the land, passed by a duly elected Congress in 2010, signed into law by President Obama as a first-term President, passed constitutional muster in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and then reaffirmed by the American people with the Electoral College landslide that took place in November of 2012. Yet you came to this floor and decided that you were going to shut down the government for 16 days. Why was that unproductive? Because not only did you push hardworking civil servants out of work, but objective analyses of the situation said you cost the economy $24 billion. And then you create this caricature that you want all of us to believe that the unemployed are simply sitting home with this alleged plethora of jobs that exist and they can't find them. Now we find ourselves in another situation where, instead of coming together to try and reasonably take steps to put Americans back to work, what you have decided to do, since unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed were allowed to expire on December 28, is that you are threatening to cost the economy an additional 240,000 jobs. So for the third time within the last 12 months, legislative malpractice here in the Congress essentially has resulted, or will result, in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars and billions of dollars in lost economic productivity. Yet you create this caricature that there are Americans sitting at home on the couch channel surfing, getting one day of exercise per month racing out to get their unemployment check. There is no basis for that conclusion. That is why we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives, saying that we need to pass an extension of unemployment benefits and that we need to pass it now. As I prepare to yield to my good friend, I just want to point out that, at this point in time, as the chart reflects, the long-term unemployment rate in America is higher than it ever has been before as a percentage of those who are unemployed, which means that, today, 37.7 percent of those Americans who are receiving unemployment insurance are long-term unemployed, meaning they have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. In prior instances, when this Congress and our government had allowed unemployment insurance to expire for the long-term unemployed, the percentage of those who actually had been out of work for 27 weeks or more was much lower--15 points lower when unemployment insurance was allowed to expire for this category of Americans in March of 2004, about 16 points lower when unemployment insurance was allowed to expire for this category of long-term unemployed folks in April of 1994 under President Clinton, and if my math serves me correctly, about 22 points lower in June of 1985 under President Reagan when unemployment benefits were allowed to expire. So we are in a very different situation than we have been in the past. It is an urgent situation. Progress has been made. We still have a long way to go, and that is why it is necessary for us to do everything possible to help out those Americans in need and not leave them on the battlefield simply to fend for themselves.