mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank the ranking member, both for your leadership on this issue. we know that 50 years ago, january of 1964, i believe, president lyndon johnson came to the floor of the house of representatives for a joint session of congress and declared a war on poverty. that war on poverty has largely been successful in helping millions of americans lift themselves out of an impoverished condition and set on a pathway toward the middle class. of course, there's still a long way to go. although it does seem in this town that there are some more interested in a war on working families than a war on poverty. but that's something that we're going to ultimately have to overcome as well. in the context of this present hearing, i thought i'd start with ms. reynolds just to kind of explore the perspective that you laid out. i believe, i guess in your experience, you've laid out three broad categories of poverty, is that correct? >> correct. >> and those three categories are chronic, generational, and s

mr. jeffries for this special order, among others. i could not imagine, as we end this session, to have a more especially important statement to the american people. we want to work and in a few days we'll be voting on an action to sue the president of the united states. et me refer you to justice antonin scali what -- scalia who says that we reject a system in which the congress can pop into court in when the president implements a law in a manner not to congress' liking. former chief justice william rehnquist similarly wrote that while some european countries allow one brampling of government to sue another, that is obviously not the regime that our constitution establishes. our constitution contemplates a more restricted role for article 3 courts and in fact, our constitution clearly states the separation of the three branches of government. judiciary, legislature, and of legislature, the the judiciary and i just lost the other branch of government. mr. jeffries: executive branch. ms. jackson lee: executive branch of government. th

mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank the ranking member, both for your leadership on this issue. we know that 50 years ago, january of 1964, i believe president lyndon johnson came to the floor of the house of representatives for a joint session of congress and declared a war on poverty. that war on poverty has largely been successful in helping millions of americans lift themselves out of an impoverished condition and set on a pathway toward the middle class. of course, there's still a long way to go. although it does seem in this town that there are some more interested in a war on working families than a war on poverty. but that's something that we're going to ultimately have to overcome as well. in the context of this present hearing, i thought i'd start with ms. reynolds just to kind of explore the perspective that you laid out. i believe, i guess in your experience, you've laid out three broad categories of poverty, is that correct? >> correct. >> and those three categories are chronic, generational, and si

mr. jeffries. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> let me thank the witnesses for your continued contributions to the efforts of this panel. >> you mentioned something that was very troubling and dr. baker agreed with you. the notion that federal criminal defense has simply become negotiation efforts toward resolution. that just seems fundamentally inconstift ekoconsistent with tf the presumption of innocence. if there's going to be a presumption of innocence, it seems to me that it cannot be the case that once someone is being investigated or indicted by our government that the only real option available to someone who in theory should be presumed innocent is to negotiate the most favorable resolution which ultimately will likely result in some form of sanction and/or jail time. >> right. >> so the question becomes, how do we unpack this dynamic in a way that allows this task force, the house, this congress to make a meaningful impact? i would suggest and i would like to get the observations of both of you that it seems

mr. jeffries comment. what is it -- what are the factors that cause folks in chronic poverty or generational poverty to feel as if they're beaten down. in the sense that i get from folks that i talk to is that that is manifest in the belief that there is no hope. that there is no way out. that there isn't a path forward for them. i think we have to acknowledge that there are places in this country. in fact, i represent a couple of communities that -- where this condition is present there are places in this country where for many of the folks in poverty virtually everything they see around them reinforces the lack of hope. i represent two communities -- flint and saginaw -- that have experienced incredible job loss, high rates of poverty, concentration of poverty, abandonment in some of these urban communities with half of the population having left in the last few decades. not only is there there a lack of work with unemployment flats the 30% and 40% level but there is a deterioration of the landscape, the

mr. jeffries, for five minutes. mr. jeffries: madam speaker, we have a humanitarian crisis at our border that challenges the capacity of the united states of america to address it from both a resource perspective and from a compassionate perspective. tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who are eeking entry into this country , children who are fleeing extreme violence in the rthern triangle countries of honduras, el salvador and guatemala. now, there are some in this caucus, some in this institution who want to lay blame for this crisis at the feet of the obama administration. this is is not a surprising development because these individuals are members of the b.b.o. caucus, the blame barack obama caucus. when anything happens in this country or in this world, they want to blame the president of the united states. something goes wrong in iraq, a war that was prosecuted, that was botched, that was mismanaged by the previous administration, the b.b.o. aucus blames barack obama. we're seeing a similar phenomenon as it

mr. jeffries. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished the gentlelady from the empire state for yielding. mr. speaker, this lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of time and a cover-up with respect to the house republicans' failure to effectively govern. you have failed to create jobs. you have failed to increase the minimum wage. you have failed to deal with our broken immigration system. you have failed to extend unemployment insurance for the millions of americans who have been left on the battlefield of the great recession. you have failed to deal with our crumbling transportation and infrastructure. mr. speaker, your majority has failed to do what is in the best interest of the american people. and so to cover up the mess, you are taking us on a joyride through the article 3 court system. it is an effort that will crash and burn. yet, nonetheless you're willing to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to make a down payment on impeachment. instead of engaging in responsible legislative

mr. jeffries. >> thank you mr.airman and let me first thank the distinguished panel for your presence here today and of course your tremendous service to our country. let me start with mr. patton. it seems to me that there are four primary actors in the criminal justice system. we have the prosecution, the defense, the presiding judge and the jury. but if you have a trial participation and i believe the number is 2.7%, it seems to me that the course of the criminal prosecution as you point out in your testimony is largely determined by only one of those four actors, the prosecution. to the exclusion of the other four contemplated to bring about a just result in our constitutional system, meaning presiding judge largely excluded. certainly the jury largely excluded. the opportunity of meaningful defense largely excluded so the system is out of balance in my view. i think it's fair to say. what would be your recommendations in terms of how to restore some balance to the system in a manner that allows for meaningful e

mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr.airman and let me thank the witnesses for your presence and continued contributions to the efforts of this panel. attorney benjamin you mentioned something that was troubling and dr. baker you agreeed. federal criminal defense has simply become negotiations efforts toward resolution. that seems inconsistent with the notions that have served to underguard our criminal justest system with the presumtion of incense. it seems once someone is investigated or indicted by our government that the only real option available to someone who in theory should be presumed innocent, is to negotiate the most favorable resolution which likely results in a sanctions and/or jail time. so the question is how do we unpack this dynamic in a way that allows this task force, the house, this congress, to make a meaningful impact? i would suggest, and i would like to get the observations of both of you, that it seems to me there has to be a way to rein in the inappropriate exercise of prosecution decision makin

mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank -- let me thank the witnesses for your presence here today and your continued contributions to the efforts of this panel. attorney benjamin, you mentioned something that was very troubling and dr. baker you agreed with it, the notion that federal criminal defense has simply become negotiation efforts toward resolution. >> right. >> and fundamentally inconsistent with the notions that have always served to undergird our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence. if there's going to be a presumption of innocence,ing it seems to me it cannot be the case that once someone is being investigated and or is indicted by our government, that the only real option available to someone who in theory should be presumed innocent is to negotiate the most favorable resolution which ultimately will likely result in some form of sanction and or jail time. >> right. >> so the question becomes, how do we unpack this dynamic in a way that allows this task force, the house, th

mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the panelists for their presence here today and for their testimony. mr. knife, let me just begin with you. i believe in your testimony, certainly in your written submission, you indicate that the songwriter equity act and respect act take us in the wrong direction, correct? >> yes. >> and you indicate that these two pieces of legislation seek to create a music licensing framework that cater to the unique interests of a limited group of stakeholders. correct? >> correct. >> now, the limited group of stakeholders that you refer to are songwriters, correct? >> it's songwriters and their collectives and record labels and performing artists and their collectives, yes. >> okay. now, in the music ecosystem that exists, you've got recording artists, correct? >> yes. >> publishers, true? >> uh-huh. >> broadcasters? >> right. >> you've got satellite radio, correct? >> yes. >> internet radio? >> yep. >> okay. you've also got songwriters, correct? >> uh-huh. >> now, aren't songwriters fu

mr. jeffries, for five minutes. mr. speaker, the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. once incitefully and eloquently observed that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. in the wake of the current conflict between israel and hamas, there has been a disturbing outbreak of the ancer of anti-semitism in many parts of the world. in france, there have been firebombs directed at synagogues, radio stations and a library. amongst other incidents that have taken place in a country which is home to the third largest jewish community in the world. in germany there has been hate speech, permeating rally after rally all throughout the country, including at one where the chant was, hamas, hamas, jews to the gas. this is disturbing language in any location, but it's particularly disturbing given the context of what we know occurred in germany. in england there has been an epidemic of violent crime directed at the jewish community, an exponential increase, rivaled in recent times only by a similar outbreak of hate crime that took place in 2009 during the last conflict

mr. jeffries and i are leading a program whereby jewish, asian understand and african-american college students are gathering to discuss foreign policies and the perspectives of their respective communities in relation to key foreign policy issues. we must speak regularly about israel, b.d.s. and other issues of importance to our jewish friends and neighbors. not just when there's a major international incident. the reason i say this is because it's also far easier to hate someone you don't know than to hate someone that you do know. mr. speaker, as we head into the august recess, i urge my colleagues of all stripes to discuss the dangers of anti-semitism with their communities and to build bridges between communities. so so that we may reduce hatred and bigotry. i also urge my colleagues as states men and women to engage the international community in a positive way on this issue and believe in and fight for a europe and wormed of lesser anti-semitism -- world of lesser anticentral -- central -- anti-semitism with that i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from florida, the first jewish woman el

mr. jeffries: i thank my good friend and distinguished gentleman from the badger state for yielding some time, as well as for the tremendous leadership that you continue to exhibit week after week in leading the congressional progressive caucus' special order hour. championing issues important to working families and the poor and the sick and the afflicted. those who need our government to be more compassionate and giving them the assistance that they need in order to pursue the american dream. i appreciate that advocacy and i appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on the plan presented by chairman paul ryan. expanding opportunity in america. i'd like to believe that that is the objective. and i certainly am of the view that the chairman is acting in good faith as it relates to his willingness to try and tackle the issue of poverty in america. but if you put it all in the context of the ryan budget that has come to the floor of the house of representatives, year after year after year, since the republicans claimed the majority and passed with overwhelming support from their caucus,

mr. williams? >> going online. >> you asked what we would change right now, it's thanks to, thanks to representative collins and jeffries, it's been offered to you right now which is the song writers' equity act. it fixes a small part of a really large problem for us, it fixes it immediately. i agree with what mr. christian says about the value of the blanket license. it's a wonderful way the come together and simplify this system for -- and for somebody like pandora, that's 70% of their income that is rolling out for royalty payments. i have to remind everybody that ascap is getting about 1 or 2% of that. i'm not sure -- i'm under oath, i won't say it's 1%, but it's very close to that. it's a tiny, tiny part of that. so i wouldn't pretend to tell you how to adjust your business model, but there's some way to do this so that music creators who create the one product you have can be properly compensated. >> thank you. >> gentlelady's time's expired. >> okay. >> the distinished gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one is sitting here today, one thing i have tried in this whole process a

mr. chairman, thank you, members. it's truly an honor for me to be here. as you said, i'm the public defender in new york city. good to see you, representative jeffries. together with my defender colleagues from around the country and court-appointed attorneys who are assigned to cases, we collectively represent all those accused of federal crimes who are too poor to afford a lawyer. nationwide, that means we represent over 80% of all defendants in the federal criminal justice system. and i can tell you that we are grateful to this committee for holding these hearings on the very important topic of overcriminalization. when i think of the term overcriminalization, i think of a quote by the late harvard law professor, william stunts, who wrote, legal kmcommendation is important thing, to be used sparingly but not pro mimiscuos. the sentencing has become promiscuous. whether it's the number that has tripled since 1980, or most significantly, if measured by the number of people the federal government imprisons. the federal prison population has increased by 1,000% since 1980. and in the past 10 years, it's increased at a rate three times the rate of stat

mr. chairman thank you, members. it's truly an honor for me to be here. as you said i'm the public defender in new york city. good to see you, representative jeffries. together with my defender colleagues from around the country and court-appointed attorneys who are assigned to cases, we collectively represent all those accused of federal crimes who are too poor to afford a lawyer. nationwide, that means we represent over 80% of all defendants in the federal criminal justice system. and i can tell you that we are grateful to this committee for holding these hearings on the very important topic of overcriminalization. when i think of the term overcriminalization, i think of a quote by the late harvard law professor, william stunts, who wrote, legal kmencommendation is an important thing, to be used sparingly but not pro missmiscuosly. the sentencing has become promiscuous. whether it's the number that has tripled since 1980, or most significantly, if measured by the number of people the federal government imprisons. the federal prison population has increased by 1,000% since 1980. and in the past 10 years it's increased at a rate three times the rate

mr. chairman, thank you, members. it's truly an honor for me to be here. as you said, i'm the public defender in new york city. good to see you, representative jeffries. together with my defender colleagues from around the country and court-appointed attorneys who are assigned to cases, we collectively represent all those accused of federal crimes who are too poor to afford a lawyer. nationwide, that means we represent over 80% of all defendants in the federal criminal justice system. and i can tell you that we are grateful to this committee for holding these hearings on the very important topic of overcriminalization. when i think of the term overcriminalization, i think of a quote by the late harvard law professor, william stunts, who wrote, legal kmcommendation is important thing, to be used sparingly but not pro mimiscuos. the sentencing has become promiscuous. whether it's the number that has tripled since 1980, or most significantly, if measured by the number of people the federal government imprisons. the federal prison population has increased by 1,000% since 1980. and in the past 10 years, it's increased at a rate three times the rate of stat