Hakeem Jeffries
The Public Record
Hakeem Sekou Jeffries is an American lawyer and politician currently serving as the U.S. Representative for New York's 8th congressional district, a position he has held since January 3, 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, Jeffries has been an influential figure in the House of Representatives, serving as the House Democratic Caucus Chair since 2019. He is known for his advocacy on issues such as criminal justice reform, healthcare, and economic equity.
But some certainty of punishment absent cooperation is very, very valuable in eliciting cooperation.
That is part of Silicon Alley. I am so glad that you are familiar with our East Coast lingo. But it also has more college students in downtown Brooklyn than Boston and Cambridge combined. So there has been a great number of young people…
And yet no one has presented a shred of evidence, a scintilla of evidence that Planned Parenthood has done anything wrong.
This is an enormous waste of taxpayer money for us to sit here at this hearing when we realize or should realize this is not a legitimate congressional exercise.
This is theater. This is a charade. This is stagecraft. This is nothing more than a political hit job on a woman's right to choose, which, by the way, is constitutionally protected.
Would you agree that whether there's been an impact over the course of your life in terms of outcome, that's the most important factor as to whether the investment in Head Start has yielded a return?
From the moment that House Republicans came to power, the majority has failed to do its job. They have consistently abdicated their responsibility to govern. They have consistently taken the American people on reckless legislative joyrides…
It is time to change the name, change the attitude and the approach, and recognize that we need to engage in reform.
We need to also examine reforms that are smart on crime but also protect public safety.
Many within the technology sector have indicated that there's approximately a 20 percent vacancy rate, if not more, of jobs that they cannot fill here in America.
Is it reasonable to have a priority policy that focuses on those undocumented immigrants who would potentially pose the most danger to the American citizens?
I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries). The amendment was agreed…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: limitation on use of funds Sec. __. None of the funds…
There is a moment now to have a discussion related to the specific military installations and whether it is appropriate for those installations to be named after individuals who were fighting to uphold the institution of slavery.
The rule that we are discussing today was first put forth in 2010. Is that correct?
I am worried about the underpinning of the public sector continuing what it needs to match the private sector.
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act…
We may not always agree on your particular positions but your contribution to the public square has been notable and significant.
We cannot ignore the fact that we have a problem in some instances with excessive use of police force.
What people want is to make sure that the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law applies to everyone.
I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Orleans for his thoughtful and eloquent exposition of the situation and for pointing out that, while this is not an easy conversation for us to have around the police's use of excessive force…
I think we could all agree that the litigation system is an important part of our democracy in the context of making sure that we resolve disputes in a manner consistent with the rule of law.
But putting that small fact aside for a moment, you don't think that the FCC's decision had anything to do with public sentiment, which I gather in a representative democracy is pretty important?





