Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4853. Of course I strongly support tax relief for the middle class and others, but today's bill is misguided. Nevada is struggling. It has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation; more than 14 percent. Some counties in my congressional district are as high as 16, 17 percent unemployment. Real unemployment is probably closer north of 20 percent. At home in Nevada I constantly talk to families, small business owners and workers struggling to make ends meet. That's why I have supported extending unemployment insurance. But Nevadans, like most Americans, want jobs.

So today, ``Washington knows what's best, class warfare, pick-and- choose method of so-called tax relief'' is a dangerous way to go.

The outgoing majority party does not understand that tax hikes do not create jobs. The outgoing majority party doesn't understand that bigger government doesn't create jobs. The outgoing majority party still doesn't understand that more regulation doesn't create jobs. And doubling down on failed stimulus spending--which this bill does also-- is, too, the wrong way to go.

It bears repeating simply because the current outgoing majority so often fails to listen: The income levels in the bill today exclude many small businesses, and it's those small business owners who are the job creators in the economy. Three-quarters of all new jobs are created by small businesses, which employ half of all private-sector employees. These are the entrepreneurs, the patent filers, the exporters, the startups and the innovators. They, not Washington politicians, are the ones who will lead our Nation out of its economic struggles, yet today we are asked to support a tax increase on them.

I have a letter here signed by a number of national and local organizations who strongly support extending the current tax relief. In the letter they say, ``strongly urge Congress to end the tax uncertainty plaguing the business community by extending the expiring 2001/2003 tax rates.

Nowhere in this letter--signed by 28 pages of organizations and businesses nationwide--do they waffle or endorse these income limitations. Several chambers of commerce and local businesses from around the State of Nevada who understand the importance of certainty in our tax policy have signed onto this letter. Businesses like Silver State Barricade and Sign, Starsound Audio, Hartmann and Associates, and Air Systems, Inc. are all in this letter. Today's exercise in political theater is simply bad policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5307, the Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act. I want to thank Congresswoman Giffords for the opportunity to work with her on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Nevadans are all too familiar with the impact of illegal drugs on our communities. Meth and other illicit substances are destroying lives and families in my State. Due to its proximity to southwest border States, Nevada serves as a hub for the distribution of Mexican drugs destined for the central and eastern United States. As a result, too many Nevadans are exposed to illicit drugs from Mexico, along with the violence and the crime that accompanies drug smuggling activities.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mexican- produced crystal meth is the most readily available form of meth in Nevada. Mexican black tar heroin is the most prevalent form of heroin in my State, and Mexican-grown marijuana is readily available in Nevada.

Because of the impact Mexican drugs are having on Nevada, I believe passage of the legislation we are considering today is important. While ultralights from Mexico don't have the range to make it into Nevada, all methods of smuggling across our southern borders impact the supply of illegal drugs throughout our Nation.

The 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment released by the National Drug Intelligence Center identified ultralights as a new means drug cartels are using to smuggle drugs into the United States. Due to a loophole in current law, drug smugglers who use ultralights are subject to lesser penalties than they should be. The Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act will provide law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute drug smugglers to the fullest extent of the law.

The Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act takes the commonsense step of including ultralights under the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This bill will simply establish the same penalties for smuggling drugs on ultralights as for smuggling on airplanes or automobiles.

In closing, I would like to again recognize and thank Congresswoman Giffords for her leadership. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee for allowing this bipartisan legislation to come to the floor in this timely manner.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to reiterate my support for this bipartisan legislation.

The Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act will serve as an important deterrent to the use of ultralights for drug smuggling along our borders and help curb the supply of illegal narcotics in our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for the Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 474, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 470, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 471, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 472, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I appreciate the gentlewoman's extending some time.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here in front of you and to spend some time talking about these unemployment benefits that we have in front of us today.

We had some, of course, unfortunate information come out of the administration as to the unemployment numbers for the last month. They actually went up in the State of Nevada. Right now, the unemployment rate in the State of Nevada is at 14.2 percent. In the city of Las Vegas, that unemployment number is at 14.5 percent. That is the worst unemployment of any place across this Nation, so it is very disheartening. The question, I guess, that I have, Mr. Speaker, is:

Who do we hold responsible? Who do we hold responsible for the failed economic policies of this Congress and this administration?

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that the unemployed are the ones who should be held accountable for these failures. Despite the promises from this administration that a stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8 percent, we are seeing across this Nation numbers much higher than that. We continue to see Nevada grow from 10 percent, 11 percent, 12 percent, and now to 14.2 percent. It was supposed to be an immediate jolt. Clearly, it didn't happen. The truth is the stimulus has failed the American people and the people of the great State of Nevada.

I want to read a letter that I received recently from one of my constituents, Heidi, from the city of Sparks, Nevada.

She writes, ``I need you to really try and understand just how difficult things are for some, if not most of us, still unemployed here in the lovely State of Nevada.

``I have been unemployed for just about 6 months now. My husband was laid off back in November, recently took a job for a considerably less amount just to get a job. I have been on several interviews, filled out countless applications, and sent my resume to countless companies.''

Heidi worked for the same company for 6 years, her husband, laid off after working 13 years.

It just goes to expand the failed policies that we're seeing here in this Congress, coming out of this Congress and coming out of the administration.

I will be more than happy to.

In other words, you're asking me what would have happened if we took all this money out of the private sector and put it in the public sector? Is that the question you're asking me?

Mr. Speaker, I believe we need private sector money given to private sector government given to private people, not more public jobs. And that's what the other side continues to argue.

But I will tell you that Members on both sides, both sides of the aisle are trying to help the unemployed. But what the argument here is, do we continue to add $34 billion to the $13 trillion in debt that we now have here in this country. And that's the argument.

And if you want to ask another question, how do you plan on paying for it, there was a rule. There was an opportunity for the Rules Committee to pay for this.

How often is the left and how often is the majority party saying that the unemployment is a stimulus to this economy? That's great. And if you want to go down that road, what I would argue is then take the stimulus dollars that are unused and use it to pay for these unemployment benefits. You can do it. You can do it. It's not that you can't do it; it's that you won't do it. And that makes no sense.

I had that substitute amendment in the Rules Committee. Of course it failed. I think it's unfortunate. What we're doing here today is that we're going to pass this bill. I'm going to vote against the rule. I will vote for the bill, but I'm voting against the rule.

And the problem with this is we're going to pass this bill and what we're going to do is we're going to go on a 6-week vacation. That's what we're doing here. We're going to go on a 6-week vacation. And what we're going to say is that, hey, we're going to extend these unemployment benefits, but we're going to get full pay for 6 weeks while we're on vacation. Why don't we stay here, Mr. Speaker?

I want to stay here over the 6-week period, put some economic, bipartisan economic policies together so the people like Heidi from the city of Sparks, Nevada, can get a job. I think that's what we ought to be doing here in Washington, D.C. instead of casting a vote, ducking and hiding, running out for a 6-week vacation.

I ask a question: Who's to be held responsible for the failed economic policies of this Congress and this administration? And I don't believe it should be the unemployed.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time. And the answer to his statement is, it's absolutely correct, this can be paid for.

I come from a State, the State of Nevada, that has 14.2 percent unemployment, and these are very, very tough times. During the rules hearing, I submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece of legislation. We can pay for it. It's not that the majority can't pay for it, it's that they don't want to pay for it. In fact, if you take a look at November 2009, facing the Unemployment Insurance Extension bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for, and the administration itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. And at the time, unemployment was higher than it is today nationwide. Don't tell me the administration doesn't think this ought to be paid for. If they wanted to pay for it at 9.8 percent, why don't they want to pay for it today?

I want to speak a little bit about the failed stimulus bill because I think some general questions were pointed my way during earlier debate, and that is whether or not the stimulus bill has actually worked. We've lost 2 million jobs in this country since the stimulus bill was passed. Forty-seven of 50 States have lost jobs since this Democratic-crafted stimulus bill. And it's no wonder that in recent polls more Americans think that Elvis is alive than this stimulus bill has worked. That's failure.

Nevada's unemployment, Clark County unemployment has gone up 40 percent. That's indisputable, and that's failure. Take Clark County alone; there are those who say the stimulus is working in Las Vegas; yet just last month almost 3,500 people filed for unemployment benefits. Take since the stimulus down in Las Vegas, nearly 40,000 people have lost their jobs in Las Vegas. Tell me the stimulus is working in Las Vegas. Take Nevada as a whole. Just last month 4,100 people filed for unemployment claims. Take the State since the stimulus: Since the stimulus, almost 50,000 people have lost their jobs in Las Vegas. Tell me that the stimulus has worked in my district. I will debate anybody on this, and I'll wait for my phone to ring.

I will just talk a little bit about the fact that in Nevada our unemployment level is 50 percent higher than the national average. If we had the national average in the State of Nevada, there would be 60,000 fewer unemployed Nevadans right now. However, there is one place in America where the stimulus has worked, and I'll give the other side credit for this, and that's Washington, D.C. Government jobs have grown by 201,000; 201,000 jobs have been created in Washington, D.C., since the stimulus was passed.

Some have alleged or believe there are no unobligated stimulus funds, and I don't agree with that. We can use unobligated stimulus funds. Go to www.recovery.gov, the administration's own Web site. Take a look at their Web site. They will show you that half of the stimulus funds at this point have not been spent. Can't we take $34 billion of more than $300 billion that's in unused stimulus funds to pay for this unemployment extension? That would be the right thing to do. I think that our children and grandchildren's future are worth a dime on the dollar; some apparently don't.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 452, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 453, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, I did a telephone town hall meeting in my district with more than 13,000 people on that telephone line with me. Hundreds of them wanted to ask questions. Obviously, I couldn't get to all of them, but of those that I could get to, 50 percent of them wanted to ask about unemployment. One woman said that without an unemployment extension, she wouldn't be able to pay for her car registration, her insurance, and was likely to lose her home soon. She worried about foreclosure and asked, if she couldn't register her car, how was she supposed to look for a job? Others had similar stories about the sacrifices that they needed to make in these tough times.

These same Nevadans also know that the stimulus hasn't worked. President Obama promised no more than 8 percent unemployment. Maybe I'm confused. Maybe he meant 9 percent or 10 percent or 11 percent. Maybe he meant 12 percent, but that doesn't even reach the level of unemployment in my State of Nevada at 14 percent. I even have counties in my district north of 18 percent unemployment.

Now, I'm one of many Republicans who support helping long-term unemployed people and have voted repeatedly to extend these benefits. As I mentioned, the largest county in my district, Washoe County, has 13.3 percent unemployment. Clark County--for decades, the fastest- growing county in my State, home of Las Vegas, two-thirds of the State's population--has an unemployment rate of more than 14 percent. And, as I mentioned, some counties 15 percent, 16 percent, even 18 percent unemployment.

This is unacceptable because these aren't just numbers. These are people. These are families who are hurting, losing their homes, unable to pay their bills, struggling to provide for their children. But even facing these serious problems, Nevadans know that the majority party either doesn't know or can't admit that Obama economics is killing jobs.

Crippling debt is not the answer. The assistance we provide should not put our fiscal house in even worse shape. Members on both sides support helping the unemployed, but many Members oppose adding an additional $34 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of debt, as this legislation does. There is an alternative. Use the unused, failed stimulus money to pay for this extension.

There is a bill at the desk. Pass it, and we can all go home knowing that we have done the responsible thing.

Thank you.

We can go home, having done the responsible thing and knowing that we have helped all Americans.

Most importantly, it's long past time for Congress to finally get serious about creating jobs. My constituents want paychecks, not unemployment checks. They want startups, not bailouts. And they want hand-ups, not handouts.

Americans are disappointed with a government that has grown so big, promised so much, yet has delivered so little.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 321, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4213, a misguided bill masquerading as tax relief.

Instead of creating jobs, this bill will cost jobs. Instead of providing much needed certainty, this bill merely kicks the can down the road. Instead of helping our economy recover, this bill will more likely delay it.

In fact, this bill has more than $100 billion of deficit spending, coupled with nearly $50 billion in tax increases. We should not do either. Yes, this bill does have a few good things that I could support, largely on the doctor formula, geothermal energy, and even unemployment programs, but there is a better way.

I introduced a bill today to provide a short-term extension of unemployment insurance, SGR, COBRA, flood insurance, and SBA loan programs. This is routinely extended by this Congress in a bipartisan fashion. My bill is completely paid for with unused stimulus funds.

The majority has passed a health care takeover, cap-and-trade, cap- and-tax schemes, a so-called stimulus bill, and now this. H.R. 4213 contains air-dropped tax increases, accounting gimmicks, and a hodgepodge of propped-up stimulus programs that show the American people that, once again, we are governed by a bunch of backroom deals and not a government guided by ideals.

When a bill has to be rigged together that is bad for builders, bad for investors, bad for seniors, bad for real estate, bad for energy, bad for contractors, bad for innovators, bad for financial interests, bad for small businesses, bad for the high-tech industry, bad for entrepreneurs, and bad for worldwide American companies--in short, bad for taxpayers and job creators--then it is a bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 256, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 257 I was unavoidably detained.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''