Steven Horsford

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank my friend for yielding. You bring up a very valid point. Over the weekend, I was at the William Pearson Community Center in my district, which is a tax preparation site for the Las Vegas Urban League. It was packed. There was not a seat available because so many people were there, seeking assistance in order to file their annual tax returns, particularly this year. They were trying to get them done early so they could get the refunds that were coming to them so that they could then help meet an obligation that they have in their households. It has been tough for a lot of families. So you make a very valid point as to the fact of the timing of this particular debt ceiling increase and the February 27 date and the obligations that the country has and this time period in particular. There are 110 million Americans who will be filing their tax returns, many of whom will be getting a refund, and I don't think they will take kindly to a delay in that refund if our colleagues on the other side use this debt ceiling legislation as an opportunity to load it up with conditions and requests that have nothing to do with the debt ceiling issue. I would ask my colleagues on the other side to listen to their constituents, to be aware of their needs and to know your decision to fail to pass a clean debt ceiling could have very negative consequences on our economy. We don't have to look very far. We can look back to 2011. The GOP brinksmanship during that time cost the economy the following: It was the first time the U.S. credit was downgraded in U.S. history by failing to increase the debt ceiling on a timely basis. We ultimately got it done, but it was delayed. There was some concern in the markets of what would happen, and it resulted in the first U.S. credit downgrade in our history. Are we going to allow that to happen again? The stock market plummeted 17 percent. Consumer confidence dropped to its lowest point since the financial crisis of 2008. We saw businesses stop hiring in 2011 with one of the lowest months of job growth over the last 2 years during that period. We have seen what the consequences of failing to pass a clean, swift debt ceiling would mean. Why would we even toy with the idea of failing to do it now, or to do it by adding conditions to it that basically hold the bill up as a hostage? Finally, there was $1.3 billion added to our national debt for fiscal year 2011 and $19 billion over 10 years in higher government borrowing costs. If you are a fiscal hawk--if you are someone who is concerned like I am about our Federal deficit, if you want to have good fiscal discipline--then you might want to pass a clean, swift debt ceiling bill so that we don't have added costs to our national debt and so that we don't have additional borrowing expenses added to a debt and a deficit that under this administration in the last few years has been on the decline. Let's do our job. Let's help the process. Let's move our country forward. Let's work together. Let's be a Congress that acts, not a Congress that continues to obstruct.

Mr. HORSFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HORSFORD. I appreciate you providing this historical context because, as you indicate, a lot of times on this floor we tend to focus on the rhetoric of the day and not the facts of the matter. As you have well illustrated here, if it were not for the Bush-era tax cuts, which are the biggest contributing factor to the debt and the deficit--and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--we probably would be in a much better position to address the domestic needs in this country and to have the type of economic investments to help grow our economy, put people to work, grow and build up our infrastructure, help our roads, our highways, our schools, the things that matter here in the United States. But yet money has been obligated by previous administrations, enacted by Members of Congress before you and I got here, and now this Congress and some on the other side want to hold the process hostage and add a new set of demands and conditions to that process for items that this administration or current Members of Congress and our constituents, who are expecting us to do our job, did not have the decision to begin with. So I appreciate you giving that historical perspective, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side will listen to the facts of the matter and move away from this drama of the brinksmanship and the political games that, unfortunately, are done too often to distract from the realities of the issues that you brought forward.

Mr. HORSFORD. One additional area that I would like to touch on and ask, maybe, my colleague to expound upon is that, under those Bush-era tax cuts, it included tax cuts to companies that ship jobs overseas, which contributed, did it not, to that 650,000 job loss? Was there a correlation there or not?

Mr. HORSFORD. If the gentleman would yield, I would just say--and I think that this would be an appropriate discussion for us to have at a future Special Order--the fact that some of those corporate tax breaks to ship American jobs overseas resulted in debt that is now being obligated by this country into future years indicates a change in policy that we need to have. We agree we need tax reform in this country. We need tax reform that allows those jobs to be returned to the United States by eliminating the corporate welfare that was provided by giving those tax incentives to those companies to take American jobs overseas to begin with and, to add insult to injury, to have it included in the overall debt and obligations of this country going forward. But the bottom line here tonight, Mr. Speaker, is we have a job to do this week, and that job, we are asking, is to bring a clean, swift, debt ceiling bill to the floor without a bunch of conditions or demands, and allow this Congress to do its job this week and send to the Senate a clean debt ceiling bill that allows us to meet our obligations. Those obligations, as my colleague here tonight has aptly explained, are obligations that prior administrations and prior Congresses have entered this country into. We have to keep the full faith and credit of the United States in tact. We cannot repeat some of the damaging consequences from 2011. We cannot have a repeat, Mr. Speaker, of lost economic productivity or economic activity. We cannot have the stock market plummeting. We cannot have lower consumer confidence. We cannot have businesses deciding whether to hire more employees because they are concerned that this Congress is going to cause more harm than help by failing to pass a clean debt ceiling. That is what we are asking here tonight. I thank my colleague, the anchor for this hour, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), for leading this discussion. I am pleased to have participated.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and allow us to vote on legislation to address the Nation's concerns about flood insurance and to come up with a comprehensive water plan to address our drought. Last month, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. And the headline of the American Banker article says it all: ``House GOP Blocks Vote on Senate-Passed Flood Insurance Bill.'' ``Florida Governor Scott Urges Speaker Boehner to Take Up Flood Insurance Fix,'' by the Palm Beach Post. This bipartisan legislation provides a 4-year timeout on rate increases triggered by a property's sale or a flood map update for a property with previously grandfathered rates. The bill also creates a flood insurance advocate to investigate homeowner complaints of rate quotes. During a recent trip back to my home State in Nevada, my constituents told me that these increases can be excessive and unfair. It is a problem that they want addressed now. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to allow us to bring up this previous question and offer an alternative.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance benefits for the 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights in our great country.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank my good friend, a strong advocate for the people of his district in New York as well as representing the interests of all Americans, and for your leadership in coanchoring this hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, where we bring the issues that most Americans want this Congress to focus on to the floor of the House of Representatives. I would like to thank you for anchoring this hour and all of our colleagues who have come to the floor tonight to speak. You know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night, this Chamber will be packed. Every seat will be filled, and every seat in the Chamber will have Representatives here. Millions upon millions of Americans will be listening as our President lays out the State of our Union. I am looking forward to his remarks and his vision for how we can continue to move our country forward. Tonight, we come here to gather to discuss income inequality and what Congress can do in working with the President to move some of these important legislative issues forward on behalf of the constituents that we represent and millions of Americans across our great Nation. There is no easy answer for solving the problem of income inequality or economic mobility. I thank the gentleman from New York for talking about how our various districts are really representative of this issue of income inequality. In my home district of Nevada, the Fourth District, we have been hit harder than most by higher unemployment, higher home foreclosures which have led to economic loss, and I want to talk about some of that tonight because when we talk about issues of income inequality and economic mobility, it is for all incomes, not just for a select few. It is for the people in rural America as well as urban America. These are issues that are important to all of us. Now although we cannot expect Congress to solve each person's economic struggle, we can certainly expect our Members of Congress not to target those who are struggling to make ends meet, especially by balancing our budget on their backs. As of December 28, this past year, Congress did just that, unfortunately, and now, over 1.6 million Americans have lost crucial unemployment insurance benefits. Today, nearly 21,000 Nevadans in my State have been cut off from unemployment benefits. This is personal. As my colleague from New Jersey talked about, for those who understand what it means to be unemployed, for those of us who understand the fact that people are putting in resume after resume, day after day, week after week, it hits a person to their core, being unemployed. To add insult to injury, this Congress failed to do its job. So its unconscionable to assume that those who are looking for work are lazy or that they want to somehow stay unemployed. Mr. Speaker, the constituents that I have spoken to in my district at the work centers who continue to put their resumes in, they want to be employed. It is one thing to have our colleagues on the other side believe that the government should not intervene in helping to close the gap between the rich and poor, but it is absolutely wrong to cut critical social safety nets that have been in place for decades--regardless of party-- in an effort to reduce spending while maintaining corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the very rich. Mr. Speaker, it is morally outrageous to target those who have lost their jobs at no fault of their own, but it is even worse to see this happen when we have millions of dollars in tax subsidies to millionaires and major industry. What is more, the difference between the top and the bottom of the economic ladder is greater than ever before, and climbing this ladder is also becoming increasingly difficult. Recently, Harvard economist Dr. Raj Chetty found that those who are our parents, and how much our parents earn, are more consequential today than ever before. Dr. Chetty identified five key factors that are heavily correlated with economic mobility and income inequality. First is segregation. Second is inequality. Third is the quality of our public school systems. Fourth is social and civic engagement. Fifth is family structure. And for decades, low-income workers have seen their wages frozen while the profits of the Nation's wealthiest Americans have continued to explode. Now I have nothing against successful people, people who go out and put their ingenuity and entrepreneurship to work and become successful, but I also believe that it is important for this Congress to also focus on the needs of those who are part of the middle class and those who have fallen into poverty who want to be part of that middle class. It is time that Congress acted to address the minimum wage crisis in our country. $7.25, which is the Federal minimum wage, is not a living wage in today's America, and we need to recognize that. We need to recognize that the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, the bill that has been introduced by our House Democratic colleague, Representative George Miller of California, and in the Senate by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, is the type of commonsense legislation that a majority of Americans expect this Congress to focus on. Gradually increasing the Federal minimum wage from a current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 per hour by 2016 in three 95-cent installments is the right economic step to take for our country and the people that we represent. $10.10 is the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage compared to what it was in the 1960s. Raising the tipped minimum wage from $2.13 per hour to $7.07 per hour. Now let's talk about who these people are that we are fighting to increase the wage for. First, these are low-wage workers who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage and are more likely to work full time. In fact, 55 percent of those who are on minimum wage today work full time. Fifty-six percent of those on minimum wage today, Mr. Speaker, are women, and 80 percent are adults who are at least 20 years of age. Those are not the only groups that would benefit from the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage would also generate some $22 billion in economic activity and create an additional 85,000 jobs nationwide. Contrary to what Republicans and some super-PACs may want the American people to believe, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. It creates jobs, and it helps lift people out of poverty. It would raise 4.6 million Americans out of poverty and put an average of $1,700 back into the pockets of our country's lowest-wage workers. In Nevada alone, over 139,000 people, 20 percent of our State's children, would be directly or indirectly affected by an increase in the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage would actually take pressure off of our government by allowing people to be in more sustaining wages that help them provide for themselves and their families rather than relying on Federal assistance to take care of themselves. So these are the growing inequalities that we are here to talk about, Mr. Speaker, and one of the greatest threats to our Nation's future is this issue of growing income inequality. Our country's greatness was built on the foundation of the world's most prosperous middle class and on a society where those who worked hard had the opportunity to rise on that economic ladder of opportunity. That has become far from the truth over the last 30 years but particularly during the recovery from the Great Recession. Before I turn the time back over to my colleague and engage in a little bit of back and forth, I would like to look at this graph for a moment because it charts our country's various recessions and depressions and our subsequent recoveries. In the Great Depression, everyone suffered. It devastated everyone in the economy, regardless of income. In the following years, when our economy started to grow again, all levels of income recovered at approximately the same rates that had declined. The top 1 percent share of the recovery was only about 28 percent at the time. During the Clinton expansion years, in the 1990s, it was an economic boom for all levels of income. And although the top 1 percent held 45 percent of that growth, it was still a shared economic prosperity. Moving ahead to the Bush expansion, after the 2001 recession, you can see more of the growth being concentrated in the top 1 percent at 65 percent. When the recession of 2007 to 2009 came about, only 49 percent of the loss belonged to the 1 percent despite the massive gains they had accrued during the Bush expansion. So this is not the type of economic system that we want for our country, where the wealthiest elite continues to grow and the Nation's middle class shrinks and suffers, and that is what we are here to talk about tonight. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me and I yield back.

Mr. HORSFORD. And I appreciate yours. Just to reinforce the point you were making, this chart illustrates the very facts of the matter. Why is it okay that Wall Street profits are at record highs over the last 3 years since 2009, at 720 percent, but it is not okay to increase the minimum wage for millions upon millions of Americans who are using that minimum-wage job to provide for themselves and their family? Why is it okay that the unemployment rate is over 102 percent during this period, but it is not okay to increase the minimum wage for workers in this country? Why is it okay that CEO pay is 185 times bigger than the average worker according to the Economic Policy Institute, but it is not okay to raise the minimum wage from $7.25, incrementally, to $10.10 in order to lift people out of poverty? And why is it okay that Americans' home equity has dropped 35 percent during 2007-2009 thereby affecting the very income wealth that the majority of middle class Americans did have and yet not help to lift our economy by raising the minimum wage? These are the questions that we would like to pose to our friends and colleagues on the other side. These are the questions that the American public expect this House of Representatives to debate, and these are the issues that would really go to the crux of closing the income inequality and moving economic mobility forward in this country. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these and other measures. We have introduced legislation to increase the minimum wage, to extend unemployment insurance benefits, to provide training to workers to move into high-growth sectors and to invest in our infrastructure to create the type of jobs that our country desperately needs. But we need our colleagues on the other side to work with us and our President to move these legislative proposals forward and to stop the continued obstructionism that has plagued this Congress for far too long.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment insurance benefits that protect 19,285 workers in the great State of Nevada.

Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so we finally have a chance to bring up unemployment insurance, which is what the majority of Americans want us to be addressing at this time. It is completely insensitive, unjust, and flat out wrong that Congress would deny 1.4 million Americans unemployment insurance benefits, including over 19,000 Nevadans. This is the week that unemployment checks stop coming. This is the week where families will be faced with very unnecessary hardships and impossible choices. Why? Because this Congress fails to act. Republicans are holding unemployment benefits hostage, and it is completely hypocritical. On December 14, 2002, in his weekly radio address, then-President George W. Bush scolded Congress for failing to extend unemployment insurance benefits. He said: ``These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for their rent, to pay their food and other critical bills.''

Mr. HORSFORD. ``They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down.'' The unemployment rate then was 6 percent. It is much higher now. That Congress voted 416-4 to extend unemployment benefits, and under George W. Bush they did it five times. They didn't ask for one pay-for because it was important for the American public. It is time for us to do the right thing on behalf of 1.4 million Americans.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, it is completely insensitive, unjust, and flat out wrong that Congress would deny the now more than 1.4 million Americans unemployment insurance, including over 18,000 Nevadans. Mr. Speaker, this is the week that checks stop coming in the mail. For those who maybe never have been unemployed or don't know what it is like to struggle, for many Americans this is the week that the pain takes hold. The hypocrisy from across the aisle is staggering. I don't quote the former President often, but on December 14, 2002, in his weekly radio address, then-President George W. Bush scolded Congress because ``no final bill was sent to me extending unemployment benefits for about 750,000 Americans whose benefits will expire on December 28.'' He went on to say: These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for their mortgage or rent, food, and other critical bills. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down. The unemployment rate in December 2002, it was just 6 percent. Congress then extended those unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 416-4. If it was an emergency then, it is an emergency now. It is time to do the right thing and extend unemployment insurance for the 1.4 million Americans.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to remember Assemblyman Bernie Anderson of Sparks, Nevada, who passed away last Friday. Bernie was a true public servant, not just as a lawmaker, but as an educator as well. For 32 years, he was a dedicated teacher and was recognized with the Teacher of the Month Award by the Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce in October 1985. As chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, he was a staunch advocate for children and drug treatment policy that provided people the help they needed. When asked how he became successful at his job, he answered: I try to listen rather than talk. I like people. I care about what people are thinking and how they see solutions to the problems. We desperately need more people like Bernie Anderson in this world. He will be missed by many. My thoughts and prayers remain with his family.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this designated hour at the beginning of this week for the Congressional Black Caucus, as it normally does, to come to this floor to bring forward issues that are very important to the American people. Tonight I join with my colleagues to speak about the importance of extending unemployment insurance benefits, growing our economy, and putting people back to work. So for the next hour, the Congressional Black Caucus will talk about the dire need for emergency unemployment insurance benefits and the fact that it is time for Congress to do its job. I would like to thank my coanchor, Mr. Jeffries from New York, and our chair, the Honorable Marcia Fudge from Ohio, for their leadership and working tonight to bring forward these important issues. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from New York, Representative Clarke.

Mr. HORSFORD. I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York. Thank you for your hard work and for bringing your perspective to the need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits to the 1.3 million Americans who, as of this week, have now lost receiving that benefit. This is the week that they would have otherwise received that unemployment insurance benefit in the mail. So this is real for some 1.3 million Americans who are struggling this week to meet their obligations to keep the lights on, to put food on the table and to pay the rent. This is the week. Each week that Congress fails to act, 72,000 Americans--additional Americans--lose their unemployment insurance benefits. One person every 8 seconds, Mr. Speaker, loses their uninsurance benefits when Congress fails to act. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus is here this evening, to bring attention to this urgency of now. Every week, 72,000 Americans are struggling--additional Americans--on top of the 1.3 million who already, as of December 28, have lost their unemployment insurance. So this is real, and the impacts are real. I would like to go to the vice chairman now of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina, who provides tremendous leadership to our caucus and to the issues important to the American people, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I thank him for his profound remarks this evening and the call to action, not only for the leadership in North Carolina but for the leadership in this House to do its job in bringing legislation forward to allow us to vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the people of North Carolina and across America, who this week, now because of the failure of Congress to act, when they went to their mailbox to receive their unemployment insurance benefit, this is the week that they opened that mailbox and nothing was there to provide that bridge. So this is real, and so people are impacted. This has been an insurance program that has received bipartisan support in the past, and there is no reason why this Congress cannot do its job to get this done now. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership. I would like to now turn to the gentlelady from Texas, who brought forward and who raised the objections prior to our even adjourning in December, along with 170 of our other colleagues, calling on the leadership to not go on recess but, in fact, to stay here and do its job. We are where we are now, but we have raised these objections, and the gentlelady from Texas has raised these objections. I would like to yield now to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. I appreciate very much you bringing to our attention who is covered by unemployment insurance and putting a face to who is receiving this insurance. I am glad you focused on that term ``insurance'' and the fact that these are individuals who have paid into the program, as they have been gainfully employed for some time. Due to no fault of their own, they are in need of this bridge. Many of them are in training, and this initiative of legislation you are proposing to link job-seekers to employer-based demands is exactly the type of reform that our side supports and that we are willing to work with the other side on, but we need to provide the extension of the unemployment benefits while we work on those reforms. Right now, the Congress has failed to provide this bridge, and you have documented that very well in your remarks this evening. I thank the gentlelady. Let me highlight, as well, some of the additional information on who is covered by unemployment insurance benefits. This is according to the Department of Labor: four out of five beneficiaries of unemployment insurance benefits, Mr. Speaker, are individuals with children in the household or another adult in the household, typically a spouse; 44.5 percent of individuals who receive emergency unemployment benefits are households with children. So just think about that for a moment. This is the week that those emergency employment benefits did not come in, the $300 or $400 or $500 that they may have received to help meet their basic needs this month. That impacted not only that job-seeker, not only that unemployed worker, but also their children. Half of the people receiving emergency unemployment insurance have at least some college education. So for those who continue to use this rhetoric of these are people who are lazy, who are sitting at home channel surfing, they don't want to look for work, half of them are people already with college education or some form of education; 36.4 percent have high school degrees. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, 50 percent, over nine in 10 live in households with total income less than $75,000 a year. This is the working poor of our country. These are the people who are striving to be part of the middle class; and, if anything, they are using emergency unemployment benefits as a bridge until they can get back on their feet. I also want to point out that 43 percent are individuals with income over $75,000 a year. So this economy has hit virtually every stratum of income level, and so that is why it is important for this Congress to do its job in extending unemployment insurance benefits. I want to commend the other Chamber, the leadership, Majority Leader Harry Reid from my home State of Nevada, and Republican U.S. Senator Dean Heller, also from Nevada, in large part our State, because we have unemployment at about 9 percent. We are tied with Rhode Island for the highest unemployment in the country, not because job-seekers don't want to go to work, because the second highest industry in our State was construction and because of the bust of the construction economy in our State, there are no jobs or there are very few jobs for those trades workers, for engineering firms, for architecture firms. I have one architecture firm that has had to lay off 70 percent of their workforce in the last few years because there simply aren't the jobs in the construction sector. Despite the fact that our economy is beginning to rebound, it is not rebounding in all sectors or all regions of the country. That is why it is critically important that this Congress do its job to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the 20,000 Nevadans who have lost them, and the 1.3 million Americans who have also lost them. I now would like to turn to my good friend and freshman colleague. It has been a great opportunity over the last year to get to know him and the work that he does in the great State of New Jersey and the commitment that he brings to serving the people of his congressional district. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Again, I commend you for raising your voice and urging this body to do its job on behalf of your constituents, the people of New Jersey who elected you to bring their perspective to this Congress. You are asking the same question many of us are asking, which is to our colleagues on the other side: Do they know what it is like to be unemployed? Do they know what it is like to have to look for a job day after day, week after week, submitting resumes not knowing if you are going to be called back? Do they know what it is like to struggle, or to look one of your children in the eyes and worry about how you are going to make ends meet? That is the reality for 1.4 million Americans today because Congress has failed to act. Whether they have been in that situation or not, they need to understand that is the reality for many Americans. I thank you for your comments and for being here during this Special Order hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I commend you for your hard work. Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is significant for many. Like my colleagues last week, I went to a local work center in my district, Workforce Connections, to talk with and meet with a group of workers, job seekers, people who were looking for work. When I walked into the center, the one-stop center where everybody looks for the jobs on the job board was packed. There was a waiting list to get in in order to get onto a computer to search for jobs. I talked to one unemployed worker. Her name is Alfordeen. I want to just share a bit of her story with you because it hit me that this is who I am fighting for. She is one of those 20,000 Nevadans affected by the expiration of her unemployment insurance. She worked for 20 years doing patient admissions for a local medical facility in southern Nevada. She was laid off in 2012, which resulted in her losing her health insurance. Unfortunately, she was later diagnosed with breast cancer and has been living with one of her children while she trains to become certified to get another job. Alfordeen is using her remaining unemployment insurance benefits to cover some of her medical costs, and she just found out recently, fortunately, that she qualifies now for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. But what Alfordeen told me, what all of the workers I talked to told me, is what she wants most is what she had in 2012: to go back to work, to regain her independence, and to help others do the work that she loves by admitting them and helping them get health care. So Alfordeen is an example to me of the 1.4 million Americans who are out there who are trying, who want this Congress to try as well. They expected us to do our job, and we failed them. We failed when we left in December, and we are failing them every day that we don't extend unemployment insurance benefits. So I am urging my colleagues to not allow another day to go without us taking action. It is true that one person every 8 seconds loses unemployment insurance. It is true that 72,000 additional Americans will be affected every week that this Congress fails to act. But we have the ability to do something about it, and that is why we are here tonight. I want to turn now to my coanchor of this Special Order hour. He is a great colleague, someone who I have profound respect for. He works tirelessly on behalf of the constituents who elected him from New York. He brings so many great perspectives to the Special Order topics that we have been able to cover. I would like to recognize him now, the gentleman from New York, Congressman Jeffries.

Mr. HORSFORD. I appreciate very much the gentleman from New York--the coanchor--and the chronology and the facts that you have laid out to make the case that, unfortunately, it is not just the unemployment insurance benefits that have been under attack by the House Republicans to reauthorize or to extend but that there have been other bridges that have helped the middle class--or those who are aspiring to be part of the middle class--in just the last year that this Congress has failed to act on. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time we have left.

Mr. HORSFORD. I would like to use that final 10 minutes then, Mr. Speaker, to close by highlighting the points that my colleague Mr. Jeffries just did a phenomenal job of laying out, one being that this is not the first time unemployment insurance benefits have been extended. In fact, this chart shows that while there is still more work to be done to help the unemployed--and I completely agree that our focus must be on creating jobs and on growing the economy. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus and individual Members like myself have proposed jobs-creating legislation. The first bill I introduced as a Member of Congress was a jobs-creating measure to help people in Nevada's Fourth District go to work, to help bring down our stubbornly high unemployment. For those who are in the unemployment calculation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from January 2007 to date, unemployment insurance has repeatedly been extended, including by Republican administrations. It was in June of 2008 that then-President George W. Bush authorized emergency unemployment insurance benefits to be extended. What was the unemployment rate at the time? 5.6 percent. He didn't extend unemployment insurance one time--he extended it five times--and he didn't offer a proposal for how it had to be paid because it was an emergency. It was an emergency then, and it is an emergency now with the national unemployment rate just below 7 percent. When 1.4 million Americans who rely on the unemployment insurance benefit have now lost it, it is an emergency for these individuals, and it is an emergency for our economy. So, for those on the other side who don't want to do this because it is the right thing to do for our neighbors, for hardworking Americans who have done everything that they can and at no fault of their own they are still unemployed, if you don't want to do it for that reason, then maybe do it because it is good for the local economy, because the money that is provided for under the unemployment insurance benefit is then spent by those beneficiaries in local grocery stores, and it is spent paying utility bills, paying rent, and that all helps affect the economy. Failing to renew the emergency unemployment insurance program will cost the economy, as my colleague from New York said, over 200,000 jobs this year, including 3,000 jobs in Nevada, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expiration of the Federal unemployment insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than $400 million out of the pockets of American job seekers nationwide and of State and local economies, according to analysis done by the Ways and Means Committee. In Nevada, in the first week from the loss of uninsurance benefits expiring, $5.4 million has been lost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective fiscal policies to increase economic growth and to help employment. So, if our colleagues on the other side don't want to do it because it is the right thing to do for those four out of five of the beneficiaries who have children, if they don't want to do it for half of the beneficiaries who have gone to some form of college, if they don't want to do it for the veterans who also rely in some part on unemployment insurance benefits, then do it for the local economy, but whatever your reason, do it. I would like to ask my colleague if he has any final remarks that he would like to offer. Then I want to close by just debunking this pay- for argument that some on the other side have again proposed, which is that the only way they are going to vote for something is if there is a plan to pay for it.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman from New York. As I come to a close, let me just say directly that, President George Bush did it five times and not with a pay-for. On December 14, 2012, during his Weekly Radio Address, he was reminding the Congress that no final bill was sent to him extending these unemployment benefits for 750,000 Americans whose benefits would expire on December 28. He went on to say: These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for their mortgage or rent and their critical bills. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down. As I said, the unemployment rate at that time was below 6 percent, and it is now below 7 percent. It is time for this Congress to act, but if you demand a pay-for, then I have one suggestion: What about eliminating or closing a number of the corporate tax loopholes, such as eliminating the tax incentives for companies that get benefits for shipping American jobs overseas? Right now, the United States loses an estimated $150 billion annually to tax avoidance schemes involving tax havens. Many of our largest and most profitable companies paid no Federal taxes in previous years. So, for the other side to make this argument is disingenuous. It is unconscionable that you would hold hostage the benefits for 1.4 million Americans for 3 months at a cost of $6.5 billion when you have a Tax Code that is littered with corporate tax incentives for shipping American jobs overseas. If we were to close those tax loopholes, we could re-shore those jobs back to America, putting Americans back to work, reducing our unemployment rate, and growing America's economy. That is what we should be doing. That is why this Congress needs to act, and it is time for this Congress, under the leadership of the Speaker, to do just that. General Leave

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HORSFORD

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