Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

Dean Heller on Jobs

Republican


Get bipartisan bill passed for online poker

Heller said he would work with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get an online poker bill passed by the end of this year.

Some of Berkley's sharpest attacks on Heller came on online poker, on which Reid has blamed Heller for failing to get votes in the Senate. "My opponent is failing the people of the state of Nevada," she said, saying online poker legislation could mean up to 1,200 jobs in Nevada. "My opponent is not doing his job. Either he does not have an understanding of how important this is to the state of Nevada, or he's not caring."

Heller waived away the attacks as political. He said he believes he has two opponents in the race--Berkley and Reid. Reid saw online poker "as his last best chance to get involved in the U.S. Senate race," Heller continued. "26 days from now, Sen. Reid and myself will put aside our differences and get something passed."

Source: Las Vegas Sun on 2012 Nevada Senate debates , Oct 11, 2012

Denied 2010 reports that unemployed were "hobos"

Heller had to fend off his musings from a 2010 speech in Elko that unemployment benefits were creating "hobos."

Heller denied it outright, though press reports from the time confirm that he did indeed draw the correlation between unemployment benefits and "hobos."

"Look, the fact of the matter is my opponent actually did call unemployed people hobos and that puts him very much in line with what Mitt Romney said about the 47 percent," Berkley said.

Source: Las Vegas Sun on 2012 Nevada Senate debates , Oct 11, 2012

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks.

Congressional Summary:Revises the formula for Tier-1 amounts a state credits to an applicant's emergency unemployment compensation account. Increases the figures in the formula from 50% to 80% of the total amount of regular compensation ; and from 13 to 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:

Rep. CHARLES RANGEL (D, NY-15): The House, for weeks, has attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans.

While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are hardworking people that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Rep. JERRY WELLER (R, IL-11): This important legislation provides additional needed assistance to the long-term unemployed. It's important that we pass this legislation today as our last act before we leave for the election campaign.

This legislation focuses the most additional benefits on workers and States where the unemployment rate is highest and where jobs are hardest to find. This program continues the requirement that those benefiting from extended unemployment benefits had to have worked at least 20 weeks. Americans were rightly concerned about proposals to eliminate that work requirement and allow 39 weeks or, under the legislation before us today, as many as 59 weeks of total unemployment benefits to be paid to those who have previously only worked for a few weeks.

Opponent's argument to vote No:None voiced.

Reference: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act; Bill HR.6867 ; vote number 2008-H683 on Oct 3, 2008

Voted NO on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill was vetoed twice! Congress passed an identical bill in May, which Pres. Bush vetoed. Congress then discovered that a clerical error. A replacement bill was passed; then vetoed again by the President; and this is its "final" veto override.

Congressional Summary: Provides for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY2012. Revises agricultural and related programs, including provisions respecting:

  1. commodity programs;
  2. conservation;
  3. trade;
  4. nutrition;
  5. credit;
  6. rural development;
  7. research and related matters;
  8. forestry;
  9. energy;
  10. horticulture and organic agriculture;
  11. livestock;
  12. crop insurance and disaster assistance;
  13. socially disadvantaged and limited resource producers; and
  14. miscellaneous programs.
President's veto message: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 6124. The bill that I vetoed on May 21, 2008, H.R. 2419, did not include the title III (trade) provisions that are in this bill. In passing H.R. 6124, the Congress had an opportunity to improve on H.R. 2419 by modifying certain objectionable, onerous, and fiscally imprudent provisions [but did not].

This bill lacks fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our trade objectives of securing greater market access for American farmers. [Hence] I must veto H.R. 6124.

Proponents argument for voting YEA: We had a meeting this morning with the Secretary of Agriculture to talk about implementation. So [despite the two vetoes], the work has been going on within the department of agriculture to get ready for implementation.

This is a good bill. It has wide support in the Congress. It does address all of the issues that have been brought to the Agriculture Committee.

Reference: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Bill HR6124 ; vote number 2008-417 on Jun 18, 2008

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing.

    To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
    1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
    2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
    3. adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.

    Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.

    Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act; Bill H R 800 ; vote number 2007-118 on Mar 1, 2007

    Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

    Increase the federal minimum wage to:
    1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
    2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
    3. $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.

    We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.

    Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act; Bill HR 2 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-018 on Jan 10, 2007

    Rated 100% by CEI, indicating a pro-workplace choice voting record.

    Heller scores 100% by CEI on union issues

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free markets and limited government, has created a Congressional Labor Scorecard for the 112th Congress focusing on worker issues. The score is determined based on policies that support worker freedom and the elimination of Big Labor's privileges across the country.

    Source: CEI website 12-CEI-H on May 2, 2012

    Other candidates on Jobs: Dean Heller on other issues:
    [Title7]

    Nevada politicians
    Nevada Archives

    Retiring in 2014 election:
    GA:Chambliss(R)
    IA:Harkin(D)
    MI:Levin(D)
    MT:Baucus(D)
    NE:Johanns(R)
    SD:Johnson(D)
    WV:Rockefeller(D)

    Retired as of Jan. 2013:
    AZ:Kyl(R)
    CT:Lieberman(D)
    HI:Akaka(D)
    ME:Snowe(R)
    ND:Conrad(D)
    NE:Nelson(D)
    NM:Bingaman(D)
    TX:Hutchison(R)
    VA:Webb(D)
    WI:Kohl(D)
    Senate Retirements 2014:
    GA:Chambliss(R)
    IA:Harkin(D)
    MI:Levin(D)
    MT:Baucus(D)
    NE:Johanns(R)
    OK:Coburn(R)
    SD:Johnson(D)
    WV:Rockefeller(D)

    Senate races Nov. 2014:
    AK: Begich(D) vs.Miller(R) vs.Treadwell(R) vs.Sullivan(R)
    AL: Sessions(R,unopposed)
    AR: Pryor(D) vs.Cotton(R)
    CO: Udall(D) vs.Gardner(R) vs.Baumgardner(R) vs.Buck(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Stephens(R)
    DE: Coons(D) vs.O`Donnell(R)
    GA: Nunn(D) vs.Perdue(R) vs.Kingston(R) vs.Gingrey(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R)
    HI: Schatz(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
    IA: Braley(D) vs.Ernst(R) vs.Whitaker(R) vs.Clovis(R)
    ID: Risch(R) vs.Mitchell(D)
    IL: Durbin(D) vs.Oberweis(R) vs.Hansen(L) vs.Truax(R)
    KS: Roberts(R) vs.Tiahrt(R) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Taylor(D) vs.Orman(I)
    KY: McConnell(R) vs.Bevin(R) vs.Grimes(D)
    LA: Landrieu(D) vs.Cassidy(R) vs.Maness(R)
    MA: Markey(D) vs.Herr(R) vs.Skarin(I) vs.Gomez(R)
    ME: Collins(R) vs.D`Amboise(R) vs.Bellows(D)
    MI: Land(R) vs.Peters(D) vs.Wiedenhoeft(R)
    MN: Franken(D) vs.McFadden(R) vs.Abeler(R) vs.Ortman(R)
    MS: Cochran(R) vs.Childers(D) vs.McDaniel(R)
    MT: Walsh(D) vs.Daines(R) vs.Edmunds(R) vs.Bohlinger(D)
    NC: Hagan(D) vs.Tillis(R)
    NE: Sasse(R) vs.Domina(D) vs.Haugh(L) vs.Osborn(R)
    NH: Shaheen(D) vs.Brown(R) vs.Smith(R) vs.Rubens(R) vs.Testerman(R) vs.Martin(R)
    NJ: Booker(D) vs.Bell(R) vs.Sabrin(R)
    NM: Udall(D) vs.Weh(R) vs.Clements(R)
    OK-2: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D) vs.Shannon(R)
    OK-6: Inhofe(R) vs.Silverstein(D)
    OR: Merkley(D) vs.Wehby(R) vs.Conger(R)
    RI: Reed(D) vs.Zaccaria(R)
    SC-2: Scott(R) vs.Dickerson(D) vs.Wade(D)
    SC-6: Graham(R) vs.Hutto(D) vs.Ravenel(I) vs.Stamper(D) vs.Mace(R) vs.Bright(R)
    SD: Rounds(R) vs.Weiland(D) vs.Pressler(I)
    TN: Alexander(R) vs.Carr(R) vs.Adams(D)
    TX: Cornyn(R) vs.Alameel(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.Stockman(R)
    VA: Warner(D) vs.Gillespie(R) vs.Sarvis(L)
    WV: Capito(R) vs.Tennant(D) vs.Raese(R) vs.McGeehan(R)
    WY: Enzi(R) vs.Cheney(R) vs.Hardy(D)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Jobs
    Principles
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    Technology
    War/Peace
    Welfare

    Other Senators
    Senate Votes (analysis)
    Bill Sponsorships
    Affiliations
    Policy Reports
    Group Ratings

    Contact info:
    Email Contact Form
    Mailing Address:
    Cannon HOB 125, Washington, DC 20515
    Official Website
    Phone number:
    (202) 225-6155

    Page last updated: Aug 05, 2014