The budget process for Fiscal Year 2021 is officially underway with the release of President Trump’s budget proposal this week. While it appears House Democrats might fail to offer up a budget for the second year in a row, I’m pleased to see President Trump’s commitment to producing a pro-growth budget proposal that will balance in 15 years. Other key components of his proposal include: a $4.6 trillion deficit reduction over 10 years, $51 billion in regulatory savings, and a 21% reduction to wasteful programs.
While Congress ultimately holds the power of the purse, the President’s annual budget serves as a starting point for lawmakers to determine specific funding levels for our nation’s spending priorities. As the FY 2021 budget process begins, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to ensure the most responsible use of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars by reigning in wasteful spending where needed and investing wisely in the critical programs and agencies Americans rely on.
Washington Visitors
It’s always nice to see familiar faces while I’m in Washington. Below are some of the Nevadans I met with this week. Thanks for stopping by!
NEVADA SPECIAL OLYMPICS
It was such a pleasure to meet with representatives from the Nevada Special Olympics this week. I enjoyed discussing some of the important programs available to their athletes and visiting with Paul, a special Olympics athlete from Las Vegas, about his love for basketball.
THE CORPS NETWORK
I was honored to receive the 2020 Congressional Champion Award this Week from the Corps Network. I look forward to continuing to work with national service programs like the Nevada Conservation Corps to support solutions that will help Nevada leverage its vast public lands while preserving our unique landscape and way of life.
Washington Wrap-Up
Now that impeachment is over, House Democrats are back to business as usual with another round of votes on “feel-good” messaging bills intended to do nothing but add fuel to the political fire.
Despite Democrats’ claims that this week’s bills are beneficial for women’s equality issues and the environment, if enacted, each of these bills would actually create many unintended consequences while doing nothing to solve the issues at hand. Yet again, House Democrats are proving it’s all about the headlines, not good policy. Keep reading to learn more about my votes against each of these bills.
H.R. 2546 – The Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019
This legislation contains a package of bills that would result in a unilateral power grab by the Federal Government at the expense of state and local governments. Collectively, H.R. 2546 would impact 1.5 million acres of land across California, Colorado, and Washington, arbitrarily designating it as new wilderness – the most restrictive federal land use classification that will generate a massive set of new management burdens for our federal agencies.
In addition to the increased burden being placed on federal agencies, it’s equally concerning that a number of the provisions in this package are not only strongly opposed to by the Members of Congress who represent the affected areas, but also by the local stakeholders and county officials who live and work on these lands. In fact, many of the local communities impacted by this wilderness package have raised significant concerns ranging from: the loss of access and recreation, the elimination of multiple use, and the overall threat to rural economies. Another major problem with this legislation’s restrictive land management regimes is the fact that it would increase the threat of catastrophic wildfires, which is a growing concern in these specific western states as they already rank in the top ten nationally for severe wildfire threats.
While Democrats are trying to pass this legislation off as a wilderness protection package, they’re failing to mention any of the unintended consequences, increased threats to the environment, and devastating economic impacts that will actually occur from such an unnecessary and restrictive land grab. As a representative from a western state and someone who has worked on numerous public lands packages, engaging relevant stakeholders and taking their local expertise into consideration are some of the most critical steps to take when making significant decisions about public lands management. Considering the amount of concerns being raised about H.R. 2546 at the local, state, and federal levels, it’s clear there was little effort made to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome for the communities who will ultimately be burdened by this disastrous legislation.
H.J Res. 79 - Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment
Historical Context
In 1972, the 92nd Congress passed a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. That resolution, also known as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), was designed to guarantee that equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the federal government or by the states on the basis of sex. As required under the Constitution, any amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. However, the 1972 ERA failed to achieve ratification by three-fourths – or 38 states – by the seven-year time limit established by Congress. Over that seven-year period, 35 states ratified the amendment, but five of those states rescinded their initial ratifications. Congress did vote to extend the ratification period for the ERA for three additional years, however, there are still constitutional and legal questions over the validity of the extension since it was done by a simple majority. Inevitably, it became a moot point because no additional states ratified during the extended three-year period. Today, it remains legally dubious whether ratifications or recensions made after the 1982 deadline are valid.
Why is this relevant now?
On January 27, 2020, the Virginia State Legislature became the 38th, and the supposedly final state, to ratify the ERA as part of the U.S. Constitution – even though the deadline for the ratification expired nearly four decades ago. Nevertheless, House Democrats rushed H.J. Res. 79 to the Floor this week, a resolution seeking to retroactively remove the previously imposed deadline for the ratification of the ERA with the approval of a simple majority in the House. Keep in mind, this deadline originally required the approval of a two-thirds majority.
However, as laid out in an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, the only constitutionally viable path forward for the ERA would be to reintroduce the amendment and restart the ratification process:
“[W]e conclude that the ERA Resolution has expired and is no longer pending before the States. . . . Accordingly, should Congress now “deem [the ERA] necessary,” U.S. Const. art. V, the only constitutional path for amendment would be for two-thirds of both Houses (or a convention sought by two-thirds of the state legislatures) to propose the amendment once more and restart the ratification process among the States, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the Office of Legal Counsel’s point Monday night, highlighting the issues with the Democrats' approach:
"I would like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over. There's too much controversy about latecomers – Virginia (ratifying last month), long after the deadline passed. Plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, 'We've changed our minds'?"
Impact on States’ Pro-Life Policies
It’s important to realize that Democrats are rushing this legislation through the House under the guise of equality, when really, it’s being used as a vehicle to insert a legal mandate into the U.S. Constitution for taxpayer-funded abortions. If the ERA is ratified, restrictions on abortion would be deemed unconstitutional gender discrimination because the restrictions limit a medical procedure only available to women. These impacts have been made clear in states that have passed similar ERAs. In fact, after New Mexico passed a state-wide version of a nearly identical ERA, the state was forced to eliminate pro-life protections. The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitutional ERA required taxpayer funding of abortion.
Where does Nevada Stand?
In 2017, Nevada became the first state to ratify the ERA nearly 35 years after the congressionally imposed deadline. Those opposed to Nevada’s ratification of the ERA argued the vote was nothing more than a symbolic exercise given the lapsed deadline. When it comes to the abortion component associated with the ERA, it’s important to remember Nevada already has a State Law regarding abortion. Nevada’s abortion statute, first enacted in 1973 and upheld by voters in a 1990 referendum, sets time limits regarding the procedure and sets forth several exceptions regarding the endangerment of the mother’s life and pregnancies resulting from criminal conduct. Since our current law was approved by voters through a ballot initiative, this is the law until there is a vote to change it.
The Bottom Line
House Republicans welcome a conversation about the best ways to protect women’s rights. However, there is a right way to go about doing that, and I must agree with Justice Ginsburg on this one, H.J.Res.79 is simply not it.
Nevada News
Yucca Mountain
In case you missed it, last week President Trump announced his Administration was committed to finding alternative solutions to Yucca Mountain. The President reiterated this announcement in his Fiscal Year 2021 budget proposal released on Monday. Following this news, my staff and I took the time this week to meet with officials from the Department of Energy regarding the President’s announcement and his Administration’s commitment to keeping our office informed of any further developments surrounding Yucca Mountain.
Since I was elected to Congress, I have always said I do not believe Yucca Mountain should be a simple dumping site for our nation’s nuclear waste. At the same time, I have always been cognizant that policy makers should not consider Yucca Mountain to be a ‘dead’ issue, meaning Nevada’s congressional delegation should use legislation as an opportunity to dictate the terms of the repository under the best conditions for our state.
Considering Congress has still not come up with any appropriate alternative or solution for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, I’m pleased this Administration is willing to come to the table and offer solutions on this issue. I look forward to working together to find a thoughtful approach to addressing this issue and will be sure to keep you apprised of any updates we receive along the way.
Student Update
Attention high school students: Each spring, the Congressional Institute sponsors a nationwide high school visual art contest, also known as the Congressional Art Competition, to recognize and encourage artistic talent in every congressional district.
I’m currently accepting submissions for 2020 and strongly encourage all interested high school students in CD-2 to submit their artwork to my Reno or Elko office no later than 3 PM PT, THURSDAY, APRIL 30TH. The winner will be the recipient of two round-trip tickets to Washington, D.C. to attend the Congressional Art Competition winners' reception in late June. Their artwork will also be displayed in the U.S. Capitol for one year. Click HERE for more information including important dates, rules, and regulations.
As always, thank you for subscribing to the Amodei Report. I look forward to continuing to keep you up to date on the issues you care about most. For additional information, please visit my website at amodei.house.gov or call my Washington office: (202) 225-6155, Reno office: (775) 686-5760, or Elko office: (775) 777-7705. To receive updates on what I am doing in Washington and in Nevada’s 2nd District follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
