Today, Congress voted on legislation to increase Economic Impact Payment amounts to $2,000 for individuals making less than $75,000 as well as a bill to override a veto of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Learn why I voted the way I did on each of these bills below.
Legislation to Increase Economic Impact Payment Amounts
The COVID relief bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on December 27th contained strong assistance for individuals in the form of Economic Impact Payments totaling $600. However, these payments included no targeting requirements other than the general income limitations. Of significant importance to individuals who have pronounced needs are the added federal unemployment resources contained in the bill, the additional Paycheck Protection Program funds for those who value their employment and accompanying benefits, and the additional aid for maintaining access to healthcare operations at all levels. I supported this balanced funding, because it is targeted at continuing the pandemic healthcare battle while working to continue the economic recovery, which are co-equal and mutually important must-achieve goals.
When considering adding nearly half a trillion dollars to the price tag of that bill by enlarging the Economic Impact Payments mechanism, none of which is sitting in the U.S. Treasury, I fail to find any notion of cost benefit to individuals’ economic wellbeing. I am sure there are individual instances that will be the exception to this analysis, but when considering the needs of all of the community, state, and federal spending interests, I am not left with the conclusion that increasing the sum of the total COVID relief bill by 50 percent is wise. Finally, since further federal rescue spending in 2021 is a certainty, I’m hoping that funds-borrowing foregone now will be put to better use in the near future with strong background facts to address future potential needs.
Veto Override on H.R. 6395, the National Defense Authorization Act
I have read the President’s veto message and I share many of the concerns contained therein. I have also read the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and have compared the President’s concerns with the contents of the Conference Report between the House and the Senate.
First and foremost, if there is not an NDAA bill – which sustaining the President’s veto would result in – there will be significant disruptions to military training in Nevada at NAS Fallon and Nevada Test and Training Range, including Creech and Nellis Air Force Bases.
Further, if the veto is sustained, any new NDAA bill would be crafted in a legislative environment where the White House and both chambers of Congress are potentially in Democratic control. That’s not a win in view of some present strong points in the existing NDAA, which includes funding to:
- Provide a 3% pay raise to our troops, authorize extra pay for troops in combat zones, and support their families with the care and benefits they deserve;
- Ensure the DOD maintains a 30-day supply of PPE, ensure our troops have the diagnostic equipment and testing they need, and provide health benefits to Guardsmen supporting the COVID-19 response. This includes benefits for the Nevada National Guardsmen, who are playing a significant role in the COVID-19 fight in Nevada;
- Establish the Pacific Deterrence Initiative to fund emergent technologies, support our allies, and deter China. This authorizes several new provisions to counter Chinese industrial espionage, support Hong Kong and Taiwan, and protect our defense supply chain;
- Maintain prohibitions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay; and
- Continue to support missile defense cooperation with Israel through the United States-Israel Assistance Act.
I agree with all of the goals to bring more accountability and less monopoly to social media companies insisted on by the President, however, I respectfully disagree with addressing it in the NDAA. Too often, germaneness rules are ignored, and if those standards are to mean anything, we must be leaders in getting it to that point.
Further, while the military construction issue is of interest, continued Southern border wall construction funding in the recently signed omnibus spending bill is $1.375 billion. Construction on the wall today has already completed 438.3 miles. At present cost, this $1.375 billion will provide funding for another 56 miles of wall construction. That construction absorption rate should last well into 2021. Meaning, funding to finish the remaining portion of the wall will be an issue for the 117th or 118th Congresses, so let’s see what happens in Georgia next week.
In my analysis, the benefits and the policy wins in the present Conference Report already passed by Congress significantly outweigh the concerns raised in the Administration’s veto message.
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.
