This week, the House voted on H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020. While this legislation is traditionally bipartisan, the bill Speaker Pelosi chose to bring to the House Floor this week contains a litany of partisan policies that would jeopardize our national security and military readiness. In fact, this is the first time in decades Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) were forced to vote against the bill. For the last 58 years, the NDAA has been signed into law with overwhelming bipartisan support from HASC Members. For example, in 2018, when Republicans held the majority in the House, the Committee passed the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA with a bipartisan 60-1 vote. This year however, the NDAA was passed by a nearly straight party line vote of 33-24.
It’s important to note that under the Obama Administration, our defense budget was slashed by 20%, stripping our troops down to skeletal levels, and leading to a record-increase in deadly accidents. Under President Trump, we have reinstated 10% of defense funding, and have made great strides in rebuilding our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, the collection of damaging, partisan provisions included in this package will undercut the gains we have made, weaken our military, and threaten U.S. national security, including:
- An unrealistic topline budget figure of $733 billion, which is less than what our generals have requested and what the Senate approved. The Democrats’ cut in funding would have a significant effect on key efforts to restore readiness, sustain our military facilities, ensure modernization, deter Russia and China, and support our military personnel;
- An attempt to force the Administration to close the facility at Guantánamo Bay, sending its detainees to the U.S. homeland; and
- Blocking the President from further alleviating the crisis at our southern border by refusing to authorize his emergency request of $7.2 billion for border security efforts.
On the north side of the Capitol, the Senate has already passed its version of the NDAA with sweeping bipartisan support and with the support of the White House. I look forward to House and Senate leaders coming together during the conferencing process to negotiate a responsible defense package that properly funds our critical defense programs and ensures our troops have the resources they need to successfully carry out their missions and return home safely.
Washington Visitors:
It’s always nice to see familiar faces while I’m in Washington. Below are some of the Nevadans I recently met with. Thanks for stopping by!
Close Up Foundation Student Leaders Summit
Kate Groesbeck - Nevada Truman Scholar
Moms for Clean Air Force
Washington Wrap-Up
Pershing County Lands Bill
This week, I testified in front of the House Natural Resources committee on H.R. 252, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act. This legislation represents a decade of grassroots efforts by the people of Pershing County, including residents, ranchers, miners, conservationists, and Commissioners who should be commended for balancing the critical issues inherent to public lands in Nevada. Specifically, this legislation will resolve the County’s checkerboard lands issue which is currently hamstringing opportunities for growth and development. Additionally, it will ensure the long-term preservation of the County’s rural character by designating certain wilderness areas, while also benefitting public education, wildfire pre-suppression and restoration efforts, habitat conservation and restoration for the greater sage-hen, and projects to address drought and other local needs.
Click here or on the video above to hear my full testimony.
Looking Ahead
Minimum Wage Debate
There’s a strong likelihood the House will take up legislation next week to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Keep in mind, each time the minimum wage goes up, employers must pay more in payroll costs, workers’ comp insurance, and benefits. Pay must also be increased for workers already making minimum wage, or making just above it, to retain employees and production levels.
Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 would cost 1.3 million Americans their jobs, especially entry-level positions that provide unskilled employees the opportunity to gain experience. Below, I’ve provided three examples of how raising the federal minimum wage to $15 could impact employment nationwide:
- The State of Maryland’s General Assembly is currently debating a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and eliminate the tipped wage for workers in the service industry. It’s important to note that Maryland’s minimum wage rose 39% in the last four years to $10.10. If it soars to $15, that will add another 48% increase to the cost of wages. Those are huge increases for small businesses.
- In Seattle, Washington, a recent minimum wage hike from $10 to $13 has come at a cost to some workers. Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have been studying the effects on employment as the wage has gradually ticked up. What they have found is that Seattle’s minimum wage increase to $13 has reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs. There was also a significant reduction in the rate of new employees entering the workforce. In other words, job opportunities for those with no skills or no experience disappeared, and they didn’t take home bigger paychecks.
- In previous Congresses when the minimum wage discussion has been at the forefront, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has stressed that when it comes to raising the minimum wage, we must approach the issue with caution, because doing so requires a huge trade-off in terms of labor substitution and job destruction.
Raising the federal minimum wage is not the answer to providing Americans with good-paying jobs. With 6.9 million job openings in the U.S., we need to provide people with the education and the tools they need to succeed. Additionally, every state is different. For example, the industries that drive the economies in Washington and Maryland, are quite different from the industries that drive Nevada’s economy. Meaning, a $13 minimum wage increase in Maryland might affect the state’s workforce quite differently than it would here in Nevada. This is why I believe the minimum wage issue is best handled at the state level, giving employers and workers the time needed to adjust accordingly, as opposed to an immediate one-size-fits-all federal wage increase.
You might be interested to know that Governor Sisolak recently signed legislation into law that would raise Nevada’s minimum wage by 75 cents each year beginning on January 1, 2020 until it reaches $12 an hour. This bill represents the first significant change to Nevada’s minimum wage in over a decade.
At the federal level, I believe Congress should instead focus on removing the fiscal restraints that are holding people back financially. We must begin implementing solutions that will put Americans on a long-term path to economic prosperity and fiscal sustainability.
Placing the Issues Before the Politics
In today’s political climate, more and more we’re seeing political energy going into what people are against, rather than what they are for. How about, being “for” dealing with the issue and leave the politics at the door?
A few examples:
- Being for: addressing climate change --- without sending a quarter of a billion dollars to a slush fund, created under the Paris Climate Accord, that we have no oversight or control over.
- Being for: re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) --- without new policies that weaken victim’s rights and take existing tools away from prosecutors.
- Being for: improving our election system --- without requiring the federal treasury to finance campaigns.
- Being for: dealing with deserving Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients --- without trying to protect gang members and convicted criminal offenders.
Another recent example that comes to mind in regard to partisan gridlock delaying solutions, would be the emergency supplemental vote that took place in the House a couple of weeks ago. Following the President’s initial request for emergency funding to address the crisis at the border, it took Congress nearly 60 days to pass proper legislation, during which time House Democrats decided to play politics, blocking 18 separate attempts from House Republicans to bring up legislation that would have delivered relief to families and border personnel weeks ago. It wasn’t until the eleventh hour that House Democrats decided to join Republicans to address this crisis. Why? Funding for the critical agencies addressing the border crisis was nearly exhausted as a result of House Democrats spending weeks stalling this legislation. Not to mention, House Leadership faced a revolt from within their own party if they failed to immediately pass the Senate’s bipartisan bill.
Again, let’s see how effective the legislative process can be when we choose a pragmatic approach to an issue and just leave the politics out of it.
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.
