(Amber Renee Dixon) After 15 years and 3 Presidents, Nevada's only Republican in the U.S.

House is preparing to retire.

(Mark Amodei) You got Obama, you got Trump, you got Biden, you got Trump back.

It's like those waters are not ones where you can just blow up a rubber raft and not worry about, you know, the waves.

It's like you got to be able to to move, shoot, communicate, shuck, jive, whatever.

-We sit down with Representative Mark Amodei to find out why he's stepping away and what law he hopes to pass before his final vote, this week on Nevada Week.

♪♪ -Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt and other supporters.

-Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

Congressman Mark Amodei represents Nevada's 2nd District, which includes Reno and Carson City.

He also chairs the House Subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS.

When we spoke with him in Reno, DHS funding was at the center of a partial government shutdown that began February 14.

Since that interview, the U.S.

has entered a war with Iran, adding new urgency to national security funding.

In a statement, Representative Amodei said, quote, After years of unchecked illegal immigration, our communities are facing new risks at a time of heightened global unrest.

The FBI has made clear we must remain vigilant at home and abroad.

This week, we'll again give Democrats the opportunity to end the Homeland Security shutdown and fully fund the agencies that protect our people in moments like this, end quote.

DHS oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

And after the shooting deaths of two Americans, Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers, Senate Democrats have said they will not support full DHS funding without policy changes, including body cameras and clearer identification for officers in the field.

We spoke with Representative Amodei about the impasse and about his decision to not seek re-election after 15 years in Congress.

What's it like being in this position right now where you are in charge of delegating funding to the Department of Homeland Security, which is at the center of a lot of debate right now; and Democrats do not want to fund DHS because of their actions, and here you are the guy that's responsible for allocating that funding?

-Yeah.

Well, first of all, let me say that the bill that we did that passed off the House floor, we worked, Democrats and Republicans on the committee, Democrats and Republicans on the same committee on the Senate side.

So what we produced that went off the floor of the House was a bipartisan negotiated thing.

And then you had the second shooting in the Twin Cities.

And it was like, There you go.

DHS was always political to some extent, but it wasn't anything we couldn't overcome.

And so there you go.

There it is.

You get the second shooting of Mr.

Pretti, and it's like, Shut the lights out; stop the cameras; blah, blah, blah.

-Do you agree with that?

-Well, listen.

It's like, I don't know.

I don't have a clear idea.

It's like, Well, what are you trying to do?

We already put cameras in.

And you say, Do you agree?

I agree with the work we did, Democrats and Republican Senate and House, obviously.

-And that work was approving funding for body cams-- -Yeah, it was in there.

- --for the immigration agents?

-They're like, We want to be able to identify them.

Fine with me.

-So no, no masks and no unmarked uniforms?

-No.

It's like, listen, if I got a problem with you and you're working as an ICE agent somewhere, and I'm like, Let me tell you who it was, it was Badge No.

361 Immigrations Customs, now I can identify you.

I don't care.

-You don't care...?

-I don't care if that's in the bill.

I didn't stop it.

But listen, the fact that some of that other stuff wasn't in the bill is because there was pushback in the White House or in the Senate.

And so we took it as part of that give-and-take process.

It's like, Okay, what can-- Okay, this is good.

Well-- -Would you have supported measures like not being able to wear unmarked uniforms, not being able to wear a mask?

Would you have supported that?

-I'd have to look at them.

But listen, I'm open-minded to it.

I'm not going to say-- -Can you understand why that would be important?

-Well, I understand why it can be important, which is why I'd be willing to look at it.

What I'm not willing to look at is to make people who happen to be in public safety automatic targets in this culture.

Because, let's face it, it's not a great time to be in public service in, in terms of what you're exposed to via the internet, via blogs, via whatever.

It's just not.

And so it's not like, Hey, here's what we're going to do.

We're going to give you healthcare, we're going to give you a retirement program, and we're going to pay you whatever we pay you, and, oh, by the way, if they're camped out in front of your house-- and, listen, let's be real.

They already know who the people are.

They already know where they live.

I mean, there's ways to find that out.

-You mean the people who want to attack ICE?

-If I want to know who the ICE people are or whatever, I mean, heck, they showed up at their hotels in the Twin Cities while they were there.

So anyhow, it's like, listen, something that's reasonable-- So when somebody does you wrong, you ought to know who it was that was doing that, those sorts of things, well, that is short of, we want to strip you of all federal immunity, we want to know all your personal information so if we want to come get you outside of the normal complaint process, we can do that.

It's like, who the heck's going to take the job?

-So the argument was made for the body cams.

They should have body cams because most law enforcement in the entire country has body cams, right?

-Excellent point.

And you know what?

-But let me finish.

-Well, but let me help you with your context.

The reason they didn't already have body cams is because funding for ICE under the previous administration was not a priority.

-Okay.

So you get funding for that.

But then if you use that same argument, law enforcement across the country do not wear masks, and they wear uniforms in which they can be identified.

So why shouldn't that apply to immigration agents?

-Well, because the immigration situation all across the country isn't the same.

Minneapolis was a place-- Listen, everybody did plenty of stuff wrong.

You know why they went there in the first place?

Sanctuary city, We're not holding anybody for ICE.

And so this administration comes in and says, Remember, the worst first, and then the people who had the full demonstration or the full deal of the-- -Asylum.

- --asylum process.

And so those folks, the locals there and the state there said, We're not helping you.

If we arrest somebody on something else, we're not honoring your hold.

So you can come nice and peacefully and get them if they're in even those two categories.

And so when you're getting this escalating stuff of they're coming after you, they're this, they're that, I know where you live, I know where your kids go to school, I know whatever, it's like, I can see it being a natural reaction of, This ain't about my spouse, this ain't about my kids, whatever, it's like, The heck it's not.

-Am I interpreting this right, that the increased heat on ICE is why you did not want to include masks not being allowed to wear masks-- -In context, yes, ma'am.

-Okay.

What do you know about that worst-first policy?

Is that being implemented here in Nevada in your district?

-We haven't had-- We haven't had any problems with it.

At least nobody's come to us and said.

Of course, people are nervous.

And I've met with people in the community and priests and all that.

But it's like, listen, ICE hasn't done anything here like what's happening elsewhere.

And you know why?

Because even though people all have their own political slant on it, it's not-- it's not being-- It hasn't transformed itself--Truckee Meadows is where most people are--into a haven.

Your law enforcement people around here are doing what they think is right, doing what reflects the community.

But when you go to ICE and say, How's things going in Reno PD, Washoe County Sheriff, Carson City Sheriff, Douglas County Sheriff, Churchill County Sheriff, it's like, they're operating in a way that doesn't require a SWAT team to come in or a surge or whatever.

So are people nervous that are, that are here that have entered without an interview or overstayed a visa?

Of course they are.

-What do you think about the idea that the Department of Homeland Security is focusing on states that President Trump does not like?

-Well-- -And perhaps avoiding Nevada?

-I don't-- I don't speak for the-- Well, "doesn't like"?

I mean, we had to work a long time a year ago.

DOJ said, Hey, Nevada might be a sanctuary state.

We had to go to the highest levels of Department of Justice to go, Tell me why or knock it the heck off.

-What about nationally?

You have said within the last couple of months that you do not feel in the loop as to what the Department of Homeland Security is doing in getting the worst of the worst first, for example.

-Well, let me put it to you this way.

I wish I could sit here and say to you, I know everything they're doing and here's where I'm at.

Our committee struggles with communications with the Department of Homeland Security.

That's all I'm going to say.

Because guess what?

I got to finish up another cycle, and I'm interested in getting some stuff done.

And so I'm not interested in going to war or whatever.

I guess if I have to, I will.

But you know, that's the luxury of you're old, you got no pride left, you got no feelings, what are you going to do to me?

You know?

Anyhow.

-Well, and when this did happen?

You said in a press release you were going to talk with Tom Homan.

-Yep.

-And that-- -I expect that to happen next week.

-Okay.

-And the discussion will be along the lines of, Tell me how worst first and that stuff is going.

What were the general numbers that you had to start nationwide?

Where do you think you're at now?

What do you see for the next year, because we're supposed to fund it.

We want to make sure you have the resources to do the job, but we also have oversight over that.

-Do you know much about the investigation into Alex Pretti at this point?

-No.

I don't know anything about that.

-What's your level of confidence in how impartial those investigations will be?

-I'll let you know when I see the result.

-Okay.

And you did tell a local outlet that you did not watch the video of that.

-Well, here's why.

I didn't-- Here's the problem why I think body cameras were such a no-brainer.

-And you still haven't watched it?

-No.

Because it doesn't matter what I think.

-It does.

-No, it doesn't.

It matters what the impartial, hopefully, investigators think.

I don't get to write the report.

-But you do get to fund the department.

-I get to fund the department, but that's not as an armchair quarterback to, I wasn't there, whatever.

Here's the problem and why the cameras were so smart and overdue.

It's like, so I've got to depend as an investigator--forget about oversight for a minute--hoping that somebody was there with their phone, with the camera on, and at a good angle.

Because everybody's like, even with the windshield thing, it's like, you know, I watched that, and that's part of the reason.

-You're talking about Renee Good?

-Yeah.

I can't tell who was where, if somebody was gonna-- I can't tell.

Let the investigators do it.

And then you talk to law enforcement people.

We have a guy on our subcommittee that was a sheriff in Florida.

And I go, Hey, you've got some experience with this.

And he goes, I didn't realize they didn't have any.

And I'm going, I was a little surprised.

He goes, Let me tell you what.

When they first talked about having body cams in my sheriff's department in my county in Florida, I was a little like, I don't know.

You know?

Then he says, Let me tell you what.

85% of the time, the body cam footage validates what was done.

He says, I'm all for them.

-Were you at the State of the Union?

-No, I was not.

-Why?

-I don't go to them.

-Ever?

-I only went to one.

It was the first one I was there for, and it was Joe Heck and Shelley Berkley who said, Hey, you're the new guy?

Your job as the new guy is to go save seats.

Because I wasn't going to go to that one, and I'm like, you know, I've been through enough.

I just, I see it as political theater, no matter whose theater it is.

I guess it was nice to say that you've seen it.

But in terms of, I'm going every time and not really.

-Okay.

At the most recent State of the Union, President Trump described the U.S.

as being in the Golden Age.

What do you think of that statement?

-Well, of course he's going to do that.

The same way that Joe Biden said the border was secure.

You know?

It's like the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I mean, I think there are plenty of things that are better off, much better off than they were three, four years ago.

We were all screaming and yelling at each other about the price of eggs two years ago.

We were screaming and yelling about the cost of a gallon of gas.

We were talking about affordability, generally, in terms of whatever.

And so now, you know, you get people going, Well, housing, there's still much more work to be done on housing.

There's still more work to be done on healthcare.

But in a whole bunch of these other areas, it's like, it's better than it was.

But it's almost like in the political talking point culture, Well, it's not done, so you suck.

Get out.

I mean, that's-- But it's like that's, that's the level of analysis.

-What do you think about the impact of tariffs?

-You know what?

I didn't know much about them before, and so I'm watching all this stuff.

And it's like, well, I don't know.

You hear the news stories about prices are going up, this and that and the other sort of thing.

But I haven't, I haven't seen a lot of-- I get a lot of people that come through the office when we're in DC.

And if I'm there and we're not on the floor voting or something else, I meet with them all.

And you know what?

That hasn't been on the top of the radar screen for people that are-- And they're not just from Nevada.

There are others.

But I haven't had a lot of stuff going, Hey, let me tell you how the tariffs are killing me or whatever.

I mean, part of the thing is they're trying to rebuild the steel industry.

And, you know, there's a defense thing to all of that.

And-- -Well, how would you describe the economy right now?

-I like it better now than I did 18 months ago.

-Okay.

-Back to anybody who says mission accomplished is going to regret it.

It's like you got to get up, pull your shift every day.

But I like the way things are going.

-For the record, why are you retiring?

-I've been doing it for 15 years.

If I run again and I'm elected-- And don't-- I don't want to turn 70 in Washington, D.C.

I don't covet another assignment, like, maybe I can get this different subcommittee or that different subcommittee.

So it's like, listen, it's a phenomenal privilege to be given the responsibility.

But the other thing is, is you look all around.

A lot of things come into it.

I've been there for 15 years.

It's not a bad thing to see if there's somebody else out there that would do a good job in representing CD 2.

-Okay.

So it doesn't have to do with politics, you told The Nevada Independent.

It doesn't have to do with health.

But then what about the timing of it?

Because, you know, you chose to make this announcement on the same day that the President had left something up on social media in which he showed the Obamas as apes and faced a lot of backlash.

What did you think of that?

-I think that probably would have been a good time for whoever was doing that for him to have a do-over.

-That was the same day that you announced your-- -Yeah, but that wasn't-- There was nothing-- -Had nothing to do with it?

-No.

Here I was going to announce a week before, and then I was-- I didn't say anything to anybody.

I mean anybody.

And part of that is because there's no such thing as a secret in this business.

There just isn't.

And so I'm sitting there going, I want to do it in enough time to allow all those potential people that are interested to have more than a few days to like, you know.

So listen.

It's midterm, and so you won't get swallowed up in all the Presidential stuff that's going to go on that already is going on or whatever.

So this person or persons that are running will at least get some attention and hopefully evaluation from the voters when they decide whatever.

It's just like, you know what?

There's never a perfect time.

But it's not if I'm leaving, it's when I'm leaving.

And this just kind of seemed like a pretty good when.

-You are one of 54 Representatives in the House who is not running for re-election, the highest rate since 1992 according to the Brookings Institution's Vital Statistics on Congress.

New York Times says this is an exodus from Congress and says, "For many Senators and House members, the job isn't what it used to be."

-Well, I'm sure it's not what it used to be, because everything evolves.

But I will say this: The 15 years I've been in, and I'm proud of them, it's like, listen, it's not for the light of heart.

You know?

It's like, listen, if you're going to go and be somebody who just wants to spend all your time getting on TV doing sound bites, God bless you.

But if you really want to get in there and turn the crank in a blue collar sense, I mean, listen, you got Obama, you got Trump, you got Biden, you got Trump back.

It's like those waters are not ones where you can just blow up a rubber raft and not worry about, you know, the waves.

It's like you got to be able to move, shoot, communicate, shuck, jive, whatever, get along with others.

And so I think it's a time where if you've been effective, you've had to earn your stripes.

And it's like, I'm happy to do that.

I think we've done a good job on it, but I'm ready to do something else.

-If you could get one piece of legislation passed this session, what would it be?

-Well, I mean, we're trying to get the Northern Nevada lands bill through.

We're going to have it on the floor in the House in March.

But still, it's like time with anything in Congress is not, oh, there's plenty of it.

-Why that bill?

-Well, it's just we've been working on it for a long time.

It's overdue.

It's critical for-- You know, what's unique about Nevada, which people in other states are not real-- It's like, listen, every single community in the state, whether it's Las Vegas, whether it's Winnemucca, whether it's Ely, is surrounded by federal land.

So, you know, some people go, Oh, you're selling off the public estate, well, first of all, the public owns over 80% of it.

Second of all, if anybody from Las Vegas to any of those other towns wants to grow, then you got to do a lands bill.

It's been that way forever.

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act was a phenomenal piece of legislation.

Harry Reid, God rest his soul.

I mean, Las Vegas is today what it is because of SNPLMA is the acronym.

And so it's important for up here.

Will it be the last one ever?

No.

But it's like, hey, they're ready for-- You know, they need it for flood control, they need it for economic development, they need it for parks, for all sorts of stuff.

-For the most part, I would think that you and the other members of Congress from Nevada have agreed on that kind of approach, except for last year when you wanted to sell off some federal lands and utilize that money for the national debt or the U.S.

Treasury?

-So here's-- Thank you for asking about it.

Wasn't our idea.

The Natural Resources Committee comes to us and says, Hey, part of the way we're going to balance the checkbook, we want to sell some land in Nevada, most of it in Southern Nevada, and that's going to generate $8 billion.

Will you, Mark Amodei, carry the amendment for us?

What are you going to say?

No?

It's like, yeah, of course we'll carry it, as the one with the most experience with doing it.

The part that most people didn't realize is, even if that bill had gone through and become law, we'd have still had to do lands bills to finish it up for all the stuff you do in a traditional lands bill.

That one provided the authorization, 60,000 acres in Clark County, 30,000 acres in the rest of the state.

Passes out of the committee-- And, oh, by the way, like, Oh, you did it at midnight or whatever.

It's like, the only reason it was midnight is because there were 100 Democratic amendments in front of it.

So you start at 1.

By the time you get to 101, it's midnight.

But the part that I think caught everybody by surprise was it was like, Oh, my God, you're selling off public land.

And you're like, in Nevada?

I mean, so you're, The federal estate is going to shrink to 82%?

But you know what?

-But also those funds were not going to go to Nevada.

They would go to the federal government.

-Yeah, but you know what?

Let me just tell you this.

The fact that those funds aren't going to go like they did for SNPLMA 25 years ago is a testament to-- Didn't think-- You probably don't think you'd hear me say this.

That's a testament to Harry Reid and the people that were involved at the time.

And so people go, Well, we're not even getting the money to which my response is, If you got a Senate Majority Leader handy there who's going to do that for us, like Senator Reid did, please trot her or him out.

-So that was kind of an anomaly, you're saying, what he was able to pull off?

-Yeah.

Well, it was because he was (A) in a phenomenal position, and (B) was taking care of Nevada.

It's like, Well, we expect that all the time.

It's like, Well, let me tell you what I've dealt with for the last 15 years.

How come they're taking it to the National Treasury?

It's like, Do you know how much we had to fight to keep them from sweeping the SNPLMA account, right now which has hundreds of millions of dollars in it, saying, Well, we're just going to take that in for federal debt reduction.

And we've won that fight, and I expect we will continue to.

But the fact that it isn't like it was when Harry Reid was where he was 20 years ago is like lamentable.

But nonetheless, that's the reality.

-Lastly, you have been a champion for public media, which had a difficult year.

I wonder, that caucus that you sit on, does it even still exist?

-You know, I don't know if it does, because in the normal days, there was purpose for it.

The purpose right now is Don Bacon from Nebraska, myself, there are a couple others that have met with the Speaker a couple times.

Because I voted against the thing that-- -The rescissions-- -Yeah, the rescissions thing.

- --for public media.

Why do you support public media?

-Well, listen, first of all, I mean, I've grown up in Nevada, so it's been part of your deal.

Then I get that the President was pissed because, you know, the editorial stuff, and he thinks, you know, the media was-- It's like, let's assume all that's true.

That's fine if you're talking about New York.

You know, it's like, well, it's personal to him or whatever.

It's like, Have you looked at the election map?

When you look at how the country voted in terms of red versus blue and you look at the distribution of PBS stations, well, if they were out for you, they did a pretty lousy job, because you got most of the votes.

You won these areas in the last election.

And so the challenge has been, still is, to go, Hey, I know you're mad at the New York people and the overall editorial stuff and stuff like that.

And it's like, you know, I mean, that's just-- But I am going to fight for my PBS stations.

And the reason you say, Well, why?

Well, I grew up with it.

Second of all, they're kind of the community communications infrastructure.

No offense to the private stations.

But, for instance, here in Washoe County, these, the local station here, they're the folks that a lot of first responders go to that have the database that they can make instantly available to you.

I'm going to a school, and we got an active shooter.

Boom.

There's the map.

There's what your folks need to know.

And that's just one of them.

There's multiple others.

And then also, when there's a no kid in emergency, like, sometimes, you know, we don't control the weather, and you've got this fires, floods, snow, whatever, and it's like, those are the people that folks go to.

And it's like, I think they're earning their stripes.

I think for the investment that the federal government has in those, in that infrastructure, it's like, that's money well spent.

If you really care about community this, that, other sort of stuff.

-Do you ever see it coming back?

-Yeah.

Well, it's not completely gone.

We're working now on a way to say, Okay, you don't want to give it to them directly, but maybe there are other areas where we put money into, like backup generation or other kind of infrastructure stuff for that, because it's community communication in an emergency-related.

And so it's like, what if we put more money into something like that to free up that station's budget in that area so that they could be indirectly, station by station.

So at the end of the day, the bank balance reflects the fact that you got that support maybe not in the form that when it came through New York or wherever the mothership was.

And so that, the final chapter on that, hasn't been written yet.

-Amodei began his political career in the Nevada Assembly serving two years there from 1996 to 1998 before serving 12 years in the Nevada Senate.

He won Nevada's 2nd Congressional District in 2011 and has won every general election since by at least 15 points.

Meanwhile, there are growing concerns of federal interference in this year's midterm elections.

How Nevada is working to prevent that, watch next week when Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar joins us.

In the meantime, thank you for watching.

And we'll see you next week right here on Nevada Week.

♪♪♪