(announcer) from the nation's capital, "eye on washington with marilee joyce" a weekly discussion about the federal issues most important to nevada. and now, from washington, d.c., here's marilee joyce. >> and good day to you. i'm marilee joyce and this is "eye on washington."

news program produced in washington, d.c. every week "eye on washington" takes you straight to capitol hill for a discussion with nevada's delegation and other leaders about the federal matters that matter most to you. today's topic, he says house congressional oversight is alive and well. we're going to look at one nevada congressman's fiscal responsibility focus. and he is our guest today, nevada u.s. congressman mark amodei. thanks for being here again. >> hi, marilee. >> good to see you. >> you too. >> well, if you are a governnt squandering our taxpayers' dollar, beware his axe. and today on "eye on washington," we'll look at my guest's work to trim government fat. we'll learn about his focus on mismanaged funds and how he seeks to reward programs and agencies that help small business and the overall economy. for as long as he's served you here in washington, our congressman amodei has tried to keep government on a low-fat diet, trimming the fat whenever and wherever

financial services and general government appropriations bill. that's legislation he co-sponsored to further his goal of targeting agencies with a proven record of waste and misconduct. the bill provides funding to the treasury department, the judiciary, the internal revenue service, the small business administration and several other agencies. but my guest is more concerned with the oversight he's granted in removing funding from the program of these and other agencies that are misusing your tax dollars. release when the house passed this bill, you spoke of congress' obligation to provide the proper oversight when it comes to the management of those dollars that we're sending into the government. and you added a quote. "as a member of the house appropriations committee, this is a responsibility i take seriously." now, i've done many shows with you on fiscal fitness of the government. do we still have a bloated overweighted wasteful government? >> well, it's getting better.

i've been here, just in the five years i've been here, we have cut approximately half of the annual deficit in the budgets. but that's a challenge that you've got to face every day. now, that doesn't mean you start with the premise of they are getting less. although i would like to point out, marilee, we have led by example in my office. in the five years i have been here, we returned over half a million dollars. >> you had mentioned that on the show. >> from our mra. >> sure. >> members representation allowance to basically lead by but when you talk about fiscal responsibility and the simple concept of you have to pay for what you spend -- and we're not doing a great job of that. so that's part of where we start out. but the other part in the oversight part that is very important is, listen, in the balance between the three branches of government, our big stick is the appropriations stick. we are the ones who appropriate the money. and so as you do that, if that's being used for something that isn't in

spend the money for that. so that's a big part of the oversight program. >> and, you know, help us understand even better how this works. you know, on the face of it when you say the financial services and general government appropriations bill, it sounds like it appropriates which feels like it puts money in. but you say it also has the power to take money out. >> well, what you do is simply when you say here's how we're going to fund your agency -- for instance, the department of justice. we can also put provisions i there that say but none of these funds shall be used for... and then you pick out what those areas are. that's how you really enforce the policy directives of the congressional branch of government. and so if the executive branch is kind of looking the other way and say we're going to use it for whatever we want, then you put that specific language in to give you the authority of the law that gave you the money to say what you can and can't do. >> speaking of the executive branch, this is interesting.

quoted as saying this bill lets you, quote, remove funding from executive agencies that have become political tools of the administration. what do you mean by that? what are some examples? >> for instance, the bureau of consumer protection is an organization that was set up by the executive branch, not by congress. now, remember, marilee, if it's not in the constitution, then the congress needs to create it. well, we have ignored that with all due respect. and they are out making rules for everything from car it. basically pursuing an agenda that has no foundation in the united states code which are the laws of this country. >> and getting the funds from? >> so you're saying this is now a federal issue, but the congress never voted on it. that's a problem if you believe in three branches of government. >> and getting the money from? >> yeah. and so it's one of those things where it's like you can't spend money to do this. so obviously there's a tension there between the administration and the house

know, our rules are the side with the most votes in the house wins. different rules than the senate. >> sure. >> so the question for the folks on the other side is, how do we blunt the fact that there's a majority of those folks in the house? on goes the battle. >> we're going to get to the three specific focuses of your bill in our next segment. for now, though, when it comes to your personal work to rein in government spending, how have things gotten better as far as waste in government? and how have they gotten worse since you came in 2011? >> well, first of all, i mean politically speaking, hats off to the government and to senator reid and his folks in the senate. they have produced a great political result to a large extent nullifies the congressional branch of government through the appropriations process. and my disappointment in our side is you know what they are doing. i mean somebody needs to put their thinking cap on and come up with some ways to deal with that. but secondly, we have just found it much more effective

seriously, is there some way we can work on this? because, marilee, when you for all intents and purposes shut down how a bill becomes a law, then threatening with somebody i'm going to pass a law to show you is kind of a hollow thing. >> okay. when we return, naughty or nice with funding? who's mismanaging your money? that's right after this. (announcer) >>you're w wchchchchch a arararararcecececece

they c cl memerince,e,like, but the places i've lived ain't no palaces, so i don't need grilled salmon or a new scratching post. just give me a cardboard box and a can of tuna, and we're good. you can even change my name. i'm cool being the kitty formerly known as prince. [cat meows] [purring] >> and welcome back to "eye on washington," our look at one nevada leader's work to make sure your taxpayer dollars are being wisely spent. he is my guest today, nevada u.s. congressman mark amodei. well, as we have mentioned, the financial services and general government appropriations bill provides funding to several agencies. but my guest likes it giving him power to take funds away at times. here are a couple of major bill highlights, particularly

regarding the irs, the bill brings the agency's budget below fiscal year '08 levels. that's enough for the irs to perform its core duties, including taxpayer services and the proper collection of funds. but will require the agency to streamline and make better use of its budget. also a favorite target of my guest is the affordable care act. and he says the financial services bill lets him work to stop the irs from further implementation of obamacare. it includes a proh any transfers of funding from the department of health and human services to the irs for obamacare uses as well as a prohibition on the funding for the irs to implement an individual insurance mandate on the american people. n, you often have the irs in your budget cutting sights, don't you? what are some examples? >> well, a few of them -- i mean we had the whole lois

where, you know, the indications were that pretty much they went out and targeted non-profit groups that they didn't agree with politically. that's not what a federal government tax collection agency is for. i mean that's clearly a harassment thing for somebody you disagree with politically. nothing is more undermining to the credibility of federal tax collection than if the tax collector decides he doesn't like you because of your politics and they are going to come get you. so that speaks for itself in terms of we don't want any of your money being used for that. the affordable care act, another issue where it's like become intensely political. do we need healthcare reform in this country? absolutely. was the affordable care act -- something that had zero public hearings, was that a good solution? no. do we need to take care of that? yes. and so once again, we get this competition with the administration where it's like they want it all their way. we're like, hey, you missed the boat on this, this and that. forget it, we don't want to

so our easiest tool is you have no money to do that. now, they have moved money around. >> that's how you are continuing to deny the funding? >> well, we are continuing to do it. but let me tell you what. they continue to find money someplace else and put it in, so the game goes on there, too. >> congressman, i saw this financial services bill has a provision that prohibits the irs from, quote, targeting groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs. what are some examples where this is happening? >> that's the lois lerner. that's the lois lern chapter. where the irs 501(c)(4) i think corporations were targeted. and the funny thing is the ones that had a hard time getting their permits or their licenses -- >> was this added after the lois lerner? >> yeah, absolutely. that was the result of the lois lerner thing. to say with all the stuff we've got going on in terms of tax collection and taxpayer assistance and all that, this should be about here -- >> sure. >> on your priority schedule.

sure that it's here on it through the appropriations process, so you haven't got any money to update that reg. >> getting back to the obamacare, i know you're not a big fan. many people are not. in your estimation, though, how likely is it it will truly be repealed in the new year by congress? >> first of all, when you hear presidential candidates on both sides say it's like with all due respect, it is a law that has been enacted by congress. so no executive can repeal it on the first day, the fifth day, the whatever day. it has to be modified by congress. you know, you say we're going to repeal it. it's like, listen, it's probably never going to be repealed because, quite frankly, that would create a vacuum because you still need to do healthcare reform and those sorts of things. >> so what do you do? >> well, i think you divide it up into five or six pieces that make sense. and then you do the reform piece that does this and then you do the one that does that. so you proceed in some orderly

that's what the legislative branch does. get input from stakeholders. and then you go forward there. so while it's a great talking point, as a practical matter, it's like the responsible thing is have some hearings and start busting it up into manageable segments and go forward and make it the way it should have been made. >> that sounds like a lot of work and a lot of time. are we talking months, years? >> well, you know what. this is one of those issues that does have a lot of moving parts. it's a complex issue. >> sure. >> when you w healthcare, which is basically prenatal to grave. so it will take some time to do it correctly. and it should have in the beginning instead of a month's worth of meetings behind a closed door. so yeah, there's work to be done. the sooner we start, republicans and democrats, senate and house, the sooner we can start producing something that -- if it's really about healthcare reform, that people can be happy with. >> something tells me you and i will be talking in 2017 about the affordable care act and what you're doing on it.

just a taker. if you are a fiscally responsible agency helping the economy, he's rewarding you.

wwe supepetatajohnhnenen papaioiosmsm ititnsnsrere ssssnana debebee and d worn like a badge of honor. and with good reason. because it means love and devotion for one's country. but what really makes up this country of ours? it's the people. to love america is to love all americans. this year patriotism shouldn't just be about pride of country.

love beyond age, sexuality, disability, race, religion, and any other labels. because love has no labels. >> and welcome back to "eye on washington," our discussion of my guest's efforts to provide more fiscal oversight to congress. we have been visiting with nevada u.s. congressman mark amodei. well, we have covered government waste and abuse many times on this program, looking at my guest and other delegation members' work to combat it. but lest you think it's all take and no give, my guest does reward agencies showing some fiscal restraint and responsibility. to that end, the congressman's position on the house appropriations committee gives him a lot of power to benefit those government entities that are enforcing laws and making budgetary decisions that benefit small businesses and the overall economy. one way is through funding to the small business administration, especially in departments showing wise investment and critical

entrepreneurs and small business in general. this year's financial services and general government appropriations bill contains critical funding for the sba to provide much-needed support to veterans programs, as well as to business centers run by women. and, congressman, you have served on house veterans. i know you're not on it now, but it does remain important to you that veterans get the support they need through the sba, doesn't it? >> well, veterans are an important part of the economic puzzle. i mean it's not just a healthcare or a claims issue with those folks. we need to reintegrate them back into the workforce and into the entrepreneurial force and all that. and they have got some valuable skills that need to be in the mix. >> how are you serving them through the sba? >> well, what we are trying to do for those folks who want to start a business -- i mean, first of all, from a general government point of view if you are a business owner and starting a business, and you are employing people, providing a service, creating commerce, buying goods, you know, providing healthcare benefits, providing

so it's intuitive, it's like the more folks we have doing that, veterans included, the better off it is. because guess what happens when all that happens. tax collections go up when the economy does well. so i'm a private sector fellow. >> what services, special services for women is under the bill? >> well, i mean i don't need to tell you as an interpreter in the communications industry that, first of all, it's the majority of the population. second of all, the investments that have been targeted toward women-owned small business have been very successful. and so it's like, why wouldn't you enable one of your most productive segments of small business commerce in the country to continue to go out there and do good things? so it's another one of those intuitive things where you're like, hey, it's not broke, let's not fix it. if we can give it some more encouragement for this segment of the economy, then let's do it. it's a good thing for everybody. >> you're home in nevada a lot. what do you hear from women

as far as some of the challenges they face and some of the needs they'd have under this bill. >> well, you know, some of the challenges they face are the ones that everybody that wants to do a start-up face. the fact that they are either a woman or a veteran or in some instances both is one of those things where it's like, hey, thanks for doing what you do in the veteran sense and in the women's sense for being a successful part of this program. so let's continue to make sure that you have as much encouragement as we can give you. and so those small businesses run the gamut from catering to consulting, for i.t., you name it, the whole nine yards. >> you were quoted in january of '15 saying, quote, every single member of the appropriations committee plays a vital role in steering dollars on behalf of the american taxpayer. tell us more and why you take that so seriously. >> well, i mean first of all, it's public money so it should be absolutely positively transparent. and so, you know, right now is

stereotypes about the culture in washington, d.c. and things like that. so in my time on appropriations, i have been pretty impressed with the fact that hal rogers and those 12 cardinals -- they have their meetings. it's open. it's on cnn. it's on the web. it's on all that stuff. so if you are looking to follow an issue on money or how something got where, you can do it. which, you know, there's winners and losers some days. at least you know you went through the process, you got you failed or where you succeeded and why so that you can either keep doing that or make the corrections for the next time around. >> you know, i hate to be -- i'm usually not pessimistic at all. but it sounds like you're really among kind of a loner in here. i don't hear a ton of people saying we've got to get leaner as a government. and it's more about all these speeches of people wanting to get elected saying here's what i'm going to give you.

and free the other. and then you've got to remember free isn't free. it's tax dollars paying for it. >> that's the competition. >> how many people or how many congress persons take it as seriously as you do? >> i think here's where the rubber meets the road. all the stuff we've been talking about is about 33 cents out of every federal dollar that's spent. the other 67 cents, medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt. >> sure. >> it's like that's where the money is going. and it's growing because i'm a baby boomer. so that population that growing a lot each week. and so if you really want to be politically honest, it's like we need to talk about those programs and how we manage those. you can't change them next week. and you can't change them next year. but you do need to go a certain amount out, whether it's 10 or 15 years and say here's how these programs are changing. because quite frankly, it is incredibly disrespectful for me to tell you, for instance, that we don't need to do anything to social security, it's fine. it was based on people being

than are taking out. and we all know that we're living a lot longer than that. and when my generation get fully social security eligible, there's going to be more drawing than working. we need to have the political will to fix it. >> all right, congressman, thanks. when we return, it is mailbag time. and norman w. of elko, we chose your letter. it's just ahead.

announcer: did you know dragging chains could spark a wildfire?

clcling segmgmt of todayayou "eye on washington." it is our mailbag segment. and it's time when we read one of your letters and ask our guest to respond to you right here on the air. and congressman, i got a letter from norman w. of elko. here's what he says. dear congressman amodei, i li i one insurance carrier that meets the requirements of the affordable care act. if i don't buy their insurance, i pay a penalty. is there anything that can be done? i feel like i'm forced into a plan that doesn't meet my needs by a law intended to increase my choices and affordability. >> norman is absolutely accurate which is why joe heck authored a bill that i'm co-sponsoring with him that says if you are in a county where there is no choice, there's only one plan, then you are not subject to the penalty for not doing the government program on that. as a matter of fact, of my 11 counties, 10 of them really

only one choice, it's the government exchange. i think washoe still has got some choices, but the rest of the rural counties in nevada that applies to and in other rural counties in the state. so we have got a specific bill aimed at you, norman. please check the website for congressman heck or myself. and we're on it. >> you're working for norman. >> yeah. >> i'll bet he appreciates it. you can send a letter to congressman amodei or another member of the delegation. just go to our website joycecommunications.com. >> thanks for joining us on "eye on washington." i'm marilee joyce in washington, d.c.

>> you're watching "the wellness hour," the leader in medical news and information. i'm randy alvarez. today's topic -- replacing missing teeth with dental implants. and according to my first guest, she says nobody should be wearing a traditional denture. no more dentures. with us, we have an expert on the topic, dr. nicole mackie. dr. mackie, welcome to the program. >> thank you for having me. >> so, tell me a little bit about your role as the prosthodontist, and who's the typical patient? >> we don't really have a typical patient. patients can be any kind of walk of life, any different kind of