COVID-19 emergency still in effect … for now
Vick
A bill that would have ended Gov. Brad Little’s COVID-19 emergency declaration made it to the Senate floor Wednesday before getting pulled back to committee at the last second.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 101 sought to not only end Little’s March 13 order, but to preserve the federal emergency dollars that came with it, funds pulled from Federal Emergency Management Agency and state accounts to help Idahoans weather the COVID-19 crisis.
Sen. Steve Vick, R-Dalton Gardens, has been one of the driving forces of the Senate bill. He called curtailing both the emergency and Little’s executive authority among this Legislature’s highest priorities. But he told his colleagues on the Senate floor Wednesday that the bill’s language needed to be re-worked.
“This resolution, as we drafted it, was intended to do two things,” Vick said. “First, end the stage two restrictions that have been put in place by the gentleman on the second floor, and then to preserve federal funding. As we discussed it, and depending on who you talk to, it probably does neither of those things.”
SCR 101 also would have prohibited future emergency declarations regarding COVID-19, and it would have further kept the governor's office from restricting Idahoans during the pandemic the Department of Health and Welfare reports has killed 1,688 people statewide.
SCR 101 is one of several proposals trying to unwind various COVID-19-related orders. Others include House resolutions to end limits on the size of gatherings, a House bill introduced Tuesday that would limit the authority of public health districts, and a bill that curtails a governor’s ability to suspend Idaho law.
The Senate State Affairs Committee is now debating a House joint resolution that empowers the Idaho Legislature to call itself into special session, a source of consternation for lawmakers who sought to end the pandemic over the summer.
The House passed its own concurrent version Monday — HCR 1 — by a 48-20-2 vote. Because Vick’s SCR 101 is a similar concurrent resolution, had it passed the Senate, it would not need a sitting governor’s signature to become law.
But the language of the law never addressed the mechanics behind how the state would continue to accept federal funding, an issue that became the subject of scrutiny in the Senate’s State Affairs Committee before passage. Vick said his support for ending the emergency hasn’t waned, but he wants to put forth language that would end the declaration more cleanly.
“So I think we can do better,” Vick said. “I also have concerns personally about specifically asking to preserve federal funds in the legislation. But the primary reason is because there’s a better way to accomplish the goal of the legislation, and I’m convinced we will.”
Not all who’ve roamed the halls of the Idaho Legislature support the moves to end the emergency. Bruce Newcomb and Congressman Mike Simpson, both of whom served as Idaho House Speaker, released a blistering joint statement Wednesday denouncing the House and Senate legislation that would halt the declaration.
“The Idaho Legislature’s reckless and careless attempts to end the COVID-19 emergency declaration and weaken Idaho’s response in future emergencies puts this generation and future generations of Idahoans at risk,” Simpson and Newcomb co-wrote.
They added that the timing of hypothetically ending the declaration couldn’t be worse, as the federal funding Idaho is relying on to weather the pandemic would be pulled in places most severely impacted by the crisis.
“In the immediate days and weeks ahead, ending the COVID-19 emergency declaration would slow down the vaccine rollout,” they wrote. “Hospitals would lose access to critical equipment and staffing resources. It would jeopardize the state’s ability to tap the Idaho National Guard to assist with vaccine administration, testing, and support for food banks and medical facilities.
"Financial support for small businesses would end. It would burden local communities — the entities that requested the emergency declaration to begin with. It would limit the state’s ability to remove regulatory barriers that stand in the way of better health care access for our citizens.”