No person should ever be discriminated against – period. The diversity of backgrounds, culture, religion, and heritage are all part of the fabric that has shaped us into the great nation we are today. With that said, many of the bills House Democrats have made us vote on this Congress are merely feel-good messaging bills intended to add fuel to the political fire, while doing nothing to solve the issue at hand. The same rings true for a bill we voted on last week, H.R. 5, the Equality Act.
In its current form, this legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity”. In fact, this legislation would actually apply to all amendments made to the 1964 Civil Rights Act – including Title IX. As you may know, Title IX was established in 1972 to provide everyone equal access to any program or activity receiving Federal assistance, including sports. Unfortunately, the Equality Act would cause significant damage to Title IX, suggesting that the relevance of sex in female sports is irrelevant. In a recent Washington Post op-ed written on the Equality Act, three former competitive female athletes explain how in female sports, separating athletes on the basis of sex is the "only way to achieve equality for girls and women in competitive athletics." Meaning, without an exception for female sports, the Equality Act would thereby end gender specific sports at all levels. Additionally, the Equality Act would force doctors to leave any religious or moral objections at the door, meaning they must perform certain operations even if it means forgoing their medical expertise.
When it comes to ending discrimination in places of public accommodation, the solutions are out there. If Congress would just take a moment to consider the facts, instead of continuing to shake fists at the other side, then we might get something accomplished around here. In fact, House Democrats should take a page out of Nevada’s book, because in 2011, our State Legislature was able to successfully pass a bill that provided the full and equal enjoyment of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or expression. Additionally, Nevada was able to accomplish all of this without threating to reverse hard-won gains for women, like Title IX, and without forcing doctors to forgo their medical expertise and any religious or moral objections.
While the goal of this bill should be to protect all people, I could not support it because ironically, it will end up causing harm to some of the very issues it’s seeking to address.
In Case You Missed It:
Democrats Bring Pre-existing Conditions ‘Show Vote’ to the House Floor
Earlier this month, the pre-existing messaging ploys continued, this time with House Democrats bringing a bill to the Floor that has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions despite being named the Protecting Americans with Pre-existing Conditions Act (H.R. 986).
What this bill would actually do, is repeal President Trump’s expansion of a successful Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision known as Section 1332. Since guidance issued under the Obama Administration regarding Section 1332 had significantly restricted the innovation states could pursue to lower people’s premiums, President Trump took action to issue new guidance that would enable states to chart a different course for their healthcare markets through expanded flexibility. Unfortunately, H.R. 986 would reverse the new guidance for Section 1332, eliminating health care choices for states that could provide, and are currently providing, better and more affordable options.
In fact, Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, explained in a recent letter to Congress how reversing the President’s new guidance under Section 1332 would make it harder for states to help working families trapped in Obamacare. She went on to explain how over the last two years, President Trump’s new guidance has successfully authorized “reinsurance programs to help fund claims for people with high healthcare costs. These reinsurance programs provide much needed premium relief for people in the market and, in particular, for people with pre-existing conditions without other coverage options.” President Trump’s new guidance under Section 1332 has been working so well that seven states have created their own reinsurance programs to lower premiums and increase choices as other states continue to apply.
Contrary to the left’s claims, President Trump did not repeal sections of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions. In reality, President Trump previously gave states the flexibility they needed to stabilize their markets and introduce more affordable coverage options for individuals and families priced out of the current market – including individuals with pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, H.R. 986 would undo all of this progress.
H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act
When former President Barack Obama negotiated the Paris Climate Accord, he did so without bipartisan support from Congress, unilaterally agreeing to terms that would be incredibly difficult and costly for us to meet. While the Paris Accord might have been well-intentioned, it’s ultimately an unenforceable agreement because it contains no mechanisms for making countries participate beyond the acceptance of their purely aspirational goals.
Since President Obama committed the United States to such stringent emissions reduction targets, while other countries set their reductions goals so low, it automatically put us at an economic disadvantage. If we continue along this same trajectory, these Obama-era commitments will be passed onto American taxpayers who will bear the brunt in terms of lost jobs, decreased wages, reduced economic production, and a potential 13-20% increase in electricity bills. Which is why, in June 2017, President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Accord, under its official terms, which prevent the United States from formally withdrawing before November 4, 2020.
Although President Obama entered into the Paris Accord without seeking input from Congress, since President Trump announced his intent to withdraw, House Democrats have recently decided it’s time to involve Congress by bringing H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act to the Floor for a vote earlier this month. This bill would block the Trump Administration from withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and enforce the costly and ineffectual commitments made under the Obama Administration.
The United States is already leading the world in emissions reduction, reducing emissions by nearly 20% over a 14-year period. Not only has the United States made meaningful strides, but we continue to make progress through innovation and technological development. While we’ve been tackling this issue head on, other nations involved in the agreement – including some of the world’s largest polluters – have received a free pass.
Both China and India, the world’s number 1 and number 3 biggest polluters may continue increasing emissions until 2030. Additionally, all participating European Union countries are not on track to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. Even if other developed nations agreed to hold up their end of the agreement, there is still no guarantee it would be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. Even knowing what we know now, Democrats are still trying to stifle American innovation by tying us to commitments outlined in a haphazard, costly, and unenforceable agreement that bears little guarantees in the end. Does that sound like sensible policy to you?
As a member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, I could not in good faith support this bill because Congress should be advancing pragmatic policies that will actually reduce emissions, protect our environment, ensure affordable energy prices, and prioritize American consumers, security, and economic prosperity. I will continue working with my colleagues in the House and on the Caucus to ensure America remains a world leader in emissions reduction, but under policies that are fair, reasonable, and in our country’s best interest.
Democrats Push Government-Controlled Health Care, Taking Away Patient Choice
Recently, the House Rules Committee considered, H.R.1384, the Medicare for All Act of 2019. As you may remember, when Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they promised the American people, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”. Not only did that turn out to be a false promise, but now, House Democrats are saying, “if you like your health care… too bad.”
The Medicare for All bill would put an end to the private insurance market as we know it, including employer-sponsored healthcare, which covers nearly 160 million Americans.
In Nevada, more than 1.4 million people, nearly 50% of our population, would lose their employer sponsored coverage. This would affect Nevadans working in tourism, gaming, manufacturing, and mining, effectively impacting workers across all of Nevada’s top private sector industries. It would also impact public sector employees including union workers, school teachers, public safety workers, state employees, and county employees.
Additionally, the plan would affect nearly 160,000 Nevadans who have purchased their health insurance directly from an insurance company, bringing the total number of Nevadans with lost coverage to 1.6 million – or 54% of our population.
The Bottom Line
Medicare for All does not include any pay-for mechanism and would cost our country trillions of dollars. This new plan is so radical that even if Congress doubled everyone’s taxes, we would still not generate enough revenue to pay for it. Congress should be focused on lowering premiums and increasing people’s access to the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at a price they can afford. Instead, the Democrats’ plan would destroy rural hospitals, decrease options, and increase costs.
Since more than 100 House Democrats have cosponsored this legislation, signaling it’s a significant part of their plan to reform our nation’s health care system, I urge House Leadership to ensure this bill goes through the regular order committee process, giving Members an opportunity to weigh in and address their concerns.
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!
App Association
Incline High School We The People Class
National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology
National Electrical Contractors Association
Nevada Rural Electric Association
Northwest Public Power Association
Women's Mining Coalition
Looking Ahead
Transportation & Infrastructure Update
Recently, President Trump had a preliminary meeting with House and Senate Democrat Leaders to discuss our nation’s infrastructure needs and priorities. Following the meeting, the President and lawmakers agreed to spend $2 trillion dollars on a potential infrastructure plan. While a general dollar amount for the plan might have been agreed on, there are still several components that need fleshing out including: which infrastructure projects will be included under the plan, over how many years we intend to spend this $2 trillion, and how we are going to pay for it.
Historically, the devil has been in the details with large spending packages such as this, so stay tuned for anticipated tax reform and tax increase discussions.
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.
