David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. These groups agree with what Senator Sanders said last year and they agree with what I am saying today: Let us come together and move on those things we can agree on, and they specifically wrote the Senate leadership about these community-based clinics. That leads to my unanimous consent request, which is to adopt this spirit of agreeing where we agree, getting things accomplished whenever and wherever we can, and continuing to work on the rest. I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER. If not for any other reason but because of the substantive concerns with the bill.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, just to briefly repeat, I did object on behalf of myself and 43 other Senators about major provisions in this bill. I am happy to talk about it. I am happy to work on it. I am happy to work with Senator Burr, who is the ranking member on the committee, who has been communicating all these concerns to Senator Sanders and his staff. But I think that is very different from objecting to a focused community-based clinic bill that has no objection on the merits. I just think it is a shame not to try to do those things where we have agreement--let's move forward--not to move forward. That would be moving forward in a substantial way. That would quickly improve the lives of veterans in 27 communities and in 18 States, including Lafayette and Lake Charles--communities that certainly Senator Landrieu and I very much care about and very much want to have their VA issues addressed in this way. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I would again ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I had a unanimous consent request. It has been objected to. May I reclaim the floor and reclaim my time? In doing so, I will be happy to respond to the Senator.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor Lt. Col. Christopher Robert Eden on his retirement from the United States Air Force. Lieutenant Colonel Eden is retiring after nearly 21 years of service to our country. He was born at Williams AFB, Arizona, in 1970 and grew up in the shadows of one of our Nation's finest service academies, the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Inspired by his grandfather who flew B-29s in World War II and his father and uncle who both graduated from the Academy and were Air Force pilots, Chris dreamed of someday following in their footsteps. In 1989, he was recruited to play baseball at the Air Force Academy Preparatory School and later accepted an appointment to the Academy. He graduated in the class of 1994, having been selected as a Rugby All-American during his senior year. Upon graduation, Chris received one of several coveted pilot training slots available at Reece AFB, Texas, and graduated in 1995 as the top T-1 Graduate. During his first assignment flying C-21As at Yokota Air Base, Japan, Chris transported high-level dignitaries traveling throughout Asia and the Pacific, including diplomatic missions to North Korea. While fulfilling this assignment, he was upgraded to Instructor Pilot and was assigned to fly the C-17A at Charleston AFB, South Carolina. Here, Chris commanded emergency nuclear airlift, aeromedical evacuation, humanitarian relief, Presidential support, and combat missions to support Operations Allied Force, Southern Watch, Northern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. In his next assignment as Chief of Flight Operations and Acceptance/ Test Pilot at the Boeing C-17A Plant in Long Beach, CA, Chris tested and accepted new C-17A aircraft, developed and flew the first commercial C-17 FAA noise certification tests, developed crew training and aircraft delivery procedures, and authored and implemented new fuel tank leak check procedures. While serving in Long Beach, he upgraded to Evaluator Pilot, and his unit was honored with the Department of Defense Flight Operations of the Year Award. As Chief of C-17A Requirements at Headquarters Air Mobility Command at Scott AFB, Illinois, Chris helped continue to grow the C-17A fleet while receiving a Masters in Management and Leadership from Webster University. In his final year at Scott AFB, he was selected to fly in the 89th Airlift Wing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. As chief of training and chief pilot at Andrews, Chris transported our Nation's leaders in two administrations, including the Vice President, the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During this assignment, he was upgraded to Evaluator Pilot and trained the squadron's newest pilots to adhere to the highest SAMFOX standards of the 1st Airlift Squadron's no-fail missions. During his Air Force career, Chris flew more than 5,100 hours and received many awards, including the Joint Service Achievement Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, and the Aerial Achievement Medal. Throughout his accomplishments, Chris proved to be an effective and humble leader, displaying dedication, loyalty, and respect to the mission and the Air Force. His exceptional character should make us all proud that we have men and women like Chris serving in our Armed Forces. I congratulate Lt. Col. Christopher Robert Eden for his many achievements and honors, but most of all, I thank him for his for exemplary service to our country. Fly Safe and Go Zoomies!

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, let me read the exact text of the hotline. A hotline is a message that goes out to all Senators. The Majority Leader in consultation with the Republican Leader would like to enter into a unanimous consent agreement on S. 2262, the Energy Efficiency bill. The only amendments in order would be 5 amendments to be offered by the Republican Leader or his designee, related to energy policy, with a 60 vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. Following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended. That is clearly an expression of the majority leader's proposal in consultation with the Republican leader. That is what was sent to all Members of the Senate--at least on our side--after a personal discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader. Just to be crystal clear, my unanimous consent right now is that hotline request that has been clearly characterized as the request of the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would only ask for the opportunity to respond to the response to the unanimous consent request before the assistant majority leader proceeds, but I have no objection otherwise to his speaking after that for 5 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like 2 minutes to respond. I don't mean to delay the Senator from Arizona, but I would like 2 minutes to respond.

Mr. VITTER. There is an objection, and I propose an alternative unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois speak for up to 5 minutes followed by me for up to 2 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I had the feeling I would need to respond to whatever was said, and I was certainly right. I have a couple of points to make in order to set the facts right. First of all, my proposal does mean Washington is treated like all other Americans with regard to ObamaCare. That is not going on now. Many members of our staff don't have to go to the exchange. All others and Members of Congress get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no other American at the same income level gets--no other American. And the Obama administration--White House officials--doesn't fall under that requirement at all to go to the exchange. That is No. 1. No. 2, I don't take that subsidy. The assistant majority leader is a little late to the game. I made that decision months ago and announced it, so I do not take a subsidy. No. 3, the assistant majority leader has just rejected a proposal of the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader. I don't know why they can't take yes for an answer. They are complaining about my holding up a bill that is not on the floor yet, and I am asking for unanimous consent, which they initiated, with regard to energy amendments. I will read the exact text of the hotline again. The Majority Leader in consultation with the Republican Leader would like to enter into a unanimous consent agreement on S. 2262, the Energy Efficiency bill. The only amendments in order would be 5 amendments to be offered by the Republican Leader or his designee, related to energy policy, with a 60 vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. Following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended. I don't know why we can't take yes for an answer here. I'm holding up the bill? The bill is not on the Senate floor yet. I am asking for a unanimous consent that was a discussion and an idea of the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader and now that is being objected to by the same sources who proposed it. This is silly. Let's get on with the important votes. Let's get on with this important Keystone vote--a binding Keystone vote--and then in the future let's get on with important ObamaCare votes, which certainly includes my no-Washington-exemption proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor again to urge consideration and a vote, and a positive vote, on my no-Washington exemption from ObamaCare proposal. I think the first rule of American democracy should be that whatever Congress chooses to impose on America it lives by itself; whatever laws Washington passes, it lives by itself. That should be the rule across the board, and that should certainly include health care and ObamaCare. But that is not the case. That is not the case at all, because there is a Washington exemption from ObamaCare. There are special-interest Washington subsidies under ObamaCare that the average American doesn't get in any way, shape, or form. As it relates to health care and ObamaCare, I think the rule should be simple: The baseline plan, the fallback position for all Americans is what we live by. Under ObamaCare that was first during the debate called the public option, but then it came to be known as the exchanges. That should be the plan we all live by and our staff live by and the White House and top members of the administration live by--no special exemption, no special deal, no special subsidy, no special treatment. That was the intent of an amendment, and that is actually the clear language of an amendment that actually passed this body and passed the process and became part of ObamaCare, thanks to the leadership of Senator Chuck Grassley and others, and I certainly strongly supported the amendment. There was a clear amendment added to ObamaCare in the Senate that said every Member of Congress, all of our staff, have to go to the so-called exchanges for our health care. The problem is on the way to implementing that, after passage of the bill, folks around here understood what that meant and so they watered down and amended that language through the back door by administrative fiat in an illegal way. They got the President and his administration to issue a special rule that took all of the sting out of that amendment. That rule did two things: First of all, it came up with a mechanism whereby a lot of congressional staff don't even have to go to the exchanges at all; and secondly, this illegal rule gave Members of Congress a special subsidy to go to the exchanges that no other American gets at comparable income levels, no one else gets, completely unique. In addition, the administration, top members of the administration, such as Cabinet officials and top White House aides, have never been subjected to anything like the same rule. Again, I think we should come back to what almost all Americans feel should be the first rule of American democracy: What is good for America has to be good for Washington. What is imposed on America needs to be imposed first and foremost on Washington, with no special exemptions, no special subsidies, no special carve-outs, no special deals, and that is what my no-Washington exemption from ObamaCare proposal is about. Every Member of Congress, our staff, and the White House and top administration officials should go to the exchanges for our health care, with no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidies. I have been fighting for simply a full debate and vote on this for 6 months now, and unfortunately have been completely shut out of any vote. This started as soon as the administration announced its special illegal rule to get around this provision of ObamaCare late last year, and as soon as that was announced, I said: This is wrong. We need to address this. We need to stop this. I proposed my clarifying language, and I brought up that language as an amendment on the floor as soon as I could. It was in September of last year on the Portman-Shaheen bill which is back on the floor now, and after a lot of back and forth, the majority leader finally agreed: Fine, we will have a vote on the Vitter amendment on this subject. In fact, Senator Reid was quoted in The Hill on September 17 of last year: ``What I said I will do is we'll vote on Vitter,'' meaning my no-Washington-exemption language, `` . . . as senseless as that is.'' I appreciate that endorsement of the proposal. ``I mean, we'll go ahead and do that.'' So he agreed to that vote on Portman-Shaheen. That was reported the same day by Bloomberg on September 17: Reid said on the Senate floor that a vote would be allowed on the Vitter proposal as long as Republicans agreed to consider a yet-to-be unveiled Democratic counterproposal that would be offered as a side-by-side or second-degree amendment. And also that same day in CQ: Reid said Tuesday he was willing to give Senator David Vitter, R-LA, a vote on his proposal to force more government workers onto health care exchanges and to pay the premiums themselves . . . In addition, at the same time the next day, September 18, and the day following, September 19, Senators Shaheen and Portman said the same thing. Senator Shaheen was on the Senate floor September 18 saying: Great, we will give Senator Vitter his vote. I have no problem with that. Senator Portman, September 19, the same thing. My understanding is that there has been a general agreement to have a vote on the Vitter amendment. That is something I have heard on the floor from leadership. Well, as we all know, that agreement never materialized, was never honored. I have never gotten that vote. It is now 6 months later, and I am simply asking for a full debate and a fair up-or-down vote on this important issue. Look, it is a free country. People don't have to agree with me, but let's have a vote. We voted yesterday on something that we have voted and revoted multiple times at the majority leader's insistence. I am asking for one vote on this important issue that the American people care about. We voted and revoted on things multiple times. I am asking for one clear vote on this issue. After the majority leader agreed to a vote on this amendment that I never got in September, a couple months later when I was revisiting the issue, he said: Okay. Well, you can have a vote, but it has to be the only vote in this Congress. Well, I resisted that at the time, but I will take that one vote. Can we have one vote on this important issue this Congress? Can we have a modicum of free expression and open debate and an open amendment process on the Senate floor? Can we have one vote on this issue that the American people certainly care about? That is what I am asking. I am asking for the majority leader to honor his commitment. That is what I am pushing for. That is what I will continue to push for, which is why I am filing the amendment to the Portman-Shaheen bill. And again, I am filing it to this bill for one clear reason: That is the context in our previous consideration of Portman-Shaheen where I was told we agreed to having a vote on this issue. We will have the vote. I am simply asking for that commitment to be honored. I also care deeply about other important issues, including energy issues, moving forward with a very important jobs project for America, the Keystone XL Pipeline; and because of that, when I saw the majority leader's recent proposal that we move ahead on Portman-Shaheen with five energy-related votes, one of which would clearly be the Keystone XL Pipeline, I certainly took that very seriously. That is also an important issue and it deserves a vote. It has had votes in the past, but that needs to be addressed. So as soon as I saw that--and again, this is an offer by the majority leader--a hotline request that we now consider the Portman-Shaheen bill and limit considerations to five energy-related amendments, that would be chosen by the Republican leaders--as soon as I saw that hotline and that offer, I called the Republican leader to make sure of two points--two points that I care about quite a bit--No. 1, that one of those amendments would be a very substantive amendment on the Keystone Pipeline, not general, vague, sense-of-the-Senate language, but binding language that would approve, without the President's involvement, this very important jobs project; and No. 2, that at least one of the other amendments was an important matter within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee on which I serve as ranking member. The Republican leader absolutely agreed that was the case. Yes, absolutely, once we lock in this unanimous consent request by Leader Reid, one of those votes would absolutely be a binding proposal about the Keystone Pipeline. Another would clearly be an important matter from the jurisdiction of the committee on which I serve as ranking member on EPW. So those are important matters and those are significant votes. So I will set aside temporarily my pursuit of this no-Washington- exemption vote. I promise I will be back to it. I promise I will use every reasonable opportunity to get that vote which was promised to me last September, 6 months ago and counting; but I believe we should move forward with Majority Leader Reid's proposal that he made as a hotline request this morning. I offer that as a unanimous consent agreement, so we can lock it down and move forward, and move forward with this Keystone vote, move forward with these other energy votes, and then move forward beyond that, hopefully to a vote on the no-Washington-exemption language very soon. So I make as a unanimous consent request Majority Leader Reid's own proposal, that there be a unanimous consent agreement on S. 2262, the energy efficiency bill; that we move to its immediate consideration; that the only amendments in order be five amendments to be offered by the Republican leader or his designee related to energy policy, with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment; and that following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I come to the floor to address what I consider to be a very important issue which we have never voted on, and that is the basic principle that Washington should be treated as all other Americans with regard to whatever law we pass, including ObamaCare. Specifically, my ``no-Washington-exemptions'' proposal regarding ObamaCare has yet to get a vote, so I will be filing that proposal as an amendment to the Portman-Shaheen bill. As we can remember, late last year it was filed as an amendment to that bill when it was on the floor. There was general agreement at that time, after some back and forth, that it should and would get a vote. It was reported in The Hill on September 17 that Senator Reid agreed to a vote on the amendment in the context of that bill. Senator Portman agreed to this concept at the same time--September 18--on the Senate floor, and Senator Shaheen did as well on September 18. So I am refiling as an amendment to the same bill. I look forward to this important debate. I look forward to a vote. Obviously, if an alternative in the near future, such as a stand-alone vote, is presented, I will be happy to accept that as well. I look forward to coming back to the floor to debate this important issue.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I believe our side has 38 seconds left, and I ask unanimous consent for an additional 60 seconds.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VITTER. For an additional 60 seconds to the 38 seconds remaining.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I believe I made an inquiry through the Chair, so I believe I have the floor and I would like to reclaim it if that is appropriate.

Mr. VITTER. I apologize for interrupting.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I think this discussion has been very important and very instructive because it underscores that not only does the distinguished Senator from Vermont object to my efforts to pass the veterans clinics bill with the amendment at the desk by unanimous consent, but he also objects to Senator Landrieu's efforts to pass the same veterans clinics bill, in her case, without the amendment, without the offset. I asked him that direct question. He made it very clear that he continues to demand that we pass his entire much broader bill and will not let this hostage go. I think that is very sad and very inappropriate for him to object to my effort, for him to now object to the efforts of Senator Landrieu. She made the unanimous consent request to pass the clinics bill, the focused clinics bill. He is objecting to that as well. It is also completely contrary to what Senator Sanders has said before, working on these and related issues. In another instance in late 2013, November, Senator Sanders himself, talking about our colleagues, said: I'm happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of his. Another colleague-- We got that UC'ed last night. So we moved that pretty quickly, and I want to try to do those things, where we have agreements, let's move it. Where we have agreement, let's move it. We do not have agreement about the significant details of the much broader Sanders bill. It is not 1 Senator objecting about that, it is 43, but we do have agreement about this clinics issue. No one, including Senator Sanders, objects to the substance of the clinics bill. We have worked out every issue, including through my discussions with Senator Coburn, about the pay- fors. The amendment at the desk solves that. So when we take that bill and the amendment, no one objects to that substance. No one objects to it within the four corners of that material. The only objection constantly on the floor for the last several weeks--today again toward me, today again toward Senator Landrieu's UC--is, no, I need my whole bill. We will continue to discuss those important issues and disagreements, but 43 Senators disagree with Senator Sanders. Sixty are needed to move forward. In the meantime, can we at least agree what we agree on and not hold veterans hostage? They have had guns pointed at them before, but they don't expect U.S. Senators to hold guns to their head and hold them hostage over veterans clinics. So where we have agreement, let's move it. We have agreement about the veterans clinics. Let's move it. That is my effort. That is Senator Landrieu's effort, which again is being objected to, moving this focused clinics bill, by the Senator from Vermont. I find that very unfortunate, but I will certainly continue to demand that we pass this and continue to talk regarding all of the other important veterans' issues.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I don't mean to cut my colleague off, but Senator Lee is here on behalf of Senator Coburn, who has been more involved, and so I will give the history of it. Some folks in the Senate had concerns about the bill and the fact that, in their view, it was not paid for. I met with them and talked through all of these concerns. I could not convince them to drop those concerns completely, so instead we found a solution, which is the Vitter amendment that is at the desk. That amendment has been cleared within its four corners. Nobody in the Senate--no Republican or Democrat--opposes the amendment. We found that solution in order to pass the bill through the Senate, and that addressed Senator Coburn's objections to the bill alone. That is the solution we worked out. I can't fully walk through all of Senator Coburn's thoughts about the bill on its own and whether it was paid for. I can just tell the Senator that I met with him exhaustively, was not able to get him to completely drop his objection, but was able to agree on this compromise--this solution to the pay-for issue. So that is why the amendment, which is at the desk, was proposed, which removes the Coburn objection and thereby fixes the problem.

Mr. VITTER. I apologize for interrupting, but I just want to ensure that of the additional 10 minutes that were granted, I would have 5 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. If I could address the Chair, I am happy to answer the question. As Senator Sanders knows, I have serious concerns with his much broader bill. So I am not agreeing to his far broader bill. He knows that. We have talked about that. We have talked about those concerns. I am happy to restate that. Having answered his question, I would like to reask through the Chair if Senator Sanders is objecting or would object to a UC request to pass this veterans clinics bill without the amendment at the desk.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be postponed for an additional 10 minutes so we can simply round out this very important discussion.