David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor, again I am open to any reasonable way to get a simple vote on a pure disclosure provision anytime this calendar year. In that spirit, I have an alternative. I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3204, the compounding bill, be yielded back; that the Senate proceed to H.R. 3204; that the bill be read a third time and passed right now and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of S. 1197, the Defense authorization bill; that my amendment which is at the desk be called up and that a Democratic side- by-side amendment be in order to be called up; that notwithstanding rule XXII, those amendments remain in order and that both amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, again, I am open to any reasonable path forward that would produce this one, simple, straightforward vote on pure disclosure, information that I think should clearly be public information. So as a third alternative, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1629 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask consent that there be 60 minutes of debate divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill; and that a 60-affirmative vote threshold be required for passage.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor and wrapping up, I continue to find that very unfortunate and, frankly, really unreasonable. We, each of us as Members of the Senate, made an important election about how to handle this ObamaCare exemption issue. Some folks have classified a good part of their staff as not official staff--magic wand, somehow. They work here, they get a paycheck, they are on government property, they do official business, but they are not official staff. This is a charade, and at a minimum I think the public should know how each office and each Member is handling that situation. That is the only thing my disclosure proposals, which I have been asking for a vote on, would require. That is the only thing I am asking for a vote on this calendar year. I think offering these three unanimous consent routes to that is very reasonable and would also expedite consideration of many other matters, including the bill on the Senate floor right now. It is unfortunate that that reasonable route forward was not chosen and blocked in multiple ways, but I will certainly continue pursuing this important objective. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished floor manager. I want to respond very briefly. My goal is a clear up-or-down vote on this pure disclosure proposal. I am open for suggestions for that to happen in any reasonable timeframe, meaning this calendar year. I have focused on these two bills simply because it seems to me, from what I know of the Senate schedule and floor activity, these are going to be the only opportunities in terms of amendments proposed. If there are other opportunities we can identify for this year, if we can identify an opportunity for a vote on a freestanding bill, I am all ears. I am completely open to that. I want more amendment votes in the Senate, not fewer. If there is a side-by-side idea, that is fine by me. I am completely open to that. I simply made these concrete suggestions because, based on what I know of the majority leader's plans for the rest of the calendar year, these are going to be the amendment opportunities. By the way, the only reason I put in my second consent to turn to the Defense bill is because that is exactly what the majority leader articulated as his desire, his plan, to turn to that as soon as possible, to take up amendments. So I am open for any reasonable opportunity this year for this vote. Again, this is a pure disclosure provision. I do not see why it should be partisan or controversial. It has been cleared through the hotline on my side. So if there are any other suggestions of how this can happen, I am completely open to that. Unfortunately, I had a phone call with the distinguished majority leader last week and proposed various options. His response was simply: No. No. No. No. No other ideas, no other options. No. But I am completely open to those other ideas. It is obviously part of the tradition of the Senate that nongermane amendments are considered all the time. In fact, with regard to the Defense bill, that is the norm, not exception. There are usually significant nongermane amendments, often by the majority side, sometimes by the majority leadership, which are critical votes on the Defense authorization bill. That is not unusual at all. I am for more amendment votes, if there are alternative ideas on this topic, more amendment votes there, not fewer. So I look forward to moving forward in a productive, effective way toward getting this simple vote on disclosure and toward moving in an expedited way through this bill and to the Defense bill and whatever else is on the Senate calendar as determined by the majority leader. But, again, so far the response is no, across the board, not any sort of alternative suggestion. Finally, with regard to the idea of having one vote and one vote only, there is a clear practical problem with agreeing to that. That is the following: For instance, what if there were one vote on my disclosure provision on the Defense authorization bill? That bill is going to a conference committee, so it would obviously be possible for my amendment to be adopted 100 to 0 and then be dumped in the conference committee and stripped from the bill. Then I would have forgone the opportunity to ever bring up the subject again this entire Congress. I mean that is a fool's agreement. I am not going to agree to a fool's agreement. I need to be able to protect my right to revisit the issue, particularly when it would pass through a vote under that scenario and then be stripped in conference. So I hope we find a productive way forward. Again, this is a pure disclosure provision. I am going for a simple up-or-down vote in whatever context presents itself this calendar year, on this bill or any bill. I am open to other suggestions. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Well, Mr. President, reclaiming my time again, I think that is unfortunate. That would be an even quicker route forward on the compounding bill because had that unanimous consent request been agreed to, the compounding bill would have just passed the Senate. It would have happened right now, and we would move on to something that clearly needs time for debate and discussion and amendments, the National Defense Authorization Act. In closing, let me underscore all I am seeking, urging, and, yes, demanding is a clear up-or-down vote on a pure disclosure provision: let the public know, as I think they clearly have a right to, how each individual Member is handling the situation. If a Member actually has the gall, in my opinion, to say: No, all these people who work for me are not ``official staff'' and therefore they can right out ignore the clear language and mandate of ObamaCare that says Congress and all staff must go to the exchanges for their health care--people have a right to know that. By the way, a lot of Members, including myself, say: No, we are all going to the exchanges. That is what the law says. It is perfectly clear, and that is what we are going to live by. A lot of Members are doing that. Either way, the public should know what is going on. There should be full disclosure, and that is all the provision I am discussing today does. It has been completely cleared by hotline on the Republican side. There is no objection. I would urge us to move forward with a simple, straightforward vote on it, so we can expedite consideration of this bill on the floor, so we can move more quickly to the national defense authorization bill, which does merit a lot of significant floor time, so we can have amendment votes on that bill immediately and not have any controversy about that. I urge that reasonable and expedited and clear path forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Well, Mr. President, reclaiming my time, that is unfortunate. That could dispose of this bill and pass this bill today--a very straightforward, expeditious way of passing this bill with no delay. I said I had a second choice, a path forward which I think is very reasonable as well, related to the National Defense Authorization Act. So let me propose this unanimous consent request: I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3204, the compounding bill, be yielded back; that the Senate proceed to H.R. 3204; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of S. 1197, the national defense authorization bill; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be called up, and that notwithstanding rule XXII, my amendment remain in order; that no second-degree amendments to my amendment be in order; and that the amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for passage.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to again advocate for no Washington exemption from ObamaCare. This is an issue I have talked about with several of our colleagues in this body, and I have been joined by many supporters in the House of Representatives. I believe it is very important. As we hear story after story from Americans in each of our States about what they are facing--being dropped from policies they liked and wanted to keep, having premium increases of 1,000 percent in some cases, getting their work hours cut back to under 30 hours a week--the fact remains that Washington has essentially an exemption from all of that pain. Washington has a big taxpayer-funded subsidy that nobody else in America at the same income level can get, and that really needs to end. One critical component of this issue is the fact that even though the ObamaCare statute clearly said that every Member of Congress and all of their official staff had to go to the exchanges for their health care-- and of course mentioned nothing about any huge taxpayer-funded subsidy--in fact, that language was considered and not included. Even though that is crystal clear under the statute, the Obama administration issued a special rule to get around that clear language. Part of that rule, which I think is outrageous on its face, says: Well, we don't know who official staff are. We cannot determine that, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to determine who their official staff are. As long as they deem certain staff nonofficial, then they don't have to go to the exchanges at all. They don't have to follow that clear mandate in the statute itself. Well, again, when we are talking about folks who work on our staff, committee staff, and leadership staff, that is ridiculous. They are clearly official staff. They are not campaign staff. They are not off Capitol Hill and outside of government. They are not working for other entities. They are clearly official staff. This is just one of the major ways this illegal rule does an end run around the clear language of the statute. In reaction to that part of the illegal rule, I introduced a bill that simply says these decisions by each individual Member of the Senate and the House need to be made public. There needs to be full disclosure when anybody is using this end-run around and saying: Yes, this person works for me but somehow they are not ``official,'' so they do not have to follow the mandate of ObamaCare to go to the exchanges. That information should absolutely be public, and I put that in the form of a bill which I have filed both as a freestanding bill and as an amendment to the measure before the Senate today. Whatever we think about the underlying issues--and I know there is disagreement--to me it should be a no-brainer that there is full disclosure about how each individual office handles the situation. That is not fully disclosed now. Some Members may choose to say it to the press, to answer press questions, but it is not public information. It seems clear to me that how each office elects to handle that situation, how each elected Member elects to handle that situation, should be, by definition, public information, fully disclosed. The measure I am talking about right now, that is all it does. It does not prohibit anything else from going on. I object to that. I have other measures I will push to prohibit it. But all the measure I am talking about right now does is make sure that information, that election by each individual Member, is public, that there is full disclosure about something I think clearly the public has a right to know about. So I am simply on the floor lobbying for that measure to pass and lobbying for a vote opportunity up or down on that important provision. My first choice would be a simple vote on the measure in front of the Senate right now, the drug compounding bill. I have no interest in delaying progress of that bill. I simply want an amendment vote on the measure I am describing. We can vote it up or down. Either way, I think it is crystal clear this bill will proceed to become law. If my amendment is adopted, it would be voted on in the House. I think it would clearly be passed, become law. That is my first choice request here. If that is not possible, I do have a second choice request, which is to simply make this vote in order in the context of the next major bill coming to the floor, the National Defense Authorization Act--again, a simple amendment, a simple vote. I have no interest in delaying the time running on the consideration of this bill, on delaying votes on this bill, or of delaying debate and voting on other amendments on the Defense authorization bill. It seems to me that is a very basic, straightforward request: a vote on a pure disclosure provision. By the way, this provision has been hotlined on the Republican side, and there is no Republican objection to the substance of this provision. It is pure disclosure. We all think it should be public information. There is no objection. So I would simply ask unanimous consent to proceed in this way and expedite, in the process, consideration of all of this, including the compounding bill on the floor right now. The distinguished floor manager for the bill said a few minutes ago he does not want delay on this bill. I do not want it either. There does not have to be any delay, and, in fact, this unanimous consent will expedite all of that consideration. In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3204, the compounding bill, be yielded back; that the motion to proceed be agreed to; that my amendment No. 2024 be the only amendment in order; that no second-degree amendments be in order; and that the amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption; I further ask that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on my amendment; following the disposition of my amendment, that the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to urge my colleagues again to focus on an important issue in the overall ObamaCare debate; and that is how Washington fares under ObamaCare, and does Washington live by the same rules, the same laws it passes on the rest of America? All across the country, as we see daily in news reports, Americans are struggling with real issues and real challenges created by ObamaCare. We need to fix those issues and those challenges. We need to get it right. But at the same time as that is going on in the real world, Washington--leaders here--basically get an exemption, a carveout, special treatment, a subsidy. That is particularly egregious and particularly unfair when ordinary Americans suffer under these very real challenges. That is why I have introduced my No Washington Exemption from ObamaCare bill, and that is why I continue to work hard with many other Members--we have significant coauthors here and in the House--to get that passed. With regard to Congress, the ObamaCare statute actually got it right. And with regard to Congress, all we are asking for is that we live by the statute, live by the law. That statutory language says clearly that every Member of Congress and all of our congressional official staff go to the exchanges for our health care and be treated just like other Americans going to the exchanges--many of them being forced off plans, employer plans they like, and having to go to the exchanges--no special treatment, no special exemption or carveout or subsidy. The problem is that after the law passed--I guess it was a classic case of what Nancy Pelosi said: We need to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it--because after ObamaCare passed with that specific statutory language, a lot of folks on Capitol Hill read it, figured out what was in it, and said: Oh, you know what. We can't have this. We can't live with this. And then they furiously started lobbying for a way out, for an end-run around: And sure enough, they got it. The Obama administration issued a special rule for Congress to take all of that financial sting out of the provision. The rule basically said two things, both of which I think are outrageous and contrary to the statute itself. First of all, it said: I know the law says all official staff go to the exchanges. But we don't know who that is. We don't know who official staff are. So we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to designate who is official staff who must go to the exchanges for their health care. Well, I think that is flat-out ridiculous. The law, the statute, clearly says all official congressional staff. To create this opportunity for exemption, where each individual Member designates staff as official or not, is silly. That designation, by the way, happened last week, and some Members have actually said: None of my staff is official. I have no official staff for purposes of this section, so none of my staff go to the exchanges. That is outrageous. Other Members said: Well, my personal office staff is official but committee staff, no; leadership staff, no. That is outrageous too. The second thing this illegal rule did to get around the impact of this provision of ObamaCare is to say: Well, for Members and staff who do go to the exchanges, they get to take with them a huge taxpayer- funded subsidy--a big subsidy no other American at that income level gets. That is not in the ObamaCare statute either, and that is contrary to the ObamaCare statute. In fact, that specific language was considered for inclusion and was not put in--proof that was not the intent of that section of ObamaCare. I believe that is outrageous as well and defeats the whole purpose of the section, which is to make sure Members of Congress and our staff walk in the same shoes as other Americans, 8 million-plus of whom are being forced off coverage they like and being forced on to that ObamaCare exchange. That is why I have joined with others to push this No Washington Exemption from ObamaCare language. As I mentioned, one key element is this election that this illegal rule creates, where every individual Member of Congress determines who on their staff goes to the exchange or does not. As I said, in some cases, Members say: I have no official staff. Nobody has to live by the law, nobody has to live by this mandate, which is particularly outrageous. To add insult to injury, these individual decisions by every Member of Congress are not public. This is all secretive. This is hidden from the public. Some Members have said what they are doing through the press, but the full information, each individual Member's election in this regard is not public. So as soon as that loophole was created, I filed another bill, another piece of legislation, that simply says we are going to make all of these decisions public. Everybody has a right to know how each Member of the Senate, how each Member of the House is handling the situation. That is my Show Your Exemptions bill, which I filed about 10 days ago. I think it should be a no-brainer. I think it should be beyond debate. Whatever you think about the underlying issue, whatever you think about ObamaCare, shouldn't this decision of each individual Member be made public? Shouldn't the public have a right to know? That is why I filed this bill, and that is why I am pushing for a vote on this bill. Getting a vote on that proposal will be a key priority of mine, particularly when we consider the drug compounding bill in the near future and when we consider the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is going to be my key priority: to get a simple vote on that simple proposal. Again, I believe that should be a no-brainer, that this information--which does involve how taxpayer dollars are being treated, which does involve how congressional offices are handling the situation--that information one way or the other be made public. You do not need to editorialize about it. Everybody can make up their own mind about what they think about the underlying issue, about what they think about ObamaCare, but shouldn't that information be made public? We need to vote on that proposal, and I urge us to move and agree quickly to have a vote, either in the context of the drug compounding bill or the Defense authorization bill over the next few weeks. Those are probably going to be the only opportunities for a vote this calendar year. I think it is certainly fair and reasonable to get that vote, have the American people be able to see that information, and that is the only opportunity I am likely to have in the Senate this calendar year. Again, whatever my colleagues think about the underlying issue, certainly whatever we all think about ObamaCare, I would hope we can all agree--that election, that information, how each individual Member of the Senate, each individual Member of the House, handles the situation should be made public. It certainly involves public policy and taxpayer dollars and how we run Congress. It should be made public. I urge my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to unite around that reasonable, commonsense proposal and get that information out to the public, as it should. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. Excuse me. I withhold my suggestion of the absence of a quorum, but I do yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this nomination and to oppose it because of the recent actions of the Office of Personnel Management with regard to the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. I voted just now against cloture on the nomination, and I will vote against the nomination itself later today because of these very serious matters. OPM, the office to which this nominee is nominated and which she would head, has issued an illegal rule that is very offensive and flies in the face of the ObamaCare statute language itself, and this nominee has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule and illegal policy. Furthermore, OPM has completely stonewalled Members, including myself, my colleague Senator Heller, and others regarding how they came to that decision and, importantly, whom they talked with, whom they e- mailed with, and whom they met with in coming to the decision to create this illegal Washington exemption. Let me back up a little bit and explain exactly what we are talking about. Really, this story started several years ago in the ObamaCare debate. During the original debate on the ObamaCare statute, several conservatives, including myself, pushed an amendment that said every Member of Congress and all of our official congressional staff have to use the same fallback plan as is there for all other Americans-- originally, it was called the public option, and then it became known as the exchanges--no special rules, no special treatment, no special subsidy. In fact, that is one of the very few battles in that debate we won because that provision was adopted during the consideration of the ObamaCare statute. It was adopted right here in the Senate. So in the statutory language as it finally passed into law is that section, and that section says very clearly that every Member of Congress and all of our official congressional staff have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for our health care--the same fallback plan as is there for all other Americans--no special rules or privileges or subsidies or exemptions. We go there. Well, I guess this became an example of what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when she famously said: Well, we have to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it-- because the law did pass. It had that specific statutory provision. Then people on Capitol Hill started reading it, and they came to that section and a lot of them said: Oh, you know what. We can't live with this. We can't have this. We can't be pushed to the same fallback plan as all other Americans. We can't stand for this. From that moment on, a furious lobbying campaign and scheming behind the scenes started to avoid that provision fully going into effect, to avoid the pain of that provision, the pain of ObamaCare that millions of other Americans are facing as we speak. Meetings happened, leadership meetings happened, Member meetings happened, furious scheming behind the scenes, and a lot of lobbying. Ultimately, that lobbying of the Obama administration paid off because in early August of this year, right after Congress got out of town for the August recess, conveniently right after Congress left the scene of the crime, the Obama administration issued a special rule with no basis in the law, in my opinion, no basis in the ObamaCare statute. This special rule was a special exemption for Congress, a carve-out to take all of the financial sting out of that ObamaCare section. What this special OPM rule is--and, again, OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, was the agency that came up with this illegal rule after this furious lobbying, after President Obama became personally involved, literally personally participated in the discussions leading to this rule. What this illegal rule does is essentially two things. First of all, the rule says: Well, ``official congressional staff''--we do not know who that is. We cannot possibly determine who official congressional staff are, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to figure out who is their official staff. Well, I would submit that is just ludicrous on its face. Congressional staff is congressional staff. Official staff is anyone who works for us through the institution of Congress versus outside entities and institutions, such as our campaign staff. So leaving it up to each individual Member of Congress is contrary to the statute on its face. It is outrageous on its face. But under this OPM rule, that is exactly what they do. So an individual Member of Congress can say: Well, these 10 people are not official staff. They are on my staff, but for some magical reason they are not official for purposes of this mandate. In fact, under this rule a Member can say: Nobody on my congressional staff is official staff for purposes of this mandate. And we see Members doing that as we speak. We see examples of that being reported in the press as we speak--Members deciding, ``Well, nobody is official staff. I do not have official staff'' because it will mean they will have to go to the ObamaCare exchange and live by the same rules through the same experience as other Americans. That is flatout ridiculous. But that is not the only thing the OPM rule did. It did a second thing that is perhaps even more outrageous. It said Members of Congress and staff who do go to the exchange--they get to take along with them a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no other American at similar income levels has, enjoys, going to the ObamaCare exchanges. This is a huge subsidy worth at least $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 or $11,000 for families. Again, no other American at similar income levels is privy to that sort of subsidy. Again, I believe this part of the OPM rule is flatout illegal. It is not in the ObamaCare statute. There was discussion of it. There were drafts that allowed that to happen, but the language that was put in the law did not include that subsidy. It was specifically left out. And, in fact, magically transforming what was, under previous law, a Federal employees health benefits plan subsidy, magically transforming that into some ObamaCare exchange subsidy--that is contrary to law, and that is beyond OPM and the administration's legal authority, but they just did it because they could to bail out Washington, to bail out Congress. Well, this is outrageous and it is illegal. As soon as I heard of this proposed rule in early August, I joined with many colleagues, House and Senate, and I appreciate all of their leadership. I am joined by many colleagues in the Senate whom I specifically want to acknowledge, who are fighting for this change: Senators Enzi, Heller, Lee, Johnson, Inhofe, Cruz, and Graham. We are also joined by House Members, led by Representative Ron DeSantis of Florida. All of us quickly got together and said: This is illegal, this is wrong, and we have to stop it. So we came up with language to do just that, to reverse this illegal OPM rule and to make sure that every Member of Congress and all of our congressional staff go to the ObamaCare exchanges and that we go there just like other Americans go there--no special exemption or special subsidy or special treatment. Our fix also expands that to the President, the Vice President, their White House staff, and all of their political appointees because that is appropriate as well. So our language says to all those folks--Congress and the administration--you have to get your health care the same way other Americans are in the backup plan, in the fallback plan, in the so-called exchanges. You go to the exchanges, and you get no special treatment, no special exemption, no special subsidy. This is very important for two reasons. First of all, basic fairness. It should be the first rule of American democracy that what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself. Washington should have to eat its own cooking. It is like going to a restaurant and hearing that the chef in the kitchen never eats there. Something is wrong with that restaurant. Something is wrong with that picture. And something is wrong with Washington when Washington exempts itself over and over from eating its own cooking. The second reason this is important is a very practical one because the sooner we demand that Washington live by exactly the same rules it imposes on America, the sooner Washington will start getting things right on ObamaCare, on taxes, on regulation across the board. So for that very practical reason, we need to make sure the same rules apply to Washington the same way they apply to the rest of America. Let me come back to OPM because what we are debating is the nominee to head the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, the bureaucracy that came up with this illegal rule. That nominee has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule, to continue to defend that illegal rule. Also, OPM, to date, has been completely unresponsive-- ``stonewalling'' is the more appropriate term--to all of my and other Members' inquiries about the process they used to come up with this illegal rule. I have written OPM several times. I wrote them immediately after their draft rule was issued. I wrote them very soon after their final rule was issued. I specifically wrote them demanding all emails and other correspondence and other documentation and information they had from Members of Congress, from leadership, from the administration with regard to the work and discussion that went into their rule. Other colleagues of ours here in the Senate and also in the House have done the same. My distinguished colleague from Nevada Dean Heller talked to the then-OPM Director face to face. He asked the OPM Director: Did you speak with, were you lobbied by Members of Congress or the administration about this rule? That Director said: No, absolutely not. It now turns out that apparently is a lie. According to other sources, there absolutely were discussions, communications, emails, and the like between congressional leadership and the administration and OPM. So Dean Heller was lied to face to face about this by OPM. I have asked for all of the emails, all of the correspondence, all of the discussions that happened leading up to this rule involving Members of Congress, leadership, and also the President and the Vice President and members of their administration. That request for information has been completely stonewalled. So, first, OPM caves to intense lobbying from Washington insiders. Second, it caves and issues an illegal rule contrary to the statutory language of ObamaCare. Third, it stonewalls regarding the process and the conversations and the emails that led to that illegal rule. We cannot stand for that. That is precisely why I am opposing this OPM nomination and why I voted no on cloture and why I will vote no on the nomination. We need answers. We need to reverse this illegal rule. Yes, we need a vote on the Vitter amendment the distinguished majority leader and others have blocked for months now. We need that vote. We need that vote that has been actively blocked by the majority leader for months. Let's do things right. Let's get that information from OPM. Let's reverse this illegal rule. Let's vote on this important matter. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes.

Mr. VITTER. Yes.

Mr. VITTER. If I can respond and reclaim my time, I do not think that is true at all. I think ObamaCare absolutely forces millions of other Americans into the exchanges. It is not the same mechanism that it is for Members of Congress. It is not an express provision. But it is forcing 8 million-plus Americans into the exchanges against their will nonetheless because there are many Americans who want to keep the coverage they have. They heard over and over from President Obama: If you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. Then they found out that for them that was a lie. They did like the coverage they had. They are losing it against their will. I do not think that is by accident. I think that is by design because the ObamaCare statute creates clear incentives for many employers to get out of the health insurance provision business and to just let their workers go to the exchanges. So I completely disagree with the statement from the Senator from Illinois that no other American was forced onto the exchanges. Millions of other Americans were forced onto the exchanges, in a different way, but absolutely millions of Americans were forced onto the exchanges against their will.

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time and reclaiming the floor, I did not state that and I will not state that. What I did say is there is no subsidy available to Members of Congress and congressional staff under the ObamaCare statute. There is no provision in the statute for that old FEHBP subsidy to magically redo itself as an exchange subsidy. There is absolutely no provision of that whatsoever. Folks, these 8 million Americans who are forced out of the plans they like, they are not getting a subsidy. They are going to the individual exchange, and they are getting no comparable subsidy. If they have low enough income they get a subsidy for being at a certain income level.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, a couple of hours ago I was on the Senate floor urging and encouraging the House to act on a compromise proposal to deal with the current fiscal issues before us that included the ``no Washington exemption'' from the ObamaCare language. As I said, I think that is very important for two reasons; one, the principle. I think the first rule of American democracy should be that Washington lives by the same rules as it imposes on America under ObamaCare, under everything; secondly, a very practical consideration. I think the quicker we do that, the quicker we start getting things right. The quicker we start understanding in a gut, personal way the real challenges and burdens of ObamaCare, the quicker we start changing that. I return just a couple of hours later to congratulate the House because they are apparently moving in exactly that direction. All indications are that they will be going to the Rules Committee very soon with a package that features--that has as its centerpiece that ``no Washington exemption'' from ObamaCare language. Again, I think it is important for all the reasons I said. I also want to point out that assuming the House passes that--I think they are going to tonight--that ``no Washington exemption'' language will be the only thing--the only substantial thing in that proposal that has not been essentially agreed to by Senate Democrats. Everything else is detail, a date here, minor provisions. The only major difference between what the House is hopefully passing tonight and what has been agreed to in discussions by Senate Democrats is that ``no Washington exemption'' language. So the question will be is this perceived crisis, is this standoff going to continue over that, over Members protecting their wallets, their special elite status, demanding that they are treated differently than other Americans under ObamaCare? Is it going to continue and not be resolved over that? I think that is what it will all be about, again assuming, as I hope it does, the House passes this proposal tonight. Again, the ObamaCare language, the statute itself does not allow for this special exemption or special subsidy. That is nowhere in the statue. Because of that, it was sort of an example of what Nancy Pelosi said about the ObamaCare statute in general: We have to pass it to figure out what is in it. It passed with language in it that said clearly, Members of Congress and their staff would have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for their health care--no provisions for any special subsidy. Then, after it passed, many folks on Capitol Hill read it to figure out what was in it. When they got to that section, they said: Oh, you know what. We cannot live under this. We cannot stand for this. So then a fierce lobbying campaign started to get the administration to fix ObamaCare--but not to fix it for America, to fix it for Congress. That resulted in a special Obama administration rule that was conveniently issued right as Congress was leaving Washington for the August recess, right as Congress was fleeing the scene of the crime. That rule did two things, neither of which is in the statute. That is why it is a completely illegal rule, contrary to the statute, in my opinion. First of all, the rule said: When the statute says that Members of Congress and their staff have to go to the exchanges for their health care, we do not know who official staff are. We cannot figure that out, the administrative agency said. So we are going to leave that up to each individual Member of Congress. That is absurd. The language is clear. All official staff are covered. The administration should have demanded in the rule that all official staff are covered and not leave it up to individual Members. But under this cozy relationship, an individual Member can exempt any staffer he or she likes. In fact, in theory, that Member can exempt all of his staff and say: It is up to me. They are not official staff for purposes of this provision of ObamaCare. That is absurd on its face. Then the second thing this special rule only did for Congress is say: For those who go to the exchanges, including Members, they get to take a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy with them, a subsidy available to no other American at that income level--no other American. That is not in the ObamaCare statute. That is made up out of thin air in terms of this rule. So we need to correct that situation. We need to make sure Washington is treated like America; first, because it is the right thing to do. It should be the first guiding principle of American democracy; second, for the practical reasons I stated. The quicker we do that on ObamaCare and across the board, the quicker Washington, the Congress, the President, will start getting important matters, including the impact of ObamaCare, right.

Mr. VITTER. I will in a second. Again, I congratulate the House for doing exactly that, for doing exactly that. Again, I would point out, assuming the House does that and passes that tonight, the only significant difference between their package and what Senate Democrats have agreed to in discussions will be this ``no Washington exemption'' language from ObamaCare. There will be other very minor differences: a date here, language regarding how income verification is handled, very minor compared to this central issue. So that is what it is coming down to. That will be what Senate action on that House proposal is about. I will be happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from Illinois.

Mr. VITTER. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you. I urge again that the Senate stand tall and stand with the American people, not stand for Washington elites. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to concur with the House of Representatives to consider and pass what they seem to be focused on, which is a compromise resolution to the crisis before us which includes ``no Washington exemption'' language regarding ObamaCare. I strongly support, of course, that language, and I strongly support that discussion and that effort in the House, and I really encourage all of our House colleagues to look hard at that and act on it. In particular, I would encourage my Louisiana colleagues to do that. I have pushed this issue ever since we got back from the August recess. As the Presiding Officer knows, as we went into that August recess the Obama administration issued a rule--an illegal rule, in my opinion--without statutory authority, contrary to the ObamaCare statute, that gives Members of Congress and congressional staff special status, special exemption, or special subsidy, if you will, not in the law, and one not enjoyed in that way by any other American. This ``no Washington exemption'' language, which I have been an advocate of with many others here in the Senate and with many House colleagues, would end that special elite status. That is what we need to do. I think we need to do it for two crucial reasons--first of all, just on principle. I believe it should be the first rule of our democracy that Washington is treated as the rest of America is treated. What is good for America and what Congress and the administration--what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself with no special status, no special rules, no special exemption or subsidy. That should be true across the board. It should certainly be true regarding ObamaCare. That should be the first rule of American democracy. Washington doesn't want that. It wants to impose these new rules on the rest of America; it doesn't want to live by them itself. It is sort of like when a person walks into a restaurant and hears that the chef never, ever eats at that restaurant, never, ever has a meal out of that kitchen, it makes a person wonder. The same thing is true here on a number of fronts, including ObamaCare. So the first point is based on pure principle. Washington should live under the same rules it imposes on America across the board, including under ObamaCare. So Washington--Congress, all congressional staff, the President, the Vice President, their political appointees--should have to go to the same fallback option under ObamaCare that is there for all America--the so-called exchanges--and it should do that with no special rules or special deal or special subsidy or special exception. It should do that the same way ordinary Americans do, who in many cases--8 million-plus--are forced out of good health care coverage they have now through their employment and forced onto the ObamaCare exchanges. The second reason this language is so important is a very practical one, because the sooner we make Washington live by the same ObamaCare rules as the rest of America, the quicker Washington will change ObamaCare in substantial ways, will fix it not just for Washington, as it did through the special illegal Obama administration rule on this subject, but for America. We need to align policymakers' personal interests in Washington along with the interests of the American people. The way we do that is to make them live by exactly the same rules, make them walk the walk of those Americans who have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges, in many cases against their will--8 million-plus-- who were satisfied with the health coverage they had prior to ObamaCare and then who realized that under this law the promise by President Obama that ``if you like the health care coverage you have now, you can keep it''--they realized the hard way that promise was a lie. So there are two crucial reasons we must pass this language into law: first, the principle, and second, the practicality--first, the principle that Washington should live under the same rules the same way as America and, second, the practicality that we need to visit upon Washington all of the burdens and challenges that face America under ObamaCare, including those 8 million-plus Americans going to the exchanges against their will. Again, I encourage the House to include this ``no Washington exemption'' language in any compromise they put together with regard to these fiscal issues we are dealing with now. That would be enormously important. It would show leadership. I think it will resonate with the American people. The American people get this issue, and they resent-- rightly so--Washington getting a special exemption or a special subsidy under ObamaCare that no other American in that situation gets. Again, I urge the House to act on that important language. That would show leadership. That would align our personal interests with the folks we represent. That would honor what should be the first principle of American democracy: Washington lives under the same rules as the rest of America on ObamaCare and on everything else. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Absolutely. Reclaiming my time and reclaiming the floor, that is absolutely public information. That is true. What I am merely suggesting is that ObamaCare mandates the change. That is the law of the land, as the Senator and his Democratic colleagues make the point many times, and we should live by the law of the land. As the distinguished Senator from Illinois absolutely knows, there is no provision in the ObamaCare statute for that subsidy to transfer to the exchanges for Members or congressional staff, no provision whatsoever. In fact, having that happen is inconsistent with the law because the requirements of exchange policies are different than the requirements for FEHBP policies, so it is completely inconsistent with the law for that subsidy to follow Members of Congress to the exchanges. It is nowhere mentioned in the statute. It was made up out of thin air under this illegal Obama administration rule with no sufficient statutory basis in the law.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. I am under exactly the same program. What I am suggesting is merely that we follow the law. The distinguished Senator and many of his Democratic colleagues constantly make the point that ObamaCare is the law of the land. He is right. I want to change that, largely; the Senator does not. It is the law of the land as we speak. That law of the land is crystal clear. It has a specific provision about this. It says every Member of Congress, all of their official staff can no longer stay in that plan and have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges, the so-called fallback provision for the American people. I think there was a reason for that. I think there was thinking behind that. It is simple; that we should live under that same scenario that millions of Americans have to live under, 8 million-plus, who do not want to have to go to the exchanges, who like the insurance plan they have now, who heard the President say: If you like the plan you have now, you can keep it. They found out after the fact that was not true for them. There are 8 million-plus who are being forced off coverage they like to go to the ObamaCare exchanges. They do not get any subsidy. They do not get this special treatment. I am suggesting we should not as well.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor an exemplary young man who has persevered through life's challenges and devoted himself to bettering the lives of children in foster care. As a young boy, Elijah Evans was abused by his family, forcing him to be removed from their care and placed into a foster care program. Quickly winning the love of the nurse assigned to attend to his wounds, Elijah was adopted by Lynore Harding when he was 4 years old. But after being adopted, Elijah did not forget what it was like to live in foster care, or about the more than 400,000 children who are in foster care today. In 2011, when Elijah was 13 years old, he began raising money to give Christmas gifts to foster children, knowing that the Christmas season often leaves these children with the longing feeling of not being a part of a family. In that year, he was able to raise $5,000 and give Christmas gifts to 72 children. Since then, Elijah has established his own organization, No Use for Abuse, and has continued Christmas of Hope, which is going into its third year. He hopes that he will be able to expand his organization in the future to offer college scholarships to foster children after they graduate from high school. As a father, I know that every life is incredibly precious. There is always more we can do to increase adoptions, but I'm deeply grateful for everything the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute and the Angels in Adoption do for children. Thankfully, with their help over 50,000 foster children were adopted into loving families last year and given a chance to make a positive difference like Elijah has. Elijah's actions are an extraordinary example of what can be achieved through love and respect for all mankind and a passionate desire to serve others. Elijah's noble and thoughtful efforts have not gone unnoticed. Aside from positively affecting the lives of so many foster children, Elijah will be recognized for his service by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute at its annual Angels in Adoption awards gala on October 9, 2013. This award honors groups and individuals who have made extraordinary contributions on behalf of children still in need of families, and honorees include such individuals as First Lady Laura Bush, Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, and Muhammad Ali. Lastly, I would like to express my appreciation to Lynore Harding for welcoming Elijah to be a part of her loving family and to offer my sincere congratulations and appreciation to Elijah for remembering the experience of being a foster child and for being a positive role model for the children who have not yet been as fortunate.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come back to the Chamber to urge the following. I hope as we try to resolve this important spending bill that a key part of that resolution is to live by existing law under ObamaCare and make sure that Members of Congress and our staff aren't treated far differently and far better than the American people. That is what the congressional portion of my ``No Washington Exemption'' bill and amendment is all about. It is a pure and simple principle. I think it is a first principle of democracy, and American democracy should work by that first principle: What is good for America is good for Washington. And what Washington imposes on America, it must live with itself: No special exemptions, privileges, subsidies or rules. The same rules. I think that should be the rule across the board for whatever part of law we are talking about. It should certainly be the rule under ObamaCare. Indeed, it is the rule under ObamaCare under the statute. What I have been fighting is an illegal regulation promulgated by the Obama administration to get around the clear language and the clear intent of the statute. As the Chair knows, during the ObamaCare debate this issue came up, it was debated, and language was passed here in the Senate and put into the statute. That language says, pure and simple, every Member of Congress and all official congressional staff have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for their health care, the same as other Americans who are going to the exchange. No special treatment, no special exemption or rules or subsidies. That is the clear language and that was the clear intent. Amazingly--and I was happy to see it at the time--that language, which I fought hard for, along with many, many others, led on the Senate side by Senator Chuck Grassley--was adopted. That became part of the statute that passed into law. But, apparently, it was an example of that old Nancy Pelosi quote--we have to pass the law to figure out what is in it--because that language that did pass as part of the ObamaCare statute, when lots of folks on Capitol Hill started reading the details and they got to that section, they said: Oh, you know what. We can't live with this. We can't have this. This is a crisis. This would actually apply--the exchanges--to Members of Congress and our staffs, just as they are applied to millions and millions of other Americans-- 8-million plus who are losing their previous employer provided health care, against their will, and being forced to go to the exchanges. So when that happened, after the passage of ObamaCare, furious scheming and lobbying started going on behind the scenes. This included lobbying of the administration. Harry Reid and many others got involved in asking the President to get personally involved to bail Congress out, to prevent this clear statutory language from having its clear force and effect. And sure enough, that worked. President Obama, according to numerous press reports, got personally involved. He literally picked up the phone, had conversations personally with folks in his administration about this rulemaking--pretty unprecedented--and, sure enough, a rule was issued conveniently right after Congress left town at the beginning of the August recess to flee the scene of the crime. That rule, the so-called OPM rule--completely illegal, in my opinion, because it is contrary to the statute--does two things. First of all, the rule says: Yes, the statute says all Members of Congress and all official congressional staff go to the ObamaCare exchanges for health care, but we don't know who official staff is. We have no idea. We can't figure that out, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to figure out who among their employees is official staff for purposes of this section, and we are never going to second-guess any decision by any Member of Congress, even though this could result in up to 535 different applications of the law. I think we should all be able to agree that is flat-out ridiculous. The law is written. It is written clearly. It uses the words: Official congressional staff. For OPM to say, through this rule, we can't figure that out, we will leave it up to each individual Member of Congress, is ridiculous, particularly since that would allow a Member saying no one who works for me is ``official staff'' for purposes of this section. What? They can completely get around the law with regard to staff that way. That is just flat-out ridiculous. The second thing this illegal OPM rule does is to say that even for Members of Congress and their staff who do go to the exchange for their health care, they get to take with them something that no other American from a big employer in that sort of situation gets to take-- they get to take with them their previous Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan subsidy--a huge taxpayer funded subsidy that no other American at that income level would get. That is completely separate treatment not envisioned by the statute in any way, and not mentioned in the statute in any way. In fact, there are plenty of parts in the statute contrary to that. But they get to take that with them to the exchange. Is that available to any other American in that situation at that income level? Absolutely not. So again, that is flat-out ridiculous and flat out at odds with the clear statutory language and intent of that provision of ObamaCare. Ever since we came back into session after the August recess and had the opportunity to correct this egregious illegal OPM rule, I have been fighting alongside others to do just that. I have been fighting along with a number of Senate colleagues, and I thank them all for their active involvement. I have also been fighting alongside Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is leading the House effort, and many, many other House colleagues who are all for this measure. I want to make clear and underscore, because this is important, that with regard to Members of Congress and staff, this isn't demanding some new law. This isn't demanding some change to ObamaCare. This is saying let us simply live with what the law is. Let us simply live with the clear statutory language. That is what we need to do, and we need to do it because it is fair and right for the American people. We need to do it because Americans are sick and tired, quite frankly, of Washington elites treating themselves like a higher select ruling class. That is exactly the concept the American revolution was founded on. That is exactly the mindset that led to our breaking away from Britain, which was a monarchy and was governed by that mindset. Yet here we are, as in many other cases, Washington is reintroducing that principle. That is a thoroughly un-American principle. And the first principle of American democracy--and we should affirm it--is that what Washington passes onto America, it lives with itself. Same rules, no special exemptions, no carve-outs, subsidies, or bailouts. What is good for America is good for Washington, and it should be applied equally across the board. Simple concept. Basic concept. As I said, I would call it the first rule of American democracy, but it is being trampled on in this instance. It is being trampled on as yet again Washington sets itself apart and above the American people as a select elite ruling class. That is wrong, and it is as wrong as yet another of a number of exemptions from ObamaCare; it is wrong as yet another example of special treatment--a carve-out, waivers, or exemptions. The President often says: This is the law of the land. He is right. So why don't we apply the law of the land as it is written across the board, no exemptions, no waivers, no illegal rules that are contrary to the clear language and intent of ObamaCare. Why don't we start by applying ObamaCare just as it is being applied to America in Washington. Why don't we start by living by the letter and the spirit of the law in saying all Members of Congress and all congressional staff go to the exchanges for their health care and do not take any special taxpayer funded subsidy with them that is unavailable to any other Americans at that income level. That would be leadership, and that is what we need to do. That is not changing the law. That is living by the law. We need to do that and we need to do it now as part of any resolution to these spending bill disagreements. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to gather around this principle. I urge my colleagues to vote right on this issue. I assure my colleagues they are going to get the chance to vote one way or the other. I am going to continue to demand a clear, clean up-or-down vote on the Senate floor on this issue. We have not had it. I have fought for it for about 4 weeks now. But because of the extraordinary efforts--quite frankly, including threats and intimidation and bribery--of the majority leader, we have not been allowed that clear up-or-down vote. I will assure my colleagues we are going to get it. I don't know when, I don't know how, because I don't control that, but I am going to make darn sure we are going to get it. And not much, if anything, of substance is going to happen until we do. This is overdue because this goes into effect today. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise again to urge both the House and this body to pass into law what should be the rule and the law for everything we do in Washington; that is, to apply the same rules to Washington as are applied to the rest of America, across the board, certainly including ObamaCare. Of course, what I am talking about is ending the special Washington exemption from ObamaCare. That exemption is moving forward under what I consider a clearly illegal rule issued by the Obama administration. It is illegal because it is contrary to the statute, contrary to the clear language, contrary to the clear intent of an ObamaCare provision that says every Member of Congress and all congressional staff need to be treated the same as the millions of other Americans who are going to the so-called exchanges for their health care; 8 million, against their will, losing their previous employer-provided subsidy. Let me recount briefly the history of this because it is important. Several years ago during the ObamaCare debate there was a proposal made by many, including myself and one of the leaders was Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and that proposal was actually adopted, amazingly, to my pleasant surprise at the time, and put in the ObamaCare bill. It said just what I mentioned a few minutes ago: Every Member of Congress and all congressional staff need to go to the so-called exchanges for their health care. They need to leave our present Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan which includes our employer-provided subsidy. The idea was simple, and it was a good one, so that we would actually walk in the shoes of other Americans who are living under the challenges and the burdens of this law, including having to get our health care in the exchanges with no special deal, no special subsidy, no special exemption. That law was passed as part of ObamaCare, pure and simple, exactly those words. I guess this is an example of what Nancy Pelosi said: We need to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it. Because after the law passed, with that language in it, lots of folks on Capitol Hill started reading that and they said, Oh, you-know-what; we can't stand for this, we can't live by that. We can't be subject to the same situation as other Americans. So there was furious scheming and gnashing of teeth about how we are going to get out of this burden, even though there was very little broad-based discussion about how we are going to get all of Americans out of that burden they were subjected to. That developed into furious lobbying of the Obama administration. Many folks in the Senate, led by the distinguished majority leader Harry Reid said: Mr. President, you need to issue a special rule that exempts Congress, that takes the pain out of that provision--a special, unique, special rule, special bailout for Congress. Sure enough, that is what the Obama administration did, conveniently right after we left town for the August recess, right after Congress got away from the scene of the crime. According to numerous press reports that are not rebutted, President Obama personally got involved. He personally had discussions within his administration, at the urging of Harry Reid and others, and he ensured that this special rule was issued. It does two things, basically. No. 1, it says that even though the ObamaCare statute states plainly and clearly that every Member of Congress and all official congressional staff have to go to the exchanges, we don't know what official staff is, so we are going to leave that up to each individual Member of Congress, and we are not going to second-guess that. So any individual Member of Congress can say certain folks aren't covered by that mandate. They can stay in their current plan. They don't have to be disrupted. In theory, a Member of Congress can say nobody on my staff is part of that official staff for purposes of this mandate. That is silly and ridiculous on its face because the statute is clear. The second thing this illegal rule does is it says that for Members and any staff who do go to the exchange--what is supposed to be the fallback position for Americans and for Congress--for Members and staff who do go to the exchange, they get to take their very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy with them, even though that is not available to any other person losing employer-based coverage and who is going to the exchange against his or her will. So that deal isn't available to anyone but the select ruling class. That is why I think this rule is completely illegal, and that is why I know it flies in the face of what I consider the first most basic rule of democracy; that laws passed by Congress, by Washington, should be applied to Washington the same as they are applied to America. That should be true in ObamaCare. That should be true across the board. To react to this illegal Obama administration rule, I joined with many colleagues in the Senate--and I wish to thank all of my cosponsors, including Senator Enzi, Senator Heller, and several others--I am forgetting the entire list--and Members of the House who have identical legislation and identical language. They are led by Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida. Ron Johnson is another colleague I was trying to think of from Wisconsin who is another leading coauthor. I wish to thank all of them for leading this fight. Our language does two simple things. First of all, it negates this illegal Obama administration rule that is a special exemption, a special bailout for Congress against the clear language and intent of ObamaCare. Secondly, it broadens that rule and also applies it to the President and the Vice President and all of their political appointees. That is the ``no Washington exemption'' language. That is the Vitter amendment in the Senate, with many other cosponsors. That is the DeSantis amendment in the House, with many House cosponsors. I urge all of my colleagues to come together around that commonsense, fair language, which again simply ensures what I think should be rule No. 1 of our American democracy: Whatever Congress passes for America, it applies equally to itself; whatever Washington imposes on America, it applies equally to Washington, to policymakers in Washington. We are making progress because there are reports that the House may very well take up this exact language tonight as part of the continuing discussion about a spending bill, and I urge the House to do that, to stand with the American people--not to stand with Washington but to stand tall with the American people--and say, yes, it should be that even playing field, and whatever is passed on America should be applied equally in the same way. No special deals or exemptions or subsidies should be applied to Washington. I urge all of my colleagues here, Republicans and Democrats, to support that effort, to support that simple, basic, fair language, to support it on ObamaCare, to support it across the board because it is essential that what Washington passes on America is applied with equal force and effect on Washington. If we did that under ObamaCare, I am convinced we would rush with greater determination, speed, and focus to fix the very real problems of ObamaCare because we would be vested in it. If we did that on other laws, I am convinced it would have the same positive effect. Let's do it, No. 1, because it is fair and right; and No. 2, because our personal interests should be completely aligned, should be the same as those of the American people, and that will get us to act. That will get us to fix things. That will get us to fight in the right direction, Republicans and Democrats together. Again, I urge support of this new Washington exemption language. I urge the House to vote positively on that tonight. I urge the Senate to accept that fundamental principle, that important language, which, as I said, I think is the first core rule of democracy. Thank you. I yield the floor.